document/133234 - UvA-DARE

Transcription

A l i s o n Mc Q u e e n
The Rise of the Cult of
Rembrandt
Reinventing an Old Master
in Nineteenth-Century France
amsterdam university press
T h e R i s e of t h e C u lt
of Rembrandt
A l i s o n Mc Q u e e n
The Rise of the
Cult of Rembrandt
Reinventing an Old Master
amsterdam university press
Cover design and lay out Kok Korpershoek, Amsterdam
Cover illustration Frédéric Regamey, Paris à l'eau-forte. Paraît tous les
samedis, lithograph, 1875. Paris, Musée de la publicité.
isbn 90 5356 624 4
nur 640
© Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2003
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of
this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise)
without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.
ta b l e o f c o n t e n t s
7
preface
11
Acknowledgements
15
introduction
Reassessing Rembrandt
chapter 1
29
Reinventing the Biography,
Creating the Myth
The Formation of Rembrandt’s Artistic Persona
65
plates
chapter 2
81
Politicizing Rembrandt
An Exemplar for New Aesthetic Values, Realism,
and Republicanism
5
chapter 3
123
Picturing the Myth
Rembrandt’s Body and Images of the
Old Master Artist
chapter 4
157
Rembrandt the “Master”
Printmaker
Choosing an Ancestral Figure for
French Painter-Printmakers
chapter 5
215
The Rembrandt Strategy
Etchers and Engravers Fashion their
Professional Identities
283
conclusion
Repercussions of the Cult of Rembrandt
299
notes
347
Appendix
Interpretive Prints after Rembrandt
355
bibliography
375
Illustration Acknowledgments
379
index
6
the rise of the cult of rembrandt
preface
Among the thousands of artists who have ever tried to interpret the
world around them, Rembrandt van Rijn belongs to a small group who
live on today as both an Old Master and a household name. The cult
of Rembrandt does not just flow from his brush and etching needle, it
is the result of his universal appeal, the accessibility of his personality
and the capacity for his persona to be reinterpreted and reinvented by
successive generations of academics, acolytes, and ordinary people
alike. Indeed, Rembrandt is the only artist in history to have an international team of scholars reevaluate his output of paintings in an as yet
unfinished project begun over thirty years ago. The Rembrandt
Research Project, a team of specialists founded by the Dutch Government in 1968, navigates the globe attributing and deattributing paintings, often to the dismay of private collectors and museum curators.
One wonders how this particular Dutch artist came to assume such a
privileged position. Why is Rembrandt the center of such extensive
scholarly and popular debate? The obvious answer is the marketdriven phenomenon of contemporary art sales, which requires a clear
distinction between works produced by the Dutch master himself and
those executed by his students, followers, and admirers. In elite art circles, scholars also vie to protect Rembrandt’s reputation from being
sullied by any connection with lesser-quality works.
The reverence of Rembrandt is not solely the domain of art experts and he is popularly known today through mainstream movies and
even a pricey Rembrandt ® toothpaste, from Den-Mat Corporation.
In this case, he is a curious choice since Rembrandt does not actually
7
depict teeth very often. And when he does, the dark teeth in a cavernous mouth would hardly seem to encourage a dentist or patient
today. Den-Mat also distributes Porcelain Bonding kits for restoring
damaged teeth. These are set up like an artist supply case, complete
with brush and miniature palette. The company encourages dentists to
emulate Rembrandt’s artistry as they apply the product.
In another use of the Old Master, Rembrandt Funds ® ranked
high on the money markets in the 1990s. Given the notoriety of Rembrandt’s bankruptcy of 1656, he is an odd choice yet again. The RembrandtAdvantage™ Masterpiece Collection, sold through Kentuckybased company Pinnacle Solutions, offers human resources tools and
services. These include the Rembrandt Portrait ® personal assessment,
which aids in employee interviewing and selection, a Rembrandt Morale
Survey ® to improve company spirit, and a Rembrandt Legal Clinic ®
program helping managers hire without being sued.
In Canada, Rembrandt adorns the packaging of Extra Butter
Flavour Microwave Popping Corn marketed through the grocery store
chain Loblaws as one of its President’s Choice ® products. In this reworking of Rembrandt’s Self-portrait at the Age of Thirty-four (c.1640),
the artist holds a large bowl of popcorn, glances out to the shopper and
away from the hockey game on television. Here, Canada’s national
sport and the Dutch Old Master flank this savory television snack. In a
warmer clime, luxury cruises traverse the Caribbean on SS Rembrandt
and, coming out of the Netherlands, Rembrandt ® Masterpiece Lager
Beer can be enjoyed the world over.
In contemporary popular culture, Rembrandt’s name has such
resonance that the headline of an article in the New York Times Magazine in 1995 referred to the trendy inner-city barber Franky Avila as
“The Rembrandt of Barbers.” 1 By invoking Rembrandt’s name, the
author knew his readers would understand that this connection implies
that Avila’s skill with a razor equals that of Rembrandt with his paintbrush or etching needle. Even if a reader has never actually seen any
work by Rembrandt, the connection is clearly meant to bolster the barber’s reputation and status. Advertisers and consumers may not be
aware of the vicissitudes of Rembrandt’s reputation since his death in
8
1669, but these references are successful because of the artist’s symbolic
resonance. He has come to stand for the archetypal bohemian artist
who was unappreciated by his contemporaries, who had many romances, and who was burdened with financial problems on and off
throughout his life, and yet whose genius has come to be recognized
over time. Rembrandt embodies the proverbial myth of the misunderstood, starving artist.
For over 150 years, Rembrandt has been one of a select group of
Old Master artists. His position is secure in art history’s canon, the list
– composed over time by scholars and critics – of the must-knows and
the must-sees of the field. As an art historian, I am both subject to and
object to the canon of art history and I have sought to understand how
that canon works and how it came into being. For over three decades,
exponents of feminism, postmodernism, and multiculturalism have
criticized canons and challenged the privilege such established lists allocate on the basis of geography, gender, and race in all disciplines.
Still, many people accept canons as naturally rather than socially constructed entities and I wonder why: how does it serve their needs?
The reverence Rembrandt now enjoys is due in part to the indisputably high quality of his drawings, paintings, and prints. However, many would argue for the comparable merit of the work of other
artists who are not the subject of so much international attention and
debate. What separates Rembrandt from other Old Masters is how his
art and his biography, in combination with his artistic persona, have
been manipulated to serve various agendas. The origins of the veneration of Rembrandt today can be traced in large part to nineteenth-century France and the critics and artists who made use of the Old Master’s
artistic persona.
preface
9
ack nowledgements
This book grew out of my doctoral dissertation, a project supported by
the Friends of the Frick Fine Arts Department of the University of
Pittsburgh, Delta Upsilon at McGill University, a fellowship from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and an
Andrew Mellon Fellowship. I am also thankful for the financial support of the Research Committee at Mount Allison University. Generous support from the Arts Research Board and the John Thomas Fund
at McMaster University made possible the numerous illustrations in
this book.
Research for this book benefited from the assistance of many
professionals in institutions in North America and Europe. I am grateful to Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann, Constance Cain Hungerford,
and Gerald Ackerman for their advice during the early stages of my
research. I thank Michèle Hypolite of the Bibliothèque et Archives
Municipale and Vincent Ducourau, Gisèle Ibarboure, and Laurence
Garrido of the Musée Bonnat in Bayonne, as well as Annick Bergeon
and Pierre-lin Renié of the Musée Goupil and Francis Ribemont and
Bernadette de Boysson of the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Bordeaux. In
Paris, I am indebted to Jeroen de Schneemaker at the Institut Néerlandais, Collection Frits Lugt, Fondation Custodia. I also thank Rejane
Bargiel of the Musée de la Publicité and Emmanuel Schwartz of the
Bibliothèque de L’École Nationale Superieure des Beaux-Arts. At the
Louvre, Brigitte Scart of the Documentation des dessins, Sylvie Dubois and Dominique Osman of the Documentation des peintures,
11
Cantarel Besson, Michèle Dupuis, and Philippe Fleury of the Archives,
and Mme. Wisniewski in the manuscript department of the Bibliothèque des conservateurs were all generous and helpful. I appreciate
the patience and cooperation of all the employees of the Bibliothèque
d’Art et d’Archéologie Jacques Doucet. Lastly, at the Bibliothèque nationale I am thankful to all the staff of the salle des imprimés, réserves,
manuscrits and especially the Cabinet des estampes, particularly Mme.
Bréjard and Gisèle Lambert and above all Claude Bouret, whose enthusiasm and generosity of time and spirit I treasure.
Several individuals deserve special thanks for their guidance and
assistance during the research trips in France that went into this book:
I thank Louise d’Argencourt, Jacques Foucart, Claudette Hould,
Geneviève Lacambre, Pierre Rosenberg, Arlette Serullaz, and Gabriel
and Yvonne Weisberg. I am especially grateful to Janine Bailly-Herzberg, Arsène Bonafous-Murat, Michel Melot, and Carol SolomonKiefer who each offered direction that stimulated my thinking. Parts of
this text have appeared in a monograph on Félix Buhot as well as articles in Simiolus, Nouvelles de l’Estampe, and Dutch Crossing; in preparing
these I benefited greatly from the advice of Amy Golahny and Ger
Luijten.
I am thankful for the friendship of Anne Bertrand who made
important comments on this text and also helped with several passages
of translation. I thank Kristel Smentek for her generous, last-minute
help in acquiring several photographs. This book has benefited from
the editorial advice of Gerald Owen and Marica Ognjenovic as well as
meaningful comments from my colleague Hayden Maginnis. Ed de
Heer, director of the Museum Het Rembrandthuis, played an instrumental role in the publication of this book and I thank him for his interest and support. A special thanks to my editors, Suzanne Bogman
and Anniek Meiders, and everyone at Amsterdam University Press for
their care and professionalism in publishing this book.
I owe much to the faculty of the Department of the History of
Art and Architecture at the University of Pittsburgh and the members
of my doctoral committee: Seymour Drescher, Ann Sutherland Harris,
Barbara McCloskey, Anne Weis, and David Wilkins. Most important,
12
my supervisor Aaron Sheon has continued to be an inspiring and encouraging mentor whose guidance I cherish. I thank my darling fiancé
Ken McLeod for his devotion and support of my research.
I dedicate this book to my parents, Rod and Sandy (née Illingworth), author and artist, whose love and encouragement made it all
possible.
acknowledgements
13
introduction
Reassessing Rembrandt
This book offers the first comprehensive study of Rembrandt in nineteenth-century France, the country and century that held an incomparable position historically as the nexus of European art education, art
criticism and its related construction of the canon of Old Master
artists, and was also the center of an increasingly powerful commercial
art market. Rembrandt’s life and art, particularly his paintings and
prints, had mythic resonance among nineteenth-century French artists,
writers, and collectors. Although the academic establishment favored
Old Masters such as Raphael throughout the period, Rembrandt had
particular appeal for artists seeking to explore new subject matter and
techniques. This study analyzes the discourse concerning Rembrandt’s
Old Master status and its role in the newly shaped aims of French
painter-printmakers: Why did French critics and artists assign Rembrandt such a prominent position as an ancestral figure whom contemporary artists should emulate?
An unprecedented number of publications concerning Rembrandt’s life and art – at least 150 – circulated in France from the
1830s to the end of the 1890s, especially from the early 1850s onwards.
The proliferation of scholarly and popular publications was paralleled
by the increasing sales and value of Rembrandt’s paintings and prints
on the Parisian art market. During this period, Rembrandt was appropriated as a symbolic figure by critics and painter-printmakers and
assigned a heroic, cult-like artistic and political status. French critics
molded and reinvented earlier anecdotal biographies and used new
15
material from Dutch archives to formulate an artistic persona for Rembrandt that had particular meaning within the context of nineteenthcentury French vanguard art and politics. I am indebted to Ernst Kris
and Otto Kurz’s important study Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image
of the Artist, A Historical Experiment, which examines the popularity,
historically, of stereotyping episodes as “artistic anecdotes” and repeating them until they become used as original sources. Their arguments,
specifically regarding society’s urge to find some access to an individual who is regarded as exceptional or gifted and the tendency to elevate
a creative individual to the status of a cultural hero, are exemplified in
the treatment of Rembrandt discussed here.2
The heightened level of interest in Rembrandt in France during
the second half of the nineteenth century had unusually self-serving
meaning as he became the favored model for non-conformist and antiestablishment aims. Students in academic establishments who avowed
an appreciation of Rembrandt were not encouraged to seek inspiration
from his paintings or prints or to emulate his adventurous biography.
Still, when Paul Delaroche created his famous Hemicycle des Beaux-Arts
[plate 1], in 1841, for the principal lecture hall of the École des
Beaux-Arts, he included Rembrandt among the northern artists of distinction (ninth from the left), even though academics considered him a
far less desirable model than Raphael.3
Rembrandt was a model from the past that artists and critics
sought out on their own because he fulfilled their needs for a new,
“non-ideal” exemplar, someone who could justify and bolster their own
artistic projects and political views. Rembrandt was selected because
for some he served as a challenge to the hegemony of the French Academy while for others he functioned as a new archetype. He became a
benchmark for their aspirations and goals as artists exploring new subject matter and new techniques which received little institutional support or public acclaim among their contemporaries. Rembrandt was
positioned as a successful predecessor and he functioned as a mentor
both psychologically and through the practical emulation of his artistic
techniques.
16
One measure of Rembrandt’s popularity was the production and sale
of Rembrandt-like paintings and prints. Many of these were attributed
to Rembrandt in nineteenth-century France and are now identified
variously as works of Rembrandt’s students, as seventeenth- and eighteenth-century copies, or as nineteenth-century copies or even intentional fakes. In this study, I evaluate how these diverse works were discussed, exhibited, reproduced, and treated as products of Rembrandt’s
hand by nineteenth-century French critics, collectors, and artists. In so
doing, I attempt to reconstitute the aesthetic experience and the taste
for Rembrandt’s paintings and graphic works in the nineteenth century.
The issues I consider will relate to authenticity and attribution only to
the extent to which they were relevant in the nineteenth century.4
Furthermore, my evaluation will only extend beyond the boundaries of
France in order to discuss artists who exhibited relevant works in
French exhibitions, such as the Salon, and critics of foreign nationalities
who published their texts in French or whose works circulated in French
translation.
A sizable body of literature has been published on Rembrandt’s
popularity since his lifetime. I am indebted to these texts, which provided much useful background information and indicated various approaches that can be used to evaluate the ways in which an artist is regarded in a later era.5 I expand on previous scholarship to consider the
recurring anecdotes of Rembrandt’s biography within the larger context of publications on his artistic production. The fascination with
Rembrandt’s biography, which was fed by the increasing availability of
information from archival sources, erased divisions between his art and
life. Certainly the constellation of views that formed the conception of
Rembrandt in the nineteenth century was not monolithic and I seek to
reveal the discordance and contradictions in the conception of Rembrandt’s personality and art in nineteenth-century France and suggest
that it was in part this incongruity that fostered Rembrandt as a subject
of interest.
reassessing rembrandt
17
The Question of Influence
The posthumous popularity of Old Masters such as Rembrandt is described typically as their influence. This vague term relates to a seemingly benevolent desire to connect a contemporary artist with a more
famous artist in history. Discussions of influence pervade the literature
about Rembrandt and later art – as do examinations of the popularity
of all Old Masters in later periods. In art historical terms, influence is
treated largely as an aesthetic phenomenon, a situation in which one
artist reflected on, was inspired by, or incorporated elements from another artist or work of art from the past into the artist’s own creation.
Defining the impact of an artist only in terms of aesthetics restricts,
however, any evaluation of connections between artists in different
eras to formal comparisons, often with little to support the stylistic
parallels.
In addition to compositional quotation, copies, particularly
those executed in oil, have been the favored means of examining the
influence of an Old Master artist. French artists, from the famous to the
lesser-known, submitted requests to paint copies after Rembrandt and
others in the Louvre and elsewhere in the nineteenth century. Extant
copies after Rembrandt were painted by Léon Bonnat, Jean-Baptiste
Carpeaux, Gustave Courbet, Eugène Delacroix, Alexandre Descamps,
Théodore Géricault, and Edouard Manet, among others.6 There was
even a short-lived Musée des copies established by Charles Blanc that
opened in 1873 and included six copies after Rembrandt.7 Consideration of the painted copies executed at the Louvre by famous male
artists has, however, misrepresented the contents of the extant registers
of copyists in the nineteenth century.8 The vast majority of those who
registered were female and few went on to become famous. While discussion of painted copies has been an interesting element of the analysis of the work of several individual artists, I seek to consider alternate
means of understanding references to past art.9
Discussions of influence have also usually been restricted to an
artist’s early, student years when the artist is said to be building a foundation by learning from the past and then going beyond this founda-
18
tion.10 Such approaches are constructed on various assumptions, including the notion that once artists are established they do not require
further inspiration because they have gone beyond the past. There is,
however, a great deal of evidence that artists return to the past for
inspiration throughout their careers. Michael Baxandall cogently critiqued the etymological constraints of the word influence and I am
indebted to his analysis of the term.11 I support his suggestion that art
historians scrutinize their vocabulary and use diverse and more specific
terms, such as copy, transform, respond, or quote, in discussions concerning interest in the art of the past. In the nineteenth century, French
artists did their utmost to absorb, invoke, subsume and usurp Rembrandt’s artistic persona in an effort to define their own identities.
The Formation of the Louvre Museum and
Rembrandt’s Paintings in French Public
Collections in the Early Nineteenth Century
The popularity of Rembrandt’s art in France must certainly be tied to
its availability and while there was some interest in his art in the seventeenth century, little Dutch art was accessible to the French public
until the end of the eighteenth century. The French royal collection,
founded by François I and exhibited at Versailles throughout the reign
of Louis XIV, became the first public picture gallery in France when it
was installed at the Palais de Luxembourg in Paris in 1749. The collection grew under Louis XV and Louis XVI, who typically commissioned Surintendants to buy works at sales both in Paris and other
European cities. Rembrandt’s paintings, however, did not form a significant portion of the French royal collection during this period.
Louis XIV acquired one work, Self-Portrait with an Easel [plate 2],
before 1683 (probably in 1671) and Louis XV purchased another
painting, Angel Raphael Leaving Tobias [plate 3], in 1742. Louis XVI
added six works by Rembrandt to the royal collection, the largest number of paintings by Rembrandt acquired during the ancien régime. He
acquired Supper at Emmaus in 1777, Portrait of a Woman [plate 4] and
19
two paintings of the Philosopher in Meditation [plate 5] in 1784, and
The Good Samaritan [plate 6] and Self-Portrait before an Architectural
Background in 1785.12 Thus, by the time of the Revolution of 1789
there were eight paintings by Rembrandt in the Palais de Luxembourg.
While Italian art still dominated the royal collection, Louis XVI’s
director-general of royal buildings, Comte d’Angiviller, concentrated
on buying northern and French paintings to diversify the royal collection before it was transferred to his principal project, the Grand
Gallery of the Louvre.
Following the Revolution of 1789 and the decree that all ecclesiastical and royal assets become the property of the newly founded
French nation, the royal collection finally transferred from the Palais
de Luxembourg to the new Louvre museum, which opened August
10th, 1793.13 Well before his coup d’état of 1802, Napoleon Bonaparte
played a key role in the development of the new national collection of
art through military campaigns which began in 1794 and expanded
French borders into Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, and Prussian territory, thereby making France the leading European power until
1814. These campaigns placed several of Napoleon’s relatives as rulers
of neighboring countries – Louis Bonaparte became king of Holland
and Joseph Bonaparte king of Spain – and provided a constant influx of
looted art into Paris. Italy was undoubtedly the most fertile ground for
French soldiers but, either by treaty negotiations or plundering, France
successfully acquired objects from each country.
It is important to understand the Napoleonic pillaging of art
and collectibles of all types within the context of the larger mission of
the Commission of Sciences and Arts, a subgroup of the French Commission of Public Instruction. In the case of the commission’s project
in The Hague, they judged Stadholder Willem V’s natural history cabinet to be more important than his cabinet of paintings. Thus shells,
stones, stuffed animals and birds, books, maps, plants, vegetables, arms,
and scientific machinery comprised the first three expeditions of goods
to be transported from the Netherlands to Paris. Paintings were not
shipped until the fourth expedition.14 Nonetheless, paintings were the
primary focus of all seized art works not only because painting was
20
placed at the zenith of artistic production by the powerful French
Academy, but also, more practically, they were more transportable
than, for example, antique sculpture, which formed a smaller portion
of the booty. Following the tradition of the Roman triumphal procession, seized works were paraded through the streets of Paris. They
were then exhibited in the Salon Carré and finally installed in the galleries of the Louvre in what Cecil Gould aptly described as a “visible
trophy of conquest.” 15
The trophies acquired between 1793 and 1815 included an impressive fifty-three paintings and twenty-nine drawings by Rembrandt
that were seized from collections in The Hague, Braunschweig, Kassel,
Prussia, Florence, and French aristocratic collections – although in a
few instances works were purchased from sales of the latter. H. van der
Tuin published much of the inventory of the Napoleonic museum of
1810 but he specified the originating collection only for those works
sent to Paris from Kassel and did not indicate where each work was located while it was in France.16 The first three volumes of the Rembrandt Corpus refer to the presence of some of Rembrandt’s works in
France, but with its emphasis on works attributed to Rembrandt, his
school, students, and followers, the Corpus does not include works that
at the beginning of the twenty-first century are considered foreign to
what is now the perception of Rembrandt’s work.17
No previous scholarly study has considered the inventory of
1810 in conjunction with records from the National Archives. The
combination of all these sources in the present study clarifies the number of works attributed to Rembrandt in France in the early nineteenth
century – a figure that has previously been underestimated.18 Exhibition catalogues from 1799, 1807, 1811, and 1816 also demonstrate the
significant exposure of Rembrandt’s works in Paris in the early part of
the century and clarify the location and availability of his paintings to
the art-viewing public.19
In 1799, the first exhibition of works taken from Stadholder
Willem V’s collection in The Hague included five paintings by Rembrandt: Presentation in the Temple, Bust of a Man with a Plumed Hat,
Self-Portrait, Susanna at the Bath, and Old Man.20 Another seven works
21
were seized and/or bought from French aristocratic collections: Portrait of a Man/Jewish Man with a Fur Hat, Holy Family/Carpenter’s
Household [plate 7], Pilgrims of Emmaus, St. Matthew and the Angel,
Self-Portrait with Bare Head, Self-Portrait with Cap and Gold Chain,
and Venus and Amor [plate 8]. Lastly, the source of one work, Portrait
of Rembrandt’s Sister with a Veil/Bust of a Young Woman is unknown,
but came either from a French aristocratic collection or one of the Italian collections transported to Paris in 1798. Works seized in Berlin,
Braunschweig (Brunswick), 21 Kassel, 22 and Potsdam,23 following the
Battle of Jena on October 4th, 1806, included the largest number of
Rembrandt’s paintings transported to France. Unlike the exhibition in
1799, works displayed at the Louvre in 1807 – at an exhibition commemorating Napoleon’s triumph the previous year – were subject to
greater scrutiny. This exhibition included seventeen of Rembrandt’s
works imported from Braunschweig, Kassel, and Potsdam. Another
three works from Braunschweig, classified as “School of Rembrandt,”
were also exhibited. But others works labeled “imitator” were not displayed and instead joined a select group of Rembrandt’s works added
to the Imperial collections at Compiègne, Fontainebleau, Malmaison,
and Saint-Cloud.24
The Louvre collection received thirty-one new paintings by
Rembrandt, the most prized of which were exhibited again in 1811
along with a new acquisition from Florence.25 Most of these works also figured among the twenty-nine paintings by Rembrandt that were
illustrated in print form in the ten-volume publication Galerie du
Musée de France, produced between 1804 and 1815.26 To judge from
the representation of an artist’s work in this Galerie, Rembrandt was
already ranked by French authorities as the most important artist of
any northern school – a position consolidated by later French critics.27
Rembrandt’s representation in the Galerie was, in fact, more extensive
than that of Raphael and was surpassed only by the French artists
Eustache Le Sueur and Nicolas Poussin.28 Although Raphael continued to be the favorite of French Academicians for several decades, the
extensive public display of Rembrandt’s work demonstrates the appeal
of alternative models even at this early date.
22
The importing of works by Rubens and many Italian Renaissance
artists has received greater public and scholarly attention due to their
inclusion in a few contemporary prints illustrating the Louvre’s galleries and exhibitions.29 Reproductions in the principal publication on
the early Louvre collections suggest, however, that Rembrandt’s works
were better represented and more significant in the early nineteenth
century than previously realized. Furthermore, the availability of Rembrandt’s works and their identification as “original” versus “school of ”
or “imitation” raises several points that are relevant to evaluating the
increasing popularity of his art in France during the course of the
century.
Art critics throughout the nineteenth century fostered the idea
of fusing Rembrandt’s life and art. Their approach expanded on descriptions in the Louvre catalogues which connected Rembrandt’s
works with his biography. The Louvre’s publications from the early
part of the century described Family Portrait from Braunschweig as
Portrait of Rembrandt with his Wife and Children, Kassel’s Portrait of a
Woman as a Portrait of Rembrandt’s Wife and Portrait of a Man Trimming his Quill as a portrait of Rembrandt’s friend Coppenol.
The works exhibited in France early in the nineteenth century
also spanned Rembrandt’s career and fostered an interest in his entire
œuvre, rather than one period. They ranged from the early detailed
and fine manner of painting to later works with a more painterly and
tactile surface. This duality is most noticeable when comparing the
Braunschweig Family Portrait, which was described as painted “at the
first go,” 30 and the so-called “sketch” Winter Landscape from Kassel 31
to two other landscape scenes also from Kassel. The latter paintings,
often referred to as Landscape with Goats [fig. 1] and Landscape with
Hunters [fig. 2],32 are precisely painted works where the hand of the
artist cannot be detected. The linear and detailed technique of these
landscapes is opposite that of the other bold and broadly painted works,
yet the two diverging techniques were unproblematically combined
under the one rubric of Rembrandt. The presentation of Rembrandt’s
different techniques at the Louvre did not suffer from the division
of prize works which stayed in Paris from those works which were
23
fig. 1 – Attributed to Rembrandt 1807-1815, Landscape with Goats.
Engraved by Geissler
regarded as secondary and were sent to provincial museums. According
to a report by Chaptal, the Minister of the Interior, and Napoleon’s
decree in 1800: “[T]hose works most intimately bound up with the history of art, which mark its progress, epitomize the various genres and
enable the spectator to form a clear impression of all the revolutions
and phases of the history of painting” were those chosen to remain in
Paris.33
The acceptance of two technical or stylistic veins in Rembrandt’s
work during the early years of the Louvre museum informed French
art criticism on Rembrandt as well as the patterns of collecting his
works throughout the nineteenth century. Still, as the discipline of art
history developed in France during the 1850s and later, Rembrandt’s
works, like those of all artists, became subject to classification. In Rembrandt’s case, the two techniques were increasingly charged with posi-
24
fig. 2 – Attributed to Rembrandt 1807-1815, Landscape with Hunters.
Engraved by Bovinet
tive and negative connotations. By the last decades of the 1800s, taste
in France had shifted away from the fine painting style exhibited in
Landscape with Goats and Landscape with Hunters towards more painterly
and sketch-like works. The willingness to regard Rembrandt’s technique in a malleable fashion is particularly relevant since it also set the
stage for the ready appreciation of his reinvented artistic persona.
The Old Masters and Nineteenth-Century
France: The Revivalist Mode
The foundation of the Louvre museum and Chaptal’s efforts to concentrate the “greatest works in every category” in Paris, separating
them from works of lesser quality sent to the provinces, resulted in a
25
division and categorization of schools and artists with the labels Old
Master and minor master. Such categories of value were all too familiar
in France where subject matter and technique were strictly coded as
early as the foundation of the French Academy of Art in 1648. The
well-known hierarchy of subject matter ranked paintings of historical,
religious or mythological subjects above portraiture, genre painting,
landscape, and still life. Academic training also established an acceptable mode of painting through its emphasis on drawing, composition,
and design. Thus the schools or geographic regions and artists who depicted subject matter and exhibited technical proficiency that were in
tandem with the Academy’s doctrine formed the heart of its pantheon.
The French Academy emphasized the value of ancient Greek and
Roman art and Italian art derived from classical traditions.34
Although the formation of the Louvre museum made a more diverse range of art available, Italy and Antiquity continued to dominate
the Academy after a hiatus between 1789 and 1816 when the Academy
was reestablished as part of the Institut Français in conjunction with
the École des Beaux-Arts. The most sought-after award of the French
Salon, the Prix de Rome, established in 1666, reinforced France’s reverence of Italian art.35 As a satellite of the government, the Academy
was the official arbiter of a national French style and continued praise
of drawing over color shaped the production of art in France well into
the nineteenth century. The Italian-inspired art of Poussin and the
Flemish art of Rubens were the most commonly cited leaders in the
debate between these two elements of painting.
By the 1850s the Academy’s strict taxonomy of important art
and significant Old Master artists was, however, subject to revision as
forgotten artists were “rediscovered” by art critics who promoted their
work through journal articles, books and the art market. Occasionally,
nontraditional models had been heralded earlier in the century. These
included Ingres’ interest in the so-called Flemish “primitives” 36 and
the rising popularity of Spanish art, particularly with the formation of
a “Galerie Espagnole” at the Louvre between 1838 and 1848.37 During
the second half of the century such “revivals” were given serious attention by influential critics. The rise of art history as a discipline in
26
France in the mid-nineteenth century perpetuated the critical propensity for categorizing art and artists, but some critics also sought out alternatives to the Italian and Classical traditions.
This exploration of artists outside the academic canon resulted
in a revivalist mode in the 1850s and 1860s when French critics and
artists had renewed interest in French and Netherlandish art. Some of
the most potent of these revivals – Jean-Baptiste Simon Chardin, the
Le Nain brothers, Jan Vermeer, and Frans Hals – offer a framework
for interpreting Rembrandt’s position in nineteenth-century France
and how it differs from the standard “revival”.
Growing interest in earlier French art among nineteenth-century artists and critics drew increasing attention to Rococo art,38 Chardin,39 and the Le Nain brothers.40 Texts by the Goncourts, Champfleury and Chennevières-Pointel served to resuscitate interest in such
art.41 Furthermore, Thoré-Bürger single-handedly instated the Dutch
artists Jan Vermeer 42 and Frans Hals 43 into the canon of Old Masters
in France.
Unlike Chardin, the Le Nain brothers, Vermeer, or Hals, Rembrandt did not suffer a complete or near eclipse and I am not, therefore, evaluating a Rembrandt “revival” in nineteenth-century France.
Rembrandt was never excluded from history but assessments of his
work were inseparable from the Academic hierarchy and the general,
biased appraisal in France of Italian art as superior to northern art.
The increasing number of publications on Rembrandt in France
from the 1850s to the end of the century must be seen within the larger
context of the revivalist mode that promoted the study of alternatives
to art traditionally promoted by the Academy. These studies were an
integral part of the reevaluation of entrenched hierarchies and developed the necessary vocabulary and visual analysis to place art that was
produced in northern European countries in a positive light. The results of these publications demonstrate the periodic malleability of the
Old Master canon when a critical reappraisal of an artist was undertaken by one of a network of powerful and persuasive art critics. The
position ascribed to Rembrandt at the apex of northern art was, in fact,
consolidated by such critics in their mid-nineteenth-century studies on
27
Flemish and Dutch art. The concentrated interest in Rembrandt on
the part of French critics and artists, particularly between the 1850s
and the 1890s, was not disinterested. It resulted from the desire to position Rembrandt as an ancestral figure for nineteenth-century artists
who could then use his artistic persona as a benchmark and justification for their own goals.
28
chapter 1
reinventing
the biography,
creating the
myth
The Formation of Rembrandt’s
Artistic Persona in NineteenthCentury France
Writing on Dutch Art in France
D
utch and flemish art of the seventeenth century has always been a subject of interest and
attention for French artists, critics, and collectors and was
a favored part of the royal collections of Louis XIV, XV,
and XVI even though, during these reigns, the northern schools were
not as sought after as the French and Italian schools. A marked increase in attention was paid to Dutch and Flemish art after the Revolution of 1789 when the prices of northern art rose at French
auctions. French artists, such as Guérard, Boilly, Drolling and David,
also increasingly followed the meticulously detailed painting technique
of Dutch and Flemish artists such as Metsu and Teniers the Younger.44
The ideas presented in nineteenth-century texts on Dutch art
evolved in part from the precedent of eighteenth-century writings by
Jean-Baptiste Descamps and Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun, who published the first significant French studies devoted solely to Flemish and
Dutch art. Lebrun in particular identified Dutch art as a democratic
rather than aristocratic pursuit as early as 1795 when he addressed a
popular revolutionary society. His characterization of Dutch art as democratic was of great interest throughout the nineteenth century as
French collectors gathered increasing amounts of Dutch art and
French critics sought both to fulfill and augment the demand for literature on the lives and works of Dutch artists. Although French critics
31
diverged in their views on many elements of Dutch art, a common
thread running through the growing critical discourse was the perception of Dutch art as a reflection of everyday life in the seventeenthcentury Netherlands.
The first of the eighteenth-century French studies of northern
art, Descamps’s La vie des peintres flamands, allemands et hollandois of
1754, focused on artists’ biographies and a few of their best-known
works. Descamps intended to make this information more accessible to
the French public as he sought to fill the gaps he saw in previous publications with his own research.45 While Descamps called Rembrandt
“this great painter,” he did not refer to Rembrandt as the leader of
Dutch artists, although in his eyes Rubens was the “Prince of Flemish
painters.” 46 Descamps did not create a hierarchy of Dutch artists in
the same way as he did the Flemish and he did not identify any one
artist as the head of the Dutch school.47 Descamps was probably more
familiar with Flemish art and, largely following institutionalized conventions, he reaffirmed Rubens’ status which was well-established in
France since his royal commissions in the early seventeenth century.
Lebrun, the most important dealer of northern paintings in
France, had a similar attitude. He published a catalogue of his private
collection in 1792, Gallerie des peintres flamands, hollandais et allemands,
which served as a significant resource on northern art in France.48
Lebrun’s catalogue followed a master/pupil hierarchy and included entries that outlined the biography and art of each artist. Unlike Descamps, Lebrun cited Rembrandt as the founder of the Dutch school:
“Rembrandt became the founder of one of the most immense schools
that painting can glorify, and Holland owes him almost all of its successes in this art.” 49 Still, Rubens remained for Lebrun, as he was for
Descamps, the most important northern artist: “Rubens is without a
doubt the most beautiful genius and the most talented colorist who
glorifies paintings.” 50 Lebrun also noted the impact of the presence of
Rubens’ works in France at the Palais de Luxembourg and the predominant position of the French and Italian schools in the gallery of
the Palais-Royal. While he noted the difficulty some people had appreciating the significance of painting that many described as a faithful
32
imitation of nature, Lebrun believed the time had finally come for a
greater appreciation of all northern art.51
Netherlandish art was increasingly popular in France after 1820,
and between the late 1840s and the 1880s numerous French studies on
Dutch art codified the terms in which it was evaluated in France and,
in many ways, how Dutch art has been understood ever since. Nineteenth-century French critics including Charles Blanc, Eugène Fromentin, Henry Havard, Arsène Houssaye, Alfred Michiels, Hippolyte
Taine, Thoré-Bürger, Louis Viardot, and Louis Vitet had various reasons for writing about Dutch art. Many saw it as a field ripe for study
because there was a paucity of publications in France and some also
knew through their travels that few Dutch museums had catalogued
their collections. The numerous French publications on tourism in the
Netherlands and the increased facility of train travel north of France
also helped stimulate the growing market for Dutch art and information on the Dutch school.52 Such market-driven concerns were not
necessary for all, however, and some of the critics were principally inspired by their political ideologies and their personal interest in the
material.53
Among the earliest studies, Arsène Houssaye’s Histoire de la peinture flamande et hollandaise, published between 1844 and 1847, outlined
many of the concepts that became central to the understanding and appreciation of Dutch art among French critics.54 Houssaye, publisher of
the journal l’Artiste between 1844 and 1849, wrote numerous articles
on seventeenth-century northern art during this period and emphasized in the introduction to his text that part of his mission was to demonstrate how art outside France existed in many forms. He believed
people in France should know more about all schools and he dismissed
criticism by saying: “There are no bad schools, there are only bad
painters.” 55 Théophile Gautier agreed and noted that Houssaye’s book
was heavily subscribed, despite its prohibitively high cost, because it
included many new resources and did not simply repeat previous ideas
on Rubens the “great colorist” and Rembrandt the “sublime worker.” 56
Houssaye, like all later nineteenth-century French critics, defined Holland as a country that was reborn out of its political reform.
reinventing the biography, creating the myth
33
He emphasized the freedom of the individual Dutch people, who he
said were all “kings” and free from the servile chains of the papacy and
the Spanish Inquisition.57 Houssaye outlined several of the principal
issues that traversed the French historiography of Dutch art, particularly the role of truth and the belief in a specifically northern conception of beauty, as well as the juxtaposition of Raphael and Rembrandt
and ensuing debate over the significance of these two artists.
Alfred Michiels took a different view. His Histoire de la peinture
flamande et hollandaise, first published in 1847 and in expanded form
from 1865 to 1876, was more critical of what he deemed the hyperbolic
tendencies of the northern schools’ emphasis on realism and observation.58 The principal focus of the completed volumes of his study was
Flemish art, but Michiels also acknowledged the positive effects of empiricism among Netherlandish artists, and said it completely retraced
the life of the nation, thus providing the “most perfect image a race has
ever left of itself.” 59 Michiels also judged some works base and shocking, his leading example being Rembrandt’s “ugly” prints of a man and
woman urinating 60 [figs. 3 & 4]. In Michiels’ assessment, the danger
of such absolute empiricism was the possibility that artists would be
deprived of nobility and elevation and create works lacking exalted expression. Unlike other later critics who praised Protestantism as a formative characteristic of Dutch society and art, Michiels was uncomfortable with the possible ramifications of Protestantism on religious
art. For him Protestant beliefs detracted from representations of religious subjects by presenting Christ as an unrefined peasant, Mary Magdalene as a milkmaid, and pious people with the grace of fish sellers.61
Michiels’ views were clearly predicated on his own partiality towards
Catholicism. He was relieved that Protestantism had at least not nihilated art or “dried up” northern color entirely, although he remained
judgmental of the predominantly individual and bourgeois subjects of
Protestant art.62
The publication of the first edition of Charles Blanc’s Histoire
des peintres de toutes les écoles: École Hollandaise in 1849 was a crucial event
in the widespread dissemination of information on Dutch art.63 Blanc’s
study was first available in regular installments, each composed of a
34
fig. 3 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Man Urinating, 1631
fig. 4 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Woman Urinating, 1631
section on one artist. Readers could later bind the sections as a book or
keep them in their original magazine-like form. This format was far
more affordable than expensive, limited edition art books and launched
the mass-market availability of French publications on Dutch art.
Blanc’s École Hollandaise was popular not only with artists and amateurs
but, given its numerous illustrations and availability in small sections, it
also appealed to the general public in a new way that one reviewer described as “artistic propaganda” for Dutch art.64
Blanc, who held the powerful position of Director of the Fine
Arts briefly in 1848 and again in 1870 and founded the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts in 1859, delegated some volumes of this lengthy project to
other writers, but he wrote the volume on Dutch art himself.65 Like
Houssaye, Blanc remarked on the characteristic independence of Dutch
society, particularly the “republican” or “popular government” which
launched both political independence for the nation and individual
freedom of thought. He also added the significance of family life,
35
Protestantism, and individualism. Like most French critics, Blanc
demonstrated at least minimal interest in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Dutch art, but all of the critics cited 1600 as the key turning point,
claiming the school blossomed only after the Netherlands was freed
from foreign, Spanish power. Blanc wrote, “republicanism... delivered
them from the purely decorative art of courts and princes, from what
we call ceremonial art.” 66 He linked this republican government, in his
mind the essence of Dutch originality, to the Greek and Florentine
schools. Blanc ranked Dutch art the third most original in the world,
after Florentine and Greek art, and cited the three “masters” of these
schools – Phidias, Leonardo da Vinci, and Rembrandt – as exponents
of the greatest Greek, Florentine, and Batavian genius.67 In this way,
Blanc dismissed any claim that art could only flourish under royalty.68
“Truth”, noted by Houssaye as the principal characteristic of
Dutch art, was described by Blanc as “imitation”. Blanc believed Dutch
artists found nothing in the world – or at least in their country – ordinary, vulgar or insignificant. Instead, they reproduced the trivial and
ugly elements of nature as they existed.69 Thus Blanc saw a gallery of
Dutch paintings as a complete history of the Netherlands in the seventeenth century.70
Both Houssaye and Blanc placed Rembrandt at the head of the
Dutch school, but Blanc also initiated a trend in which many French
critics regarded Rembrandt as an exception among artists in the
Netherlands. First, Blanc claimed that Rembrandt and his students
were the only Dutch artists who painted historical and religious subjects. Second, while Blanc said Rembrandt remained faithful to the
principle of imitation, “he introduced a new ideal, not the ideal of
forms, but the ideal of clair-obscur, not the ideal of beauty, but the ideal
of expression.” 71 Blanc also qualified his description of Dutch art as
imitation, saying that landscape painters in particular knew how to
capture the latent poetry, or the spirit of the world he called pantheism
and that in this way they departed from the principle of pure imitation,
raising themselves to express character and thereby creating masterpieces.72 Blanc also felt compelled to elevate both the Dutch school
and specifically Rembrandt’s status with descriptives that aligned them
36
with principles associated with French Academic traditions, as well as
Greek and Italian art.
Blanc believed that it was necessary to elevate Dutch art to the
level of southern Mediterranean art and he felt the need to work within a previously defined tradition. It was not in Blanc’s interest to alter
the structure and institutionalization of French art – his own fleeting
employment was linked to the success of this tradition – and thus he
approached the problem from another angle. In emphasizing the poetic
nature of Dutch landscape painting and “ideal” characteristics of Rembrandt’s art, Blanc worked to make both aspects significant to his contemporaries by reconfiguring coexisting concepts of ideal art to accommodate Dutch art.
Two articles published in the early 1860s developed Blanc’s conception of Dutch art and made his ideas available to an even wider
public. In 1860, Louis Viardot published “De l’école hollandaise” in the
Gazette des Beaux-Arts and he repeated Blanc’s description of Dutch art
as an art of imitation and noted the importance of the “popular government” of the Dutch.73 Elaborating on Blanc, Viardot claimed Dutch
art was not made for public spaces but for the bourgeoisie, the people
themselves, and that the “vulgar subjects taken from communal life,
which everyone has everyday in front of their eyes” were precisely those
that were most popular among French collectors in his own period.74
The following year, Louis Vitet compared Flemish and Dutch art in an
article in the widely read Revue des deux mondes, saying that Flemish art
was not a “radical revolution” but only a timid prelude to what Dutch
artists accomplished when they created a national mode of painting
following the dramatic religious and political changes in the Netherlands.75
Religious and political liberty, the themes of Blanc, Viardot, and
Vitet, appeared again in Thoré-Bürger’s study Musées de la Hollande of
1858 and 1860, but unlike Blanc he did not seek to justify Dutch art
relative to contemporary French or classical standards.76 Thoré-Bürger’s unreservedly positive assessment emphasized the country’s physical isolation as the leading cause of its originality and ingenuity. Of all
French critics, Thoré-Bürger was undoubtedly the most familiar with
37
the country because he had traveled extensively in the Netherlands after his exile from France in 1848. This exile was a result of his career as
a political journalist in revolutionary publications and he was one of
many French citizens cast out by the soon-to-be emperor Napoleon
III. Thoré-Bürger was permitted to return to France only in 1860 after
an amnesty the previous year.77 During his exile he changed his name
from Théophile Thoré to William Bürger, a pseudonym he chose to
emphasize his status as a peripatetic “citizen” of the world; his composite surname appears in this study to facilitate a diachronic analysis of
his publications.
When Thoré-Bürger first visited Holland in 1856, he discovered a society that epitomized what he had already promoted as the
only plausible future for France: replacing Catholicism and the monarchy with a democratic republic, ideas he published in his brochure
Liberté soon after his exile. Thoré-Bürger found in Dutch art paintings
not of popes and kings, gods or heroes, but specifically Dutch people
and, he claimed, humanity in general.78 He admired the emphasis of
Dutch art on the present over the past and likened it to photographs of
the seventeenth century, using the terms “naturalism” and “realism” to
explain his view of the photographic quality of Dutch works. These
concepts paralleled Houssaye’s “truth” and Blanc’s “imitation.”
Thoré-Bürger believed Dutch art was unique in modern Europe
and summarized it as “l’ art pour l’ homme” (capitals in original text),
meaning “art for humanity” or “art for the people.” 79 For Thoré-Bürger, Rembrandt’s love of the human subject, as well as his connection
to nature and reality, epitomized the Dutch school. He said Rembrandt lived among victors and free people and therefore triumphed
over the other northern artist, Rubens, who had held such a prominent
position in French criticism earlier in the century but, according to
Thoré-Bürger, lived among conquered and enslaved people.80
Later, Hippolyte Taine, a philosopher, historian, and literary
critic, also praised the characteristic Dutch emphasis on individuality
and their rejection of official authority embodied by the Catholic
church – the same attributes previously criticized by Michiels. Taine,
who along with Thoré-Bürger was among the most laudatory French
38
critics of Dutch art, advanced a polarized view of northern and southern art in his study Philosophie de l’art dans les pays-bas.81 He had published a history of Italian art before this study on the Netherlands and
he divided what he referred to as the history of modern art into two
opposed groups. He placed in the first group the Latins, which included Italians, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Germanic people formed
the second group and comprised Belgians, Dutch, German, Danes,
Swedes, and Norwegians. For Taine, Italians were the best of the
Latin artists and Flemish and Dutch the prime Germanic artists. He
also defined Dutch art as mimetic, reflecting society with its proclivity
for the “real” and “truth.” Taine not only used the same adjectives as
Houssaye and Thoré-Bürger, but also cited the latter directly in his
text.82
By comparison, the translation and republication of artist and
writer Eugène Fromentin’s book Les Maîtres d’autrefois, BelgiqueHollande of 1876 has given an overblown sense of its significance in the
nineteenth century. Fromentin’s cursorily written views had little resonance for his contemporaries who were interested in Rembrandt’s
work. Fromentin ranked Rembrandt as the head of the Dutch school
but his frustrated attempts to decode Rembrandt’s works meant Fromentin published the most negative critiques of Rembrandt’s paintings
in any French study of Dutch art. While Fromentin agreed with Taine
and other critics that Dutch art was a mirror of society, he viewed
Rembrandt as the least Dutch of Dutch artists.83 Fromentin said Rembrandt did not see what his contemporaries observed; Ruysdael was in
his eyes the emblem of Dutch art, whereas Rembrandt was the exception to an otherwise univocal national style and method.84 Fromentin
formed his views on Dutch and Flemish art during a three-week trip in
1875. After writing for four months, he first published his impressions
as a series of essays in the Revue des deux mondes, thus addressing his
ideas to one of the largest potential audiences of any of the French
critics of Dutch art.85
Fromentin agreed with earlier French writers that Dutch freedom in life and art began in the seventeenth century. He specified the
beginning of the Twelve-year Truce in 1609 as the most important
39
event: “At the same time, under the same circumstances, we can see
two very similar events taking place: a new state, a new art. The origins
of Dutch art, its character, its aims, its means, its subjects, its fast
growth, its appearance without precedents and notably the speed with
which it was born after the armistice.” 86 Fromentin noted that he was
not presenting any particularly new ideas about Dutch art, as he expanded on the traditional discussions about the opposition of Flemish
and Dutch art, which had been expounded earlier by Thoré-Bürger as
Catholic versus Protestant, religious versus profane, tone versus value,
and Rubens versus Rembrandt.
Fromentin’s critique of Rembrandt was largely based on his
frustrated attempts to interpret elements of The Night Watch – the misnomer applied throughout the nineteenth century to The Militia Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq [plate 9] – particularly the central
small female figures as well as the overall composition of the painting.
Fromentin wrote more positively about Frans Hals’ group portraits,
which, for him, captured each individual and fulfilled Fromentin’s expectation of the decipherability of Dutch art and its emphasis on individuality, terms which by then were codified in and by French criticism.87 The Night Watch did not fulfill the mold of Dutch art that
Fromentin perpetuated and his criticisms, along with those of Michiels,
diverged from the otherwise positive presentation of Rembrandt as the
leading Dutch artist. Nevertheless, Fromentin’s construction of the
Dutch school and its leader restated the definition proposed by his
contemporaries that Dutch art was a mirror of Dutch society.
Lastly, critic Henry Havard agreed with Fromentin that Rembrandt depicted truth unlike any other Dutch artist. Havard, who was
an Inspector of the Fine Arts and thus a bureaucrat employed by the
French national government, even spoke Dutch – a rarity among
French critics. He wrote two general studies: L’Art et les artistes hollandais (1879-81) and Histoire de la peinture hollandaise (1881).88 The
first was commissioned by the French Ministry of Public Instruction
and Fine Arts, which hired Havard to find new documents on Dutch
art and artists in public archives in the Netherlands. In the end,
Havard’s research did not lead him to any new interpretations of Dutch
40
art; he still emphasized its realism, observation of nature and the profound knowledge of humanity he thought it conveyed. Nonetheless,
the publications resulting from his efforts are intriguing because they
grew from a commission initiated by the educational and artistic
branch of the French national government, an act which underscores
how, by the 1880s, Rembrandt was actively incorporated into French
institutions.
While the conception of seventeenth-century Dutch art as an
art of “imitation” has been debated by recent art historians,89 nineteenth-century French critics helped formulate and consolidate this
idea by unanimously defining Dutch painting as a reportorial transcription of the Dutch nation, its people, culture, morals, customs,
habits, topography, and economy. Whether a critic was entirely positive (Blanc, Thoré-Bürger, Taine), more critical (Michiels), or wary
(Houssaye, Fromentin, Havard), they unanimously agreed that Dutch
seventeenth-century art was a mirror of contemporary society. French
critics used varying descriptive words – “truth,” “imitation,” “realism”
and “naturalism” – but they were all adjectives that centered around
perceptions of mimeticism and optical verisimilitude. Each located
Rembrandt as the leader of the Dutch school even if his work did not
always appeal to their individual taste.
Recreating the Old Master Myth:
Perspectives on Rembrandt among
French Art Critics circa 1850 to 1900
By the time Louis Royer’s statue of Rembrandt was dedicated on May
27th, 1852, in the Botermarkt (Butter market) in Amsterdam, Rembrandt was already designated nationally as the leading artist of the
seventeenth century, the “Golden Age” of Dutch art.90 Plans for this
dedicatory ceremony, initiated by members of the Arti et Amicitiæ society, sparked further interest among Dutch scholars and fueled a concentration of new research in Dutch archives into the details of Rembrandt’s life. Amsterdam archivist Pieter Scheltema revealed some of
41
his discoveries in a lecture to the society and the impending publication of his research was announced in France by Gérard de Nerval in
his review of the dedicatory ceremony in the Revue des deux mondes.91
Scheltema’s study was translated into French in the Revue universelle des
arts in 1858 and then published as a book in Brussels in 1859 and in
Paris in 1866. By the 1860s, it was one of a growing number of studies
on Rembrandt that ranged from books and journal articles in specialized art periodicals to newspapers and magazines with a more widespread circulation.92
The “Rembrandt” Inherited by
Nineteenth-Century France
Rembrandt became such a cult figure in nineteenth-century France
that his admirers took to rewriting his biography and crafting available
material. Rembrandt’s biography, as it was known in France during the
early part of the nineteenth century, was derived from at least six possible sources: André Félibien, Roger de Piles, Florent Lecomte, Edme
François Gersaint, Jean-Baptiste Descamps, and Jean-Baptiste-Pierre
Lebrun. Their texts were the only ones accessible to anyone who did
not read Italian, German, Dutch, or English since other biographies of
Rembrandt, namely those by Baldinucci, Sandrart and Houbraken,
were not available in French translation.93 French writers before 1800
did, however, on occasion acknowledge their debt to narratives spun
by their predecessors. The main focus of the earliest French biography
of Rembrandt, André Félibien’s Entretiens sur la vie et les ouvrages des
plus excellents peintres (1684), was Rembrandt’s often thick application
of paint. Félibien said Rembrandt’s paintings “often only seem sketched.” 94 This idea also appeared in Baldinucci’s description of Rembrandt’s impasto technique in his treatise on engraving and etching
(1686) – the first treatise of its kind and the first Italian biography of
Rembrandt.95 Félibien also introduced the idea that Rembrandt was a
“universal” artist who lived on in his paintings, particularly his numerous self-portraits.
42
It was only in the following decade, when Roger de Piles published his
Abrégé de la vie des peintres (1699), that elements of Rembrandt’s biography as it was outlined by Sandrart and Baldinucci were introduced in
France. De Piles said Rembrandt grew up in a windmill on the bank of
the Rhine. He noted how Rembrandt studied with Lastman but that all
he learned came from within himself: “he only owed the knowledge he
had of his profession to the kindness of his spirit and his thoughts.” 96
Sandrart first introduced this idea in Teutsche Academie (1675), in which
he wrote that Rembrandt followed his own interests and contradicted
the rules of art.97 De Piles also derived from Sandrart the idea that
Rembrandt’s only goal was to imitate nature; he agreed with Sandrart
that while the contours of Rembrandt’s drawing might not have been
correct, they were full of spirit.
Though Sandrart said Rembrandt never went to Italy, De Piles
claimed Rembrandt executed four or five prints in Venice between
1635 and 1636. De Piles drew from Baldinucci that Rembrandt collected innumerable objects in his studio and was generous in lending props
to other artists. He added that Rembrandt referred to these accessories
as “my antiques” and that while he had a large collection of Italian
drawings and many prints, he did not “profit” from them. Later, Gersaint and Descamps perpetuated the idea that Rembrandt’s collection
was not of even minor relevance for his own works. De Piles also picked up on Sandrart’s characterization of Rembrandt as one who associated with the lower classes, a view repeated by Baldinucci. De Piles
claimed Rembrandt felt personally autonomous only by spending time
with people of low social standing and even pretended to quote Rembrandt directly saying: “when I want to rest my spirit it’s not honor
that I search, it’s liberty!” 98
Lastly, De Piles mentioned Rembrandt was married but did not
say to whom. Florent Lecomte also mentioned Rembrandt’s wife in his
Cabinet des Singularitez (1699-1700) and Lecomte emphasized that she
came from the same low social class as Rembrandt, who never wanted
to disguise his background and always spent time with his own “sort.”
Lecomte also repeated the following ideas: that Rembrandt grew up in
a windmill and had little formal eduction, that he often painted with
43
large brushstrokes and layered his paint thickly, and that he traveled to
Venice.99
Once the myths were established, others embellished them.
Gersaint, in his Catalogue raisonné de toutes les pieces qui forment l’œuvre
de Rembrandt (1751), took many of the elements of his biography from
De Piles and continued to support the idea that Rembrandt traveled to
Venice, that he painted with thick brushwork like Venetian artists, and
referred to his collection of costumes and armor as his “antiques.”
Gersaint praised Rembrandt’s use of clair-obscur and said that while his
technique made his paintings appear “rough” when viewed from close
up, they looked better from a certain distance. Gersaint also noted the
names of several artists who were Rembrandt’s teachers, but like De
Piles he believed Rembrandt did not owe his artistic taste to anyone
but himself. Although Gersaint demonstrated only a minimal interest
in Rembrandt’s family, he introduced in France the story in which
Rembrandt’s wife (unnamed) encouraged him to leave town so she
could say he had died and then sell his works at inflated prices. Gersaint was not sure whether this story was true, but he thought it was
based on the reputation Rembrandt’s wife had for the successful sales
of her husband’s work.
Published soon after Gersaint’s book, Descamps’ biography of
Rembrandt in La vie des peintres flamands, allemands et hollandois (175463) was based principally on Houbraken’s De Groote Schouburgh (1718).
Houbraken expanded on Sandrart’s passing comment that Rembrandt
made a lot of money from the fees he charged his students. He also repeated Baldinucci’s story that Rembrandt bought up his own prints to
increase their market value and formulated what would become one of
the most pervasive tropes of the artist’s biographies: Rembrandt the
miser. As Descamps elaborated on this purported avaricious streak, he
took from Baldinucci that Rembrandt bid on his own prints at auction
to increase sales and had Titus pretend he had stolen his father’s prints
so they could sell them at elevated prices.100 Descamps added that
Rembrandt intentionally printed his plates when they were only half
finished so he could then sell the finished prints as separate works. The
latter idea derived from Houbraken, who said Rembrandt made small
44
changes to his etchings so he could resell them. Houbraken did not
mention Rembrandt’s bankruptcy – up to this point Baldinucci was the
only critic who paid any attention to the event – but he introduced
other new elements to his narrative of Rembrandt’s biography. Houbraken is perhaps most famous for writing that Rembrandt would not
spend much money on his home and ate only a piece of herring or
cheese for lunch. Houbraken also wrote Rembrandt’s miserly ways
were so well known that his students played a trick on him by painting
coins on the floor which their master naturally stooped to pick up.101
Further, Houbraken discussed Rembrandt’s wife Saskia and introduced
a new character, that of Rembrandt’s pet monkey, to whom the artist
was supposedly very attached. Descamps, in turn, incorporated each of
these elements into his version of the biography and added that Rembrandt must have died very wealthy after such a frugal lifestyle. Descamps also challenged De Piles and stated Rembrandt never traveled
outside of Holland.
Descamps, following Houbraken’s lead, perpetuated the idea
that Rembrandt kept company with the poor. But according to Descamps the poor were not just people Rembrandt turned to sometimes;
they became the only people he spent any time with: “He only lived
with the lower class and people much below himself.”102 Once again
copying Houbraken, Descamps continued the idea that Rembrandt
worked from nature; Descamps said, “He looked to nature as the only
one capable of teaching him. He chose no other studio for his studies
than his father’s windmill.” 103 Other new elements which Houbraken
introduced and Descamps picked up included how Rembrandt advised
people not to get too close to his canvases and encouraged them to
keep at a distance by claiming the smell of paint would bother them.
Following Baldinucci’s and Félibien’s attention to Rembrandt’s impasto, Houbraken added that the paintings he executed late in life looked
as if they had been done with a trowel. He proposed that one portrait
was so thickly painted it could be picked up from the floor by its nose.
Houbraken added that Rembrandt always said a work was completed
when an artist had achieved what he wanted to achieve. Interestingly,
Houbraken’s claim that Rembrandt was popular during the last years
45
of his life was of little interest to later French biographers. Descamps
added a few other elements to the biography, including mention of
Rembrandt’s son Titus. He also claimed Rembrandt would have invented art if it had not already existed. Lastly, Descamps took from
Houbraken the idea that Rembrandt regarded his printmaking techniques as his secret treasure and never worked on his prints in front of
anyone.
Lebrun’s entry on Rembrandt in Gallerie des peintres flamands,
hollandais et allemands (1792) repeated few of the anecdotal narratives
that could be found in Descamps. Lebrun offered instead a general
commentary on Rembrandt’s painting technique, which he said altered
from a detailed to a thick application of paint, the latter a practice
Rembrandt maintained until the end of his life. Lebrun picked up from
Descamps the idea that Rembrandt had a low social standing and
added that he only kept up his contacts with distinguished people so he
could sell his work. Although Lebrun claimed Rembrandt was avaricious, he did not repeat any of the stories from earlier biographies to
support his claim. He thought Rembrandt’s miserly nature may have
tarnished his reputation slightly but conceded that this meant Rembrandt produced more paintings than he otherwise would have. Even
though Lebrun carried on some of the basic ideas introduced by earlier biographers, his own narrative was vague and lacked the anecdotal
detail that appealed to later French critics.
Although various competing “Rembrandts” emerged from these
biographies, a prevalent view was that the artist was a miserly person
who studied on his own from nature and associated with the lower
classes. These elements were carried through and expanded as later
writers reworked his biography. Before the nineteenth century, however, critics paid scant attention to Rembrandt’s family and personal
life. They also generally assumed Rembrandt was successful and must
have died with a certain level of wealth. They largely ignored Rembrandt’s bankruptcy in 1656 and the auctioning of his estate that dispersed his worldly possessions including his art collection.
46
Reinventing the Biography,
Creating the Myth
In nineteenth-century France, certain aspects of Rembrandt’s life history were based on ideas formulated in previous centuries. Some facts,
however, assumed greater importance than others and several new elements were added. In this way, the accounts of Rembrandt’s biography
acquired increasingly myth-like qualities and were molded in particular
directions. These included a fascination with the artist’s reputation and
problems with his public, as well as an emphasis on Rembrandt’s alleged status as a self-taught artist and independent painter-printmaker
who maintained his freedom and individuality at all costs. There was
also an increasing curiosity about Rembrandt’s financial status, his sexual
conduct, and his rapport with patrons and contemporaries, particularly
Jewish people. The “Rembrandt” that emerged from the critical reinvention of Rembrandt’s biography in nineteenth-century France was a
virile, bohemian, and much-maligned personality. His artistic persona
was molded into a form that became a model mentor and an Old
Master figure whose lifestyle and goals could be used to justify the similar experiences of many French artists in the nineteenth century.
During the first half of the nineteenth century, perceptions of
Rembrandt as a miserly and jealous person grew in France through a
popular vaudeville play “Rembrandt, ou la vente après décès.” This
play marks the first time Rembrandt was explicitly used in France to
exemplify the plight of artists whose works were undervalued and unappreciated until after their death. This play was not the product of
one individual’s perspective, but was the joint effort of four playwrights. It was written by Étienne, Morel, Servières, and Moras and
was first published and performed at the Troubadour Theater on 26
Fructidor year 8 (13 September 1800). It was presented again as a
comic opera at the Gymnase Dramatique beginning August 1st, 1821
and was republished in 1846. “Rembrandt, ou la vente après décès”
reenacts the story in which Rembrandt faked his death to try and increase the value of his paintings, which Gersaint first introduced into
France in the eighteenth century. The play focuses on the period of
47
Rembrandt’s life just a few months after he had arrived in Amsterdam
and describes him masquerading as the auctioneer at his own supposedly posthumous sale. The play also had a subplot centered on Rembrandt’s jealousy towards a French gentleman of Louis XIV’s court,
Sirval, who was courting his purported widow, here named Augusta.
This intrigue added a bit of spice for the audience.
The opening and closing monologues function as bookends for
the play’s principal theme and mission, which is to draw attention to
the condition of living artists. The play begins with Augusta lamenting
Rembrandt’s difficult life: “During his life Rembrandt suffered every
misfortune; he never ceased to be exposed to the injustices of his contemporaries; and now that he is barely dead, even his enemies celebrate
his memory and rank him as one of the greatest painters.” 104 At the
end of the play, Rembrandt reveals himself and thanks everyone who
has bought his paintings. He is especially grateful to the Jewish art
dealer Forbeck who now has to try to unload all the paintings he just
purchased at inflated prices before word spreads that Rembrandt is actually alive: “Gentlemen, I thank you for making me rich: when I was
poor I had to die; now that I am rich, I am revived. Thanks to my
death I am a well-known man; meanwhile I am no more talented today
than I was three months ago.” 105
The play closes with Augusta addressing the French audience
about how important it is not to overlook the talents of one’s own contemporary artists: “While he was alive Rembrandt was exposed to acts
of envy, and we admired his talent only after he died. Our authors have
made an effort to reveal this character to you; but do not wait until
they are dead to appreciate their work.” 106 This vaudeville comic opera
introduced Rembrandt to the French public as the paragon of the misunderstood and unappreciated artist. This conception of his artistic
persona continued to flourish and became one of the central reasons
why Rembrandt was regarded as such a significant figure in France.
Throughout the nineteenth century, French critics and writers
thought that they alone recognized Rembrandt’s talents and that he
had been unappreciated by his contemporaries. Aggrandizing their
own abilities to identify expertise, critics maintained, “he had no offi-
48
cial honors, nor orders, nor titles, nor decorations,” and at the time of
his death “overwhelmed by misery, disabilities, unsociable, forgotten,
alone, the great artist disappeared.” 107 Despite the fact that all of Rembrandt’s correspondence with Constantin Huygens, secretary for Stadholder Frederick Hendrick, the Prince of Orange, was translated into
French as early as 1868 and his commissions from the Stadholder and
numerous religious works were known in France, critics paid negligible attention to Rembrandt’s plausible courtly affiliations.108 Indeed,
through to the end of the century they believed Rembrandt was either
unrevered by his contemporaries or isolated in his own country because of a lack of understanding for his incomparable superiority.109
Some expressed amazement that a figure they regarded as the best
Dutch artist, whose posterity they ranked on a par with the greatest
Old Masters, was in fashion for such a short time and then replaced by
inferior rivals with whom no one would dare compare him in the nineteenth century.110 But Blanc consoled himself with the thought that
Rembrandt must have died knowing what a great artist he was: “he
died.... forgotten by his contemporaries, but no doubt conscious of his
genius, with the secret certainty that his memory would not perish and
that he would arrive, as in fact has happened, that posterity, would
rank this poet among artists of the first order, this prodigious painter,
this inimitable printmaker.” 111
Rembrandt’s experiences could, therefore, be used as an exemplar for many French nineteenth-century artists. While they too had
difficulties with their public, which was largely unreceptive to new
ideas or different ways of making art, perhaps in a few generations
people would realize what great talents they really were. Thoré-Bürger
best articulated this idea in his review of the Salon of 1861, which was
published first in the daily newspaper Le Temps. In an attempt to elevate the French public’s appreciation of Jean-François Millet’s Waiting,
an image depicting the biblical story of Tobias and his wife, ThoréBürger compared Millet’s experiences to those of Rembrandt:
Rembrandt was also fond of this subject from the story of
Tobias, of which he painted various scenes in an informal
49
style, which recalls a little the peasant-like style of M.
Millet... For two centuries, the exclusive amateurs of the
grand Italian style have always manhandled Rembrandt,
which has not prevented him from making inroads in the
museums and principal galleries of Europe. That should
console the realists a bit for the current injustices, and
give them some hope for the future.112
The similarities between the unjust treatment of Millet and Rembrandt by an unappreciative public was at the heart of this comparison
between the French and Dutch artists. This trope of Rembrandt, the
unsung artist, was central to the narrative pattern of his biography,
which was deemed significant in nineteenth-century France in part because of a general interest in the anecdotal details of the lives of the
Old Masters. Furthermore, these life experiences held great appeal because they could be used to validate and console French artists and the
critics who lobbied for them. Rembrandt’s example could be offered to
those who were denied the accolades of reigning French institutions;
they could hold out hope that following generations would set the
record straight, just as French critics thought they alone had done for
Rembrandt.
Building their myth on an old topos, which Vasari had used on
Giotto, the critics also fostered the belief that Rembrandt did not have
a master or at least did not learn anything from any teacher. They took
this idea from early biographies and it grew along with the artist’s
celebrity in France. This idea was integral to connections made between Rembrandt’s alienation from contemporary society and his superiority over his counterparts. Despite the circulation of archival discoveries which identified all of his instructors, the perception of
Rembrandt as a self-trained artist continued to flourish. French critics
maintained, “Rembrandt had only one master and that was Rembrandt.” 113 Although he studied with Swanenburg, Lastman, and Pynas, the critics maintained he learned to paint by himself.114
Even as information about Rembrandt’s own extensive art collection became more readily available, critics still held to the idea that
50
Rembrandt made paintings, drawings, and prints that were unlike
those of anyone else and they maintained that he certainly did not copy
anyone.115 The potential significance of originals and reproductions of
works by other artists such as Brouwer, Schongauer, Seghers, Giorgione, and Holbein were completely ignored. Furthermore, the fact
that Rembrandt owned much Italian art, including prints after works
by Michelangelo, Raphael, and the Carraccis, might have been seen as
a contradiction by those critics who formulated the Dutch artist as the
epitome of the northern school and someone who worked in opposition to the Italian school. But French critics neatly construed this as
part of his “genius” personality.
The first in-depth French study devoted solely to Rembrandt’s
possible connections with Italian art appeared only in the 1890s.116
Critics preferred to explain Rembrandt’s collection as evidence of his
ability to appreciate other art and still remain true to his own goals, an
ability which was, in their minds, part of his “genius”: “It was precisely
the great characteristic of his genius to have admired everything without imitating anything, to have known the beauty of another art and to
have always remained in his own.” 117 They believed, in fact, that this
was a self-conscious choice on Rembrandt’s part and that he wanted to
arrive at his own “genius” without leaning on anyone else.118
French critics reconciled Rembrandt’s autonomy with his extensive Italian collection and connections with other artists, thereby
fulfilling the conditions of their own myth of Rembrandt as an independent artist. They continued to perpetuate this view despite contradictory evidence. De Piles’ idea that Rembrandt executed two prints in
Venice had no currency in nineteenth-century France, where critics
completely rejected the idea that Rembrandt ever traveled to Italy.119
They preferred to believe he never went beyond the borders of the
Netherlands because it fitted into their idea of Rembrandt as the embodiment of a specifically northern tradition that ran counter to the
southern, particularly Italian, tradition.
This formulation of Rembrandt’s biography created an Old
Master artist who achieved success outside the boundaries of institutionalized artistic instruction and practice. French critics said Remreinventing the biography, creating the myth
51
brandt did not conform to academies and emphasized that he was an
artist whose success was solely founded on his innate talents.120 Rembrandt could therefore be looked upon as an example for artists who
rejected the control of French institutions over creativity and struck
out on their own path. It may also have appealed to French artists and
critics to think that one could appreciate works produced by other
artists and even make studies after earlier or contemporary art while
maintaining one’s independence. Following this invention of Rembrandt’s example, one could even admire Rembrandt’s art – in whatever numerous ways that might manifest itself: copying, collecting, looking and discussing – and still remain true to oneself.
French critics applied a focused range of adjectives to Rembrandt’s art and personality, drawing their lexicon from prevailing notions of his status as a self-taught, independent and nonconforming
artist. Rembrandt was variously called “the most original painter of all
the schools,” “the most original of all painters” or an “original and sincere genius.” 121 He was said to have had an “exceptional originality,” a
“gripping originality,” an “original and independent spirit” and was
called an “original talent” and the “most original of the modern genius.” 122 Rembrandt was considered “one of the most robust individualities” and an artist who captured the individuality of his sitters.123
Other words most commonly used to describe Rembrandt’s art
in France included: “new” or “novelty,” 124 “sincerity,” 125 “naiveté,” 126
“truth,” 127 and “reality.” 128 “Liberty” was often used to describe both
his art and his actions.129 Rembrandt was regarded as an independent
figure who prided himself on his autonomy and the accessible, authentic nature of his work. Some critics went even further and called Rembrandt a heretic and a revolutionary who broke with the past and who
was in perpetual revolt with received traditions, official and conventional art.130
What French critics regarded as the authenticity of Rembrandt’s art was, for them, best represented by his studies after nature
and depictions of the poor. Discussing works ranging from The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp [plate 10] to studies of beggars, they said
Rembrandt “observed nature,” “scrupulously copied nature,” “worked
52
from the book of nature,” and “did not retreat from the miseries of nature.” 131 One critic called Rembrandt “the naturalist” and another
called him the “painter of life.” 132 Connections between Rembrandt
and studies from nature were also tied to an increasing interest in his
childhood and the belief that he sought out motifs from the terrain
surrounding his father’s windmill.133
Rembrandt’s Class Relations
The idea that Rembrandt associated primarily with the lower classes
was entrenched in formulations of his biography before the nineteenth
century and grew in France despite any attempts to prove otherwise.
Rembrandt was said to have “been of the people, he did not breathe
freedom except with the people.” 134 His working practice was viewed
as follows: “He looked at the people around him, he observed, he represented them as they were... Penetrating more and more, he preferred
to look at the unhappy, the miserable people who would have horrified
people other than he.” Through his representations of the poor he was
said to have inaugurated “the new world.” 135 The idea that Rembrandt
had clients who came from all social classes also held appeal.136
Further, the critics admired how, as they saw it, there were no insignificant or ugly models for Rembrandt and how, therefore, everything in
nature could be worthy of an artist’s attention.137 One critic even
thought Rembrandt’s sitters looked so real and contemporary to him
that they could even have come from Parisian suburbs in the second
half of the nineteenth century:
Above all the popular attracted him, and in the squares,
in the suburbs, the workers and the countryfolk appeared
to him worthy of attention. Morals are simpler and appearances less refined with these little people; their
expressive gestures become more frankly marked, their
attitudes and their expressions are more natural... Rembrandt never stopped studying them. He loved living
53
among the poor.... [T]he means by which the artist represented them to us are so true, so just and so exact still today, that several of them appear to be life studies after the
prowlers and workers of our suburbs.138
Despite the fact that two Dutch critics, Scheltema and Carel Vosmaer,
emphasized Rembrandt’s relationships with the upper classes in publications which circulated in French translation, French critics refused
to believe that Rembrandt could have been “un homme de bonne société.” 139 Vosmaer also said that Rembrandt did not grow up in a
windmill but in a house.140 But such attempts to demythologize Rembrandt’s biography were unsuccessful. French critics held fast to the
idea that Rembrandt was a bohemian-like artist who grew up in a
windmill in the country and spent his time with the masses because it
appealed to their conception of him as an archetypal anti-bourgeois,
unconventional person.
Drawing on terms familiar from the ancien régime, Fromentin
even identified Rembrandt with the French proletariat when he declared: “Rembrandt was of the third estate, and barely that, as we used
to say in France in 1789.”141 Taine also connected Rembrandt to the
French proletariat by saying “Rembrandt is the people”.142 The emphasis on his ties to the lower classes enabled those French critics who
believed that art holds an instrumental role in the “progress” of society
to posit Rembrandt as an observer and painter of humanity and as a
populist and humanitarian.143 This was central to the arguments they
proposed for the “universality” or universal significance of his art.144
Rembrandt’s Private Life
Rembrandt’s private life – his finances, sexuality, and relationships
with family and friends – was also a growing source of interest in nineteenth-century France. This level of fascination was fostered by the extensive archival research undertaken in Amsterdam. With regard to his
finances, the perception of Rembrandt as an avaricious person was well
54
established before the nineteenth century. This idea was carried over
by some French critics, who said Rembrandt was “thirsty for gold,”
and that although as a young artist he loved his work and did not think
about the coins that would fall into his lap, later he became “miserly,”
developing a passion for money.145
But other critics challenged this view and presented various possible explanations for Rembrandt’s financial problems. Their defense
was part of an increasing interest in the details of Rembrandt’s bankruptcy, which had held little appeal for earlier critics. This interest was
no doubt fed by the multiple publications of Rembrandt’s inventory
in French translation.146 Critics cited all the jewelry Saskia wore in
various paintings as evidence that Rembrandt was willing to spend
money and also suggested that if he were miserly he would not have
bought so much art for himself.147
The belief that Rembrandt spent all his money on his art collection was, in fact, the most common reason French critics gave for his
bankruptcy. If Rembrandt had indeed led a simple domestic life and
ate herring and cheese for lunch, they claimed it was a voluntary sacrifice for his desire to collect prints; they said he went bankrupt because
of his “passion” for art and “love of beautiful things.” 148 Others cited
the contents of the few extant letters in Rembrandt’s hand as evidence
of his generosity and suggested his bankruptcy was caused by changes
in taste or a decreased interest in art because of growing economic
problems in Amsterdam.149 These attempts to explain his problematic
financial situation were integral to efforts on the part of some French
critics to restore Rembrandt’s reputation and present him as a person
with an untarnished past. Whether a critic condemned or defended the
fluctuations in Rembrandt’s finances, he examined them closely and
this aspect of the Old Master’s life made Rembrandt seem more accessible and human as someone subject to the uncertainties of life.
Another avenue of inquiry into Rembrandt’s private life was a
growing curiosity about his friends, relatives and love interests. Only a
couple of critics made Rembrandt out to be a difficult person who
lived a secluded life absorbed by his work and without any friends.150
One writer described Rembrandt as a moody, mumbling, and distracted
55
creative type, but this view was not common.151 Rembrandt’s romances were of much greater interest. It was well known before the
nineteenth century that Rembrandt had a wife named Saskia and a son
Titus. But Saskia’s exact social status and Rembrandt’s purported relationships with other women were a topic of considerable debate during
the second half of the nineteenth century. The critic A. Willems remarked in 1874, “What we know about Rembrandt’s private life
amounts to very little, and what we do know certainly does not make
us think much of his morals.”152 During the first half of the nineteenth
century Saskia was believed to have been a poor peasant who was just
as frugal as Rembrandt.153 But later archival discoveries established her
identity as a noble and rich woman who put restrictions in her will that
caused inordinate financial problems for Rembrandt.154 Rembrandt’s
deep love for Saskia was mentioned regularly and French critics believed he conveyed this love through the number of paintings in which
Saskia was his sitter.155 They also thought his love could be seen in all
the expensive jewelry Saskia was always seen wearing, gifts they assumed were from her husband.156 These views were clearly informed
by the perception of painting as a medium through which one could
directly access an artist’s thoughts and identity, an idea then current in
French criticism. Some of the critics even felt sorry for Rembrandt – at
least one regarded him as a family man – when he was left a single father after Saskia’s premature death in 1642, the very year the critic said
Rembrandt should have been celebrating his achievements after The
Night Watch.157
Some critics blamed what they referred to as Rembrandt’s poor
psychological state after Saskia’s death and his difficulty managing
domestic responsibilities as the causes of a “scandalous” relationship
with Titus’ live-in nurse. George Duplessis and Henry Havard commented on how Rembrandt did not or could not stay a widower for
very long, and that it was his prodigious artistic personality that led
him to a life of debauchery.158 Still, they did not think his love for a
servant could have harmed his reputation. The nurse/servant in question was first identified as Hendrickje Jaghers, a “peasant from Ransdorp,” who was brought before the courts in 1654 and was said to have
56
caused Rembrandt much public embarrassment. However, the critics
conceded that Hendrickje was a good housekeeper and financial manager. Besides, they maintained that Rembrandt did not worry about
what people thought and did not care whether there was a scandal
about them living together and having a child.159 This was one way in
which French critics created his identity as a rebel who went against
the established order and its values. Hendrickje’s surname was later
more accurately identified as Stoffels and there was much interest in
the financial association she established with Titus in 1660.160
As more information circulated about the women in Rembrandt’s life, identifying the sitter in Portrait of a Woman [plate 4],
which hung in the prestigious Salon Carré of the Louvre throughout
the second half of the nineteenth century, was an increasingly pressing
matter. Believing that Rembrandt only painted portraits of people he
knew well, French critics also tried to determine Rembrandt’s relationship with the sitter of this work and endeavored to ascertain their level
of intimacy. Hendrickje Stoffels was identified as the sitter as early as
1885 but not all French critics thought that Rembrandt would have
married her, while others claimed he had had three different wives.161
An account of the Geertge Dircks affair was not published in French in
the nineteenth century, but Blanc suggested Rembrandt’s relationship
with a new female model, who might have been his third wife, dramatically increased the power of his prints during the last decade of his
life. Blanc said, “Finally the etchings dating after 1656, the character of
vigour and manly energy they take on, are enough to say that the
artist, far from leaving himself to be beaten by misfortune, doubled his
power and energy.”162
The soap opera-like narratives spun around newly available
archival information were based on an urge for Rembrandt to be
known as a sexually active and virile personality. Using these narratives, the critics created an artistic persona for Rembrandt that was not
only opposed to bourgeois standards of propriety but also completely
indifferent to any criticisms against his personal conduct. These views
of his private life helped to foster in France anti-establishment tendencies as part of the Rembrandt myth. Furthermore, Rembrandt’s purreinventing the biography, creating the myth
57
ported sexual debauchery was directly related to his artistic vigor and
conformed to perceptions of creative potency as a specifically masculine domain in nineteenth-century France. The construction of his
artistic persona as a stereotyped masculine identity located Rembrandt
as a model specifically for male French artists.
Rembrandt and the Dutch Jewish Community
French critics and historians helped shape Rembrandt’s biography into
the myth of a liberally minded artist who lived outside mainstream society by aligning Rembrandt with the Dutch Jewish community.163
Nineteenth-century thinkers were the first to see connections between
Rembrandt and the Jews. In part, their high level of interest was informed by the newly accessible archival information, which showed
that Rembrandt had lived in the Jewish quarter in Amsterdam.164 The
connections were largely positive and there was only one instance
where a French writer presented Rembrandt as someone who did not
like Jews; he made up a fictional narrative in which Rembrandt resisted
Titus’ desire to marry a Jewish woman and convert.165 This was not,
however, the prevailing view.
As with the emphasis on Rembrandt’s attraction to lower social
classes among French critics, several critics also used information on
Jews to reconfigure further his personality as unconventional, openminded and indifferent to ideas held by bourgeois society. Discussion
and praise of Rembrandt’s interest in different social groups formed a
significant component of the conception of Rembrandt in France as a
free artist, particularly an artist unfettered by the shackles of Catholic
doctrine. Although French critics were certainly aware that the significant representation of religious subjects in Rembrandt’s œuvre could
be interpreted as Catholic imagery, it was the diversity of his religious
subject matter and his attraction to people from varying backgrounds
that they deemed most significant.
Most French critics who wrote about Rembrandt and Judaism
did so in nuanced terms and did not use the artist and his work as a
58
platform to express sentiments either for or against Jewish people. But
the French historian Edouard Drumont exploited connections between Rembrandt and Jews in his well-read anti-semitic text La France
Juive, a book first published in 1886 and regularly reprinted and issued
in popular editions during the last two decades of the century.166 Drumont articulated an idea which then had considerable circulation in
France and connected “Jews with the cult of money.” He claimed Jews
had mercantile and avaricious tendencies and lived in reality. Drumont
juxtaposed these traits with those he assigned to Aryans, who he said
were preoccupied with superior aspirations and lived in the realm of
ideals. In art, Drumont aligned Jews with the masses, the lower classes:
They prefer the lower classes, which allow them on the
one hand to get rich by flattering the base appetites of
the multitude and to serve their cause by ridiculing the
enthusiasms, the pious memories, the august traditions of
the people at whose expense they live.167
Drumont also compared the condition of Jews in France, where they
were required to shed their past, with Jews in Holland. Much to
Drumont’s dismay, Jews were openly accepted in Holland, which he
called “the cradle for the modern Jew.” Given the common characterization of Rembrandt as a miserly personality who circulated among the
lower classes – and most importantly the popularity of his images of
Jews in France – it is perhaps not surprising that Drumont suggested
one must consider “Rembrandt’s world” in order to understand the
history of Jews in Holland:
It’s Rembrandt that one must, I would not say look at,
but contemplate, study, scrutinize, search, analyze, if we
really want to see the Jew.
If they’re talking, Rembrandt’s Jews talk about
business at the door of the synagogue, of the guilder or of
the last envoy from Batavia! These travelers who walk
with their stick in their hand with the air of wandering
59
Jews, who feel that they are going to arrive and sit down
somewhere!168
Drumont related Rembrandt’s images of Jews with notions of the
“wandering Jew.” This figure was popularized in French, German,
Norwegian, and Flemish imagery well before the publication of
Champfleury’s (Jules-François-Félix Husson) Histoire de l’imagerie populaire in 1886. The figure of the “wandering Jew” had great resonance
in France in the second half of the nineteenth cenutry, and the image
of a peripatetic man with a long beard, leather tablier and stick was regarded as a dramatic everyman.169 Popular imagery and literature presented the “wandering Jew” as a poorly dressed man who looked like a
vagabond and existed on the margins of society.170 Drumont’s connections between Rembrandt’s subjects and the “wandering Jew” figure also relate to how French critics aligned Rembrandt with their ideas
concerning art of and for humanity.
French art critics also constructed a junction between Rembrandt
and their conception of Jews and Judaism. The critics stopped short of
saying Rembrandt was himself Jewish, but popularized references to
Rembrandt’s avaricious tendencies resonated with the stereotyped character of the miserly Jew then circulating in France.171 Even critics who,
based on recently discovered archival material, rejected the idea that
Rembrandt’s combined avaricious and spend-thrift nature brought
about his financial demise still made much of his love of money. Attempts by some to put this trait in more positive terms led a few critics
to explain Rembrandt’s use of many props and costumes in his imagery
as a natural outgrowth of his mania for collecting exotic objects. These
were the same objects earlier critics said Rembrandt called “my antiques.”
Many critics emphasized that Rembrandt lived in the Jewish
quarter of Amsterdam at two different times in his life. They said that
the most important period occurred during his final years on Sint
Anthonies Breestraat, years during which Rembrandt was supposedly
bankrupt but some critics wondered if he had squirreled away a significant stash of money. The location of Rembrandt’s home in the Jewish
district was considered a central component of his biography in the
60
nineteenth century and was even mentioned in the entry on Rembrandt in the nineteenth-century Larousse encyclopedia.
French critics were also intrigued with what they saw as the pervasive imagery of Jews in Rembrandt’s œuvre. They frequently discussed images of Jewish people both in his prints and paintings, including the Jewish Synagogue and what they saw as Jewish-type heads in his
etchings. Fromentin stated that Rembrandt painted Jews more than
Christians.172 Rembrandt’s painting The Jewish Bride and the print
known as “la grande Juive” also received particular attention. Brothers
Edmond and Jules de Goncourt noted the “Juiverie” of Rembrandt’s
work in their journal; they remarked on his mysterious synagogues and
identified the principal diminutive enigmatic female figure in The
Night Watch as a Jewish woman, as did Fromentin.173 Another critic
identified Portrait of a Woman [plate 4] in the Louvre as a “Jewish
bride.” 174 One critic even thought Rembrandt had chosen numerous
Old Testament subjects simply as an excuse to paint Amsterdam Jews.175
Others made much of Rembrandt’s contacts and friendships with Jews
in Amsterdam. They noted particularly his Four subjects for a Spanish
book, four etchings that were used in a book written in honor of Jewish
people by Menasseh-ben-Israël, the rabbi for three Amsterdam synagogues. Through documents Scheltema unearthed in Amsterdam
archives, Menasseh-ben-Israël was known to have lived on the same
street as Rembrandt, suggesting a further connection between the
two.176 Other critics noted Rembrandt’s portrait of this patron and his
portrait of Doctor Ephraïm Bonus [fig. 5], which was known in France
as “Juif à la rampe.” In addition, many French writers believed that
Rembrandt’s studies of Polish figures all depicted Jewish people. One
said he wished he could have Rembrandt as his guide through the
Jewish section of Warsaw and interpreted Rembrandt’s images of the
poor as depictions of Jews.177
Notions of Rembrandt’s affinity for Jewish subject matter must
be evaluated as part of the larger conception of his interest in images of
reality, humanity, and the lower classes in France. These ideas were
clearly informed by the anti-semitic ideologies of many French critics
and historians as well as the widespread anti-semitism in France during
61
fig. 5 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Doctor Ephraïm Bonus (“Juif à la rampe”), 1647
the second half of the nineteenth century. However, these ideas were
not always overtly expressed. The unprecedented level of interest in
Rembrandt’s images of Jewish people, his personal friendships with
prominent Amsterdam Jews, and the location of his home in the Jewish
quarter of Amsterdam among French writers were integral to the configuration of Rembrandt as a bohemian artist who lived on the margins
of bourgeois society.
The character traits and friendships French critics assigned to
Rembrandt contributed to notions of his artistic persona as outside the
mainstream compared to other western European artists. These mythmakers defined Rembrandt’s personality as one that accepted difference and was attracted to subject matter that gave him access to varied
social groups. Their claims concerning his personal affinity for Jewish
people and culture contributed to notions of Rembrandt as an openminded observer of the multifaceted society in the Netherlands in the
seventeenth century, as the country was characterized in nineteenthcentury France. As an artist who did not conform to bourgeois standards and sought out difference, Rembrandt became an icon for French
artists who promoted a minority perspective or worked on the periphery of society.
The reinvention of Rembrandt’s biography and characterization
of his art in France formulated his artistic persona as an individualist.
He was presented as a self-taught, bohemian, liberally-minded, antibourgeois, anti-traditional, marginalized, unappreciated, virile, and
sexually active figure who aimed to depict aspects of the world in
which he lived in a sincere, truthful, and realistic manner. The characterization of the Dutch school with Rembrandt at its epicenter further
substantiated connections French critics made between Rembrandt
and notions of independence, democracy, freedom, and individuality.
The cultural myth or idea of Rembrandt that was formulated by French
critics – the myth-makers – was the character of the suffering, creative
genius who was unrecognized by his contemporaries. Rembrandt, thus,
embodied characteristics of the underappreciated painter, poet, or
writer at a time when French critics and artists could best make use of
a sense of communal identity with the Old Master.
63
plate 1 – Paul Delaroche, Hemicycle des Beaux-Arts (Left Section), 1841
65
plate 2 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait with Easel, 1660
66
plate 3 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Angel Raphael Leaving Tobias’ Family, 1637
67
plate 4 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of a Woman, n.d.
68
plate 5 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Philosopher in Meditation, 1632
69
plate 6 – School of Rembrandt van Rijn, The Good Samaritan, n.d
70
plate 7 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Carpenter’s Household/The Holy Family, 1640
71
plate 8 – After Rembrandt van Rijn, Hendrickje Stoffels as Venus/Venus and Amor, n.d.
72
plate 9 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Militia Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq, 1642
73
plate 10 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp, 1632
74
plate 11 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Woman at the Bath, 1652
75
plate 12 – Alphonse Martinet, Rembrandt’s Studio, c.1857
plate 15 – Aert de Gelder, Abraham and the Angels, oil on canvas.
Rotterdam, Boymans van Beuningen Museum.
plate 13 – Frédéric Regamey, Paris à l’eau-forte.
Paraît tous les samedis, 1875
plate 14 – Henri-Patrice Dillon, Nouveau théâtre de
la rue Blanche, 1898
plate 16 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn,
Head of a Rabbi
plate 17 – Copy after Rembrandt van Rijn,
Portrait of Burgomaster Six
plate 18 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn, Suppliant before a Biblical Prince
78
plate 19 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn, Samplers in a Cave
79
plate 20 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn, Head of an Old Man
chapter 2
Politicizing
Rembrandt
An Exemplar for New Aesthetic
Values, Realism, and
Republicanism
he multifaceted identity French
critics and artists refashioned for Rembrandt created an artistic persona that fulfilled their own needs. He became a figure
they could call upon to validate and promote both the aesthetic and political principles they advocated for contemporary French
art and society. The growing acceptance and appreciation of Rembrandt’s art was related, in part, to a questioning and reevaluation of
prescriptive aesthetic values in the visual arts. The political dimension
to the recreation of Rembrandt came about when several writers used
him in an attempt to bolster their call for art to take a radical socio-political role in nineteenth-century France. They gave his artistic persona
political meanings, variously making him into an anti-catholic, an antiroyalist, and a politically active figure. Over time, Rembrandt came to
be regarded as the most modern of the Old Master artists and the most
suitable forerunner for what a number of critics defined as the modern
French artist.
T
Changing Views on Aesthetics
Rembrandt and Drawing
Rembrandt’s artistic persona was a useful exemplar for many French
critics and artists who sought to buttress their challenge of prevailing
83
notions of quality art, specifically as they related his art to definitions
of good drawing and beauty. In their subtle attempts to elevate Rembrandt’s reputation as a draughtsman, which rendered him increasingly
significant in their own time, there was a political agenda of changing
academic controls and practices. Critics either tried to justify Rembrandt’s talents within the academic system or promote him as an example outside that tradition. Their tactical approach was informed by
their own political views of academic conventions and what they believed would most effectively advance Rembrandt’s reputation – and
that of contemporaries who espoused similar goals – in France. Rembrandt’s drawings were never held up as a model in the nineteenth
century by leading French art institutions such as the École des BeauxArts or the Louvre, but he became an acknowledged precursor for
those who sought to contest entrenched traditions and promote the innovations of contemporary artists. In favoring the example of Rembrandt’s artistic persona, it seems that artists were hoping to broaden
the choices of both technique and subject matter at their disposal, and
in this way challenged definitions of good quality art and questioned
the criteria of the art academy and juried salons.
The debate over Rembrandt’s talents as a draughtsman in
France was underway well before the nineteenth century. In the eighteenth century, De Piles claimed Rembrandt’s drawing was “incorrect”
and ranked it the weakest aspect of his art following the four categories
he evaluated in his comparative table “Balance des peintres”: composition, drawing, color, and expression.178 Antoine Coypel compared
Poussin’s and Rembrandt’s drawing techniques and also found Rembrandt lacking.179 Furthermore, Descamps declared Rembrandt a mediocre draughtsman.180 Gersaint was more conciliatory. He said Rembrandt used drawing simply to develop his ideas and since he always
intended to put the drawings aside he did not finish them with great
care.181 In the 1790s, Lebrun defended Rembrandt’s drawing as being
as skillful as that of any other artist and said his drawing technique was
a great help in distinguishing authentic works by Rembrandt from
those of his imitators:
84
Rembrandt’s manner was an excuse for many incorrect
masters, who saw in him only a mediocre draughtsman;
but they were wrong, because this artist’s drawing may be
without choice but it is no less skillful, no less correct;
and it is above all through the differences in drawing that
we find the greatest help in distinguishing Rembrandt
from his imitators.182
Throughout the eighteenth century, however, Rembrandt’s drawings
were generally regarded as inferior to standards promoted by the French
academy.
In the nineteenth century, French writers continued to evaluate
Rembrandt’s draughtsmanship by comparing his drawings to those
by artists aligned with the classical tradition of Italian and ancient art.
At the same time, the perception of value and what constituted skillful
drawing was being reevaluated. The increasingly broad and inclusive
views on the definition of good drawing in France enabled artists such
as Rembrandt to be designated exemplary draughtsmen. As early as
1817, Stendhal said he disagreed with critics who divided drawing
techniques into camps under Raphael and Rembrandt and who advocated the strict Academic definitions of good-quality drawing. Stendhal recommended artists study both Raphael and Rembrandt’s drawing
or, better yet, consult nature.183 Others hesitated. In the following
decade, Paillot de Montabert wondered whether or not he dare suggest
that Rembrandt’s drawing was better than that of Giulio Romano or
Annibale Carracci, but he ventured that critics who thought otherwise
were themselves at fault.
Do we not hear everywhere that Rembrandt’s drawing is
pitiful, and that he did not understand anything of this
facet of art? Would it not be more the critics themselves
who do not comprehend anything about the theory of
drawing?.... It has to be understood that he did not have a
feeling for drawing relative to movement and perspective.
We see in his paintings scenes which are rightly felt, very
politicizing rembrandt
85
pleasantly done, with very correct lines, maybe he was
even superior in this natural feeling than Juliano Romano
himself, and dare I say Annibale Carracci.184
Montabert blamed any shortcomings in Rembrandt’s drawing on his
schooling in Holland and his predilection for color: “This painter, like
so many others, would have become a great draughtsman, if he had not
been preoccupied exclusively with clair-obscur and color and, moreover,
if he had forgotten the bad tastes of studios, if at last a real school of
painting had opened a sure path for him to follow.” 185
Despite Montabert’s praise of Rembrandt, this last remark that
the Dutch artist would have been a better draughtsman if he had been
trained somewhere besides in the Netherlands outraged painter-printmaker Alphonse Legros. Legros expressed his disagreement in a letter
to his friend Henri Fantin-Latour:
You speak to me of Rembrandt, of this famous, of this
great, of this giant, and in reading, I found a phrase taken
from M. Paillot de Montabert; these are remarks which
make me snigger with laughter... This Parisian man
claims that if Rembrandt drew like Poussin he would be a
great painter! It’s strong, eh? I would very much like to
see the painting by Rembrandt of which you speak, because it should be quite splendid. I eat it up from here
(you know, the fashionable phrase).186
Legros did not think Rembrandt’s technique needed to be improved at
all and he believed that Rembrandt’s drawing was certainly as skilled as
that of Poussin. Thoré-Bürger was even more certain when he said,
“Rembrandt drew better than Poussin!” 187 In another comparison of
Rembrandt to Italian artists, Gustave Planche said he did not understand
why anyone would defend the “pure” drawing of Leonardo da Vinci or
Raphael over the mysterious shadows Rembrandt used around the contours of his figures. In fact, Planche rejected the idea that one could not
reconcile an attraction to two artists from different traditions.188
86
Instead of comparing Rembrandt to artists revered by French institutions, other critics sought to evaluate Rembrandt’s abilities as a
draughtsman outside the Academic tradition. Charles Blanc allowed
that Rembrandt’s drawing was not as polished as artists connected to
the Academy, but he said, “If Rembrandt ignored what we call style, he
replaced it with a quality of the first order which is feeling.”189 Blanc
suggested that French artists who wanted to learn how to make a croquis drawing should look to Rembrandt’s etchings of beggars.190 He
later declared his approval of Rembrandt’s drawing more forcefully, asserting it was removed from tradition and “broke the chain of art” that
extended from classical antiquity through to Italian art during the
Renaissance. Blanc also reiterated his earlier pitch for sentiment: “If
his drawing lacks nobility, if its proportions are incorrect, he is raised
up by a superior quality, feeling.” 191
Although Blanc could not fit Rembrandt into the classical tradition of so-called correct drawing style, he suggested this canon should
not be considered the only benchmark for evaluating the talent of a
draughtsman. “We often hear that Rembrandt was an extremely weak
draughtsman, that he missed this part of art; there is a heresy of orthodox thinkers. Certainly Rembrandt did not draw with the correct elegance taught by the classical tradition... but there are essential aspects
of drawing that Rembrandt possesses to the highest degree: expression
and perspective.”192
Other critics suggested Rembrandt’s drawing was not conven193
tional and that Rembrandt was independent of the grand style: “He
remains in his own genius and completely independent of the tradition
of the grand style... his talent has no affinity with correct drawing,
with the purged and ideal taste of the masters of Florence or
Rome.” 194 Critic François Lenormant pronounced, with a sense of relief, that Rembrandt was not a conventional draughtsman like some
boring Academics: “Rembrandt is not a draughtsman in the ordinary
sense in which we hear this word. He never knew to refine his drawing
with the correctness that we teach in the academies, and which sometimes degenerates to pedantry... But besides this fault in correction
and ideal form, what a profound science of drawing, what an art for
87
depicting nature in its truth and in its life!” 195 Blanc and Lenormant
both advanced Rembrandt as an example counter to – but equally valid
as – traditional, Academic models.
Frédéric Villot, a curator at the Louvre, praised the energy and
finesse of Rembrandt’s drawing despite its incorrect and bizarre passages.196 To Eugène Delacroix, Rembrandt’s drawing was vague, magical, and expressive.197 George Duplessis, curator at the Cabinet des
estampes, also defended Rembrandt’s abilities as a draughtsman:
He did not delight in exquisite contour, in harmoniously
established proportions and with art of level-headed
lines; but as he thoroughly possessed a feeling for form,
as he knew how to give the figure he invented an expression accurate and suitable for their position, as his sense
of life was as developed as his sense of light, we can assert
that he did not lack the genius of drawing and that, if he
did not make the same use of it as other equally illustrious masters, it was because his temperament was opposed
to this interpretation of nature, of this choice of the standards which constitute real beauty.198
Even with all these attempts to improve Rembrandt’s reputation as a
draughtsman, his drawings were still undervalued in Academic circles
and he was included in only a negligible number of published drawing
courses. These publications served as resources for art students and as
supplements to classes run by the Academy. Indeed, few non-Italian or
non-French examples were promoted by leading French art institutions. Raphael was systematically highlighted in the courses prior to
1850 and Domenichino, Reni, Poussin, and Lebrun were also popular.
Rembrandt figured in only two of these published drawing courses:
Antoine Etex’s Cours élémentaire de dessin, published in 1850 and 1851,
and in Marie-Elisabeth Cavé’s Cours de dessin sans maître, published in
1851 and 1852. Cavé was one of the few instructors who urged students to study a wide range of models.199 Two decades later, in 1872,
Etex was also permitted to present his views in a series of courses at the
88
École des Beaux-Arts.200 Still, Rembrandt was never one of the past
artists whose drawings attained a privileged status among the principal
French institutions of art instruction.
Rembrandt’s drawings were also not well displayed at the
Louvre. Although it was possible to study his techniques in the paintings hanging in the Louvre or in private collections, few of Rembrandt’s drawings were readily accessible. Of the approximately 36,000
graphic works of western European origin then at the Louvre, the
principal public French repository for such works, only 1,420 were accessible to visitors.201 Of these exhibited or accessible drawings, the
schools were represented as follows: 765 French, 456 Italian, 88 Flemish, 60 Dutch, 35 German, 4 unknown German, Flemish, or Dutch,
and 3 Spanish.
Italian and primarily French drawings were clearly promoted as
the most valuable models in the context of this important institution.
Of the comparatively few drawings by Dutch artists, Rembrandt was
the best represented with six works.202 But this presentation was overwhelmed by the preference given to Raphael (20), Rubens (28), Charles Lebrun (32), Nicolas Poussin (32), Annibale Carracci (39), and
above all Eustache Lesueur (176). Drawing techniques and the perfection of forms found in nature, which related to antique art and conformed to practices promoted by the Academy, dominated the Louvre.
In this context, exposure denoted the level of official approval.
Rembrandt’s drawing techniques were, therefore, something
that French artists and critics had to actively and consciously seek out.
They were not promoted by the leading institutions for the education
or exhibition of art and did not enjoy either the validation or promotion such establishments could offer. In fact, the way in which most
French critics described Rembrandt’s drawing placed him outside tradition, someone different from Italian and French Academic standards,
and an alternative to standard models.
These standards were, however, also the subject of much debate
and criticism in the 1860s. Following Napoleon III’s decree to reform
the École des Beaux-Arts in 1863, alternative models were promoted
as aesthetic dogma and academic authority increasingly came under
89
attack.203 Although the changes made to the École des Beaux-Arts
were ultimately superficial, the debate over art instruction in France
introduced into Academic circles many of the ideas that were affiliated
with Rembrandt during this period. The reform debate centered on
the question of originality and such related ideas as spontaneity,
naiveté, authenticity, purity, and truth. The reform promoted a new
approach to teaching that would develop originality in students, since
originality had come to be seen as the heart of artistic creativity.
Drawing classes remained the foundation and core of the school and,
under the new regime, instructors were supposed to free the subjectivity of their students to allow them to develop their own individual
qualities. Problems arose as it became apparent that the ideas of teaching and originality were paradoxical; how could one teach students to
be innovative? Nonetheless, the debate around altering the school’s
curriculum promoted ideas such as innovation, independence, and
non-conformity in the most powerful art circles in France.
The encouragement of freedom and originality in drawing
within academic circles came at the same time as many French critics
were promoting those very traits in Rembrandt’s drawings. Thus, the
questioning of the teaching practices of the Academy was a part of the
changing attitudes towards aesthetics in France which enabled an artist
like Rembrandt to be regarded by some – particularly those who challenged the hegemony of traditionally recognized artists and techniques
– as a valid precursor for contemporary artists.
Rembrandt’s Nudes
Questions concerning the value of Rembrandt’s art with regard to
drawing and beauty in art were wrought with a specific debate over his
depictions of the female body. Rembrandt’s images of female nudes
were subject to criticism as early as Houbraken and in the eighteenth
century Gersaint found them “intolerable.” 204 In the nineteenth century, French critics and artists unanimously agreed that Rembrandt did
not depict nude female figures following the perfected forms of Greek
90
fig. 6 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Nude Female Seated on a Mound, 1631
and Roman sculpture. Some saw this opposition to ancient traditions
as a positive and others as a negative trait. While Rembrandt’s renderings of nude male figures drew little attention, his female nudes, such
as Nude Female Seated on a Mound [fig. 6], were typically regarded as
overweight and fleshy, unposed bodies presented in an unaltered form.
Deemed imperfect, Rembrandt’s nudes were a subject of criticism among those who defined the beauty of a nude female form relative to the classical traditions that dominated French art well into the
nineteenth century. Well-known examples, such as female nudes painted by Ingres, Gérôme, and Cabanel among others, all conformed to
classical ideal standards. With such comparisons in mind, Fromentin
thought Rembrandt depicted only deformed women.205 Even Montabert, who suggested Rembrandt’s drawing may have been better than
that of Romano or Carracci, remained critical of his rendering of the
female form: “It is true that we are forced to admit that Rembrandt
never knew the beauty and elegance of the nude. Whoever looks, for
example, at one of his Bathsheba or a Susanna at the Bath, sees nothing
but gross and shapeless nudity; that cannot be challenged.” 206 Lenormant held the same view and said he did not like the Bathsheba from
the Lacaze collection [plate 11], Rembrandt’s bather in the National
Gallery in London, or any of the prints depicting Hendrickje Stoffels.
Lenormant said that “Charles Blanc was not severe enough with these
deplorable works, which nothing, even the painter and printmaker’s always great skill, makes up for the ignoble character, which goes as low
as Courbet’s bathers.” 207
The Bathsheba and Susanna paintings at the Louvre were even
published in La Vie Parisienne [figs. 7 & 8] in 1870 in a series of caricatures done after works in the Lacaze collection donated to the Louvre in 1869.208 These caricatures emphasized the same traits as the
critics. The lumpy forms of the women’s breasts, buttocks and legs and
the accompanying texts reinforced the conception of Rembrandt’s depictions of the female body as ugly, dirty and entirely unappealing.
The illustrator Hix commented on Rembrandt’s Bathsheba: “A pretty
painting, but a nasty woman, and the tones are pushed to black. Never
was a bath more opportune.” 209 The accompanying caption read:
92
fig. 7 – Hix, Woman at the Bath, caricature after
Rembrandt, 1870
fig. 8 – Hix, Bathsheba, caricature after Rembrandt, 1870
“Hurry up: King David is watching me. I don’t care for him to see me
with a hangnail.” 210 The caption below Woman at the Bath, which was
sometimes referred to as Susanna, read: “Oh, this little foot! This little
foot! All of your water, oh profound sea won’t be enough to make it
presentable.” 211 Such perceptions of Rembrandt’s female nudes as base
and vile were a significant component in the attack on his refusal to
convey ideal form and beauty in art.
The artist Legros took the matter of Rembrandt’s nudes so seriously he even thought many of the works were incorrectly attributed
to Rembrandt. Legros claimed that the only nudes Rembrandt ever executed were the prints Jupiter and Antiope and Black Woman Lying
Down. He also refused to accept the idea that Rembrandt ever produced a work on an erotic subject. What appears now as prudishness
on Legros’ part indicates how he thought attributing erotic subjects to
Rembrandt would detract from his evaluation of the Old Master. In
Rembrandt’s defense, Legros said: “The respect that I feel for Rembrandt’s genius, the special studies that I have made after his printed
93
work, obliges me to communicate to the public an opinion which
seems reasonable to me in every respect.” 212
For some, however, Rembrandt’s renderings of the female nude
offered an alternative to tradition. In 1846, when Gautier saw Susanna
at the Bath before it was purchased by Paul Périer, he praised its “natural grandeur.” 213 And when this painting and Rembrandt’s Bathsheba
were donated to the Louvre, two prominent artists, Léon Bonnat and
Tony Robert Fleury, exclaimed that Bathsheba was the most beautiful
painting in the collection and they believed no other nude was more
powerfully executed than Bathsheba’s torso.214 While the predominant
view was critical, evaluations of Rembrandt’s nudes were clearly subject to whether or not the viewer’s notion of female beauty was informed by traditional notions of perfected, sculpted forms. Rembrandt’s example offered an alternative to that tradition.
Refashioning Concepts of Beauty and Ideal Art:
Rembrandt versus Raphael
The definition of beauty, one the most important aesthetic issues addressed by artists and critics in nineteenth-century France, was also intertwined with debates concerning the value of Rembrandt. Rembrandt held a multifaceted position within this debate, indicating both
the increasingly broad definitions of beauty and the difficulty most
French artists and critics had in forming a clear sense of beauty that
was not in some way contradictory. Discussions of whether there was
any beauty to be found in Rembrandt’s art and how to quantify or justify those findings provides significant insight into this central debate
and also illuminates one of the key means by which Rembrandt was increasingly regarded as an Old Master to admire and emulate.
Since the foundation of the French Academy, Italian art, and
specifically the work of Raphael, had stood as a principal benchmark
for conventional definitions of beauty and good or high-quality art. As
discussed above, drawing was a primary component of this definition.
Definitions of “ideal” art largely referred to the following standards:
94
Italian and classical art and traditions and a rendering of forms in an
improved if not perfected manner rather than precisely as they exist
before the eye. For the most part, however, writers did not define their
terms clearly. As early as the 1830s, French critics raised questions surrounding what constituted beauty and the value of “ideal” beauty in
conjunction with Rembrandt. Those questions grew in force and quantity in the following decades.
In their attempts to raise Rembrandt’s status as one of the most
significant Old Masters, French artists and critics negotiated the
Dutch artist’s position relative to entrenched traditions in different
ways. Some compared Rembrandt’s work to ideal art and ideal beauty
in an attempt to validate his achievements, as they had in their approach to his drawings. Others suggested beauty could assume many
forms and proposed that the spectrum of its definition should not be
limited as in the past. Many set Rembrandt up in opposition to the traditional characterization of beauty and thus hailed his achievements as
new and different from conventional models. Martin Rosenberg cogently evaluated the changing values of ideal beauty in his study of
Raphael and nineteenth-century France as follows:
As the century progressed, however, Raphael became a
less vital model as art diverged from the grand ideal still
cherished by Ingres and Delacroix. Their followers tended to turn to different models from past art to create
works with very different qualities than the grand goût of
Raphael... By Manet’s time, the seemingly immutable
values of ideal beauty, for which Raphael’s art had so long
served as paradigm, had fallen victim to modernity.215
Indicating this shift, Charles Baudelaire’s theory of beauty as outlined
in his well-known essay, “The Painter of Modern Life” (first published
in 1863), provides insight into the complexity of the debate. At the beginning of his essay, Baudelaire lamented that so many people, including artists, went to the Louvre and overlooked many interesting works
to sit in front of a work by Titian or Raphael. Then, when they left the
95
museum, they said to themselves: “I know my museum.” For Baudelaire, Raphael did not represent everything in art. In addition to the
“general beauty” of classical artists and writers he suggested people
look to the “particular beauty,” which could be found under varying
circumstances and in different customs. He was thankful that at least in
recent years the situation had begun to be corrected.216 In the context
of his essay, which promoted the work of caricaturist and lithographer
Constantin Guys, Baudelaire took the opportunity to propose what he
called a rational and historical theory of beauty:
Beauty is always, inevitably, of a double composition, even
though the impression it gives is one.... Beauty is made of
an eternal, invariable element, whose quantity is excessively difficult to determine, and of a relative, circumstancial element, which will be, if you like, each in turn or all
together, the era, the fashion, the morals, the passion. 217
Baudelaire’s promotion of a more diverse definition of beauty and the
importance of using contemporary life and society as a subject relates
to the tactics many of his contemporaries used to defend Rembrandt.
There are also numerous parallels between the popularized elements
of Rembrandt’s biography in nineteenth-century France and Baudelaire’s description of Guys, his ideal modern artist. Baudelaire said Guys
drew like a barbarian, was self-educated, a printmaker, took an interest
in everything around him, chose his models from crowds of people,
was a passionate observer obsessed with analyzing forms in nature, and
produced “shadowy sketches.” Baudelaire’s call for a definition of
beauty that would accommodate an artist who had the background and
techniques of Guys would, therefore, also accommodate Rembrandt.
Writers who looked specifically at the issue of beauty and Rembrandt’s art tried either to justify his conception of beauty relative to
tradition, called for a change in the definition of beauty, or set Rembrandt up as a model counter to conventional ideas about ideal beauty.
Critics who compared Rembrandt’s art to predetermined definitions of
ideal art and beauty sought to inscribe him within the boundaries of
96
the sanctioned canon of quality art. These writers did not challenge
predominant conventions, rather their strategy was to place Rembrandt within established customs. They believed that if they could
prove Rembrandt’s worth on a par with traditionally valued art they
would raise awareness of his significance.
Vosmaer was among those critics who sought to advance
Rembrandt’s stature by evaluating him as equal to entrenched models.
In his response to Fromentin’s attacks on Rembrandt in the Revue des
deux mondes, Vosmaer defended Rembrandt’s art by comparing it to
that of Raphael and the Egyptians. He suggested the art of Rembrandt,
Raphael, and the Egyptians were all examples of exceptional art and
needed time and consideration to be understood properly. Vosmaer
believed that if Fromentin had only taken more time to examine The
Night Watch and consider its achievements, then he would have understood it better and, thus, appreciated its value.
It is the ordinary effect of an exceptional work of
art, of many paintings of a superior level. Raphael
does not always satisfy the first to come, nor at
first glance. Often even with well-known artists,
seeing them for the first time, we say: is that it?
To appreciate Shakespeare, one has to understand him, and understanding is not achieved except by the force of penetrating his works a bit at
a time. Egyptian art does not charm at first glance;
when you penetrate it, it captivates you.218
Vosmaer made use of such comparisons to the accepted canon when it
suited his purposes. In general, he rejected the terms realist and idealist
as products of his own time and did not think they should be applied to
Rembrandt or any past art. Vosmaer did not think Rembrandt was a
realist even though he taught his students only to study from nature.
He allowed that Rembrandt liked nature and reality, but claimed that
the Dutch artist studied the ugly in order to render it picturesque in
his images of the poor. In this way, Vosmaer defended Rembrandt as
97
both a poet and an idealist.219 Unlike the majority of his contemporaries, Vosmaer was apprehensive about connecting terms such as
realist with Rembrandt and perhaps feared that associations with the
controversial realist movement in France would be detrimental to
Rembrandt’s reputation and potentially marginalize his significance.
Coquerel also questioned whether, following contemporary terminology, he should group Rembrandt with the realists or the idealists.
He concluded it would be impossible to deny that Rembrandt was a realist “to the greatest degree, to excess” since he found nothing ugly or
unworthy of study in nature.220 Coquerel cited The Slaughtered Ox in
the Louvre as an example of Rembrandt embracing all subjects, regardless of their moral or physical ugliness. Despite Rembrandt’s wideranging choice of subject matter, which Coquerel often found coarse
or rude, he saw other works as intrinsically ideal as any artist could create. Coquerel cited another work in the Louvre, Angel Raphael Leaving
Tobias and His Family [plate 3], as an example of his notion of the ideal
strain in Rembrandt’s œuvre. Coquerel then concluded that the latter
painting in fact incorporated both the ideal and real aspects of Rembrandt’s art. Coquerel’s definitions of real and ideal remained vague
and his emphasis was principally on subject matter rather than the formal issues that concerned other critics. He attempted to engage in the
debate between real and ideal but ultimately collapsed the two terms.
Théophile Gautier had similar difficulty extricating himself
from accepted definitions of good art and ideal beauty. Like most of
the critics, however, he did not question whether or not applying the
then-popular terms realist and idealist to past art was appropriate. In
his essay “De beau dans l’art,” Gautier described Rembrandt as an
artist who took his subjects from nature but who did not simply reproduce forms as he saw them. Rather he said Rembrandt had a preconceived notion or dream of what ideal beauty was and thus remained
only partially objective.221 The artist Auguste Couder even found a
place for Rembrandt in his study of the moral purpose of art. Couder
preferred defining beauty as contour and line following Greek traditions of order and symmetry, but he made room for Rembrandt in his
chapter on color and compared his achievements to those of Apelles.222
98
Other artists and critics, who did not seek to place Rembrandt
within established conventions, advocated a broader definition of beauty that would value real and ideal imagery equally. For example,
Planche thought admiration or emulation of Raphael’s drawing technique should not exclude an artist from also looking to Rembrandt. He
believed contemporary definitions of beauty were too exclusive and
ought to include everyday subjects which some regarded as too banal
to be worthy of close artistic study.
The popular critic, the one who only sees in the history
of art a determined period to the exclusion of all others,
who calls Latin poetry Virgil, French poetry Fénélon,
and painting Raphael, accuses the most beautiful of
Rembrandt’s compositions of triviality... What does that
mean in effect? Is human reality not the first and most indispensible element of a picturesque work? 223
The landscape artist Paul Huet, in his notes on beauty written in 1854,
called for a redefinition of beauty so that Rembrandt’s presentation of
everyday subject matter would be more highly regarded. His interest
in Rembrandt can best be understood when one considers that such a
reevaluation would also serve to elevate the status of Huet’s own art
and the subject matter and method of painting of the artists affiliated
with his circle at Barbizon. Huet’s interest was, without a doubt, a
vested interest. Huet rejected previous attemps to define beauty and
used Rembrandt as the prime example of what the new explanation of
beauty should include:
Philosophers have formed many theories on art and
beauty; artists love art and that is all there is to it...
Beauty neither imposes nor defines itself: the ordinary
ignore it, the artist feels it, likes it and looks for it...
Beauty is everywhere... A pile of manure overrun by
poultry can become sublime in Rembrandt’s hand. This
base and trivial subject, handled by the master, will carry
99
us to an imaginary world, across luminous rays which
shine on the artist as well as his subject; everything, right
up to his execution, charms us, makes us think along with
him. Ungraspable beauty will be everywhere, maybe even
right down to the artist’s faults.224
Further, in an attempt to position Rembrandt as judiciously as possible, Charles Blanc tried to negotiate a position for him as an artist both
inside and outside tradition. He said Rembrandt formed an independent way of treating line by looking to nature and depicting truthful
expressions of subjects rather than placing ugliness outside the realm
of art. In this way, Blanc said Rembrandt belonged entirely to modern
art, which he defined as specifically Christian.225 But Blanc was also
unable to escape from established conventions encompassing the value
of beauty and ideal form. Blanc fell back on what he vaguely termed
Rembrandt’s profound imagination to explain what he believed mediated between the real and ideal realms in Rembrandt’s art.226 Blanc ultimately tried to escape from the complexities of this debate by saying
that Rembrandt’s art represented a new ideal.227 Thus, he said Rembrandt assumed an exceptional status as the only Dutch artist capable
of producing ideal art in a country that did not have this tradition.
The majority of French critics believed Rembrandt’s art was
self-consciously opposed to Italian traditions and ideal art. Jules Renouvier, author of an important print treatise discussed in Chapter
Five, declared Rembrandt a dissenting artist who went against the
principles of art derived from Italy. Renouvier defined Rembrandt
as an artist of his own time whose mission was to capture the life and
humanity in his community with the utmost veracity. He wrote:
Rembrandt is neither an idealist, nor an eclectic, he is a
fantastic and real artist, whose lynx eye sees humanity in
its most reality in Amsterdam... he represented only the
truth and vivacity of life, with the privilege of being both
the most finished and most free painting... He reacted
against the theories and examples coming from Rome, as
100
much by his manner of rendering correct forms, as by his
way of hearing the gospel. Inspired by his own time and
drenched in nature, equal to the greatest artists, he had a
unique gift: he makes the sublime from the base.228
Yet, even as Renouvier identified Rembrandt as a realist, he invoked
the term sublime in an attempt to bolster the artist’s achievements further. Lenormant held the same view as Renouvier and said Rembrandt
was “a man whose genius was one of the most polar opposites to classicism and the beauty of style.” 229
In opposing Rembrandt and Italian art, several French writers
developed a dialectical model in which Rembrandt and Raphael represented the two extremes that existed in past art.230 While presenting
Rembrandt as the model anti-establishment artist, they also asserted he
was the only plausible example of a modern artist who contemporary
French artists could or should revere and try to rival.
Houssaye also ascribed to the traditional description of Raphael
and Phidias as examples of ideal beauty in his attempt to define the
beauty of Flemish and Dutch art. He criticized northern artists for
blindly following Plato’s philosophy that “beauty is the splendour of
truth” instead of ascribing to the interpretive aspect of Aristotle’s theory, which held that “art is the imitation of nature,” where the imitative process included some element of transformation. Although Houssaye ranked Rembrandt and northern art’s terrestrial ideal or ideal of
reason after antique and Christian ideals, he nonetheless thought there
should be room for Rembrandt in the pantheon of beauty.
Given this ranking, it seems paradoxical that Houssaye also
commented that Raphael did not inspire any artists but tormented
many, whereas he said Rembrandt marked the beginning of a new art:
“Raphael did not create one painter, he drove a thousand to despair: in
one it is the known world, the final word, the crowning of the work; in
Rembrandt, the daring and magical colorist, it is again the beginning
of the world. It is a new dawn which brightens art.”231 Houssaye’s conception of Rembrandt as a new world reappeared later in Les Dieux et
les demi-dieux de la peinture, by which point his approach to beauty was
101
far less strict. Houssaye no longer sought to establish a hierarchy of
approaches to aesthetics, but to understand the different routes artists
took to reach their own definition of beauty.232
Nevertheless, for some, setting up Raphael and Rembrandt as
polar opposites was a highly controversial venture. In 1851, Delacroix
feared he would be criticized for comparing the two, particularly since
he concluded that Rembrandt’s art was more beautiful than that of
Raphael. Delacroix wrote in his journal:
I am very sure that if Rembrandt had held himself down
to this studio practice [drawing every figure nude before
putting clothing on them], he would not have either that
power of pantomime nor that power over effects which
makes his scenes so genuinely the expression of nature.
Perhaps it will be discovered that Rembrandt is a far
greater painter than Raphael. I write this blasphemy –
one that will make every school-man’s hair stand on end
– without coming to an absolute decision in the matter;
but the further I go on in life the more I feel within me
that truth is what is most beautiful, and most rare. Rembrandt has not, if you will, the absolute elevation of
Raphael. Perhaps that elevation which Raphael has in the
lines, in the majesty of each one of his figures, is to be
found again in Rembrandt’s mysterious conception of his
subjects, in the deep naturalness of expressions and of gestures. Although one may prefer that majestic emphasis of
Raphael, which perhaps belongs to that grandeur of certain subjects, one might affirm, without causing oneself
to be stoned by men of taste – by which I mean of a genuine and sincere taste – that the great Dutchman was more
natively a painter than the studious pupil of Perugino.233
Three years later in 1854, in his article “Question sur le beau” in the
Revue des deux mondes, Delacroix readdressed his earlier comparison
between Rembrandt and Raphael. In this context he asserted, with
102
greater confidence, that people should not restrict themselves to traditional definitions of beauty. Delacroix found as much beauty in Rembrandt’s popular types as he did in what he referred to as primitive
German and Italian art which was not tied to notions of ideal beauty
entrenched in ancient art. Thus, Delacroix presented Rembrandt as a
new path to an unconventional conception of beauty, one not tied to
classical traditions. Nonetheless, he still felt compelled to prove that
Rembrandt’s art could measure up to that of the ancients and could
not resist comparing Rembrandt to Phidias. Delacroix declared that
the principal laws of taste – which were embodied by unity, variety,
proportion and expression – were as strong in one of Rembrandt’s portraits of a beggar in rags as Phidias’ sculptures of Jupiter or Athena. 234
While Delacroix placed Rembrandt outside tradition he still struggled
with inherited definitions of beauty and sought to validate the Dutch
artist’s worth relative to those practices.
Thoré-Bürger experienced the same dilemma and also situated
Rembrandt and Raphael in opposition to one another. Thoré-Bürger
recalled looking at two images in a journal where portraits of Raphael
and Rembrandt were placed facing away from one another. To ThoréBürger Raphael looked backwards to the past; he was a flower about to
wilt. In contrast, he thought Rembrandt looked forward to the future;
he was a root taking hold that would grow and develop. This image
inspired his germinal analogy of Raphael and Rembrandt representing
the Janus of art. Thoré-Bürger said Raphael looked at humanity abstractly while Rembrandt looked directly, with his own eyes. In spite
of all this praise of Rembrandt, Thoré-Bürger still bemoaned the fact
that the artist was born in the Netherlands instead of Italy: “Oh! If
Rembrandt, with his free and original genius, could rise again in a
country like Italy, this eternal country of beauty, he would have given
light to superb creations.” 235 A few years later, in the context of his salon criticism, Thoré-Bürger referred back to this ideal in his description of the two types of modern art. “There are only two types in modern art: Raphael and Rembrandt, an ‘a priori’ and an ‘a posteriori’
artist, a philosopher of aesthetics would say; an artist who works from
an ideal conceived by himself, and an artist who works from nature.” 236
103
It is perhaps not surprising that Thoré-Bürger and Delacroix were the
two principal exponents of the Rembrandt versus Raphael paradigm
given their close friendship and the ideas they shared, beginning as
early as the late 1830s through to Delacroix’s death in 1863.237 Delacroix and Thoré-Bürger both believed that Rembrandt was the only
plausible example for the future of modern art.
Socialist and political writer Pierre Joseph Proudhon held a similar view. In his mind Rembrandt was superior to Raphael because he
took on contemporary subjects and found new ways to solve formal
issues. For Proudhon the central mission of modern art was to find a
means of depicting contemporary life without subscribing to artistic
conventions. As a result, Rembrandt was the exemplar he promoted
for contemporary artists. He said: “Raphael would have retreated from
contemporary events, which he would desperately have wanted to depict in an ideal form. This is precisely the problem that art has to overcome, and it is because Rembrandt overcame this issue that his glory
surpasses that of Raphael one hundred fold.”238
Rembrandt was also an important subject for the Goncourt
brothers and their notion of the future of modern art as separate from
traditional definitions of ideal art. In a complex passage in their journal, they suggested that the great ideal works of art were created by
artists who had no knowledge of definitions of ideal. The Goncourts’
conception of ideal or perfect art was not the Italian ideal, they said,
but a mixture of Rembrandt and the French printmaker and caricaturist Gavarni, a blend of reality transformed by light, shadow, and a
poetic blend of colors.239
French artists and critics used Rembrandt’s art to challenge definitions of beauty promoted by the Academy for two centuries. Rembrandt’s example justified broader interpretations of beauty and thus
he offered an example for others to follow in their own quest for new
forms of art. Whether they promoted Rembrandt as a part of the
canon of good art or an alternative to that canon, each offered Rembrandt as the principal archetype of modern art.
Rembrandt emerges from this intersection of aesthetic theories
as an entirely realist or a partially idealist artist, depending on the
104
exponent’s view and whether the critic or artist sought to incorporate
Rembrandt into the established canon or wanted to place him outside
tradition as a beacon for others to follow. It was particularly useful for
critics who wanted to promote their contemporaries affiliated with the
French group known as the Realists to praise the realism of Dutch art
and Rembrandt’s success as an artist who depicted real life in a truthful
manner.
There are considerable parallels between the terms applied to
Rembrandt’s art and the language associated with realism in France as
defined by its principal exponents. In fact, one of the few occasions
when the term realism was used before 1840 was in reference to Rembrandt. In an article in the Revue des deux mondes in 1835, Gustave
Planche referred to the “realism of Rembrandt” to explain the lack of
“poetic ideal” in his art.240 As discussed in the previous chapter, the
rhetoric around Rembrandt’s artistic persona emphasized his individuality and his independence from teachers or past traditions. The words
originality, novelty, sincerity, truth, and reality were the most commonly repeated descriptors applied to his art.
Defining “Realism” has been the subject of considerable debate
for at least the past two decades but its general principles, as outlined
by its earliest advocates, included claims of optical verisimilitude, individuality, contemporaneity, and a commitment to truth, honesty, and
sincerity.241 Such declarations formed what has been referred to as the
“Realist myth.” At the same time, this myth embodied many of the
tenets that were being assigned to Rembrandt’s artistic persona.
Exponents of the French realist artists wanted to defend precisely the same characteristics, which epitomized the realist’s goals.
Among their earliest supporters, Champfleury published his defense of
realist art, specifically works produced by his friend Gustave Courbet,
in an article in the widely read journal L’Artiste in September 1855.242
Champfleury praised Courbet for being born a painter (rather than becoming one through education), and said that artists triumphed when
they observed their subjects and painted the individuality of their sitters. He advocated that artists take up both ugly and beautiful subjects
so that they can depict things truthfully, as they exist. A few months
105
later, Fernand Desnoyers published his defense of realism, again in
L’Artiste.243 He declared that realism signified depicting the true representation of objects and that the artists involved had not formed a
school but rather followed the principles of independence, sincerity,
and individualism. Desnoyers believed realist artists had to present
their own world and their own time and while their art would not be
an apology for the ugly and negative aspects of society, they had the
right to represent what exists before their eyes. The following year,
Edmond Duranty founded Réalisme, which he intended to be a monthly journal and a platform for artists and writers associated with the
group. In the first issue, Duranty outlined what were, in his mind, the
principal tenets of realism: sincerity, truth, independence, naiveté,
spontaneity, attacking convention, and reproducing the social milieu of
the period in which the artists lived.244
Part of the appeal of Dutch art, and particularly the work of
Rembrandt, for such critics as Houssaye, Thoré-Bürger, Planche, and
the Goncourts was that it provided them with a precedent for the principles of the French realists.245 Promoting this art of the past and asserting its value served to justify the goals French artists and critics
identified with realist art in their own period. As quoted in the previous chapter, Thoré-Bürger even consoled the realists with the example
of Rembrandt, saying that one day they too would gain the recognition
they deserve, just like Rembrandt.
Replacing Rubens
While Rembrandt was being mythologized, the status of his closest
northern rival for latter-day hero worship, Rubens, was being dismantled. The leading Flemish painter of the seventeenth century, Rubens
was also an important diplomat and his skills and extensive workshop
brought him international commissions, including the famous cycle on
the life of Marie de’Medici, executed for the Palais de Luxembourg
between 1621 and 1625. This series of 24 paintings, now in the Louvre, was an important subject of study among later artists. Rubens is
106
frequently cited as the forerunner of the rising interest in color theory
among French artists in the early nineteenth century. Rubens was, indeed, an important figure for nineteenth-century French theories on
color, particularly the popular case of Delacroix’s interest in the optical
fusion of juxtaposed tones on the canvas, and Rubens remained a subject of interest for several French artists throughout the century. But,
as French critics focused their attention on Rembrandt, gave him the
position of head of the Dutch school and ranked Dutch art over Flemish art, they also dislodged Rubens from the hegemonic position he
had been assigned previously in France.
While there were at least two dozen studies of Rubens’ art in
nineteenth-century France, this number was well surpassed by the
quantity of French publications, over 150, on Rembrandt.246 Since
Dutch artists were regarded as a discrete group separate from Flemish
artists, Rubens was associated with Catholicism, royalty, and, in
Thoré-Bürger’s words, “conquered and enslaved people.” 247 French
critics did not suddenly begin to speak of Rubens’ art in pejorative
terms – although some were overtly negative – but the adjectives they
used to describe his art and personality positioned him as a foil and
contrasted with those they applied to Rembrandt’s art and increasingly
distanced Rubens from the principles and trends of much French art
during the second half of the nineteenth century. An analysis of these
definitions further clarifies how the increasing interest in artistic individuality and personal expression in France affected the perception of
Rembrandt as the leading northern artist.
For instance, Delacroix always maintained a certain level of interest in Rubens’ art, but his journal entries in the 1850s demonstrate a
shift in his preference from Rubens to Rembrandt along the same lines
as those of contemporary critics. Delacroix’s reevaluation of Rubens is
largely based on composition and his belief that Rembrandt was better
able to render harmoniously figures in a landscape or against a background setting. In 1854, when Delacroix looked again at a copy he had
made after a painting of Lot by Rubens, he was “astonished at the
coldness of that composition,” and said he now regarded Rembrandt as
the artist who could best fuse the primary and secondary elements of a
107
composition.248 Delacroix specifically criticized the lack of harmony in
Rubens’ landscapes in comparison with those by Rembrandt.
Delacroix was not the only one who criticized Rubens’ work.
Thoré-Bürger believed Rubens liked light too much and used too
much white in his composition, meaning that all his paintings ended
up having the same color values. He said Rubens paled in comparison
to Giorgione, Titian, Corregio and Rembrandt, the “magicians of
clair-obscur.” 249 Another critic thought Rubens was simply derivative
and an imitator of Venetian artists.250 Only Fromentin seemed to prefer Rubens. He praised Rubens’ palette and use of light as well as the
clarity with which he depicted his subjects.251 Fromentin thought
Rubens’ art was heroic, a description he could hardly reconcile with his
reading of democratic Dutch art.
Blanc contrasted the decorative, radiant, and light (referring to
content) qualities of Rubens’ art with the intimate, expressive, meditative, and profound art of Rembrandt.252 He saw Rubens’ work as superficial, while Rembrandt’s had substance and communicated emotional depth to viewers. Similarly, Thoré-Bürger compared Rubens’
art and its ability to make the viewer open up, with Rembrandt’s aim
for simplicity and the mysterious, profound, and elusive qualities of his
art, which he claimed makes the viewer meditate in front of his works.
For Thoré-Bürger, Rembrandt’s art was inside truth and Rubens’ art
was outside. By this statement, Thoré-Bürger meant that Rembrandt’s
art embodied the critic’s own conception of sincere art while Rubens’
art was devoid of his notion of veracity, for Thoré-Bürger the keystone
of good art. Furthermore, Champfleury said one becomes tired and
bored from seeing too much of Rubens’ art but he never found
Rembrandt’s work tiring.253 While Champfleury put Rubens among a
band of calm artists along with Veronese and Lebrun, he grouped
Rembrandt with Tintoretto, El Greco, and Delacroix as tormented
artists. He stated that calm artists painted simply for the sake of painting and were famous decorators but they did not bleed when they produced art, which for Champfleury meant their art was not as good.
Champfleury also thought fast producers like Rubens only used their
muscles when painting, whereas he believed tormented artists expended
108
blood and bone with every brushstroke and their human experiences
and suffering made their art superior.254 For Blanc, Thoré-Bürger and
Champfleury, Rubens’ art lacked depth and substance and was therefore not as meaningful as Rembrandt’s work for either themselves or
artists in their own time.
Rubens’ art was increasingly regarded in France as external to
the artist’s personality. His works and ideas were not believed to have
come from within himself but were seen as products largely of commissions from royalty or religious institutions. Stylistically, Rubens’
use of light and color were well respected but were not seen as offering
the same ingenuity as the contrasting tones of Rembrandt’s paintings.
While French critics found some innovative aspects in Rubens’ work,
they put originality at the heart of Rembrandt’s œuvre. This repositioning of Rembrandt over Rubens as the most important northern
artist in nineteenth-century France corresponded with attempts on the
part of many French artists and critics to assert the same principles –
individuality and independence – in the art of their own period. Their
desire to produce original art and to work outside the confines of institutions was integral to how they reconfigured Rembrandt over Rubens
as the leading northern European artist.
Rembrandt as a Populist, Reformer,
and Politically Active Figure
In addition to using Rembrandt to validate and encourage changing
views on aesthetics, several writers also employed his artistic persona
to advance their own political agendas in France. They were particularly attracted to Rembrandt because they believed he embodied the
anti-Catholic, anti-monarchic, pro-democratic, and pro-republican
sentiments they wanted to promote in their own country. In many
instances the personal politics of French writers spurred on their interest in and presentation of Dutch art and society. As demonstrated
above, French critics praised the way in which Dutch society established its independence after a revolution and developed a “popular” or
109
“Republican” government. At the same time they admired how the
Dutch school of art flowered when it was freed from the monarchy and
papacy. These views take on greater relevance within the context of
the battle between monarchical power and attempts to establish a democratic, republican government as well as debates over the power of
the Catholic Church in France during the nineteenth century.
While the political views of French critics often determined
their interest in Rembrandt and Dutch art, some made only allusions
to the relevance of the Dutch example for France while others made
overt connections to political changes they thought should take place
in their own country. Blanc was one of the more subtle figures, but his
interests can be interpreted by comparing how he defined Dutch art
and the way in which he spoke of the direction he thought French politics should take. In 1848, the year of a major revolutionary uprising in
France, Blanc announced in a speech following his appointment as
Director of Fine Arts that “pure monarchy” and “strong democracy”
were the only forms of government that were positive for art. He concluded that democracies always created better art by making the production of art a heroic task while monarchy made art a slave to its
whims.255
Blanc said that the freedom artists enjoyed in the Netherlands
made Dutch art one of the most significant schools in the world. His
praise of Dutch republicanism, Protestantism, and independence were
the opposite of the political, religious, and artistic strongholds of nineteenth-century France and suggests what he thought should take place
in France in order to make the French school more important. Blanc’s
political position can be described alternately as progressive and conservative and his close relationship with his brother Louis Blanc, one
of the most famous socialists and a member of the government of
1848, connected him to political circles that favored republicanism.
Blanc wanted a revolution in France that would change both industry
and art. His publications on Dutch art must be considered within the
larger context of his political agenda as a pro-democracy activist who
had left France at the beginning of the Second Empire and who wrote
largely in a period of self-imposed asylum before returning to France
110
and reassuming his position as Director of Fine Arts after the Revolution of 1870. It appears, therefore, that Blanc’s characterization of
Dutch art and his particular interest in Rembrandt was largely determined by his own political mission to promote democratic forms of art
and government in France.
Blanc had widespread support. Edgar Quinet, a historian, professor, and politician, used the Netherlands and specifically Rembrandt
as the prime example from the past for the possibilities of reform and
revolution in his own day. Quinet was a Professor at the Collège de
France from 1841, but because he offended the French clergy with his
texts Jesuits (1843) and Ultramontanisme (1844) he was exiled in 1851.
He then lived in Brussels and only returned to France in 1870.
Quinet’s praise of Dutch reform in the seventeenth century and
of Rembrandt as the historian of the Netherlands epitomized the type
of reform he explicitly advocated should take place in France. Quinet
also connected Rembrandt to the Calvinist Marnix de Saint-Aldegonde
(Philippe de Marnix, Baron de Sainte-Aldegonde) who had fought
against Spanish rule and the Catholic Church in the Netherlands. To
Quinet, Rembrandt’s art represented Marnix’s iconoclastic writings
and Marnix represented the type of leadership that was needed to
change the religious system of nineteenth-century France. Quinet
believed previous biographers of Rembrandt had not paid adequate attention to his significance for Dutch reform. He wrote:
How have Rembrandt’s biographers and his interpretors
forgotten up to now his character of reform? That should
be the starting point. Rembrandt is the Historian of the
Netherlands much more than Strada, Hooft or Grotius.
He makes the revolution palpable, he clarifies thousands
of its aspects without knowing it. On the other hand, the
reform shows him for what he is, it unveils him; without
it, he would remain a sort of inexplicable monster in the
history of the arts. His bible is the bible of the iconoclast
Marnix, his apostles are mendicants; his Christ the Christ
of beggars.256
111
Quinet believed Rembrandt’s art could only be understood in relation
to the revolutionary period in which the artist had lived.
Rembrandt and the Dutch reform movement in the seventeenth
century appealed to Quinet because he regarded them as harbingers of
the revolution he wanted to see take place in France. His interest centered specifically on Amsterdam and around Rembrandt as an artist
opposed to institutions and traditions. Further, Quinet admired the
powerful role of Protestantism in the Netherlands:
[Amsterdam] is a city of refuge. The multitudes of the
banished, outlaws, exiles from all nations, of all origins,
who stripped and ruined crowd towards the United Provinces, give the crowds in Rembrandt’s work a variety of
types, of physiognomies, of races, that no other painter
equaled... Rembrandt broke with all tradition, just as his
church broke with all authority; He replays nothing but
himself and his immediate inspiration.257
Quinet designated Rembrandt the “historian of the Netherlands” and
believed his artistic persona embodied the very anti-Catholic, anticlerical tendencies he wanted his contemporaries in France to emulate.
Quinet specifically wanted to abolish the Concordat of 1802, which
had restored the position of the Catholic Church under Napoleon I.
His ultimate goal was to make the Catholic church a private institution
with no control over education so that the state-run schools would instruct the future citizens of the French Republic.258
Rembrandt’s art was also the paradigm for writer and Protestant
minister Coquerel fils’ views on the direction French art and religious
politics should take. In Rembrandt et l’individualisme dans l’art, Coquerel identified Rembrandt as an artist imbued with what he defined as
the Protestant values of independence, liberty, and individualism.259
Rembrandt was, for him, a revolutionary figure who fought against
monotony and the official character of Catholic art. Coquerel called
Rembrandt “the great rebel” because of his non-Catholic choice of
subject matter.260 He aligned Rembrandt with Protestantism and then
112
used the artist as evidence that beauty was not foreign to Protestantism
and that the religion was not hostile to art. Coquerel concluded his
study with an exegesis of his anti-Catholic politics: “Traditional art, official art, sacred art, is worn out: it has had its time; it is in vain that we
try to resuscitate, to galvanize Catholic art from the middle ages during the nineteenth century.” He promoted “individualist and spontaneous art, by which man, artist, thinker, poet represent not what is offical and condemned, but what for him is reality, movement, color,
truth, life... Also, just as in the past we cried on the tomb of the kings
of France: ‘the king is dead: long live the king!’ we can say today, in
the presence of monuments closed to Catholic art which will never
waken from its sleep: official art, sacred art is dead, and well dead: long
live liberal art, individual art, protestant art, human art!”261 By defining Rembrandt as a rebel Coquerel made him into a subject that could
fulfill the Protestant minister’s own needs. Rembrandt became the vehicle for Coquerel to project his own views and an instrument through
which he could advocate his anti-Catholic political agenda for France.
Comparisons between nineteenth-century France and seventeenth-century Holland, specifically Rembrandt’s position as an icon
of political freedom in France, were becoming so expicit that ThoréBürger was able to write to Proudhon in 1859 that simply using Rembrandt’s name could mean more for the success of the French Revolution than a demonstration organized by leading Republican political
officials. Thoré-Bürger wrote:
Yes, my idea is that we can work towards truth and justice
by talking about a ray of sunshine, and that one word
about Rembrandt could mean as much for the Revolution
as a demonstration by citizen Ledru at the Republique universelle. You are the teacher who has come to show this.
The philosopher has explained the mischievous artist and
has no doubt that Rembrandt did not go without attacking the pope and emperor.262
113
Thoré-Bürger’s mention of “citizen Ledru” refered to Ledru-Rollin
(Alexandre Auguste Ledru) a republican lawyer, who founded the journal La Réforme and was popular in 1847-48 for his calls for a democratic and social republic of France. It was, in fact, Ledru-Rollin who first
appointed Blanc Director of Fine Arts in 1848. As a provisional minister, Ledru-Rollin organized the first elections open to universal male
suffrage. A one-time candidate for President of the Republic, he was
also elected to the Legislative Assembly. In 1859, Ledru-Rollin was,
like Thoré-Bürger, living in exile; he lived first in Belgium and then in
England. He returned to France in 1871.
In comparing Rembrandt to Ledru-Rollin, Thoré-Bürger claimed that the Dutch artist was as well known in France as this significant
political figure, and that simply saying Rembrandt’s name would ignite
a response from the French public on par with Ledru-Rollin’s calls for
radical action. Thoré-Bürger believed that Rembrandt’s name and
identity embodied notions of democracy and liberty for French citizens and made him the most significant exemplar of Republican politics in contemporary France.
Thoré-Bürger thought Proudhon, a high-profile political personality, was the perfect person to use Rembrandt to advance the republican movement in France. Proudhon became well known during
the Revolution of 1848 with his journal Le Représentant du peuple and
was elected a representative in the Assembly during the June elections.
A supporter of freedom and the rights of the individual, Proudhon was
opposed to the Catholic Church and favored empowering the proletariat. He went into exile in Belgium in 1858 after the publication of
La Justice dans la Révolution et dans l’Église (1858) and remained in Brussels until 1862. Consequently, this letter was addressed to Proudhon
when both men were in exile.
Thoré-Bürger’s own critical writings on Rembrandt never included any references suggesting he either believed or found any
archival evidence that Rembrandt acted in any overt manner against
the papacy or any royal figures. Nonetheless, Thoré-Bürger extrapolated from what he knew of Rembrandt’s position as the leader of
Dutch art, an art he said represented the freedom and individuality of
114
the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, to conclude that Rembrandt’s personal politics must have been opposed to Catholicism and
Spanish rule in the Netherlands. Thoré-Bürger then used the identity
he had formulated for Rembrandt for his own political purposes.
Thoré-Bürger saw a kindred spirit in Proudhon after reading
Proudhon’s review of Musées de la Hollande: Amsterdam et la Haye in the
Belgian publication Revue trimestrielle in 1859.263 Thoré-Bürger and
Proudhon had not had personal contact before this point.264 Nevertheless, Proudhon’s views on the role of art in society and the significance of Dutch art and specifically Rembrandt as an example to French
artists in the nineteenth century were entirely in line with those of
Thoré-Bürger. Proudhon was particularly interested in Thoré-Bürger’s
account of the birth of an individual Dutch school in the early seventeenth century, after the country had gained freedom in thought and
action from Spanish rule.
Are you not tempted to exclaim to yourself, after reading
this page: Bravo for the Dutch!... Now, when a nation
separates itself from others, in this way condemning itself
to redo everything, it redoes everything. The patriotism
that gives a nation victory also produces masterpieces;
this consciousness of what is right which makes the nation heroic soon manifests itself in a new ideal.265
Rembrandt’s art and Dutch art, which Thoré-Bürger called realist,
naturalist, and an art for mankind, Proudhon called human art. For
him this was the opposite of divine art: mythological subjects and art
produced in Catholic countries.
Despite the failure of the 1848 Revolution and the continued
power of the aristocracy and Catholic Church in France, Proudhon
believed the birth of this human art in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century meant there was hope that France could also rise above
its oppressors and establish a national school. He said the religious
reform in the Netherlands banished all signs of divinity and artists
were left with the happy necessity to make art for themselves, for
115
humanity.266 Proudhon foresaw that when this occurred in France,
being a citizen would assume greater meaning for each individual, as
he believed was the case in the Dutch democracy. He wrote:
And here is exactly what explains how in France, after the
declaration of all liberties and the establishment of universal [male] suffrage, thought is still nothing, work is
nothing, the commune nothing, the individual nothing,
the people nothing: the nation stayed bowed under its
aristocratic and religious ideal. And that people work,
even without knowing it, to maintain the nation under
this yoke. It is the great mystery of modern times. There
is still hope. Human art was born spontaneously in the
seventeenth century, but the last word was not spoken
nor the phenomenon explained until the nineteenth century: from invention to explanation there is progress. 267
Proudhon’s praise of Dutch art and Rembrandt began to inform all of
his thinking. It was a central component of Proudhon’s text Du principe
de l’art et de sa destination sociale, published in 1865, in which he rejected the “ideal” art of Raphael, which he said sought not to depict nature
as it was but as the artist thought it should be. Proudhon lamented that
while Rembrandt and Dutch art had undergone reform and developed
a new aesthetic, French art remained tied to the Catholic Church and
royalty, and still looked to Greek and Roman art. He wrote:
What we need is a practical art that follows all our fortunes; which depends both on the event and the idea,
which can not be overturned in a minute and ruined by
opinion, but which progresses like reason, like humanity... Rembrandt, the Luther of painting, was for the
seventeenth century, the reformer of art. Alas, while
France, Catholic and royalist, reworked its spirit by looking to the Greeks and Romans, the reformed republic
of Holland ushered in a new aesthetic. In the painting
116
incorrectly called The Night Watch, Rembrandt painted a
scene of civic life from nature and human models, and in
one stroke, in this masterpiece of masterpieces, he eclipsed all pontifical ostentation, the coronations of princes,
noble tournaments, and the apotheosis of the ideal. In
The Anatomy Lesson, another masterpiece, where he depicted science in the form of Professor Tulp, who with
scalpel in hand and his eye fixated on the cadaver, he finished with allegories, emblems, personifications, and incarnations and reconciled for always the real and the ideal... Thus the most concrete, the most realistic looking
painting can arouse a more powerful aesthetic response,
suggest a more elevated ideal than the most idealistic
painting... In this way, the Reformation was a reaction
against Roman Catholicism in the same way as the Dutch
school reacted against Catholic art, both of the Renaissance and Middle Ages. The Reformation, by its origins
and most of its sects, was iconoclastic. This is exactly
what will determine the Revolution. Art cannot perish:
chased from the temple, it should be revived in the city
hall and in the home; condemned for its old idealism it
will be reborn in its positive and rational humanity.268
Dutch Art, said Proudhon, was the only example of past art that could
be significant for French art and the Revolution. He promoted art that
was not at the service of Catholicism but was for the people and intended to decorate public institutions and private dwellings. Proudhon
encouraged contemporary French artists to follow Rembrandt’s example and urged that they work from nature and live models. Most
importantly, he wanted art to depict contemporary life and address
issues of current relevance in society. As Dutch art had developed a
new aesthetic by turning from the example of Greek and Roman art,
Proudhon suggested French art could forge new paths by following the
northern rather than the southern example.
117
Like Thoré-Bürger, Proudhon referred to Dutch art as realist and he
added another term – positive. His use of this word must be understood within the context of the theory of positivism outlined by
Auguste Comte in 1848 in Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme.269
Proudhon drew a parallel between his conception of Dutch art and, by
using a term that referred to Comte’s theory, a philosophy which
touched on many of the principal themes of nineteenth-century political thought in France, including liberty, equality, democracy, and the
importance of the individual.
Comte’s mentor was the economist Saint-Simon, who attracted
followers throughout the nineteenth century; he promoted the fraternity of humanity and advocated that workers were the fundamental
class that nourished the nation of France.270 Like Saint-Simon, Comte’s theory rejected the traditional concept of religion and promoted a
cult of humanity. Comte sought to create a modern society based on
republicanism and held a radical view of the French Revolution. He
was opposed to compromise with the papacy or the restoration of
monarchy in any form, advocating French society be organized without God or king. The connection made in the philosophy of positivism
between republican ideology and scientific theories of observation led
figures such as Proudhon to describe Dutch art as “positive” and regard it as a relevant example for the changes he advocated take place in
French art and politics in his own time.
Furthermore, Proudhon’s comparison between Rembrandt and
Martin Luther turned up in other critical texts and offers further proof
of the perception of Rembrandt as a politically active and radical figure
in nineteenth-century France. Analogies between Luther and Rembrandt were first made in France by Arsène Houssaye in the late 1840s
in an article in L’Artiste and then again in his book-length study
Histoire de la peinture flamande et hollandaise.271 Houssaye regarded
Rembrandt as a direct descendant of Luther because his images had
the same power to promote revolution and reform in the Netherlands
as Luther’s texts had done throughout Europe. Houssaye wrote:
118
If Rembrandt had a master, it was Luther. Rembrandt
had very serious faith in Luther. He was for him a reformer like Mohammed, Jesus Christ and Moses. He
thought that Catholicism, with its pomp and pleasures,
was nothing more than another mythology... Rembrandt
gave grace to Luther, who had shown the Dutch the first
rays of the new day, who ingnited their spirit of revolt,
who made free and strong men of his brothers.272
In 1856, in an article praising Jules Veyrassat’s engraving after Rembrandt’s The Carpenter’s Household/The Holy Family for the Chalcography (copper plate collection) of the Louvre, Gautier compared the
manner in which Luther and Rembrandt translated the bible into language and images that could be understood by all levels of society.273
These French critics and writers believed Rembrandt’s art, like Luther’s
doctrine, was a driving force behind the rejection of Catholicism in the
Netherlands and the evolving Dutch democracy.
Luther was not the only icon of liberty critics compared with
Rembrandt; Shakespeare was also invoked in the promotion of Rembrandt as a theatrical figure and a populist. In his popular novel Nôtre
Dame de Paris (1831), Victor Hugo was the first person in France in the
nineteenth century to compare Rembrandt and Shakespeare.274 The theatrical or fantasy-like subject matter of the works of Shakespeare and
Rembrandt, Hugo’s main interest, was the principal point of comparison for a few French critics. For example, Sosthène Cambray suggested:
We could easily compare [Rembrandt] to Shakespeare,
who alone invaded all the realms of fantasy.... We said
that both of them worked on a black background and that
their imagination was often set off by ideas full of brilliance and poetry. However, we can also add that these
ideas are beautiful in and of themselves in Shakespeare,
and are only beautiful in Rembrandt by the prestige of
color; that the first ones radiate in his dark drama and
become clear with their own light.275
119
Later, when the Goncourt brothers saw Rembrandt’s The Night Watch
during their trip to Amsterdam in 1861, they were also reminded
of the theatrical, fantastic elements and characters of Shakespeare’s
comedies:
It is the sun, it is life, it is reality, and yet, there is in this
painting a breath of fantasy, a smile of wonderful poetry.
There is this head of a man, against the wall, on the right,
with a black hat. Meanwhile, these people have never
found anything noble in Rembrandt! Then in the middle
ground, among four heads, there is an undefinable figure
with a stray smile on its lips, this figure wearing a large
grey hat, a mix of a gentleman and one of Shakespeare’s
clowns, strange heroes of comedy, of as you like it,
and this piece of gnome-like farce, which slides in his ear
the words of the confident comics of Shakespeare...
Shakespeare! This name comes back to me and I repeat
it, because I know what a rapport my spirit makes between this painting and Shakespeare’s work.276
Most French critics who compared Rembrandt and Shakespeare
agreed that universality was inherent in their work. They believed that
while each artist was undisputedly of their own time – one even said
they were like brothers277 – they thought their work also appealed to
all people across time.278 Critics believed that the simultaneously
historical and eternal nature of Rembrandt and Shakespeare’s art
occurred because they belonged to the people and represented human
drama and real life.279 Critic Émile Michel wrote: “Rembrandt, like
Shakespeare, is universal; like the great English poet, he is profoundly
human, and like Shakespeare Rembrandt covered the entire range of
feelings that can stir a soul.” 280 Taine said that due to Rembrandt’s
ability to depict individuals in all their specificity, which only Shakespeare saw with equal clarity, they were the only two artists who could
be precursors to developments in contemporary art. He noted in particular that Balzac and Delacroix could find their masters in Shake-
120
speare and Rembrandt.281 In his view, the ability of these two artists to
look at and convey human nature linked precisely with what Taine believed was the mission of art in his own time. Blanc also declared that
the “genius” of Rembrandt and Shakespeare was specifically important
to contemporary or modern “geniuses,” particularly because both
artists embraced all aspects of life.282 On the whole, French critics in
the second half of the century believed comparisons between Rembrandt and Luther or Shakespeare were valid. Such analogies summarized and reinforced their views on the direction art and politics should
take in France and were an integral part of the increasing perception of
the contemporary relevance of Rembrandt’s artistic persona in the
nineteenth century.
Competing perceptions of Rembrandt demonstrate the extent
to which the past can be manipulated to serve varying purposes at different historical moments. Connections made between Rembrandt and
new ideas in French art and politics led him to be referred to as “the
most modern of all the [old] masters,” and an artist whose inventions
were believed to speak best to the modern soul “today.” 283 Rembrandt
was said to “belong entirely to modern art,” to embody the modern
sprit, to draw modern souls towards him, and to provide the best precursor and most suitable “master” for modern artists.284 Although a
part of the past, when cloaked in nineteenth-century politics Rembrandt was revered as a contemporary French icon.
121
chapter 3
Picturing
the Myth
Rembrandt’s Body and Images
of the Old Master Artist
fig. 9 – Pierre Nolasque Bergeret, Rembrandt in his studio, 1834
fter eighteen months of detective
work and pleading letters, one sunny spring day I walked past
uniformed armed guards, through magnificent stone gates
and into the Assemblée Nationale, a majestic building
facing across the Seine River to Place de la Concorde. I would finally
see here Pierre Nolasque Bergeret’s Rembrandt in his Studio [fig. 9],
one of the surviving images of Rembrandt’s life from the nineteenth
century. Sequestered in a bureaucrat’s office and enjoyed by only a
small number of politicians and government employees, this precisely
painted work is a feast for the eyes. Its warm colors evoke the atmosphere of a Dutch genre painting. The anecdotal qualities of the largescale domestic interior convincingly present to me, the willing viewer,
a window into Rembrandt’s life, his family, and his studio practice.
I feel that I am watching him at work, witnessing a moment in his life.
And this is precisely the response nineteenth-century artists hoped
they would achieve with their images of the Old Master.
A
Scenes of Rembrandt’s life produced in France during the second half
of the nineteenth century had an integral role in the formation and dissemination of Rembrandt’s artistic persona and they aggrandized the
Dutch artist just as the publications of French critics had done. These
images humanized Rembrandt’s personality and the artists who created
them used pictorial strategies to make their images appear to be authentic recreations of everyday events in Rembrandt’s life. Their images
picturing the myth
125
made Rembrandt into a more accessible artist and included anecdotal
elements that demonstrate the growing curiosity about his daily life.
The works all advocated Rembrandt’s status as an important Old Master artist but did not focus on the great moments of life that were
stressed in the lives of many other Old Masters.
The representations of Rembrandt’s life emphasized his successes with middle- and upper middle-class patrons, his love for his family,
his affiliation with the poor, his periodically moody temperament, and
his frugal tendencies. In a sense they made the Old Master artist into
an average human being with both good and bad character traits. As a
result, he was presented as a figure who was not intimidating; he became someone to whom artists could relate. The canonical status assigned by French critics to The Anatomy Lesson and The Night Watch
was furthered by French artists through their inclusion of the two
paintings in many of these images. As for his working practice,
Rembrandt’s use of clair-obscur and his preference for miscellaneous
studio props rather than ancient Greek and Roman art were of greatest
interest. These scenes also emphasized his practice of working from
nature and thus advanced the contemporary perception of Rembrandt’s art – and Dutch art on the whole – as authentic and truthful
images of daily life.
While French artists held the same interest in Rembrandt’s personal life and artistic practice as French critics, the artists attributed a
greater level of material wealth and critical acclaim to Rembrandt than
the critics did. Four artists depicted Rembrandt wearing a medal and
several others situated him in settings that suggest a high level of prosperity. The painters involved appear to have felt a greater desire to
portray Rembrandt as an accomplished artist than did the critics. This
enabled them to further validate his role as an ancestral figure within
the artistic tradition they had inherited. While most French critics formulated Rembrandt’s artistic persona as a misunderstood and unappreciated “genius,” many of the artists sought rather to make the Old
Master into a successful and accessible figure with whom they could
identify. These artists actively contributed to the construction of Rembrandt’s identity in France, particularly when their works were dissem-
126
inated through reproductions available from leading art dealers. Their
scenes of Rembrandt’s life played an integral role in the formation and
dissemination of Rembrandt’s artistic persona in nineteenth-century
France.
Visual representations of Rembrandt’s life attest to connections between the formation of Rembrandt’s identity by nineteenth-century
French critics and the awareness and reinforcement of this identity by
French artists. These works suggest the extent to which artists contributed to the making and perpetuation of the mythical Rembrandt
figure. Such scenes of artists’ lives were, in fact, popular in France as
early as the late eighteenth century and their quantity grew markedly
in the early decades of the nineteenth century.
Over twenty painted, sculpted, and printed images of Rembrandt were produced or exhibited in France between the 1840s and
the end of the century. While some of these appear to no longer survive
in any form, an examination of the fifteen extant examples demonstrates both the high level of fascination French artists had with Rembrandt and the elements of his art and personality that were of greatest
interest.285 These images illustrate anecdotal aspects of Rembrandt’s
biography, his daily life, his successes and foibles, and his interaction
with family, models, and middle-class patrons as well as other tropes
from narratives formulated by earlier and contemporary biographers.
They also show how the significance French critics placed on The
Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp, The Night Watch, and Syndics paintings –
specifically the first two works – was also promoted in the artistic realm.
Images of Rembrandt’s life appealed, in part, to the growing
popularity of anecdotal history paintings and their increasing exhibition at French Salons in the nineteenth century. Scenes of artists’ lives
were common in the Troubadour school in the early nineteenth century
and in Ingres’ historical works. These works often emulated the choice
of subject matter and the application of paint practiced by fifteenthand seventeenth-century northern European artists.286 Ingres’ Raphael
and the Fornarina is among the most discussed paintings in this genre,
as are works by François Marius Granet, Joseph-Nicolas Robertpicturing the myth
127
Fleury, and Léon Cogniet.287 Scenes of artists’ lives were exhibited at
the Salons in increasing quantity from 1804 to the 1860s; their numbers then decreased, following the overall abatement in the exhibition
of historical subjects.288
Rembrandt alone grew in popularity despite the general decline
in the number of scenes of other artists’ lives in the second half of the
century. In looking at the narratives which were typically the subject of
such anecdotal scenes, one can evaluate the extent to which images of
Rembrandt conformed with the genre as well as how and why scenes
of his life diverged from the usual scenes of “great moments” of an
artist’s life, specifically death and visits from important people.
Not all of the works discussed here are regarded today as having
great aesthetic significance. Their survival often only through reproduction in graphic media is undoubtedly part of the reason why they
have received little attention. But their reproduction in prints also suggests their importance, since these works were often published in varying formats by leading French art dealers and had a notable circulation. Many of the images were disseminated as photographs, as
full-scale or reduced prints, or smaller, inexpensive carte album or carte
de visite. Consideration of the content and circulation of these images
is, therefore, integral to our understanding of how and why Rembrandt
assumed the stature he did in nineteenth-century France. In a country
like France, eager to use physiognomy as a means of understanding
character, these Rembrandt images constituted an important basis for
the perception of his art and personality.
The two early examples of scenes of Rembrandt’s life presented
here demonstrate that Rembrandt was, from the beginning, part of this
anecdotal genre. Pierre Nolasque Bergeret’s Rembrandt in his Studio
(1834) [fig. 9], which was exhibited at the Salon of 1836 (#132), depicts
the artist as a successful member of the upper-middle class who lives in
a comfortable if somewhat untidy environment, has a well-dressed wife
and child, a servant, and receives distinguished visitors.289
Bergeret’s Rembrandt sits at a desk etching a portrait of Burgomaster Jan Six, surrounded by the trappings of a globe, books, prints,
armor, and pet monkey which identify him as an educated artist and a
128
collector of art and curiosities. He is dressed as a successful burgher in
a brown suit and white shirt, much as any one of Rembrandt’s numerous male sitters were attired. The view of ships through the window
situates the artist in the busy port city of Amsterdam and suggests that
he is a part of the city’s prosperous economy. In order to further the
authentic appearance of his studio scene, Bergeret clothes Titus in a
cloak and brimmed hat like a child from paintings by Rembrandt’s
contemporaries, such as Metsu or De Hooch. Saskia, whom he depicted in a red dress with gold brocade trim and feathered hat, appears to
be inspired by Portrait of Saskia from Kassel, which was exhibited at
the Musée Napoléon from 1807 to 1815. Even the chandelier comes
from numerous Dutch seventeenth-century interior scenes, including
Rembrandt’s own The Carpenter’s Household [plate 7] in the Louvre.
These elements substantiate Bergeret’s claim that he is depicting an
everyday scene of Rembrandt’s life with the utmost veracity.
But Bergeret’s work is, of course, entirely ahistorical since Rembrandt etched his portrait of Jan Six in 1648, when Titus was actually
seven years old, not a toddler, and Saskia had been dead for six years.
Complete accuracy was not relevant to Bergeret as he sought to produce a pastiche of well-known elements from Rembrandt’s life. Bergeret specifically emphasizes Rembrandt’s activity as a printmaker and
includes his chemicals in the flasks of yellow and blue liquid, as well as
two copper plates propped up against the wall. Coupled with the paintings mounted on an easel and hanging on the walls, this scene suggests
there was some interest in Rembrandt’s dual painter-printmaker identity in France even at this early date.
The second early example, Jules-Jean-Baptiste Dehaussy’s Last
Moments of Rembrandt, He Asks to See his Treasure Once More Before
Dying [fig. 10], exhibited at the Salon of 1838 (#441), was based on
one of the most popular elements of Rembrandt’s biography in nineteenth-century France: his purportedly frugal personality.290 Here,
Rembrandt does not receive any kings on his death bed, as was the case
for Leonardo da Vinci in the popularized version of his death in the
arms of King Francis I, a subject known in several versions, including
one by François Guillaume Ménageot exhibited at the Salon of 1781.
picturing the myth
129
fig. 10 – Jules-Jean-Baptiste Dehaussy, Last Moments of Rembrandt,
He Asks to See his Treasure Once More Before Dying, c.1838
Nor is Rembrandt’s passing mourned here by important political or
religious officials, as was typically the case with Raphael, for example,
in Bergeret’s Honors Bestowed on Raphael after his Death exhibited at the
Salon of 1806. Neither is he dying in the midst of one of his great
artistic enterprises, as does Masaccio in the Brancacci chapel in LouisCharles-Auguste Couder’s work from the Salon of 1817. Instead,
Dehaussy’s Rembrandt dies without pomp and circumstance, comforted solely by the presence of his young wife who lovingly shows him the
masses of gold coins he had furtively stored below the bedroom floor.
The images produced during the second half of the nineteenth
century vary from portrait-like works that provided little anecdotal
information to scenes which characterized Rembrandt as a quirky,
moody artist who rejected classical tradition and worked from nature
rather than antique art. They depicted Rembrandt as an artist who
worked for a middle- to upper middle-class clientele and was best
130
fig. 11 – Fabien-Henri Alasonière, Rembrandt in his Studio,
etching after painting by Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier, 1863
known for his Anatomy Lesson and Night Watch paintings. Among the
fifteen images under consideration, five images simply presented Rembrandt as an artist and had no narrative content.
Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier’s Rembrandt in his Studio (1863)
[fig. 11], known today only through an etching by Fabien-Henri
Alasonière, depicts Rembrandt in a typical seventeenth-century Netherlandish interior.291 The high window-covered walls, chair, and carpet
on the table are all elements drawn from interior scenes produced in
Rembrandt’s time. Rembrandt sits at his easel working on a painting
and the scene suggests Meissonier’s interest in Rembrandt, particularly
because this work was one of only two images he produced of a specific
artist from the past.292 Further, judging from the precise rendering of
form in the etching after Rembrandt in his Studio, Meissonier painted
this work with his usual meticulously detailed technique. As Jean-Léon
Gérôme’s image of Rembrandt will also demonstrate, the way in which
both Meissonier and Gérôme painted their scenes of Rembrandt’s life
was a form of reverence to Rembrandt’s manner of painting during the
early years of his career, a technique which paralleled their own practice. In Meissonier’s image, he focused on that element of Rembrandt’s
artistic career which validated his own artistic pursuits. Meissonier paid
homage to Rembrandt’s art – and by extension his own – and presented
himself in part as a student of Rembrandt or, conversely, Rembrandt
became a model for Meissonier’s own artistic goals.
Three other works depicted bust or half-length portraits of Rembrandt with palette and paintbrushes in hand. Alexandre Joseph Oliva’s
bronze bust Rembrandt [fig. 12] is one of only three sculpted images
of Rembrandt exhibited at the salons during this period that can be
traced.293 The bronze, purchased by the state,294 was exhibited at the
Exposition Universelle of 1855 (#4519) and would have been the best
known sculpted representation of Rembrandt in nineteenth-century
France.295 The jauntily placed beret, long curly hair, moustache, goatee, and cape-like coat Oliva assigns to Rembrandt are attributes which
characterized his physiognomy and clothing. These elements are drawn
from Rembrandt’s numerous painted and etched self-portraits. Oliva’s
Rembrandt also holds a paintbrush and palette covered with the remains
132
fig. 12 – Alexandre Joseph Oliva, Rembrandt, 1853
fig. 13 – Alberto Masso Gilli, Rembrandt, 1874
of various colors. Here, Rembrandt seems to interrupt his work on a
canvas, as he leans back and assesses his work. The expression of concentration on his face and the momentary quality of his pose suggest
that Rembrandt is in the midst of an inspired creative moment.
The distinctive beret, facial hair and tousled locks appear again
in Alberto Masso Gilli’s etching Rembrandt [fig. 13]. Gilli’s print, which
134
fig. 14 – Honoré Cavaroc, Portrait of Rembrandt, late 19th century
fig. 15 – Louis George Brillouin, Rembrandt in his Studio,
preparatory drawing for painting exhibited at Salon of 1859
transforms the artist’s pose from Rembrandt’s etched Self-Portrait
Leaning, was exhibited at the Salon of 1874 and illustrated in the publication L’eau-forte en 1876. Another example, an undated but probably
late nineteenth-century drawing by Honoré Cavaroc, Portrait of Rembrandt [fig. 14], barely varies the elements that came to be codified as
Rembrandt except for the addition of a medal hanging from a chain
around the artist’s neck. A similar chain and pendant appears in images
by Robert-Fleury, Leys, and Roux suggesting that several artists sought
to emphasize Rembrandt’s status as a successful artist. However, none
of the French nineteenth-century critics ever mentioned Rembrandt
receiving a medal. Consequently, artists such as Cavaroc must have developed this theory on their own, giving Rembrandt the same honors
typically bestowed on Rubens, the most popular northern artist in
France during the first half of the century.
In these works by Oliva, Gilli and Cavaroc, the upright pose and
assertive, outward-looking glance ascribed to Rembrandt presented him
as a self-assured and confident artist to be admired. The last example
of these straightforward portraits is Louis George Brillouin’s Rembrandt in his Studio, which was exhibited at the Salon of 1859 and is
known today only in part through a preparatory drawing [fig. 15].
Here the scowling physiognomy and stooped posture Brillouin adopts
for the fashionably dressed Rembrandt suggests a moody and sceptical
personality, an approach taken by few French critics.
Four other works emphasized the anecdotal aspects of Rembrandt’s biography that were increasingly popular during this period.
Joseph Nicolas Robert-Fleury’s Rembrandt painting his Mother, which
was exhibited at the Salon of 1845 as Rembrandt’s Studio (#1451), is
known today through a lithograph by Adolphe Mouilleron [fig. 16]. In
this work Rembrandt sits at his easel, painting a portrait of his mother
in a manner which emphasizes the belief that he liked to work directly
from a model. Rembrandt’s success as an artist is suggested by his
grooming, clothing, and, here again, the pendant or medal around his
neck. He listens to comments from a respectable-looking visitor, probably his patron Jan Six.
picturing the myth
137
fig. 16 – Adolphe Mouilleron, Rembrandt painting his Mother, lithograph
after painting by Joseph Nicolas Robert-Fleury, 1845
Robert-Fleury also includes a monkey, seen earlier in Bergeret’s painting, alluding to one of the frequently repeated facets of Rembrandt’s
biography in nineteenth-century France. It relates to a story drawn
from Houbraken recounting Rembrandt’s affection for his pet monkey, who in France later acquired the name “Puck.” In the popularized
monkey narrative, Rembrandt was said to have been so overwrought
about the death of his pet that the artist expressed his grief by including the monkey in the group portrait of a prominent Dutch family he
was in the midst of painting. According to biographers, contrary to
Rembrandt’s love of money, he would not remove the monkey from
the painting despite his patron’s pleas. Rembrandt then lost the commis-
138
fig. 17 – Adolphe Mouilleron, Burgomaster Six in Rembrandt’s Studio,
lithograph after painting by Henri Leys, 1853
sion and willingly kept the canvas for himself. This playful element
helps to humanize the Old Master by showing him with his favorite pet.
French critics paid increasing attention to the monkey narrative
beginning in the mid-1840s and some referred to it as a means of
defending Rembrandt against charges that he was stingy.296 They
claimed his love for the monkey over the commission demonstrated his
magnanimous character. Robert-Fleury’s inclusion of the monkey may
or may not be charged with the same meaning. But by placing the
monkey at the foot of the artist’s mother, the twosome represent a
perception of Rembrandt’s familial ties and loving nature. They emphasize his human qualities. The armor and costumes Robert-Fleury
and many other artists included – here placed on the wall and in a heap
in the lower left-hand corner of the painting – refer to “my antiques.”
Since Roger de Piles, Rembrandt was said to have used these as props
instead of classical art and all the leading French critics in the nineteenth century emphasized this point.
Robert-Fleury produced numerous images of the lives of past
artists and seems to have found it an appropriate way to pay homage to
those he admired. Although Baudelaire was one of Robert-Fleury’s enthusiasts, he commented warily about this painting of Rembrandt, calling it a “very curious pastiche, but one must keep guard in this form of
exercise. Sometimes we risk having taken from us what we have.” 297
Baudelaire expressed his concern that by paying too much attention to
the lives and art of the Old Masters, contemporary French artists would
distance themselves from their own talents and interests. Clearly none
of the many artists who explored this genre held the same view. Rather,
they saw it as a way to pay tribute to an artist they revered.
While Robert-Fleury emphasized Rembrandt’s contacts with
upper middle-class patrons, Henri Leys’ Burgomaster Six in Rembrandt’s
Studio depicts Rembrandt almost overwhelmed by visitors. This painting is known only through a lithograph of 1853 by Adolphe Mouilleron [fig. 17]. Of the scenes of Rembrandt’s life which circulated in
nineteenth-century France, Leys’ work placed the greatest emphasis
on the artist’s material success. Leys fills the two-story studio with
paintings, prints, sculpture, costumes, armor, and valuable metal work.
140
fig. 18 – Charles Baude and Studio, Rembrandt and Saskia,
wood engraving after painting by Léon Brunin, c.1900
The opulent setting is, therefore, a suitable space for Rembrandt to receive his distinguished visitors. The curtain dramatically raised by a
young boy – undoubtedly Titus – presents viewers with a stage-like
setting and promotes their perception that they are witnessing an actual
event. Despite all the trappings of success and the admiring interest in
his work, Leys’ Rembrandt looks annoyed. With hand on hip and an
impatient glance in the direction of Six, who scrutinizes one of his
paintings, Rembrandt is presented as a sulky and detached personality.
Belgian artist Léon Brunin’s later scene, Rembrandt and Saskia, also
emphasizes Rembrandt’s financial success. This work, exhibited at the
Salon of 1900 (#212), was reproduced in a wood engraving [fig. 18] by
Charles Baude and his studio. Like Robert-Fleury earlier, Brunin’s
work stresses the idea of Rembrandt’s close family relations. Dressed
in fine clothing and placed in a rich setting, Brunin depicts Rempicturing the myth
141
fig. 19 – Léopold Flameng, Rembrandt’s House, 1859
brandt, Saskia, and Titus as a tightly knit, happy family. With paintbrush in hand Rembrandt is shown altering Saskia’s pose, again working
from the model. This subject also relates to the interest in Rembrandt’s
romantic life and the progeny of his virility, aspects which pervaded
critical writings during the same period.
In contrast with these two scenes, which make claims for Rembrandt’s elevated social status and financial success, Léopold Flameng’s
earlier etching Rembrandt’s House [fig. 19] focuses on the artist’s rapport with the lower classes. This print was commissioned in 1859 for
Charles Blanc’s Rembrandt, sa vie, son œuvre and was one of two scenes
of Amsterdam produced by Flameng to accompany his twenty-five
etchings after Rembrandt’s prints which illustrated the text.298 Flameng’s scene reinforced the myth that Rembrandt preferred to socialize with the lower classes, a narrative equally emphasized in Blanc’s
text. The belief that Rembrandt associated with the poor can be traced
back to Roger de Piles, was reinforced by Houbraken and, as previously
discussed, was one of the most often repeated elements of the mythical
Rembrandt persona in nineteenth-century France. The trope of Rembrandt’s affiliation with the lower classes was repeated by many leading
French critics including Blanc, Fromentin, and Thoré-Bürger. Flameng
depicts Rembrandt descending the outside stairs of his impressive
home and turning to a group of street people who are clustered as if it
were their custom to wait at his front door.
Flameng does not show Rembrandt looking to the middle-class
people of Amsterdam who circulate in the nearby market; instead he
turns to the proletariat, with whom several French artists and critics
liked to believe Rembrandt felt a kinship. To create a sense of authenticity in his fictional recreation of an everyday event for Rembrandt in
seventeenth-century Amsterdam, Flameng studied the house on Breestraat and faithfully depicted the façade, neighboring homes, canal,
and the tall spire of the nearby Zuiderkerk. Flameng’s strategy was to
formulate a scene that convincingly recounts a recurring element of
Rembrandt’s daily life. He sought to create a visual representation of
Rembrandt’s allegiance to the lower classes, thus reinforcing one of the
picturing the myth
143
fig. 20 – Unknown Artist, Rembrandt Working in his Studio, woodcut
after painting by Hendrik Hollander, 1852
most popular tropes of the Rembrandt myth in nineteenth-century
France.
Several images of Rembrandt’s life produced or exhibited in
France served to stress the renown and popularity of works in the Louvre’s collection and the canonical status of The Anatomy Lesson and The
Night Watch, which were also promoted in contemporary publications.
One of six examples discussed here, Dutch artist Hendrik Hollander’s
Rembrandt Working in his Studio [fig. 20], was exhibited at the Exposition Universelle in Paris in 1855 (#1555). This work is known today
through a woodcut from 1852 by an unknown artist. Hollander presents Rembrandt at work on the portrait of Captain Banning Cocq for
144
The Night Watch, his most celebrated painting in the nineteenth century. Hollander’s work includes little narrative detail except a collection of “my antiques” in the lower right foreground, a faithful dog, and
most important, a short woman cuddling a seated man. This woman’s
pose, dress, and coiffure mirror one of the enigmatic female figures in
the center middleground of The Night Watch who attracted much attention from nineteenth-century French critics and, indeed, still draw
notable attention from viewers today.
Hollander’s scene of Rembrandt at work in his studio serves,
like Robert-Fleury’s image discussed earlier, to perpetuate the notion
that Rembrandt used models and worked faithfully from life. In his
study of the Captain and his suggested use of the female model for The
Night Watch, Hollander presents Rembrandt as an artist who worked
from nature rather than his imagination. These images and others discussed below are in keeping with written descriptions of Rembrandt’s
working practices concurrently circulating in France. The number of
written and visual works which emphasized Rembrandt as an artist
who worked from nature was not coincidental. This trait was undoubtedly of central interest to many French artists and critics because it
served to validate their own strategies. By aligning the technique of
studying from nature with works that were seen to embody Rembrandt’s greatest achievements as an Old Master, they promoted, by
extension, the positive value of those elements in contemporary art.
Prosper-Louis Roux’s fascinating Rembrandt’s Studio [fig. 21]
also presents the artist working after a model in what was one of the
most complex and significant scenes of Rembrandt’s life produced in
this period. The painting, exhibited at the Salon of 1857 (#2346), was
popularized by a print by Alphonse Martinet [fig. 22]. In 1859, this
etching, mezzotint, and aquatint print was exhibited at the Salon
(#3615) and published by Goupil and Company (commonly known as
Goupils). This black-and-white print could be purchased from Goupils
in a range of formats and prices, including the least expensive carte de
visite, through to the end of the century.299 There are no extant figures
for the sales of these reproductions but certainly the small-scale formats demonstrate the mass-market appeal of both this work and
picturing the myth
145
fig. 21 – Prosper-Louis Roux, Rembrandt’s Studio, 1857
fig. 22 – Alphonse Martinet, Rembrandt’s Studio, etching, aquatint and
mezzotint after painting by Prosper-Louis Roux, c.1857
Rembrandt. Goupils also produced a more expensive, limited edition
of color prints [plate 12] after Roux’s painting.300 These were heightened with gouache and arabic gum on the easel, Rembrandt’s body
(but not face) and shadow, his palette and brushes, the woman’s dress,
veil, and her chair, as well as the book press, cat, armor, window curtain, and lower right hand railing of the staircase. The two exhibitions
and publication through Goupils made Roux’s scene of Rembrandt in
his studio one of the best circulated works of its kind.
Roux’s composition is a pastiche of elements drawn principally
from paintings then attributed to Rembrandt and exhibited at the
Louvre. The two paintings shown hanging in Rembrandt’s studio are
the Louvre’s The Good Samaritan [plate 6] and Angel Raphael leaving
Tobias’ Family [plate 3]. Roux even took into consideration the relative scale of these works to add to the sense of authenticity in his contrived scene. The winding staircase complete with owl was drawn from
the two “Philosopher” paintings [plate 5] then attributed to Rembrandt in the Louvre, and the candelabra with a reflective orb hanging
from the ceiling and the arch-topped window were derived from the
Louvre’s The Carpenter’s Household/Holy Family painting [plate 7].
In the center foreground Rembrandt is depicted at work painting a
woman and child embracing, a pose which alludes to the Venus and
Amor painting [plate 8] then attributed to Rembrandt in the Louvre
collection.301 The scale of this work mounted on the easel is also in
keeping with the relative scale of the other paintings on the walls.
By using paintings within his canvas which would be familiar to
his French audience, Roux gives the work – and by extension the
artist’s life – a sense of immediacy and accessibility for the viewer.
Including these works also adds an aura of authenticity to the work.
Roux’s precise painting technique and casual inclusion of anecdotal details such as the cat and kittens in the lower left foreground also promoted the perception of the scene as natural and truthful. Further, the
work has a spontaneous quality as several figures are caught in midmovement: Titus removes a cover from The Good Samaritan, a visitor
seated by the window moves to get a better view of the painting on the
easel, three visitors lean in to get a closer look at Angel Raphael leaving
picturing the myth
147
Tobias’ Family, another visitor raises his monocle and a paper to read
some fine print or perhaps inspect an etching more closely, and Rembrandt turns from his canvas to look again at his models. The carpet is
even turned up as if one of the visitors has just caught its corner when
entering the room. The momentary quality of the composition contributes to the desired and plausible perception of this painting as emblematic of actual daily-life events in Rembrandt’s studio.
Several aspects of the composition also conform with and promote elements aligned with Rembrandt’s artistic persona. The dramatic shaft of sunlight that extends in a definitive line from the window,
carries across the room, and then highlights parts of the woman and
child, refers to Rembrandt’s much discussed use of clair-obscur.302 The
six visitors suggest the commonly held belief that Rembrandt worked
for middle-class rather than royal or ecclesiastical patrons. The armor,
sword, and vessel in the foreground on the left are Rembrandt’s “antiques.” Finally, the book press in the left hand corner appears here for
the first time in a French scene of Rembrandt’s life. Roux may have
mistakenly depicted a book press rather than printer’s press in Rembrandt’s studio, but regardless of this confusion the scene can be seen
as promoting Rembrandt’s dual identity as a painter-printmaker. This
dual character was increasingly discussed after 1851 when the two
presses Rembrandt had in his home were noted in the first French
publication of Rembrandt’s household inventory of 1656. Like the
popularized monkey narrative discussed earlier, there are numerous direct parallels between anecdotes disseminated through French textual
sources and pictorial representations of Rembrandt’s life and art.
Two other salon paintings of the 1860s promoted the significance of Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson. Tony François de Bergue’s
Rembrandt painting The Anatomy Lesson, was exhibited at the Salon of
1861 (#231) and is known today through a caricature [fig. 23] published in Galletti’s Album Caricatural, Salon de 1861. Galletti’s caricatures are known to have rendered faithfully the composition of each salon painting, thus, it appears that de Bergue’s painting revealed little
except the belief that Rembrandt worked directly from a real male
corpse laid out on the diagonal. Like many of his contemporaries, de
148
fig. 23 – Galletti, Rembrandt Painting The Anatomy Lesson, caricature
after painting by Tony François de Bergue, 1861
fig. 24 – Christoffel Bisschop, Rembrandt going to the Anatomy Lesson,
photograph after a painting, c.1866
fig. 25 – Eugène Le Roux, Rembrandt Painting Susanna at the Bath,
lithograph after painting by Joseph Nicolas Robert-Fleury, c.1859
Bergue emphasized Rembrandt’s tie to nature and may also have been
attempting to justify and explain what some of his contemporaries
viewed as the awkward composition and foreshortening of The Anatomy
Lesson.
The text Galletti added below his caricature reveals more than
the image itself about the conception of Rembrandt’s identity and the
dissemination of those views in France through more popular imagery.
Galletti’s caption reads: “Rembrandt took a corpse out of the water: he
was rewarded fifteen francs. While waiting, he benefits from the opportunity to pose the dead body and thus get from him a free sitting.” 303
Galletti’s perception of Rembrandt was clearly informed by the belief
150
in the artist’s frugal disposition that pervaded French criticism. His
humorous caricature, in turn, perpetuates this view as Galletti’s Rembrandt takes advantage of even the most inappropriate occasion to
study a model free of charge.
The second example, Dutch artist Christoffel Bisschop’s Rembrandt going to the Anatomy Lesson [fig. 24], was exhibited at the Salon
of 1866 and the Exposition Universelle in 1867; it survives today
through a photograph published by Goupils.304 Like Roux’s painting,
this image also circulated among the general public in the inexpensive
format of the carte de visite. Bisschop’s painting shows a young Rembrandt, accompanied probably by Titus carrying his supplies, about to
enter the anatomy theater in Amsterdam. The skeleton sketched on
the wood and the skull beside it represent the studies of corpses that
will take place behind the door and beyond the stage-like space accessible to the viewer. A well-dressed Rembrandt strikes a confident pose
before the entrance and momentarily looks out to the viewer. In this
choice of composition and subject Bisschop focused on the beginning
of what was known to have been the most successful period of Rembrandt’s career. Bisschop put Rembrandt in a theatrical position with
his hand reaching for the door, a pose that addresses the nineteenthcentury spectator and emphasizes that he is about to witness and study
a medical examination of a corpse. By isolating this moment Bisschop
stressed the authentic quality of Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson as a
work the artist went to great lengths to render as accurately as possible.
The same can be said for Robert-Fleury’s Rembrandt Painting
Susanna at the Bath, which was reproduced in a lithograph by Eugène
Le Roux [fig. 25].305 Here Rembrandt twists in his chair to look at his
model for Susanna at the Bath, whom Titus helps into position. The
woman’s pose and the painting’s title refer to Rembrandt’s painting
Susanna or Woman at the Bath, a canvas Doctor Lacaze donated to the
Louvre in 1859, where it formed part of the permanent display in the
Lacaze gallery.306 In Robert-Fleury’s rendering, the scale of the canvas
on Rembrandt’s easel corresponds to that of the Susanna in the Louvre
and again promotes the perception of reality in the scene as was the
case in Roux’s view of Rembrandt’s studio. The figure of Titus, who
picturing the myth
151
fig. 26 – Paul-Adolphe Rajon, Rembrandt biting an etched plate, etching
after painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, c.1861
helps his father and arranges Susanna’s drapery, also relates to the
long-haired sitter in Portrait of a Young Man in the Louvre.307
Moreover, as with Roux, the spontaneous poses and gestures of
the sitters contribute to a sense of immediacy and accessibility. The
piles of armor, clothing, precious objects and jewels included in so
many of these images are, once again, a pictorial rendering of “my antiques.” In each instance, these objects signify Rembrandt’s use of unorthodox props and his affinity with traditions other than those of Italy
and classical antiquity. The objects contribute to the anecdotal quality
of the painting but in doing so also locate Rembrandt outside the conventions of past art, a position also negotiated for him by most French
critics. In addition, a box spilling forth jewelry in the central foreground relates to the emphasis French critics placed on both the expensive jewelry Rembrandt bought for his wife and Saskia’s insatiable
desire to adorn herself and dress up in exotic costumes – a weakness
many critics claimed was a significant cause of the artist’s financial dissolution.
Besides referring to well-known paintings in the Louvre collection, Robert-Fleury includes a full-scale view of The Night Watch in the
background of the studio. The swag of the ensign and drum in the
centerground suggest that a theatrical recreation of the scene formed
an integral part of Rembrandt’s artistic practice. In weaving together
his familiarity with works in the Louvre collection and elements from
contemporary artistic and biographical studies, Robert-Fleury’s image
suggests his extensive knowledge of Rembrandt and interest in the latest studies on the artist then available in France.
The most widely published and undoubtedly best known of
all the images discussed in this context was Jean-Léon Gérôme’s Rembrandt biting an etched plate [fig. 26].308 With this painting, Gérôme
established what would become a life-long interest in Rembrandt’s
biography and art. Gérôme first exhibited this painting at the Salon of
1861 (#1251) and then again at the Exposition Universelle of 1867
(#293). The painting is known today largely through an etching by
Paul-Adolphe Rajon, as well as a photogravure of the canvas. Rajon’s
print after Gérôme’s Rembrandt biting an etched plate was first published
by Goupils around 1866. Goupils also sold photogravures of the painting and reproductions in the carte-album and carte de visite formats.309
Most importantly, the painting appealed to the growing interest
in Rembrandt’s dual artistic persona as a painter-printmaker. Multiple
reproductions of Gérôme’s work were circulating from the early 1860s
at the same time as the cult-like reverence of Rembrandt firmly took
root. Gérôme presented Rembrandt alone and consumed by concentration, bent over an etching plate and surrounded by tools and chempicturing the myth
153
icals. Gérôme’s Rembrandt has just submerged the plate or “bitten” it
in an acid bath, perhaps the bowl to his left at knee height. The artist
holds a needle in hand and moves to the side to study the effect of the
biting on the lines he has just etched. He appears to be still at work
scratching out his composition, refining his marks and perhaps preparing to stop out and bite the plate again. An embossed leather screen,
highlighted by diffused sunlight entering the studio through a partially
screened window, divides the shadowy, dark room. The leather screen
separates Rembrandt at work on a print from his famous canvas, The
Anatomy Lesson, in the background.
Thus the screen acts as a feature to accent and divide physically
the two aspects which were increasingly seen to embody Rembrandt’s
dual artistic persona in France from the 1860s on: Rembrandt the
painter and Rembrandt the printmaker. Through his composition,
Gérôme presents the two personas as separate but not mutually exclusive identities. Further, he painted this scene in the detailed and fine
painting style contemporary French critics associated with Rembrandt’s
manner of painting early in his career.
Thoré-Bürger denounced Gérôme’s technique and compared
it to the art of one of Rembrandt’s students which he vehemently
disliked: “It’s the last degree of William Mieris! What a surprising
perversion to go search out Mieris to paint Rembrandt!... Poor
Rembrandt, treated with the vapidity of the last of the Mieris’.” 310
Thoré-Bürger wished artists would refrain from emulating the painting style and depicting the life of Rembrandt and other Dutch artists
until, by his definition, they got it right. He thought Gérôme made
Rembrandt look like a monkey wearing a little cotton cap and said that
the contorted pose gave him the appearance of an epileptic. In ThoréBürger’s mind Gérôme showed Rembrandt as a porcelain figure and
did not embue the scene with the artist’s warm, red blood. It must be
remembered, however, that Thoré-Bürger’s criticisms were informed
largely by his own preference for the fluid, sketchy painting technique
he associated with the latter part of Rembrandt’s artistic output.
On the other hand, contemporary critics including Louis Auvray,
Maxime du Camp, and Léon Lagrange connected Gérôme’s rendering
154
of the scene with works by Rembrandt and his studio. Auvray’s view
was quite positive; he thought Gérôme had conformed his technique
intentionally to that of Rembrandt.311 Du Camp found the work
strange because of the almost inconceivably high level of finish.312
Both Du Camp and Lagrange – who despised the painting – compared
Gérôme’s technique in this work with that of Rembrandt’s students
Gerard Dou and Mieris.313
Gérôme and Meissonier both aligned themselves with Rembrandt’s early career and his meticulous application of paint during this
period, which was also their practice. By promoting the finemaleri
technique of Rembrandt, the increasingly well-established Old Master
artist, Gérôme and Meissonier also validated their own artistic methods. In fact, when English artist Robert Jefferson Bingham’s photograph of Gérôme’s painting was exhibited at another venue at the same
time the painting was being shown at the Salon, one critic remarked on
the similarities in color between Gérôme and Rembrandt’s art and in
style between that of Gérôme and Dou. In his exuberant praise of the
quality of Gérôme’s painting and Bingham’s reproduction, the photography critic sought primarily to discount claims that photographs
could only give cold and incomplete facsimiles of original works.314
His comments, however, and those of the critics mentioned above also
indicate that some contemporaries recognized that Gérôme was using
this painting to fashion himself as a student of Rembrandt or to suggest that he had inherited an artistic tradition descending from Rembrandt. Gérôme began to identify with Rembrandt’s dual painterprintmaker persona at a time when he had himself started to experiment
with the etching technique in Egyptian Smoker. Gérôme produced a
small number of etchings during his career and his desire to explore
the medium undoubtedly contributed to his reverence of Rembrandt’s
achievements.
Gérôme also includes an ample use of Rembrandt’s famous
clair-obscur so that the image offers enough light for the viewer to confirm that Rembrandt is indeed at work on a copper plate. But Gérôme
sets Rembrandt in a semi-dark middleground and his activity is sufficiently hidden so as not to reveal to the viewer any information about
picturing the myth
155
Rembrandt’s etching technique. In this way, Gérôme constructs an aura
of fascination and inaccessibility around the Dutch artist that corresponds to views articulated by critic Charles Blanc and later by Eugène
Dutuit and Émile Michel, who catalogued and critiqued Rembrandt’s
etchings in the growing number of French publications about his
prints.
Gérôme presents Rembrandt in the persona of an elusive creator. His etching technique is wrapped in a cloak of mystery and while
it is the central focus of attention and, therefore, charged with positive
value, it is too physically distant to be fully apprehended, let alone
easily emulated. Contemporary French critics described Rembrandt’s
abilities as an etcher in the same way: they praised his handling of the
etching needle, his repeated wiping and reworking of plates, and how
he bit his own plates. Beyond technique, they saw magic. Critics noted
that some aspects of Rembrandt’s technique and, therefore, his talent
could not be explained and they classified this as his “genius.” They
also noted Rembrandt always worked on his prints in isolation and
would not permit his students to watch. The distanced and enigmatic
figure in Gérôme’s painting is informed by a comparable interpretation of Rembrandt’s work.
Mounting interest in Rembrandt’s life as a subject during this
period, as well as Gérôme’s growing reputation in the 1860s, led to the
increasing value assigned to this specific painting. The work sold for
6,000 francs in 1861 and escalated to 20,300 francs only four years
later.315 Indeed, Gérôme’s Rembrandt biting an etched plate was the best
circulated of all the scenes of the artist’s life in nineteenth-century
France. The wide dissemination of this painting and its reproductions
was both a response to the increasingly popular perception of Rembrandt the Old Master painter-printmaker and, in turn, helped to promote the status of his dual artistic persona. Nineteenth-century French
painter-printmakers readily picked up this dual painter-printmaker
identity and fashioned themselves after the Old Master. They, in turn,
aligned themselves with Rembrandt in the hopes of improving the perceived value of their own art and of establishing a solid professional
identity for the modern, creative, and original printmaker.
156
chapter 4
Rembrandt
the “Master”
Printmaker
Choosing an Ancestral Figure for
French Painter-Printmakers
fig. 27 – Louis Marvy, Doctor Faust, engraving after Rembrandt, 1840s
S
cholars usually refer to Rembrandt’s
“influence” on French printmakers as if it were a natural phenomenon. Because of the perception of Rembrandt’s stature
today, many assume he was always regarded as the master printmaker. Rembrandt’s prints have certainly been popular since his lifetime. But the position he was assigned in nineteenth-century France as
the leading past master of etching was more a constructed phenomenon than one that evolved naturally. Rembrandt’s status as the emblem of the etching revival in France was carefully negotiated for him
through the self-conscious efforts of French critics and artists through
their print treatises, publications, associations, and works of art.316 As
their emblematic figure, Rembrandt’s techniques and achievements
were then used to justify the goals of French painter-printmakers in
the nineteenth century.
The consolidation of Rembrandt’s significance in nineteenthcentury France can be seen first among vanguard etchers, particularly
landscape artists associated with the Barbizon school in the 1830s and
1840s. He was then embraced by numerous critics and promoted as a
validation of the achievements of contemporary French printmakers.
At the same time, Rembrandt’s stature was unequivocally established
under the auspices of the Société des Aquafortistes in the 1860s. He became an emblem for the value of original prints, particularly etchings,
by members of this society. They sought to liberate printmaking from
its role as a reproductive process associated with engraving, a medium
159
institutionally sanctioned by the French Academy, which involved
direct carving of copper or wood with a steel gouge or burin.
Perceptions of Rembrandt’s life and art as a model of artistic
originality and individuality, which were disseminated through the
works of French critics, historians, and artists, led to a veritable “cult
of Rembrandt” among French etchers during the second half of the
nineteenth century. In a paradoxical situation, Rembrandt’s rising status was concurrently appropriated by French engravers in their efforts
to combat those who challenged the creativity of their artistic pursuits.
They also used him in their battle against the rise of photography as a
means of reproduction. By the mid-1880s, through slower and more
covert means, the role of reproductive copies exhibited at the French
salons ultimately established Rembrandt’s status within Academic circles.
Landscape Prints and the Barbizon School
Before the rise of publications on Rembrandt began in the 1850s in
France, a number of French landscape artists associated with the
Barbizon school were drawn to Rembrandt’s prints on what appears to
have been a purely aesthetic basis.317 Rembrandt appealed to these
printmakers because of their interest in the effects he created in three
principal areas in his prints. First, they looked to the contrasts Rembrandt achieved by placing dark forms against a light background,
which is now referred to as contre-jour. They also admired his use of
clair-obscur and how he approached depicting a landscape as a croquis or
sketch. Their perception of Rembrandt’s technique as directly tied to
nature was also of central importance.
There is significant documentary evidence for the attraction of
numerous Barbizon artists to Rembrandt’s art. Of these artists, Louis
Marvy and Charles Jacque were among the first to draw on Rembrandt’s work as a source of inspiration for their own etchings. Marvy
produced numerous copies after Rembrandt’s prints and paintings in
the 1840s, including a landscape, two versions of Doctor Faust [fig. 27],
a Portrait of Burgomaster Six, Descent from the Cross, The Night Watch,
160
Christ and the Samaritan Woman at a Well, Beggars at the Door of a House
[fig. 28], Christ Chasing the Moneylenders from the Temple, and The Resurrection of Lazarus.318 Marvy published some of these works in
L’Artiste, a journal he worked for for ten years.
Jacque also looked to Rembrandt’s prints for guidance as early
as 1830, when he was working in a geographer’s shop; his first known
etching is Head of a Woman, which was derived from Rembrandt’s
etching of the same subject. In the mid-1840s Jacque returned to
Rembrandt in his copies after Rembrandt drawing and Rembrandt’s Mill,
which he published in L’Artiste.319 Around the same time, Jacque reversed the composition of Rembrandt’s etching The Monk in the Cornfield [fig. 29] and used it as the basis for his own etching of a couple
copulating in a field. He then further transformed this creative copy
and produced what must have been either a private or little-circulated
etching on the theme of bestiality between a woman and a pig and inscribed it Tout les gouts sont dans la nature (All tastes can be found in
nature) [fig. 30]. This transformation of one of Rembrandt’s prints
suggests how copying was not only the product of commissions from
leading art publications or an interest in reproducing well-known images but also an artist’s personal desire to seek out inspiration from
more unusual sources.
In 1843, Marvy and Jacque together produced a series of etchings that they printed themselves. It was, in fact, under their guidance
that Auguste Delâtre learned how to print etchings. Delâtre later
bought their printing press and established the printshop that would
become the artistic base of the Société des Aquafortistes in the 1860s.
Along with their interest in Rembrandt’s prints and his art in general,
Marvy and Jacque were also attracted to Van Ostade’s scenes of daily
life, particularly his images of the poor. Marvy made copies after Van
Ostade and, under Jacques’ direction, Léon Subercaze produced a
series of prints for a book on Van Ostade’s art.320 The interest of Marvy
and Jacque in both Van Ostade and Rembrandt demonstrate that during these nascent years of the revitalization of etchings Rembrandt was
alloted a significant but not dominant position among French etchers.
In addition to Marvy and Jacque, other artists affiliated with the Barbirembrandt the “ master ” printmaker
161
fig. 28 – Louis Marvy, Beggars at the Door of a House, engraving after Rembrandt, 1840s
fig. 29 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Monk in the Cornfield, c.1646
fig. 30 – Charles Jacque, “Tout les gouts sont dans la nature”, 1840s
zon school looked to Rembrandt as an inspiration for their own renderings of landscapes. Paul Huet wrote to Théophile Silvestre in 1854
about the importance of one of Rembrandt’s drawings for his landscape prints: “I have a memory above all of a small landscape by Rembrandt with this inscription: Tacet sed loquitur, which made such an
impression on me in my childhood.” 321 Huet made copies after Rembrandt’s prints as early as 1835, when he did an etching that reversed
the composition of The Three Trees (1643) [fig. 31].
Another example is Théodore Rousseau who owned five prints
by Rembrandt, one of which, an impression of The Hundred Guilder
Print, he had been willing to pay up to 10,000 francs to acquire. Rousseau saw buying this print as a worthwhile investment because he believed by studying the beauty of this one work – which summarized for
him everything an etching could be – he would better understand
Rembrandt’s “genius” and be able to produce higher quality prints
himself which could, in turn, make him more money through his own
sales. Alfred Sensier, a friend to several Barbizon artists and an avid
collector of their works, recounted Rousseau’s comments on The Hundred Guilder Print:
This print speaks, Rousseau told me in a hushed voice;
the shadow is vaporous like an autumn day and the figures are animated with a breath of air. That one, look, I
would pay 10,000 francs for it if I had to, he told me, because it would not be a sacrifice, it’s an investment. This
etching would give me, by its beauty, the means to make
100,000 francs because it summarizes everything: sentiment, order, morals, light and painting. If I looked at it
for an entire day, I would be dazzled and almost frightened by Rembrandt’s genius... But I should not be the
only one who is happy, my dear. Here, take these two
small landscapes by Rembrandt, he said to me, I want you
to have them; I’ll keep them at my place for a few
months, and they’ll be yours afterwards.322
164
Critic Philippe Burty also noted the popularity of collecting Rembrandt’s prints among Barbizon artists during this period. He remarked, in conjunction with Camille Flers, how they formed an integral part of the decoration of many studios: “He loved passionately all
that bric-a-brac that was in fashion in the studios in the 1830 s: chests,
consoles, Rembrandt’s etchings, prints after the eighteenth-century
Old Masters, stained-glass windows, coats of arms.” 323 But not all the
Barbizon artists felt a sense of kinship with Rembrandt at this early
stage. Such was the reputation of Rembrandt that Millet was intimidated and felt “blinded” by Rembrandt’s genius during the early years of
his career and only looked to him later, when he felt more established
and self-confident.324
Barbizon artists were in awe of Rembrandt’s talents as an etcher
and revered his work as a sometimes daunting example of what they
themselves sought to achieve. They produced copies after Rembrandt
and their statements about him all revolved around discussions of his
prints as exemplarly objects. They did not have a notable interest in
Rembrandt’s personality or biography and were interested in his art
purely on an aesthetic level. Artists from the Barbizon school were attracted to Rembrandt’s printmaking techniques because he had achieved
several effects that they, too, wanted to accomplish: contre-jour, clairobscur, and the quick croquis landscape print. They also wanted to work
directly from nature and believed Rembrandt had done so by his free
and spontaneous handling of motifs. It was their affinity for these technical characteristics that led the Barbizon artists to study and emulate
his prints.
Rembrandt’s The Three Trees [fig. 31] was his most popular
print in nineteenth-century France. Artists of the Barbizon school admired this work because they were interested in producing prints out
of doors that conveyed their comparable ability to study nature directly
from the motif. Etching was in part attractive because scratching into
the ground of a copper plate with an etching needle, and in the case
of drypoint, scratching directly into the plate, was not physically difficult. Neither was scratching into a layer of ink or collodion on glass in
the case of a cliché-verre (glass print). The improvisatory quality was
rembrandt the “ master ” printmaker
165
fig. 31 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Three Trees, 1643
appealing for its spontaneity. The facility with which artists could
transport their etching and cliché-verre materials also freed them from
the constraints that painting out-of-doors could place on their work.
In both painted and printed landscapes, Barbizon artists wanted
to retain a sense of the moment, despite the fact that their compositions were often clearly composed and made use of conventional repoussoir or other organizational motifs. Two examples, Huet’s clichéverre The Marsh/The Voyageur (n.d.) [fig. 32] and Rousseau’s etching
Site de Bérry (1842) [fig. 33], demonstrate how they exploited the effect
of contre-jour to add to the dramatic quality of their print while at the
same time retaining a sense of the scene’s immediacy. Following the
example of Rembrandt’s The Three Trees, Huet concentrated his hatch-
166
fig. 32 – Paul Huet, The Marsh/The Voyageur, n.d.
fig. 33 – Théodore Rousseau Site de Bérry, 1842
fig. 34 – Charles Jacque, Seven Etchings on One Plate, 1844
fig. 35 – Félix Braquemond, Two Trees with a Sunset, 1856
ing and lines in the large cluster of trees and Rousseau in the individual
trees and ground, they set up a stark contrast between a largely white
and unworked background and the central motifs of their composition.
In the following decades French critics and artists articulated
their admiration of Rembrandt’s use of clair-obscur, admiring his use of
light and shadow to create strong contrasts. Most importantly, they
found a parallel in Rembrandt’s landscapes to their desire to work directly from nature and capture the changing effects of weather and the
immediacy of their chosen motifs. An example of this is Jacque’s handling of landscape elements in Seven Etchings on One Plate [fig. 34].
French printmakers from the Barbizon school found a precedent for
their spontaneous and fluid printed drawings or croquis in Rembrandt’s
renderings of similar subjects.
In some cases, there is evidence that etchers in France during
the following decades were directly inspired by one particular etching
by Rembrandt. Félix Braquemond’s mezzotint study Two Trees with a
Sunset (1856) [fig. 35] is closely tied to the composition and dramatic
169
fig. 36 – Henri Guérard, The Thatched Cottage, c.1881
effects of Rembrandt’s The Three Trees. Although the Utrecht-born
artist Ludwig von Siegen is heralded today as the inventor of the
mezzotint, and the earliest example of the technique can be found in
his Amelia Elizabeth, Landgravine of Hesse-Kassel in 1642, it was commonly believed in France during the nineteenth century that Rembrandt had invented the process. This misinformation spread thanks to
Gersaint who wrote that the originality of Rembrandt’s prints was his
combination of drypoint, etching and mezzotint. 325 No examples of
this technique can, in fact, be found in Rembrandt’s work, although
Von Seigen is believed to have been inspired during his time in
Amsterdam by Rembrandt’s use of drypoint. 326 The misattribution of
this invention may have resulted in part from the posthumous reproduction of Rembrandt’s etchings and drypoints in mezzotint. Perhaps
the most notorious example is Captain William Baillie, who used
mezzotint in his continued attempt to emulate Rembrandt and achieve
comparable effects of chiaroscuro. 327
Other examples of works by French artists that were directly inspired by the Dutch Old Master include Henri Guérard’s The Thatched
Cottage [fig. 36] and many of Alphonse Legros’s landscapes, such
as Sheepfold on the Hillside [fig. 37] and The Hovel on the Hill [fig. 38].
170
fig. 37 – Alphonse Legros, Sheepfold on the Hillside, n.d.
fig. 38 – Alphonse Legros, The Hovel on the Hill, n.d.
fig. 39 – Ludovic Lepic, Nemi Lake, 1870
All of these works have remarkably similar compositions and subjects
as Rembrandt’s scenes of thatched cottages with a few trees, fields, or
ambling figures. There are many other possible examples, Ludovic
Lepic’s Nemi Lake (1870) [fig. 39] and Francis Seymour Haden’s
Sketch in Burty’s Garden (1864) [fig. 40] – both of whom wrote of their
admiration of Rembrandt’s prints – also serve to suggest the aesthetic
emulation of Rembrandt’s treatment of weather and sketch-like rendering of subject matter.328
Printmakers from the Barbizon school and later landscapists
working in France studied, collected, and admired Rembrandt’s prints.
In the 1840s, when the artists were first returning to etching and other
printmaking techniques that allowed for a similarly free rendering
of subject matter, they were principally interested in exploring the
aesthetic possibilities of the new (to them) media. Particularly in the
nascent years of the revitalization of etching in France, printmakers
were not concerned about validating or defending their work. During
the following decades, French etchers organized themselves into more
formal associations and became increasingly self-conscious of the
172
fig. 40 – Francis Seymour Haden, Sketch in Burty’s Garden, 1864
status and public recognition of their medium – or lack thereof. Rembrandt then became signficant to them not only in the aesthetic realm
but also as a painter-printmaker whose interests and struggles, they believed, mirrored their own.
173
Original Etchings as a Challenge to
Engraving and Photography
Following the early example of Barbizon artists, dozens of French
artists began to experiment with etching needles. Charles Baudelaire
was among the first critics to sound the trumpet on the reevaluation of
etching in France and in 1862 he proclaimed:
Etching is really coming into fashion... There is obviously a symptom of growing value in these developments.
But we would not want to assert that etching is soon destined for complete popularity. It is too personal a subject,
and consequently too aristocratic, to delight people other
than men of letters and artists, people very much in love
with all living personality. Etching is not only made to
glorify the individuality of an artist, but it is even impossible for an artist not to inscribe his most intimate individuality on a plate... Among the different expressions in
the plastic arts, etching is the one which comes closest to
literary expression and is the best way to betray the spontaneous man. So, long live etching! 329
Although Baudelaire regarded etching as an aristocratic art rather than
an art for the general populace – a view not shared by the majority of
his contemporaries – he promoted the expressive potential of etchings.
Furthermore, Baudelaire’s belief that artists could transfer their inner
selves onto etched plates appealed to his interest in art as a direct vehicle
for personal expression.
Despite this growing interest or “fashion” for etchings, the
artists and critics who sought to promote etching as an independent
medium of considerable artistic value had to fight against several hurdles. They had to establish etching relative to engraving, the print
medium most highly valued by the French Academy. Engravings represented the majority of prints accepted for exhibition at the French
Salons and most of these works were prints after other works of art,
174
typically paintings.330 Reproductions represented a significant means
of income for numerous French printmakers. For many years, before
alternative exhibitions became common, exhibiting at salons was one
of the few ways printmakers could access potential buyers and patrons.
Further, the Chalcography of the Louvre museum also favored engravings and regularly commissioned reproductions of works of art for sale
in its store.331
Most artists and critics who promoted etching sought to define
it as an original medium rather than a reproductive one like engraving.
Unlike engraving, etching did not require extensive formal training
and the medium permitted artists to scratch easily on the surface rather
than cut a more rigid, controlled line into a copper plate. The nature
of the medium, therefore, permitted artists far greater freedom and
they could work more quickly than with engravings. Hence, some
artists believed that even in making an etching which reproduced
another work of art there was still more room for free, artistic interpretation than engravings allowed. Nevertheless, as the number of
print societies and associations grew in France during the second half
of the nineteenth century, some artists categorically refused to exhibit
any prints that depicted other works of art.
The question of whether to value the role of prints – etchings or
engravings – as reproductions was further complicated by another hurdle: the rise of photography during the second half of the century and
the threat it posed to eclipse print commissions entirely. As photography grew in popularity, printmakers had an increasingly difficult battle
before them. Their troubles began after 1851 when collodion negative
and albumen printing paper were first introduced and sales of reproductive photographs flourished in France. In 1853 reproductions of
paintings, prints, or sculpture represented 5.5% of all photographs offered for public sale. Sales of reproductive art photography reached its
peak in the early 1860s, when they represented 28.5% of the photographic market.332 Vincent Van Gogh, in a letter to his brother Theo
in 1873, noted the rising popularity and sales of photographs of art:
175
We sell good engravings well enough; among others, we
have already gotten rid of twenty or so artistic prints of the
Venus anadyomène by Ingres. But it’s a real pleasure to see
how the photographs are in demand, especially the colored
ones; there’s a good profit to be made there. The photographs at Goupil and company, wrapped in papers one
inside the other, are sold at a rate of a hundred a day.333
Photography companies such as Braun and Company, which began as
Adolphe Braun’s studio in 1847 and became one of the leading photography houses in France beginning in the mid-1850s, benefitted
from the booming sales of reproductions of art.334
The first book with photographic illustrations from glass negatives was a series of photographs after Rembrandt’s prints published in installments in 1853 by Gide & Baudry, with Charles Blanc as
author of the accompanying text. The photographs for this text were
produced by the Bisson brothers, Louis-Auguste and Auguste-Rosalie
Bisson. It is ironic that the subject of this first book illustrated with
photography was the very artist who was then taken up by French
printmakers to advance the status of their art as a significant artistic
medium and more valuable than photographs reproducing art. 335 The
rising tide of Rembrandt reverence took place on all fronts.
It was certainly less expensive to commission photographic reproductions of art than prints, hence printmakers had to battle for
work against the rising competition of photography. The most famous
example, Henriquel-Dupont’s engraving of Delaroche’s Hemicycle in
the École des Beaux-Arts, took ten years to complete. It was also, at
the time, the most expensive commission Goupils had ever undertaken
of a reproductive print.336 Henriquel-Dupont was said to have received
100,000 francs for the engraving. Goupils and other publishing houses
produced such large plates in the hope of reaping profits from a splinter market of the rising sales of paintings to upper middle-class French
buyers. But developments in photographic processes meant that by the
1860s the same mural could be reproduced quickly and inexpensively
by photography and potentially satisfy the same market.
176
In their fight against photography, French printmakers argued that a
print had greater value because it was a free, artistic medium rather
than a mechanical process like photography. Even the founders of the
Société des Aquafortistes, who in their own exhibitions typically promoted original over reproductive prints, defended the latter against the
menace of photography. They claimed etching was the best way to
“translate” their own painted works. In 1862, Alfred Cadart, editor of
the Société des Aquafortistes, wrote in his brochure advertising the society’s publications that despite the interesting prints the artists of this
society produced, their works remained unknown to the public because
prints were having trouble competing with photography.
Numerous editors have come to regard photography as
the best means to popularize works of art. Everything by
photography, everything for photography, seems to be
the word of these dealers who, having already spread in
the public the bourgeois taste for mezzotint, have now
arrived at another mechanical mezzotint: Photography.
Stunned by this deplorable tendency, artists have joined
together, and as their work has already shown, they want
to protest with a publication that shows that the interpretation of the artist by the artist should perpetuate
itself and not the interpretation of the artist by the
machine.337
In another letter, also from 1862, editors Cadart and Chevalier wrote
directly to Napoleon III to explain their mission to the emperor himself:
In one blow, [the Société] revives a forgotten art, poses a
limit to the invasion of photography, reanimates emulation among artists, and raises public taste by the popularization of their works.338
The society’s important role in the battle against photography was recognized and articulated by critic Jules Claretie, who wrote in defense
177
of the Société des Aquafortistes that it was “a kind of protest against
photography – this new means used against the popularization of artworks. It is, properly speaking, the rivalry of art against trade.” 339
Alcide Dusolier advanced another line of defense: that only an artist
could reproduce a work of art with their experience and contemplation
of the object. He believed that:
The material reproduction of nature, however exact this
reproduction may be, is by itself powerless to awaken in
us the poetic emotion that should be born from the contemplation of a work of art. It needs more, it needs intelligence, it needs an artist! It is the artist’s glory not only
to reproduce, but also to interpret. Thus, so as not to ruin
one of art’s most susceptible principles, never separate
form from idea.340
In this challenging battle for recognition and commissions, French
printmakers sought ways to buttress the value of prints by aligning
themselves with Rembrandt.
A Foreigner as the Model for a
New National School?
From our perspective today it may appear that French critics and
artists made an odd choice in seeking out Rembrandt as the model past
printmaker. There were numerous past artists from whom to choose,
among them Stefano della Bella, Claude Lorrain and the Carracci
brothers. Jacques Callot, the French seventeenth-century artist who
produced etchings depicting contemporary poor people and the daily
realities of French peasants, would appear to have been a particularily
obvious choice for French artists. Callot’s works were certainly well
represented in the leading French public collection, the Cabinet des
estampes of the Bibliothèque nationale, and formed part of several private collections, including those of Clément, Gervaise, Hulot, Roth,
178
and Thiers. Studies of his œuvre were also published in France in the
nineteenth century.341
Henri Delaborde wrote in 1850 in an article entitled “La Gravure depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours,” which he published in the
Revue des deux mondes, that Callot was “alone among all the French
printmakers, a few of whom are better than him, the printmaker from
Nancy is still known today by the masses.” 342 In the nineteenth century,
Callot was ranked as the most important French etcher and in a letter
to Walewski, Minister of Fine Arts, written in 1862, Cadart used Callot’s name in an attempt to appeal to the minister to support the revival of etching as a national art:
Minister, the subscription of your department for the
number of collections you deem suitable and which, distributed by Your Excellence to artistic establishments,
with the discernment it has already given to so many
prints, should not miss the opportunity to popularize an
art from which so many masterpieces have sprung in
France from Callot to our times and have made a national
art.343
This letter from the editor for the Société des Aquafortistes shows that
Callot was at least momentarily the past artist invoked by etchers in
their attempt to reestablish their medium as a national French art. In
1876, Adolphe Martial listed Callot, Israëls and Rembrandt as significant models in a letter he addressed to himself under the pseudonym
Potémot. His suggestion: “The sky, the earth and good men are always
admirable models. Revive Callot, Israël[s] or Rembrandt” shows again
how in some instances a variety of possible models were recommended
and that the ultimate selection of a sole exemplar for French etching
must have been a conscious choice. 344
Comparisons between Rembrandt and Callot were not uncommon in nineteenth-century France, but as early as 1842, Rembrandt
was judged to be superior by Aloysius Bertrand writing in Gaspard de
la Nuit: Fantaisies à la manière de Callot et Rembrandt. In the preface to
179
this collection of poetry, Bertrand described Callot as a carefree man
who passed his time among young women and drink. Rembrandt, on
the other hand, was respected by him as a wise and profound thinker.
Art always has two antithetical faces, a medal which, for
example, is marked on one side with the resemblance of
Paul Rembrandt and on the other that of Jacques Callot.
Rembrandt is the philosopher with a white beard who
acts like a snail in his corner, who absorbs his thought in
meditation and in prayer, who closes his eyes to collect
himself, who speaks to the spirits of beauty, of science, of
wisdom and love, and who consumes himself in the penetration of the mysterious symbols of nature. Callot, on
the other hand, is the boasting infantryman and soldier
who struts about on the spot, who makes noise in the
bars, who caresses the daughters of gypsies, who only
swears by his sword and by his gun, and who has no other
worry except to wax his moustache.345
Bertrand clearly took neither Callot’s art nor his life seriously.
While Callot’s etchings of street people and beggars predate the
earliest studies of this subject by Rembrandt, Callot’s images were not
regarded in France as authentic representations of the poor. Callot’s
“Les Gueux” series, also known as “Les Mendiants,” “Les Baroni,” or
“Les Barons,” was his most famous series of etchings in the centuries
following his death in 1635.346 In the nineteenth century, however,
Callot’s depictions of peasants were regarded as images of shackled
subjects still at the mercy of French royalty. Rembrandt’s mendicants
were viewed, on the other hand, as makers of their own destiny since
they lived in a country free from royal rulers and could be proud of
their hard-fought freedom.
Charles Blanc believed Rembrandt depicted the poor with
greater compassion and understanding than any of his contemporaries:
180
Other artists have painted vagabonds, and at the same
time as Rembrandt took up the etching-needle, Stephano
della Bella, Callot, Visscher, Miel and others represented
misery: but not one of these painters was able to lend to
this sort of representation the same interest as Rembrandt. He alone put in a profound sense of pity, he
alone took the poor seriously... Rembrandt’s poor are
real poor. Misery penetrated right to the marrow of their
bones... He alone fixed the profound and serious eye of a
master on certain aspects of town life, on one of the conditions of humanity. 347
Blanc also remarked that while Callot may have produced etchings
twenty years before Rembrandt, the talent for etchings was not inherent in Blanc’s undefined notion of “French genius” as was the case for
engraving.
We say that Rembrandt invented etching. However,
some twenty years before him, Jacques Callot brought
this beautiful art to light in his countless and already so
popular compositions. But etching, as painters agree, was
not in the French genius; the clarity of engraving suited
the character of our school better.348
Evaluations of the superiority of Rembrandt’s images of the poor as
authentic and truthful by comparison to prints by Callot continued in
the work of one of the premier nineteenth-century French historians,
Jules Michelet. Michelet wrote in 1879 in his comprehensive Histoire
de France:
Go to the library, take a Callot, take a Rembrandt. Ridiculous comparison you will say, and you will be right, it is
like putting sand and stone from a small dry torrent in
the presence of an ocean. Regardless, look, study, question. The Frenchman, what does he say with his fine
181
point, with his microscopic chisel? He recounts what he
has seen in his bohemian life: court, parties and family,
cripples, hunchbacks and beggars, the artifices of misery,
the universal hypocrisy, the undertakings of soldiers, the
deaths and incredible scenes of pillage, tortures above all,
the gallows and the rope, the grace of the hanging, this
eternal subject which does not delay French gaiety.
Oh! The poor gay people, I would so like for you a
bit of interior, of a gentle home with warm lights which I
see in the other, the two fortunes of Holland, family and
free thought. I don’t even wish a Dutch thatched cottage
for you, so comfortable, nor Rembrandt’s beautiful mill...
The sailor was free, the middle-class were free; far freer
was the peasant, this unhappy underdog, on whom we
walk and stamp our feet everywhere. The peasant, how
he felt strong under the law in Holland! What noble
pride in man! 349
For Michelet, Callot’s images of poor French people were a sham since
Callot’s own life experiences were closely tied to those of the French
royal court and were, thus, only hypocritically representative of the
lives of the poor. In contrast, images produced by Rembrandt in Holland, the home of liberal thought and free citizens, were, for Michelet,
authentic and sincere representations of daily life among the lower
classes.
Not all French etchers sought to depict the daily life of the
poor, but the subject was of significant interest. Rembrandt was chosen
as the best exponent of such images by French critics and their interest
in his pauper figures can also be found in the numerous images of the
poor by artists affiliated with the Société des Aquafortistes. Rembrandt’s
mendicant figures received notable critical attention in France and it
appears that French etchers who wanted to convey a sense of immediacy and authenticity in their images of the poor found the best precedent for their own goals in Rembrandt’s art.
182
Rembrandt’s works depict a specifically urban type and were not a
model for the rural peasant figures of Millet or Camille Pissarro.
Instead, his character studies of heads and representations of street
people such as Male and Female Beggar [fig. 41], who have tattered
clothing and sometimes carry objects or support themselves on sticks
or crutches, were regarded in France as the most authentic images of
the urban poor. Charles Jacque conveyed a similar representation of
such hobbling figures in his Seven Etchings on One Plate [fig. 34].
Likewise, other members of the Société des Aquafortistes, including
Georges Duseigneur, Henri Guérard, Adolphe Hervier, Alphonse
Legros, and Joseph Soumy, produced character studies and images of
lower-class urban figures [figs. 42-45] for which parallels can be found
in Rembrandt’s work in both subject matter and the free handling of
the etched line. In Rembrandt’s prints, François Bonvin, Edouard
Manet, and Théodule Ribot also appear to have found a precedent for
their desire to create convincingly authentic etchings of the poor.
Belief in the authenticity of Rembrandt’s images of rural homeless figures was one of the most significant reasons why French critics
and artists preferred the Dutch artist to their fellow countryman Callot. Another factor may have been Callot’s use of more precise and
controlled lines versus the loose and spontaneous lines of Rembrandt’s
etchings. French artists and critics did not overtly state such a critique
of Callot’s technique but they did laud Rembrandt’s free handling of
the etching needle. Perhaps even more important than the poor as a
discrete subject in Rembrandt’s œuvre was the larger ideology it was
seen to represent. Rembrandt’s etchings were viewed as creations of
the leading artist of the Netherlands, a democratic nation. The desire
for French etchers to produce truthful and authentic prints – whether
of the poor or any other subject – was a significant cause for the reverence of Rembrandt’s printed œuvre over Callot’s.
Albrecht Dürer was the other past printmaker with whom Rembrandt was most often compared in nineteenth-century France. The
admiration French printmakers held for both Dürer and Rembrandt
can be seen, in part, in works produced by artists closely connected to
the French etching revival. Rembrandt and Dürer were presented as
183
fig. 41 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Male and Female Beggar, 1630
fig. 42 – Henri Guérard, Frontispiece for Dix Têtes de
Vieillards, 1872
fig. 43 – Henri Guérard, Head of an Old Man, 1872
fig. 44 – Henri Guérard, Old Sweeper, n.d.
fig. 45 – Adolphe Hervier, Child with a Basket, 1875
fig. 46 – Léopold Flameng, Letterhead for Auguste Delâtre, c.1860
the principal past mentors for French printmakers in the letterhead
Léopold Flameng designed for Auguste Delâtre around 1860 [fig. 46].
A medallion bust of each flanks the inscription “Imprimerie artistique
de Aug. Delatre, Rue St. Jacques, 303.” On the right, below Dürer’s
medallion, the words “taille douce” denote his principal connection
with engravings. On the left, below Rembrandt’s medallion, the designation “eau-forte” signifies that it was he who was regarded as the embodiment of the etching tradition. Flameng signed the print to the
right above Rembrandt’s head on the etcher’s worktable, below the
artist, who is shown working among his tools. Above the etcher, there
is a view of Notre Dame Cathedral as seen from Ile St. Louis. This
medieval building had been the subject of Victor Hugo’s Nôtre Dame
de Paris, in which Hugo made the first comparison between Rembrandt and Shakespeare and referred to a specifically northern conception of genius. If Flameng was not consciously referring to Hugo’s
186
text, his imagery may have been inspired by some of the comparisons
French critics made between Rembrandt and the middle ages.350
In the center of the letterhead an artist strains to turn the wheel
of a printing press. Flameng probably intended this figure to be
Delâtre himself or at least to symbolize Delâtre’s famed talents as the
printer who had welcomed to his studio dozens of printmakers including Félix Bracquemond, Mary Cassatt, Flameng, Jules de Goncourt,
Haden, Maxime Lalanne, Legros, Martial, Charles Méryon, Rousseau,
and James MacNeill Whistler. Since Delâtre typically designed his
own advertising and produced trade and calling cards for his business,
the letterhead was most likely a gift from Flameng rather than a commissioned work.351 To the right, above Dürer, an artist paints at his
easel. The painter’s inclusion in this print, which was effectively for
bills sent from Paris’ leading printshop, represents the painter-printmaker, the artist who uses his talents as a colorist and the fluid sweeping
motions of applying oil paint to a canvas to the advantage of his prints.
The draped nude male sculpture behind the easel may be the subject of
his painting. Certainly the architecture of the Academy in the distance
provides an appropriate backdrop for the engraving quadrant of
Flameng’s print.352 In Flameng’s rendering, the modern day painterprintmaker draws inspiration from both etching and engraving traditions, although over time Flameng and his contemporaries came to regard Rembrandt and his etchings as the more significant of the two.
Ferdinand Roybet’s frontispiece [fig. 47] for the fourth annual
publication of the Société des Aquafortistes in 1866 exemplifies similar
connections between French artists and both Dürer and Rembrandt as
important past printmakers. This close-up view of an etcher’s workplace incorporates the prerequisite position facing a sunfilled window,
a copper plate, tools, acid, and bath, as well as two books – perhaps two
print manuals or other sources of technical information or inspiration
– in the lower right-hand corner. The plaque announcing the publication, inscribed “Eaux fortes modernes publiées par la Société des
Aquafortistes 4º année mdccclxvi” is, in fact, the screen that etchers
typically placed on the inside of their windows to diffuse direct sunlight and create a suitably lit work space. The partially drawn curtain
187
fig. 47 – Ferdinand Roybet, Frontispiece for the Fourth Annual Publication
of the Société des Aquafortistes, 1866
adds texture and a sense of movement to this still-life scene. Roybet
clearly indicates both Dürer’s and Rembrandt’s presence. Dürer appears in the form of a folio of loose pages, which is probably intended
to represent a collection of the artist’s prints. The French version of
the artist’s name, Albert Durer, extends across the front cover of the
folio.
The bust in the right background is undoubtedly of Rembrandt.
As in many other paintings and prints of Rembrandt throughout this
period, the classic characteristics are represented: a jauntily berettopped head with tumbling, curly hair and upturned moustache are attributes incorporated into representations of Rembrandt in both paintings and prints throughout this period.353 The contrast between the
bust’s partially lit and partially obscured physiognomy even suggests
Rembrandt’s famed clair-obscur. By including the folio of Dürer’s prints
and a bust of Rembrandt Roybet emphasized the importance of both
artists for the Société des Aquafortistes. While etchings were the society’s focus, the tradition of engraving was also seen as valuable for
some of the artists involved.
There were also several French publications devoted to Dürer
during this period, although nothing comparable to the number of
texts on Rembrandt. 354 Like Rembrandt and Callot, Dürer’s prints
figured in the Cabinet des estampes and several leading private collections, including those of Clément, Delessert, Firmin-Didot, Galichon,
Gigoux, and Roth. Since Dürer produced prints over a hundred years
before Rembrandt, one could expect he would be seen as the germinal
European artist in this medium. Indeed, Blanc noted that the first
known etching was produced by Dürer’s hand in 1512:
The oldest known etching is Albrecht Dürer’s Saint
Jerome, etched in 1512... Etching had not yet taken its
place in the domain of the arts; she would not complete
her expression, acquire her value, her color, until the
seventeenth century; in a word it is Rembrandt who was
the true inventor; it is he, who through a simple process,
made it an art.355
189
Despite any claim that Dürer was the first etcher – and French printmaking treatises allowed that there was an ongoing debate between
German and Italian sources – Blanc would not grant Dürer the status
of preeminent etcher. The critic Philippe Burty agreed with that view
and dismissed Dürer’s etchings as a fleeting interest. He criticized
Dürer’s technique as one not adapted to the copper plate but the same
as if the artist was working with wood: “Albrecht Dürer only tried it in
passing. It could not be his instrument of choice. He asked of it about
what he asked of wood: powerful contours.” 356
French critics and artists associated Dürer principally with woodcuts and engravings rather than etchings. Blanc estimated Dürer on
par with Marcantonio Raimondi and Rembrandt, but he claimed Rembrandt was undisputably the leading figure of the three:
Rembrandt is without doubt the most illustrious painterprintmaker. For two hundred years he has shared with
Albrecht Dürer and Marcantonio, the honor of supplying
the great trade of prints in Europe, of being collected by
an always increasing number of amateurs, and to have
risen from simple prints to fabulous prices in the most famous sales.357
Rembrandt’s status is again reinforced by Eugène Montrosier, who
also grouped the same three artists as the trilogy of great painter-printmakers: “It is Rembrandt! The most famous of painter-printmakers,
the most outstanding personality of the trinity formed in history with
Albrecht Dürer and Marc-Antonio.” 358 Critic Joséphin Péladan dismissed Dürer and Raimondi’s significance and declared Italian artist
Piranesi the only other past printmaker who could come anywhere
close to Rembrandt’s talent: “The opposite of painter-printmakers
Albrecht Dürer and Marcantonio, who were surpassed, Rembrandt has
remained the king of etchers – without sharing this position – and
Piranesi alone approached him with his architectural hallucinations.” 359
However, Raimondi’s connection with the Italian reproductive engraving tradition meant that he was ultimately of minimal significance to
190
French printmakers, who emphasized originality above all else. With
the growing cult of Rembrandt, interest in Dürer also waned.
Public and Private Print Collections
Rembrandt’s prints were accessible through the Cabinet des estampes
of the Bibliothèque nationale, the leading national public resource of
prints available to French artists and critics in the nineteenth century.
By the second half of the nineteenth century, the Cabinet des estampes
held a collection of over 1,400 prints by Rembrandt. The king’s print
cabinet – then the Bibliothèque Royale – was formed in 1667, when
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Minister and Surintendent for Louis XIV, acquired “works by more than six thousand masters” from the abbé
Michel de Marolles, whose collection was ranked as the most valuable
in France in the seventeenth century. These included 224 Rembrandt
prints. In 1731, the royal collection expanded significantly through the
acquisition of prints from the son of Jacques-Louis de Beringhen.
These included 426 prints by Rembrandt and 27 prints by his students.360
Hugues-Adrien Joly, who was nominated Garde of the Cabinet
des estampes in 1750, sold off 189 duplicates and added further to the
Royal collection, particularly in 1784, when he acquired 736 of
Rembrandt’s prints from Antoine de Peters’ collection. The next addition to the royal collection came in 1847, when fifteen of Rembrandt’s
prints were acquired when the collection of Dutch diplomat Baron Jan
Gijsbert Verstolk van Soelen was sold. At least fifty more prints were
purchased during the nineteenth century. These additions included
Portrait of Rembrandt with a Round Hat and Embroidered Coat, a unique
print which chief curator Georges Duplessis purchased in 1893 at the
R.S. Holford sale.361
Beginning in 1819, Rembrandt’s Descent from the Cross [fig. 48]
was framed and permanently exhibited in a window of the print room
(today an exhibition gallery) as part of a selection of prints curators
deemed the best from the Cabinet des estampes, and those which
191
fig. 48 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Descent from the Cross, 1633
“were curious by age or rarity.” The exhibition notice called Rembrandt’s Descent from the Cross “one of his largest and most beautiful
compositions” and it was hung on the principal façade in the first
row.362 This practice of hanging prints in the windows continued
throughout the century to allow visitors to study the works in natural
light.363
Rembrandt’s Descent from the Cross was said to be a perfect example of clair-obscur, and the catalogue entry also emphasized the
myth derived from Houbraken that Rembrandt’s desire for money had
led him to sell his prints before the plates were completed, thereby explaining why there are up to seven states for some of his works. The
catalogue even suggested that Rembrandt was a frustrated artist:
“Except for four or five works which are both rare and beautiful, the
rarest prints are studies where the scribbles are almost without merit,
and where the plate was ruined by Rembrandt, who was unhappy with
his work.” 364 Thus the catalogue perpetuated many of the perceptions
of Rembrandt’s personality that were emphasized by French critics.
The exhibition of 1819 also included printed copies after paintings. While there was only one copy by Jan de Frey after a painting by
Rembrandt, there were three copies after Rubens, five after Poussin
and twenty-two copies after Raphael. Rembrandt was similarly represented by one reproductive print in the exhibition of 1823.365 Even at
this early date Rembrandt was included, albeit marginally, among those
who were regarded as well-established artists in France.
A reevaluation of the collection took place, by 1837, at the same
time as Barbizon artists were starting to look to Rembrandt’s prints for
inspiration. Eighteen original prints by Rembrandt were exhibited that
year.366 The works by Rembrandt on display included Christ Preaching,
Christ Healing the Sick, The Resurrection of Lazarus, The Good Samaritan,
Christ Presented to the People, Descent from the Cross, St. Jerome, SelfPortrait with a Sabre and Heron, portraits of Lutma, Coppenol, Tolling, Jan Asselyn, Burgomaster Six, A Shell, Landscape with Three Trees,
Thatched Cottage with Barn, Thatched Cottage with Large Tree, and View of
a Canal [figs. 49-60, 63].367 (The illustrations included here are those
prints and states that were exhibited in the nineteenth century.) In the
193
fig. 49 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ Preaching, c.1652
case of Christ Healing the Sick or Pièce des cent florins [fig. 50], the notice emphasized the increasing value of this print, which had sold for
800 francs in 1770 and 4,500 francs in 1835.
The catalogue of 1855 showed a similar representation and included the same eighteen prints by Rembrandt.368 By the time of the
next catalogue, in 1875, three of Rembrandt’s prints had been taken
down: Christ Preaching [fig. 49], St. Jerome [fig. 54], and View of a
Canal. 369 Judging by the fragile condition of these works today, the
prints were probably removed because of the discoloration and aging
hastened by their lengthy exposure to sunlight.
While Rembrandt’s prints were displayed in increasing numbers
throughout the nineteenth century, prints depicting Raphael’s works
continued to dominate the Cabinet des estampes. Even though Raphael
194
fig. 50 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ Healing the Sick, c.1649
did not produce any of the prints himself, the print room followed the
French Academy’s lead and emphasized his work as a model even in a
setting where the only Raphael presence that could be created was
through copies after his paintings. Artists and critics who came to
study in the print room were, therefore, exposed primarily to the official French notion of good art and how to produce it.
Despite this attempt at authoritative dogma, there was a certain
amount of institutional acknowledgement or promotion of the value of
Rembrandt’s prints in the Cabinet des estampes. In this context, it is
important to evaluate how the display of his etchings in this semi-public space presented Rembrandt’s printed œuvre. Notably, the prints exhibited gave a limited representation of Rembrandt’s range of subject
matter. There was a greater emphasis on more conventional material –
religious subjects, portraits, and landscapes – and none of the more
195
fig. 51 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Resurrection of Lazarus, c.1632
fig. 52 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Good Samaritan, 1633
fig. 53 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ Presented to the People, 1635 and 1636
fig. 54 – Rembrandt van Rijn, St. Jerome, c.1629
fig. 55 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait with a Sabre and Heron, 1634
fig. 56 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Janus Lutma, 1656
fig. 57 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Burgomaster Six, 1647
fig. 58 – Rembrandt van Rijn, A Shell, 1650
erotic mythological or other sex-related scenes, such as the so-called
Le Lit à la française [fig. 63], of which there were numerous examples
in the collection. None of Rembrandt’s much-discussed nudes were
exhibited, and not even one of the many etchings of beggars, poor
people, or character studies that also formed a significant part of the
collection. As a result, the institutional presentation of Rembrandt
gave a sanitized view of his work. The case of Charles Jacque noted
earlier does, however, demonstrate that an interest in Rembrandt’s
etchings of sex-related subjects drew an artist to works other than
those on public display in the print room.
Most of the etchings by Rembrandt on exhibition throughout
the nineteenth century were examples of the first state of each print.
There was much emphasis placed on rarity, and, in the case of Christ
Preaching [fig. 49], what was supposedly a unique state.370 Several of
the etchings – including the portraits of Lutma [fig. 56], Coppenol,
and Six [fig. 57], and Christ Healing the Sick [fig. 50] – were all printed
203
fig. 59 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Thatched Cottage with Barn, 1641
fig. 60 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Thatched Cottage with Large Tree, 1641
on Chinese and Japanese papers, which were considered exotic in the
nineteenth century. As for the presentation of Rembrandt’s etching
technique, there were vast differences in the level of detail in these
prints. They ranged from many heavily worked plates, such as most of
the portraits and religious subjects, to the St. Jerome [fig. 54] in which
there are many unworked passages. Since the prints exhibited were
204
seen as complete works of art, Rembrandt’s technique could thus be
regarded as encompassing a broad spectrum of possibilities.
The Cabinet des estampes was the only semi-public print collection available for consultation in Paris. The presentation of an artist’s prints therefore had an impact on the many artists and critics who
went there to study. Rembrandt’s use of exotic and unusual papers did,
in fact, become a significant point of interest among French critics and
printmakers, as did the varying levels of finish in his prints. However,
with only one example of each print on display, the attention to Rembrandt’s production of varied states could not be fostered in this environment.
Despite the limited exposure, several of the etchings on exhibition were among the most talked about of Rembrandt’s prints in the
nineteenth century, including: Christ Healing the Sick, Portrait of Burgomeister Six, and Landscape with Three Trees. But other prints, namely
Doctor Faust [fig. 61], Self-Portrait Leaning on a Stone Sill [fig. 62], and
the mendicant subjects, did not figure in the printroom’s displays and
their popularity and the perception of their significance in the nineteenth century was promoted by French critics and artists rather than
institutions. As an important resource for French artists and critics, the
presentation of Rembrandt in this space helped form their perception
of him as a printmaker. It is, however, even more significant to consider those aspects of his printed œuvre which were not sanctioned by the
leading French print institution but which were nonetheless actively
sought out, with undoubtedly greater difficulty.
Although the Cabinet des estampes was the leading print resource open to French artists and critics, the accessibility of the collection was the subject of some debate and frustration in the nineteenth
century. Similar to restrictions still in place today, the reserve section
of the Cabinet des estampes was accessible to dealers, critics, and
artists only by written request.371 Clément, Danlos & Delisle, and Lacroix were among the dealers who consulted the print collection regularly and representatives from the publishing house Goupils also made
frequent visits. Artists who successfully received passes to study the
collection included Bonnat, Bracquemond, Charles Courtry, Charles
205
fig. 61 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Doctor Faust, c.1652
fig. 62 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait Leaning on a Stone Sill, 1639
Daubigny, Edgar Degas, Flameng, Gérôme, Manet, Marvy, Rajon,
Robert-Fleury, Veyrassat, and Charles Waltner. Critics and historians
also visited. Among them were Blanc (who, in his request dated 1849,
referred to himself as a painter); Burty (who made repeated visits in the
1860s), Champfleury, Galichon, Jules de Goncourt, Mantz, and the
Dutch archivist Scheltema. Unfortunately these written requests indicated what the visitor specifically wanted to study only in rare instances.
The printroom was not entirely accessible to everyone. It took
Henri Fantin-Latour two attempts before he was granted a pass and
Théodore Duret was refused permission both times he submitted
requests. Others who were denied access included the critics Gonse
and Taine and artists Besnard, Brillouin, Neuville, Rops, and Vollon.
Women had particular difficulty gaining access to the collection; two
surviving requests from Nélie Jacquemart and Emma Roberts were
both refused. Artists writing on their own behalf were generally successful, but it certainly helped if one was endorsed by an established figure.
Written requests to study Rembrandt’s prints at the Cabinet des
estampes were, however, not always required, particularly if artists
were sufficiently determined to pay homage to the Old Master. Charles
Jacque wrote in an undated letter to Jules Claretie of the initial problems but how persistence in the face of bureaucracy resulted in success
when he took Honoré Daumier to study Rembrandt’s prints on reserve
in the Cabinet des estampes:
We had planned to go together with Daumier to see
Rembrandt’s works on reserve at the library, which Daumier did not know. Arriving at the rooms, the boy who
addressed us took us straight to the chief curator who,
having put on his binocle (gold, I think), asked us our
names, which I stated. He wrote them down. ‘Have you,’
he asked me ‘a letter from someone known? from someone who recommends you?’ ‘But, Monsieur,’ I said, ‘I am
not [known], but my friend there, Mr. Daumier, is my
guarantee, as I am with him.’ He said ‘I didn’t say so’ and
208
looked embarrassed, ‘but I do not know the man.’ ‘What,
but he is the famous caricaturist Daumier whose work includes several thousand subjects, some of which you must
have at the library!’ Seeing the stunned look of my chief
curator, I allowed myself to throw this in his face: – ‘And
I, Monsieur, without being famous like my friend, have
no less a work than more than three hundred etchings
that I have been told are here!’ The chief curator ended
up telling his employee to come and accompany us:
‘Well, show these men the prints!’ I imagine that while
we visited Rembrandt in the reserves under the eye of
two guardians, he found out if one Honoré Daumier and
one Charles Jacque existed, because no one grabbed our
collar as we left.372
Jacque and Daumier’s experience suggests that some artists who argued their case directly were able to study the rich collection even
without writing in advance.
In general, visiting the Cabinet des estampes was a notoriously
arduous process and one that sparked a debate among artists. JeanFrançois Raffaëlli published his criticisms of the obstacles artists confronted when trying to access the national print collection, a process
he estimated took up to a year. In a letter first published in the daily
newspaper L’Événement on November 18th, 1884, and then in excerpts
in the Journal des Arts on November 21st, 1884, Raffaëlli criticized the
exclusivity and politics of the Cabinet des estampes.373
First one has to send a written request to the curator.
Then this request has to be supported by someone well
known, preferably by a member of the Fine Arts administration. Finally when your request, duly supported, is welcomed, you have to present yourself on said day, yourself,
in person, to the curator, said curator, after examining
your person, finally decides whether or not he should
grant you this permission and this favor. In which case
209
you just have to sign the register, sign your card, and
finally wait for the two days a week when you will be
authorized to consult, during special hours, the original
prints that the assistant curator will want to confide to
you, and with whom you will be especially polite. Really
the door to the office of foreign affairs is easier to force
open.374
Raffaëlli further suggested the collection be transferred from the
Bibliothèque nationale to the Louvre, where it could replace the marine and ethnographic museums. Then, he said, the existing Cabinet
des estampes could function as a museum and France’s print collection
would be equally accessible to artists and the general public as the rest
of the Louvre collection.
Raffaëlli conceded that it was important to protect the valuable
collection of prints but he mused that since the Louvre displays valuable paintings that are irreplaceable why could not prints, for which several copies exist, be at least equally accessible? Significantly, Raphaëlli’s only reference to valuable prints cited Rembrandt:
Certainly I understand the difficulties and I know the artistic value of certain prints. I know many of Rembrandt’s
works are worth a fortune; but such a painting at the
Louvre, which cost 100,000 francs and for which we cannot find a second proof, does not pose, as far as I know,
more resistance to a criminal and meanwhile we do not
hide it! 375
Raffaëlli believed that since the public was not regularly exposed to
prints and the only major prize the French Academy offered for printmakers, the Prix de Rome, was for engravers, other print media still remained largely unknown and thus unappreciated by the general French
population.
Despite the fact that it was more difficult to study or copy prints
in the Cabinet des estampes than to copy paintings at the Louvre
210
museum, dealers, artists, and critics with a range of interests were able
to consult the collection. While Rembrandt’s prints were only partially
validated in this setting, Raffaëlli’s emphasis on the value of Rembrandt’s prints and the dissemination of his views in the French press
demonstrate the exemplary status Rembrandt had been assigned by the
1880s. This position was further consolidated and promoted through
Félix Buhot’s response to Raffaëlli’s plea for the increased accessibility
of prints in France, a topic discussed in the following chapter.
The growing number of private collectors of Rembrandt’s prints
in France also demonstrates his rising popularity. They included critics
Charles Blanc and Eugène Dutuit, publisher Firmin-Didot, dealers
Danlos and Delisle and Charles Clément, collectors Delessert and His
de la Salle, artists Léon Bonnat, Desperet, Jean Gigoux, Théodore
Rousseau, and Antoine Vollon, as well as politician Adolphe Thiers
and Baron Edmond de Rothschild, Count Adolphe Thibaudeau, and
Emile and Louis Galichon.376 Bonnat was thrilled when he became
friends with His de la Salle and was able to see his art collection.
Thoré-Bürger was often granted permission to visit private collections
because of the articles he published but as with painting collections he
remarked on their inaccessibility: “One must say that entering many of
these galleries is quite difficult, or at least, that it requires letters, references, as the English say, round-about approaches, and almost diplomatic intrigues: personal connections, indirect recommendations, and
often stubbornness.” 377 These were worthy collections and critics and
others sought assiduously to see them.
Reprinting Rembrandt’s Copper Plates
The market for Rembrandt’s prints among French collectors was fed
by the numerous reworkings and reprintings of his copper plates in the
nineteenth century. This practice, which can be traced back to the
eighteenth century, continued into the early twentieth century. Significantly, France was the repository for the largest number of these
plates.378 Due to the common nineteenth-century practice of adding
211
steel facing to the copper, an almost unlimited number of impressions
could be made of each plate.
The major source of Rembrandt’s copper plates in France was
the Paris-based art connoisseur Claude-Henri Watelet, who specialized in Rembrandt’s prints. Watelet, who began his collection as early
as the 1760s, published impressions, together with his own works, in
Rymbranesques ou essais de gravure in 1785.379 The most famous transformation of one of Rembrandt’s prints attributed to Watelet is SelfPortrait with Saskia, in which Saskia was replaced by a portrait of
Rembrandt’s mother.380 In 1786, the Parisian publisher and print dealer Pierre François Basan acquired eighty-one plates at Watelet’s estate
sale. Between 1789 and 1797 Basan published his own Recueil Rembrandt.381 Although Basan did little retouching, his son, Henry-Louis
Basan reworked many plates and published them again around 1807.
Perhaps Henry Basan’s best-known alterations were to Rembrandt’s
Doctor Faust, in which Basan changed the scholar’s face from that of an
older to a younger man. Around 1820 the copper plates transferred to
another French publisher, Auguste Jean, who made further reprints
and published compilations for his own profit. In 1846 the French engraver Auguste Bernard acquired the plates, reworking and publishing
them again. Bernard was the last person who reprinted Rembrandt’s
copper plates in France in the nineteenth century.
The availability of later impressions of Rembrandt’s copper
plates helped both to satiate the growing market and encourage sales
of Rembrandt’s etchings in France. Nineteenth-century French sale
catalogues did not indicate whether a print listed under Rembrandt’s
name was an impression from the seventeenth, eighteenth or nineteenth century. The major selling point was whether the print was a
high-quality impression. Precise lines, clear definition of forms, and
the condition and quality of the paper – Dutch or Asian – were all
important factors. There is little to indicate that French nineteenthcentury collectors were even aware of – let alone interested in – the
massive reprinting taking place.
Only astute collectors distinguished between a print put
through the press by Rembrandt himself and a later restrike, and his
212
etchings increased in value and their prices mounted throughout the
century. Reports in daily newspapers reveal the significant escalation in
prices, although it remains difficult to evaluate the growth fully since
the quality of specific impressions cannot be judged. An article on Clément, then Paris’ most celebrated dealer in Old Master prints, in the
newspaper Le Temps outlined how prices had risen exponentially for
high quality impressions of Rembrandt’s prints:
In 1861, [Clément] began [forming his collection] at
Hôtel Drouot with the Arozarena sale. It was a real event.
A few of Rembrandt’s prints rose to previously unheard
of prices: The Three Trees was bought by Firmin Didot
for 1,860 francs (which he later sold to Edmond de Rothschild for 11,000 francs) and a superb proof of The Hundred Guilder Print obtained 3,210 francs, an amount well
surpassed six years later at the Harrach sale... where
Théodore Rousseau did not hesitate to go as high as
8,000 francs for the first state described by Bartsch.382
Arozarena’s sale of 1861 was indeed a landmark event. This South
American millionaire arrived in Paris in 1859, built up a significant
business speculating on prints for two years, sold off his entire collection in 1861 and promptly left for Cuba. Arozarena’s sale of over three
hundred prints by Rembrandt did much to stimulate the value of his
prints in France. Of particular note were a Portrait of Janus Lutma (first
state) which sold for 1,860 francs and a Portrait of Burgomeister Six (second state) which Firmin-Didot bought for 5,251 francs.383 FirminDidot then sold that Portrait of Burgomeister Six in 1877 for 17,000
francs and Eugène Dutuit said it was the best print he had ever seen.384
Arozarena’s sale was not the only boost to the prices of Rembrandt’s most highly acclaimed prints. A second state of Christ Healing
the Sick/The Hundred Guilder Print sold from the Firmin-Didot collection in 1877 for 8,550 francs.385 Eugène Dutuit purchased a first state
of the same print for 27,500 francs.386 The famous The Hundred Guilder Print was clearly the most prized of all of Rembrandt’s prints by
213
fig. 63 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Le Lit à la française, 1646
nineteenth-century French collectors but other prints sold from the
same Firmin-Didot sale in 1877 brought enviable prices: The Goldweigher’s Field and House with Three Chimneys (states unspecified) went
for 1,100 and 2,150 francs respectively, The Haybarn (third state) sold
for 1,420 francs, and Landscape with Canal (state unspecified) sold for
3,700 francs.387
These sales demonstrate how Rembrandt’s prints gained considerable currency in nineteenth-century France, attaining levels of circulation that surpassed that of all other Old Master printmakers. This
was in part a circumstantial and market-driven phenomenon resulting
from the French reprinting of Rembrandt’s plates. But more important, the increasing monetary value of his etchings added to the general perception of worth assigned to Rembrandt’s name. At the same
time, French printmakers were trying to create a greater sense of public appreciation for their artistic pursuits and a strategic alliance with
Rembrandt could only help to bolster their cause. Contemporary notions of Rembrandt as the most valuable (read lucrative) Old Master
printmaker helped to position him as their chosen mentor.
214
chapter 5
The
Rembrandt
Strategy
Etchers and Engravers Fashion
their Professional Identities
rom the 1860 s through the 1880 s, FRENCH
print treatises, critics, and members of print societies provided
the final impetus in the formation of the cult of Rembrandt, positioning him as an iconic figure and a talisman for printmakers.
Rembrandt was regarded as the archetypal painter-printmaker because
of both his artistic achievements and his technical proficiency. He was
known as an individualist and an original, self-taught etcher who used
exotic papers, printed his own plates, and treated a copper plate with
the freedom of a canvas. Thus the challenges he had faced and the goals
he had sought to achieve were seen to parallel those of French printmakers in the nineteenth century. They used Rembrandt’s name and
images of him to validate and promote the status of painter-printmakers
in France as they tried to secure public favor and create a professional
identity for themselves. Aligning themselves with Rembrandt was part
of their strategy to increase the value assigned to their own names and
art and bring about the triumph of the original print in France.
F
The Role of Treatises
French treatises on printmaking, specifically those promoting a revival
of etchings, played an important role in positioning Rembrandt as the
mentor and guide for French printmakers. These treatises functioned
as an introduction to the technical problems of producing prints and
the materials and instruments involved. They provided a history of the
217
medium and were largely “how to” or recipe books explaining the purpose of plates, varnish, resins, oils, turpentine, acid and oxygen baths,
rubbing, and printing processes. Most cited the origins of engraving in
antiquity and noted its rising prominence beginning in the sixteenth
century.
By the second half of the century, Rembrandt was widely acknowledged in treatises as the leading representative of the etching
technique. Earlier, in his treatise of 1836, Pierre Deleschamps emphasized no one artist. He cited Callot, Rembrandt, Leclerc, Duplessis,
and Bertraux as exemplary etchers. Deleschamps’ interest lay in the
function of etchings, which he suggested could be used in two ways: to
interpret a painting or function as a drawing. Deleschamps wrote:
Etching is an ingenious and fine drawing which expresses
so much the mind of the painter, which the point, by its
extremely free play, can joke, that is to say without effort
and without labor, can depict on the metal the capricious
idea that offers itself to the artist’s genius.388
In Jules Renouvier’s treatise of 1856 Rembrandt shared with Callot the
status of seventeenth-century genius of printmaking.389 Renouvier noted that Rembrandt worked in the Netherlands, a country “ripe for an
art that had nothing to borrow from the classical repository of old
Italy.” 390 Renouvier also made use of information published by other
French critics and emphasized that Rembrandt was an artist who did
not have a master. He repeated the importance of Rembrandt’s print
collection and said that his numerous drawing notebooks demonstrated his extensive studies after nature. Renouvier said Rembrandt was
“neither an idealist nor an eclectic, he is a fantastic and real artist, with
the eye of a lynx who sees humanity in its most gripping reality in
Amsterdam.” 391 He also believed Rembrandt “expresssed nothing but
the truth and vivacity of life.” 392 Furthermore, Renouvier declared
Rembrandt had “a completely fertile freedom. He reacted against the
theories and examples that came from Rome... Inspired by his own
times and soaked in nature, he had a unique gift equal to the greatest
218
artist: he was sublime in the most base subjects.” 393 Ultimately, as
French etchers sought to define etching as different from engraving
and as they tried to liberate printmaking from the reproductive role
promoted by the French Academy, Italian models were rejected in part
because of their close ties to Academic traditions.
By the time of Maxime Lalanne’s important text of 1866, Traité
de la gravure à l’eau-forte, Rembrandt was at the head of the list of “the
principal painter-printmakers from diverse schools who have illustrated the art of etching.” 394 Lalanne ranked artists according to his perception of their significance; Claude Lorrain, Van Dyck, Van Ostade,
Callot and others all rated below Rembrandt. Lalanne specifically emphasized the importance of an artist’s individuality in producing an
etching:
The artist understands that the etching has that which is
essentially vital, it is the force of his past and the guarantee
of his future, which, more than any other manner of printing on metal, carries the mark of the artist’s character.
Etching personifies and represents him so well, it identifies so much with his idea, that, in the process, it often
seems to cause the artist to be reduced to nothing in favor
of this idea. Rembrandt gives us a striking example.395
For Lalanne, Rembrandt was the most notable example of artistic individuality because his manner of working was inseparable from the ideas
behind his art.
Lalanne also emphasized to his contemporaries the importance
of revarnishing and reworking a plate. Here again he used Rembrandt’s
working process to support his point:
Rembrandt often proceeded in this way; looking at the
successive states of his plates we realize how he went back
to his work; we see that he worked extensively on one
part of his subject without touching the others; he took a
proof; then he came back to the same part with the finest
the rembrandt strategy
219
work, and moved to other areas he worked according to
the effect that preoccupied him.396
Lastly, Lalanne explained to his readers how crucial it was for artists to
learn to print copper plates on their own. The artist’s ideas and the
practical experience of the printer – who Lalanne called “the worker” –
remained otherwise isolated from one another. Lalanne wrote: “It
would be highly advantageous that artists be able to print their proofs
themselves. Rembrandt is the most illustrious example, since many of
the ideas that we use today have come from his hand.” 397
Adolphe Martial’s later study of 1873, Nouveau traité de la gravure à l’eau-forte, solidified the divide between Italian traditions and
French production of etchings advanced earlier in Renouvier’s treatise.398 Martial’s text was a practical guide with step-by-step processes,
but he selected two critics to write prefaces and gave them the privileged position of outlining his philosophy behind producing etchings.
In his preface, Théophile Gautier praised etching for its truthfulness,
its authenticity, and its desire to speak directly to the public, and he
cited Rembrandt as its greatest practitioner.399 Thoré-Bürger’s more
substantive preface considered the factors that contributed to the earlier
eclipse of etchings. He wrote:
Ah good! the conquest is done! Etching, almost abandoned since the eighteenth century, has again become
one of the expressions of French art... And do you know
what caused etching to be abandoned? It was the noble
aesthetic, supposedly Greek and Roman, which suggested
– ordered – the ‘grand style and the grand art.’ Simple
art, like simple literature, was prescribed, in those times.
Inspiration meant nothing, next to patience. Rembrandt’s
three hundred and sixty etchings did not count next to an
engraving by some academic. ‘Etchings,’ the Bescherelle
dictionary said, ‘are for print collectors what sketches are
for painting collections.’ But maybe there is no ‘grand
art’ and lesser art. Maybe Rembrandt’s The Hundred
220
Guilder Print is as important to art as a superb engraving
by Marcantonio after Raphael. The Amsterdam museum
turned down one thousand guineas for its proof of Rembrandt’s portrait of Jan Six; what engraving has ever attained such a price? 400
Thoré-Bürger made his appeal for Rembrandt’s significance to the
etching tradition by using patterns of rhetoric common in his writing.
He pronounced Rembrandt equal to the French Academy’s icon Raphael
and said the Dutch artist’s worth surpassed all others.
By 1876, Rembrandt was seen as a man for every age, not just
the seventeenth century. That year, Raoul de Saint-Arroman published
his treatise La gravure à l’eau-forte through Alfred Cadart and argued
that Rembrandt was linked to the nineteenth century, a period that
“understands, interprets, and borrows from him a new conception of
art.” 401 He believed artists such as Rembrandt destroyed any sense of
chronology in history because of their long-term significance.
Saint-Arroman even referred to the Dutch artist as “our Rembrandt,” embracing him as a French citizen and a direct descendant in
the lineage of French artists. In discussing the achievements of contemporaries such as Méryon, Legros, and Flameng, Saint-Arroman declared they were Rembrandt’s direct successors. Speaking on behalf of
himself and his contemporaries, Saint-Arroman said, “we study, we
penetrate, we feel Rembrandt’s work with so much power, that in a way
it is he himself who directs the current battle [for original etching].” 402
Saint-Arroman believed Rembrandt’s free touch and execution
of prints, undertaken using a technique on par with the freedom of
painting, was the most significant aspect of his etchings for the nineteenth century. For Saint-Arroman, Rembrandt’s Portrait of Jan Six
was not solely an etching. The broad and free execution rendered it
more painterly. This recognition of Rembrandt’s stature as both a
painter and printmaker and comparisons between Rembrandt’s copper
plates and the canvases were integral to his appeal to French artists,
many of whom affiliated themselves with both of these media in the
nineteenth century.
221
Saint-Arroman agreed with previous writers that etching was definitely
born from engraving by artists who wanted to work in a freer mode:
“What a difference for [the artists] who copy, and clash immediately
with the dryness of the copper, – and the man who sketches the form
he wants to create in a direct and definitive stroke on a supple and obedient substance.” 403 To Saint-Arroman, the Italian and German artists
who produced engravings and etchings before the seventeenth century
were on the right track but had not yet reached the high point of printmaking. He declared:
If the art that we study had prestige at this point, it did
not have all its real value. It had not yet attained the
supreme allure which would give it freedom. But we were
on the right track... It was Rembrandt who gave it splendor in the seventeenth century. He brought out all its
charms, he colored it mysteriously and, filling it with
poetry, brought it a new life. Rembrandt brought shadow
and light to etching.404
Print treatises were one of the foremost elements that brought about
the consolidation of Rembrandt’s iconic status for French etchers.
Lalanne, Martial and Saint-Arroman’s treatises had the greatest impact
because of the authors’ key positions within the Société des Aquafortistes in the case of the former two and the role of Cadart as publisher
in the latter. French printmakers used these manuals as their guides and
they were reminded of the significance of Rembrandt’s technical proficiency and the truthfulness and authenticity of his studies after nature.
The Critics go to Work
Rembrandt’s prints received the focused attention of French critics
from early in the nineteenth century. In an article in L’Artiste in 1834,
Frédéric Villot lamented how etching had been forgotten in France
and chastized contemporary print amateurs who he believed might
222
even be foolish enough to doubt Rembrandt’s genius if he had had the
misfortune to live in their time.405 Writing in 1839 in L’Artiste,
Charles Blanc first expressed his praise of Rembrandt’s etchings, particularly for his understanding of the “secrets of light and color.” 406
Blanc would return to this idea and develop it fully in the following
decades at the same time as French artists took to the etching medium
at an increasingly feverish pace.
Publications proliferated during the second half of the century,
many simply referred to as L’Œuvre de Rembrandt, suggesting a discussion of his production in all media. But ambitious studies by Charles
Blanc, Francis Seymour Haden, and Eugène Dutuit focused, in fact, on
etchings; other media received only modest treatment. Their catalogues represented a significant portion of the contribution of nineteenth-century French scholarship to the historiography of Rembrandt.
Each of these critics took a turn at classifying and describing Rembrandt’s etchings and they positioned their catalogue either following
or counter to the tradition of subject groupings set by the Parisian
dealer Gersaint, who wrote the first catalogue of Rembrandt’s etchings, published in 1751.407
Rembrandt’s prints were the center of attention among critics
attuned to the growing interest in the production of etchings as a national French art. They responded specifically to the need to promote
and defend etchings through an alliance with Rembrandt. By increasing the perceived value of Rembrandt and his etchings, the critics enabled their contemporaries to benefit by associating and aligning
themselves with the Old Master. Even the term painter-printmaker,
which began to be assigned to French artists in the 1870s, appears to
have originated in the concomitant identification of Rembrandt’s dual
artistic persona and the status he was given in France.408 The idea of a
painter-printmaker is an artist who practices printmaking as if it were
another branch of painting and works on copper plates in the same
manner as a canvas: the artist prepares the plate, rubs, scratches, scrapes, prints, adds more acid and prints again, and may even add drypoint or other lines and rework the plate.
223
Charles Blanc published the first of his four catalogues of Rembrandt’s
etchings in 1853. Blanc was attracted to Rembrandt’s prints as early as
the 1830s, when he studied printmaking under Luigi Calmatta and
Paolo (Paul) Mercuri. In an attempt to distance himself from what
Blanc saw as the limitations of his instructors, he sought out Rembrandt
for inspiration and made a copy after his etching Janus Lutma.409 But
Blanc soon turned from producing art to writing about art and his first
catalogue of L’Œuvre complet de Rembrandt (1853) included a selection
of eighty-seven etchings, each illustrated by a photograph.410
Blanc’s intention in publishing the catalogue was twofold: firstly,
he wanted to make more of Rembrandt’s etchings available to a wider
public; secondly, he wanted to reclassify Rembrandt’s etched œuvre.
Blanc thought Gersaint’s system was too complicated and poorly conceived. While he retained Gersaint’s preference for sorting the prints
according to subject rather than chronologically, Blanc shifted the organization of the prints into fewer, more general groups.411 More importantly, Blanc advanced his goal to disseminate Rembrandt’s etchings to a larger public between 1859 and 1861 when he published
another catalogue in a smaller two-volume format. He also published
this less-expensive edition because the first edition had sold out and he
wanted to fulfill demands from his artist and art amateur friends who
could not afford the more expensive folio-size text.412 The edition
published between 1859 and 1861 catalogued all of Rembrandt’s etchings and included forty-four etched illustrations, a list of his paintings
and a list of some of his drawings in the British Museum. Blanc reprinted this edition in 1873 with an added thirty-five illustrations in
héliogravure by Amand Durand along with revisions to the lists of
paintings and drawings. He published a final two-volume catalogue in
1880, which included illustrations for each of the 353 entries, but he
also cut the lists of paintings and drawings from the text. This foliosize publication was meant for a wealthier book-buying public.
Over the years, Blanc exploited various means of illustrating his
texts and while his project for etched illustrations with Flameng in
1859 was important to him he often used the less expensive photographic or combination print-photograph processes. This procedure
224
enabled him to make the material available to a wide range of people.
The act of publishing so many different editions of this catalogue indicates both the esteem in which Blanc held Rembrandt and, over the
decades, the growing and diverse market for texts on Rembrandt’s
etchings. Blanc called Rembrandt “the most illustrious painter-printmaker” and the “inventor of etching.” 413 He admired Rembrandt’s expressive touch and, like Saint-Arroman, believed Rembrandt transformed printmaking because he made it a kind of canvas painted in
etching.
Blanc was also responsible in 1853 for the first French publication of Rembrandt’s inventory. But he did not analyze the inventory at
any length and it received greater attention after Thoré-Bürger republished it in his editions of Scheltema’s biography in 1859 and 1866.414
The most significant discovery about Rembrandt for French printmakers occurred after the inventory was published, when it became increasingly common knowledge that Rembrandt had two printing
presses in his home. These presses definitively separated Rembrandt
from other past printmakers about whom such information was not
known. Some French critics and artists knew well before the 1850s
that Rembrandt altered his states and they were thus able to compare
the various impressions he had made of the same subject. Blanc remarked as early as 1834 on how Rembrandt printed different proofs of
his own plates.415 But it was only when French critics and artists were
debating the value of printing plates themselves and after the publication of Rembrandt’s inventory in France that he was increasingly identified as an artist-worker and a printer as well as a printmaker. The
claim put forward by Houbraken that Rembrandt made slight changes
and reprinted his plates only to make extra money – a story repeated
by many later biographers – had little impact on French critics and
artists. They were either unaware of this purported “fact” or were unconcerned with the reasons why Rembrandt produced different states.
There was more likely a sense of nostalgia or envy on the part of
French painter-printmakers for a time when market demand could sustain the sale of multiple states of a contemporary artist’s etchings – a
time very different from their own.
225
Auguste Delâtre was, in fact, credited with reigniting interest in France
in producing different states or impressions of a plate following his
study of Rembrandt’s states.416 The principal interest of the painterprintmakers lay in Rembrandt’s technical proficiency and artistic sensibilities. They looked to his use of chiaroscuro and his expertise as a
printmaker who made both nuanced and significant changes as he
inked, selectively wiped, reworked, and reprinted his plates and experimented with differently textured and colored papers. They admired
his skillful manipulation of surface tone over line and the tonal effects
Rembrandt achieved through the use of drypoint burr.
Each critic and artist thought he knew best the true nature of
the Old Master’s work and so, in his study L’Œuvre gravé de Rembrandt,
Francis Seymour Haden launched a challenge to the system of classifying
Rembrandt’s etchings that had been used from Gersaint through
Blanc. His views were laid out in a catalogue for the exhibition of Rembrandt’s etchings at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in London in 1877,
published in Paris in 1880.417 Haden rejected classifications by subject
and arranged his catalogue chronologically. He believed this was the only
way to see what he called Rembrandt’s “development” as a printmaker;
he thought art works were the result of a chain of cause and effect that
could only be understood when studied in the order they were produced.
Although Blanc considered undertaking the same approach in
some of his later editions, he maintained that an arrangement by
subject was more appropriate since so few of Rembrandt’s etchings
were dated and one could not assume specific events in his life would
have an identifiable impact on the way he handled an etched plate.418
Haden, on the other hand, believed that an artist’s life and output
could be defined into discrete compartments that always followed the
same pattern: beginning, progress, apogee, decline. He separated Rembrandt’s etchings into three sections: his first or “primitive” period
(1628-39), his second or middle period (1640-50), and his third or final
period (1651-61). Unlike Blanc and his predecessors, Haden disregarded differences among states as insignificant. His main concern was
authenticity and he carefully considered the role each of Rembrandt’s
students might have had in the creation of any given etching.
226
The final French catalogue of this period, Eugène Dutuit’s L’Œuvre
complet de Rembrandt, was published in two volumes between 1883 and
1886. Dutuit focused on Rembrandt’s prints because he thought the
paintings in the Louvre and other European collections were already
sufficiently well known. He believed that no one was more of a painter
in his printmaking than Rembrandt, hence his etchings warranted extensive study.419 After due consideration, Dutuit rejected the latest
chronological organization by Haden and continued to group the
prints by subject.420 Dutuit did follow Haden’s example regarding authenticity and advanced his views on several prints, particularly landscape subjects. However, Dutuit discounted questions regarding the
role of students, saying they could not be resolved. He believed that
regardless of who in the studio undertook a plate it would have been
based on one of Rembrandt’s drawings. Such debates paled beside the
importance of disseminating Rembrandt’s work among Dutuit’s contemporaries. As Dutuit said in his handbook for print collectors,
“Rembrandt’s name suffices... I have nothing to add.” 421
On the whole, however, from Blanc’s earliest catalogue, through
Haden and Dutuit, French critics demonstrated a growing concern for
the authenticity of each etching. As market prices rose and they helped
to establish Rembrandt as the archetypal Old Master etcher, some critics became increasingly preoccupied with determining and controlling
what was identified as being definitively by Rembrandt’s hand. At least
one painter-printmaker, Alphonse Legros, who had his own collection
of Rembrandt’s prints, also entered the debate. Legros agreed that
seventy-one of the etchings in Haden’s catalogue were unconditionally
by Rembrandt’s hand. He was also tentatively prepared to accept the
authenticity of a further forty-two etchings, but believed the rest were
reworked or executed by Rembrandt’s students. Legros advocated a
drastic reduction from the 363 etchings Haden attributed to Rembrandt.422
There was, however, significant resistance to all this talk of authenticity from Henri Beraldi, author of Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle,
the most comprehensive French study of contemporary prints in the
nineteenth century. Beraldi proclaimed that: “Only one man could
227
have settled everything, and possessing all the desirable general and
particular knowledge, as well as experience acquired from etching,
could give us the definitive catalogue of Rembrandt’s etched works.
Unfortunately this man is dead. It was Rembrandt.” 423 Further, Beraldi declared Rembrandt the “Père Eternel,” the eternal father of French
printmakers.424 He despaired that too many collectors wasted their energy hunting for unique prints when they should have been making
purchases on the basis of their own personal taste. Even in Rembrandt’s œuvre, Beraldi hastened to admit, there were weaker works.
But Beraldi feared that amateurs who kept themselves busy trying to
separate works by Rembrandt from those by his students and followers
would lose sense of the value of even the least significant print attributed to Rembrandt.
Despite challenges to the value of their work, critics such as
Blanc, Haden, and Dutuit had a vested interest. Their scrutiny was in
part a personal, intellectual exercise and, over time, a response to market demand but each also owned sizeable collections of Rembrandt’s
prints and maintained a vested interest in the value placed on different
states, the quality of impressions and the possible role of students. In
fact, Blanc put his own collection up for sale in 1860, right after publishing his second edition, but has never been accused of having a conflict of interest.425
Through their catalogues these critics tried to apprehend Rembrandt’s talents as an etcher by subjecting it to their control. Categorizing and shaping his graphic œuvre was, for them, a means of attaining greater understanding of what they saw as his intangible “genius.”
They attempted, through taxonomy, to arrange, sort, and organize
states, dates, and authenticity, depending on their personal concerns.
For Blanc and Haden there was something more on their minds
than money, they also wanted respect. Their role as critics and connoisseurs of Rembrandt’s prints was tied directly to their conception of
themselves as printmakers. Blanc produced only a few prints, including
copies after Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait before an Architectural Background and Portrait of Janus Lutma. His explorations in printmaking
revolved entirely around the inspiration he drew from Rembrandt.
228
fig. 64 – Francis Seymour Haden, Amstelodamus, 1863
Haden presents an even stronger case of self-interest. Firstly, he said
he began studying and collecting prints as early as 1845 after looking
at Rembrandt’s etchings in a second-hand print shop.426 Later, Haden
often showed his collection of Rembrandt’s prints to his many printmaking friends, including Whistler, Legros, and Delâtre.
A surgeon by profession, Haden fashioned himself as an artist
and derived much inspiration for his prints from Rembrandt’s example.
Haden prided himself on his use of a steel needle as his principal tool
and compared his technique with that of Rembrandt: “I have no doubt
that this [tool] is the secret of the freedom which distinguishes Rembrandt’s line.” 427 Haden took his first trip to Amsterdam in 1863 with
Whistler and Legros, a trip undertaken expressly to pay homage to
Rembrandt and his home town. Whistler made a copy of The Night
Watch and Haden etched four plates during their visit. One of these,
Amstelodamus [fig. 64], depicts the Amstel river lined with boats,
homes and churches. It is a convincingly accurate, although abridged,
229
representation of a section of the Dutch capital. Haden published this
etching at the end of his catalogue Études à l’eau-forte. Burty noted as
early as the 1860s the stylistic parallels between Haden’s cityscape of
Amsterdam and Rembrandt’s landscapes.428
There is, however, another level at which Haden paid tribute to
Rembrandt in this etching. His inscription “Hic terminus haeret” relates to the Roman god Terminus, who was connected with immovable
sacred landmarks. The precedent for Haden’s use of this phrase has
been found in Erasmus, who adopted the Terminus figure as a type of
motto meaning “Terminus abides in this place.” 429 Why Haden inscribed these words on his etched cityscape of Amsterdam must also be
considered. Haden repeated the same words in only two other instances, in two etchings of a printmaker’s hands at work. By including
the inscription, Haden suggests his wish for Terminus to protect Amsterdam, a city sacred to him because of its connection with Rembrandt and the tradition of etching in which Haden wanted to find a
place for himself. His Amstelodamus etching paid homage to Rembrandt
by representing his city in the Old Master’s most cherished medium
and by depicting the scene in a manner that can be readily compared
with Rembrandt’s technique. Haden joined technique, subject matter
and an inscription to express his admiration for Rembrandt and his interest in maintaining Amsterdam as a protected locale. For Haden,
who later said that “the history of Rembrandt is the history of the
whole art of etching,” Amsterdam was the most important city for the
history of this much-revered medium.430
Of all the critics who published on Rembrandt’s prints in France,
Haden was the most active printmaker and had the strongest personal
ties to the advancement of etching among his contemporaries. But
Blanc and Dutuit were equally keen to promote the value of Rembrandt’s prints within the larger context of the regeneration of French
etchings. Before their texts were published, starting in the late 1850s,
catalogues of Rembrandt’s prints were rare, expensive, and in great demand.431 The efforts of Blanc, Haden and Dutuit were augmented by
those of other critics who dissemination information on Rembrandt’s
prints in a wide range of publications.
230
It was Thoré-Bürger who popularized the belief in France that Rembrandt was a self-trained etcher. In an article in the journal L’Artiste in
1858 Thoré-Bürger asked “Who then taught him printmaking?” and
offered no names in reply.432 While, according to critics, Rembrandt’s
teachers contributed in no way to his development as a painter, ThoréBürger claimed that Rembrandt did not even have the luxury of rejecting the input of any print instructor. Somehow, through his own struggles, he mastered the technique independently. Thus, like the French
etchers who were reconnecting with the little known tradition of etching in the nineteenth century, Rembrandt was believed to have discovered the medium and taught himself. As an “unschooled” painter and
printmaker he appealed to French etchers who had few contemporary
teachers. Jules Claretie suggested that the possible origins of Rembrandt’s interest in etchings lay in the French artist, architect and
writer Abraham Bosse’s treatise on etching, which was published in
France in 1645.433 But Claretie’s view had no impact on his contemporaries, and as late as the 1890s French critics continued to say that they
did not know where Rembrandt learned about the printmaking process. Émile Michel thought Rembrandt might have learned about printmaking from his Dutch contemporaries the Lastman brothers, but for
the most part the critics seemed content to assume that Rembrandt’s
drive to create etchings came solely from within himself. 434
Another instrumental figure, George Duplessis, curator of the
Cabinet des estampes, separated Rembrandt from other Old Master
etchers because of the diversity of his subject matter, the unparalleled
effects he achieved and his ability to make etchings equal in calibre to
his paintings. Duplessis took particular note of The Raising of Lazarus
and Christ Healing the Sick, both of which were on permanent display
in the Cabinet des estampes during the second half of the century.
Duplessis wrote that these two were among the etchings by Rembrandt
that were as valuable as his paintings. The equal status he claimed for
Rembrandt’s etchings and paintings was also a part of the attempt by
Duplessis and his contemporaries to raise the status of etchings to that
of paintings. By championing Rembrandt’s dual status as a painterprintmaker, Duplessis sought to validate the significance of both media.
231
In France Rembrandt was the best known Old Master who had explored easel painting and etching to the same degree. He was the only
Old Master who they believed had the dual status of painter-printmaker,
a status many French etchers sought to achieve for themselves.
Rembrandt was also an exemplary model for French etchers
who wanted to exploit the needle as a means of attaining an original
and expressive line. Criticisms centering on Rembrandt’s supposedly
weak, uncontrolled or unskilled draughtsmanship positioned him well
among French etchers. These etchers and the critics such as Blanc and
Claretie who supported their cause saw etching as “pure drawing” 435
or “direct drawing.” 436 Cadart believed it was “the caprice, the fantasy,
the most immediate way to convey one’s thoughts.” 437 Critics and
artists promoted etching as a means of immediately conveying one’s
ideas without any intermediary and of rapidly transmitting impressions
in a highly personal and infinitely varied manner. This sincere and
spontaneous medium was, to them, something that had escaped the
control of French art institutions and thus could contribute to the freedom etchers could enjoy.438
The increasing number of publications on Rembrandt, and particularly his prints, coincided with attempts on the part of etchers to
elevate the status of their art in the face of competition from reproductive engraving and photography. The position of authority these texts
gave to Rembrandt was precisely the public image and professional
identity the etchers wanted for themselves. Vying with their competitors, French etchers looked to Rembrandt as an incentive in their push
to separate themselves from their peers. Reproductive engravings met
with great success at the yearly French Salons, where engravers such as
Jules Jacquemart, Henriquel-Dupont, and Charles Waltner all received
prestigious medals for their engravings after well-known paintings.
Original printmakers, however, received little recognition. There were,
in fact, few prints based on original subjects – not reproducing or interpreting another artists’ work – exhibited at Salons during the July
Monarchy in the 1830s. These numbers increased somewhat between
1850 and 1861 and more so after 1863.439 Many printmakers also
reproduced Salon paintings and museum works for publication in art
232
periodicals such as L’Artiste and the Gazette des Beaux-Arts and before
the second half of the 1860s some artists were able to find a small market for prints after their own paintings and also to publish a few original
prints. The foundation of the Société des Aquafortistes played a crucial
role in the increasing appreciation and value placed on etchings, and
the dissemination of original prints through publications.
The Société des Aquafortistes
The foundation of the Société des Aquafortistes in 1862 marked an
important turning point for Rembrandt’s rising status in France. This
society, which would refer to itself as neither a school nor an academy,
was proud to exist without a president or patron because it claimed to
embody its members’ love of independence.440 Ultimately the group
proved to be the most significant association for rekindling interest in
etchings in France, Belgium, England, and the United States, resulting
in what is typically referred to as the etching revival of the nineteenth
century. As a group, the society said it practised etching in order to
search for truth in art by various means and to raise public awareness
of etchings to the same level as that of contemporary paintings exhibited at official exhibitions.441 The society did, in fact, receive some
financial support from the Ministry of Fine Arts through paid subscriptions for their publications. Nevertheless, the society preferred to
emphasize the autonomy of its members, who produced etchings outside the confines of government-run institutions.442 Théophile Gautier
summarized the society’s principle of individuality in his preface to
their first publication:
This society has no other code besides individualism.
Each person should create and engrave himself the subject he will print to the collective work. No subject prevails, no technique is advised; we are free to show all of
our originality, and no one is at fault.443
233
The society’s conception of originality meant its publications included
only new subject matter and not copies after contemporary or past art.
In their publications, both members of the society and French
critics who sought to bolster the society’s reputation invoked Rembrandt’s example in order to validate their goals. The claims for aligning themselves with Rembrandt were both aesthetic and philosophical.
Members of the Société des Aquafortistes saw etching as a medium of
original expression. At an aesthetic level, they valued Rembrandt’s expressive use of line and appreciated the contemporary conception of
Rembrandt as an alchemist who scratched, wiped, and bit his own
plates. At a philosophical level, their desire to attain “truth” in their art
and retain their independence attracted them to Rembrandt.
Since members of the society were determined to publish original prints, not copies, their interest in Rembrandt seldom manifested
itself in reproductions of his work. Rather, their desire to emulate his
achievements was expressed by the choice of critics who wrote prefaces
for their yearly publications. These publications appeared between
1862 and 1867 and included prints that the society originally published
at a rate of five per month. In his preface to the society’s first publication in 1862, Gautier noted numerous Old Master etchers whose example the society wanted to follow. But Gautier emphasized Rembrandt’s position by discussing his work most extensively and praising
his ability to achieve more colorful effects with etching than with a
rainbow of oil paints:
With [etching’s] resources, apparently so limited, it knew
how to give Rembrandt the flickering lights, mysterious
shadows and profound blacks he needed for his philosophers and his alchemists who were looking for the microcosmos; for his synagogues in the architecture of Solomon, his Christs reviving the dead, his landscapes crossed
by shadows and rays of light, and all the fantasies of his
pensive, powerful and bizarre imagination. His palette,
although so rich, did not give him a wider range of effects.444
234
In a review that same year, Gautier also compared the significant
achievements of members of the society with those of Rembrandt. He
wrote: “Meanwhile Rembrandt attained magical and marvelous effects,
and the slightest mark, by which he scratched the copper, sells for the
price of gold.” 445
Thoré-Bürger wrote in his introduction to the Société des
Aquafortistes’ third annual publication that while his contemporaries
hung prints by a variety of artists from the past on the walls of their
studios, Rembrandt was “the most astonishing of etchers.” 446 His argument for the significance of original etchings over engravings, a view
which invoked Rembrandt’s example, was first published in this preface and then republished in Martial’s treatise in 1873, demonstrating
the significance of his words for French etchers. Théodore de Banville,
in his review of the society’s third year, referred to the artists in the
society as inheritors of a legacy that had originated in Rembrandt and
extended through two centuries into Banville’s own day. He believed
the society was instituted to continue Rembrandt’s “illustrious tradition.” 447
Not even the financial ruin of Alfred Cadart could halt the growing worship by the cult of Rembrandt. Although the society ceased
publishing its prints in 1867, the same critics and artists turned to
Rembrandt again in a second set of publications, L’Eau-forte en..., published from 1874 to 1881. This annual publication included a collection of thirty etchings, except in 1875 when the volume contained
forty prints. In the introduction to the first year’s publication, critic
Philippe Burty lauded Rembrandt’s genius and declared that the hand
of the Dutch artist summarized everything that could be said about the
art of etching. Burty proclaimed the freedom and spontaneity of etchings as a means for artists to escape the traditional patterns of instruction in French institutions. He thought the rise of lithography earlier
in the century had unjustly eclipsed etching. In Burty’s call for the revival of etching, he focused on Rembrandt’s qualitites as a leader for
his compatriots. He wrote: “From there this vibration for life, this
clash of light and shadow, this magic of reflections, this gradation of
distances that make Rembrandt’s etchings – to take him whose genius
235
and hand summarizes all in this art – works so moving, so infinitely
changeable.” 448
Burty was one of the leading exponents of etchings in France
and his views were instrumental not only in promoting Rembrandt’s
reputation but also in the revitalization of the etching tradition. He
wrote about prints exhibited at the Salons and published articles on individual artists (including Méryon, Haden, and Bracquemond, who
were part of his circle of friends) and the Société des Aquafortistes.
Burty was published regularly in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1859-70),
Le Rappel (1869-71), La République française (1874-87), and L’Art (187588). He also wrote articles in the Chronique des arts et des curiosités, La
Renaissance littéraire et artistique and La Presse and wrote many introductions for Cadart’s publications L’Eau-forte en... and L’Illustration
nouvelle. As a prominent critic his personal views promoting individuality and liberty dominated his writings and made him an arbiter of
taste in France.449
Burty’s important article “La Belle épreuve,” published in L’Eauforte en 1875, outlined many of the same traits as those associated with
Rembrandt by French printmakers.450 He intended “La Belle épreuve”
to summarize the elements of the highest quality prints in the wake of
rising prices and growing interest in prints among French collectors:
It is time to give the public the reason, not of the value
given to a collection of works which the value of a master
always makes interesting, but the much elevated prices
sometimes assigned to certain of his works. When rarity
does not determine this high price, the reason is ‘the
print.’ The beauty of a print, owing to a set of circumstances that we will explain, classifies separately the sentiment of the artists who thought of it, the skill of the
printer who brought it to life, the taste of the amateur
who distinguishes and choses it.451
Aspects of Rembrandt’s printmaking practice made his work exemplify
Burty’s notion of “la Belle épreuve.”
236
One of the characteristics of Rembrandt’s prints that most appealed to
Burty was his use of exotic and old papers:
Singular in everything, Rembrandt, the only one, or
nearly, among the Dutch, who used Japanese paper, which
is thick like velvet, shimmering like satin, of the amber
tone of a fragment of ancient Paros, and which makes the
print look like it is perpetually caressed and warmed by a
ray of sun. Rembrandt acquired these sheets from some
captain or Dutch merchant who had come back from
Desima or Kyoto. He was miserly. He kept them for portraits of friends, for his large works that required heightened and nuanced blacks, in opposition to the vast light
and clear-cut details. It is on this paper that he pulled the
superb print of Christ Healing the Sick, which was recently
copied so faithfully.452
Burty remarked that among his contemporaries, Méryon, Daubigny,
Millet, Jacquemart, Haden, and Bracquemond also created the character of their work in specific types of paper. They carried on the tradition established by Rembrandt of seeking out particular and often uncommon papers to achieve unusual effects with their prints. Like
Rembrandt’s practice of producing multiple states, unusual papers lent
a sense of value and uniqueness to their works.
Like Blanc and Lalanne, Burty emphasized how Rembrandt
printed his plates himself and he paid special attention to the two
presses in the artist’s home:
Rembrandt printed himself. We have known this without
a doubt since Doctor Scheltema, the wise archivist in
Amsterdam, found in the archives of this city and published the inventory of all that was recorded in Rembrandt’s house when it was seized in 1656 to be sold by
the Chamber of Insolvents. We encounter scattered here
and there all the trappings of a printmaker-printer.
237
‘In the room behind the antechamber: a small oak table,
four lampshades; an oak press. In the room behind the
living room: a press of marbelized yellow wood; a small
armoir in marbelized yellow wood.’... And this style of
bailiff seizure is still enough to make us see the master,
bowed over at mid-day in the ‘back room’ inking his plate
with the attentive care of a good worker, choosing a piece
‘of large format’ paper and turning the reel of his ‘marbelized yellow wood press’.453
The idea of Rembrandt having sole control over every stage of the
production of his prints appealed to Burty’s preference for an independent artist.
This persona of Rembrandt as a printmaker and printer was also
a focal point of interest among nineteenth-century printmakers, particularly those affiliated with the Société des Aquafortistes. Those who
printed their plates themselves, or at least controlled the biting stage of
their prints looked to Rembrandt as a beacon for their own efforts.
Like Rembrandt, Jacques, Marvy, Bracquemond, Guérard, Lepic, Buhot, Cassatt, Degas, Haden, Méryon, Pissarro, and Whistler all ventured to print their own plates. In fact, Lepic was highly critical of
those contemporaries who did not print their own works since, following Rembrandt’s example, this was the only way for printmakers to obtain a powerful effect in their work. Speaking of the time sixteen years
before when he first started making prints, Lepic wrote:
I was surprised by what was false in modern printmaking
and the double cause that threatens to steer it even in its
progress, by pushing it on the wrong path: on the one
hand, it is becoming so much the more dry because it is
more finished; on the other hand, it rejects or repudiates,
with an extraordinary fickleness, even the art of masters,
the art of Rembrandt, in whom we find such powerful effects; it repudiates them, I say, by refusing to use printer’s
ink, which alone enables one to obtain them.454
238
Society member Félix Bracquemond also declared Rembrandt to be
the exemplar of the true creator who by printing his own plates made
etching a medium of equal value to painting. In the prelude to his review of the print section at the Exposition Universelle in September
1878, published in the daily newspaper Le Rappel, Bracquemond said:
But the true creator of etching, the one who made of it
an art equal to painting was Rembrandt. When this
prodigious master used the needle, etching or engraving,
the genius of prints leads his hand. Rembrandt showed a
new creation in each of his prints. One must examine
them one by one, to study them as they deserve. The
master’s pursuit of perfection was not interrupted when
his plate was finished. He printed it himself and in this
way he added to the effect that he first achieved on the
plate. With Rembrandt the printer is still the painter.455
Again in Le Rappel in October 1878, Bracquemond continued to trumpet Rembrandt’s ways as he urged his contemporaries to control every
stage of the process. According to Bracquemond, too many French
printmakers gave over their plates too easily to printers and thus lost
control over their final work. He advocated that artists be like Rembrandt, dependent upon no one other than themselves. Bracquemond
entreated:
Before finishing, it seems to me to be useful to insist on a
point that has become of great importance in printmaking. Most etchers leave themselves too openly to the skill
of printers to add the effect and also to correct or conceal
the imperfections of their plates. The expediencies of an
edition of the print in this way come to the aid of the inadequacy of the artist’s work; but his resources, naturally
limited, do not replace the negligence of the print.
239
Printers only provide sombre tones, a sort of general
black effect, to complement the coloration these works
are lacking. Let no one cite for me – I cited it myself –
the example of Rembrandt, who printed his plates himself. The printmaker who prints the works that have
come from his hand continues his work. He is the master
of the choice of the process. The case of the printmaker
who, following the use and general rule, gives his plate
to the printer to pull his proofs, is completely different.
The artist should not count on anyone besides himself.
All the tones of the printed picture should be on the
metal, and there is fault in demanding this completion of
the printer which the artist himself knows, can and
should give them.456
Bracquemond himself successfully emulated Rembrandt’s example and
Burty cited his techniques in biting and his use of old and exotic papers
in the manner of Rembrandt:
Bracquemond gave the modern belle épreuve its special
character, in collaboration with Auguste Delâtre, the incomparable printer of trial proofs. The biting skillfully
graduated and almost always deep in its lines should deposit powerful layers of inks and rich greys. But he was
the first among us to have the taste for perfect papers
(Rembrandt was almost the only one in the past who also
had it), like a fruit perfectly ripened for the palate.457
Although he worked with Delâtre, Bracquemond was intimately involved with printing his plates.
The role of the printer remains secondary within this discussion
over how best to follow Rembrandt’s example. Yet in one instance
reverence of Rembrandt the artist-worker or artist-printer was also a
valuable archetype for a professional printer. When Haden sought to
compliment Auguste Delâtre’s talents as a printer he invoked Rem-
240
brandt’s name and wrote in a dedicated copy of his L’Œuvre de Rembrandt: “To Delâtre. If he had lived in Rembrandt’s time, Rembrandt
would certainly have used him to print his etchings.” 458
This was clearly the highest compliment Haden could offer and
Delâtre could hope to receive. Haden’s praise of Delâtre has, however,
led to the unfortunate misconception that Delâtre was responsible for
the printing of Rembrandt’s reworked plates.459 Of all the reprinting
of Rembrandt’s plates in nineteenth-century France, Delâtre definitely
made the restrike of Rembrandt’s Three Oriental Figures, for Philip
Gilbert Hamerton’s Etching and Etchers in 1868, but there is no evidence that Delâtre produced all the numerous French nineteenth-century impressions of Rembrandt’s plates.460 As a printer, Delâtre was
accustomed to translating other people’s works and comparisons between his etchings after the works of Paulus Potter and Adriaen van
Ostade and the original seventeenth-century prints prove that these
were also not impressions taken from the Dutch artists’ own plates but
rather that Delâtre executed these prints “after” the Old Masters as a
form of emulation. Haden’s comparison between Delâtre and Rembrandt promoted the French artist-printer, particularly following Burty’s praise of Rembrandt’s talents as a printer in “La Belle épreuve.”
Although Burty’s definition of a “belle épreuve,” a high quality
print, had significant resonance, it did not satisfy everyone because he
did not stipulate that the best quality prints were those printed by the
artist, as Rembrandt had done. Burty said a “belle épreuve” was among
the first impressions made, a print with a sizeable border around the
image, and the product of an agile printer – he did not mention that
the artist should also be the printer. The artist Henri Guérard disagreed and was upset with himself for giving over his own plates on
numerous occasions for someone else to print and publish. Guérard
was furious after reading Burty’s views when they first appeared in Paris
à l’eau-forte and he refused to submit his plates to the journal, which
was preparing for its next publication. By 1875 Guérard had become a
regular contributor to Paris à l’eau-forte and the publisher explained
Guérard’s works would not appear in that one issue as planned because
of Guérard’s state after reading Burty’s article. Guérard apparently
241
fig. 65 – Norbert Goeneutte, Portrait of the Printmaker Henri Guérard, 1888
exploded in the journal’s offices and the publisher recounted: “‘I am
angry,’ said Guérard on entering, ‘but I am not bringing you the plates
that I promised you... Because I read P. Burty’s article on la Belle
Épreuve, and I don’t want you to give me any undeserved privilege.’” 461
Guérard typically printed his own plates, a role evoked in
Norbert Goeneutte’s etched portrait of Guérard at work in his studio
[fig. 65]. Following Burty’s article, however, Guérard appears to have
had a sudden crisis of conscience that submitting his plates to the
printers of Paris à l’eau-forte would compromise his views as to what
constituted a “belle épreuve.” Guérard did not think Burty sufficiently
emphasized the importance of artists printing their plates themselves.
He wrote in an article in Paris à l’eau-forte the week following Burty’s
publication:
La Belle épreuve is first of all pulled by the artist himself
and satisfies the impression that he wanted to produce,
242
and then those that are among the first proofs taken carefully from a finished plate. Proofs that come before the
different states a plate goes through, during its printing,
are only trial prints, trial and error, and are only of interest for study and rarity.
No matter what the printer’s ability, we must establish the fact that he will never attain the results the author of a print will obtain. The two use the same agents
but the artist will have more of the feeling of a creator
who directs his hand and his thoughts... Rembrandt did
not proceed otherwise: he pulled his etchings himself,
and I think that we can only win by following the example of such a master. The least of his proofs seems preferable to me to the best proofs by the most renowned
printers.462
This conception of Rembrandt as an artist-worker whose technical
proficiency and hands-on contact with his prints at all stages from varnishing to biting to the selection of paper was among the most potent
in establishing Rembrandt among French printmakers as their leading
mentor. Beraldi described printing one’s own plates as following the
principle that Rembrandt “cooked” his prints.463 By pursuing “cooking” themselves, printmakers were “being” Rembrandt, meaning artists
would momentarily take on the persona of Rembrandt, the archetypal
printmaker-printer.
In an attempt to emulate this role, artist Félix Buhot sought inspiration from Rembrandt the technician when he was working on an
etching of Victor Hugo. Buhot became frustrated by his inability to
manipulate the copper plate in the acid and wrote to Burty that paying
homage to a portrait of Rembrandt would fulfill his need for an icon
and better enable him to emulate his mentor’s achievements. Buhot
wrote: “I have not yet bitten the Victor Hugo plate, I am working on it
right now and it seems to be working but it is precisely this mysterious
hour of biting that I myself dread. If I had an image of Rembrandt in
my bedroom I would light a candle to him.” 464
243
Three years after publishing “La Belle épreuve,” Burty repeated his
admiration for “Rembrandt’s magical point” as the highest expression
ever achieved in etching when he was asked to write the introduction
for L’Eau-forte en 1878. Such was Rembrandt’s power that Burty could
only conclude, as Thoré-Bürger had more than two decades earlier, that
an inner force had incited Rembrandt to start making etchings. Burty
suggested Rembrandt’s innate genius had drawn him to the medium
because it was the opposite of the scientific medium of engraving. He
said etchings enabled Rembrandt to study natural phenomena faithfully and thereby grasp the profundity of humanity. In his article “Qu’estce que la gravure?,” Burty drew together many of Rembrandt’s characteristics, which were revered by his contemporaries. He wrote:
Who urged Rembrandt to take up etching, to set up several presses in his house, to collect these sheets of old papers that make silvery proofs, and the sheets of Japanese
paper that make golden proofs? Why did he combine all
the refinements of an amateur with all the fits of anger,
worries, science, and the good-natured aspects of genius.
Why did he always confide an unknown idea or a new
portrait to copper? Because etching is the most faithful
confidante in the hours when the colorist felt his head
burning and his hand ready. Engraving is a positive instrument, scientific in a way. It shows you one object after another... in their composed essence and not in their
relationship with the surrounding world, not as our eyes
see them freely, but as they appear to them through the
glass of binoculars. There is an awkward side to Albrecht
Dürer’s work, clumsy by the strength of application...
There is none of that with Rembrandt, although when
the fantasy leads him to make red hair gleam or to emphasize the bright shine of the Goldweigher’s new money, he works with fantastic precision. No childishness,
but a completely human understanding of natural phenomena, the profound science of human pride that loves
244
to dominate things, an incomparable art to speak to an
excitable imagination: ‘Let us search together the darkness, let us follow this game of fleeting half-tones and
moving reflections together, let us blink together before
this flash of light that bursts from Doctor Faust’s window, before this shower of rays that falls on the shepherds
and announces to them that the sky is joyfully reconciling
itself with the ground.’ 465
In addition to the preeminent status alloted to Rembrandt in the critical texts that accompanied the publications of the Société des
Aquafortistes, he was the only artist whose portrait was ever published
in the seven volumes of L’Eau-forte en...
Alberto Masso Gilli’s Portrait of Rembrandt [fig. 13] was first exhibited at the Salon of 1874 (#3456) and then published in Cadart’s album L’Eau-forte en 1876. This etching, as discussed in Chapter Three,
was largely inspired by Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait Leaning on a Stone Sill
[fig. 62] with the addition of a palette, brushes, and mahlstick in the
artist’s hands to emphasize his stature as both painter and printmaker.
The tools identify the aspect of Rembrandt’s identity that was tied to
painting. The source and medium of Gilli’s own work and the context
of its publication represents Rembrandt’s identity as a printmaker.
Eugène Montrosier, in his introduction to that year’s volume, elaborated on the significance of Rembrandt, as depicted in Gilli’s etching,
for contemporary etchers:
Who is this person with the profound look, in the offhanded pose, who has the appearance of following some
fleeting vision in the wave of his thought? Is it a soldier,
is it a scholar, is it a thinker? It’s Rembrandt!... M. Mas[s]o
Gilli, who, to our admiration, tried to give back the line
of this god of art, has exceeded the mark. While praising
the excellent qualities of facture, we can honestly say that
we find the portrait too arranged. We would not present
the composer of so many marvelous works in this way.466
245
While Montrosier found the portrait too ordered to embody truly the
spontaneity of Rembrandt’s prints, he still regarded it as symbolic of
his sense of Rembrandt’s genius, particularly his use of clair-obscur.
Montrosier wrote at length praising Rembrandt’s importance for contemporary etchers and the dissemination of his work, thanks to copies
by Flameng:
Rembrandt, of whom Léopold Flameng has guessed the
secret in executing his beautiful copies of The Hundred
Guilder Print and The Night Watch, left superb works in
which all feelings are marked in a masterly fashion. The
plates of his that we know are both concise and free.
They touch, at the same time, the most profound realism
and the most subtle idealism. After descending right to
the ground, they come back up at a dizzying speed to pacific regions where religious inspiration blossoms. Rembrandt, as it were, invented the ‘manners’ since lost for
taming light, that docile collaborator of his genius! No
one possessed and used the science of ‘clair-obscur’ better
than he.
The other Dutch painters, his predecessors, his
contemporaries and his followers, did not have as grand
goals. More naive in their cult for beauties which blossom under their gaze, they simply sketch on the plate
with no other motive than to give a new reign to their intimate impressions.467
Gilli’s handling of the plate also emphasized the central importance of
Rembrandt’s clair-obscur for himself and his contemporaries. Rembrandt’s body is in large part barely distinguishable from the dark
backdrop and the light emanating from a source outside the work
highlights the artist’s hands, the instruments of his art. His face is partially lit although his eyes are hidden in shadow and the largely unworked area of Rembrandt’s open collar adds a stark contrast to the
predominantly black tonality of the etching.
246
Émile Cardon restated the value of etching as an original, personal,
and sincere medium, best known for its diversity in his introduction to
the volume L’Eau-forte en 1879. In addition, he said etching was a
medium irresistible for any “true amateur,” one that engraving could
never equal. Indeed, Cardon believed his contemporaries would never
have a sense of Rembrandt’s talent if they had not known his etchings:
“Engraving could never, like one of his etchings, give us an idea of
Rembrandt’s talents: they give us at least a sense of the works that have
disappeared or that the master did not perfect on a canvas.”468 Cardon
advocated an appreciation for Rembrandt’s etchings to validate a collector’s stature as a genuine amateur.
Paris à l’eau-forte
The volumes produced by the Société des Aquafortistes are the best
known of all nineteenth-century French publications on etchings. But
the journal Paris à l’eau-forte, actualité, curiosité, fantaisie was another
important, although shortlived, outlet for artists to circulate their etchings and consolidate and advance the status of their mentor Rembrandt. This weekly publication was founded in 1873 by editor
Richard Lesclide and director of etchings Frédéric Regamey. The
journal circulated until the offices closed in 1876.469 In the journal’s
first volume, Lesclide and Regamey laid out their intention to publish
300 etchings each year. In the first year they met their highly ambitious goal. Most of the etchings were produced by Regamey especially
for the journal and illustrated articles on theater, current events, fashion, poetry, and literature. Regamey continued to be the most regular
contributing artist, but others included Jules Adeline, Jules Breton,
Buhot, Courtry, Léon Gaucherel, Henri Guérard, and Henri Somm.
Prints executed after paintings started to appear in June 1873 and the
etchings later ceased to illustrate texts only and became full-page inserts accompanied by special short articles and descriptions.
Of all past artists whose works were a source of inspiration for
the etchers contributing to Paris à l’eau-forte, Rembrandt was the most
247
popular. Moreover, in their eyes, Dutch seventeenth-century art was
by far the most important school of the past.470 The recurring publication of Rembrandt’s works served both to demonstrate his significance
to the etchers and the publication and also to reinforce and elevate
Rembrandt’s significance for contemporary artists. The first works
published after Rembrandt were by A. Protche, Portrait of Rembrandt
(10 May 1874) and Two Heads after Rembrandt (Self-Portrait and Portrait of Rembrandt’s Mother ; 17 May 1874). While the general compositions of these three etchings were derived from works by Rembrandt,
they had a highly interpretive quality. An accompanying description
noted: “Finally, the figures which M. Protche borrowed from Rembrandt are right in the master’s style and recall the daring speed and
the tones revealed in his drawings.” 471 The term “borrowing” was an
important choice and implied that Protche’s works retained a sense of
originality. The reference to Rembrandt’s drawing style as the source
of Protche’s inspiration served the same function. A similar emphasis
on originality even when an artist derived a composition from Rembrandt appeared in the context of Berthe Pilet’s Le Lecteur, after Rembrandt (10 January 1875): “All the while preserving the master’s mark,
the young artist gives to her work that personal impression, of which
Guérard spoke concerning the ‘belle épreuve’.” 472 Here the phrases
“personal impression” and Guérard’s comments on Burty’s article “La
Belle épreuve” were used to justify the originality of Pilet’s etching.
Pilet’s work is a rare example of a female French artist publishing a
work done in reverence of the Dutch Old Master.
During the journal’s second year of publication, the relationship
between texts and images altered. The etchings were no longer solely
illustrative but were often the basis for an accompanying narrative.
Such was the case for E. Champollion’s Portrait flamande, which is derived from Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait Before an Architectural Background
in the Louvre. Champollion’s etching was published along with the
narrative in which Rembrandt alienated one of his patrons by not removing the image of his monkey from the Burgomeister’s commissioned family portrait. The author claimed Rembrandt painted this
portrait to appease his patron. Although the painting in the Louvre
248
was always identified as a self-portrait during the nineteenth-century, it was transformed in this instance into a portrait of
the disgruntled Burgomeister and was thus
a reinterpretation of the painting.
An entirely different approach was
taken to Guérard’s etching, Un Gueux, after Rembrandt, which was published the
following year (30 April 1876). Here, Guérard’s ability to produce an unlimited number of exact copies after Rembrandt’s beggar figure “tis vinnich kout” (“it’s cold out”)
[fig. 66] on seventeenth-century paper was
highly valued:
The etcher who hides himself under an impenetrable veil gave us
this week a marvelous copy of Pendant Beggar. He himself writes us
that if one of our friends wants an
original copy of the same print, on
seventeenth-century paper, with all
kinds of guarantees of authenticity,
he will provide as many as we would
like – It appears that he makes them
himself. 473
fig. 66 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Pendant
Beggar, 1634
Reproductions after Rembrandt’s Supper at Emmaus and Kouk Seller
also appeared at the end of the journal’s third volume.
The most important etching after Rembrandt published in Paris
à l’eau-forte was Guérard’s The Microcosm (14 March 1875), after Doctor
Faust [fig. 61]. Guérard’s etching served, in turn, as the basis for
Frédéric Regamey’s publicity poster [plate 13] for Paris à l’eau-forte,
which was displayed throughout Paris beginning in the early months of
1875. The use of one of Rembrandt’s etchings as the symbol for the
249
journal and the key image of the advertising campaign epitomizes the
editorial board’s desire to use Rembrandt to advance the status of contemporary etching and particularly etchers associated with Paris à
l’eau-forte. The two other publicity posters which formed part of the
journal’s campaigns depicted a woman and the journal’s mascot, a cat,
images that did not refer to any specific works, past or present. 474
The selection of the Doctor Faust etching further substantiates
the central significance of this particular print for French etchers
throughout the ninteenth century. This image was heralded in France
in 1831 both by Gautier in his Albertus ou l’âme et le péché, 475 and by
Hugo in Nôtre Dame de Paris.476 Its significance grew even more after
Louis Marvy’s copy [fig. 27] was published in the well-read Magasin
Pittoresque in 1847.477 The unsigned article that accompanied Guérard’s
print noted Rembrandt’s Doctor Faust was “an old magician in his sorcerer’s studio” and a source of inspiration for artists such as Eugène
Delacroix and Ary Scheffer.478 As one of the paradigmatic symbols of
Rembrandt’s etched œuvre, Doctor Faust retained a powerful resonance
throughout the century.
The journal’s editorial board was, however, concerned that their
manipulation of Rembrandt’s etching would be regarded as blasphemous and disrespectful of the “master of etchers.” They had, after all,
transformed the original inscription into a pitch for “Paris à l’eauforte, appearing every Saturday.” They were careful to emphasize their
respect for Rembrandt and note the significance of Guérard’s faithful
likeness to the original etching:
Rembrandt’s Microcosmos, reproduced by Guérard, served
as a model for our friend Frédéric Regamey to draw our
latest poster, of which we can see the marvelous effects
on the walls of Paris, and marks so much better our path.
Perhaps it is a bit bold to have replaced the mysterious
characters that appeared to old Faust by a simple announcement, but we know that we are not taking advantage of charlatanism, and we excuse ourselves from any
disrespectful intentions towards the master of etchings.
250
Guérard’s excellent reproduction proves, moreover, that
we have all the requisite deference to him, – and despite
the insistence of our cat, co-founder and co-owner of this
journal, we have completely banished him from our print,
even though he managed to slide his insolent head into
our poster.479
In the same way as Henry Somm’s images – one of which was also
published this same week – were seen as respresentative of Paris, Rembrandt’s name was said to be synonymous with etching: “Rembrandt
means etching.” 480 Just as Rembrandt had come to embody the essence
of etching in nineteenth-century France, his Doctor Faust was an emblematic image and was used to further the cause for Paris à l’eau-forte
and the avancement of etching in France in general. The publishers
and artists affiliated with Paris à l’eau-forte could not make a greater
claim for the value of their own work than the dissemination of this advertising poster. They used Rembrandt’s iconic image Doctor Faust to
signify the route they wanted to follow in producing etchings like the
Old Master. It symbolized the hoped-for status of their own achievements through an inheritance of the valuable etching tradition descended from Rembrandt.
The Musées d’estampes en province
The cult of Rembrandt also figured prominently in the controversy
over establishing print museums in the French provinces, facilities
which to this day have an impact on the availability of prints throughout the country. Artist Félix Buhot used the Old Master’s status among
French painter-printmakers to promote his mission for accessible print
museums through publications and prints he produced between 1884
and 1887. Buhot’s efforts summarize how Rembrandt’s example continued to be appropriated by French artists past the years when the
Société des Aquafortistes held sway. An experimental printmaker who
also captured fleeting aspects of the world around him in sensitive
251
drawings and impastoed oils, Buhot was passionately dedicated to raising the status of fellow painter-printmakers and improving the amenities available to artists in France. Buhot first presented his plans for
provincial print rooms following the debate over the accessibility
of the Cabinet des estampes. This debate was sparked by Raffaëlli’s
article in L’Événement November 18th, 1884 and its reprinting in the
Journal des Arts four days later.
While Raffaëlli was solely concerned with the accessibility of
prints in Paris, Buhot was primarily interested in the provinces, where
there were few dealers and fewer still public collections of prints.
Raffaëlli was, in fact, opposed to Buhot’s idea because he thought it
would detract from his plan for a print museum in the nation’s capital.
Raffaëlli expected the establishment of provincial museums would be a
natural outcome of the success he anticipated the Paris museum would
enjoy.481 But Buhot bemoaned the fact that people in the provinces
had to rely on what they saw for sale in street stalls. He did not think
they could possibly see high-quality works, specifically prints by Rembrandt, at a flea market.
But the street is not enough. It is not certain that the
public will often find the opportunity to admire the masterpieces that they must first be shown. It is not in the
ten centime boxes that they will have much luck finding
Rembrandt’s Christ Healing the Sick, for one proof of
which, not long ago, a well-known amateur paid 28,000
francs; nor Annunciation to the Shepherds, nor Portrait of
Burgomaster Six by the Dutch master; nor the original engravings of Albert Dürer... nor Claude Lorrain’s admirable etchings, nor Bartolozi’s color prints, nor the
shimmering mezzotints of Reynolds and Watson, etc.482
At first Buhot simply suggested provincial museums should develop
their collection to provide resources for artists working outside of
Paris. Next, he proposed the printrooms form their collections as inexpensively as possible. Using works from the Chalcography of the
252
Louvre, he suggested they could provide prints by or after each of the
major past printmakers at a low cost. 483 Buhot believed the collections
in printrooms of past printmaking should be as comprehensive as possible. He recommended that works from all schools represented in the
Chalcography’s collection be accessible to artists. Among the works
Buhot wanted to be available, Rembrandt was by far the most important artist for any printroom. He declared: “Of Rembrandt above all,
this master of masters, whose eight prints here are enough to captivate
us for a long time, notably the fantastic painting in the Louvre, The
Carpenter’s Household, who is visited each day by the gentle and warm
sun, the sun in the golden tone cast in Dutch painting. ” 484
In the new provincial resources, Buhot urged several changes
from practices common at the Louvre’s Chalcography. First, most of
its prints were engravings and did not provide an adequate example to
etchers – the “colorists” – who he said wanted to reproduce the “spirit,
warmth and life, and all or almost all themselves cultivated the art of
Rembrandt.” 485 Second, the Chalcography was a repository for prints
reproducing paintings and did not include examples of the various
stages of the printmaking process such as the épreuves d’artiste (the impression an artist makes before taking the plate to an editor; this step
enables artists to verify whether the print will take the form they expect) or épreuves avant-lettre (the impression made before the title,
artist’s name and that of the editor and any dedication or mention of a
collection are added).486 While Buhot suggested the Chalcography donate prints to provincial museums, he also hoped that private collectors
such as the Dutuits in Rouen, the Rothschilds in Paris, and LeroyLatteux of Amiens would bequeath their prints and thus make original
Old Master works accessible to the French public.487
In order to encourage provincial museums to establish independent printrooms, Buhot announced a prize through the newspaper
Journal des Arts that the first to do so would receive a collection of
prints donated by contemporary French artists. The Rouen museum
won the prize and opened the doors of its printroom in March 1885.488
Rouen received sixty-five prints, including proofs offered by Buhot,
Courtry, Fantin-Latour, Gaucherel, and Masson as well as donations
253
from Béraldi and Burty.489 Museums in Amiens, Blois, Chartres, Honfleur, Montauban, Nîmes, and La Rochelle followed suit and Buhot
encouraged artists and collectors to donate prints to these collections
also.
Two years later, in 1887, Buhot decided to publish a brochure
including all of his articles on the provincial printrooms as well as images he would produce especially for the occasion. While he never
completed this project, related prints and drawings indicate how
Buhot placed Rembrandt at the forefront of his plans for the provincial
printrooms. When Buhot formulated the frontispiece for his collected
articles, he did more than take his inspiration from one of Rembrandt’s
drawings. As an aspiring modern master, Buhot emulated the Old
Master’s achievements and acted as if they were collaborators on the
project. Buhot physically incorporated a reproduction of Rembrandt’s
drawing into his study [fig. 67], using it as the support for his own work.
In his preparatory study for Les salles d’estampes en province,
Buhot used gouache and wash on top of a photograph of one of Rembrandt’s drawings.490 With his quick, fluid strokes he transformed
Rembrandt’s view of the portal of a church. In the original drawing,
two men converse beside the massive interior of a church. In Buhot’s
rendering, the church becomes a print room in the provinces and the
two men are print collectors, one carrying a folio under his arm. He also
added a woman to the right of the entrance who is perhaps an attendant or custodian of the collection, and he transformed the original
parishioners inside the building into amateurs perusing prints on
easels. Rembrandt’s depiction of a religious space thus became an icon
at the altar of French prints.491 Buhot inscribed below the study “Frontispiece composé en province par Rembrandt,” as if to say that Rembrandt himself had produced Buhot’s print, or that the French artist
had assumed a guise as Rembrandt while he was working. The inscription to the left: “suite d’articles publiés dans le Journal des Arts 188485 augmenté de plusieurs chapitres inédits” shows Buhot’s intention of
adding to his original text.
Buhot further laid out his thoughts for the brochure and Rembrandt’s central position in the advancement of printmaking in France
254
fig. 67 – Félix Buhot, Les salles d’estampes en province, 1887
fig. 68 – Félix Buhot, Sketches for les salles d’estampes en province, 1887
in a double page of sketches [fig. 68]. His notes across the page indicate a kinship with his contemporaries who also promoted the status of
etchings. Scattered across the page are the names of the critics Clément de Ris, Champfleury, and Gaucherel, and the artist Courtry.
Auguste Poulet-Malassis, who is also mentioned, was an important
print collector and publisher whose editions included the work of Baudelaire. Poulet-Malassis had a significant role in the rehabilitation of
etchings in the late 1850s; he commissioned frontispieces for his publications from artists including Braquemond, Flameng, and Legros.
During his exile in Brussels, Poulet-Malassis was an instrumental link
between French and Belgian printmakers and the establishment of the
Brussels-based Société internationale des aquafortistes in 1869.492
Poulet-Malassis’ success in promoting printmakers was an important
contemporary inspiration for Buhot’s own efforts.
In his sketches for the brochure, Buhot also cited Dutuit’s
Manuel de l’amateur d’estampes as the leading source for information
256
on the watermarks of old paper. Indeed, the notion of old papers was
central to Buhot’s conception of printmaking and was undoubtedly informed by his awareness that Rembrandt used old Chinese and Japanese papers. In the central right-hand segment of the paper, Buhot
sketched a street scene where a cartouche over a door reading “Vieux
Papiers” seems to announce the availability of valuable paper products.
Various letters of “Vieux Papiers” appear again in the upper and central left quadrants of the right side of the sheet. The owl and open
book are elements that reappear in many of Buhot’s prints.493 As one
of his favorite motifs, Buhot incorporated an owl into his stamped
monogram and in some instances used an owl as a symbolic representation of himself in his works.494 The owl may be included here as an
emblem denoting Buhot’s place as a modern master within the etching
tradition.
Linking himself with tradition, Buhot conceived of his brochure
as divided into two parts: old and modern. In his inscription in the
“Partie moderne” Buhot bemoaned the status of etchings relative to
other processes: “This will kill that. The mania for etching comes
every now and then and almost killed vignettes. The heliogravure and
photogravure processes brought it back to life but will never give it the
charm and brilliance etchings had in the 1830s and 1840s.” 495 “Ceci
tuera cela,” “This will kill that,” is a phrase that Buhot undoubtedly acquired from Burty, although it originated as the title of a chapter of
Hugo’s well-known novel Nôtre-Dame de Paris.496 Hugo’s phrase referred to the rise of the printing press over medieval architecture, and
thus symbolically to words overriding the importance of images or
artistic objects and monuments. Burty related the phrase “Ceci tuera
cela” to his fears that photography would render reproductive prints
obsolete.497 Buhot lamented that even a high level of interest in etching does not mean it will triumph over photographic processes. He still
believed that while reproductions could spark interest in etchings, they
would never be as important as the original works themselves.
In his designs for the second part of the brochure, the “Partie
ancienne,” Buhot reinforced Rembrandt’s emblematic position for
the French etching tradition in both an inscription and an image.
257
The inscription reads: “The collections of Mariette. Prints by Rembrandt. Rembrandt printer. Impressions with turpentine.” 498 Next to
the inscription Buhot sketched an interior scene of Rembrandt’s studio. Here the Dutch artist labors over his printing press while two assistants watch him at work. A dog and a fireplace with mantle add to
the anecdotal quality of the image and contribute to Buhot’s attempt to
make the scene appear representative of Rembrandt’s daily life. Image
and text together promote not only Rembrandt as the leading past
master of etchings but also position Buhot as an inheritor of this tradition and establish his status as a modern master. As part of his own
personal emulation of Rembrandt – or, at least, what he believed was
Rembrandt’s technical practice – Buhot often used turpentine. In the
1880s he acquired a press for his studio at 71 Boulevard de Clichy and
was one of the few French etchers who could boast that he printed his
plates himself, just as he imagined Rembrandt had done.499
The final and most public example of Buhot’s reverence of
Rembrandt as the zenith of the reinvigoration of etching in France appeared in his frontispiece for volume IV of Henri Béraldi’s Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle. Béraldi commissioned this print in 1885 and it was
exhibited at the Salon of 1886. A bust of Rembrandt with his characteristic moustache, goatee, long hair, and angled beret is alloted the
dominant position in the central upper margin of the print.
Although Rembrandt was not included in either the preparatory
drawing [fig. 69] or the first three states of the print, his image appeared in the fourth state and then remained front and center in the final, published version [fig. 70]. This was unusual for Buhot who typically outlined his marginalia in the first state and then developed and
defined them more clearly with each subsequent state. In this particular case, however, Rembrandt’s bust embodied Buhot and his contemporaries’ notion of a painter-printmaker to such an extent that the interior view of a printer’s studio with press and bottles of chemicals
included in the lower register of earlier states was no longer necessary.
By this point, Rembrandt’s bust symbolized the notion of a printmaker
as both artist and technician in France so completely that Buhot no
longer needed to illustrate the process in detail.
258
fig. 69 – Félix Buhot, Frontispiece for Volume IV of Henri Béraldi’s Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle, 1885
fig. 70 – Félix Buhot, Frontispiece for Volume IV of Henri Béraldi’s Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle, 1885
This frontispiece reiterated Rembrandt’s role as the principal model
for Buhot’s provincial printrooms; the words “Musées d’Estampes en
province” surround Rembrandt’s bust. Flanking him, cityscapes of
London and Paris signify the two capitals in which print collections,
associations, and exhibitions had successfully promoted prints in the
nineteenth century. In the lower margin, a view of Rouen refers to the
city which had met Buhot’s challenge to establish an independent
printroom. To the left and below Rouen, the titles of Philippe Burty’s
publications – “La Belle épreuve” and “Maîtres et petits maîtres” –
suggest Buhot’s admiration of Burty and his appreciation of the critics’
continued promotion of prints as well as the close friendship between
artist and critic. 500
Margins were always an integral part of Buhot’s prints. They
were aesthetically complementary and commented on the central image.501 While few of Buhot’s contemporaries exploited a print’s border
to the same extent, it is a recurring motif in his œuvre.502 In his frontispiece for a volume of Beraldi’s study, Buhot included in the margins
those elements which for him best characterized the status of French
printmakers in the nineteenth century. The mission of the “Les Graveurs du XIX siècle,” announced on a placard in the central image, was
bolstered by critics such as Burty, city centers such as Paris, London,
and Rouen, and above all the archetypal painter-printmaker Rembrandt.
This print summarizes Buhot’s reverence of Rembrandt and his aspirations for himself and his contemporaries to equal the example set by
the Old Master.
For advocates of print rooms, societies, journals, and independent printmakers, Rembrandt’s status grew to cult-like proportions in
France during the second half of the nineteenth century. Rembrandt
was assigned an iconic status because the artists and critics involved
identified a need for someone or something to bolster the cause of
original French etchings. They looked to the authority they gave to
Rembrandt’s prints as part of their larger project to advance their own
authority. Rembrandt’s name and accomplishments validated and advanced their own goals since he represented the success etching had
261
attained in the past and, by extension, the current success they wanted
and believed it should achieve in their own time.
By defining their cause as a part of the tradition of etching that
began with Rembrandt, artists and critics identified with him as an ancestral figure and forerunner of their cause. He functioned as a benchmark by which they could measure their achievements in the technical
aspects of etching and their success acting independently and controlling the production of their artistic products. Through the self-conscious efforts of French artists and critics, Rembrandt was chosen as
the principal mentor for the etching revival in France. Using Rembrandt’s artistic persona, they advanced themselves and created a professional identity that secured their ultimate victory over their competitors.
The success of this venture can be seen most clearly in the fact
that eventually they no longer needed Rembrandt. The establishment
of the Société des peintres-graveurs and its first exhibition in 1889
marked the triumph of the original print in France.503 Many of the
printmakers discussed in this study were involved in the society, including Buhot, Haden, and Legros, as well as Bracquemond and Guérard who were president and vice-president. In his preface to the first
exhibition catalogue, Burty cited Rembrandt as the first of the “master
printmakers” who dispersed his genius throughout the universe through
his prints.504 This was precisely the goal of the artists involved with
this society, but they were no longer concerned with justifying their
existence and no longer felt the need to define themselves in relation
to Rembrandt, whose significance now seemed natural. Their main
goal was to exhibit original prints in a non-discriminatory and unjuried
setting that was open to all artists. Despite controversy when the group
was renamed the Société des peintres-graveurs français in 1891, it continued to grow and hold exhibitions, denoting how successful French
artists and critics had been in using Rembrandt to help establish an increasingly public perception of value for original prints in France.505
This success continues and the Société des peintres-graveurs français
still regularly holds exhibitions at the Bibliothèque nationale, more
than a century later.
262
Reproduction versus Interpretation:
Rembrandt and the Creative Copy
In an ironic twist of the cult of Rembrandt, specifically the creativity
and originality of Rembrandt’s prints, he was also the chosen model
for artists who exhibited reproductive prints after paintings at the
French Salons. Printmakers who preferred to create original prints –
those that were in no way connected with or representative of another
work of art – looked to Rembrandt as a model of artistic liberty and individuality, but relatively few original prints were ever exhibited in the
Salons during the nineteenth century. The French Academy and Salon
jury promoted reproductive prints, most commonly engravings and to
a lesser extent etchings. However, many of the artists who exhibited
their reproductive prints resented claims that their works were simply
copies after original art. Consequently, these artists and their sympathetic critics increasingly applied the term “interpretive” to such prints.
As a result, Rembrandt was called upon not only as the mentor for
French etchers who wanted to promote the value of original etching
over engraving, but he was also taken up by reproductive etchers and
engravers who sought to defend themselves against criticism that their
prints were not creative. Further, they used Rembrandt to defend the
value of an artist’s role against the threat that photographers would receive all the commissions for illustrations previously allocated to printmakers.
Linking originality and reverence, associations between Rembrandt and artistic creativity and ingenuity in this period led to an increasing number of interpretations or prints d’après Rembrandt being
exhibited at the French Salons during the second half of the century.
Since interpretive French printmakers were only rarely in a position to
follow Rembrandt’s techniques or emulate his imagery, they displayed
their admiration for the Old Master by producing and exhibiting
copies after his work. Images of Rembrandt’s œuvre exhibited in the
print section of the Salon came to embody notions of orginality and
creativity then associated with his name in France. The interpretive
copies after Rembrandt’s paintings and prints symbolized his somethe rembrandt strategy
263
what delayed but ultimately triumphant position within Academic
printmaking circles.
Prints after past and present art dominated the print rooms of
French Salons throughout the nineteenth century. Rembrandt, and also Corregio, De Hooch, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael,
Rubens, Ruysdael, Titian, and Van Dyck were among the past artists
whose works were most frequently taken up by French Salon engravers. Given the status of Raphael within the tradition of the French
Academy, it is not suprising that prints after his art were prominently
represented in the printrooms of the Salon through the first part of the
century. The display of Raphael’s art through prints reached its height
at the Exposition Universelle of 1855, where twenty-five prints after
Raphael were exhibited. But Raphael’s popularity then deteriorated,
even in the Salon setting, and Rembrandt’s grew significantly.
From the mid-1880s to the end of the century, prints after
Rembrandt’s art dominated the Salon venue.506 In the years from 1886
to 1899, seven to thirteen copies after Rembrandt were exhibited annually in the print section.507 The increasing submission and exhibition of images after Rembrandt at the Salons parallels the general
growing popularity of his œuvre in France. More importantly, it reveals the use reproductive printmakers made of then current notions of
Rembrandt – as the original and creative painter-printmaker – in their
attempt to defend the artistic value of reproductions.
Reproductive printmakers found support among the critics, who
promoted the originality of their work just as they had done for Rembrandt. Alfred de Lostalot believed that through the talent of some
printmakers, copies could achieve the same artistic value as the original
work. He supported engravings against criticism from etchers, particularly those associated with the Société des Aquafortistes and wrote:
In the Gazette [des Beaux-Arts], etching does not have free
rein as it has with our colleague: it is, in most cases, subordinated to another work of art because it is given the
mission of making a faithful copy. It is the business of
artists with transcendent merit, like Jacquemart, Gaillard
264
or Flameng, to raise a copy to the level of an original and,
sometimes even to surpass it; it is no less true that, with
us, an etcher is only a translator. On the other hand, in
Cadart’s publication, except for the very rare exception,
engraving is considered secondary and we only allow
original works. He likes to collect ébauches, croquis, caprices, the artists’ thoughts.508
In his treatise on prints, A.M. Perot also defended the originality of reproductive prints. Perot defined a copy as the imitation of a work of art
in the same medium; he viewed a painting done after another painting
or an engraving done after another engraving as a copy. But as soon as
an artist undertook a work in a medium that was different from the
subject he or she was working from, Perot proposed their work was
not a copy but a translation and should therefore be regarded as equally inspired by nature. Perot asked:
What is the character of a real copy? It is to be something that imitates something else with the same means
and by the same processes. What is the character of a
translation? It is to be the imitation of an object by means
or in an idiom different from that by which the original
was made. Engraving is, therefore, not a copy after painting. The goal of these two arts, in truth, is the same, the
imitation of nature; but they each follow their particular
means and different processes. The engraver must often
consult nature.509
Charles Blanc was equally supportive of what engravers could achieve
as translators. In his Grammaire des arts du dessin: architecture, sculpture,
peinture, he said engraving was an interpretive translation that revived
the spirit of a painting. Blanc allowed that engravers had only black
and white colors at their disposal but that by using clair-obscur, the colors in a painting became abstracted tones of equal value to a polychrome canvas.510
265
Engravings after paintings were, before the rise of photography, the
most popular means of disseminating imagery, although lithographs
and to a lesser extent etchings were also used. The selection of which
works to depict – usually paintings – was certainly informed by the
pre-established canon of important past art. Dissemination of the
prints then served, in turn, to reinforce and perpetuate this canon.
Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson, The Night Watch, and Syndics were
his three most commonly reproduced paintings in France. Léopold
Flameng’s engravings of The Anatomy Lesson [fig. 71] and Syndics [fig.
72] and Adolphe Mouilleron’s lithograph of The Night Watch [fig. 73]
were among the many well distributed and exhibited prints after
Rembrandt’s œuvre. Flameng’s engravings were exhibited at the Salon
of 1876 and then published by Cadart. Mouilleron’s lithograph was
commisioned by the Ministry of the State for the Exposition Universelle in 1855. Analysis of the interpretive prints produced, exhibited, or published in France in the second half of the nineteenth century
also indicates the popularity of certain works exhibited in the Louvre
and other public European collections (see Appendix).
In 1887, Charles Courtry, a well-known Salon engraver, received
the Medal of Honor for his engraving of Rembrandt’s The Carpenter’s
Household from the Louvre. To commemorate this achievement, Courtry’s friend and fellow engraver Albert Duvivier produced a dedicatory
portrait and poem in his honor [fig. 74]. Courtry had, by this point, a
solid career producing prints after contemporary and past art for such
publications as L’Art, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, L’Artiste and exhibition
and sales catalogues for Durand-Ruel and other dealers. Moreover,
Courtry had already produced numerous engravings after Rembrandt’s
œuvre and, for him, such engravings were creative works that testified
to his admiration for Rembrandt.511 In a letter Courtry wrote to a collector eager to buy a print of his engraving after Rembrandt’s The
Carpenter’s Household, Courtry replied: “You ask me for the name of
the publisher of the Rembrandt print, the publisher of the Rembrandt
is me. I made this plate because of my love of the master’s painting.” 512
Courtry’s perception of these prints is also evoked in the poem
Duvivier scratched onto the plate below Courtry’s portrait:
266
fig. 71 – Léopold Flameng, Anatomy Lesson, engraving after Rembrandt, 1876
fig. 72 – Léopold Flameng, Syndics, engraving after Rembrandt, 1876
fig. 73 – Adolphe Mouilleron, The Night Watch, lithograph after Rembrandt, 1854
No, the engraver is not an obscure interpretor;
He mixes his thoughts in the work he propagates,
And, in a rival flight, they glide in the same sky
The energy he expends equals that of the painter
We cheer him, in his turn, as a triumphant victor
The glory of the first cannot be offended
Courtry translates Rembrandt and remains a creator! 513
Duvivier, himself an engraver who exhibited at the Salon, defended
Courtry against what must have been many attacks that he received a
Medal of Honor for a print simply derived from another work of art.
268
fig. 74 – Albert Duvivier, Portrait of Charles Courtry, 1887
Complaints from artists and critics who thought such awards should
only go to artists who had produced original prints undoubtedly
spurred Duvivier to defend Courtry and, at the same time, enhance the
value of his own and all engravings.
Reproductive or, as they wished to be called, interpretive printmakers including Bracquemond, Courtry, Flameng, Rajon, and Waltner, perceived their copies as a creative, artistic process and aligned
themselves with Rembrandt to support their cause. After Rembrandt
was recognized as the most important past printmaker by original
etchers, interpreters followed suit and prints after Rembrandt’s œuvre
dominated the Salons beginning around 1883. This delayed reaction
resulted, in part, from the more conservative tendencies of the Academy and Salon and a hesitation to take up Rembrandt, who was typically regarded as an model counter to academic traditions.
It is also significant that the number of interpretive works after
Rembrandt increased in the print section of the Salons at the same
time as copies ceased to be exhibited in the drawing section. Copies after past art formed a prominent part of the drawing section of Salons
into the 1880s and the most common subject for drawn copies was
Raphael’s art. This is not remarkable given the association between
Raphael and high-quality drawing, as discussed earlier. Since Rembrandt’s drawings were generally poorly regarded in academic circles,
it is equally predictable that few drawn copies after his work were exhibited in the Salon venue. Perhaps as a delayed result of the proposed
reform of the École des Beaux-Arts in 1863 and the increasing emphasis
on originality in academic drawing classes, copies started to disappear
from the drawing section in 1883 and almost none were exhibited from
1885 to the end of the century. This occurred at precisely the same time
as Rembrandt was given premier status in the print section. The decreasing associations between copies and drawings and greater affiliation with prints may help to explain why the numbers of copies after
Rembrandt began to increase in the mid-1880s.
Furthermore, Salon printmakers had to defend attacks on their
work and they used copies after Rembrandt to bolster their cause. For
professional interpreters, an image of or by Rembrandt epitomized
270
contemporary associations between Rembrandt and creative art much
as working with Rembrandt’s free, expressive line had embodied the
same associations for original French etchers. Working within the
confines of their profession, the interpreters produced prints of Rembrandt’s œuvre instead of working with his spontaneous, croquis technique. To interpretive printmakers their approach held equal meaning
and demonstrated comparable reverence for the Dutch printmaker.
Thus Rembrandt became the most heavily copied and exhibited artist
by interpretive printmakers at precisely the time they most needed to
be recognized themselves as original artists.514
The success of their efforts is denoted by the increasing value
placed on reproductions of Rembrandt’s art in the 1880s. When Boussod-Valadon (formerly Goupils) commissioned the well-known printmaker Charles Waltner to produce a large-scale print of The Night
Watch [fig. 75], in 1887, it was among the most remunerated commissions of its kind that a French printmaker had ever received.515 This
print was produced by a mixture of etching, mezzotint, and aquatint, a
technique made famous by Adolphe Goupil that became known as
“goupillage.” Henri Beraldi, in his entry on Goupil in Les Graveurs du
XIX siècle, said that Waltner had received as much for The Night Watch
as Henriquel-Dupont received for the ten years of work he put into an
engraving of the Hemicycle of the École des Beaux-Arts: “For a long
time [Goupils] has had almost a glorious monopoly of the publication
of prints of art: it paid Henriquel-Dupont 100,000 francs for the
Hemicycle des Beaux-Arts and again yesterday paid Waltner 100,000
francs for The Night Watch, which remains one of the most important
bills in the production of engravings.” 516 Goupil records for 1853 in
fact list the cost of Henriquel-Dupont’s plate as 5,000 francs, which
appears to have included both the artist’s materials and salary for the
year. There are no surviving records for the cost of Waltner’s The
Night Watch, but other prints he produced for Goupil cost anywhere
from 150 to 5,000 francs.517 Evidence suggests that Beraldi exaggerated
the amount Goupils/Boussod Valadon paid for both commissions, but
his comment indicates that a print after Rembrandt’s most famous
painting was perceived to be as valuable as a print of what was arguably
271
fig. 75 – Charles Waltner, The Night Watch, etching, aquatint, and
mezzotint after Rembrandt, 1887
not only the best-known in France of all mural paintings but also the
most famous print commission – until then. In fact, when Waltner’s
print of The Night Watch was first advertised for sale in Boussod
Valadon’s catalogue of 1887 all of the artist’s proofs on parchment
– the fifty most valuable prints – had already sold out.
Receiving this commission was a great honor for Waltner and
he and his contemporary interpretive printmakers viewed such work as
highly original and expressive. When Waltner produced etchings after
Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait (London, National Gallery) and Portrait of
Rembrandt’s Brother (Paris, Louvre), he produced different states and
272
fig. 76 – Charles Waltner, Portrait of Rembrandt’s
Brother, etching after Rembrandt, first state, n.d.
Brother, etching after Rembrandt, second state, n.d.
altered the plates in precisely the same way as an “original” etcher
would. In the first state of his Portrait of Rembrandt’s Brother [fig. 76],
Waltner left the background principally unworked to set off the sitter’s
head and dark, massive clothing. His changes to the background and
addition of greater detail in the sitter’s face altered the effect of the
etching in the second state [fig. 77]. Waltner approached this copy after Rembrandt in a manner inspired by the expressive qualities and reworking of plates that he associated with the Dutch artist. In 1884,
when Waltner produced an interpretation of Rembrandt’s The
“Doreur” [fig. 78] from the Paris-based Morny collection for publication with George Petit, he was also actively involved in the process of
inking and printing the plate. He wrote in the margins of the first state
that the print should be made slightly smaller and that both the hands
and background needed to be darker: “mains plus sombre,” “le fond
plus sombre.” Like most interpretive and indeed almost all printmakers of his time, Waltner did not print his plates himself but, again
273
fig. 78 – Charles Waltner, The “Doreur,” etching after Rembrandt, 1884
emulating Rembrandt, he was actively involved in the printing stage
because he regarded it as an integral part of the creative process.
Léopold Flameng who, along with Waltner, was famous for his
prints after Rembrandt, was also equally particular about how his interpretive prints were printed. In 1873, when Flameng finished his
etching after Rembrandt’s The Hundred Guilder Print [fig. 79], he was
livid that the French state considered printing the plate anywhere other
than where Flameng had recommended. Flameng wanted his plate to
be printed by Salmon, the most popular printer among intepretive
printmakers. But Flameng had to fight with the state, which had commissioned the plate in 1871, to retain his right as an artist to control
the production of his work.518 Flameng, who was out of the country at
the time, wrote to the appropriate government official:
Dear Sir,
I have learned thanks to one of my students that you have
taken the liberty (without consulting me) to have my print
The Hundred Guilder Print printed by another printer
than the one that I chose, the one who knows exactly
what is necessary to take a good impression of this plate.
It took me a great deal of time and effort to execute this
print. I cannot consent that you would contravene in my
wish, expressed to you, that my work be printed by Salmon: in the interest of my work and in your interest I
formally oppose that you would have it printed elsewhere. I hope that your response will be one of an equally passionate alarm and that, concerned for your interests, you will follow what I advise you.
Yours sincerely, Léopold Flameng.
P.S. Maybe my plate is at Delâtre’s – a massacre! 519
275
fig. 79 – Léopold Flameng, Hundred Guilder Print, etching after Rembrandt, 1873
Clearly Flameng no longer held Auguste Delâtre in the same high esteem as he had in the 1860s when he designed a letterhead for Delâtre’s shop [fig. 46]. Flameng had previously printed a number of his
plates at Delâtre’s but their working processes must have diverged by
the time Flameng wrote this letter in 1873.520 Furthermore, Salmon’s
studio was the preferred resource for printmakers such as Flameng,
Courtry, and Waltner to take their plates which interpreted other
works of art.521
Flameng was equally particular about the manner in which his
intepretations after Rembrandt were exhibited. In one instance, he
complained that the prints he exhibited were improperly mounted and
could not give the right effect on blue mats. He succeeded in having
them changed to white before the end of the exhibition.522
276
Flameng’s sense of pride and creative independence in relation to his
prints after Rembrandt’s etchings was apparent as early as 1859, when
he worked with Charles Blanc on the plates for Blanc’s L’Œuvre complet de Rembrandt. Flameng produced forty etchings for this publication and while the plates are typically attributed solely to Flameng it
appears that they were to some extent a joint venture between Flameng, Blanc and two other unidentifiable artists.523 In the first, experimental stages of the printing process, several images were placed together on one plate and printed as a unit [fig. 80]. As the four artists
on this team perceived their copies after Rembrandt as an independent
creative process, they inscribed their initials in the upper left hand corner of one of these plates, along with a diminutive, hat-wearing, peasant-like figure. Such action would seem intentionally to mark the print
fig. 80 – Léopold Flameng, Charles Blanc and Unknown Artists,
Several Prints on a Plate, etchings after Rembrandt, 1859
277
as their own original product. In the end, Flameng was accredited with
the etchings, but Blanc was clearly involved in at least the preparatory
stages. Indeed, Blanc also produced the frontispiece for the text, which
was inspired by a portrait of Rembrandt in the Louvre. But Blanc
differentiated between the portrait he produced and the conventional
notion of a copy and did not scratch d’après Rembrandt into the plate.
He regarded the print as an original work and a testimony to his admiration of Rembrandt, and so he signed it with his own name. Later,
when Blanc reflected back on this joint project, he recalled how Maxime Lalanne praised Flameng’s etchings, saying they were such good
imitations that they would even fool Rembrandt himself if he were to
come back to life.524
In addition to the Salon venue and these individual creative projects, interpretive printmakers used the status of Rembrandt to buttress
their own societies against the original etchers of the Société des Aquafortistes. Interpretive etchers had made circumstances more difficult
for interpretive engravers by claiming a superior status for free copies
made using a needle over precise copies using a burin. The Société des
aquafortistes français, founded in March 1885, first exhibited etchings
at the Salon of 1886. Of the thirty-one etchings displayed, all were
copies. In the preface to the society’s catalogue that year, Émile Bergeret
defended the works of interpretive etchers as a “voluntary servitude” to
painting and said that over time they would probably display more
original works. He wrote:
Etching in effect, with its resources which are infinite and
renewed by each artist, is the only print medium that can
follow painting today in its bold explorations of color, of
value and the outdoors. It finds a practical solution for all
the problems that painting presents her. It plays on her
solely black and white lines all the Venetian carnivals of a
rainbow of tones. It is the indispensible and unique translator; because against a painter, it produces another painter, and other prints only produce a practician.525
278
While Bergeret referred to the members of the association as the “sons
of Rembrandt, Callot, and Piranesi,” he placed particular attention on
Rembrandt’s significance for the society. Bergeret asserted that Rembrandt “had two palettes for the colorist and one began where the other ended. One must believe that with him the printmaker substituted
for the fettered painter.” 526 He emphasized Rembrandt’s passion for
etching and the powerful effects of his paintings. Bergeret’s distinction
between the two media is a key factor in his defense of the society’s
venture. By claiming that Rembrandt did not mix his two utensils,
paintbrush and etching needle, Bergeret argued for the autonomy of
the artists in the society. The freedom of their spontaneous etched
copies would produce translations that surpassed what he defined as
the purely technical work of engraved copies. Yet Rembrandt was so
highly revered that members of the society sought to measure everyone else against him. On that basis, they concluded that the engraver
Courtry was his equal and included Duvivier’s Portrait of Courtry [fig.
74] and his poem in their catalogue of 1887. Burty’s preface to this catalogue does not attempt to position etched copies as superior creative
endeavors over engraved copies. Burty and members of the society
must have concluded that they would be more successful in advancing
the cause of printed copies if they took a united front behind their chosen hero Rembrandt.
Another series of exhibitions, the Exposition Internationale de
Blanc et Noir, also promoted graphic works in a variety of media and
gave equal value to etched and engraved copies. In a sequence of four
displays in 1886, 1888, 1890 and 1892, these exhibitions grew from installations in the Salle des États at the Louvre to more ambitious expositions in one of the Palais on the Champs-Elysées. During the course
of these exhibitions, the number of copies after Rembrandt on display
made him the best represented of Old Master printmakers. The exhibitions promoted the value of imitative prints for disseminating works
which were previously unknown and for enabling the circulation of a
greater number of images. The introduction to a special retrospective
display of printmaking in 1892 substantiated the value of both etchings
and engravings: “But the masters who manipulated the burin or who
279
made use of etching were not only servile imitators. Most of them
were admirable interpretors, some of them even creators, and all were
genuine artists whose names will never perish.” 527 At the Expositions
Internationale de Blanc et Noir etchers and engravers formed a strong
united front behind their archetype Rembrandt.
Yet, competing claims for the superiority of etched over engraved copies returned at the Exposition Nationale de l’eau-forte moderne in 1896. This exhibition, which was held at the École des BeauxArts, set out to display the production of French etchings during the
second half of the nineteenth century. The exhibition catalogue explicitly stated that both original and reproductive etchings would be included if the latter were “liberally” executed, as compared to the strict
line of engraved copies. Of the reproductive etchings on display, there
were three times more copies after Rembrandt than any other Old
Master artist.528 The twelve copies after Rembrandt included Courtry’s award-winning The Carpenter’s Household, Flameng’s famous The
Night Watch and The Hundred Guilder Print and Waltner’s The “Doreur.” Just as in the Salon setting, the predominance of copies after
Rembrandt occurred because of the connection the artists made between these works and artistic creativity.
Rembrandt assumed the position of the most heavily copied past
artist during the second half of the nineteenth century because his art
and identity were associated with definitions of original art. In an attempt to align themselves with the most successful Old Master painterprintmaker and thereby improve their own stature by association, both
interpretive etchers and engravers aligned themselves with Rembrandt
by producing and exhibiting his work in increasing quantity. They
used Rembrandt to serve their own needs and made him the crux of
their concerted efforts to legitimize themselves and their achievements. The difficulty interpretive etchers and engravers experienced
negotiating their relationship with one another indicates their resistance to losing the autonomy of their professions and their fear of forfeiting commissions to photography, a less expensive, faster means of
reproducing art. There is no indication that either original or interpretive printmakers saw their varied use of Rembrandt as contradictory,
280
his artistic persona was simply useful to many. His stature became such
that an image taken from his painted or printed œuvre could stand in
for all the meaning latent in the name “Rembrandt.” Rembrandt, as an
artist whose paintings and prints were increasingly valued during this
period, became, after decades of growing support, the premier past
printmaker in both vanguard and Academic circles. As Rembrandt’s
position as leading past painter-printmaker was established during the
second half of the nineteenth century in France, his name and œuvre
were variously used to advance the cause and status of original and interpretive etchers and engravers as they sought to secure favor for their
work and forge a professional identity for themselves.
281
conclusion
Repercussions of
the Cult of Rembrandt
Rembrandt’s popularity in France grew until it reached a cult-like level
during the second half of the nineteenth century. His artistic persona
was reinvented as French critics and artists realized they could use aspects of his life and art to promote their own goals. This concentrated
interest in Rembrandt, particularly between the 1850s and the 1890s,
was hardly disinterested. Rembrandt’s name and the images he produced were empowered and endowed with meaning that encompassed
anti-authoritarian conduct, personal and political liberalism, republicanism, originality, and innovative creative powers. This identity was forged
not because of an impartial desire to laud an underrecognized Old
Master artist, but because of self-legitimizing aims. French critics and
artists made use of the identity they formulated for Rembrandt and held
him up as an exemplar for the success and achievements one could obtain, both within and outside the boundaries of established institutions.
Rembrandt’s artistic identity was framed in this way because it
fulfilled the need French artists and critics had to identify with a successful model from the past. They felt a strong desire to create a kinship with Rembrandt as an Old Master artist, as is evident through the
quantity of publications on Rembrandt’s life and art, their correspondence, their collections of his work, their emulation of his technique
through copying his imagery, and the numerous ways they invoked
Rembrandt as an emblem for their own aspirations. They designated
Rembrandt as the benchmark for evaluating their success. He was used
283
to justify and promote new standards of beauty and the use of new subject matter, and to support the aspirations of original and interpretive
printmakers. The position of authority given to Rembrandt by French
artists and critics was appropriated to validate specific artistic achievements in their own time, most effectively to help consolidate a professional identity for French painter-printmakers.
A “Rembrandt” Play, 1898
Rembrandt arrived triumphant before the French masses at the Nouveau Théâtre in Paris from October 2nd to November 1st, 1898.529
Period costumes, romance, drinking, and death all dramatized the
reenactment of the Old Master’s life in the staging of Louis Dumur
and Virgile Josz’s script, first published in France in 1896. The production and advertising of the play “Rembrandt” demonstrate how the
mythical tropes, particularly Rembrandt’s ties to the principles of liberty and democracy, remained a powerful force through to the end of
the century and disseminated extensively within French popular culture.
The play overlapped with the first retrospective exhibition of
Rembrandt’s paintings held in Amsterdam and it emphasized the biographical details of Rembrandt’s life as well as prevailing beliefs about
his misunderstood and unappreciated genius. The multi-faceted myth
of Rembrandt pervaded his stage-self and he was presented as a master,
a genius, and an independent but unappreciated artist who imitated no
one, rejected tradition, created his own mode of painting, and reinterpreted old themes using humble, everyday people as his models. He
was presented as an artist who adhered to nature and models for inspiration, collected art and miscellaneous objects in his studio, captured
contrasting light and dark tones in his etchings, produced sketches for
paintings and was dissatisfied by his work. Rembrandt’s character also
lamented his plight, both his bankruptcy – here said to have been precipitated by Saskia’s former admirer, Albertus – and the lack of recognition by his fellow Dutch citizens. The playwrights added a new element to the narrative when they presented Rembrandt as blind during
284
the last years of his life. In one of the play’s monologues, Rembrandt
lamented the terrible treatment of great artists in their own countries
and encouraged people to be aware of and to appreciate contemporary
purveyors of culture. Here, the playwrights repeated the didactic message conveyed in the play of 1800, attesting to the popular prescriptive
use of Rembrandt’s example among French audiences.
This eight-part play incorporated tableaux vivants of Rembrandt’s principal paintings, including The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp
and The Night Watch. The presentation of Rembrandt’s manner of
painting in the play divided his work into two distinct parts, just as
French publications had done. The conception of a shift in Rembrandt’s mode of painting from a detailed application of paint during
the early years of his career to broadly and loosely painted canvases
during his later years remained a potent idea through the end of the
nineteenth century.
French theater critics paid much attention to the play and were
overwhelmingly positive in their reviews of “Rembrandt.” One critic
thought it was only appropriate that Paris pay homage to the “master”
at the same time as Amsterdam paid tribute with an exhibition.530
Another declared that the play had an important educational role and
praised the theater’s new director for introducing this biographical
type of performance to the stage.531 Only one critic believed the play
went into too much detail about every event in the artist’s life and criticized it for paying inordinate attention to the minutae of Rembrandt’s
love interests.532 Another critic perpetuated the dominant tropes of the
Rembrandt myth when he reiterated the play’s themes in his review:
He died poor. He owed his casket to public charity. His
funeral cost 30 francs. He deserved better. What genius
this man was, who imitated no one, who created his own
manner of paintings, and painted so many portraits...
with such astonishingly truthful fidelity... How audacious
was this independent spirit, who disregarded all tradition, willingly forgot the past, freely and originally interpreted the Bible, the heroes of which are no longer
repercussions of the cult of rembrandt
285
pompous figures majestically draped in the manner of the
Italian school, but humble people, the little people – the
workers, the beggars, the vagabonds.533
The emphasis of this play on Rembrandt as a genius and on notions of
his tormented life appeared in the caricatured and deranged-looking
image of the artist in the play’s publicity poster [plate 14]. The poster
depicts a wide-eyed Rembrandt gesturing perhaps to Albertus, who
plays Rembrandt’s nemesis, to leave his presence. In the background,
several Dutch burgomasters stare agog at the artist’s violent outburst.
This poster exhibits the same focus on fictionalized aspects of Rembrandt’s temperament as the play itself. Displaying the poster around
Paris brought these sensationalized elements of Rembrandt’s artistic
persona before the general public.
The poster and critical reviews also announced the play’s cutrate seat prices, which made it accessible to a broad audience. All seats,
regardless of position, were available for the same low price of 2 francs
and 50 centimes, a fraction of what theatergoers usually paid. One critic praised the accessibility of the performances, calling it a “good deal”
and a play for a “popular clientele.” 534 Another critic remarked on the
play’s appeal not only to professionals in the art world but also to the
“human masses.” 535 Associations between the name Rembrandt and
culture accessible to the proletariat in France thus prevailed through
the end of the nineteenth century. Fromentin’s notion that Rembrandt
was part of the “third estate” of the ancien régime and Taine’s conception of Rembrandt as “of the people” resurfaced in 1898 in the unusual and democratic approach the director of the Nouveau Théâtre took
to marketing the “Rembrandt” play. Just as French critics conceived of
the Dutch artist as “our Rembrandt” and aligned him with the country’s proletariat, director Paul Franck instituted low-rate seat prices
and sought to permit a broad spectrum of French society to come and
witness the Old Master in action.
Rembrandt became such a popular cult figure in the last decades of the
nineteenth century that more imitators sprang up. An unprecedented
286
number of works, now attributed to his students or followers, were ascribed to Rembrandt during this period. Works were produced by
nineteenth-century artists that conformed to contemporary expectations
of the tactile and sketchy technique associated with Rembrandt’s manner
of painting during the last years of his life. These works were obviously
intended to capitalize on market demands. They also suggest the extent
to which some French artists sought to emulate through repetition what
they believed was Rembrandt’s style at the zenith of his artistic career.
Perhaps they hoped these copies would enable them to absorb some of
the mystique and creativity associated with Rembrandt’s late works.
These actions have had repercussions on the history of art that
are still felt today, particularly the controversy around attribution that
continues to dominate Rembrandt studies. The growing debate over
the authenticity of works in Rembrandt’s œuvre can be traced to the
1890s. The authenticity of Rembrandt’s painted and graphic output
was occasionally called into question before this date but the years between the discovery of a painting attributed to Rembrandt outside
Paris at Pecq in 1890 and the first retrospective exhibition of Rembrandt’s paintings in 1898 mark a turning point in perceptions of his
artistic persona. Rembrandt’s Old Master status had been promoted to
such an extent during the previous decades in France that the limited
supply of his works available for sale could no longer meet burgeoning
market demands. The reprinting of Rembrandt’s copper plates only
partially served to fulfill the growing demand for his prints in France.
Satisfying the desire for his paintings was more problematic.
Contributing to the notoriety, two aphorisms about Rembrandt’s paintings were drawn from his early biographies and repeatedly attributed to the artist by French writers: “A painting is finished
when the artist says that it is finished” and “A painting is not made to
be sniffed” but contemplated from a distance.536 The repetition of
these phrases related to the popular belief that Rembrandt produced
principally sketch-like impasto-laden works. These paintings were
identified with the latter years of Rembrandt’s life, the period in which
critics said he suffered most from financial pressures and a lack of public
acclaim. Works identified with these final years were the most popular
287
in France during the last decades of the nineteenth century. This suggests that the focus on Rembrandt in textual sources as a marginalized,
suffering genius had a significant impact on contemporary perceptions
of the value of his œuvre.
From “Le Rembrandt du Pecq” to the
first Retrospective Exhibition in 1898
Vying to protect the Old Master against impersonators, several acclaimed artists joined noted art critics in debates concerning the attribution and authenticity of works attributed to Rembrandt in the 1890s.
Such subjects have a lengthy history in studies of Rembrandt and form
the core of the Rembrandt Research Project. Since 1968 this group of
scholars has combined connoisseurship and technological practices to
examine paintings associated with Rembrandt’s œuvre. The controversy
today over the attribution and authenticity of Rembrandt’s works developed partially from students and artists who emulated his work during his lifetime and also germinated from the mythical status he was
assigned in the nineteenth century. After Rembrandt’s artistic persona
was carefully negotiated through literary and artistic means, the mystique associated with his creative pursuits grew to overwhelming proportions. Debates concerning authenticity and Rembrandt’s œuvre,
which currently dominate Rembrandt studies, became increasingly
contentious following the sale January 26th, 1890, in France, of a
painting first referred to as “School of Rembrandt” Christ and the
Pilgrims of Emmaus [plate 15].
Christ and the Pilgrims of Emmaus was discovered in 1890 in the
estate auction of Mme Legrand from Pecq, just west of Paris.537 First,
art dealer Stéphane Bourgeois commissioned a representative, Léonard
Salomon, to attend a pre-auction viewing and make charcoal sketches
of any works that looked valuable. Salomon made a sketch of Christ
and the Pilgrims of Emmaus and noted that the painting was dated 1656
and signed “Rembrandt.” Meanwhile, Bourgeois learned from his doctor,
who had tended to Legrand during her final days, that she had refused
288
an offer of 40,000 francs for one of her paintings several years earlier.538 Based on Salomon’s sketch and Bourgeois’ speculation that the
work Legrand had not been willing to sell was indeed Christ and the
Pilgrims of Emmaus, the dealer commissioned a local carpenter to purchase the painting at any price. Competition at the auction from artist
Henry Penon, a tapestry designer and a friend of Legrand, raised the
price of the painting from a starting point of 200 to a sale price of
4,050 francs, which Bourgeois’ representative paid as the winning
bid.539 The notoriety of this painting grew so quickly that within a few
hours of the sale Bourgeois refused an offer of between 75,000 and
100,000 francs from Baron Oppenheim. Bourgeois then declared the
work an original painting by Rembrandt and estimated its value at
250,000 francs.540
During the following weeks there was a constant flow to Bourgeois’ gallery of visitors who wanted to see the painting. While Bourgeois received many serious offers to purchase the canvas, he favored
selling the work to the Louvre.541 Georges Lafenestre, then a curator
at the Louvre, visited Bourgeois’ gallery less than a month after the
auction and agreed that the work was an authentic painting by Rembrandt but he never ventured to purchase the canvas.542 This was a fortunate decision for the Louvre, since Bourgeois soon became embroiled in a legal battle with Legrand’s daughter who claimed the
estate auctioneer had misrepresented their collection and thus cheated
them of their rightful inheritance. The painting quickly became a cause
célèbre and attracted eager crowds when it was exhibited in London.543
Meanwhile, in Paris, Lafenestre, art critic Émile Michel, and Dubois,
Director of the École des Beaux-Arts, were appointed to determine the
value of the painting and examine the legal conditions of the sale.
According to this team of experts, the painting was an authentic work
from Rembrandt’s hand. They found art expert Gandouin at fault for
not attributing the work to Rembrandt in the first place, a mistake
which resulted in the painting’s deflated sale price, but the auctioneer
was acquitted and the sale remained legally binding.544
Controversy surrounding the discovery of this painting, retitled
Abraham and the Angels soon after the sale, permeated French society
289
through the most circulated newspapers.545 The work, now identified
as by Aert de Gelder, attracted the attention not only of leading critics
but several highly acclaimed artists also actively contributed to the debate.546 Looking at a broader range of publications on Abraham and the
Angels than has previously been considered brings to light the unusual
role artists played as experts of Rembrandt’s work and exemplifies the
resonance of the cult of Rembrandt among French artists through the
end of the century.
Those who defended the attribution of Abraham and the Angels
to Rembrandt had few strong supporting arguments. For example,
painter Tony Robert-Fleury said simply that one of Rembrandt’s students could not have produced a work of such high quality.547 He and
critic Paul Mantz looked not to the technical aspects of the painting
but interpreted it within the context of Rembrandt’s biography. They
praised the quality of the painting and noted the significance of the
date, 1656, the year of Rembrandt’s bankruptcy and the by then wellknown inventory of his household effects.548 For them, the presence of
the signature and date on the canvas may have been sufficient evidence
for attributing the painting to Rembrandt because it nourished their
desire to laud what they regarded as Rembrandt’s artistic successes in
the face of adversity. Their views were based on their belief in the suffering creative genius figure then central to the structure of Rembrandt’s artistic persona in France.
Those opposed to attributing the painting to Rembrandt formed the more persuasive side of the debate. Journalists first interviewed
artists Antoine Vollon549 and Alfred Stevens, but neither wanted to
give his opinion of the “Rembrandt from Pecq.” 550 Instead, they offered Léon Bonnat’s name as the leading specialist of Rembrandt’s
work among contemporary artists. Bonnat was, by this point, one of
the preeminent artists in France. He became Official Painter of the
Third Republic after 1879, was made a member of the Institut in 1881,
and was appointed a professor at the École des Beaux-Arts in 1888. His
status and reputation thus gave his opinion significant authority among
his contemporaries. Bonnat was fervently opposed to attributing Abraham and the Angels to Rembrandt. He compared the Pecq painting to
290
Rembrandt’s Portrait of a Young Man and Self-Portrait with Easel
[plate 2] in the Louvre and refused to connect the canvas with
Rembrandt’s work. Bonnat wrote the following letter, which was published in Le Temps February 19th, 1890, and quoted in part in L’Artiste,
Le Figaro, and Le Petit journal:
I have just seen the painting. It is a work from the school.
I am told it is dated 1656. But go to the Louvre and look
at numbers 417 and 415,551 works dated closest to the
painting in question. There is no similarity between the
drawing or the execution. It is obvious.
Certain aspects are skillfully done, fair enough, but others, such as the heads of the angels and the two figures on
the left, are very weak.
This by Rembrandt? Never! 552
It was entirely appropriate that Bonnat was regarded as the leading expert on Rembrandt among French artists. By 1890 he had received an
official commission from Charles Blanc to copy Rembrandt’s The
Anatomy Lesson in The Hague for the short-lived Musée des Copies.553
Bonnat had also executed copies of The Night Watch, and the Syndics
during his stay in Holland and copied Susanna at the Bath after a work
in his own collection. By 1890 Bonnat owned fourteen of Rembrandt’s
etchings and over seventy drawings.554 Bonnat had, in fact, begun his
drawing collection with a work by Rembrandt, probably Old Tobias and
his Son, which he had received as a gift from his neighbor, the noted art
collector His de la Salle.555 By 1890 Bonnat also owned three paintings
attributed to Rembrandt: Susanna, Head of a Rabbi [plate 16], and
Burgomaster Six [plate 17].556
Bonnat’s knowledge of Rembrandt was formed through his travel
and study in Holland in 1872 and 1883,557 his examination of Rembrandt’s works in the Louvre, his own collection, and those of his
French contemporaries, particularly Henry d’Orléans, duc d’Aumale,
and His de la Salle.558 Bonnat’s conception of Rembrandt both as an
artist and as an historical figure was also informed by the numerous
291
studies and catalogues on Rembrandt which were being published in
increasing quantity in France during the second half of the nineteenth
century. Furthermore, Bonnat had the largest collection of works by
Rembrandt – indeed of all Old Master artists – of any French artist in
the nineteenth century. Bonnat combined his visual appreciation of
original works by Rembrandt with an extensive analysis of critical studies. The principal source of his information was the three-volume
study by another prominent French collector of Rembrandt’s works,
Eugène Dutuit. Dutuit’s volumes were among the most consulted
books in Bonnat’s library.559
In this light it is understandable that Alfred Stevens referred a
journalist for Le Temps to Bonnat, noting that “his entire life [Bonnat]
has studied the works of the master [Rembrandt] and his opinion, therefore, has great weight.” 560 Jean Jacques Henner also said: “Bonnat has
complete competence with this material” and reported that he was not
the only one of Henner’s friends to challenge the identification of Abraham and the Angels with Rembrandt.561 Henner himself had travelled
to Holland and had studied Rembrandt’s works in collections in Amsterdam, and The Hague, Dresden, as well as the Louvre.562 Critic Albert
Wolff also cited Bonnat as one of the most astute experts of Old Master works in Paris. Wolff praised Bonnat’s intervention in the question
of the painting’s signature and his ability to identify a different hand at
work in the figure of Abraham from that of the angels. For Wolff the
controversy surrounding Abraham and the Angels demonstrated that
while the passage of time could give a work a superficial sense of unification, it would not deceive a connoisseur of Bonnat’s calibre.563
In addition to Bonnat and his supporters, Jean-Léon Gérôme
challenged the attribution of Abraham and the Angels to Rembrandt.
His letter to Le Temps, published at the same time as Bonnat’s letter,
was also printed in Le Figaro and L’Artiste:
This painting is certainly the work of a man of talent and
the head of Christ is worth noting for its execution and
character, but the other figures are entirely inferior in
every way. The three heads of the disciples are weakly
292
painted, poorly constructed and recall none of the vigorous manner and skill of Rembrandt. In summary, this
work is by a man of talent, it has a good effect and is generally well handled, but it is not by Rembrandt.564
Gérôme did not have an extensive art collection like Bonnat but he had
a well-established interest in Rembrandt by 1861, when he exhibited
Rembrandt biting an etched plate [fig. 26] at the Salon. This painting
represented Gérôme’s first public display of his knowledge and fascination with Rembrandt. Increasingly captivated by Rembrandt during
the following decades, Rembrandt’s portrait – probably a print after a
self-portrait – hung prominently in Gérôme’s bedroom and it was under this image that Gérôme was said to have died. An early biography
of Gérôme, written two years after his death, ends with the following
remark on the end of his life: “The next morning, in the small bedroom next to the studio, in front of a portrait of Rembrandt, at the foot
of Truth, a servant found him immobile, already frozen: he had succumbed to death in his sleep.” 565 According to this biographer, Rembrandt was an emblem of veracity or reality for Gérôme. Rembrandt
functioned as an icon for Gérôme throughout his career and remained
central to his ruminations on art.
The engraver Charles Waltner, a student of Gérôme, also
agreed with his teacher and Bonnat that Abraham and the Angels was
not by Rembrandt; he suggested that the painting was the work of a
student. Waltner was another appropriate authority for journalists to
consult since he had produced the most famous engraved copy of
Rembrandt’s The Night Watch [fig. 75].566 Waltner had also executed
numerous renderings of Rembrandt’s paintings for the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts and for Salon exhibitions between 1874 and 1885.567 These
copies evince Waltner’s extensive study of Rembrandt’s technique.
Lastly, critic André Michel was also opposed to attributing
the painting to Rembrandt but, like those who defended Rembrandt’s
authorship, he took advantage of the occasion to expound on aspects
of Rembrandt’s life which were entrenched in the framework of his
biography in nineteenth-century France. Michel noted that Abraham
293
and the Angels was dated to that difficult period between 1648 and
1661 when Rembrandt lost his wife Saskia (he was not correct on this
point), his mother, his property, and his collection and retreated into
painting – an isolated refuge which Michel said was his last asylum and
a divine consolation.568 According to Michel, the debate over the
“Rembrandt du Pecq” had entered popular imagination to such an extent that the French public was unable to separate the artist’s name
from the Parisian suburb. Michel recounted a conversation between a
man and a woman which he had overheard at the Louvre in front of
Rembrandt’s Bathsheba in the Lacaze gallery: “A Woman: ‘Who is this
work by?’ – A Man, after consulting the inscription on the frame: ‘But
by Rembrandt! The one from Pecq!’” 569 For this couple, Rembrandt
had become a resident of a suburb of Paris.
Controversy over the attribution of Abraham and the Angels indicates the growing debate among followers of the cult of Rembrandt
concerning the technical characteristics of Rembrandt’s paintings.
Furthermore, associations between Rembrandt’s work and the impastoed technique of the Pecq painting – particularly noticeable in the
passages of Abraham’s beard and clothing and the wings and garments
of the angels – had taken hold even among those who refused to attribute the canvas to Rembrandt. Such painterly works were increasingly regarded as the definitive products of Rembrandt’s career and,
later in the decade, dominated the first retrospective exhibition of
Rembrandt’s paintings.
This retrospective was held in Amsterdam in September and
October 1898 and included 123 paintings from public and private collections. Thirty-two paintings were loaned from French collections,
including the Metz and Strasbourg museums and the Bonnat, DurandRuel, Goldschmidt, Hirsch de Gereuth, Jacquemart-André, Kann,
Lehmann, Porgès, Pourtalès Gorgier, Schickler, Schloss, and Wassermann collections.570 French loans represented one quarter of the
works in the exhibition and constituted the second largest contribution
next to the United Kingdom.571 A few of the paintings loaned from
French collections exemplified the fine-painting style associated with
the early years of Rembrandt’s career.572 The predominant technique
294
of the paintings from France was, however, a heavy and loose application of paint.573 Léon Bonnat provided six paintings from his private
collection, which constituted the largest loan from France. The works
from Bonnat’s collection epitomized the thickly painted technique
which had come to dominate perceptions of Rembrandt’s manner of
painting in France.
None of the eight paintings assigned to Rembrandt in Bonnat’s
collection are now attributed to the Dutch artist.574 Nonetheless, these
works are crucial to our understanding of the power of the Rembrandt
myth since they encapsulate contemporary understanding of his paintings in France. All of these works are now stored at the Bonnat Museum in Bayonne, the principal repository for his collection. Today
museum officials regard this portion of the collection as something of
an embarrassment, since none of the works is now believed to be by
Rembrandt. From today’s perspective, these canvases are regarded as a
blemish on Bonnat’s otherwise flawless reputation as an accomplished
connoisseur of the Old Masters.
More relevant, however, was the fact that Bonnat was acclaimed
during his own time as an expert on Rembrandt. He was known for
owning the largest collection of Rembrandt’s works of any French
artist and in 1898 he made the most significant French loan to the first
retrospective exhibition of Rembrandt’s paintings. The works he loaned, Susanna, Portrait of Burgomaster Six [plate 17], Suppliant before a
Biblical Prince [plate 18], Samplers in a Cave [plate 19], Head of an
Old Man [plate 20], and Head of a Rabbi, all exhibit the rapid application of paint and thick, textured surface of the canvas which were then
believed to constitute Rembrandt’s favored mode of painting. Bonnat
later added another two canvases, Christ on the Cross and Noli me tangere, to his collection. Three of these paintings relate to other works
by Rembrandt; Susanna and Noli me tangere repeat the compositions of
paintings of the same subject and Portrait of Burgomaster Six reverses
the composition of the then well-known print of the same title. Bonnat
proudly displayed on the back of the frame of the Burgomeister what
he believed was an “original” drawing. It was undoubtedly a copy after
the drawing in the Six collection in Amsterdam.
295
Instead of dismissing these paintings as examples of lacunae in Bonnat’s judgement of Old Master paintings, they should be regarded as
important documents and evidence of the predominant perception of
Rembrandt’s painting technique in France during the last decades of
the nineteenth century. They were products of the cult-like status of
Rembrandt’s artistic persona. Similar works can be traced to other leading French collections of the period such as the Aligre, Bégassière, Beistegui, Beurnonville, Boissière, Double, Duclos, Flameng, Goldschmidt,
Harjes, Heugel, Kann, Lacaze, Langlois, Lehmann, Morny, Porgès,
Schloss, Secrétan, Warneck, Wassermann, and Wilson collections.
Many of these paintings filtered through the hands of dealer Charles
Sedelmeyer, who profited immensely from fulfilling the desire collectors had to acquire one or more sketch-like paintings by Rembrandt.
Given the burgeoning market for Rembrandt’s works, it is hardly
surprising that profiteers entered the scene. In some cases these paintings were based on compositions from Rembrandt’s prints but for the
most part they had no connection to previously known works. Some of
the paintings have now been attributed to various students of Rembrandt while others are in no way associated with his œuvre; these
works were probably produced by French artists who benefited from
helping to satiate the market for Rembrandt’s works. The exhibition of
1898 and the numerous catalogues of Rembrandt’s painted works which
followed soon after – attributing more than 900 canvases to Rembrandt
as compared to the approximately 300 now accepted by the Rembrandt
Research Project – were products of Rembrandt’s elevated reputation.
A constellation of meaning was developed around the name
Rembrandt by French artists and critics, most actively between the
1850s and the 1890s. This reinvention of Rembrandt in France and the
reverence of his artistic persona in the second half of the nineteenth
century has had a lasting impact on attitudes towards his work. The
formation of Rembrandt’s artistic persona as an authoritative archetypal figure fulfilled the self-validating needs of artists and critics of the
nineteenth century. Scholars in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been left to contend with the repercussions of this designated
iconic status.
296
NOTES
APPENDIX
bibliography
i l l u s t r at i o n
acknowledgements
index
notes
1
2
3
4
5
New York Times Magazine February 12, 1995.
Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz, Legend, Myth, and
Magic in the Image of the Artist, A Historical
Experiment (New Haven, 1979).
For an in-depth study of this painting see
Norman D. Ziff Paul Delaroche, A Study in
nineteenth-century French History Painting
(New York, 1977).
General issues pertaining to the production of
fakes and forgeries in art are discussed in Denis
Dutton (Ed.), The Forger’s Art: Forgery and the
Philosophy of Art (Berkeley, 1983) and Thomas
Hoving, False Impressions: The Hunt for big-time
Art Fakes (New York, 1996).
Petra Chu noted that Rembrandt’s significance
for nineteenth-century French art is an area
that needs further research and deserves a comprehensive examination: Petra ten Doesschate
Chu, French Realism and the Dutch Masters: The
Influence of Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting
on the Development of French Painting between
1830 and 1870 (Utrecht, 1974), p. 16, note 2.
France figures in broad studies which consider
Rembrandt’s popularity during the two centuries after his death: Seymour Slive, Rembrandt
and his Critics 1630-1730 (The Hague, 1953),
R.W. Scheller, “Rembrandt’s reputatie van
Houbraken tot Scheltema” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek vol. 12 (1961), pp. 81-118,
and Frans Grijzenhout and Henk van Veen, The
Golden Age of Dutch Painting in Historical Perspective Trans. Andrew McCormick (New York,
1999), particularly relevant for this study were
Dedalo Carasso, “A New Image: German and
French Thought on Dutch Art, 1775-1860”,
(pp. 108-129) and Jeroen Boomgaard, “Sources
and Style: From the Art of Reality to the
Reality of Art”, (pp. 166-183). Two essays look
more generally at Rembrandt’s posthumous
“influence”: Jan Bialostocki, “Rembrandt and
Posterity” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek
vol. 3 (1972), pp. 131-57; and Jeroen Boomgaard and Robert W. Scheller, “A delicate
Balance: a brief Survey of Rembrandt Criticism”, in Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch, and
Pieter van Thiel (Eds.), Rembrandt: The Master
and His Workshop, Paintings (New Haven and
London, 1991), pp. 106-21. See also Jeroen
Boomgaard, De verloren zoon: Rembrandt en de
Nederlandse Kunstgeschiedschrijving (Amsterdam,
1995). Scholars have also raised similar issues
for different periods and countries. Several
studies consider the popularity of Rembrandt
in the eighteenth century: F.W. Robinson,
“Rembrandt’s Influence in Eighteenth-Century
Venice” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek
vol. 18 (1967), pp. 167-81; Jean Cailleux,
“Les artistes français du dix-huitième siècle et
Rembrandt”, in Albert Châtelet and Nicole
Reynaud (Eds.), Etudes d’art français offertes à
Charles Sterling (Paris, 1975), pp. 287-305.
This article expands on his earlier, more specific
study “Watelet et Rembrandt” Bulletin de la
société de l’histoire de l’art français (1965),
notes 1-5
299
pp. 131-62. See also Christopher White et al.,
Rembrandt in Eighteenth-Century England (New
Haven, 1983), particularly Ellen G. D’Oench,
“‘A Madness to have his Prints’: Rembrandt and
Georgian Taste 1720-1800”, pp. 63-81; Anne
Röver and Gerhard Gerkens In Rembrandts
Manier: Kopie, Nachahmung und Aneignung in
den graphischen Künsten des 18. Jahrhunderts
(Bremen, 1986); and Liesbeth Heenk Rembrandt
and his Influence on Eighteenth-century German
and Austrian Printmakers (Amsterdam, 1998).
An exhibition in Venice also presented
Rembrandt as “Goya’s master”: Enzo Di
Martino and Isadora Rose-de Viejo Rembrandt
inspirazioni per/an inspiration for Goya (Milan,
2001). There have been two studies on the
concentrated nineteenth-century interest in
Rembrandt’s art in western European countries
outside France: Frances Lawrence Preston,
“Rembrandt’s paintings: The development
of an œuvre” Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia
University, 1991 and Johannes Stückelberger,
Rembrandt und die moderne: Der Dialog mit Rembrandt in der deutschen Kunst um 1900 (Munich,
1996). The following studies examine various
aspects of Rembrandt and nineteenth-century
France: H. van der Tuin’s Les Vieux peintres des
Pays-Bas et la critique artistique en France de la
première moitié du XIX siècle includes a chapter
“La Lumière: le maître du clair-obscur: Rembrandt,” which locates Rembrandt within a
larger study of the increasing availability and
popularity of Dutch art. H. van der Tuin, Les
Vieux peintres des Pays-Bas et la critique artistique
en France de la première moitié du XIX siècle
(Paris, 1948). See also H. Van der Tuin,
Les Vieux peintres des Pays-Bas et la littérature
en France dans la première moitié du XIX siècle
(Paris, 1953) and Louis Malbos, Hommage à
Rembrandt, ses sources, son œuvre, ses élèves, son
influence dans les collections du Musée Granet
(Aix-en-Provence, 1969). See also Otto Benesch,
“Rembrandt’s Artistic Heritage II: From Goya
to Cézanne” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (July 1960),
pp. 101-16; Norma Broude, “The Influence of
Rembrandt Reproductions on Seurat’s Drawing
Style: A Methodological Note” Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (October 1976), pp. 155-60; Barbara
300
6
7
Stern Shapiro, “Camille Pissarro, Rembrandt
and the use of tone”. In Christopher Lloyd
(Ed.), Studies on Camille Pissarro. (New York,
1986), pp. 123-35; Philippe Dagen, “L’Influence
de Rembrandt sur la peinture contemporaine
en France de la fin du XIXe siècle à nos jours”
3 vols. Third Cycle Thesis, Paris, 1982; and
Peter Seth Samis, “The Appropriations of Rembrandt by the Nineteenth-Century Etchers”
Master’s thesis, Berkeley, 1988. Samis later
published part of his thesis in the article
“Aemulatio Rembrandti: the 19th-century
printmaker Flameng and his prises/crises de
conscience” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (December
1990), pp. 243-60. For consideration of Rembrandt in the twentieth century, see Janie L.
Cohen, “Picasso’s Exploration of Rembrandt’s
Art, 1967-1972” Arts Magazine vol. 58 no.2
(October 1983), pp. 119-26.
Bonnat Susanna at the Bath (Bayonne, Musée
Bonnat), Carpeaux Study after Rembrandt
(Valenciennes, Musée des Beaux-Arts), Courbet
Copy of Self-Portrait by Rembrandt (Besançon,
Musée des Beaux-Arts), Delacroix, Copy after
Angel Tobias leaving Raphael (Lille, Musée des
Beaux-Arts), Descamps, The Good Samaritan
(New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art),
Manet, The Anatomy Lesson of Doctor Tulp
(Private Collection). I thank Erika Dolphin for
drawing the work by Descamps to my attention.
The six paintings after Rembrandt were placed
together in the sixth room: Portrait of Saskia
(painted in Stockholm by Lucas van Breda), The
Syndics (painted in Amsterdam by Léon Glaize),
“Officier de fortune”/ Self-Portrait (painted in
The Hague by Agnes van Tuyll), Portrait of
Titus painted in the King’s Gallery in Holland
by Agnes van Tuyll), Anatomy Lesson of Doctor
Tulp (painted in The Hague by Léon Bonnat),
and Portait of an Old Man (painted in Florence
by an unknown artist). See Louis Auvray, Le
Musée Européen: Copies d’Après les grands maîtres
au palais des Champs Élysées. (Paris, 1873), pp.834 and the inventory of the École des BeauxArts: mu2002, mu2003, mu2456, mu2514, and
mu2455. Glaize and Bonnat each received
10,000 francs for their copies after Rembrandt,
Archives nationales F21/572/2. For discussion
8
9
10
of the Musée des Copies see Henri Delaborde,
“Le musée des copies” Revue des deux mondes
(1 May 1873): 209-18, Albert Boime, “Le musée des copies” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (October
1964): 237-47, Bruno Foucart, “IV. Le XIXe
siècle: Les modèles élusifs et le ‘musée des
copies’” Revue de l’art vol. 21 (1973): 23-7,
Pierre Vaisse, “Charles Blanc und das Musée
des Copies” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte vol. 39
(1976): 54-66, and Paul Duro, “Le Musée des
copies de Charles Blanc à l’aube de la IIIe
République” Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire
de l’Art français (1985): 283-313. For discussion
of the important educational role of copies in
the nineteenth century see Albert Boime, The
Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth
Century (London, 1971), Paul Duro, “Copyists
in the Louvre in the Middle Decades of the
Nineteenth Century”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(April 1988): 249-54, and Patricia Mainardi,
“Copies, Variations, Replicas: NineteenthCentury Studio Practice” Visual Resources:
An International Journal of Documentation vol. 15
(1999): 123-47.
Registers of Copies after Flemish and Dutch Schools
ll22-25, 1851-71 and 1882-1900. Paris,
Archives des Musées nationaux. Registers for
the years 1871-82 do not survive.
These include Théodore Reff, “Degas’s Copies
of Older Art” Burlington Magazine vol. 105
(June 1963): 241-51, “New Light on Degas’s
Copies” Burlington Magaine vol. 106 (June
1964): 250-9, “Manet’s sources: A critical
evaluation” Art Forum no.8 (September 1969):
40-8, “Further Thoughts on Degas’s Copies”
Burlington Magazine vol. 113 (September 1971):
534-43. See also Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann,
Creative Copies: Interpretive Drawings from
Michelangelo to Picasso (London, 1988) and Jean
Pierre Cuzin et al, Copier Créer: De Turner à
Picasso: 300 œuvres inspirées par les maîtres du
Louvre (Paris, 1993).
Francis Haskell explored how in several instances nineteenth-century French painters
identified with Old Master artists as “heroes” –
Delacroix with Rubens and Michelangelo,
Ingres with Raphael – and that this identification was connected to copying or imitating the
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
past to improve the younger artist’s stature.
Francis Haskell, Past and present in art and taste:
selected essays (New Haven, 1987), pp. 90-115.
“‘Influence’ is a curse of art criticism primarily
because of its wrong-headed grammatical prejudice about who is the agent and who the
patient: it seems to reverse the active/passive
relation which the historical actor experiences
and the inferential beholder will wish to take
into account. If one says that X influenced Y it
does seem that one is saying that X did something to Y rather than that Y did something to
X.” Michael Baxandall, Patterns of Intention,
On the Historical Explanation of Pictures (New
Haven, 1995), pp. 58-9.
See Jacques Foucart, Les Peintures de Rembrandt
au Louvre (Paris, 1982).
For comprehensive study of the history of this
famous institution see Andrew McClellan,
Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the Origins
of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century
Paris. (New York, 1994).
Archives Nationales F17/1276 and F17/1277.
Cecil Could, Trophy of Conquest: The Musée
Napoléon and the Creation of the Louvre (London,
1965), p. 32.
H. van der Tuin, Les Vieux Peintres des Pays-Bas
et la Critique Artistique en France de la Première
Moitié du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1948), pp. 211-13.
This is a significant point since some works
which formed a prominent part of the French
national collection of Rembrandts in the early
1800s are no longer associated with Rembrandt.
J. Bruyn et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings
Trans. D. Cook-Radmore 3 vols. (The Hague,
1982-1989).
Peter Samis said twenty paintings were added
to the Louvre (Berkeley, 1988, p. 7) and J. Bialostocki said thirty-six paintings were gathered
together, including those already in the royal
collection (Bialostocki, 1972, p. 151).
Notice des tableaux des écoles française et flamande,
Exposés dans la grande Galerie du musée central des
arts, dont l’ouverture a eu lieu le 18 Germinal an
VII [7 April 1799] (Paris, 1799); Statues, Bustes,
Bas-Reliefs, Bronzes, et autres antiquités, peintures,
dessins et objets curieux, Conquis par la Grande Armée, dans les années 1806 et 1807; dont l’exposition
notes 5-19
301
20
21
22
23
24
25
a eu lieu le 14 Octobre 1807, premier anniversaire
de la Bataille d’Iéna (Paris, 1807); Notice des
tableaux exposés dans la galerie Napoléon (Paris,
1911); Notice des tableaux exposés dans la galerie
du musée royal (Paris, 1816).
Archives Nationales F17/1276 “Inventaire et
état, les tableaux provenant du cabinet du
Stadholder; Rapport concernant les tableaux
venus de la Haye” nº8, 147, 148; F17/1277
“4ème envoie de la Haye; Inventaire des
tableaux dans la galerie et cabinet du Prince
d’Orange et de Nassau” nº147, 148, 149, 158,
and one unnumbered entry.
Archives Nationales O3/1429 “Brunswick, M.
le Baron de Rodenberg Commissaire, Etat des
tableaux, sculptures, en ivoire et en bois, Emaux
de limoges, maiolica, objets divers remis à cette
cour en 1814.”
Archives Nationales O3/1429 “La Hesse-Cassel,
M. le Baron de Carlshausen Commissaire, Etat
des tableaux, dessins, miniatures et autres objets
précieux rémis à cette cour en 1815” and nº 148
“Note des 48 tableaux envoyés de Cassel à
Mayence.”
Archives Nationales O3/1429 “Etat des tableaux
statues, bustes... rémis en 1814 et 1815 aux
commissaires sur-nommés par la direction
générale du Musée Royal conformement aux
ordres du Roi.”
For Empress Josephine’s collection at Malmaison see Anonymous, Catalogue des tableaux
de sa majesté l’impératrice Joséphine, dans la galerie
et appartements de son palais de Malmaison (Paris,
1811), M. de Lescure, Le château de la Malmaison, histoire, description, catalogue des objets
exposés sous les auspices de sa majesté l’impératrice
(Paris, 1867), Serge Grandjean, “Les collections
de l’Impératrice Joséphine à Malmaison et leur
dispersion,” Revue des Arts no. 4-5 (1959), pp.
193-8, and Serge Grandjean, Inventaire après
décès de l’Impératrice Josephine à Malmaison, 1814
(Paris, 1864).
These were Family Portrait (Braunschweig);
Presentation in the Temple and Bust of a Man with
a Plumed Hat (The Hague); Portrait of a Woman,
Holy Family with Curtain, Portrait of a Soldier
(two versions), Head of a Young Man, Portrait of
Coppenol / Portrait of a Man Trimming his Quill,
302
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Samson and Delilah, Landscape with Two Goats,
Landscape with Hunters, and Jacob Blessing
Joseph’s Children (Kassel).
Antoine-Michel Filhol and Joseph Lavalée,
Galerie du Musée de France 10 vols. (Paris, 180415). An eleventh volume was published in 1828.
Works by other northern artists were represented in the first ten volumes as follows:
Wouwerman 16, Teniers 12, Van Ostade 10,
Poelemburg 9, Metzu 9, Van Dyck 8, Rubens 7,
Ruisdael and Potter 5, Terburg 4, and Hals 1.
Illustrations in the Galerie included: 19 works
by Raphael, 30 by Poussin and 39 by Le Sueur.
Gould noted the German campaign strengthed
the Dutch collection and especially that of
Rembrandt (London, 1965, p. 114). Two such
prints were published at the end of Gould’s text.
“[A]u premier coup” Inventaire du Musée
Napoléon (Paris, 1810, cat. 2732) and Notice des
tableaux exposés dans la galerie Napoléon (Paris,
1911, cat. 524).
“[E]squisse” 1810 Inventory cat. 4718.
Un Paysage engraved by Geissler and Un grand
paysage engraved by Bovinet in Antoine-Michel
Filhol and Joseph Lavalée Galerie du Musée de
France vols. 1-10 (Paris, 1804-15), vol. 8, plate
508 and vol. 9, plate 581. These works were
exhibited in France in 1807: Statues, Bustes,
Bas-Reliefs, Bronzes, et autres antiquites, peintures,
dessins, et objets curieux, Conquis par la Grande
Armée, dans les années 1806 et 1807; dont l’exposition a eu lieu le 14 October 1807, premier anniversaire de la Bataille d’Iéna (Paris, 1807), see cat.
536 “Paysage (Quelques chèvres sur la droite,
et deux paysans sur la gauche, ornent le devant
du tableau),” and cat. 537 “Autre paysage (On
remarque, sur la droite du tableau un pont de
bois, et sur la gauche deux chasseurs. Le Musée
ne possédait point de paysages de cet habile
maître).” Based on these descriptions, the
engravings reversed the compositions.
Quote cited in Gould (London, 1965), pp. 75-6.
Following this decree 1,846 works were sent to
the provinces.
The changing roles of the Academy have been
discussed in such important studies as Albert
Boime, The Academy and French Painting in the
Nineteenth Century (London, 1971) and Patricia
35
36
37
Mainardi, The End of the Salon: Art and the State
in the Early Third Republic (Cambridge, 1993).
The prize originated with two drawing competitions held in 1663 at the Académie Royale de
Peinture et de Sculpture to promote competition between students. The Prix Royal was
established in 1664 by Jean Baptiste Colbert
and was connected with Rome after the establishment of the Académie Française in Rome.
For “primitive” and “archaic” revivals in nineteenth-century painting see George Levitine
(Ed.), Search for Innocence, Primitive and Primitivistic Art of the Nineteenth Century (College
Park, 1975), pp. 11-69 and Tancred Borenius,
“The Rediscovery of the Primitives” Quarterly
Review vol. 239 (April 1923), pp. 258-70.
An interesting question, which is beyond the
scope of the present study, is the extent to
which this concentrated interest in Rembrandt
and seventeenth-century Dutch art should be
related to the concomitant popularity of
Spanish artists, particularly Murillo, Ribera and
Velázquez, among French artists and critics.
Certain critics who promoted Rembrandt also
published studies on Spanish art and artists.
For example, Thoré-Bürger wrote an article on
Murillo for L’Artiste (1834, pp. 165-6) and articles entitled “Études sur la peinture espagnole”
in the Revue de Paris (vols. 21, 22. pp. 201-20,
and 44-64) in 1835. He also contributed entries
to the volume on Spanish art in Charles Blanc,
Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles (Paris, 1869).
Blanc wrote “Velázquez à Madrid” for the
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (July 1863, pp. 65-74)
and Théophile Gautier et al. included Velázquez and Murillo in Les Dieux et les demi-dieux
de la peinture (Paris, 1864). Gautier and Alfred
Michiels wrote reviews following the opening
of the Musée espagnol in 1838. Lastly, Louis
Viardot published Études sur l’histoire des institutions, de la littérature, du théâtre et des beaux-arts
en Espagne (Paris, 1835), Notice sur les principaux
peintres de l’Espagne (Paris, 1839), Les Musées
d’Espagne, d’Angleterre et de Belgique (Paris,
1852), and Espagne et beaux-arts (Paris, 1866).
Nonetheless, few critics made direct comparisons between the subject matter or techniques
of Rembrandt and Spanish seventeenth-century
38
39
40
41
artists. Thoré-Bürger said that Velázquez was
Rembrandt’s analogue in the Spanish school.
See Thoré-Bürger, “Rembrandt au Musée
d’Amsterdam” L’Artiste (25 July 1858), p. 186.
For more information on the significance of
Spanish art in nineteenth-century France see
Ilse Hempel Lipschutz, Spanish Painting and the
French Romantics (Cambridge, 1972), Jeanine
Baticle et al., La Galerie espagnole de LouisPhilippe au Louvre 1838-1848 (Paris, 1981),
and Genviève Lacambre and Gary Tinterow,
Manet / Velázquez: la manière espagnole au XIXe
siècle (Paris, 2002).
Studies on the Rococo revival include Carol
Duncan, The Pursuit of Pleasure: The Rococo
Revival in French Romantic Art (New York,
1976), Francis Haskell, Rediscoveries in Art:
Some Aspects of Taste, Fashion and Collecting in
England and France (Ithaca, 1980), pp. 107-17
and Aaron Sheon, Monticelli, His Contemporaries,
His Influence (Pittsburgh, 1979).
See John W. McCoubrey, “The Revival of
Chardin in French Still-Life Painting, 1850-70”
Art Bulletin (1954), pp. 39-53.
See Stanley Meltzoff, “The Revival of the Le
Nains” The Art Bulletin vol. 34 (1942), pp. 25969 (264). Meltzoff also wrote the first general
study on revivals, see Meltzoff, “NineteenthCentury Revivals” Master’s thesis, New York
University, 1941. Champfleury’s studies include
Essai sur la vie et l’œuvre des Le Nain Peintres
Laonnois (Laon, 1850), “Nouvelles Recherches
sur la Vie et l’Œuvre des Frères Le Nain”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1860), pp. 173-85,
266-77, and 321-32, “Catalogue des tableaux
des Le Nain qui ont passé dans les ventes
publiques de l’année 1755 à 1853” Revue Universelle des Beaux-Arts (1861), Les Peintres de la
réalité sous Louis XIV: les frères le Nain (Paris,
1862), Documents positifs sur la vie des frères Le
Nain (Paris, 1865), and “Note sur ‘la Réunion
des Amateurs’ de Mathieu Le Nain” Chronique
des Arts (6 March 1875).
Edmond and Jules de Goncourt, L’Art du
dix-huitième siècle (Paris, n.d.). ChennevièresPointel, Recherches sur la vie et les ouvrages de
quelques peintres provinciaux de l’ancienne France
(Paris, 1847-50) and Essai sur l’organisation des
notes 19-41
303
42
43
44
45
46
47
arts en province (Paris, 1852). These included
Soulié, “Les frères le Nain” Magasin Pittoresque
vol. 18 (1850), p. 147. Meltzoff noted articles in
Magasin universel, Ruche parisien, and the Musée
des familles. Meltzoff (1942), pp. 266 and 272.
See also Aaron Sheon, “The Discovery of
Graffiti” Art Journal (Fall 1976), pp. 16-22.
Thoré-Bürger’s numerous publications on seventeenth-century art in the Netherlands include
“Jan van der Meer, de Delft” Revue universelle
des arts vol. 8 (1858), pp. 454-7 and “Van der
Meer de Delft” Gazette des Beaux-Arts vol. 21
(1866), pp. 297-330, 458-70, and 542-75. ThoréBürger also included Vermeer in his general
studies on art in Dutch museums, Musées de la
Hollande 2 vols. (Paris, 1860). See Stanley Meltzoff, “The Rediscovery of Vermeer” Marsyas
vol. 2 (1942), pp. 145-66. Frances Suzman
Jowell offers a more recent evaluation in “Vermeer and Thoré-Bürger: Recoveries of Reputation”, in Ivan Gaskell and Michiel Jonker (Eds.),
Vermeer Studies. (New Haven, 1998), pp. 35-57.
Thoré-Bürger, “Frans Hals” Gazette des BeauxArts (1868), pp. 29-30, 431-48. For a complete
study on this revival see Frances Suzman Jowell,
“Thoré-Bürger and the Revival of Hals” Art
Bulletin vol. 56 (1974), pp. 101-17 and Frances
S. Jowell, “The Rediscovery of Frans Hals”,
in Seymour Slive (Ed.), Frans Hals (London,
1989), pp. 61-86.
See Carol S. Eliel, “Genre Painting During the
Revolution and the Goût Hollandais”, in Alan
Wintermute (Ed.), 1789: French Art During the
Revolution (New York, 1989), pp. 47-61.
Jean Baptiste Descamps, La vie des peintres
flamands, allemands et hollandois, avec des portraits
gravés en taille-douce, une indication de leurs
principaux ouvrages, & des réflexions sur leurs
différentes manières 4 vols. (Paris, 1754-63).
Descamps noted in the introduction in vol. 1
that some of his information came from works
by De Piles, Karl van Mander, and Arnold
Houbraken, that he read historical studies on
different cities and works by contemporary
poets and also benefited from his own travels.
Descamps vol. 2, page 84 and vol. 1, p. 296.
Descamps vol. 1, page 360 and vol. 2, pp. 174
and 238.
304
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
J.B.D. Lebrun, Gallerie des peintres flamands,
hollandais et allemands 3 vols. in 2 (Paris, 1792).
Lebrun vol. 1 (Paris, 1792), p. viii. “Rembrandt
est devenu le fondateur de l’une des
plus immenses écoles dont la peinture puisse
se glorifier, et la Hollande lui doit presque tous
ses succès dans cet art.”
Lebrun vol. 1 (Paris, 1792), p. 13 “Rubens est
sans doute le plus beau génie et le plus habile
coloriste dont la peinture puisse se glorifier.”
Lebrun did see this appreciation in the art of
Chardin, which he compared to Rembrandt, as
did some of Chardin’s critics in the 1750s and
1760s, one of whom called Chardin “le Rembrandt de l’École Française.” For references
see Georges Wildenstein, Chardin (Paris, 1933),
pp. 87-8 and 122. Francis Haskell, however,
notes that the name Rembrandt carried different
implications during this period than it did later.
See Francis Haskell, Rediscoveries in Art: Some
Aspects of Taste, Fashion and Collecting in England
and France. 2nd ed. (Ithaca, 1980) pp. 20 and
184, fn. 30. For an analysis of the critical comparisons of Chardin’s art and Flemish and
Dutch painters, especially Rembrandt, by his
contemporaries see Marianne Roland Michel,
“Chardin Flamand” in Chardin (Paris, 1994),
pp. 118-26.
Théophile Gautier, “Ce qu’on peut voir en six
jours” Moniteur Universel (3 May 1829), pp. 2-3,
Jules Michelet, Sur les chemins de l’Europe: Flandre et Hollande 2 vols. (Paris, 1840), E. Texier,
Voyage pittoresque en Hollande (Paris, 1857),
Maxime du Camp, En Hollande, lettres à un ami...
(Paris, 1859), É. Montégut, “Impressions de
voyage et d’art en Hollande” Revue des deux
mondes (15 March 1860) pp. 458-81 and (1 June
1869) pp. 555-96, Henry Havard, Amsterdam et
Venise (Paris, 1876).
For further analysis of the politics of French
critics see Michael R. Orwicz (Ed.), Art criticism
and its institutions in nineteenth-century France
(New York, 1994).
Arsène Houssaye, Histoire de la peinture flamande
et hollandaise 2 vols. (Paris, 1847, republished
1848).
Houssaye (Paris, 1848 ed.), p. 6.
T.G. [Théophile Gautier], “Histoire de la pein-
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
ture: flamande et hollandaise” L’Artiste (7
March 1847), pp. 11-12. Gautier also noted
that the texts cost 300 and 500 ff.
Houssaye (Paris, 1848 ed.), pp. 152-3.
Alfred Michiels, Histoire de la peinture flamande
et hollandaise 3 vols. (Paris, 1847) and Histoire de
la peinture flamande et hollandaise 10 vols. (Paris,
1865-76), 2nd ed. vol. 1, 128. Both Houssaye’s
and Michiels’ books were reviewed together by
Frédéric Mercey, “La peinture flamande et
hollandaise” Revue des deux-monde (15 March
1848), pp. 1026-56.
“L’art des Pays-Bas doit à son réalisme un précieux avantage. Il retrace d’une manière complète la vie de la nation. Il peint tous les objets
qui l’environnent, le ciel, l’eau, la terre, les
plaines et les collines, les bois et les fleurs,
la lumière du soleil et la clarté de la lune;
il représente l’extérieur et l’intérieur, la décoration et l’ameublement des logis... Il est l’image
la plus parfaite qu’une race ait encore laissée
d’elle-même.” Michiels vol. 1 (Paris, 1865),
pp. 141-2.
“Le réalisme des Hollando-Belges descend
parfois, souvent même, jusqu’à la grossièreté...
Tout le monde connaît les estampes de Rembrandt, où l’on voit un homme et une femme
accroupie, remplissant la même fonction.”
Michiels vol. 1 (Paris, 1865), p. 134.
“Si l’empirisme absolut des Pays-Bas a produit
d’heureux effets, il a eu des suites regrettables.
Il a privé les artistes de noblesse et d’élévation.
Il est des sujets où ce défaut habituel devient
choquant; il blesse, par exemple, le spectateur
dans les toiles religieuses. L’esprit ne peut
s’habituer à voir la mère du Christ sous la forme
d’une lourde paysanne, Saint-Jean sous les traits
d’un bouvier, Madeleine peinte comme une
laitière, les docteurs comme des valets de charrue et les bienheureuses avec la grâce d’une
marchande de poissons.” Michiels vol. 1 (Paris,
1865), p. 134.
Michiels vol. 1 (Paris, 1865), p. 250.
Charles Blanc, Histoire des peintres de toutes les
écoles: École Hollandaise 2 vols. (Paris, 1849,
1861, and 1883). 4,400 copies were published
of the first edition and sold out completely.
See Blanc vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), p. 24.
64
65
66
67
68
“Le succès a récompensé tant de nobles et intelligents efforts. L’Histoire des Peintres avait, dès sa
première livraison, un public tout formé, celui
des artistes et des amateurs; elle a su s’en créer
un autre, parmi lequel ses livraisons et ses
gravures popularisent les connaissances, le goût
et les compositions de la peinture... ce grand
succès a la portée et la valeur d’une propagande
artistique.” Paul de Saint-Victor, “Beaux-Arts:
Histoire des peintres de toutes les Écoles,
depuis la Renaissance jusqu’à nos jours, par M.
Charles Blanc” Annuaire des Artistes et Amateurs
(1860), p. 246.
For further biographical information on Blanc
see Misook Song, Art Theories of Charles Blanc,
1813-1882 (Ann Arbor, 1984), pp. 10-16.
“La forme républicaine, une fois reconnue, les
a délivrés de l’art purement décoratif que commandent les cours et les princes, de ce qu’on
nomme la peinture d’apparat.” Blanc (Paris,
1883 ed.), p. 19.
“Voilà comment l’école de Hollande est une des
trois écoles vraiment originales de la peinture,
et comment à ce titre, elle peut être placée en
troisième ligne, après les Florentins et les
Grecs. Que si l’on veut résumer ces trois écoles
par les trois maîtres que les ont représentées
avec le plus d’éclat, il faudra reconnaître que
parmi les grands artistes du monde, les plus
originaux ont été Phidias, Léonard de Vinci et
Rembrandt, parce qu’ils ont été l’expression la
plus haute du génie grec, du génie florentin, et
du génie batave.” Blanc, École Hollandaise (Paris,
1883 ed.), p. 15. Blanc’s classification of the history of art into these three groups is also noted
in Song’s Art Theories of Charles Blanc, 18131882; however, neither Blanc’s Histoire des
Peintres nor volumes on Rembrandt are the focus
of her study. Song (Ann Arbor, 1984), p. 7.
“... l’école greque, l’école florentine et l’école
de Hollande, se sont toutes trois épanouies
sous la protection du gouvernement populaire.
Ainsi tombe d’elle-même cette fausse opinion
propagée par la courtisanerie, que les beaux-arts
ne sauraient fleurir qu’à l’ombre de la royauté.
Si la monarchie et le pape ont eu leurs grands
peintres, la démocratie a eu les siens.” Blanc,
École Hollandaise (Paris, 1883 ed.), p. 20.
notes 41-68
305
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Ses artistes ont reproduit la nature telle quelle,
triviale et laide quand elle était laide et triviale...
Rien dans le monde, ou plutôt dans leur patrie,
ne leur a paru grossier, vulgaire ou insignifiant.”
Blanc, École Hollandaise (Paris, 1883 ed), p. 13.
“Ainsi, une galerie de peintres hollandais est
une histoire complète de la Hollande du beau
siècle, une histoire à la fois morale, politique et
naturelle.” Blanc, École Hollandaise (Paris, 1883
ed.), p. 12.
“Il demeura fidèle sans doute au principe de
l’imitation... il a introduit un idéal nouveau,
non pas l’idéal des formes, mais l’idéal du clairobscur, non pas l’idéal de la beauté, mais l’idéal
de l’expression.” Blanc, École Hollandaise (Paris,
1883 ed.), pp. 16-17.
“Le plus simple paysage était pour eux plein de
charme, pourvu que ce fût un coin de leur pays,
et ils savaient en dégager cette poésie latente,
cette âme du monde que nous appelons le panthéisme...Voilà comment les Hollandais, en
partant du principe de la pure imitation, se sont
élevés jusqu’à l’expression du caractère et ont
produit des chefs-d’œuvre incomparable en leur
genre.” Blanc, École Hollandaise (Paris, 1883 ed),
p. 13.
Louis Viardot, “De l’école hollandaise” Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (February 1860), pp. 146-52.
“Vulgaires sujets pris dans la vie commune, que
chacun a chaque jour sous les yeux, et qui n’ont
de secrets pour personne.” Viardot (February
1860), p. 152.
L. Vitet, “Les Peintres flamands et hollandais
en flandre et en hollande, II, Rembrandt et van
der Helst, les hollandais” Revue des deux mondes
(15 April 1861), pp. 777-801. “Mais ce réveil de
l’art flamand n’avait aucun des caractères d’une
révolution radicale; ce n’était qu’un timide
prélude de ce qui allait accomplir en Hollande...
Là, pour inaugurer une peinture nationale, ce
n’était pas assez d’un retour au passé, il fallait
faire du neuf. Le pays avait du même coup
changé de religion et de foi politique: il n’était
plus catholique et s’était fait républicain. De là
pour la peinture tout un monde nouveau.”
Vitet (15 April 1861), p. 781.
Thoré-Bürger, Musées de la Hollande: I Amsterdam et la Haye-Etudes sur l’école hollandaise, II
306
77
78
79
80
81
Musée van der Hoop à Amsterdam, et Musée de
Rotterdam. 2 vols. (Paris, 1858 and 1860). These
volumes were unillustrated and according to an
advertisement in the back of the second volume
each cost 3F50. Thoré-Bürger’s conception of
Dutch political reform, and characteristics of
realism and depictions of humanity in Dutch
art are repeated in his “Nouvelles tendances de
l’art” in Salons de Théophile Thoré 1844, 1845,
1847, 1848 (Paris, 1868). Musées de la Hollande cost 2fr50, see advertisement at the end
of vol. 2 Thoré-Bürger, Études sur les peintres
hollandais et flamands: Galerie d’Arenberg à
Bruxelles avec le catalogue complet de la collection
(Paris, 1859). Peter Hecht has also considered
the significance of this text in “Rembrandt and
Raphael back to back: the contribution of
Thoré” Simiolus vol. 26 no. 3 (1998): 162-178.
Studies on Thoré-Bürger include Gustave
Larroumet, “L’art réaliste et la critique: I.
Théophile Thoré” La Revue des deux mondes
(1892), pp. 802-42, Paul Rebeyrol, “Art
Historians and Art Critics: I. Théophile Thoré”
The Burlington Magazine (1952), pp. 196-200,
Frances S. Jowell, Thoré-Bürger and the Art of
the Past (New York, 1977), “Politique et esthétique: du citoyen Thoré à William Bürger”
in Jean-Paul Bouillon ed. La Critique d’art en
France 1850-1900 (Clermond Ferrand, 1989),
pp. 25-42, and “Thoré-Bürger - a critical rôle
in the art market” Burlington Magazine vol. 138
no 1115 (February 1996), pp. 115-29.
“Ce n’est plus l’art des papes et des rois, des
dieux et des héros... Rembrandt et les Hollandais n’ont travaillé que pour la Hollande et
l’humanité.” Thoré-Bürger, Musées de la
Hollande vol. 1 (Paris, 1860 ed.), p. 324.
Thoré-Bürger, Musées de la Hollande vol. 1
(Paris, 1860 ed.), p. 326.
“Rubens était chez des vaincus et des esclaves;
Rembrandt, chez des vainqueurs et des hommes
libres. Là est surtout la différence de leurs
génies.” Thoré-Bürger, Musées de la Hollande
vol. 1 (Paris, 1860 ed.), p. 321.
Hippolyte Taine, Philosophie de l’art dans les
pays-bas (Paris, 1869). This text was drawn from
a series of lectures Taine presented at the École
des Beaux-Arts in 1868.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Taine (Paris, 1869), pp. 52 and 58.
Eugène Fromentin, Les Maîtres d’autrefois,
Belgique-Hollande. (Paris, 1876), p. 408.
Vitet made the same remark that although
Rembrandt never left Holland he was the least
Dutch of Dutch artists. Vitet (Paris, 1861),
p. 784.
“Si l’on écarte Rembrandt, qui fait exception
chez lui comme ailleurs, en son temps comme
dans tous les temps, vous n’apercevez qu’un
style et qu’une méthode dans les ateliers de la
Hollande.” Fromentin (Paris 1876), p. 178.
Eugène Fromentin, “Les Maîtres d’autrefois”,
Revue des deux mondes (1 and 15 January, 1 and
15 February, 1 and 15 March 1876), pp. 91-122,
346-79, 602-30, 770-801; 110-40, 262-96.
“A la même heure, dans les mêmes circonstances, on voit se produire un double fait trèsconcordant: un état nouveau, un art nouveau.
L’origine de l’art hollandais, son caractère, son
but, ses moyens, son à-propos, sa croissance
rapide, sa physionomie sans précédents et
notament la manière soudaine dont il est né au
lendemain d’un armistice, avec la nation ellemême ... tout cela été dit maintes fois pertinemment et très-bien.” Fromentin (Paris, 1876),
p. 163.
The Night Watch retained its misnomer despite
growing awareness and discussion of its inaccuracy. Gautier (15 September 1851), p. 50,
Royer (15 August 1853), p. 437, Thoré-Bürger
(25 July 1858), p. 184, Coquerel fils (Paris,
1869), p. 55, Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 39,
Saugé (1886), pp. 91-2, Durand-Gréville
(March 1887), p. 175, Michel, É (15 December
1890), p. 895, and (Paris, 1893), p. 286, and
Durand-Gréville (3 November 1893), p. 564.
Henry Havard, L’Art et les artistes hollandais 4
vols. (Paris, 1879-81) and Histoire de la peinture
hollandaise (Paris, 1881). Duranty reviewed the
former in “Bibliographie: l’art et les artistes
hollandais, par M. Henry Havard” Gazette des
Beaux-Arts vol. 45 (August 1879), pp. 169-72.
Havard’s other publications include Amsterdam
et Venise (1876), Histoire de la faïence de Delft
(1878), and Van der Meer de Delft (1888), travel
articles on Holland, Grammaire de l’ameublement (1883) and Les manufactures nationales:
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
les Gobelins, la Savonnerie, Sèvres, Beauvais (1888,
with Vachon).
For views on this debate see Wayne Franits
(Ed.), Looking at Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art:
Realism Reconsidered (Cambridge, 1997).
Plans to erect this statue began in 1841 and it
was unveiled 27 May 1852. Small replicas of the
twenty-three foot high statue could be purchased for 125 guilders. See also L.D. Couprie,
“A Statue for Rembrandt - Amsterdam, 1852”
Delta vol. 12 (1969), pp. 89-95. For the significance of Dutch literature in the reappraisal of
Rembrandt’s reputations see J.J. Kloek, “To
the Land of Rembrandt: The Formation of a
Literary Image of Seventeenth-Century Art in
the Nineteenth Century”, in The Golden Age
of Dutch Painting in Historical Perspective Eds.
Frans Grijzenhout and Henk van Veen, Trans.
Andrew McCormick (New York, 1999), pp. 91107.
Gerard de Nerval, “Les fêtes de mai en Hollande” Revue des deux mondes (15 June 1852), pp.
1186-1204. See also Gerard de Nerval, “Les
Fêtes de Hollande: Het Rembrandts feest” in
Lorely, souvenirs d’Allemagne, Rhin et Flandre,
Les Fêtes de Hollande (Paris, 1852), pp. 332-40.
First published as Rembrand. Redevoering over
het leven en de verdiensten van Rembrand van Rijn
(Amsterdam, 1853). Then “Rembrand, discours
sur sa vie et son génie, avec un grand nombre
de documents Historiques” Trans. Alphonse
Willems, Intro. Thoré-Bürger in Revue universelle des arts vol. 8 (1858), pp. 273-99, 36990, 485-516 and Ed. Thoré-Bürger, Rembrandt,
discours sur sa vie et son génie, avec un grand nombre de documents Historiques (Brussels, 1859 and
Paris, 1866).
For a full analysis of Rembrandt’s early critics
see Seymour Slive, Rembrandt and His Critics
1630-1730 (The Hague, 1953). John Smith
published his catalogue raisonné of Rembrandt’s
work in 1836.
“Ne semble souvent qu’ébauché.” See Slive
(The Hague, 1953), p. 212.
Filippo Baldinucci, Cominciamento, e progresso
dell’arte dell’ intagliare in rame, colle vite i molti
de’ più eccellenti Maestri della stessa Professione
(Florence, 1686).
notes 69-95
307
96
“Il ne devoit la connoissance qu’il a aquise dans
sa Profession qu’à la bonté de son Esprit et à
ses Réflections.” See Slive (The Hague, 1953),
p. 216.
97 Joachim von Sandrart, Teutsche Academie der
Edelen Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste (Nuremberg, 1675).
98 “Quand je veux d’élasser mon Esprit, leur dit-il,
ce n’est pas l’honneur que je cherche c’est la
liberté!” See Slive (The Hague, 1953), p. 217.
99 Florent Lecomte, Cabinet des Singularitez
d’architecture, peinture, sculpture et graveur
(Brussels, 1699-1700) vol. 3, pp. 334-6.
100 See Ger Luijten, “Rembrandt the printmaker:
the shaping of an œuvre”, in E. Hinterding, G.
Luijten and M. Royalton-Kisch Rembrandt the
Printmaker exh. cat. Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum),
London (British Museum) 2000-2001, p.21.
101 For a study of the perceptions of Rembrandt as
avaricious see also Carl Newmann,
“Rembrandt-Legende”, in Festchrift für Max
J. Friedländer (Leipzig, 1927), pp. 161-67.
102 “Il ne vivoit qu’avec le bas Peuple & des gens
bien au-dessous de lui.” Descamps, La vie des
peintres flamands, allemands et hollandois, avec des
portraits gravés en taille-douce, une indication de
leurs principaux ouvrages, & des réflexions sur
leurs différentes manières vol. 2 (Paris, 1754-63),
p. 89.
103 “Il regardoit la nature comme seul capable de
l’instruire. Il ne choisit point d’autre atelier
pour étudier, que le Moulin de son père.”
Descamps vol. 2 (Paris, 1754-63), p. 85.
104 “Rembrandt, pendant sa vie, a essuyé tous les
malheurs; il n’a pas cessé d’être en butte à l’injustice de ses contemporains; et à peine il n’est
plus, que ses ennemis mêmes célèbrent sa mémoire, et le mettent au rang des plus grands
peintres.” Étienne et al. (Paris, 1846), p. 135.
105 “Messieurs, je vous remercie de m’avoir fait faire
fortune: quand j’étais pauvre, je devais mourir;
maintenant que je suis riche, je ressuscite. Me
voilà, grâce à mon trépas, un homme à réputation; je n’a cependant pas plus de talent aujourd’hui que je n’en avait il y a trois mois.” Étienne
et al. (Paris, 1846), p. 169.
106 “Pendant qu’il exista, Rembrandt fut en butte
aux traits de l’envie, et l’on admira son talent
308
107
108
109
110
111
112
que lorsqu’il eut quitté la vie. Nos auteurs ont
fait leurs efforts pour vous tracer ce personnage;
mais n’attendez pas qu’ils soient morts pour
faire vivre leur ouvrage.” Étienne et al. (Paris,
1846), p. 170.
“Point d’honneurs officiels, ni ordres, ni titres,
ni cordons.” Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 395.
“Accablé par la misère, les infirmités, farouche,
oublié, solitaire, le pauvre grand artiste disparaît.” Louis Gonse, Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(January 1893), p. 72.
Three letters appeared in P. Scheltema,
Rembrandt, discours sur sa vie et son génie, avec un
grand nombre de documents Historiques Trans.
Thoré-Bürger (Paris, 1866). All of the letters
were translated by Carel Vosmaer and published along with the original Dutch versions in
Carel Vosmaer, Rembrandt Harmensz van Ryn,
sa vie et ses œuvres (The Hague, 1868).
Georges Lafenestre (Paris, 1893), p. 96, Delage
(Paris, 1898), p. 23, and Fontainas (January
1899), p. 36.
“Mais comment a-t-il pu se faire que le plus admirable peintre qu’ait produit la Hollande, celui
que la postérité devait placer au rang des plus
grands maîtres, ait été si peu de temps à la
mode, que ses contemporains l’aient délaissé si
vite pour des rivaux qu’on n’ose plus lui comparer?” Valbert (1 April 1893), p. 691.
“Il y mourut... oublié de ses contemporains,
mais sans doute avec la conscience de son génie,
avec la secrète certitude que sa mémoire ne
périrait point, et qu’il arriverait, ce que est
arrivé en effet, que la postérité, rangerait parmi
les artistes de premier ordre ce poëte, ce peintre
prodigieux, cet inimitable graveur.” Blanc (11
October 1876), p. 3.
“Rembrandt aussi affectionnait ce sujet de l’histoire de Tobie, dont il a peint divers épisodes
dans un style familier, que rappelle un peu le
style paysanesque de M. Millet... Depuis deux
siècles, les amateurs exclusifs du grand style
italien ont toujours malmené Rembrandt, ce
qui ne l’a pas empêché de faire son chemin dans
les musées et dans les principales galeries de
l’Europe. Cela doit consoler un peu les réalistes
des injustices du présent, et leur donner
quelque espoir pour l’avenir.” Thoré-Bürger,
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
“Salon de 1861” in Salons de W. Bürger 1861 à
1868 vol. 1 (Paris, 1870), p. 96.
Houssaye (6 December 1846), p. 66 and (Paris,
1847), p. 159, Gautier et al. (Paris, 1864), p. 245.
Thoré-Bürger (18 July 1858), p. 162, Vitet (15
April 1861), p. 785, and Scheltema (Paris, 1866),
pp. 27-8.
Planche (1832), p. 235, Fromentin (Paris, 1876),
p. 406 and Péladan (September 1881), p. 335.
See Eugène Muntz, “Rembrandt et l’Art
Italien” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (March 1892),
pp. 196-211.
“Mais ce fut précisément le grand trait de son
génie d’avoir admiré tout sans rien imiter,
d’avoir connu les beautés d’un autre art et
d’être resté toujours dans le sien.” Blanc (Paris,
1853), p. 9. See also Blanc (11 October 1876),
p. 3 and vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), p. 8.
Gautier et al. (Paris, 1864), p. 248.
Houssaye (Paris, 1844-7), p. 161, Planche (15
July 1853), p. 257, Mantz (December 1861),
p. 555, Scheltema (Paris, 1866), pp. 16-17,
Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868), p. 343, and Blanc
vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), p. 14.
Vitet (15 April 1861), p. 796 and Thoré-Bürger
(September 1866), pp. 252-3.
Thoré-Bürger (Paris, 1859) p.71, Émile Michel
(Paris, 1886) p.1 and 113. See also Blanc (Paris,
1853), p. 7, Dumesnil, A.J. (Paris, 1860), p. 337,
Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 397 and ThoréBürger (25 July 1847), p. 52, (Paris, 1858-60)
vol. 1, p. 202, (September 1866), pp. 252-3,
and “Exposition Internationale de Londres en
1862” vol. 1 (Paris, 1870), p. 223.
Coquerel fils. (Paris, 1869), p. 28, Lafenestre
(Paris, 1893), p. 466, Vosmaer (The Hague,
1868), p. 343, Fromentin (Paris, 1876), pp. 397
and 406, and Lenormant (25 December 1874),
p. 1378.
Beaurin (1 March 1865), p. 99, Anonymous
(January 1887), p. 40. See also Fromentin
(Paris, 1876), p. 366, Vosmaer (The Hague,
1863), p. 17, and Coquerel fils (Paris, 1869),
p. 80.
Lenormant (25 December 1874), p. 1378,
Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 406, and Mantz
(1 November 1893), p. 354.
Dumesnil (Paris, 1850), p. 22, Thoré-Bürger
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
(Paris, 1858), p. 403 and (Paris, 1860), pp. 1601 and Lafenestre (Paris, 1893), p. 466.
Cambray (26 November 1843), p. 374, Blanc
(Paris, 1853), p. 7, Delacroix (25 January 1857),
Thoré-Bürger (Paris, 1858), p. 403, Blanc
(Paris, 1870), p. 646, and Lafenestre (7 October
1893), p. 467.
Cambray (26 November 1843), p. 344, ThoréBürger (Paris, 1860), pp. 160-1, Anonymous
(May 1866), p. 138, Willems (1 May 1874),
p. 354, Havard vol. 1 (Paris, 1881), p. 90, Blanc
(Paris, 1883), pp. 8-9, Lafenestre (7 October
1893), p. 466, and Morice (November 1898),
p. 299.
Cambray (26 November 1843), p. 344, Nerval
(15 June 1852), p. 1203, Blanc vol. 2 (Paris,
1859-61), pp. 446-7, Goncourt Brothers (9-10
September 1861), p. 956, Anonymous (May
1866), p. 138, Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868), p.
357, Thoré-Bürger (Paris, 1868), p. xxxi, Blanc
(3 August 1874) p. 4, Émile Michel (September
1890), p. 247, Lafenestre (7 October 1893)
p. 467, and Hermann (1 July 1897), p. 218.
See Gautier et al. (Paris, 1864), p. 244,
Cambray (26 November 1843), p. 346,
Vosmaer (The Hague, 1863), p. 23, Coquerel
fils (Paris, 1869), p. 80, and Mantz (1 November 1893), p. 354.
Mantz (14 November 1880), p. 3, Coquerel fils.
(Paris, 1869), p. 106, Gautier et al. (Paris, 1864),
p. 253, and Willems (1 May 1874), p. 354.
Durand-Gréville (November 1896), p. 407,
Blanc vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), p. 12, Gautier (21
June 1858), pp. 2-3, Scheltema (Paris, 1866),
pp. 27-8, and Gautier (1846), p. 391.
Thoré-Bürger vol. 2 (Paris, 1870), p. 191 and
Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868), p. 357.
Émile Michel (February 1890), p. 107.
“Il était du peuple, il ne respirait la liberté qu’
avec le peuple.” Houssaye (Paris, 1847), p. 161.
“Il [R] regarda les hommes qui l’entouraient,
les observa, les représenta comme ils étaient...
De plus en plus pénétrant, il regardait de
préférence les malheureux, les misérables qui
auraient fait horreur à d’autres qu’à lui,” and
“C’est le nouveau monde que Rembrandt a inauguré par la représentation des pauvres et des
simples.” Dumesnil (Paris, 1850), pp. 48 and 59.
notes 96-135
309
136 Michel vol. 39 (1885), p. 192.
137 Gautier (26 October 1856), p. 237, Coquerel
fils. (Paris, 1869), p. 66, Vosmaer (The Hague,
1868), p. 359, Fromentin (Paris, 1876), pp. 37980, Péladan (September 1881), p. 327, Morice
(November 1898), p. 313.
138 “Le populaire surtout l’attire, et sur les places,
dans les faubourgs, les ouvriers et les campagnards lui paraissent dignes de l’occuper. Avec
ces petites gens, les moeurs sont plus simples et
les allures moins raffinées; leur mimique s’accuse plus franchement, leurs attitudes et leurs
expressions sont plus naturelles... Rembrandt ne
se lassera jamais de les étudier. Il aimait à vivre
dans la société des pauvres... Les traits sous
lesquels l’artiste nous les représente sont si
vrais, si justes et aujourd’hui encore si exacts,
que plusieurs d’entre eux (B. nos 163, 164, 172,
174) paraissent copiés sur le vif d’après les
rôdeurs et les besogneux de nos faubourgs.”
Émile Michel (Paris, 1893), pp. 62-3.
139 Willems specifically challenged Vosmaer’s idea
that Rembrandt was “un homme de bonne société.” Willems (1 May 1874), pp. 353-4. Only
A.J. Dumesnil wrote about Rembrandt’s rapport with Huygens, Uytenbogard, and Six.
See Dumesnil (Paris, 1860), pp. 340-8, 351-61.
140 See Thoré-Bürger (January 1864), p. 75.
141 “Rembrandt était du tiers, à peine du tier,
comme on eût dit en France en 1789.”
Fromentin (Paris, 1965 ed.), p. 396.
142 “Il (Rembrandt) est [le] peuple.” Taine (Paris,
1869), p. 165.
143 Dumesnil (Paris, 1850), p. 40, Blanc (Paris,
1853), cat.210, Thoré-Bürger (Paris, 1858-60),
p. 322-4, Coquerel fils. (Paris, 1869), p. 131,
and Havard (Paris, 1881), p. 76.
144 Émile Michel vol. 39 (1885), p. 194 and (Paris,
1886), p. 104, Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868),
p. 356.
145 Cambray (26 November 1843), p. 372 and
Houssaye (Paris, 1844-47), pp. 157-60. See also
Anonymous (July 1847), p. 217, Erckman (19
April 1857), p. 57 and Planche (15 July 1853),
p. 249.
146 Blanc (Paris, 1853), Blanc vol. 1 (Paris, 185961), Blanc vol. 1 (Paris, 1880), Scheltema (Paris,
1866), and Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868).
310
147 Blanc vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), pp. 20-2.
148 Blanc (Paris, 1853), p. 13, Galichon (March
1866), p. 235, Vitet (15 April 1861), p. 796, and
Blanc (Paris, 1858), p. 203.
149 Blanc vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), p. 10, Taine (Paris,
1869), p. 167 and Scheltema (Paris, 1866), p. 27.
150 Berthoud (February 1838) and Lafenestre
(7 October 1893), p. 470.
151 Erckman (12 April 1857), p. 30.
152 “Ce que nous savons de la vie privée de Rembrandt se réduit à fort peu de chose, et ce que
nous savons n’est certes pas fait pour nous donner une haute idée de ses mœurs.” A. Willems,
“Rembrandt Harmensz, van Rijn, sa vie et ses
œuvres, par C. Vosmaer” (1 May 1874), p. 351.
153 Planche (1832), p. 234, Cambray (26 November
1843), p. 346 and Anonymous (July 1847), p. 217.
154 Much information on Saskia was made available
in France through Thoré-Bürger’s review of
W. Eekhoff study of Saskia in Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (February 1864), pp. 189-92. See
also Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868), p. 279 and
G. Valbert (1 April 1893), pp. 690-1.
155 Coquerel fils. (Paris, 1869), p. 41 and Émile
Michel (Paris, 1886), p. 28.
156 Péladan (September 1881), p. 329.
157 See Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 400, Émile
Michel (Paris, 1886), p. 53 and (Paris, 1893),
p. 634.
158 Duplessis (Paris, 1880), p. 168 and Havard
(Paris, 1879-81), p. 89.
159 See Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868), p. 272 and
279, Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 405, Émile
Michel (1885), p. 210 and (Paris, 1893), p. 385
and Valbert (1 April 1893), p. 691.
160 See Louis Gonse,“L’Inauguration du nouveau
musée d’Amsterdam: La Ronde de nuit et les
dernières années de la vie de Rembrandt, avec
une lettre de M. Durand-Gréville” Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (November 1885), p. 420.
161 Émile Michel, “Hendrickje Stoffels et les
dernières années de Rembrandt” L’Art vol. 39
(1885), p. 209. See also Blanc (Paris, 1861) vol.
2, pp. 446-7, Coquerel fils. (Paris, 1869), pp.
38-9, Théophile Gautier, Guide de l’amateur au
musée du Louvre, suivi de la vie et les œuvres de
quelques peintres (Paris, 1882), p. 57, Émile
Michel (Paris, 1886), p. 76, F.A. Gruyer, Voyage
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
Autour du Salon Carré au musée du Louvre (Paris,
1891), p. 370, Lafenestre (Paris, 1893), p. 471,
and Valbert (1 April 1893), p. 691.
“Enfin les eaux-fortes datées à partir de 1656, le
caractère de vigueur et de mâle volonté qu’elles
prennent alors, disaient assez que l’artiste, loin
de se laisser abattre par l’infortune, avait redoublé de puissance et d’énergie.” Blanc vol. 1
(Paris, 1880), p. viii.
For a thorough study of Rembrandt’s religious
paintings and a significant examination of the
artist’s connection with contemporary Jews see
Michael Zell Reframing Rembrandt: Jews and the
Christian Image in Seventeenth-Century
Amsterdam (Berkeley, 2002).
This was known by 1838. See Berthoud
(February 1838), pp. 241-2.
Erckman (19 April 1857), p. 57.
Edouard Drumont, La France Juive, édition
populaire (Paris, 1888).
“Ils préfèrent le bas, ce qui leur permet à la fois
de s’enrichir en flattant les appétits grossiers de
la multitude, et de servir leur cause en tournant
en risée les enthousiasmes, les souvenirs pieux,
les traditions augustes des peuples aux dépens
de qui ils vivent.” Drumont (Paris, 1888), p. 18.
“C’est Rembrandt qu’il faut, je ne dis pas regarder, mais contempler, étudier, scruter,
fouiller, analyser, si l’on veut bien voir le Juif.
Qu’ils sont parlants, ces Juifs de Rembrandt
causant d’affaires au sortir de la synagogue,
s’entretenant du cours du florin ou du dernier
envoi de Batavia! Ces voyageurs qui cheminent
leur bâton à la main avec des airs de Juifs errants, qui sentent qu’ils vont arriver et s’asseoir
quelque part!” Drumont (Paris, 1888), p. 78.
Courbet’s lithograph Jean Journet has been
connected with the image of the “Juif errant”
in popular prints as has his The Meeting or
‘Bonjour Monsieur Courbet.’ See Meyer Schapiro,
“Courbet and Popular Imagery: An Essay on
Realism and Naïveté” Journal of the Warburg
and Courtauld Institute vol. 4 (1940/41),
pp. 167-8, Linda Nochlin, Gustave Courbet:
A Study of Style and Society (New York, 1976),
pp. 168-70, and 200-1, and Sarah Faunce and
Linda Nochlin, Courbet Reconsidered (Brooklyn,
1988), pp. 116-18.
170 References to the “wandering Jew” appeared in
fiction including Eugène Süe’s ten-volume Le
Juif Errant (Brussels, 1844), a song by Béranger
published in 1856, and a poem La Légende du
Juif Errant by Pierre Dupont. See Nochlin
(New York, 1976), p. 201, fn 2.
171 The notorious “Dreyfus Affair” launched
against Captain Alfred Dreyfus in September
1894, which is now regarded as a measure of
the power of anti-semitism then current in
France, is too late in date to be significant for
the interpretations of Rembrandt’s artistic
persona discussed here.
172 Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 407.
173 Edmond and Jules de Goncourt, Journal,
mémoires de la vie littéraire. Ed. Robert Ricatte
(Paris, 1956) entries for 17 February 1859, 6
September 1860, and 9-10 September 1861,
Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 336.
174 Gault de St. Germain vol. 1 (Paris, 1841), p. 48.
175 Péladan (September 1881), p. 327.
176 Scheltema devoted a separate section to this
material: “Manasseh ben Israël et Ephraïm
Bonus” (Paris, 1866), pp. 130-1.
177 “Je pensais à lui [Rembrandt], j’aurais aimé
l’avoir pour compagnon de voyage dans le
quartier des Juifs à Varsovie, au milieu de ces
types étranges, à demi orientaux...” Coquerel
fils. (Paris, 1869), p. 70.
178 Roger de Piles (Paris, 1708). De Piles was
simply folowing Sandrart’s lead, who wrote
“Ainsi on ne vera point dans Rembrandt, ni le
Goût de Raphaël, ni celuy de l’Antique ni pensées Poëtiques, ni elegance de Dessein.”
179 “N’est-il pas vray qu’un Tableau peint par le
Poussin sur un trait simple & fidèle du Rembrandt, seroit un assez mauvais ouvrage; &
qu’un autre peint par le Rimbrant sur le dessein
exact & sçavant du Poussin, seroit un Tableau
admirable, sur tout si en le peignant, il y avoit
employé l’artifice de son clair-obscur?” Antoine
Coypel, Discours prononcez dans les conférences de
l’Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture
(Paris, 1721), pp. 19-20.
180 Descamps (Paris, 1754-63), p. 94.
181 “Dans le grand nombre de Desseins que Rembrandt a laissé, on n’y trouve guère que des
griffonnemens très-imparfaits, à l’exception de
notes 136-181
311
182
183
184
185
quelques Portraits & Paysages qu’il étoit obligé
de dessiner d’après nature. Il ne faisoit apparamment des Dessins que pour développer ses idées,
aussi y voit-on souvent le même Sujet retourné
de plusieurs manières différentes; & comme il
les destinoit à l’oubli, il ne s’embarrassoit guéres
de les terminer avec soin.” Edmé François Gersaint, Catalogue raisonné de toutes les pièces qui forment l’œuvre de Rembrandt (Paris, 1751), p. xxxii.
“La manière de Rembrandt a été une excuse
pour beaucoup de maîtres incorrects, qui n’ont
vu en lui qu’un médiocre dessinateur; mais ils
ont été dans l’erreur, car le dessin de cet artiste
pour être sans choix n’en est pas moins savant,
ni moins correct; et c’est sur-tout cette différence de dessin qui est d’un grand secours pour
reconnaître Rembrandt d’avec ses imitateurs.”
Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun, Gallerie des peintres flamands, hollandais et allemands vol. 2 (Paris,
1792-6), p. 1.
“Il faut étudier le dessin dans Raphaël et Rembrant, (sic) le coloris dans le Titien et les peintres français, le clair-obscur dans le Corrège,
et encore dans les peintres actuels; et mieux
encore, si l’on sait penser par soi-même, voir
tout cela dans la nature; le dessin et le coloris
à l’école de natation, le clair-obscur dans une
assemblée éclairée par la lumière sérieuse d’un
dôme.” Stendhal, Histoire de la peinture en Italie
vol. 1 (Paris, 1817), pp. 99-100.
“N’entend-t-on pas répéter partout que Rembrandt est pitoyable dans le dessin, et qu’il ne
comprend rien à cette partie de l’art? Ne
seraient-ce point plutôt les critiques eux-mêmes
qui n’entendent rien à la théorie du dessin?...
Il s’en faut bien qu’il n’ait pas eu le sentiment
du dessin relatif aux movements et à la perspective. On voit dans ses tableaux des pantomimes
très-justement senties, très-heureusement rendues, des lignes très-correctes, peut-être même
était-il supérieur dans ce sentiment naturel à
Jules Romain lui-même, et j’oserait dire à
Annibal Carracci.” Paillot de Montabert, Traité
complet de la peinture vol. 3 (Paris, 1828), p. 188.
“Ce peintre, comme bien d’autres, fût donc
devenu un grand dessinateur, s’il n’eût été préoccupé exclusivement du clair-obscur et du
coloris, et s’il eût oublié d’ailleurs le mauvais
312
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
goût des ateliers, si enfin une véritable école de
peinture lui eût ouvert une route certaine à
suivre.” Paillot de Montabert (1828), p. 189.
“Tu me parles de Rembrandt, de ce fameux, de
ce grand, de ce géant, et, en lisant, j’ai trouvé
une phrase rapportée de M. Paillot de Montabert; ce (sic) sont des paroles qui m’on fait souffer de rire... Ce monsieur parisien prétend que
si Rembrandt dessinait comme Poussin, ce
serait un grand peintre! Ce n’est pas fort, hein?
Je désirais bien voir le tableau de Rembrandt
dont tu me parles, car ça doit être bien épatant.
Je le gobe d’ici (tu sais, le mot à la mode).”
12 March 1858, Bibliothèque d’art et d’archéologie, Fondation Jacques Doucet, manuscripts,
microfilm BIX, pp. 8382-7.
“Rembrandt dessinait mieux que Poussin!”
Thoré-Bürger, Salons de T. Thoré 1844, 1845,
1846, 1847, 1848 (Paris, 1868), p. x.
“Pour ma part, je ne vois pas pourquoi il serait
défendu de dessiner aussi purement que
Léonard et Raphaël, en noyant le contour des
corps dans une ombre mystérieuse, comme l’a
fait Rembrandt. C’est, je l’avoue, un problème
difficile à résoudre; je ne crois pas pourtant qu’il
soit absolument insoluble.” Gustave Planche,
“Rembrandt, sa vie et ses œuvres” Revue des
deux mondes (15 July 1853), p. 277.
“Mais si Rembrandt a ignoré ce qu’on appelle le
style, il y a suppléé par une qualité de premier
ordre qui est le sentiment.” Blanc (Paris, 1853),
p. 11.
Blanc (1859-61) vol. 1, p. 359.
“Si son dessin manque de noblesse, s’il est
incorrect dans les proportions, il est relevé par
une qualité supérieure, le sentiment... Jugé
séparément, Rembrandt semble se détacher de
la tradition et avoir romput la chaîne de l’art.”
Blanc vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), pp. 22-3.
“On entend dire assez souvent que Rembrandt
était d’une extrême faiblesse dans le dessin, que
cette partie de l’art lui a manqué; c’est là une
hérésie des orthodoxes. Sans doute Rembrandt
n’a pas dessiné avec la correcte élégance qu’enseigne la tradition classique... mais il y a dans le
dessin des qualités essentielles que Rembrandt
possède au plus haut degré: l’expression et la
perspective.” Blanc vol. 2 (Paris, 1883), p. 14.
193 André Fontainas, “Rembrandt Chez Lui”
Mercure de France (January 1899), p. 47.
194 “Il reste dans son génie propre et complétement
indépendant des traditions du grand style...
son talent n’a aucune affinité avec la correction
de dessin, avec le goût épuré et idéal des maîtres
de Florence ou de Rome.” A.J. du Pays,
“L’annonciation des bergers, par Rembrandt”
L’Illustration (15 January 1859), p. 36.
195 “Rembrandt n’est pas un dessinateur au sens
où l’on entend ce mot d’ordinaire. Il n’a jamais
su châtier son dessin avec la correction qu’on
enseigne dans les académies, et qui parfois
dégénère en pédantisme... Mais, à côté de ce
défaut de correction et d’idéal dans la forme,
quelle science profonde du dessin, quel art pour
rendre la nature dans sa vérité et dans sa vie!”
François Lenormant, “Une publication nouvelle
sur Rembrandt” Correspondant (25 December
1874), p. 1373.
196 Villot was quoted by Athanase Coquerel fils,
Rembrandt et l’individualisme dans l’art (Paris,
1869), pp. 77-8.
197 Eugène Delacroix, The Journals of Eugène
Delacroix Trans. Walter Pach (New York,
1937), p. 571.
198 “Il ne se complaît pas dans un contour exquis,
dans des proportions harmonieusement établies
et dans des lignes pondérées avec art; mais
comme il possède à fond le sentiment de la
forme, comme il sait donner aux figures qu’il
invente une expression juste et appropriée à
leur situtation, comme chez lui le sens de la vie
est aussi développé que le sens de la lumière,
on peut affirmer que le génie du dessin ne lui a
pas manqué et que, s’il n’en a pas fait le même
usage que d’autres maîtres également illustres,
c’est que son tempérament s’opposait a cette
interprétation de la nature, à ce choix dans les
types qui constitue la réelle beauté.” George
Duplessis, “Les eaux-fortes de Rembrandt”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (May 1875), p. 479.
199 For a complete analysis of the published drawing courses see Daniel Harlé, “Les cours de
dessin gravés et lithographiés du XIXème siècle
conservés au Cabinet des Estampes de la Bibliothèque Nationale” (Paris, Mémoire dactylographié de l’École du Louvre, 1975).
200 Etex/Blanc correspondence, Archives nationales
AJ/52/975.
201 The drawings could be seen on Saturdays
between two and four in the afternoon. The
statistics presented here were compiled from
Frédéric Reiset, Notice des dessins, cartons, pastels,
miniatures et émaux exposés dans les salles du 1er
étage au musée impérial du Louvre, première
partie: écoles d’Italie, écoles Allemande, Flamande et
Hollandaise; précédée d’une introduction historique
et du résumé de l’inventaire général des dessins vol.
1 (Paris, 1866).
202 One drawing of a man kneeling, one of a woman
seated in a chair and four studies of lions.
203 This decree was published in the Moniteur universel on 15 November 1863 and was signed by
Napoleon III. The biggest change which resulted from this reform was the institution of three
painting and three sculpture classes into the
curriculum of the École des Beaux-Arts. Aspects
of this reform and the history of the École des
Beaux-Arts were considered in Alain Bonnet,
“La Réforme de l’École des Beaux-Arts de
1863, problèmes de l’enseignement artistique
en France au XIXe siècle” Third Cycle Thesis,
Nanterre, 1993.
204 Gersaint (Paris, 1751), pp. xv-xvi. For a discussion of the debate around Rembrandt’s representations of the female nude since the nineteenth century, see Mieke Bal, “Between
Focalization and Voyeurism: The Representation of Vision”, in Reading “Rembrandt”:
Beyond the Word-Image Opposition (Cambridge,
1991), pp. 138-76.
205 Fromentin (1876), p. 410.
206 “Il est vrai qu’on est forcé d’avouer que Rembrandt n’a jamais connu la beauté et l’élegance
du nu. Qui voit de lui, par exemple, une Bethzabée ou une Suzanne au bain, ne voit qu’une
nudité grossière et informe; cela est incontestable.” Montabert (Paris, 1828), p. 188.
207 “M. Charles Blanc n’est pas assez sévère pour
ces déplorables œuvres, dont rien, pas même
l’habileté toujours grande du peintre ou du
graveur, ne rachète le caractère ignoble, descendant aussi bas que les Baigneuses de M.
Courbet.” Lenormant, Correspondant (1874),
p. 1371.
notes 181-207
313
208 Hix, “La galerie La Caze, au Louvre” La Vie
Parisienne (26 April 1870), p. 331.
209 “La Bethsabée de Rembrandt, une belle peinture, mais une bien vilaine femme, et puis les
tons ont poussé au noir. Jamais bain ne fut plus
opportun.”
210 “Dépêchez-vous: le roi David me regarde.
Je ne me soucie pas qu’il me voie avec un œilde-perdrix.”
211 “Oh! ce petit pied! ce petit pied! Toute ton eau,
ô mer profonde ne suffirait pas à le rendre...
présentable.”
212 “Le respect que j’éprouve pour le génie de
Rembrandt, les études spéciales que j’ai faites de
son œuvre gravé, me font un devoir de livrer à
la publicité une opinion qui me paraît fondée à
tous égards.” quoted in Louis Gonse, “L’Œuvre
de Rembrandt, 2e et dernier article” Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (December 1885), p. 508.
213 Gautier (1846), p. 398.
214 Marcel Nicolle (1899), p. iv. For other examples of the largely negative reception of both
nudes in the Louvre collection see Gary
Schwartz, “A Documentary History and Interpretation of Rembrandt’s 1654 Painting of
Bathsheba”, in Ann Jensen Adams (Ed.), Rembrandt’s Bathsheba Reading King David’s Letter
(Cambridge, 1998): 176-203.
215 Martin Rosenberg, Raphael and France: the Artist
as Paradigm and Symbol (University Park, 1995),
p. 185. Another study claimed that Raphael was
one of the artists about whom the most was
published in France between 1800 and 1900
because art history prefers successful artists.
Rembrandt’s parallel popularity discounts this
view that art critics preferred writing about
“winners.” See Nicole Dubreuil-Blondin, “La
légende de Raphaël. Les ‘grandes’ et les ‘petites’
vies d’une figure exemplaire de l’art, écrites en
France au cours du XIXe siècle.” Revue d’art
canadienne/Canadian Art Review vol. 22 no.1-2
(1995) pp. 80-6. Still, there were a number
of publications on Raphael during this time,
including: Giuseppe Campori, “Documents
inédits sur Raphaël, tirés des Archives palatines
de Modène” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April, May,
and September 1863), pp. 347-61, 442-56, and
288-94; Charles Clément, Michel-Ange, Léonard
314
de Vinci, Raphael (Paris, 1867), Louis Courajod,
“Observations sur deux dessins attribués à
Raphaël et conservés à l’Académie des BeauxArts de Venise” (first as article in L’Art and
Paris, 1880); François Anatole Gruyer, Essai sur
les fresques de Raphaël de Vatican (Paris, 1858),
Les Vierges de Raphaël et l’iconographie de la Vierge
(Paris, 1869), Portrait du Joueur de violon (Paris,
1880), Raphaël, peintre de portraits (Paris, 1881),
Les historiens et les critiques de Raphael, 14831883. Essai bibliographique pour servir d’appendice
à l’ouvrage de Passavant (Paris, 1883), Les tapisseries de Raphaël au Vatican et dans les principaux
musées ou collections de l’Europe (Paris, 1897);
Eugène Müntz, “Les maisons de Raphaël à
Rome, d’après des documents inédits ou peu
connus” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April 1880), pp.
353-9, “Raphaël, archéologue et historien d’art”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (October and November
1880), pp. 307-18, and 453-64, Raphaël, sa vie,
son œuvre, et son temps (Paris, 1881), “Une rivalité d’artistes au XVIe siècle. Michel-Ange et
Raphaël à la Cour de Rome” Gazette des BeauxArts (March and April 1882), pp. 281-7, and
385-400, Les historiens et le critiques de Raphaël
(1883); Quatremère de Quincy, Histoire de la vie
et des ouvrages de Raphaël (Paris, 1833), Appendice
à l’ouvrage intitulé Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages
de Raphaël, par M. Quatremère de Quincy (Paris,
1853); A.F. Rio, Michel-Ange et Raphaël: avec un
supplément sur la décadence de l’école romaine
(Paris, 1867).
216 Charles Baudelaire, “Le Peintre de la vie moderne”, in Claude Pichois (Ed.), Œuvres Complètes
vol. 2 Paris: Gallimard, 1976, p. 683. Baudelaire
wrote the text in 1859 and published it in Le
Figaro 28 November and 3 December 1863.
217 “Le beau est toujours, inévitablement, d’une
composition double, bien que l’impression qu’il
produit soit une... Le beau est fait d’un élément
éternel, invariable, dont la quantité est excessivement difficile à déterminer, et d’un élément
relatif, circonstanciel, qui sera, si l’on veut, tout
à tour ou tout ensemble, l’époque, la mode,
la morale, la passion.” Baudelaire (Paris, 1976
ed.), p. 685.
218 “C’est l’effet ordinaire d’une œuvre d’art exceptionnelle, de beaucoup de tableaux d’un rang
219
220
221
222
223
224
supérieur. Raphael ne satisfait pas toujours
le premier venu, ni au premier coup d’œil.
Souvent même des artistes consommés, le
voyant pour la première fois, ont dit: n’est-ce
que cela? Pour goûter Shakespeare, il faut le
comprendre, et le comprendre ne s’obtient qu’à
force de se pénétrer peu à peu de ses œuvres.
L’art égyptien ne charme pas du premier coup;
quand on y pénètre, il vous subjugue.” Carel
Vosmaer, “Un mot à propos de Rembrandt”
L’Art (1875), p. 166.
Carel Vosmaer, Rembrandt Harmensz van Ryn,
sa vie et ses œuvres (The Hague, 1868), pp. 35760.
Coquerel (Paris, 1869), pp. 66-7.
Théophile Gautier, “Du beau dans l’art” L’Art
Moderne (Paris, 1856), pp. 134-53.
Auguste Couder, Considérations sur le but moral
des beaux-arts (Paris, 1867), pp. 60-1.
“La critique vulgaire, celle qui ne voit dans
l’histoire de l’art qu’une époque déterminée à
l’exclusion de toutes les autres, qui nomme la
poésie latine Virgile, la prose française Fénélon,
et la peinture Raphaël, accuse les plus belles
compositions de Rembrandt de trivialité...
Qu’est-ce à dire, en effet? La vérité humaine
n’est-elle pas la première et la plus indispensable condition d’une œuvre pittoresque?”
Gustave Planche, “Histoire de l’art,
Rembrandt” L’Artiste (1832), p. 235.
“Les philosophes ont fait bien des théories sur
l’art et sur le beau; les artistes aiment l’art et
voilà tout... Le beau ne s’impose ni ne se
définit: le vulgaire l’ignore, l’artiste le sent,
l’aime et le cherche... Le beau est partout...
Un tas de fumier envahi par la volaille peut
devenir sublime sous la main de Rembrandt.
Ce sujet bas et trivial, traité par le maître, va
nous entraîner dans un monde imaginaire, à
travers les rayons lumineux qui ont éclairé
l’artiste aussi bien que son sujet; tout, jusqu’à
son exécution, nous charmera, nous fera penser
avec lui. L’insaisissable beau sera partout,
jusque dans les défauts même de l’artiste, peutêtre.” H. René Paul Huet, Paul Huet d’après ses
notes, sa correspondance et ses contemporains, documents recueillis par son fils. Pref. by Georges
Lafenestre (Paris, 1911), pp. 71-2.
225 “Il inventa une grandeur morale indépendante
de la régularité des traits et des lignes, et à
l’inverse de la statuaire antique, qui s’en tenait
à une extrême sobriété de mouvement et à
l’impassibilité du visage, plutôt que de déranger
la beauté plastique des formes, les artistes
chrétiens, retrouvant un reflet de la Divinité
dans les natures les plus déchues, aimèrent
mieux pousser jusqu’aux dernières contractions
de la vérité l’expression de leurs figures, que de
mettre la laideur même en dehors du domaine
de l’art. C’est de là que procède Rembrandt. Il
appartient tout entier à l’art moderne, j’entends
à l’art chrétien; il en est la personnification la
plus puissante, la plus intime.” Blanc (1853),
pp. 8-9. For a general study of Blanc’s views on
artistic practice see Misook Song, Art Theories
of Charles Blanc, 1813-1882 (Ann Arbor, 1984).
226 “Son imagination, jetant un voile entre la nature et lui, ennoblit la vulgarité même, et ses
moindres études portèrent bientôt le cachet du
maître, l’empreinte du génie.” Blanc (1853), p. 7.
227 Blanc (1883), p. 17.
228 “Rembrandt n’est ni un idéaliste, ni un éclectique, c’est un artiste fantasque et vrai, dont
l’œil de lynx voit l’humanité dans sa plus saisissante réalité à Amsterdam... il n’a rendu que la
vérité et la vivacité de la vie, avec le privilège de
la peinture la plus achevée et la plus libre tout
à la fois... Il réagit contre les théories et les
exemples venus de Rome, autant par sa manière
de rendre la correction de formes, que par sa
façon d’entendre l’Évangile. Inspiré de son
temps et retrempé dans la nature, à l’égal des
plus grands artistes, il eut un don unique: il fait
sublime dans l’ignoble.” Jules Renouvier, Des
types et des manières des maîtres graveurs pour
servir à l’histoire de la gravure, en Italie, en
Allemagne, dans les Pays-Bas et en France
(Montpellier, 1853), pp. 38-42.
229 “...l’homme dont le génie est un des plus l’antipode du classicisme et de la beauté du style.”
François Lenormant, “Une publication
nouvelle sur Rembrandt” Correspondant (25
December 1874), p. 1368.
230 There are few instances where another Italian
artist was substituted for Raphael as the exemplar of ideal art. See Charles Beaurin, “Les
notes 208-230
315
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
disciples d’Emmaus, Titien et Rembrandt”
L’Artiste (1 March 1865), pp. 97-102.
“Raphaël n’a pas créé un peintre, il en a désespéré mille: chez l’un; c’est le monde connu,
c’est le dernier mot, le couronnement de l’œuvre; chez Rembrandt, l’intrépide et magique
coloriste, c’est encore le commencement du
monde. C’est une aurore nouvelle qui éclaire
l’art.” Arsène Houssaye, Histoire de la peinture
flamande et hollandaise (Paris, 1844-47), p. 156.
See also Houssaye, “Rembrandt” L’Artiste (6
December 1848), p. 65.
Arsène Houssaye, Théophile Gautier and Paul
de Saint Victoire, Les Dieux et les demi-dieux de
la peinture (Paris, 1864), pp. 243-62.
Eugène Delacroix, The Journal of Eugène Delacroix Trans. Walter Pach. (New York, 1937),
6 June 1851.
Eugène Delacroix, “Questions sur le beau”
Revue des deux mondes (15 July 1854), pp. 306-15.
“Ah! si Rembrandt, avec son génie libre et original, ressuscitait dans un pays comme l’Italie, –
cet éternel pays de la Beauté, – à quelles créations superbes il communiquerait la lumière!”
Thoré-Bürger vol. 2 (Paris, 1858-60), p. xiii.
“Il n’y a que deux types dans l’art moderne:
Raphaël et Rembrandt, l’artiste à priori et
l’artiste à posteriori, dirait un philosophe
esthéticien; l’artiste qui part d’un idéal conçu
en lui-même, et l’artiste qui part de la nature.”
Thoré-Bürger, “Salon de 1864” in Salons de
W. Bürger 1861 à 1868 (Paris, 1870), p. 69.
See the numerous “Cher ami” letters during
these decades, Bibliothèque nationale manuscript naf 11955.
“Raphaël aurait reculé devant ces actualités,
qu’il eût désespéré peut-être de rendre idéales.
C’était justement la difficulté que l’art avait à
vaincre, et c’est pour l’avoir vaincue que la
gloire de Rembrandt dépasse de cent coudées
celle de Raphaël.” Pierre Joseph Proudhon,
Du principe de l’art et de sa destination sociale
(Paris, 1865), p. 95.
“Toutes les grandes œuvres idéales de l’art ont
été faites dans des temps qui n’avaient pas les
notions de l’idéal ou par des hommes qui
n’avaient pas cette notion... L’avenir de l’art
moderne, ne serait-ce point du Gavarni brouillé
316
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
avec du Rembrandt, la réalité de l’homme et de
l’habit transfigurée par la magie des ombres et
des lumières, par ce soleil, poésie des couleurs
qui tombe de la main du peintre?” Edmond and
Jules de Goncourt, Journal, mémoires de la vie
littéraire vol. 1 (Paris, 1959 ed), 12 November
1861.
Gustave Planche, “Histoire et philosophie de
l’art. VII. L’École anglaise en 1835” Revue des
deux mondes (15 June 1835), pp. 675-6. See also
Bernard Weinberg, French Realism: The Critical
Reaction 1830-1870 (Chicago, 1937), p. 114, fn 2.
Linda Nochlin, Realism (New York, 1971) and
Realism and Tradition in Art 1848-1900, Sources
and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, 1976),
Gabriel Weisberg, The Realist Tradition, French
Painting and Drawing 1830-1900 (Cleveland,
1980), and Gabriel and Yvonne Weisberg,
The Realist Debate, Bibliography of French Realist
Painting 1830-1885. (New York, 1984).
Champfleury, “Du réalisme, Lettre à Madame
Sand”, in Du réalisme, correspondance Champfleury and George Sand. (Paris, 1991), pp. 67-78.
Linda Nochlin believes it was the combination
of realism and drama in Rembrandt’s work that
specifically attracted Courbet, who also executed
a copy of Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait in Munich
in 1869. See Linda Nochlin, Gustave Courbet:
A Study of Style and Society (New York, 1976),
pp. 14-20, 36, 51-2, 61-2, and 173-4.
Fernand Desnoyers, “Du Réalisme” L’Artiste
(9 December 1855), pp. 197-200.
Duranty Réalisme (15 November 1856), pp. 1-2.
See also Petra ten Doeschate Chu, French
Realism and the Dutch Masters: The Influence
of Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting on the
Development of French Painting between 1830
and 1870 (Utrecht, 1974) and Laura Malvano,
“Le débat autour du réalisme entre 1855 et
1865” Histoire et critique des arts (May 1978),
pp. 62-71.
Alvin Beaumont, Un Œuvre de P.P. Rubens.
La visitation découverte à Reims (Paris, 1869),
Samuel Henri Berthoud, Pierre-Paul Rubens
(Paris, 1841), Émile Michel, Rubens, sa vie, son
œuvre, et son temps (Paris, 1900), Paul Mantz,
“Rubens” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (January and
April 1881), pp. 5-14, 305-14, (January and
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
October 1882), pp. 5-18, 273-81, (January,
March, April, and November 1883), pp. 5-18,
203-18, 309-23, 361-83, (January, March,
and July 1884), pp. 29-45, 193-207, 34-49,
(February, August, and December 1885),
pp. 121-37, 97-115, 449-66, Alfred Michiels,
Catalogue des tableaux et dessins de Rubens avec
l’indication des endroits où ils se trouvent (Paris,
1854), “Génie de Rubens” Gazette des BeauxArts (March and April 1869), pp. 223-37, 33143, and Rubens et l’école d’Anvers (Paris, 1877),
Theophile Silvestre, P.P. Rubens (Paris, 1851),
Thoré-Bürger, “Le Musée d’Anvers, Rubens
et ses contemporains” Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(July, September and October 1861), pp. 24-37,
206-14, 338-48.
Thoré-Bürger, Musées de la Hollande vol. 1
(Paris, 1860 ed.), p. 321.
Eugène Delacroix, Journal (5 and 29 July 1854).
Thoré-Bürger (Paris, 1857), pp. 188-90.
Péladan (September 1881), p. 330.
Fromentin (Paris, 1876), p. 52.
Blanc (11 October 1876), p. 3.
Champfleury (Laon, 1850), p. 37. For an analysis of Champfleury’s criticism see David A.
Flanary, Champfleury: The Realist Writer as Art
Critic (Ann Arbor, 1980).
Champfleury (Laon, 1850), pp. 37-8.
Blanc’s speech was published in the Rapport sur
les arts du Dessin et sur leur avenir dans la République and was discussed in Song (Ann Arbor,
1984), p. 13.
“Comment les biographes de Rembrandt et ses
interprètes ont-ils oublié jusqu’ici son caractère
de réforme? Ce devait être le point de départ.
Rembrandt est l’historien des Pays-Bas bien
mieux que Strada, Hooft ou Grotius. Il rend
palpable la révolution, il l’éclaire à son insu de
mille lueurs. D’un autre côté, elle le montre tel
qu’il est, elle le dévoile; sans elle, il resterait une
sorte de monstre inexplicable dans l’histoire des
arts. Sa Bible est la bible iconoclaste de Marnix;
ses apôtres sont des mendian[t]s; son Christ est
le Christ des gueux.” Edgar Quinet, “Fondation
de la république des Provinces-Unies, III.
Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde, réligion, politique
et art des gueux” Revue des deux mondes (1 June
1854), p. 1002.
257 “C’est ici une cité de refuge. La multitude des
bannis, des outlaws, des exilés de toute nation,
de toute origine, qui affluent, dépouillés, ruinés,
vers les Provinces-Unies, donne aux foules,
dans Rembrandt, une variété des types, de
physionomies, de races, qu’aucun peintre n’a
égalée... Rembrandt a rompu avec toute tradition, comme son église avec toute authorité; il
ne relève que de lui-même et de son inspiration
immédiate.” Quinet (1 June 1854), p. 1003.
258 Robert Gildea, The Past in French History
(New Haven, 1994), pp. 214-16.
259 Coquerel fils (Paris, 1869), p. 80.
260 Coquerel fils (Paris, 1869), p. 107.
261 “L’art traditionnel, l’art officiel, sacerdotal,
est épuisé: il a fait son temps; c’est en vain que
l’on a tenté de resusciter, de galvaniser l’art
catholique du moyen âge en plein dix-neuvième
siècle... c’est l’art individualiste et spontané, par
lequel l’homme, l’artiste, le penseur, le poëte
représente non ce qui est officiel et commandé,
mais ce qui est pour lui la réalité, le mouvement, la couleur, la vérité, la vie... Aussi, de
même qu’autrefois sur la tombe des rois de
France on criait: Le roi est mort: vive le roi!
nous pouvons dire aujourd’hui, en présence des
monuments fermés de l’art catholique qui ne se
réveillera jamais de son sommeil: l’art officiel,
l’art sacerdotal est mort, et bien mort: vive l’art
libéral, l’art individuel, l’art protestant, l’art
humain!” Coquerel fils (Paris, 1869), pp. 141-2.
262 “Oui, mon idée est qu’on peut travailler à la
verité et à la justice en parlant d’un rayon de
soleil, et qu’un propos sur Rembrandt peut signifier autant pour la Révoution qu’un manifeste
du citoyen Ledru à la Republique universelle.
Vous êtes le maître qui est venu leur montrer
cela. Le philosophe à expliqué l’artiste malicieux qui se doutait bien un peu que Rembrandt
n’était sans attaquer le pape et l’empereur.”
Institut Néerlandais, mss 6764a.
263 P.J. Proudhon, “Études sur l’École hollandaise”
Revue trimestrielle (January 1859), pp. 276-89.
264 Proudhon wrote “Nous n’avons pas l’honneur de
connaître M.W. Burger.” (January 1859), p. 276.
265 “N’êtes-vous pas tenté de vous écrier, après
avoir lu cette page: Bravo, Hollandais!... Or,
quand une nation, se séparant des autres, se
notes 230-265
317
condamne par là même à tout refaire en elle,
elle refait tout. Le patriotisme qui lui donne
la victoire lui fait produire aussi des chefs
d’œuvre; cette conscience du droit qui la rend
héroïque se manifestera bientôt dans son nouvel
idéal.” (January 1859), p. 279.
266 “C’est l’idolatrie, auraient dit le Hollandais réformés du XVIIe siècle, qui ayant banni de leur
temple, de leur culture, toute espèce de signes
divins, se trouvaient dans l’heureuse nécessité
de faire de la peinture pour eux-mêmes, pour
l’Humanité.” (January 1859), p. 282.
267 “Et voilà justement ce qui explique comment,
en France, après la proclamation de toutes les
libertés et l’établissement du suffrage universel,
la pensée n’est encore rien, le travail rien, la
commune rien, l’individu rien, le peuple rien:
la nation est restée courbée sous son idéal aristocratique et religieux. Et que de gens travaillent, même à leur insu, à la maintenir sous ce
joug. C’est la grand mystification des temps
modernes. Une espérance nous reste. L’art humain est né spontanément au XVIIe siècle, mais
le mot n’a été dit et le phénomène expliqué
qu’au XIXe: de l’invention à l’explication il y a
progrès.” (January 1859), p. 289.
268 “Ce qu’il nous faut, c’est un art pour ainsi dire
pratique, qui nous suive dans toutes nos fortunes; qui, s’appuyant à la fois sur le fait et sur
l’idée, ne puisse plus être débordé tout à coup et
brisé par l’opinion; mais qui progresse comme
la raison, comme l’humanité... Rembrandt, le
Luther de la peinture, fut, au dix-septième siècle,
le réformateur de l’art. Tandis que la France,
catholique et royaliste, se refaisait l’esprit, hélas!
dans la fréquentation des Grecs et des Latins,
la Hollande réformée, républicaine, inaugurait
une nouvelle esthétique. Dans le tableau improprement appelé la Ronde de nuit, Rembrandt
peint, d’après nature et sur figures originales,
une scène de la vie municipale, et d’un seul coup,
dans ce chef d’œuvre des chefs-d’œuvre, il
éclipse toute l’ostentation pontificale, les couronnements de princes, les tournois nobiliaires,
les apothéoses de l’idéal. Dans la Leçon d’anatomie, autre chef-d’œuvre, où il représente la
Science sous les traits du professeur Tulp, le
scalpel à la main, l’œil fixé sur un cadavre, il en
318
finit avec les allégories, les emblèmes, les personnifications et incarnations, et réconcilie pour
toujours ‘l’idéal et la réalité... Donc la peinture
la plus concrète, la plus réaliste en apparence,
peut éveiller un sentiment esthétique plus puissant, suggérer un idéal plus élevé, que la peinture la plus idéaliste... Ainsi, de même que la
Réforme fut une réaction contre le catholicisme
romain, de même l’école hollandaise fut une
réaction contre l’art catholique, tant celui de la
Renaissance que celui du moyen âge. Cependant
la Réforme, par ses origines et par la plupart de
ses sectes, était iconoclaste. Ce fut justement ce
qui détermina la révolution. L’art ne peut périr:
chassé du temple, il devait ressusciter à l’hôtel
de ville et au foyer domestique; condamné dans
son vieil idéalisme, il allait renaître dans son
humanité positive et rationnelle.” Pierre Joseph
Proudhon, Du principe de l’art et de sa destination
sociale (Paris, 1865), pp. 84-87.
269 Auguste Comte coined the term “sociology” in
1839 and organized a Positivist society at the
time of the 1848 Revolution. The five main
elements of Comte’s positive method were tied
to scientific fields to which observation, logic,
and experimentation are traditionally ascribed:
mathematics, astronomy, biology, physics, and
chemistry. Although Comte was born into a
Catholic and legitimist family, he broke from
his roots and intended that positivism would
reorganize the social system in France and what
he referred to as the “crisis” that had existed
since the French Revolution of 1789. He
focused his efforts to disseminate positivism in
France where, in his view, social regeneration
and the revolutionary movement were the most
advanced. While Comte sought to end domination in any form, he accepted the fact that
political and economic inegalities would always
exist. He believed that friction and jealousy
between classes would disappear if each person
fulfilled their social function and put themselves
at the service of the republic and humanity as a
whole. See Auguste Comte, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivime (Paris, 1848), Jean-Paul Frick,
Auguste Comte ou la république positive. (Nancy,
1990) and Mary Pickering, Auguste Comte: An
Intellectual Biography vol. 1 (New York, 1993).
270 Saint-Simon’s most famous view, published in
his “Parables” in 1819, was that France would
lose less if the royal family and all its nobility
disappeared than if it lost its intellectuals,
industrialists, and agricultural workers.
271 Arsène Houssaye, “Rembrandt” L’Artiste
(6 December 1846), pp. 65-70.
272 “Si Rembrandt a eu un maître, ce fut Luther.
Rembrandt avait très sérieusement foi en
Luther. C’était pour lui un réformateur comme
Mahomet, Jésus-Christ et Moïse. Il pensait que
le catholicisme, par ses pompes et ses voluptés,
n’était plus qu’une autre mythologie... Rembrandt rendait grâce à Luther, qui avait indiqué
aux Hollandais les premiers rayons du jour nouveau, qui leur avait inspiré l’esprit de révolte,
qui avait fait de ses frères des hommes libres et
forts.” Houssaye (1848 ed.), p. 154. Gautier
mentioned Houssaye’s comparison between
Rembrandt and Luther in his review of Histoire
de la peinture flamande et hollandaise in L’Artiste
(7 March 1847), pp. 11-2.
273 Théophile Gautier, “La famille du menuisier
d’après Rembrandt” L’Artiste (26 October
1856), pp. 237-8.
274 Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris (Paris, 1966
ed.), pp. 343-4.
275 “Nous aurions pu le comparer tout d’un coup
à Shakespeare, qui a envahi à lui seul tous les
royaumes de la fantaisie... On a dit qu’ils
avaient travaillé tous deux sur un fond noir et
que leur imagination en avait tiré souvent des
conceptions pleines d’éclat et de poésie. Cependant, on pouvait ajouter encore que ces conceptions dans Shakespeare sont belles par ellesmêmes, et qu’elles ne le sont dans Rembrandt
que par le prestige de la couleur; que les premières rayonnent dans son drame sombre et
l’éclairent de leur propre lumière.” Sosthène
Cambray, “Rembrandt” L’Artiste (26 November
1843), p. 345.
276 “C’est le soleil, c’est la vie, c’est la réalité; et
cependant, il y a dans cette toile un souffle de
fantaisie, un sourire de poésie merveilleuse.
Il y a cette tête d’homme, contre la muraille,
à droite, coiffé d’un chapeau noir. Des gens,
cependant, n’ont jamais trouvé de noblesse à
Rembrandt! Puis au second plan, dans ces
277
278
279
280
281
282
quatre têtes, il y a cette figure indéfinissable, au
sourire errant sur les lèvres, cette figure coiffée
d’un grand chapeau gris, mélange d’un gentilhomme et d’un pitre de Shakespeare, héros
étrange d’une comédie, de ce que vous
voudrez, et cette espèce de bouffon gnomatique, qui semble glisser à son oreille les paroles
des confidents comiques de Shakespeare...
Shakespeare! Ce nom me revient et je le répète,
car je ne sais quel mariage fait mon esprit entre
cette toile et l’œuvre de Shakespeare.” Edmond
and Jules de Goncourt, Journal, mémoires de la
vie littéraire (Paris, 1954 ed), 9-10 September
1861, p. 956. Earlier, in their journal entry of
5 May 1858, they compared Dürer, Rembrandt,
and Shakespeare as the most intoxicating
figures in art and literature.
George Lafenestre, “Rembrandt van Rijn, 16061669” Revue Bleue (7 October 1893), p. 466.
See Thoré-Bürger, Salon de 1866 (1870), p. 282,
Vosmaer (1868), p. 356, and Willem’s review
of Vosmaer (1 May 1874), p. 352, Coquerel fils
(1869), pp. 1-2, and Gonse (October 1885),
p. 328.
See particularly Houssaye (1846), p. 69, ThoréBürger (1858-60), p. 78, and Taine (1869), pp.
21 and 165.
“Rembrandt, comme Shakespeare, est universel; comme le grand poète anglais, il est
profondément humain, et il a parcouru, comme
lui, toute la gamme des sentiments qui peuvent
agiter une âme.” Émile Michel, Les Artistes
Célèbres: Rembrandt, ouvrage accompagné par 41
gravures (Paris, 1886), p. 104.
Taine (Paris, 1869), p. 165.
Charles Blanc, L’Œuvre de Rembrandt (Paris,
1853), p. 6, Grammaire des arts du dessin: architecture, sculpture, peinture (Paris, 1870), p. 528,
“La Ronde de nuit de Rembrandt gravée par
M. Flameng” Le Temps (3 August 1874), p. 3.
Only two critics, Joséphin Péladan and Planche,
rejected the comparisons their contemporaries
made between Rembrandt and Shakespeare.
Planche did not think they were productive
comparisons and Péladan denied that there
was anything poetic in Rembrandt’s figures of
women because his nudes did not conform to
Péladan’s own expectations of the idealized form.
notes 265-282
319
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
J. Péladan, “Rembrandt” L’Artiste (September
1881), p. 334 and Gustave Planche, “Histoire
de l’art, Rembrandt” L’Artiste (1832), p. 235.
“Il est en effet le plus moderne de tous les
maîtres.” Michel (Paris, 1886), p. 113. “C’est
par elle [Rembrandt’s clair-obscur] qu’aujourd’hui la peinture parle le mieux à l’âme moderne.” Taine (Paris, 1869), p. 66.
“Il appartient tout entier à l’art moderne” Blanc
(Paris, 1853), p. 8. “L’âme moderne” Michelet
(Paris, 1858), p. 456. “Attirent vers lui nos âmes
modernes” Lafenestre (7 October 1893), p. 466.
The following works can not be located and
are not known through reproductions: Léon
Brunin, Rembrandt in his Studio (painting, Salon
1895, #319), Laurent Detouche, Rembrandt at
age twenty-six executing his famous painting The
Anatomy Lesson (painting, Salon 1859, #870),
Hippolyte-Dominique Holfeld, Rembrandt as a
child (painting, Salon of 1842, #961), Stanislas
Lami, Rembrandt (bronze bust, Salon 1896,
#3566), François Lepère, Rembrandt (terra cotta
bust, Salon 1867, #2357), Adolphe-Alexandre
Lesrel, Flemish Lords visiting Rembrandt’s Studio
(painting, Salon 1884, #1529), Victor-Marie
Roussin, Rembrandt’s Studio (painting, Salon
1857, #2346), and Johan Georg Schwartze,
Rembrandt in his last days (painting, Exposition
Universelle 1867, #138).
See Eric M. Zafran, Cavaliers and Cardinals:
Nineteenth-Century French Anecdotal Paintings
(Cincinnati, 1992).
The prevalence of images of artist’s lives was
first discussed by Francis Haskell in “The
Old Masters in Nineteenth-Century French
Painting” Art Quarterly (Spring 1975): 55-85.
Raphael was the most frequently depicted artist,
and Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were
among the most preferred Italian artists; images
of Rubens and Van Dyck were also popular.
Two or three scenes of artists’ lives were exhibited at the Salons between 1804 and 1817, up to
ten a year in the 1820, and as many as twenty
per year through the 1860s. After that there
were approximately four or five exhibited every
year. See Haskell (1971), p. 58.
Bergeret’s painting was published for the first
time by Jacques Foucart in “Préface, Quelques
320
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
réflexions sur les limites et les manques d’une
exposition”, in Les années romantiques: La peinture française de 1815 à 1850. Paris: rmn, 1995,
pp.26-45, see fig.14, p.38.
Mrs. Pat Holmann kindly provided photographs
of this painting.
Meissonier did not exhibit this painting at the
Salon during his lifetime. The etching was
exhibited at the Salon of 1893, the same year as
the painting was displayed at the Georges Petit
Galleries in Paris as part of a retrospective exhibition of Meissonier’s work. I am grateful to
Constance Cain Hungerford for helping me to
locate Alasonière’s print. For a comprehensive
study of Meissonier’s work see Constance Cain
Hungerford, Ernest Meissonier: Master in His
Genre (Cambridge, 1999). This work was not
discussed in the retrospective exhibition on
Meissonier. See Philippe Durey and Constance
Cain Hungerford, Ernest Meissonier, Rétrospective
(Lyons, 1993). Meissonier’s interest in Rembrandt was noted by Marc Gotlieb, The Plight of
Emulation, Ernest Meissonier and French Salon
Painting (Princeton, 1996), pp. 103, 106, and 188.
The other was of Willem van de Velde.
The plaster model for this bust was exhibited
at the Salon of 1852 (#1501) and the bronze
version at the Salon of 1853 (#1465).
Purchased 19 September 1853 for 1,800 francs.
Archives Nationales O1/8975.
Archives du Louvre, series S, 17 March 1855,
request to remove bust for exhibition at
Exposition Universelle.
This narrative was most often repeated by
Arsène Houssaye beginning in the mid-1840s.
See Arsène Houssaye, “Rembrandt” L’Artiste
(6 December 1846), p. 66, Arsène Houssaye,
Histoire de la peinture flamande et hollandaise
(Paris, 1844-47). p. 162 and Théophile Gautier,
Arsène Houssaye, and Paul de Saint-Victor,
Les Dieux et les demi-dieux de la peinture (Paris,
1864), p. 248. The monkey was the subject of
a full-length article and was named Puck in
L.G. Jacques, “Un portrait de famille, eau-forte
de la semaine” Paris à l’eau-forte (6 September
1874), pp. 86-9.
“Pastiche très curieux, mais il faut prendre
garde à ce genre d’exercice. On risque parfois
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
d’y prendre ce qu’on a.” Charles Baudelaire
Salon de 1845.
Flameng’s other scene of Amsterdam is a view
of the Westerkerk with a few unidentifiable figures in the foreground.
Sales catalogues for 1857, 1871, 1884, and 1894
in the Goupil Archives list the following prices:
carte de visite 50 centimes, print on white paper
with letter 30 francs, print on chinese paper
with letter 40 francs, print on chinese before
letter 60 francs, artist’s proof 120 francs.
These were available for 60 francs each.
Bordeaux, Goupil Archives.
This painting is now considered to be “after
Rembrandt” and a copy of a work executed
c.1662, both of which are mentioned in the
inventory of Harmen Becker in Amsterdam,
1678. The original is lost. Arnauld Brejon de
Lavergnée et al., Catalogue sommaire illustré des
peintures du Musée du Louvre, I Ecoles flamande et
hollandaise (Paris, 1979), p. 112.
See Gault St. Germain (Paris, 1841), p. 48,
Cambray (26 November 1843), p. 343, Delacroix (15 September 1850), p. 114, Dumesnil
(Paris, 1850), p. 35, Gautier (15 September
1851), p. 51, Pays (15 January 1859), p. 36,
Anonymous (May 1866), p. 138, Couder (Paris,
1867), pp. 60-1, Vosmaer (The Hague, 1868),
p. 364, Taine (Paris, 1869), p. 67, Blanc (Paris,
1870), p. 598, Blanc (Paris, 1883), p. 14,
Michel, É (Paris, 1886), p. 34 and (May 1890),
p. 430, Müntz (March 1892), p. 206, and Mantz
(1 November 1893), p. 352. Regardless of the
criticisms writers might have had of Rembrandt’s works, they always praise his use of
clair-obscur. René Verbraeken traced the history
of this word from its origins as “chiaroscuro” in
Italian. The term clair-obscur was used in France
as early as the 1660s by the Abbé de Marolles.
René Verbraeken, Clair-obscur,-histoire d’un mot
(Nogent-le-Roi, 1979).
“Rembrandt a tiré de l’eau un noyé: 15 franc de
récompense. En attendant, il profite de l’occasion pour faire poser son mort en lui extorquer
ainsi un séance gratuite.”
Although this painting was not listed in the
official catalogue, Oliver Merson mentioned its
inclusion in the exhibition. See Oliver Merson,
305
306
307
308
309
“Exposition des beaux-arts de Hollande” in Fr.
Ducuing (Ed.), L’Exposition Universelle de 1867,
illustrée. vol. 1. (Paris, n.d.[1867]), p. 194:
“C’est à tort que le livret attribué à M. Bles le
Rembrandt se rendant au theatrum anatomicum.
M. Bisschop est l’auteur de ce tableau dont la
pâte est un peu massive, mais l’effet plein
d’éclat et de vigueur. On avait vu ce cadre
l’année dernière au palais des Champs-Elysées.”
The catalogue for the Salon of 1866 said this
work was then in the Historical Gallery of
Amsterdam.
The earliest known date this work was exhibited
publicly was at the Sedelmeyer Gallery in 1892.
Tableaux anciens et modernes, Paris, Galerie
Sedelmeyer, 25 March 1892, cat.14.
This work is now considered to be “after
Rembrandt.” Bather, Study for Susanna was one
of 275 works from the Lacaze donation that
were exhibited in the Louvre in the Grand
Salle/Salle Royale from its inauguration on
15 March 1870 until 1900. Another 307 works
were distributed to provincial museums. See
Christiane Aulanier, Histoire du Palais et du
Musée du Louvre (Paris, 1968).
This work was acquired through the Napoleonic conquest of Germany in 1806. See Jacques
Foucart, Les Peintures de Rembrandt au Louvre
(Paris, 1982).
This work is currently unlocated. The painting
was reproduced as an example of Gérôme’s
works at the Salons of the 1860s in the exhibition catalogue Jean-Léon Gérôme 1824-1904
(Vesoul, 1981, 18). Paul-Adolphe Rajon made
an engraving after the painting in 1868. I am
grateful to Gerald Ackerman for sharing with
me his views on this painting. See also Gerald
Ackerman, La vie et l’œuvre de Jean-Léon Gérôme
(Paris, 1986), cat.124.
As Gérôme’s father-in-law, Adolphe Goupil
had a vested interest in publishing larger quantities of Gérôme’s œuvre than any other artist
and he was eager to promote Gérôme’s success.
This personal connection my have helped to
make Gérôme’s scene of Rembrandt’s life the
most widely disseminated and best known of all
the images of Rembrandt produced in nineteenth-century France.
notes 282-309
321
310 “C’est le dernier degré de Willem Mieris! Et
quelle étonnante perversion d’aller chercher
Mieris pour peindre Rembrandt!... Pauvre
Rembrandt, traité avec la miévrerie du dernier
des Mieris!” Thoré-Bürger (Paris, 1870), pp.
13-4.
311 Louis Auvray, Salon de 1861 (Paris, 1861), p. 28.
312 Maxime Du Camp, Le Salon de 1861 (Paris,
1861), p. 84.
313 Léon Lagrange, “Salon de 1861” Gazette des
Beaux-Arts. (June 1861), p. 265.
314 Ernest Lacan, “Exposition Photographique”
Le Moniteur de la Photographie (15 July 1861),
p. 65
315 Duc de Morny, Paris, 1-3 June 1865. Other
paintings by Gérôme sold in this period rarely
achieved the same prices: Pifferain à Rome sold
from the Pereire collection 6-9 March 1872 for
17,200 fr, Le Roi Candaule sold for 12,000 fr 9
March 1891, Les Augures sold for 19,950 from
the Santurce collection, London, 25 April 1891.
316 One of the few studies devoted to the etching
revival in nineteenth-century France, Gabriel
P. Weisberg’s exhibition The Etching Renaissance
in France: 1850-1880 revived interest among
North American scholars in the printmaking
tradition in France. Among the most important
issues Weisberg raised was the emphasis placed
by the Société des Aquafortistes on individuality.
Gabriel P. Weisberg, The Etching Renaissance in
France: 1850-1880 (Salt Lake City, 1971).
Janine Bailly-Herzberg’s important study of the
Société des Aquafortistes also made a significant
contribution to our knowledge of the French
etching revival. Janine Bailly-Herzberg, L’eauforte de peintre au dix-neuvième siècle, la Société des
Aquafortistes 1862-67 2 vols. (Paris, 1972). Some
of her research was first presented in “La resurrection de l’eau-forte originale à la fin du XIXe
siècle” Jardin des Arts (February 1968), pp. 2-16.
Her study examines the material in the society’s
yearly volumes, which brought together prints
that had first been published in monthly collections each containing five works. Petra ten
Doesschate Chu’s chapter on etchings in French
Realism and the Dutch Masters offered a significant and broad introduction to the general resonance of Dutch art within the etching revival
322
317
318
319
320
321
in France. Chu notes that next to Rembrandt,
Adriaen van Ostade was the second most
important Dutch etcher for French printmakers.
She also draws connections between Rembrandt
and Charles Jacque, Charles Daubigny, Rodolphe Bresdin, Charles Méryon, Alphonse Legros, and Edgar Degas. Petra ten Doesschate
Chu, French Realism and the Dutch Masters: The
Influence of Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting
on the Development of French Painting between
1830 and 1870 (Utrecht 1974), pp. 65-77. Peter
Samis’ Master’s thesis “The Appropriation of
Rembrandt by the Nineteenth-Century French
Etchers” examines some of the reasons why
Rembrandt was important for artists who
sought to promote etching in France. His
discussion of the role of the Société des Aquafortistes and artists Flameng, Degas, and Lepic
raises several important questions and outlines
some of the ways in which Rembrandt was an
inspiration for French artists. Peter Seth Samis,
“The Appropriation of Rembrandt by the Nineteenth-Century French Etchers” Master’s thesis,
Berkeley, 1988.
There may also have been a significant concurrent but independent aesthetic interest in Rembrandt’s prints among the French landscape
printmakers of Lyons. Of the artists based in
Lyons, Louis-Hector Allemand and Auguste
Thierriat both had sizeable collections of Rembrandt’s prints and Paul de Saint-Victor referred to Jean-Jacques de Boissieu as “Rembrandt
canut.” See Marie-Félice Perez, “De Boissieu à
Appian: l’eau-forte à Lyon au XIXe siècle” Nouvelles de l’Estampe (October 1996), pp. 31-41.
None of these prints are described by Beraldi.
See Magasin pittoresque “Mendiants, par
Rembrandt” (July 1847), pp. 217-8 and “Le
Docteur Faustus” (December 1847), pp. 393-4.
L’Artiste (15 January 1849), p. 164.
These prints were for a long time incorrectly
attributed to Jacque himself.
“J’avais le souvenir surtout d’un petit paysage
de Rembrandt avec cet exergue: Tacet sed
loquitur, qui avait fait tant d’impression sur moi
dans mon enfance.” René Paul Huet, Paul Huet
d’après ses notes, sa correspondance et ses contemporains, documents recueillis par son fils. (Paris, 1911),
322
323
324
325
p. 5. Also noted in Philippe Burty, “Paul Huet”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1 April 1869), p. 299.
Although Huet believed the work was by
Rembrandt it was, in fact, a work by Johannes
Ruyscher engraved by William Baillie in 1760.
See also Maurice Tourneux, “Paul Huet et son
œuvre, d’après des documents inédits” Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (1911), p. 456 and Jacques Foucart, “L’Inspiration Hollandaise” in John Sillevis and Hans Kraan, L’Ecole de Barbizon: un dialogue franco-néerlandais (The Hague, 1985), p. 28.
“Elle parle, mon cher, me disait Rousseau à
demi-voix, cette gravure, l’ombre est vaporeuse
comme un jour d’automne et les figures sont
animées d’un souffle. Celle-là, voyez-vous, je
la paierai dix mille francs s’il me faut, me dit-il,
car ce n’est pas un sacrifice que je ferai, c’est un
placement. Cette gravure me procura, par sa
beauté, le moyen de gagner cent mille francs,
car elle résume tout: le sentiment, l’ordre, la
morale, la lumière et la peinture. Si je la regardais toute une journée, je serais ébloui et presque
épouvanté du génie de Rembrandt... Il ne faut
pas que je sois seul heureux, mon cher. Tenez,
voilà deux petits paysages de Rembrandt, me ditil, je les veux pour vous; je les prendrai en pension pendant quelques mois, et ils seront vôtres
après.” Sensier (Paris, 1872), p. 344. Rousseau
ended up paying 8,000 francs for the print.
“Il aimait passionnément tout ce bric-à-brac
que mit à la mode le monde des ateliers de
Mille huit cent trente: les bahuts, les crédences,
les eaux-fortes de Rembrandt, les gravures
d’après les maîtres du XVIIIe siècle, les vitraux,
les armes.” Philippe Burty, Maîtres et petits
maîtres (Paris, 1877), p. 108. I thank Alexandra
Murphy for drawing my attention to this reference.
“Ce n’est que plus tard que j’ai connu Rembrandt: il ne me repoussait pas, mais m’aveuglait. Je pensais qu’il fallait faire des stations
avant d’entrer dans le génie de cet homme.”
Alfred Sensier, La Vie et l’œuvre de Millet (Paris,
1881), p. 56.
Dutuit vol. 1 (Paris, 1883-86), p. 10. This idea
was first introduced in France by Gersaint who
said that the technique had not been used since
Rembrandt. Gersaint (Paris, 1751), p. xxviii.
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
For a comprehensive study of the medium see
Carol Wax, The Mezzotint: History and
Technique (New York, 1990).
Wax (New York, 1990), p. 15.
Ibid, p. 80.
Ludovic Lepic, “Comment je devins graveur à
l’eau-forte” (Paris, 1876) and Francis Seymour
Haden, L’Œuvre gravé de Rembrandt (Paris,
1880).
“Décidément, l’eau-forte devient à la mode...
Il y a évidemment dans ces faits un symptôme
de valeur croissante. Mais nous ne voudrions
pas affirmer toute-fois que l’eau-forte soit destinée prochainement à une totale popularité.
C’est un genre trop personnel, et conséquemment trop aristocratique, pour enchanter
d’autres personnes que les hommes de lettres
et les artistes, gens très-amoureux de toute personnalité vive. Non-seulement l’eau-forte est
faite pour glorifier l’individualité de l’artiste,
mais il est même impossible à l’artiste de ne pas
inscrire sur la planche son individualité la plus
intime... Parmi les différentes expressions de
l’art plastique, l’eau-forte est celle qui se rapproche le plus de l’expression littéraire et qui
est le mieux faite pour trahir l’homme spontané.
Donc, vive l’eau-forte!” Charles Baudelaire,
“L’eau-forte est à la mode” Revue anecdotique
(April 1862), pp. 170-1.
For an analysis of the status of “reproductive”
engraving see also Stephan Bann Parallel Lines:
Printmakers, Painter and Photograhers in
Nineteenth-Century France (New Haven: 2001).
For a complete history of this institution,
founded in 1797, see Françoise Viatte “La
chalcographie du Louvre d’hier à aujourd’hui”,
Nouvelles de l’Estampe no.148-9 (October 1996),
pp. 43-6.
Elizabeth Anne McCauley, Industrial Madness:
Commercial Photography in Paris 1848-71 (New
Haven, 1994), pp. 270-1.
This letter was written in London to Theo in
The Hague, 19 November 1873, Correspondance
complète de Vincent Van Gogh vol. 1 (Paris, 1960),
p. 20. For insight into Van Gogh’s views of
Rembrandt see Deborah Silverman, Van Gogh
and Gauguin: The Search for Sacred Art. (New
York, 2000), pp. 86, 166-167.
notes 310-333
323
334 For a complete analysis of the successful Braun
company see Christian Kempf, Adolphe Braun
(1812-77) et la photographie (Illkirch, 1994) and
Pierre Tyl, “Adolphe Braun, photographe mulhousien, 1812-77” Master’s thesis, Strasbourg,
1982.
335 For a complete list of the photographs after
Rembrandt’s paintings that were available
through Braun by the end of the nineteenth
century see Catalogue Général des reproductions
inaltérables au charbon d’après les chefs d’œuvre de
la peinture (Paris, 1896).
336 Stephan Bann offers an in-depth analysis of this
print commission in Parallel Lines: Printmakers,
Painters and Photographers in Nineteenth-Century
France (New Haven, 2001), pp.198-211.
337 “Des éditeurs considérables en sont arrivés à
regarder la photographie comme le meilleur
moyen de vulgariser les œuvres d’art. Tout par
la photographie, tout pour la photographie,
semble être le mot d’ordre de ces marchands
qui, ayant jadis répandu dans le public le goût
de la bourgeoisie gravure à la manière noire,
devaient en arriver à cette autre manière noire
mécanique: la Photographie. Frappés de cette
déplorable tendance, les artistes réunirent, et
comme leurs essais avaient déjà marqué, ils
voulurent protester par une publication qui
montrât que l’interprétation de l’artiste par
l’artiste devait se perpétuer, et non l’interprétation de l’artiste par la machine.” Archives nationales F21/123.
338 “D’un seul et même coup, elle ressuscite un art
oublié, pose une limite aux envahissements de
la photographie, ranime l’émulation parmi les
artistes, et élève le goût du public par la vulgarisation de ses œuvres.” (14 November 1862),
Archives nationales F21/123.
339 “La Société des Aquafortistes est une sorte de
protestation contre ce moyen nouveau employé
contre la vulgarisation des œuvres d’art, la
photographie. C’est à proprement parler la
rivale de l’art contre le métier.” Jules Claretie,
“Chronique” Diogène (2 August 1862). See also
Bailly-Herzberg vol. 1 (Paris, 1972), p. 52.
340 “La reproduction matérielle de la nature, si
exacte que soit cette reproduction, est par ellemême impuissante à éveiller en nous l’émotion
324
341
342
343
344
345
poétique qui doit naître de la contemplation
d’une œuvre d’art. Il faut davantage, il faut une
intelligence, il faut un artiste! C’est la gloire de
l’artiste de ne pas reproduire seulement, mais
d’interpréter. Donc, sous peine de froisser l’art
dans un de ses principes les plus susceptibles,
ne séparons jamais la forme de l’idée.” Alcide
Dusolier, “Le maître au lapin” in Ceci n’est pas
un livre (Paris, 1861).
See Édouard Meaume, Recherches sur la vie et les
ouvrages de Jacques Callot (Paris, 1860), Champfleury, “Point de vue particulier sur Callot”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (October 1875), Prosper
du Mast, Jacques Callot (Nancy, 1875), Charles
Guerrart, “Deux livres d’esquisses de Jacques
Callot” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (June 1881),
Marius Vachon, Jacques Callot (Paris, 1886), and
Henri Bouchot, Jacques Callot, sa vie, son œuvre
et ses continuateurs (Paris, 1889). For an analysis
of Callot in the nineteenth century see Martine
Soton, “La Fortune critique de Jacques Callot
au XIX siècle” Mémoire de maîtrise, Université
de Dijon, 1995. I thank Graham Larkin for
bringing the latter study to my attention.
“Seul entre tous les graveurs français, dont
quelques-uns lui sont si supérieurs, le graveur
de Nancy est encore aujourd’hui connu de la
foule.” Henri Delaborde, “La Gravure depuis
son origine jusqu’à nos jours, première partie”
Revue des deux mondes (1 December 1850), p. 929.
“Ministre, la souscription de votre départment
pour le nombre de collections que vous jugerez
convenable et qui, distribuée par Votre Excellence aux établissements artistiques, avec de discernement dont elle a donné déjà tant de preuves, ne manqueront pas de populariser un art
dont tant de chefs-d’œuvre éclos en France
depuis Callot jusqu’à ce jour ont fait, pour ainsi
dire un art national.” (3 September 1862),
“Le ciel, la terre et les bonshommes sont toujours d’admirables modèles. Ressuscitez Callot,
Israël[s] ou Rembrandt.” Martial wrote these
comments in an etched letter to Potémont,
1876. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des
estampes.
“L’art a toujours deux faces antithétiques,
médaille dont, par exemple, un côté accuserait
la ressemblance de Paul Rembrandt et le revers
celle de Jacques Callot. Rembrandt est le philosophe à barbe blanche qui s’encolimaçonne en
son réduit, qui absorbe sa pensée dans la méditation et dans la prière, qui ferme les yeux pour
se recueillir, qui s’entretient avec des esprits de
beauté, de science, de sagesse et d’amour, et qui
se consume à pénétrer les mystérieux symboles
de la nature. Callot, au contraire, est le lansquenet fanfaron et grivoir qui se pavane sur la place,
qui fait du bruit dans la taverne, qui caresse les
filles de bohémiens, qui ne jure que par sa
rapière et par son escopette, et qui n’a d’autre
inquiétude que de cirer sa moustache.” Aloysius
[Louis] Bertrand, Gaspard de la Nuit: Fantaisies
à la manière de Callot et Rembrandt (Paris, 1842)
pp. 23-4. This text was first published twelve
years after the author’s death. The origin of
given name Paul is obscure but was often
attributed to Rembrandt in nineteenth-century
France.
346 J. Lieure, Jacques Callot (Paris, 1927), cats. 479503.
347 “D’autres artistes ont peint des gueux, et dans
le temps même où Rembrandt tenait la pointe,
Étienne La Belle, Callot, Visscher, Jean Miel et
autres représentaient la misère: mais aucun de
ces peintres n’a su prêter à ces sortes de représentations le même intérêt que Rembrandt. Lui
seul y a mis un sentiment profond de pitié, lui
seul a pris les pauvres au sérieux... Les pauvres
de Rembrandt sont des vrais pauvres. La misère
a pénétré jusque dans la moelle de leurs os...
Il a seulement jeté le regard profond et sérieux
d’un maître sur un des aspects de la vie commune, sur une des conditions de l’humanité.”
Charles Blanc, L’Œuvre de Rembrandt reproduit
par la photographie, décrit et commenté (Paris,
1853), cat.148 and L’Œuvre Complet de Rembrandt
décrit et commenté (Paris, 1859-61), cat.148.
348 “Rembrandt, disons-nous, est l’inventeur de
l’eau-forte. Toutefois, quelque vingt ans avant
lui, Jacques Callot avait mis en lumière ce bel art
dans ses compositions innombrables et déjà si
populaires. Mais l’eau-forte, comme l’entendent
les peintres, n’était pas dans le génie français; la
clarté du burin convenait mieux au caractère de
notre école.” Charles Blanc, “De la gravure à
349
350
351
352
353
l’eau-forte et des eaux-fortes de Jacque” Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (February 1861), p. 197.
“Allez à la Bibliothèque, prenez Callot, prenez
Rembrandt. Rapprochement ridicule, direzvous, et vous aurez raison, c’est mettre le sable
et le caillou d’un petit torrent sec, en présence
d’un océan. N’importe, regardez, étudiez, interrogez. Le Français, que dit-il de sa fine pointe,
de son burin microscopique? Il dit ce qu’il a vu
dans sa vie de bohème: la cour, les fêtes et la
famille, les estropiés, les bossus et les gueux, les
ruses de la misère, l’universelle hypocrisie, des
engagements de soldats, des tueries et des
scènes inouïes de pillage, des supplices surtout,
la potence et la corde, les grâces du pendu, ce
sujet éternel où ne tardi pas la gaieté française.
Ah! pauvre peuple gai, que je te voudrais donc
un peu de l’intérieur, du doux foyer aux chaudes
lueurs que j’aperçois chez l’autre, les deux bonheurs de la Hollande, la famille, la libre pensée.
Je ne te souhaite pas même la chaumière hollandaise, si confortable, ni le beau moulin de
Rembrandt... Le marin était libre, le bourgeois
était libre; bien plus, le paysan, ce malheureux
souffre-douleur, sur qui partout alors on
marche et on trépigne. Le paysan, comme en
Hollande il se sentait fort sous la loi! quelle
noble fierté d’homme!” Jules Michelet, Histoire
de France vol. 13 (Paris, 1879), pp. 374-5.
See Dumesnil (Paris, 1850), p. 36, Blanc (Paris,
1853), p. 9, and Péladan (September 1881),
pp. 326-9.
The Boston Public Library is the largest repository of this miscellany, including menus and
cards commissioned by others, which demonstrate the day-to-day working of the Delâtre
atelier. I am grateful to Sinclair Hitchings and
Karen Shafts for their assistance while I conducted research on this material.
This print is also discussed in Peter S. Samis,
“Aemulatio Rembrandi: the 19th-century
printmaker Flameng and his prises/crises de
conscience” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (December
1990), p. 248.
For the identification of this bust as Rembrandt, see also Janine Bailly-Herzberg L’eauforte de peintre au dix-neuvième siècle, la Société des
Aquafortistes 1862-67 vol. 1 (Paris, 1972), p. 176.
notes 334-353
325
354 See Ernest Chesneau, “Albert Dürer” Revue des
deux mondes (1881), Émile Galichon, “École
allemande, Albert Dürer, sa vie et ses œuvres”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (May, July, October 1861)
and Albert Dürer, sa vie et ses œuvres (Paris, 1861),
Jules Janin, “Albert Dürer” Revue de Paris
(1833), pp. 36-60, and Charles Narrey, Albert
Dürer à Venise et dans les Pays-Bas (1866)
reviewed by Édouard de Barthélemy, “Albert
Dürer et Rembrandt van Rijn” L’Artiste (15
December 1866), pp. 58-60. Charles Ephrussi
produced the majority of French studies of
Dürer: Étude sur le triptique d’Albert Dürer dit
le tableau d’autel de Heller (Paris, 1876), Le
Prétendu et trilogie d’Albert Dürer (Paris, 1881),
Un voyage inédit d’Albert Dürer (Paris, 1881),
and Albert Dürer et ses dessins (Paris, 1882).
355 “La plus ancienne eau-forte qui soit à notre
connaissance est le Saint Jérôme gravé par
Albert Dürer en 1512... L’eau-forte n’avait pas
encore pris sa place dans le domaine des arts;
elle ne devait compléter son expression, acquérir sa valeur, sa couleur, qu’au XVIIe siècle;
en un mot, c’est Rembrandt qui en fut le véritable inventeur; c’est lui qui, d’un simple procédé,
fit un art.” Charles Blanc, “De la gravure à
l’eau-forte et des eaux-fortes de Jacque”
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (February 1861), p. 195.
356 “Albert Durer ne l’a essayé que comme au
passage. Elle ne pouvait être son instrument
d’élection. Il lui a demandé à peu près ce qu’il
demandait au bois: des contours puissants.”
Philippe Burty, “Qu’est-ce que la gravure?”
L’eau-forte en 1878 vol. 2 (Paris, 1878), p. 10.
357 “Rembrandt est sans contredit le plus illustre
des peintres graveurs. Il partage, depuis deux
cents ans, avec Albert Dürer, et Marc-Antoine,
l’honneur d’alimenter le grand commerce des
estampes en Europe, d’être collectionné par
un nombre toujours croissant d’amateurs, et
d’avoir fait monter de simples graveurs à des
prix fabuleux, dans les ventes les plus célèbres.”
Charles Blanc, L’Œuvre de Rembrandt reproduit
par la photographie, décrit et commenté (Paris,
1853), p. 5.
358 “C’est Rembrandt! le plus illustre des peintresgraveurs, la personnalité la plus marquante de la
trilogie qu’il formera dans l’histoire avec Albert
326
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
Durer et Marc-Antoine.” Eugène Montrosier,
“L’Expression de la gravure à l’eau-forte” in
L’Eau-Forte en 1876 (Paris, 1875), p. 10.
“A l’inverse des peintres graveurs, Albert Dürer
et Marc Antoine, qui ont été dépassés, Rembrandt est resté sans partage le roi des aquafortistes, et Piranèse seul l’a suivi de près par
ses hallucinations architecturales.” J. Peladan,
“Rembrandt” L’Artiste (September 1881), p. 331.
Gisèle Lambert, “L’Œuvre de Rembrandt dans
la collection du Cabinet des Estampes de la
Bibliothèque Nationale” in Jacqueline and
Maurice Guillaud, Rembrandt: La figuration
humaine (Paris, 1986), pp. 651-8.
I am grateful to Gisèle Lambert for sharing
with me her research-in-progress on acquisitions made in the nineteenth-century and
exchanges of duplicates of Rembrandt’s prints
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
“l’une des plus grandes et des plus belles compositions de Rembrandt.” J. Duchesne, Notice
des estampes exposées à la Bibliothèque Royale
(Paris, 1819), p. xviii, cat.59 and Ibid, 657.
(total 161 prints exhibited) Cornelius Visscher,
Nicolas Berghem, Gerard Endlinck, and Marcantonio Raimondi were better represented
than Rembrandt in the installation of 1819
with, respectively, five, six, six, and eight prints.
By restoration standards today this was clearly
an inappropriate practice and many of the
prints that hung in direct sunlight throughout
the century were destroyed or irreparably damaged. For information concerning subsequent
restoration see Gisèle Lambert and Roger
Séveno “La restauration du fonds Rembrandt
de la Bibliothèque nationale de France”, Nouvelles de L’Estampe no.151 (March 1997), pp. 3741, and no.154-5 (October 1997), pp. 25-31.
“Excepté quatre ou cinq pièces qui, à la rareté
joignent le mérite de la beauté, les autres
gravures les plus rares sont des études ou des
griffonis presque sans mérite, et dont la planche
a été brisée par Rembrandt mécontent de son
travail.” Duchesne (Paris, 1819), pp. 30-1.
J. Duchesne, Notice des estampes exposées à la
Bibliothèque Royale (Paris, 1823) (total 207 prints
exhibited).
The exhibition also included seven Berchems,
367
368
369
370
371
372
nine Dürers (one and then two of his prints
were in earlier exhibitions), nine Piranesis
(there were two previously), and nineteen
Raimondis. Prints after Raphael’s paintings still
dominated the display, with sixty images.
J. Duschene, Notice des estampes exposées à la
Bibliothèque Royale (Paris, 1837), cats.100-17
(total 364 prints exhibited).
J. Duchesne, Description des estampes exposées à la
Bibliothèque Impériale (Paris, 1855) (total 413
prints). There were also twenty-three prints by
Raimondi, seven by Bercham and nine by
Piranesi, five prints after Rubens and sixty-two
prints after Raphael’s paintings. No prints by
Dürer figured in the exposition that year. Callot
was first included in the exhibition of 1837,
with one print, and in 1855 with two prints.
Henri Delaborde, La Département des Estampes
à la Bibliothèque Nationale, notice historique suivie
d’un catalogue des estampes (Paris, 1875).
The Bibliothèque nationale’s example had
been retouched by Antoine de Peters, who was
painter for Christian IV, king of Denmark, and
Prince Charles of Lorraine. Peters reworked
many of the prints in his collection and he
handled the retouching so well that specialists
believed for a long time that Rembrandt himself
had reworked the prints. This Christ Preaching
was believed to be a unique state until it was
scrutinized closely for an exhibition held at the
Bibliothèque nationale in 1908. See Gisèle
Lambert, “L’Œuvre de Rembrandt dans la collection du Cabinet des Estampes de la Bibliothèque Nationale”, in Jacqueline and Maurice
Guillaud, Rembrandt: La figuration humaine
(Paris, 1986), pp. 651-8.
Two collections of manuscripts on reserve in
the Cabinet des estampes preserve a large number of the requests submitted in the second half
of the nineteenth century: Estampes: Autorisations 1852-85 and Autographes, demandes de cartes
1835-1870 2 vols.
“Nous avions projeté, avec Daumier, d’aller
voir ensemble, à la Bibliothèque, l’Œuvre
réservée de Rembrandt, que Daumier ne connaissait pas. Arrivés aux salles, le garçon à qui
nous nous adressions nous mena droit au conservateur en chef qui, ayant mis son binocle
(d’or, je crois), nous demanda nos noms, que je
lui déclinai. Il les écrivit. ‘Avez-vous,’ me dit-il,
‘une lettre de quelqu’un de connu? de quelqu’un
qui vous recommande?’ — ‘Mais, Monsieur,’
lui dis-je, ‘moi, je n’en ai pas; mais mon ami,
qui est là monsieur Daumier, est ma garantie,
puisque je suis avec lui.’ — ‘Je ne vous dis pas,’
fit-il d’un air embarrassé, ‘mais je ne connais
pas Monsieur.’ Tableau! — ‘Comment! mais
Monsieur est le célèbre caricaturiste Daumier
dont vous devez avoir à la Bibliothèque l’Œuvre,
composé de plusieurs milliers de sujets!’ Voyant
l’air ahuri de mon conservateur en chef, je me
donnai l’agrément de lui jeter ceci à la tête: —
‘Et moi, Monsieur, sans être célèbre comme
mon ami, je n’en ai pas moins un Œuvre composé de plus de trois cents eaux-fortes qu’on
m’a dit être ici!’ Le conservateur en chef finit
par dire à l’employé qui venait de nous guider:
‘Enfin, communiquez à ces Messieurs!’ Je suppose que, pendant que, sous l’œil de deux gardiens, nous visitions le Rembrandt réservé, on
s’informa s’il existait un Honoré Daumier et
un Charles Jacque, car, en sortant, personne ne
nous mit le grappin sur le collet.” Excerpts
from this letter were published in Jacque’s posthumous sales catalogue. Catalogue des tableaux,
études peintes, aquarelles, dessins, gravures, objets
d’art et d’ameublement... composant l’atelier Charles
Jacque, (Paris, 12-15 November 1894), pp. 5-6.
373 Jean-François Raffaëlli, “Un musée des estampes au Louvre.” L’Événement (18 November
1884), p. 2 and Auguste Daligny, “Un musée
d’estampes au Louvre, lettre de M. Félix Buhot
à M.J.F. Raffaëlli.” Journal des Arts (21 November 1884), p. 1.
374 “Il faut d’abord adresser une demande écrite au
conservateur. Puis cette demande, il la faut faire
appuyer ensuite par quelque personnage connu,
de préférence par un membre de l’administration des Beaux-Arts. Lorsque enfin votre demande, dûment appuyée, est accueillie, vous
êtes tenu de vous présenter à jour dit, vousmême, en personne, au conservateur, lequel
conservateur, après examen de votre individu,
juge en dernier ressort s’il doit ou non vous
octroyer cette permission et cette faveur.
Auquel cas vous n’aurez plus qu’à signer sur un
notes 354-374
327
375
376
377
378
registre, à signer sur votre carte, et enfin à
attendre les deux jours par semaine pendant
lesquels vous serez autorisé à consulter, à des
heures spéciales, les estampes originales que
voudra bien vous confier le sous-conservateur,
avec lequel vous serrez tout particulièrement
poli. Vraiment la porte du cabinet des affaires
étrangères est plus facile à forcer.”
“Certes je comprends les difficultés et je sais la
valeur artistique et autre de certaines épreuves.
Je sais nombre de pièces de Rembrandt qui
valent une fortune; mais tel tableau au Louvre,
payé 100,000 fr. et dont on n’en peut retrouver
une seconde épreuve, n’offre pas que je sache,
plus de résistance à un malfaiteur, et cependant
on ne le cache pas!”
See the following sales: Blanc 20 March 1860,
Firmin-Didot 16 April-12 May 1877, Danlos
and Delisle 26-29 May 1874, Clément 17
January 1870, Delessert 14-17 April 1869, His
de la Salle 21 April 1856 and 10-12 January
1881, Desperet 7-10, 12-13 June 1865, Gigoux
3-8, 10 March 1873, Rousseau 27-30 April
1868, Vollon 20-23 May 1901, Thiers 7-10
March 1864, Thibaudeau 18-23 May 1857 and
Galichon 10 May 1876. Bonnat’s purchases are
listed on microfilm 14, cabinet des dessins,
Musée du Louvre, and are now at the Musée
Bonnat, Bayonne. See also Petit Palais, Dutuit
Collection Rembrandt, eaux-fortes (Paris, 1986)
and Suzanne Coblentz, “La collection d’estampes Edmond de Rothschild” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Paris, 1947.
“Il faut dire que l’entrée de plusieurs de ces
galeries est assez difficile, ou, du moins, qu’elle
exige des lettres, des références, comme disent
les Anglais, des démarches contournées, et presque des intrigues diplomatiques: relations personnelles, recommandations indirectes, de l’obstination et beaucoup de temps.” Thoré-Bürger,
“Les Collections particulières” in Paris Guide,
par les principaux écrivains et artistes de la France,
première partie la Science, l’Art vol. 1 (Paris,
1868), p. 536.
None of Rembrandt’s extant copper plates were
in the collection of the Bibliothèque nationale
until 1993 when it acquired two plates from a
London sale, Baptism of the Eunuch and Female
328
379
380
381
382
Nude with Feet in Water. For the early history of
Rembrandt’s copper plates and their dispersal
in the twentieth century see Erik Hinterding,
The Fortunes of Rembrandt’s copper plates Trans.
Patricia Wardle. Amsterdam: Lakerveld, 1993.
See also Hinterding, The History of Rembrandt’s
copperplates with a catalogue of those that survive
Zwolle, Waanders Uitgevers, 1995; originally
published in Simiolus vol. 22, 4 (1993-4), pp.
253-315. See also Carolyn W. MacHardy,
“The Rembrandt Plates and Donald Shaw MacLaughlan”, Print Quarterly (March 1993): 4753, Karen F. Jones, “An Album of Rembrandt
Restrikes”, The Quarterly Journal of the Library
of Congress vol. 24 (1967), pp. 27-30, and Walter
L. Strauss “The Puzzle of Rembrandt’s Plates”,
in A.M. Logan (Ed.), Essays in Northern Art
Presented to Egbert Haverkamp-Begeman on his
Sixtieth Birthday (Doornspijk, 1983), pp. 261-7.
For additional information on the fate of the
Hundred Guilder Print plate see Nicholas Stogdon, “Captain Baillie and The Hundred Guilder
Print”, Print Quarterly vol. 13 no.1 (March
1996):53-6.
Rymbranesques, ou Essais de gravures par C.H.
Watelet, de l’Académie Française et honoraire
amateur de l’Académie Royale de Peinture et de
Sculpture (Paris, 1785).
Hinterding persuasively argues that this plate
should no longer be attributed to Watelet.
Hinterding, Simiolus (1993-94), p. 266, fn. 68.
Pierre-François Basan, Recueil de quatre-vingtcinq Estampes originales, Têtes, Paysages et différens sujets, dessinées et gravées par Rembrandt...
(Paris, 1789-97).
“En 1861, il [Clément] débuta à l’hôtel Drouot
par la vente Arosarena. Ce fut un véritable
événement. Quelques estampes de Rembrandt
s’élevèrent à des prix inconnus jusque-là:
les Trois croix furent achetées 1,860 fr. par M.
Firmin Didot (qui les revendit plus tard 11,000
fr. à M. Edmond de Rothschild) et un superbe
épreuve de la Pièce aux cent florins atteignit
3,120 fr., somme bien dépassé six ans après à
la vente Harrach... où Théodore Rousseau
n’hésita pas à aller jusqu’à 8,000 francs pour le
premier état décrit par Bartsch.” Anonymous,
“La vie artistique et la curiosité, Charles
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
Clément, marchand d’estampes de la Bibliothèque nationale.” Le Temps (27 January 1886),
p. 2.
Eugène Dutuit, Manuel de l’amateur d’estampes:
école flamande et hollandaise vol. 5 (Paris, 188185), p. 565.
Dutuit vol. 5 (Paris, 1881-85), p. 566.
“L’eau-forte est un croquis spirituel et fin, qui
exprime d’autant mieux l’esprit du peintre, que
la pointe, par son jeu extrêmement libre, peut
en badinant, c’est à dire sans efforts et sans
labeur, représenter sur métal l’idée capricieuse
qui vient s’offrir à son génie.” Pierre Deleschamps, Des mordans, des vernis et des planches
dans l’art du graveur, ou traité complet de la gravure (Paris, 1836), pp. 98-9.
Jules Renouvier, Des types et des manières des
maîtres graveurs pour servir à l’histoire de la gravure, en Italie, en Allemagne, dans les Pays-Bas et
en France. (Montpellier, 1853), p. 81.
“Mûre pour un art qui n’eut rien à emprunter
au dépôt classique de la vieille Italie.”
Renouvier p.36
“Ni un idéaliste, ni un éclectique, c’est un
artiste fantasque et vrai, dont l’œil de lynx voit
l’humanité dans sa plus saisissante réalité à Amsterdam.” Renouvier (Montpellier, 1853), p. 38.
“N’a rendu que la vérité et la vivacité de la vie”
Renouvier (Montpellier, 1853), p. 41.
“Une liberté toute féconde. Il réagit contre les
théories et les exemples venus de Rome...
Inspiré de son temps et retrempé dans la nature,
à l’égal des plus grands artistes, il eut un don
unique: il fait sublime dans l’ignoble.” Renouvier (Montpellier, 1853), p. 42.
“Principaux peintres-graveurs de diverses écoles
qui ont illustré l’art de la gravure à l’eau-forte.”
Maxime Lalanne, Traité de la gravure à l’eauforte (Paris, 1866), p. 99.
“Il comprendra que l’eau-forte a cela d’essentiellement vital, c’est là la force de son passé et
la garantie de son avenir, que, plus que tout
autre genre de gravure sur le métal, elle porte
l’empreinte du caractère de l’artiste. Elle le personifie et le représente si bien, elle s’identifie
396
397
398
399
400
tellement avec son idée, qu’elle semble souvent
amenée à s’annihiler comme procédé en faveur
de cette idée même. Rembrandt en a donné une
preuve frappante.” Lalanne, (Paris, 1866), pp.
9-10.
“Rembrandt a souvent procédé de la sorte; en
suivant les états successifs de ses planches, on se
rend compte des reprises de ses travaux; on voit
qu’il s’attachait à travailler extrêmement une
partie quelconque de son sujet sans toucher aux
autres; il en tirait une épreuve; puis il revenait
sur cette même partie avec des travaux plus fins,
et passait à d’autres plans qu’il travaillait suivant
l’effet qui le préoccupait.” Lalanne (Paris, 1866),
p. 68.
“Il serait très avantageux que chaque artiste pût
tirer ses épreuves lui-même. Rembrandt en est
le plus illustre exemple, puisque de sa main sont
sorties bien des notions que l’on utilise aujourd’hui.” Lalanne (Paris, 1866), p. 85.
A.P. Martial, Nouveau traité de la gravure à
l’eau-forte (Paris, 1873).
Théophile Gautier, “Un mot sur l’eau-forte”
Pref. to Martial’s Nouveau traité de la gravure à
l’eau-forte.
“Et bien! la conquête est faite! L’eau-forte,
presque abandonnée depuis le dix-huitième
siècle, est redevenue une des expressions de l’art
français... Et savez-vous ce qui avait fait délaisser l’eau-forte? C’était le noble esthétique,
censée grecque et romaine, qui recommandait –
commandait – le ‘grand style et le grand art.’
L’art facile, comme la littérature facile, étaient
proscrits, en ce temps-là. L’inspiration n’était
rien, à côté de la patience. Les trois cent soixante eaux-fortes de Rembrandt ne comtaient
pas à côté d’une gravure de quelque académicien. ‘Les eaux-fortes dit le Dictionnaire Bescherelle, sont pour les collections d’estampes ce
que sont les ébauches pour les collections de
tableaux.’ Mais peut-être qu’il n’y a point de
‘grand art’ et de petit art. Peut-être que la
Pièce aux cent florins de Rembrandt est de l’art
au même titre qu’une superbe gravure de MarcAntoine d’après Raphaël. Le musée d’Amsterdam a refusé mille guinées de son épreuve du
portrait de Jan Six par Rembrandt; quelle
épreuve de gravure a jamais atteint ce prix-là?”
notes 375-400
329
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
Thoré-Bürger, “Un mot sur l’eau-forte”
Preface to Martial’s Nouveau traité de la gravure
à l’eau-forte.
“On ne saurait enfermer dans une seule époque
un homme né après la première efflorescence
du XVIe siècle, appartenant par la date (16061674) au XVIIe, et se rattachant par son influence à notre époque même qui le comprend,
l’interprète, et lui empruntera une conception
nouvelle de l’art.” Saint-Arroman (Paris, 1876),
p. 29.
“On étudie, on pénètre, on sent l’œuvre de
Rembrandt avec tant de puissance que c’est
lui-même en quelque sorte qui dirige le combat
actuel.” Saint-Arroman (Paris, 1876), p. 44.
“Quelle différence pour eux entre l’ouvrier
graveur qui copie, et qui se heurte immédiatement à la sécheresse du cuivre, – et l’homme
qui esquisse, d’un coup direct et définitif, sur
une substance obéissante et souple, la figure
qu’il veut créer!” Raoul de Saint-Arroman,
La gravure à l’eau-forte (Paris, 1876), p. 15.
“Si l’art que nous étudions avait à ce moment
ses lettres de noblesse, il n’avait pas toute sa
valeur réelle. Il n’avait pas encore atteint cette
suprême allure que lui donne la liberté. Mais on
était sur la route... Ce fut Rembrandt qui lui
donna sa splendeur au XVIIe siècle. Il la para de
tous ses charmes, il la colora mystérieusement,
et en l’inondant de poésie, il la fit entrer dans
une nouvelle vie. Rembrandt lui apporte l’ombre et la lumière.” Raoul de Saint-Arroman
(1876), pp. 27-8.
Frédéric Villot, “De la gravure à l’eau-forte”
L’Artiste (1834), p. 302.
Charles Blanc, “Janus Lutma” L’Artiste (1839),
p. 179.
Edme François Gersaint, Catalogue raisonné de
toutes les pièces qui forment l’œuvre de Rembrandt.
Updated and Augmented by Helle & Glomy
(Paris, 1751). Although the subject groups are
broader, Gersaint’s format remains the standard
and can be seen in Christopher White’s authoritative Rembrandt as an Etcher: A Study of the
Artist at Work (New Haven, 1999 2nd ed.).
Pierre Yver published a supplement to Gersaint’s catalogue in 1756 and it was republished
again by J.J. Claussin in 1824, with another
330
408
409
410
411
supplement following in 1828. Pierre Yver,
Supplément au catalogue raisonné de M.M. Gersaint, Helle & Glomy de toutes les pièces qui forment
l’œuvre de Rembrandt. (Amsterdam, 1756).
There were a few catalogues published in other
countries, including Yver’s supplement and
studies by Amadé de Burgy, published in the
Hague in 1755, and another by Bartsch, published in Vienna in 1797. Amadé de Burgy
Catalogue de l’incomparable et la seule complete
collection des estampes de Rembrandt. (The Hague,
1755). Adam von Bartsch, Catalogue raisonné de
toutes les estampes qui forment l’œuvre de Rembrandt et ceux de ses principaux imitateurs composé
par les sieurs Gersaint, Helle, Glomy et P. Yver. 2
vol. in 1 (Vienna, 1797). In 1824, Ignace-Joseph
de Claussin wrote a catalogue of Rembrandt’s
prints which was an unacknowledged variation
of Bartsch’s work. Thomas Wilson also published a catalogue of his own collection, which
included many of Rembrandt’s prints, in 1835.
Thomas Wilson, A Descriptive Catalogue of the
prints of Rembrandt, by an amateur (London,
1835).
In his significant study of French printmaking,
Michel Melot suggested that the notion of a
painter-printmaker came into being in France
in the 1870s and developed in the 1880s. See
Michel Melot, The Impressionist Print (New
Haven, 1996), p. 118. Christopher White noted
that Bartsch described Rembrandt’s dual activity
as “peintres-graveurs” in his catalogue of 1797.
See Christopher White “Rembrandt as an
Etcher”, in Albert Blankert et al, Rembrandt:
A Genius and His Impact. (Zwolle, 1997), p. 382.
It is certainly possible to trace the currency of
the concept of the painter-printmaker in France
to as early as the 1840s and artists from the
Barbizon school. It was a widespread practice
by the time the Société des Aquafortistes was
founded in 1862.
Charles Blanc, “Janus Lutma” L’Artiste (1839),
pp. 179-81.
Blanc said he had to limit the scope of his study
because he estimated it would cost over 300,000
francs to reproduce all the etchings.
Gersaint had divided his catalogue into twelve
parts: 1) Self-portraits, 2) Old Testament
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
subjects, 3) New Testament subjects, 4) other
religious subjects, 5) allegorical, historical or
fantasy subjects, 6) beggars, 7) academic figures,
8) landscapes, 9) male portraits, 10) fantastic
heads of men, 11) female portraits, 12) studies
of heads and scribbles. Blanc shuffled these
into six categories: 1) the Bible: Old and New
Testament, religious subjects, 2) allegories,
subjects taken from poetry, studies of morals,
caprices, 3) beggars, 4) “les sujets libres”, nudes,
and academic figures, 5) portraits, 6) landscapes
and animals. Unlike Gersaint, Blanc put what
he called etched “scribbles”, meaning incomplete studies, into their appropriate subject
category.
Blanc vol. 1 (1873), p. vi.
Blanc (1870), pp. 682-3.
Blanc summarized the contents of the inventory
in an article in a daily newspaper in 1876. See
“Lettres de hollande, visite à Rubens et à Rembrandt, Amsterdam, septembre 1876” Le Temps
(11 October 1876), p. 3.
Blanc L’Artiste (1834), 180.
“Auguste Delâtre, qui fut formé par Charles
Jacque et qui, le premier, étudia les impressions
de Rembrandt: il fut le rénovateur de l’impression.” Henri Beraldi, Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle,
guide de l’amateur d’estampes modernes vol. 5
(Paris, 1885-92), p. 173.
The text was available both through the July
edition of the Gazette des Beaux-Arts and as an
individual publication.
Henry Middleton held the same views as Blanc
and two catalogues were produced for the 1877
exhibition.
Dutuit vol. 1 (1883-86), p. 9.
The chronological approach was more popular
in England and was used again in 1896 in an
exhibition at the British Museum. Although
Dutuit returned to Blanc’s classification by subject, he looked back to Gersaint’s twelve-part
structure.
“Mais ce nom de Rembrandt suffit. Nous avons
essayé de donner une idée d’un pareil homme
dans la notice de sa vie, nous n’avons rien à y
ajouter.” Eugène Dutuit, Manuel de l’amateur
d’estampes: école flamande et hollandaise (Paris,
1881-85), p. i.
422 Louis Gonse, “L’Œuvre de Rembrandt, 2e et
dernier article” Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(December 1885), pp. 507-8.
423 “Un seul homme aurait pu tout trancher, et,
possédant toutes les connaissances générales
et particulières désirable, ainsi que l’expérience
consommée de l’eau-forte, nous donner le catalogue définitif de l’œuvre gravé de Rembrandt.
Malheureusement cet homme est mort. C’était
Rembrandt.” Beraldi, Les Graveurs du XIXe
siècle vol. 8 (Paris, 1885-92), pp. 22-3, fn1.
424 Beraldi, Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle vol. 6 (Paris,
1885-92), p. 113.
425 Paris, 20 March 1860.
426 Sir Francis Seymour Haden, The Etched Work
of Rembrandt: True and False (London, 1895),
pp. 6-7.
427 “C’est là le secret, je n’en doute pas, de la
liberté qui distingue les traits de Rembrandt.”
Philippe Burty, Études à l’eau-forte, par Francis
Seymour Haden (Paris, 1866), p. 14.
428 Burty (Paris, 1866), cat.32.
429 Richard Schneiderman, A Catalogue Raisonné of
the Prints of Sir Seymour Haden (London, 1983),
p. 121. He also noted a further precedent for
Haden’s iconography in the final plate of
Piranesi’s Carceri d’Invenzione.
430 Quoted by S.R. Koehler in “The Works of
American Etchers”, American Art Review
(November 1879), p. 5. See also Rosemarie
L. Tovell, A New Class of Art: The Artist’s Print
in Canadian Art, 1877-1920. (Ottawa, 1996),
p. 26-7.
431 Blanc (Paris, 1853), p. 3.
432 “Qui donc lui a appris à graver?” ThoréBürger, “Généalogie de Rembrandt” L’Artiste
(18 July 1858), p. 163.
433 Jules Claretie, L’Eau-forte en 1880 (Paris, 1880),
p. 6 and Abraham Bosse, Traité des manières de
graver en taille douce (Tours, 1645).
434 Émile Michel, “La Jeunesse de Rembrandt,
2e article” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (May 1890),
p. 435.
435 Blanc Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1861), p. 194.
436 Claretie (1880), p. 6.
437 “L’eau-forte est le caprice, la fantaisie, le moyen
le plus prompt de rendre sa pensée.” Alfred
Cadart (1862) Archives nationales F21/123.
notes 400-437
331
438 Burty (November 1873), p. 331. “L’Eau-forte,
libre et spontanée, échappant à l’enseignement
administratif, maintient bien plus qu’on peut
croire la sincérité d’une Ecole.
439 See also Pierre-Oliva Fanica, Charles Jacque
1813-1894, Graveur original et peintre animalier
(Paris, 1995), pp. 132-3.
440 The pamphlet Cadart published advertising the
Société des Aquafortistes’ publication in the
mid-1860s stated “Depuis quelques années un
groupe de jeunes artistes s’était tourné vers
l’eau-forte, comme offrant le moyen le plus vif
et le plus spontané de rendre la pensée... Sans
être une école, non plus qu’une académie, la
Société des Aquafortiste, qui s’est constituée
sans président ni patronage, montrant par là
son amour pour l’indépendance, n’en relève pas
moins de status particuliers, dont un article seul
a besoin d’être connu du public.” Archives
nationales F21/123.
441 Cadart wrote in a letter to Comte Walewski,
minister of the Fine Arts, 3 September 1862:
“Elle (la société) a fait appel à tous ceux qui se
livrent à la pratique de la gravure à l’eau-forte,
et a déjà autour d’elle des talents qui cherchent
la vérité dans l’art par des moyens très différents. Elle tient avant tout à donner au même
titre qu’une exposition officielle d’œuvres d’art,
le résumé sincère de la peinture contemporaine.”
442 Letters from Cadart to the department of the
ministry of Fine Arts in the 1860s demonstrate
that he successfully convinced the ministry to
order between 50 and 100 examples of the annual publication. Archives nationales F21/123.
443 “Cette Société n’a d’autre code que l’individualisme. Chacun doit inventer et graver lui-même
le sujet qu’il apporte à l’œuvre collective. Aucun
genre ne prévaut, aucune manière n’est recommandée; on est libre de montrer toute l’originalité qu’on a, et personne ne s’en fait faute.”
Théophile Gautier, “Un Mot sur l’eau-forte”,
in Bailly-Herzberg, L’eau-forte de peintre au
dix-neuvième siècle, la Société des Aquafortistes
1862-67 2 vols. (Paris, 1972), p. 267.
444 “Avec ses ressources, en apparence si bornées,
elle a su fournir à Rembrandt les lumières tremblotantes, les pénombres mystérieuses et les
332
445
446
447
448
449
noirs profonds dont il avait besoin pour ses
philosophes et ses alchimistes cherchant le
microcosme; pour ses synagogues d’architecture
salomonique, ses Christs ressuscitant des morts,
ses paysages traversés d’ombres et de rayons,
et toutes les fantasmagories de son imagination
songeuse, puissante et bizarre. Sa palette, si
riche pourtant, ne lui a pas donné une gamme
d’effets plus étendue.” Théophile Gautier, “Un
Mot sur l’eau-forte” Société des Aquafortistes,
Preface to first year (Paris, August 1863).
“Pourtant Rembrandt en a tiré des effets magiques et prestigieux, et les moindres bavochures,
dont il a égratigné le cuivre, se vendent à prix
d’or.” Théophile Gautier, “Revue dramatique”
Moniteur (27 October 1862). See also BaillyHerzberg (Paris, 1972), p. 89.
“On admirait bien dans les ateliers les chefsd’œuvre du plus étonnant des aquafortistes —
de Rembrandt. On y accrochait contre les murs
quelques pièces d’Ostade et P. Potter ou de
Van Dyck et de Fyt, ou de Claude et de Callot,
ou même de Goya.” Thoré-Bürger, Société des
Aquafortistes, Preface to third year (Paris, 1865).
“la Société [d’]aquafortiste s’est instituée...
pour continuer la tradition illustre de Rembrandt, d’Albert Durer, de Canaletto, de
Rubens, de van Dyck, de Watteau, de Ribera,
de Boucher, de Fragonard, de Goya, d’Ingres,
de Delacroix, qui tous ont confié à l’eau-forte
leurs caprices les plus délicats et leurs plus
intimes aspirations.” Théodore de Banville,
“Société des Aquafortistes” L’Union des Arts
(1 October 1864). See also Bailly-Herzberg
(Paris, 1972), p. 129.
“De là cette vibration de la vie, ce heurt des
lumières et des ombres, cette magie des reflets,
cette gradation des lointains, qui font des eauxfortes de Rembrandt — pour prendre celui dont
le génie et la main résument tout dans cet art —
des tableaux si émouvants, si infiniment changeants.” Philippe Burty, “L’Eau-forte moderne
en France” in L’Eau-forte en 1874 (Paris, 1874),
pp. 5-13. First published in La Renaissance littéraire et artistique (November 1873), pp. 321-3,
and 330-1. See p. 322.
For information on Burty’s personal art collection and the impact of his writings on
Impressionism and Japonisme see Gabriel P.
Weisberg, The Independent Critic: Philippe Burty
and the Visual Arts of Mid-Nineteenth Century
France (New York, 1993). Weisberg notes
that Léon Gambetta chose Burty as editor of
La République Française because of his stand on
individuality and liberty (p. 145). Aspects of this
study appeared earlier in Weisberg’s article
“Philippe Burty: A Notable Critic of the Nineteenth Century” Apollo (April 1970): 296-300.
See also Ségolène Le Men, “Printmaking as
metaphor for translation: Philippe Burty and
the Gazette des Beaux-Arts in the Second
Empire” in Michael R. Orwicz (Ed.), Art
Criticism and its Institutions in NineteenthCentury France (New York, 1994), pp. 88-108.
450 Philippe Burty, “La Belle épreuve” L’Eau-forte
en 1875 (Paris, 1875), pp. 7-13. Burty wrote this
article in November 1874 and excerpts were
first published in Paris à l’eau-forte (20 December 1874), pp. 9-11.
451 “Il est le temps de donner au public la raison,
non pas de la valeur accordée à un ensemble
d’œuvres que le mérite d’un maître rend toujours intéressantes, mais du prix bien plus élevé
attaché parfois à certaines de ces œuvres.
Lorsque la rareté ne détermine pas cette hausse
de prix, la raison en est dans ‘la belle épreuve’.
La beauté de l’épreuve, due à un ensemble de
circonstances que nous allons expliquer, classe
à part le sentiment de l’artiste qui l’a conçue,
l’habileté de l’imprimeur qui l’a fait naître, le
goût de l’amateur qui la distingue et la choisi.”
Burty (20 September 1874), pp. 7-8.
452 “Singulier dans tout, Rembrandt, le seul ou à
bien peu près parmi les Hollandais, a employé
ce papier du Japon, qui est épais comme le
velours, miroitant comme le satin, du ton
ambré d’un fragment du Paros antique, et qui
fait paraître l’épreuve comme perpétuellement
caressée et réchauffée par un rayon de soleil.
Rembrandt tenait ces feuilles de quelque
capitaine ou de quelque négociant hollandais,
revenus de Désima ou de Kioto. Il en était
chiche. Il les réservait pour les portraits d’amis,
pour ces grands pièces qui exigent des noirs
soutenus et nuancés, en opposition avec des
lumières larges et des détails francs. C’est sur ce
papier qu’est tirée la superbe épreuve du Jésus
guérissant les malades, qui a été récemment si
fidèlement copiée.” Burty (20 September 1874),
p. 10. Gersaint was the first French writer to
mention that most of the first proofs of Rembrandt’s prints were executed on Asian paper,
identified as Chinese by Gersaint. Gersaint
(Paris, 1751), p. xxxi.
453 “Rembrandt imprimait lui-même. Nous n’en
saurions douter depuis que le docteur Scheltema,
le savant archiviste d’Amsterdam, a retrouvé
dans les archives de cette ville et a publié
l’inventaire de tout ce qui fut constaté dans la
maison de Rembrandt, lorsqu’elle fut saisie,
en 1656, pour être vendue par la Chambre des
Insolvables. On y rencontre semé ça et là tout
l’attirail de graveur-imprimeur. ‘Dans le cabinet, derrière l’antichambre: une petite table en
bois de chêne, quatre abat-jours; une presse en
bois de chêne. Dans la chambre de derrière ou
le salon: une presse en bois jaune marbré; une
petite armoire en bois jaune marbré.’... Et ce
style d’huissier priseur suffit seul encore à nous
faire voir le maître, courbé dans le demi-jour
de ‘la chambre de derrière.’ Encrant son cuivre
avec les soins attentifs d’un bon ouvrier, choisissant une feuille ‘du plus grand format’ et
tournant le moulinet de sa ‘presse en bois jaune
marbré’.” Burty (Paris, 1875), pp. 9-10.
454 “Dès cette époque [speaking of 16 years ago
when he first started prints], j’avais été frappé
de ce qu’il y avait de faux dans la gravure moderne et de la double cause qui menaçait de la
faire dévier dans ses progrès mêmes, en la poussant dans une route mauvaise: — d’une part,
elle devenait d’autant plus sèche qu’elle était
plus finie; de l’autre, elle rejetait ou répudiait,
avec une légèreté extraordinaire, l’art même
des maîtres, l’art de Rembrandt, chez qui l’on
trouve de si puissants effets; elle les répudiait,
dis-je, en refusant d’employer l’encre d’imprimerie, qui permet seule de les obtenir.” Comte
Lepic, “Comment je devins graveur à l’eauforte” in Raoul de Saint-Arroman, La Gravure
à l’eau-forte (Paris, 1876), p. 91.
455 “Mais le véritable créateur du genre de l’eauforte, celui-qui en a fait un art égal à la peinture
ce fut Rembrandt. Que ce maître prodigieux
notes 438-455
333
emploie la pointe, l’eau-forte ou le burin, c’est
le genie même de la gravure qui conduit sa
main. Rembrandt a montré une création nouvelle dans chacune de ses gravures. Il faudrait
les examiner une à une, pour les étudier comme
elles le méritent. La poursuite de la perfection
n’est pas interrompue chez le maître lorsque sa
planche est terminée. Il imprime lui-même, et
par ce moyen il ajoute à l’effet qu’il avait
d’abord réalisé par la gravure. L’imprimeur
chez Rembrandt est encore le peintre.” Félix
Bracquemond, “Exposition Universelle: La Gravure, I, II” Le Rappel (16 September 1878), p. 3.
456 “Avant de terminer, il me paraît utile d’insister
sur une point qui est devenu d’assez haute
importance dans la gravure. La plupart des
graveurs à l’eau-forte s’en remettent trop ouvertement à l’habileté des imprimeurs en estampes pour ajouter à l’effet, et aussi pour corriger
ou dissimuler les imperfections de leurs planches. Les expédients du tirage de l’épreuve viennent ainsi en aide à l’insuffisance des travaux de
l’artiste; mais ces ressources, naturellement
limitées, ne supléent pas aux négligences du
gravure. Les imprimeurs en estampes ne donnent à ces travaux comme complément de la
coloration qui leur manque, que des tons sombres, une espèce de manière noire générale.
Qu’on ne me cite pas — je l’ai cité moi-même
— l’exemple de Rembrandt, qui imprimait ses
planches lui-même. Le graveur qui imprime
les estampes sorties de sa main continue son
œuvre. Il est le maître du choix des procédés.
Tout autre est le cas du graveur qui, selon
l’usage et d’après la règle générale, remet sa
planche à l’imprimeur pour en tirer des épreuves. L’artiste ne doit pas compter sur d’autres
que lui-même. Tous les tons du tableau gravé
doivent être sur le métal, et il y a défaillance à
réclamer de l’imprimeur cet achèvement que
l’artiste sait, peut et doit leur donner.” Félix
Bracquemond, “Exposition Universelle: La
Gravure, IV” Le Rappel (12 October 1878), p. 3.
457 “Avec la collaboration d’Auguste Delâtre,
l’incomparable imprimeur d’épreuves d’essait,
Bracquemond avait donné à la belle épreuve
moderne son caractère spéciale. La morsure
savamment graduée et presque toujours pro-
334
458
459
460
461
462
fonde de ses tailles devait déposer des épaisseurs
d’encre puissantes et des gris riches. Mais le
premier chez nous (Rembrandt à peu près seul
dans le passé l’a eu aussi) il avait eu le goût des
papiers parfaits, savoureux pour les yeux comme
un fruit mur à point pour le palais.” Philippe
Burty, “Silhouette d’Artistes contemporains,
le peintre et graveur Félix Bracquemond”
L’Art (1878).
“A Delâtre. S’il eut vécu dans le temps de
Rembrandt, celui-ci certainement l’eut employé
à tirer ses eaux-fortes.” Haden wrote this dedicatory inscription to Delâtre in a copy of his
L’Œuvre gravé de Rembrandt, which Burty published in France (Paris, 1880). Delâtre recounted this story in an autobiographical letter he
wrote at the end of his life. I thank Janine
Bailly-Herzberg who gave the original letter to
me; I subsequently donated it to the Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes. See also
Beraldi, Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle vol. 5 (Paris,
1885-92), p. 169.
In Katherine Lochnan’s important study The
Etchings of James McNeill Whistler, she assigns
this role to Delâtre. See Lochnan (1984), p. 55.
Three editions of Hamerton’s book were published in London in 1868, 1876, and 1880.
“J’en suis fâché, fait Guérard en entrant, mais je
ne vous apporte pas les plaques que je vous ai
promises... Parce que j’ai lu l’article de P. Burty
sur ‘la Belle Épreuve,’ et que je ne veux pas
qu’on me fasse de passe-droit.” “Les procédés
de Guérard” Paris à l’eau-forte vol. 6 (27 Dec
1874), pp. 19-20.
“La Belle épreuve est d’abord celle que tire
l’artiste lui-même et qui satisfait à l’impression
qu’il a voulu produire, et ensuite celle qui fait
partie des premiers tirages soignés d’une plaque
terminée. Les épreuves antérieures des différentes états par lesquels passe un cuivre, pendant
sa gravure, ne sont que des essais, des tâtonnements, et n’ont qu’un intérêt d’étude et de
rareté. Quelle que soit l’habileté d’un imprimeur, il faut donc établir en fait qu’il n’arrivera jamais aux résultats qu’obtiendra l’auteur
d’une graveur. Tous deux se serviront des
mêmes agents, mais l’artiste aura de plus le
sentiment créateur qui a dirigé sa main et sa
pensée... Rembrandt ne procédait pas autrement: il tirait ses Eaux-fortes lui-même, et je
crois qu’on ne peut que gagner à suivre l’exemple d’un tel maître. La moindre de ses épreuves
me paraît préférable aux meilleures épreuves
des imprimeurs les plus renommés.” Henri
Guérard, “Notes relatives à la question de
la Belle épreuve” Paris à l’eau-forte vol. 6
(3 January 1875), pp. 25-6.
463 “On peut blâmer que les graveurs subalternes,
qui comptent sur la dextérité, l’expérience et le
goût de l’imprimeur pour tirer quelque chose
de planches médiocres, et qui partent de ce
principe que Rembrandt ayant cuisinés ses
épreuves, en cuisinant on est Rembrandt.”
Beraldi, Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle vol. 5
(Paris, 1885-92), p. 174.
464 “Le Victor Hugo n’est pas encore mordu. J’y
travaille en ce moment et cela me semble marcher, mais c’est précisement cette heure mystèrieuse de la morsure que je redoute. Si j’avais
une image de Rembrandt dans mon chambre je
lui allumerais un cierge.” Undated letter from
Félix Buhot to Philippe Burty, Bibliothèque
d’art et d’archéologie, Fondation Jacques Doucet, manuscripts, microfilm BIII, pp. 1956-7.
465 “Qui poussa Rembrandt à se livrer à l’eau-forte,
à faire établir plusieurs presses dans sa maison,
à recueillir ces feuilles de papier ancien qui font
les épreuves argentées, et les feuilles de papier
japonais qui font les épreuves dorées? Pourquoi,
à tous les emportements, les inquiétudes, les
sciences, les bonhomies du génie, joignait-il
tous les raffinements du dilettante? Pourquoi
confia-t-il toujours au cuivre une idée inédite
ou un portrait nouveau? C’est que l’Eau-forte
est la confidente la plus fidèle des heures où le
coloriste sent son cerveau brûlant et sa main
prête. Le burin est un instrument positif, scientifique en quelque sorte. Il vous montre les
objets l’un après l’autre... dans leur essence
constitutive et non dans leurs relations avec le
monde ambiant, non tels que nos yeux les
perçoivent librement, mais tels qu’ils leur arrivent par les verres d’une jumelle. Il y a dans
l’œuvre d’Albert Durer tout un côté embarrassé, gauche à force d’application... Rien de
cela chez Rembrandt, quoique lorsque la fan-
taisie lui prend de faire rutiler des chevelures
rousses, ou de préciser l’éclat des rixdales
neuves chez un Peseur d’or, il soit d’une précision prestigieuse. Nul enfantillage, mais une
compréhension toute humaine des phénomènes
naturels, une science profonde de l’orgueil humain qui aime à dominer sur les choses, un art
incomparable de dire au imagination nerveuse:
‘Fouillons ensemble ces ténèbres, suivons ensemble ce jeu des demi-teintes fuyantes et des
reflets mobiles, clignons ensemble devant cet
éclair qui jaillit de la vitre du docteur Faustus,
devant cette pluie de rayons qui tombe sur les
bergers éperdus et leur annonce que le ciel est
en liesse de se réconcilier avec la terre.’”
Philippe Burty, “Qu’est-ce que la gravure?”
L’Eau-forte en 1878 (Paris, 1878), pp. 11-12.
466 “Quel est ce personnage au regard profond, à
la figure cavalière, qui a l’air de suivre dans le
vague de sa pensée quelque vision fugitive?
Est-ce un soldat, est-ce un savant, est-ce un
penseur? C’est Rembrandt!... M. Maso Gilli
qui a essayé de rendre à notre admiration les
traits de ce dieu de l’art, à outrepassé la mesure.
Tout en louant d’excellentes qualités de facture,
nous pouvons bien dire que nous trouvons le
portrait trop arrangé. Ce n’est pas ainsi que
nous nous représentons l’auteur de tant de merveilles.” Eugène Montrosier, “L’Expression de
la gravure à l’eau-forte” in L’Eau-forte en 1876
(Paris, 1875), p. 10.
467 “Rembrandt, dont Léopold Flameng a deviné le
secret en exécutant ses belles copies de la Pièce
aux cent florins, et de la Ronde de Nuit, a laissé
des œuvres superbes dans lesquelles tous les
sentiments sont marqués d’une façon magistrale. Les planches qu’on connaît de lui sont à
la fois concises et libres. Du même bond, elles
touchent au réalisme le plus profond et à l’idéalisme le plus subtil. Après être redescendues
jusqu’à terre, elles remontent d’un élan vertigineux aux régions pacifiques où s’épanouit l’inspiration religieuse.
Rembrandt a, pour ainsi parler, inventé des
‘manières’ perdues depuis, pour dompter la lumière, ce docile collaborateur de son génie!
Nul mieux que lui n’a possédé et employé la
science du ‘clair obscur.’
notes 455-467
335
468
469
470
471
472
473
Les autres peintres hollandais, ses devanciers,
ses contemporains ou ses successeurs, n’ont pas
eu des visées aussi larges. Plus naïfs dans leur
culte pour les beautés qui s’épanouissaient sous
leurs regards, ils esquissèrent, simplement, sur
le cuivre, sans autre mobile que de donner un
nouveau cours à leur impression intime.”
Montrosier (Paris, 1875), pp. 8-9.
“Jamais le burin n’aurait pu, comme un de ses
Eaux-Fortes, nous donner une idée du talent de
Rembrant: à défaut de l’œuvre qui a disparu ou
que le maître n’a point parfait sur la toile, nous
en avons au moins la sensation.” Émile Cardon,
“L’Eau-forte des peintres” L’Eau-forte en 1879
(Paris, 1879), p. 9.
The offices of Paris à l’eau-forte were based in
the Hôtel du Petit-Journal at rue Lafayette 61,
Paris.
See Anonymous, Les Masques, after Callot (23
November 1873), Paul Nanteuil’s Eros, (12 April
1874), and Portrait, and Les Lavandières after
Célestin Nanteuil (19 April 1874), Gery’s Danse
champêtre, Une Fête galante, and Gilles à la Guitare, after Watteau (26 April 1874); Courtry’s
Trois Têtes, after Watteau (10 May 1874), Pilet’s
Le Brebis Hollandaise, after Van de Velde (16
August 1874), Oudart’s Paysage de Ruysdaël (13
December 1874), Champollion’s Le Vielleux,
after Van Ostade (16 May 1875), L’Homme à la
Cruche, after Teniers (7 June 1874), Un Buveur,
after Teniers (31 January 1876) and Les Fumeurs,
after Teniers (16 April 1876).
“Enfin, les figures que M. Protche emprunte à
Rembrandt sont bien dans le style de ce maître et
rappellent l’allure hardi et les tons accusés de ses
dessins.” Paris à l’eau-forte (17 May 1874), p. 44.
“Tout en conservant l’accent du maître, la jeune
artiste a donné à son travail cette impression
personnelle, dont Guérard parlait à propos de
‘la belle épreuve’.” Paris à l’eau-forte (10 January
1875), p. 38.
“L’aqua-fortiste qui se cache sous un voile
impénétrable nous a donné, cette semaine, une
merveilleuse copie d’Un Gueux, de Rembrandt.
Il nous écrit même que si quelqu’un de nos amis
désire avoir une épreuve originale de la même
gravure, sur papier du dix-septième siècle, avec
toutes sortes de garanties d’authenticité, il nous
336
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
en fournira autant que nous pourrons en désirer
— Il y a quelque apparence qu’il les fabrique
lui-même.” Paris à l’eau-forte (30 April 1876),
p. 129.
One of these posters can be seen in the Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes and both
were illustrated in the journal (20 April 1873).
Cats were frequently illustrated in the journal
in 1873.
“Où Rembrandt, au milieu de ces ténèbres
rousses, Faire luire quelque Faust en son costume ancien.” Théophile Gautier, Albertus ou
l’âme et le péché, légende théologique (Paris, 1831),
stanza three.
Hugo (Paris, 1966 ed.), pp. 343-4.
Anonymous, “Le Docteur Faustus” Magasin
Pittoresque (December 1847), pp. 393-4. This
article is also cited in “Quelques ouvrages
français sur Rembrandt” in Jean Vallery-Radot,
Rembrandt graveur (Paris, 1956).
“Un vieux magicien dans son atelier de sorcellerie.”
“Le Microcosme, de Rembrandt, reproduit par
Guérard, marque d’autant mieux notre étape,
qu’il a servi de modèle à notre ami Frédéric
Regamey pour dessiner notre dernière affiche,
dont on a pu voir le merveilleux effet sur les
murs de Paris. Peut-être est-il un peu hardi
d’avoir remplacé les caractères mystérieux qui
apparaissent au vieux Faust par une simple annonce, mais on sait que nous n’abusons pas du
charlatanisme, et nous nous excusons de toute
intention irrespectueuse envers le maître de
l’Eau-forte. L’excellente reproduction de
Guérard prouve, du reste, que nous avons pour
lui toute la déférence voulue, – et malgré la
vive insistance de notre chat, co-fondateur et
co-propriétaire de ce journal, nous l’avons
absolument banni de notre gravure, bien qu’il
fut parvenu à glisser dans notre affiche sa tête
effrontée.” Paris à l’eau-forte (14 March 1875),
p. 112.
“Rembrandt dit Eau-forte” and “Pendant que
Rembrandt dit Eau-forte, Henry Somm dit
Paris, et personnifie l’actualité moderne dans
la Parisienne la plus féminine qu’on puisse
imaginer.” Paris à l’eau-forte (14 March 1875),
p. 112.
481 “Je lis dans le dernier numéro du ‘Journal des
arts’ que vous êtes favorable à la création des
Cabinets d’Estampes en province, idée présentée à la suite de mon projet d’un Musée d’Estampes, au Louvre, par Buhot. Je persiste à
croire, ce que j’avais dit à Buhot avant qu’il me
présente cette idée, que l’ouverture d’un Musée
des Estampes à Paris entrainerait fatalement des
créations du même ordre, en province, et que
c’était à Paris qu’il fallait réussir d’abord.”
Bibliothèque nationale manuscript naf 14676,
p. 275, Undated letter to Bracquemond (probably November 1884).
482 “Mais la rue ne suffit point. Ce n’est certes pas
là que le public trouvera souvent l’occasion
d’admirer les chefs-d’œuvre qu’il faudrait lui
montrer d’abord. Ce n’est pas dans les cartons
à dix centimes qu’il aura beaucoup de chance
de trouver le Jésus guérissant les malades de Rembrandt dont naguère un amateur bien connu
payait 28.000 fr. une épreuve; ni l’Annonciation
aux Bergers, ni le Portrait du bourgmestre Six
du maître hollandais; ni les burins originaux
d’Albert Dürer... ni les admirables eaux-fortes
de Claude Lorrain, ni les gravures en couleur
de Bartolozzi, ni les chatoyant mezzo-tintes
de Reynolds et de Watson, etc.” Félix Buhot,
“Les Salles d’estampes dans les musées de province” Journal des Arts (25 November 1884),
p. 1.
483 Félix Buhot, “Les Salles d’estampes dans les
musées de province” Journal des Arts (28
November 1884), pp. 1-2.
484 “De Rembrandt surtout, ce maître de maîtres,
dont huit œuvres ici gravées suffiraient à nous
captiver long-temps, notamment ce prodigieux
tableau du Louvre, Le ménage du menuisier, que
vient visiter chaque jour le soleil doux et chaud,
le soleil au ton d’or moulu de la peinture hollandaise.” Félix Buhot, “Les Salles d’estampes
dans les musées de province” Journal des Arts
(5 December 1884), pp. 2-3.
485 “L’esprit, la chaleur et la vie, et qui tous ou
presque tous cultivaient eux-mêmes l’art de
Rembrandt.” Ibid.
musées de province” Journal des Arts (9 December 1884), pp. 2-3.
musées de province” Journal des Arts (19
December 1884), p. 2.
488 Félix Buhot, “A MM. les Graveurs” Journal des
Arts (6 March 1885), p. 1.
489 Félix Buhot, “Première liste des dons envoyés
au ‘Journal des arts’ pour le Cabinet des
Estampes de la ville de Rouen” Journal des Arts
(27 March 1885): 1 and “Liste générale des
dons envoyés au ‘Journal des art’ pour le
Cabinet des Estampes de la ville de Rouen”
Journal des Arts (7 August 1885), p. 1.
490 Although this drawing was attributed to Rembrandt in Buhot’s period it figures in neither
Otto Benesch’s The Drawings of Rembrandt 6
vols. (London, 1954) nor in Seymour Slive’s
Drawings of Rembrandt 2 vols. (New York, 1965).
491 Buhot used a photograph as the basis of a print
in at least one other instance, Un vieux chantier
à Rochester. See Jay McKean Fischer and Colles
Baxter, Félix Buhot peintre-graveur: Prints, drawings, and Paintings (Baltimore, 1983) p. 21. See
also Jean-Luc Dufresne’s “Félix Buhot 18471898: Étude et catalogue raisonné des peintures, pastels, aquarelles et gouaches.” Third
Cycle Dissertation, Paris, 1981, p. 398.
492 There has been some examination of the
Brussels society, see for example Catherine
Meneux, “France-Belgique. Les échanges entres graveurs à l’eau-forte, 1860-90” Nouvelles de
l’Estampe (March 1997), pp. 5-24. The rapport
between France and the international societies
of printmakers established in Belgium, England, and the United States is an important
subject which has not yet been the subject of a
comprehensive study. For the etching revival
in Canada, see Rosemarie L. Tovell’s in-depth
study A New Class of Art: The Artist’s Print in
Canadian Art 1877-1920 (Ottawa, 1996).
493 See for example The Owl, A Few for the Few
(1883) and Frontispiece for Zigzags of a Curious
Man, by Octave Uzanne (1888).
494 Fisher et al., p. 113.
495 “Ceci tuera cela. La manie de l’eau-forte à tout
propos et failli tuer l’Edition à Vignettes. Les
procédés d’Héliogravure et de Photogravure
les ferons revivre mais ne lui rendrons jamais ce
charme, ce brio quelles avaient de 1830 à 1840.”
notes 467-495
337
496 The chapter entitled “Ceci tuera cela” (book 5,
chapter 2) was added to the novel in 1832, two
years after it was first published.
497 Philippe Burty, “La gravure et la lithographie
au Salon de 1863” Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(August 1863), p. 147.
498 “Les Collections de Mariette. Les épreuves de
Rembrandt. Rembrandt Imprimeur. Impression
à la Téré-benthine.”
499 For a view of Buhot’s studio c.1886-89 see Dufresne (Paris, 1981) cat.69 Coin d’atelier au Boulevard de Clichy 71 (Alpes-Maritimes, Priv. coll).
500 See also Fisher et al. (1983), p. 115.
501 His margins are typically referred to as “episodic
margins” or “symphonic margins.” See James
Goodfriend’s “Introduction” in Félix Buhot
catalogue descriptif de son œuvre gravé by Gustave
Bourcard [first published 1899] (New York
1979), introduction and Jan Cathleen Cavanaugh. “The ‘Marges Symphoniques’ of
Félix Buhot.” Master’s thesis, University of
Texas at Austin, 1980.
502 Examples include La fête nationale au boulevard
Clichy, and L’hiver à Paris ou la neige à Paris.
503 The exhibitions were held at the Durand-Ruel
Galleries until 1922. Six exhibitions were held
before the turn of the century: 1889, 1890,
1891, 1892, 1893, and 1897. See also Michel
Melot The Impressionist Print (New Haven,
1996), pp. 200-2. For an in-depth study of this
society see Lindsay Leard. “The Société des
Peintres-Graveurs: Printmaking 1889-1987”,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1992.
Leard published a summary of her conclusions
in “The Société des Peintres-Graveurs Français
in 1889-97”. Print Quarterly vol. 14 no. 4
(December 1997): 355-63.
504 Philippe Burty “Preface” Société des peintres-graveurs, première exposition (Paris, 1889), pp. 5-8.
505 When the society was renamed the Société des
peintres-graveurs français for its third exhibition in 1891 prominent printmakers including
Mary Cassatt and Camille Pissarro regarded the
change as offensive and highly discriminatory.
506 The only exception was the surprisingly few
prints after Rembrandt exhibited in 1898, the
year of a retrospective exhibition in Amsterdam.
This may have occured because the artists were
338
busy publishing their prints in the numerous
publications that came out at the time of the
exhibition.
507 Prints after artists works were exhibited as
follows:
1849 – 5 Raphael and Rembrandt,
3 Van Dyck, 1 Teniers.
1850 – 8 Raphael, 3 Correggio and
Van Dyck, 2 Titian, Rembrandt, and Velázquez,
1 Leonardo, Murillo, Maes, Poussin, and
Rubens.
1852 – 9 Raphael, 1 Potter.
1853 – 5 Raphael, 2 Rubens, 1 Ruisdael.
1855 (Exposition Universelle) – 27 Raphael,
5 Leonardo, 3 Van Dyck, 2 Corregio, Titian,
and Velázquez, 1 Hobbema, Murillo, Poussin,
Rembrandt, Rubens, Veronese, and Zurbaran.
1857 – 7 Raphael, 3 Rubens and Ruysdael,
2 Velázquez and De Keyser, 1 Leonardo.
1859 – 8 Raphael, 2 Van Leyden, Murillo,
Rembrandt, Rubens, and Veronese, 1 Van
Dyck, Rubens, Terborch, Titian, Mantegna,
Michelangelo, Leonardo, Poussin, Roman,
Corregio, Perugino, Fra Bartolomeo, Lorrain,
Del Sarto.
1861 – 6 Raphael, 3 Murillo and Rubens,
2 Ribera and Velázquez, 1 Ruysdael, Leonardo,
Van Dyck and Veronese.
1863 – 4 Raphael, 2 Ribera, Van Dyck,
Veronese, 1 Lebrun, Leonardo, Van der Neer,
Van Loo, Ribera, Del Sarto, Jordaens, Rembrandt, and Rubens.
1864 – 4 Raphael, 3 Rembrandt, 1 Rubens,
De Keyser, Van Dyck, Berchem, Murillo,
Titian, and Veronese.
1865 – 3 Raphael, 2 Murillo and Van Dyck,
1 Leonardo, Rubens, Hals, Titian, and Le Nain.
1866 – 3 Raphael, 2 Murillo, 1
Michelangelo, Holbein, Van Dyck, Hobbema,
Veronese, Leonardo, Titian, Ribera, Ruysdael.
1867 – 2 Rembrandt and Ruysdael, 1 Rubens,
Titian, Holbein, Van Ostade, Potter, and
Lorrain.
1867 (Exposition Universelle) – 1 Rembrandt.
1868 – 6 Raphael, 3 Titian, 2 Hals and Rembrandt, 1 Leonardo, Michelangelo, Murillo,
Veronese, and Ruysdael.
1869 – 6 Raphael, 2 Hals, Veronese,
Van Dyck, Velázquez, Poussin, Hobbema,
Leonardo and Rembrandt.
1870 – 4 Raphael, 3 Rembrandt, 1 Van Dyck,
Corregio, Ruysdael.
1873 – 6 Rembrandt, 2 Velázquez, 1 Raphael,
Hals, Wouwermans, Ruisdael, Ruysdael,
Pynacker, Van Goyen, Rubens, Leonardo,
Van Ostade, and Cuyp.
1874 – 8 Rembrandt, 3 De Hooch, 2 Raphael,
Terburch, Van de Velde, Van Ostade, Rubens,
1 Cuyp, Van Goyen, Potter, Bol, Murillo,
Ruysdael, Hals, and Michelangelo.
1875 – 3 Raphael, 2 Rubens, Hobbema,
Titian, and Rembrandt, 1 Leonardo, Van Dyck,
Cuyp, S.Ruysdael, J. Ruisdael, Terborch,
Van Ostade, Ribera, and Metsu.
1876 – 4 Michelangelo, 3 Rembrandt,
2 Van Goyen, Raphael, Hobbema, 1 Titian,
De Hooch, Teniers, Velázquez, Van de Velde,
Ruysdael, and Ribera.
1877 – 9 Rembrandt, 2 Michelangelo and
Rubens, 1 Raphael, Giogione, Titian, Ruysdael,
Koninck, Goyen, Velázquez, and Poussin.
1878 – 8 Rembrandt, 3 Michelangelo,
2 Raphael, Murillo, Hals, and Rubens, 1 Ruysdael, Ribera, Potter, Teniers, Ostade, Veronese,
Giorgione, and Jordaens.
1879 – 4 Rembrandt and Rubens, 2 Raphael,
Ribera, and Velázquez, 1 Coypel, Koninck,
Van Marcke, Murillo, Champagne, Veronese,
Leonardo, Steen, Berchem, and Hobbema.
1880 – 3 Murillo and Rembrandt, 2 Raphael,
and Teniers, 1 Leonardo, Terburg, Hals, Titian,
Ribera, Velázquez, Van Dyck, and Rubens.
1881 – 3 Van Dyck, 2 Rubens and Teniers,
1 Raphael, Champagne, Netscher, Corregio,
Jordaens, Ruysdael, Ribera, de Hooch, Titian,
and Rembrandt.
1882 – 8 Raphael, 5 Rembrandt, 4 Rubens,
2 Murillo and Van Dyck, 1 Michelangelo,
Velázquez, Terburg, Potter, and Hals.
1883 – 5 Raphael, 2 Rembrandt and Titian,
1 Teniers, Leonardo, Hobbema, Terburg,
Poussin, Pieter de Hooch, Velázquez.
1884 – 5 Rembrandt, 4 Van Dyck, 3 Hals
and Raphael, 2 Murillo, Velázquez, and Titian,
1 Leonardo, Terburg, Ribera, Rubens, Vermeer.
1885 – 4 Rembrandt, 3 Rubens, 2 Raphael,
Velázquez, and Titian, 1 Ribera, Terburg,
Van Dyck, Hals, and Michelangelo.
1886 – 7 Rembrandt, 3 Hals and Ribera,
2 Rubens, Teniers, and Titian, 1 Raphael,
Mieris, Berchem, Velázquez, Fra Bartolomeo,
Murillo, Ruisdael, Netscher, Leonardo.
1887 – 8 Rembrandt, 4 Hals, 2 Raphael
and Van Dyck, 1 Raphael, Flinck, De Hooch,
Ruysdael, Van Eyck, Terburg, Murillo, Rubens,
Corregio, Maes, Leonardo, Velázquez, and
Champagne.
1888 – 10 Rembrandt, 5 Rubens, 4 Hals,
1 Raphael, Van Dyck, Ruysdael, Champagne,
Dou, Teniers, Mantegna, Del Sarto, Leonardo,
and Titian.
1889 – 12 Rembrandt, 8 Hals, 2 Andrea del
Sarto, Van Dyck, 1 Raphael, Maes, Rubens,
Hobbema, Corregio, Dürer, Champagne,
Ruysdael, Ribera, and Velázquez.
1890 – 7 Rembrandt, 5 Hals, 2 Raphael
and Rubens, 1 Champagne, Velázquez, Dou,
Van Dyck, and Murillo.
1891 – 11 Rembrandt, 7 Hals, 3 Velázquez,
2 Murillo and Raphael, 1 Cranach, Cuyp,
Ruysdael, Rubens, and Dou.
1892 – 13 Rembrandt, 5 Rubens, 3 Velázquez,
2 Cuyp and Teniers, 1 Raphael, Van Ostade,
Leonardo, Michelangelo, Titian, Ribera,
Van Eyck, Ruysdael, and Brouwer.
1893 – 9 Rembrandt, 7 Hals, 6 Van Dyck,
4 Holbein, 3 Reni and Rubens, 2 Velázquez,
1 Murillo, Leonardo, van der Meer, Dou,
De Hooch, Terborch, T. de Keyser, Ribera,
and Van de Helst.
1894 – 10 Rembrandt, 5 Hals, 4 Rubens,
3 Steen, Van Dyck, Velázquez, and Raphael,
2 Maes, Michelangelo, Botticelli, Ribera,
Teniers, and Leonardo, 1 Van Eyck, Memling,
Ostade, Ruysdael, Cuyp, Corregio, Leonardo,
Reni, Titian, and Terburg.
1895 – 11 Rembrandt, 7 Hals and Rubens,
4 Velázquez, 3 Van Dyck, 2 Raphael, Holbein,
and Ribera, 1 Rosa, Giorgione, Ghirlandaio,
Fra Filippo Lippi, Veronese, Tintoretto, Bellini,
Van de Helst, Massys, Flinck, Dou, Jordaens,
Vermeer, Mantegna, Van Eyck, Dürer,
Massacio, Ruysdael, Titian, Michelangelo,
Leonardo, and Teniers.
notes 496-507
339
1896 – 12 Rembrandt, 4 Hals, 3 Holbein,
2 Velázquez, Murillo, and Botticelli, 1 Rosa,
Metsu, Van Eyck, Ribera, Ruysdael, Brouwer,
Tintoretto, Rubens, Champagne, Van Goyen,
Terburch, and Van Dyck.
1897 – 12 Rembrandt, 8 Rubens, 6 Hals,
5 Titian, 4 Ribera, 3 Botticelli and Van Dyck,
2 Reni and Velázquez, 1 Holbein, Dürer,
Michelangelo, Leonardo, Metsys, Van Eyck,
Raphael, Memling, Teniers, Murillo,
Champagne, and Rosa.
1898 – 5 Jordaens and Teniers, 4 Rembrandt,
Hals, Rubens, and Veronese, 3 Van Dyck,
Van Ostade, Ribera, 2 Michelangelo, Velázquez,
Mantegna, Raphael, Holbein, and Murillo,
1 Holbein, Cuyp, Terburg, Dou, Champagne,
Leonardo, and Reni.
1899 – 10 Rembrandt, 5 Hals, 3 Holbein and
Van Dyck, 2 Correggio, Velázquez, Brouwer,
Leonardo, and Rubens, 1 Botticelli, Tiepolo,
Metsys, Memling, Ribera, Dürer, Caravaggio,
Raphael, Hals, Van der Weyden, Titian, and
Champagne.
1900 – 3 Rembrandt, Hals, Van Dyck,
Champagne, and Leonardo, 2 Teniers, Raphael,
1 Maes, Velázquez, Botticelli, Rubens, Ribera,
Jordaens, and Hobbema.
Statistics group the print and lithography
sections and are compiled from Société des
artistes français. Explication des ouvrages de
peinture, sculpture, architecture, gravure et lithographie des artistes vivants. Paris: Paul Dupont,
1849-1900.
508 “Dans la Gazette, l’eau-forte ne saurait avoir les
coudées franches, comme elle les a chez notre
confrère: elle est, dans la plupart des cas, subordonnée à une autre œuvre d’art qui la prime
puisqu’elle reçoit la mission d’en fournir une
copie fidèle. C’est affaire à des artistes d’un mérite transcendant, comme Jacquemart, Gaillard
ou Flameng, d’élever la copie au rang de l’original et, parfois même, de le surpasser; il n’est pas
moins vrai que, chez nous, l’aqua-fortiste n’est
qu’un traducteur. Dans les publications de M.
Cadart, au contraire, à de très rares exception
près, l’art du graveur est tenu pour secondaire et
l’on n’admet que les œuvres originales. Ce qu’il
aime à recueillir, ce sont les ébauches, les cro-
340
509
510
511
512
513
514
quis, les fantaisies, les pensées des artistes.”
Alfred de Lostalot, “Les peintres-graveurs en
1878” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April 1878), p. 344.
“Quel est le caractère d’une véritable copie?
C’est d’être une chose imitée d’une autre, avec
les mêmes moyens et par les mêmes procédés.
Quel est celui d’une traduction? C’est d’être
l’imitation d’un objet, par un moyen ou dans
un idiome différent de celui qui a servi à faire
l’original. La gravure n’est donc pas une copie
de la peinture. Le but de ces deux arts, à la
vérité, est le même, l’imitation de la nature;
mais ils y parviennent chacun suivant leurs
moyens particuliers, et par des procédés différents. Le graveur a souvent recours à la nature.” A.M. Perot, Manuel de Graveur, ou traité
complet de l’art de la gravure en tous genres d’après
les renseignements fournis par plusieurs artistes
(Paris, 1830), p. 15 and (Paris, 1865 ed.), p. 10.
Blanc, Grammaire des arts du dessin: architecture,
sculpture, peinture (Paris, 1870), pp. 620 and 658.
See, for example, Woman at the Bath (1870),
Portrait of a Young Woman (c.1880), and Portrait
of a Man (1881).
“Vous me demandez le nom de l’éditeur de
Rembrandt, l’éditeur de Rembrandt c’est moi.
J’ai fait cette planche par amour de la peinture
du maître” Letter to M. Giacomelli 9 June 1887,
Institut Néerlandais manuscript 1977-A.133.
“Non! le Graveur n’est pas un interprète
obscur; A l’œuvre qu’il prop. il mèle sa pensée,
Et, d’un essor rival, planant au même azur’/
Que le Peintre — il l’égale en force dépensée./
On l’acclame a son tour comme un triomphateur;/ La gloire du premier n’en peut être
offensée/ Courtry traduit Rembrandt et reste
créateur!”
Eric Gillis advanced an analogous argument
that Amand Durand’s héliogravures of Rembrandt’s prints from the 1850s to the 1890s
should be considered original prints. He
defends the originality of Durand’s handling
of this combined print and photomechanical
technique and reworking of the héliogravure
plate with a greasy crayon to achieve the same
effects as Rembrandt’s inking. Amand Durand
produced his héliogravures after etchings from
some of the best collections in France including
515
516
517
518
519
the Bibliothèque nationale, and Rothschild,
Dutuit, Galichon, and Firmin-Didot collections. His prints appealed to the growing
market of amateurs and artists of limited means,
particularly in the late 1860s, who preferred
high-quality reproductions over posthumous
reprinting. See Eric Gillis, “Des originaux de
Rembrandt aux héliogravures: le cas d’AmandDurand” in Nicole Minder (Ed.), Rembrandt:
Les collections du Cabinet des Estampes de Vevey
(Vevey, 1997), pp. 221-32.
The engraving was printed at Salmon and
published 1 January 1887 by Boussod, Valadon
& Co. The plate was later destroyed.
“Longtemps elle eut presque le glorieux monopole de la publication des estampes d’art: c’est
elle qui paya cent mille francs à HenriquelDupont L’Hémicycle, et qui, hier encore, payait
cent mille francs à Waltner La Ronde de nuit;
elle demeure donc un des facteurs les plus
importants dans la production de la gravure.”
Beraldi, Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle vol. 7 (Paris,
1885-92), p. 178.
Bordeaux, Goupil Archives.
Commissioned 14 November 1871, for 6,000
francs, Archives nationales F/21/4309. Given
the high price Flameng was paid, the state
probably purchased the plate rather than a set
number of prints.
“Cher Monsieur, J’apprends par un de mes
élèves que vous prenez la liberté (sans me consulter) de faire imprimer ma gravure la Pièce de
Cent florins chez un autre imprimeur que celui
que j’ai choisi, lequel est exactement informé
de ce qu’est nécessaire pour mener le tirage de
cette planche à bien. Cette gravure m’ayant
coûté beaucoup de temps et beaucoup de peine
a exécuter, je ne puis consentir à ce que vous
contrevenie au désir que je vous ai exprimé,
celui de voir mon travail imprimé chez Salmon:
dans l’intéret de mon œuvre et dans le votre je
m’oppose formellement à ce que vous le fassiez
imprimer ailleurs. J’espère que votre réponse
me fera revenir d’une aussi chaude alarme et
que soucieux de vos intérêts vous vous soumettrer a ce que je vous conseille.
Agréer cher Monsieur l’expression de mes
sentiments dévoués, Léopold Flameng
520
521
522
523
524
525
N.B. c’est peut-être chez Delâtre que se trouve
ma planche,- c’est un massacre! Haarlem
19 September 1873.” Archives nationales
F/21/558/II.
Flameng had printed plates of both original
(Woman Praying at Roadside Crucifix; Boston,
Museum of Fine Arts) and reproductive subject
matter (Christ Bessing Little Children and A
Rabbi, both after Rembrandt; Boston, Museum
of Fine Arts) at Delâtre’s atelier.
Print studios which received a smaller portion
of their business included Drouart, Liénard,
and Quantin.
“Mon cher M. Sommers, Je viens de l’Exposition et j’ai remarqué que mes cadres (l’un contenant les Rembrandt, et l’autre trois portraits)
faisaient un très mauvais effet à cause des passe
partouts bleus — Veuillez donc avoir l’obligeance de porter un prompt remède à ces choses
en les remplaçant par des passe partouts blanc.
Avec mes remerciements recevez mes amitiés.
Léopold Flameng” undated letter, Institut
Néerlandais, 7243f. Although this letter is undated, Flameng referred to “les Rembrandt”
as if he was referring to works exhibited at the
Salon of 1876, the only Salon in which Flameng
exhibited more than one print after Rembrandt.
Attemps to identify the MF and GAF initials as
either artists involved with the Société des
Acquafortistes or printmakers listed in dictionaries of symbols and monograms has proved
unfruitful. Sources consulted include Franz
Goldstein, Monogramm Lexicon (Berlin, 1964)
and H.H. Caplan, The Classified Directory of
Artists’ Signatures Symbols & Monograms
(London, 1982). I am also grateful to Janine
Bailly-Herzberg and Hubert Prouté for their
efforts to help me identify the two remaining
artists.
“Vous me disiez vous-même que Flameng, dans
mon Œuvre de Rembrandt, avait imité ce grand
homme de façon à le tromper lui-même s’il
revenait au monde.” Charles Blanc, “Introduction” in Maxime Lalanne Traité de la gravure à
l’eau-forte (Paris, 1866), p. vii.
“L’eau-forte en effet, avec ses ressources infinies et renouvelées par chaque artiste, est la seule
gravure qui puisse suivre la peinture actuelle
notes 507-524
341
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
dans ses explorations hardies de coloris, de
valeur et de plein air. Elle trouve une solution
de pratique pour tous les problèmes que cette
peinture lui pose. Elle joue sur sa seule corde
de blanc et noir tous les carnavals de Venise de
l’arc-en-ciel des tons. C’est le traducteur indispensable et unique; car contre un peintre, elle
donne un autre peintre, et les autres gravures
ne donnent qu’un praticien.” Bergeret (Paris,
1886), p. 4.
“Il y a deux palettes pour le coloriste et que
l’une commence où l’autre s’arrête. Il faut
croire que chez lui le graveur suppléait au
peintre entravé.” Bergeret (Paris, 1886), p. 3.
“Mais les maîtres qui ont manié le burin ou se
sont servis de l’eau-forte n’ont pas seulement
été de serviles imitateurs. La plupart d’entre
eux ont été d’admirables interprètes, quelquesuns même des créateurs, et tous de véritables
artistes dont les noms ne sauraient jamais
périr.” Catalogue illustré de l’exposition internationale de blanc et noir (Paris, 1892), p. 134.
There were at most four copies after any other
“old master”; these included four after Holbein,
three after Rubens and Van Dyck, two after
Tiepolo and Velázquez, and one after Ruisdael,
Veronese, Michelangelo, Pourbus, Ribera,
Flinck, Steen, Vermeer, and Hals.
The Mercure de France noted the play opened
October 16th (September 1898, pp. 891-2).
Performances were listed in Le Temps beginning
October 2nd, perhaps referring to preview performances. Following the play’s success in Paris
it went on tour in Holland.
Léo Claretie, “Rembrandt van Rijn” Le Monde
illustré (24 September 1898), p. 243.
Anonymous, L’Illustration (8 October 1898),
p. 240.
Anonymous, “Chronique Théâtrale” Le Temps
(10 October 1898), p. 1.
“Il mourut pauvre. Il dut un cercueil à la charité
publique. Son enterrement à été payé 30 francs.
Il méritait mieux. Quel génie que cet homme
qui n’imita personne, qui a crée sa manière, et a
fixé sur la toile tant de portraits... avec la vérité
frappante de l’imitation... Quel audacieux que
cet esprit indépendant, dédaigneux de toute
tradition, oublieux volontairement du passé,
342
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
libre et nouvel interprète de la Bible, dont les
héros ne sont plus ces figures emphatiques et
majestueusement drapées de l’école italienne,
mais des humbles, de petits gens, — ce qu’ils
furent, — des ouvriers, des mendiants, des
gueux.” Claretie (24 September 1898), p. 243.
“Clientèle populaire” and “bon marché.” Léon
Morat, “Premières représentation” Le Petit
Journal (3 October 1898), p. 3.
Pierre Véron, “Théâtres” Le Charivari (5 October 1898), p. 205.
Gautier (1846), p. 391, Anonymous (July 1847),
p. 218, Houssaye (1847), p. 176, Coquerel
(Paris, 1860), pp. 36-7 and 48, Gautier (Paris,
1864), p. 254, and Blanc (3 August 1874), p. 4.
“Un incident bien curieux” Le Figaro (16
February 1890), p. 1. The sale was held January
26th, 1890. Mme. Legrand may have inherited
this painting after the death of her father who
was director of the Lyon museum during the
Revolution. “Voici quelques nouveaux détails”
Le Figaro (17 February 1890), p. 1.
“Le Rembrandt du Pecq” Le Petit journal
(16 February 1890), p. 1.
“Voici quelques nouveaux détails” Le Figaro
(17 February 1890), p. 1. Penon was overcome
by the high temperature in the auction room
and had to leave before the bidding was completed. See also “Un incident bien curieux.”
Estimations of Oppenheim’s offer were variously cited as 75,000 francs in “L’administration
des domaines” Le Petit journal (15 February
1890), p. 1 and 100,000 francs in “Le Rembrandt du Pecq” Le Petit journal (16 February
1890), p. 1.
“Le Rembrandt du Pecq.” Le Temps (18
February 1890), p. 2 and “Le Rembrandt du
Pecq” Le Petit journal (18 February 1890), p. 2.
“Tribunaux, Le Rembrandt du Pecq.”
Chronique des Arts et de la curiosité. (24 May
1890), p. 166 and “Tribunaux, Le ‘Rembrandt
du Pecq’.” Chronique des Arts et de la curiosité.
(2 August 1890), p. 213. Another request to
rent the painting for six months and exhibit it
in several cities in the United States was not
fulfilled. “Le Rembrandt du Pecq”. Le Petit
journal (18 February 1890), p. 2. Critics com-
pared the “Rembrandt du Pecq” controversy to
the Corot-Trouillebert incident. “Encore le
Rembrandt” Le Petit journal (19 February 1890),
p. 2 and Albert Wolff “Courrier de Paris:
Depuis l’aventure du Pecq” Le Figaro (21
February 1890), p. 1.
544 Legrand’s one surviving daughter who lived in
an asylum was represented by her companion
Jean Bernard. Bernard had requested the sale of
the collection but said he had repeatedly told
the expert in charge of the sale that the painting
was an original work by Rembrandt and that
Mme Legrand had refused to sell the work for
considerable sums of money on several occasions. “Le Rembrandt du Pecq” Le Petit journal
(18 February 1890), p. 2. See also “Tribunaux,
Le Rembrandt du Pecq” Chronique des Arts et de
la curiosité (24 May 1890), p. 166 and (2 August
1890), p. 213.
545 Daily newspapers cited in this study include Le
Temps, Le Figaro, and Le Petit journal. Le Figaro
was the most successful daily newspaper of the
period with a circulation of 104,924 in 1880.
The circulation of Le Petit journal in 1880 was
583,820 daily and Le Temps 22,764. The “Rembrandt du Pecq” was, therefore, front-page
news in both the leading Conservative (Le Figaro) and Republican (Le Petit journal) journals.
See Claude Bellanger et al., Histoire Generalle de
la presse française, 1871-1940 vol. 3 (Paris, 1972),
pp. 194-5, 232, and 234.
546 The debate over the attribution of this work to
Rembrandt or Aert de Gelder is noted in Albert
Blankert et al., Rembrandt: A Genius and His Impact (Zwolle, 1997), p. 49. This work is included
in the catalogue raisonné on Aert de Gelder
under the title Jehovah and Two Angels Visit
Abraham Moltke, J.W. von et al., Arent de
Gelder: Dordrecht 1645-1727 (Doornspijk, 1994,
cat.1, p. 61). In the earliest comprehensive catalogue of Aert de Gelder’s paintings, this work
was entited Abraham and the Angels. Karl Lilienfeld, Arent de Gelder, sein leben und seine kunst
(The Hague, 1914, cat.1, p. 125). Attribution to
Aert de Gelder was first suggested by André
Michel in 1890, “A propos du ‘Rembrandt du
Pecq’” Journal des débats (22 February 1890),
pp. 2-3. See also Louis Gonse, “Le Rembrandt
547
548
549
550
551
552
du Pecq.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts. vol. 66 (April
1890), pp. 324-6. This article summarizes
Gonse’s shorter notices in Chronique des arts et
de la curiosité (15 February 1890), p. 51 and (22
February 1890), pp. 58-9. The other frequently
cited contemporary reference is A. Thierry,
“Le Rembrandt du Pecq.” Revue de Générale.
(Brussels vol. 26 1890), pp. 424-40. J. Giltaij
noted information on the sale was published in
both the French and American press but said
incorrectly that the ensuing controversy was
only among art historians. J. Giltaij et al., Een
Gloeiend palet, Schilderijen van Rembrandt en zijn
school/A Glowing Palette, Paintings by Rembrandt
and His School (Rotterdam, 1988), cat.9, pp. 41-2.
“Le Rembrandt du Pecq” Le Temps (19 February 1890), p. 2. See also “L’affaire du Rembrandt” Le Figaro (19 February 1890), p. 1 and
A. de L., “Le ‘Rembrandt du Pecq” L’Illustration (22 February 1890), p. 165.
Paul Mantz, “Le Rembrandt du Pecq” Le Temps
(17 February 1890), p. 2.
Vollon had three etchings (Tobias and the Angel,
Portrait of Rembrandt, and Descent from the Cross)
and one drawing (Two figures) by Rembrandt in
his private collection. See Catalogue des tableaux
et études peintes par feu Antoine Vollon et sa collection particulière, composée de tableaux ancient et
modernes... dessins, aquarelles, eau-fortes..., Paris,
Hôtel Drouot, 20-23 May 1901, cats. 82-4 and
99.
“Le Rembrandt du Pecq”. Le Temps (19
February 1890), p. 2. Stevens declined to
comment since he had not yet seen the work.
He added that painters can often have great
talent without being themselves experts and
with regard to Bonnat, he had studied Rembrandt extensively and knew his work. Alfred
Stevens, “Je lis dans les échos du Figaro”
Portrait of a Young Man and Self-Portrait with
Easel; Bonnat is referring to the entries in Villot’s
catalogue of the Louvre collection, vol. 2, 1852.
“Je viens de voir le tableau. C’est un tableau
d’école. Il est daté de 1656, m’a-t-on dit. Or,
allez au Louvre et regardez les numéros 417 et
415, les plus rapprochés comme date du tableau
en question. Il n’y a aucune analogie ni dans le
notes 524-551
343
dessin ni dans l’exécution. Ça saute aux yeux.
Certaines parties sont habiles d’exécution, je le
veux bien, mais d’autres, comme les têtes de
l’ange et des deux individus de gauche, sont
d’une faiblesse extrême.
Ça, du Rembrandt? jamais!” Le Temps (19
February 1890), p. 2. Bonnat’s letter was republished in entirety in L’Artiste. See E. DurandGréville, “Le tableau du Pecq”. L’Artiste.
(February 1890), pp. 131-2 and in part in
Le Figaro (19 February 1890), p. 1 and Le Petit
journal (19 February 1890), p. 2.
553 Bonnat received this commission 14 November
1871 and received 10,000 francs for the work.
Pierre Angrand Histoire des musées de Province
au XIX siècle: Sud-Ouest. vol. 3 (Les Sables
d’Olonne, 1985), p. 96. Bonnat’s work was
transferred to the École des Beaux-Arts in 1874
and was exhibited on the east wall of the Melpomène room until at least 1924. See Eugène
Müntz, Guide de L’École Nationale des Beaux-Arts
(Paris, n.d.), p. 231 and Gabriel Rouchès,
L’École des Beaux-Arts, aperçu historique et guide à
travers les collections (Paris, 1924), p. 44. See also
Paul Duro, “Musées des copies de Charles
Blanc”. Bulletin Societé d’Histoire d’Art Français,
1985 (Paris, 1987), p. 289.
554 Bonnat owned, in total, 379 paintings, 610
sculptures, and 1,800 drawings. See Vincent
Ducourau, Le Musée Bonnat à Bayonne: l’art
du dessin et de l’esquisse (Bayonne, 1988), p. 5.
Bonnat himself produced a small number of
etchings. Scholars today generally regard these
prints as reproductions executed to disseminate
his paintings but Bonnat printed different states
of some plates, including Head of a Man, after
Velázquez and Portrait of Renan, and these etchings display a similar emulation of Rembrandt’s
printmaking techniques as discussed earlier in
this study regarding the case of Gérôme.
555 Old Tobias and his Son is the only drawing in
Bonnat’s collection whose provenance definitely
includes His de la Salle (Catalogue descriptif des
dessins de maîtres anciens exposés à l’Écoles des
Beaux-Arts, May-June 1879. Introduction by
Charles Ephrussi and Gustave Dreyfus. Paris,
1879, cat.368). Works then in Bonnat’s collection were listed in Eugène Dutuit’s Tableaux
344
et dessins de Rembrandt (Paris, 1885). By 1893,
Bonnat owned over ninety of Rembrandt’s
drawings. See Émile Michel, Rembrandt,
son art et son œuvre Paris, 1893), pp. 587-90.
Alisa Luxenberg rightly noted that Bonnat’s
collection began in 1858-61 when he exchanged
paintings with other artists in Rome. Alisa
Luxenberg, “Léon Bonnat (1833-1922)”
Ph.D. Dissertation, New York, 1991, p. 273.
556 Bonnat purchased Suzanne from the His de la
Salle postuhumous sale in 1880 (27 November
1880, London), Head of a Rabbi in March 1888,
and Burgomaster Six in 1890. Louvre, Cabinet
des dessins, salle de documentation, microfilm
14, Bonnat’s carnet des achats nº7008, 7009
and 7010, pp. 1-2.
557 Although Bonnat’s travels are not fully documented, there is evidence of at least a second
trip to Holland in one of the texts in Bonnat’s
library in which Georges Lafenestre inscribed
in his and George Richtenberger’s La Hollande
(Paris, s.d.) “Léon Bonnat Souvenirs amical de La
Haye, Haarlem, Amsterdam et autres lieues (1883)
G. Lafenestre.” Bayonne, Archives Municipales,
fonds Bonnat.
558 Bonnat first visited Henry d’Orléans, duc
d’Aumale’s collection in August 1887. See
Bonnat’s memoirs on Henry d’Orléans, Louvre,
Cabinet des dessins, salle de documentation,
microfilm 14, nº7066. By this time Henry
d’Orléans owned at least six drawings by
Rembrandt. Dutuit (Paris, 1885), p. 94 and
Alfred Mézières, “Le duc d’Aumale” La Revue
de l’art ancien et moderne (April-July 1897),
pp. 201-3. Bonnat first visited His de la Salle’s
collection in 1865. Léon Bonnat “Comment je
suis devenu collectioneur”. 20 June 1893, published in La Revue de Paris (15 February 1926),
p. 759. As the leading portraitist of the Third
Republic, Bonnat received commissions from
Adolphe Thiers, Isaac Pereire, and Jean Gigoux
and may also have seen their collections, all of
which included works by Rembrandt. Certainly
Bonnat’s position as a leading juror of the
Salon, member of the Institut, and professor
at the École des Beaux-Arts made it possible
for him to receive privileged access to private
collections in Paris.
559 Bayonne, Archives Municipal, fonds Bonnat
283 and 284, Eugène Dutuit L’Œuvre complet de
Rembrandt décrit et commenté 2 vols. (Paris, 188386) and Tableaux et dessins de Rembrandt, supplément à l’œuvre complet de Rembrandt (Paris, 1885).
560 “Quelle est, d’après vous la personne qui passe
pour le mieux s’y entendre en Rembrandt?
C’est M. Léon Bonnat qui, toute sa vie, a étudié
les œuvres du maître et dont l’opinion a un
grand poids.” Le Temps (19 February 1890), p. 2.
561 “M. Bonnat. nous-a-t-il dit, est d’une compétence absolute en cette matière: il n’est pas, du
reste, le seul qui m’ait dit que le fameux tableau
de Rembrandt n’était pas une œuvre remarquable et plusieurs de mes amis m’ont declaré
que ce tableau était bien discutable comme
Rembrandt.” Le Temps (19 February 1890), p. 2.
562 For Henner’s views on the paintings by
Rembrandt he had seen in each collection and
his conception of himself as a connoisseur of his
paintings see Émile Durand-Gréville, Entretiens
de J.J. Henner (1878-88) (Paris, 1915).
563 “Courrier de Paris: Depuis l’aventure du Pecq”
564 Ce tableau est certainement l’œuvre d’un
homme de talent et la tête du Christ a du mérite, comme exécution et comme caractère, mais
les autres personnages sont tout à fait inférieurs
sous tous les rapports. Les trois têtes des disciples sont mollement peintes, mal construites et
ne rappellent en rien la manière vigoureuse et
savante de Rembrandt. En somme, cet ouvrage
est d’un homme de talent, il est d’un bon effet
et d’une bonne tenue générale, mais il n’est pas
de Rembrandt.” Le Temps (19 February 1890),
p. 2. Gérôme’s letter was republished in entirety
in L’Artiste. E. Durand-Gréville, “Le tableau
du Pecq.” L’Artiste (February 1890), p. 132) and
“L’affaire du Rembrandt” Le Figaro (19 February 1890), p. 1.
565 “Le lendemain matin, dans la petite chambre
voisine de l’atelier, devant le portrait de Rembrandt, au pied de la Vérité, un domestique le
trouvait inerte, glacé déjà: il avait succombé
durant son sommeil.” Ch. Moreau-Vauthier,
Gérôme, peintre et scupteur, l’homme et l’artiste
d’après sa correspondance, ses notes, les souvenirs de
ses élèves et de ses amis (Paris, 1906), p. 287.
566
567
568
569
570
Gérôme’s reverential placement of Rembrandt’s
portrait illustrates his wish to achieve what
Kris and Kurz described as “effigy magic…
the belief that a man’s soul resides in his image,
that those who possess this image also hold
power over that person.” Ernst Kris and Otto
Kurz, Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of
the Artist, A Historical Experiment (New Haven,
1979), p. 73.
“Le Rembrandt du Pecq” Le Temps (20 February 1890), p. 2.
Waltner exhibited etched copies after the following works: Portrait of a Man (Salon 1874,
nº3616), Portrait of Rembrandt and Portrait of
a Rabbi (Salon 1882, nº5606, 5607), Portrait of
Rembrandt (Salon 1883, nº4937), Le Doreur
(Salon 1884, nº4653), An Old Man (Salon 1885,
nº5031). For his copy of Rembrandt’s Oath of
Claudius Civilus see Clément de Ris, “Le musée
de Stockholm”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(November 1874), pp. 398-409.
“De 1648 à 1661... en ces années ou il semble
que, dépouillé de tout ce qu’il aimait, ayant
perdu sa mère et Saskia après sa mère, puis,
quelques années plus tard, tous ses biens, et ses
chères collections, il se réfugiai s’isola dans la
peinture comme dans son dernier asile, une
suprême consolation.” Mantz (17 February
1890), p. 2.
“C’est le ‘Rembrandt du Pecq’ dont l’imagination populaire s’est aussitôt emparée, a tel point
que hier, au Louvre, devant la Bethsabé de la
galerie Lacaze, j’entendais le dialogue suivant:
Madame: ‘De qui ce tableau?’ - Monsieur, après
avoir consulté l’inscription du cadre: ‘Mais...de
Rembrandt! Celui-du Pecq!” André Michel,
“A propos du ‘Rembrandt du Pecq’” Journal des
Débats (22 February 1890), p. 2.
Metz (1: Study of an Old man with a thin beard),
Strasbourg (1: Study of an Old Man), Bonnat
(6: A Rabbi, Head of Old Man, Portrait of Burgomaster Six, Samplers in a cave, Suppliant before
a Biblical Priest, and Susanna), Durand-Ruel
(1: David Playing the harp before Saul), Goldschmidt (2: Study of an Old Man, Study of a
Woman called Rembrandt’s Cook), Hirsch de
Gereuth (1: Portrait of Rembrandt’s Sister),
Jacquemart-André (3: Christ at Emmaus,
notes 551-569
345
Portrait of Amalia von Solms, and Portrait of Dr.
Arnold Tholinx), Kann (Maurice 2: Portrait of a
Man [with a red coat], and Small head of Christ;
Rodolphe 3: Portrait of an Old Woman cutting
her fingernails, Portrait of Titus, and Study of an
Old Woman), Lehmann (1: Zacharie receiving the
prediction of St. John the Baptist’s birth), Porgès
(4: A Rabbi, Study after Rembrandt’s Brother,
Old Woman Reading, and The Good Samaritan),
Pourtalès Gorgier (1: Portrait of a Young Man
getting up from a chair), Schickler (1: Judas returning the price of his treason), Schloss (3: Angel
with appearance of Titus, Old Man Meditating,
and Portrait of Rembrandt’s Wife), and Wassermann (Melville 1: Study of Rembrandt’s Father,
Max 1: Study of an Old Man).
346
571 Forty works were loaned from British collections. C. Hofstede de Groot, L’Exposition Rembrandt à Amsterdam, 40 planches sur cuivre avec
texte (Amsterdam, 1898).
572 These include the four works loaned by
Durand-Ruel, Hirsch de Gereuth, JacquemartAndré, and Portalès-Gorgier.
573 Besides the six works from Bonnat’s collection,
these include the twenty-two works loaned by
Metz and Strasbourg, Goldschmidt, JacquemartAndré (2), Kann, Lehmann, Porgès, Schickler,
Schloss, and Wasserman.
574 Although none of these paintings are assigned
to Rembrandt today, the majority of prints and
drawings Bonnat collected are still attributed to
Rembrandt.
Appendix
Interpretive Prints
after Rembrandt
Alasonière, Henri-Fabien (b.1852)*
– Portrait of Rembrandt as an Officer, etching, Salon
of 1891 nº3494
Aliot, Pierre-Louis-Charles
– The Carpenter’s Household (Paris, Louvre), wood
engraving, Salon of 1894 nº4041
Andrus, Auguste-Arthur
– Portrait of Rembrandt, engraving, Salon of 1888
nº5009
Ansseau, Joseph
– The Night Watch, Salon of 1875 nº3605
Ardail, Albert
– Portrait of a family (Braunschweig, Museum),
engraving, Salon of 1886 nº4929; Gazette des
Beaux-Arts October 1886
Baude, Charles (b.1853)
– Untitled (Portrait of a man with a fur cap),
(St. Petersburg, Hermitage), wood engraving,
Salon of 1885 nº4599; Monde Illustré
– Rembrandt’s Mother (St. Petersburg, Hermitage),
wood engraving, 1885, Monde Illustré
– Portrait of a Man/Rembrandt laughing, wood
– Portrait of a Woman (London, National Gallery)
wood engraving, Salon of 1887 nº4865
– Portrait of Rembrandt as an Officer, wood engraving,
Salon of 1888 nº5025(1)
– Study, wood engraving, Salon of 1888 nº5025(2)
– Portrait of Rembrandt in Old Age, 1890; Monde illustré
– Head of a Man/Study, wood engraving, 1890,
Salon of 1891 nº3242
– Beeresteyn (Christian-Paul-Van) “Burgomeister of
Delft” (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art),
wood engraving, Monde illustré 1890 [Studio of
Baude]
– Saskia, wood engraving, Salon of 1891 nº3243
– Presentation in theTemple (The Hague, Museum),
wood engraving, 1892, Monde illustré 1892, p.445
[Studio of Baude]
– The Pilgrims of Emmaus (Paris, Louvre),wood
– The Poet/Portrait of Nicolas Bruyningh, wood
engraving, Salon of 1895 nº4020; Monde illustré
– Man with a Baton (Paris, Louvre), wood engraving,
Salon of 1897 nº3865(1)
– Portrait of Rembrandt (Paris, Louvre), wood
engraving, Salon of 1897 nº3865(2)
– Rembrandt in Old Age (London, National Gallery),
1898, Supplement to Annales Politiques et Littéraires nº799, 16 October 1898
– Portrait of a Man (London, National Gallery),
1898, La France illustrée 22 October 1898, p.245
– The Adulterous Woman, (London, Duke of Marlborough), wood engraving, 1898, La France illustrée 22 October 1898, p.246 [Studio of Baude]
– Portrait of Rembrandt (The Hague, Museum),
wood engraving, La France illustrée 15 October
1898, p.1 [Studio of Baude]
appendix
347
– Volkera Nicolai Knobbrrt, Wife of Christian Paul
Van Beeresten (New York, Metropolitan Museum
of Art), wood engraving, n.d. [Studio of Baude]
– Pontius Pilat..., wood engraving, n.d. [Studio of
Baude]
Baudran, Auguste-Alexandre (b.1823)
– Judas returning the price of his treason (Paris,
Galichon Collection), Salon of 1864 nº2842;
Gazette des Beaux-Arts
– Man Seated/Portrait of Corneille Nicholas Anslo
(Paris, Galichon Collection), Salon of 1864
nº2843; Gazette des Beaux-Arts March 1866
Beltrand, Camille (b.1877)
– Bather, lithograph, Salon of 1899 nº4418
Berger, Clémentine (d.1891)
– Beggars, wood engraving, Salon of 1879 nº5585
Bertrand, Albert
– Woman at the Bath, etching, Salon of 1891 nº3250
– Portrait of Rembrandt, etching, Salon of 1892
nº3522
Blanc, Charles-Alexandre-Philippe-Auguste (18131882)
– Janus Lutma, etching, L’Artiste 1839
– Bust of Rembrandt (Louvre Inv.1744), etching,
Gazette des Beaux-Arts April 1859, frontispiece for
L’œuvre complet de Rembrandt, 1859
Blouet, Georges
– Head of a Man, lithograph, Salon of 1889 nº5335
Bocourt, Étienne-Gabriel (b.1821)
– Head of an Old Man, etching, Salon of 1890
nº4884
Boetzel, Ernest (1830-1920)
– Untitled, Salon of 1867 nº2574; Gazette des BeauxArts
Borrel, François-Marius (b.1866)
– Rembrandt’s Mother, engraving, Salon of 1884
nº4241
– The Carpenter’s Household (Paris, Louvre), etching,
– Portrait of a Young Rembrandt (The Hague,
Museum), Gazette des Beaux-Arts January 1890
Bossert, Lucien
– Evangelist St. Matthew, lithograph, Salon of 1899
nº4440
Bouton, Victor-Marie
– Portrait of Rembrandt (Florence), wood engraving,
348
Bracquemond, Félix (1833-1914)
– Portrait of an Old Woman, etching, Catalogue de
vingt-trois tableaux des écoles flamande et hollandaise
provenant de la célèbre galerie de San Donato, Paris,
18 April 1868; plate 11
– Portrait of a Young Woman, etching, Catalogue de
vingt-trois tableaux des écoles flamande et hollandaise
provenant de la célèbre galerie de San Donato, Paris,
18 April 1868; plate 12
– Christ with a Rosary, etching, Catalogue de la collection du Comte Koucheleff-Besborodko, Paris, 5 June
1869, cat.29
– Sketch, several small copies of prints on the same
plate, Beraldi 229
Brès, Félix
– Portrait, lithograph, Salon of 1899 nº4454
Brunet-Debaines, Alfred-Louis (b.1845)
– The Mill, etching, Salon of 1892 nº3553
Buisset, Gustave
– A Woman Bathing, engraving, Salon of 1899
nº4460
Cailleux, Gustave-Théophile
– Study, lithograph, Salon of 1890 nº4910
Camp, Louis
– Philosopher Meditating, wood engraving, Salon of
1894 nº4112
Carbonneau, Charles-Jean Baptiste (b.1815)
– Descent from the Cross, wood engraving, Salon of
1849 nº2473(1); Charles Blanc École Hollandaise
– Burgomeister Six, wood engraving, Salon of 1849
nº2473(2); Charles Blanc École Hollandaise
– Portrait of Rembrandt, wood engraving, Salon of
1849 nº2473(3); Charles Blanc École Hollandaise
Cazin, Michel (1869-1917)
– Portrait of a Magistrate, etching, Salon of 1889
nº5362
– The Anatomy Lesson, engraving, Salon of 1889
nº5363(1)
– Portrait of a Man, engraving, Salon of 1889
nº5363(2)
– Portrait of a Woman, engraving, Salon of 1889
nº5363(3)
Champollion, Eugène-André (1848-1901)
– Flemish Portrait, etching, Paris à l’eau-forte
6 September 1874
Chapon, Auguste-Louis
– Untitled, wood engraving, Salon of 1895 nº4458
Chenay, Pierre-Paul (1818-1906)
– Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israël (St. Petersburg,
Hermitage), engraving, Salon of 1900 nº2410
Chevrier, Georges
– Portrait, lithograph, Salon of 1892 nº3576
Cirasse, Louis-Joseph-Félix (1853-1926)
– Untitled, etching, Salon of 1891 nº3282
Closson, William Baxter Palmer (American, 18481926)
– Rembrandt’s Mother, etching, Salon of 1889
nº5378
Cole, Timothy (English, b.1852)
Coppier, Charles-André (1867-1948)
– Angel Raphael leaving Tobias (Paris, Louvre
Inv.1736), etching, Salon of 1890 nº4939
– Portrait of Rembrandt (Paris, Louvre Inv.1746),
– The “Doreur”, etching, Salon of 1892 nº3591(1)
– The Night Watch, etching, Salon of 1892
nº3591(2); Salon of 1894 nº4146
– Pilgrims of Emmaus, etching, Salon of 1897
nº3939; Les maîtres du passé
– Syndics, etching, Salon of 1897 nº3940; Les maîtres
du passé
Coudert, Léon
– Head of an Old Man (Kassel), lithograph, Salon of
1896 nº4483
Courtry, Charles-Louis (1846-97)
– Portrait of a Young Woman, c.1880, (Paris, Hirsch
de Gereuth Collection), Beraldi 242
– Portrait of a Man, 1881, Catalogue de tableaux de
premier ordre ancient & modernes composant la
galerie de M. John W. Wilson, 14-16 March 1881,
cat.94,
– Portrait (Paris, Louvre, Inv.1745), 1890, Musées et
Salons, 1890
– Woman at the Bath (Paris, Louvre) 1870, Gazette
des Beaux-Arts May 1870
– The Carpenter’s Household (Paris, Louvre), engraving, Salon of 1887 nº4930
Crauk, Adolphe (b.1865)
– Head, engraving, Salon of 1888 nº5119
Crosbie, Émile-Ferdinand
– Head of an Apostle (Kassel, Museum), wood
– Portrait of Rembrandt (The Hague, Museum),
wood engraving, Salon of 1895 nº4488
Damour, Charles (1813-60)
– The Carptenter’s Household (Paris, Louvre),
etching, Exposition Universelle of 1855 nº4637
Danguin, Jean-Baptiste (1823-94)
– Portrait of a Young Man, engraving, Salon of 1891
nº3299
Delay, Jeanne
– Portrait of a Man, lithograph, Salon of 1894
nº4172
– Head of an Old Man, lithograph, Salon of 1895
nº4135
Delay, Henriette
– Portrait of the Wife of Rembrandt, lithograph,
Deloche, Ernest-Pierre (b.1861)
– Syndics, wood engraving, Salon of 1897 nº3965;
Magasin pittoresque 1 July 1897
Dequesne, Fernand
– Syndics, lithograph, Salon of 1894 nº4178
Desboutin, Marcelin (1823-1901)
– Portrait of a forty-year old Man, CJ20
– The Night Watch, CJ21(1)
– The Night Watch, CJ21(2)
– Burgomeister Six, CJ26
– The Wife of Burgomeister Six, CJ27
Droit, Jules-Nicolas-Luc
– Pilgrims of Emmaus, lithograph, Salon of 1900
nº2459
Dufflo, Michel-Joseph
– Angel Raphael leaving Tobias and his Family (Paris,
Louvre Inv.1736), wood engraving, Salon of 1892
nº3644
Dugourd, Henri-Nicolas (b.1863)
– Woman at the Bath (Paris, Louvre), lithograph,
Duplessis, Edmond
– Rembrandt and Saskia, wood engraving, Salon of
1899 nº4549
Duvivier, Claire (b.1846)
– Pilgrims of Emmaus, wood engraving, Salon of
1870 nº5183
– Man laughing, Salon of 1875 nº3671; Monde illustré
Faivre, Claude
– Portrait, engraving, Salon of 1884 nº4341;
Catalogue de cent chefs d’œuvre
Faule, Adolphe
– Bald Man (Kassel), wood engraving, Salon of 1896
nº4551
appendix
349
Flameng, Léopold (1831-1911)
– Forty Etchings,1859, Charles Blanc l’Œuvre complet
de Rembrandt, five etchings published in Gazette
des Beaux-Arts April 1859, two published in May
1859
– Portrait of a Man, The “Doreur” (Paris, Duc de
Morny collection), etching, Salon of 1863 nº2626;
Gazette des Beaux-Arts April 1863; Catalogue des
tableaux anciens & modernes, objets d’art & de
curiosité composant les collections de feu M. Le Duc
de Morny, Paris, Palace of the President of the
Legislative Corps, 31 May 1865, cat.68
– Portrait of a Man/Justus Lipsus (Paris, Pereire
collection), Gazette des Beaux-Arts April 1865
– Christ blessing the Children (Aix-la-Chapelle,
Suermondt collection), etching, Salon of 1867
nº2611, Gazette des Beaux-Arts September 1866
– Saskia (Kassel), Gazette des Beaux-Arts October
1869
– Holy Familly (Aix-la-Chapelle, Suermondt collection), etching, Salon of 1869 nº3981; Gazette des
Beaux-Arts
– The Hundred Guilder Print, 1873
– The Night Watch, etching, Salon of 1874 nº3446
– Rabbi (Aix-la-Chapelle, Suermondt collection),
Gazette des Beaux-Arts April 1874
– Rest on the Flight into Egypt (Aix-la-Chapelle,
Suermondt collection), Gazette des Beaux-Arts
April 1874
– Anatomy Lesson, etching, Salon of 1876 nº3846
– Syndics, etching, Salon of 1876 nº3847
– Portrait of Martin Daey (Paris, Baron Gustave de
Rothschild collection), Gazette des Beaux-Arts
January 1879
– Portrait of Mme Daey (Paris, Baron Gustave de
Rothschild collection), Gazette des Beaux-Arts
February 1879
– Danae, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 1879
– A Rabbi (Wilson Collection), 1881,Catalogue de
tableaux de premier ordre ancient & modernes composant la galerie de M. John W. Wilson, 14-16
March 1881, cat.93; Gazette des Beaux-Arts
September 1873
Fouquet-Dorval, Georges
nº4204
Gaillard, Claude-Ferdinand (1834-87)
– Pilgrims of Emmaus, Salon of 1883 nº4664
350
Gauchard, Félix-Jean (1825-72)
Gaucherel, Léon (1816-86)
– Golgotha, 1881, l’Art 1881, Catalogue de tableaux
de premier ordre ancient & modernes composant la
galerie de M. John W. Wilson, 14-16 March 1881,
cat.92 as Christ on the Cross
Gérard, J.
– Portrait of a Man, Magasin pittoresque July 1869
Gilbert, Achille-Isidore (1828-99)
– St. Matthew the Evangelist, lithograph, Salon of
1895 nº4229
– Portrait of a Young Man, lithograph, Salon of 1896
nº4583
Ginisty, Jeanne
Girard, Cléo
– The Good Samaritan, wood engraving, Salon of
1887 nº5019
– Angel Raphael leaving Tobias’ Family, wood engraving, Salon of 1887 nº5020
Giroux, Charles (b.1861)
– Head of a Young Man, etching, Salon of 1888 nº5223
Greux, Gustave-Marie (1838-1919)
– Philosopher, Salon of 1868 nº4047, for the Musée
universel
Guénée, Henri-Emmanuel
– Portrait of a Man, lithograph, Salon of 1895
nº4240
Guérard, Henri-Charles (1846-97)
– Docteur Faustus or The Microcosm, etching, c.1875,
Paris à l’eau-forte 14 March 1875
– Blind Tobias, c.1875, Beraldi 452-461
– Two Pendant Beggars, Paris à l’eau-forte 30 April
1876
– Two Old Men, etching, c.1875, Beraldi 452-261
– Skater, etching, Bertin 505
– Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, etching, 1875, B.452461, Bertin 506
– Doctor feeling the pulse, c.1875, etching, B.452-41,
Bertin 507
– Old Man Meditating, c.1875, etching, Bertin 508
– Two Small Studies, etching, c.1875, Bertin 509
Guerdet, Laurent-François (b.1830)
– Self-Portrait, Salon of 1870 nº5205
Gusman, Pierre (b.1862)
– Portrait of a Young Man, wood engraving, Salon of
1892 nº3726
Hanriot, Jules-Armand (b.1853)
– Portrait of Saskia, etching, Salon of 1889 nº5513,
L’Artiste December 1888
Hermant, Auguste-Louis (b.1904)
– Portrait of Rembrandt, lithograph, Salon of 1894
nº4270
Honer, Marie-Edmond
– Untitled, lithograph, Salon of 1893 nº3868
Hourriez, Georges
– Fragments of the Syndics, wood engraving, Salon of
1894 nº4279
Huvey, Louis (1868-1954)
– La Descente de la croix, lithograph, Salon of 1899
nº4624
Huyot, Jean-Marie-Joseph-Jules (1841-1921)
– Pilgrims of Emmaus, wood engraving, Salon of
1879 nº5688
– Christ before Pilate, wood engraving, Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, December 1874
Jaccot, Jean-Jules
– Disciples of Emmaus, lithograph, Salon of 1889
nº5532
Jacob, Marguerite-Jeanne (b.1867)
– Rembrandt’s Mother, Salon of 1890 nº5064
Jacque, Charles (1813-94)
– Head of a Woman, etching, 1830, Guiffrey 1
– Portrait, (Rembrandt drawing), etching, Guiffrey
127
– Rembrandt’s Mill, etching, 1846, L’Artiste 15
January 1849
Jacquemart, Jules (1837-80)
– Untitled, Salon of 1878 nº4837
– Portrait of Rembrandt in Old Age (Paris, Double
collection), 1869, Gazette des Beaux-Arts May 1870
– Head of an Old Man, Gazette des Beaux-Arts July
1877
– Landscape, Gazette des Beaux-Arts September 1877
Julian-Damazy, William
– Portrait of a Man, engraving, Salon of 1886
nº5069
Koepping, Charles (Carl, German, 1848-1914)
– Portrait of a Woman, engraving, Salon of 1879
nº5696
– Lucretia, etching, Salon of 1880 nº7048
– Portrait of the Constable of Bourbon, etching, Salon
of 1882 nº5387
– Syndics, engraving, Salon of 1887 nº5071
– An Old Man, etching, Salon of 1889 nº5544
Korneff, Vinzeslas Bazil (Russian)
Lefort, Henri-Émile (b.1852)
– Rembrandt’s Mother, etching, Salon of 1877 nº4461
Leguay, Eugène (b.1822)
– Head of a Man (Paris, Louvre), etching, 1859,
iff 10
Leleu, A.-Félix-Alexandre (b.1871)
– Rembrandt’s Mother (St. Petersburg, Hermitage),
lithograph, Salon of 1895 nº4329
– Study (St. Petersburg, Hermitage), lithograph,
– Slaughtered Ox, lithograph, Salon of 1899 nº4682
Leluc, Juliette-Pauline-Adrienne (b.1864)
– Old Man with a Red Hat (Berlin, Museum), wood
Lemaitre, Marie
– Young Soldier, lithograph, Salon of 1896 nº4680
Lenain, Louis (Belgian, b.1851)
– Head of a Jewish Man, etching, Salon of 1877
nº4465
Léonard, Jules (Belgian, 1827-97)
– Untitled (St. Petersburg, Hermitage), lithograph,
Leray, Auguste-Eugène
– Young Girl, wood engraving, Salon of 1889 nº5595
– The Carpenter’s Household (Paris, Louvre
Inv.1742), wood engraving, Salon of 1898 nº4810
Leroy, Alphonse (1780-1840)
– Untitled, (Paris, Louvre), engraving, Salon 1859
nº3603
– Untitled, engraving, Salon of 1881 nº4761
– Portrait of a Man (drawing from Norbin collection), c.1880, Louvre Chalography 1880 nº68,
F. Reiset et F. Villon Collection de dessins originaux
de grands maîtres en facsimile par Alphonse Leroy.
Paris: Alphonse Leroy Estampes, n.d., c.1881
– Two Sketches on the same plate: Man seated before
a table; Sick Woman Crouching (drawing from
Desperet collection), c.1880, Louvre Chalcography 1880 nº69, F. Reiset et F. Villon Collection
de dessins originaux de grands maîtres en facsimile par
Alphonse Leroy. Paris: Alphonse Leroy Estampes,
n.d., c.1881
Leseigneur, Henri-Louis-Maurice
nº4345
appendix
351
Lévy, Gustave (1819-94)
– The Good Minister, engraving, Salon of 1887
nº5127
Lowenstam, Léopold (Dutch, 1842-98)
– Portrait, etching, Salon of 1884 nº4493
Malhélin, Léon-Louis
– Portrait of an Old Man, lithograph, Salon of 1897
nº4162
Manchon, Gaston-Albert (b.1855)
– Portrait of Gerard Dou, engraving, Salon of 1886
nº5243
Manigaud, Jean-Claude (b.1825)
– Rembrandt’s Sisters, engraving, Salon of 1895
nº4378
Maréchal, Léopold
– Study of an Old Man, etching, Salon of 1899
nº4724
Martinet, Alphonse (1821-61)
– Portrait of Rembrandt, Louvre Chalcography 1880
nº2266
Marvy, Louis (1815-50)
– Beggars, etching, Magasin pittoresque July 1847
– Doctor Faust, etching, Magasin pittoresque
December 1847
– Thatched Cottage, Louvre Chalcography 1860 nº34
– Landscape, etching, 1849
– Portrait of Jan Six
– Descent from the Cross
– The Night Watch
– Christ Chassing the Moneychangers from the Temple
– The Good Samaritan
– The Resurrection of Lazarus
Massalof, Nicolas (Russian)
– Untitled (St. Petersburg, Hermitage), six etchings,
– Rembrandt’s Mother Gazette des Beaux-Arts
September 1872
nº3613
– Banquet of Ahasuerus, etching, Salon of 1874
nº3616
– Rembrandt’s Wife, etching, Salon of 1874 nº3616
– Workers on the Vines, etching, Salon of 1874
nº3616
– The Night Watch, etching, Salon of 1877 nº4475
– Lieven Copol, etching, Salon of 1877 nº4476(1)
– Jan VI, etching, Salon of 1877 nº4476(2)
– A Mathematician, Salon of 1877 nº4476(3)
352
– A Young Woman, Salon of 1877 nº4476(4)
– Jacob blessing Joseph’s Children, Salon of 1877
nº4476(5)
– Saskia, etching, Salon of 1877 nº4476(6)
– Untitled, six etchings, Salon of 1878 nº4880
Masson, Alphonse-Charles (1814-98)
– Portrait of a Man, etching, Salon of 1876
nº3919
– Portrait of Rembrandt (Paris, Louvre Inv.1744),
– Head of an Old Man, Salon of 1892 nº3853
– Portrait of Rembrandt, Louvre Chalocography,
1891 supplement nº5952
Mauduit, Charles (b.1788)
– Rest, vignette, Salon of 1849 nº2511(1)
– Rest, vignette, Salon of 1849 nº2511(2)
Maurand, Charles
– Angel Raphael, wood engraving, Salon of 1891
nº3525
Menpes, Mortimer (English, b.1860)
– Rembrandt’s Model, drypoint, Salon of 1890
nº5157
Mercadié, Emmanuel-Victor (d.1897)
nº5377
Milius, Félix-Augustin (1843-94)
– Queen Artemisia, Salon of 1878 nº4890
Miller, Willy (American, 1850-1923)
– Rembrandt’s Mother, wood engraving, Salon of
1884 nº4534
Mirman, Jeanne-Madeleine
– The Hundred Guilder Print, wood engraving,
Montefiore, Edward-Lévy (English, 1820-94)
– Untitled (after a drawing), etching, Salon of 1880
nº7104(1)
– Untitled (after a drawing), etching, Salon of 1880
nº7104(2)
Montenez, Georges
– Portrait of an Old Burgomeister, etching, Salon of
1894 nº4411
Mordant, Daniel (c.1853-1914)
– The “Doreur”, engraving, Salon of 1885 nº4909;
Cent chefs-d’œuvre
– Portrait of a family, engraving, Salon of 1886
nº5272; L’Art
Mouilleron, Adolphe (1820-81)
– The Night Watch, lithograph, 1854 commission of
Musée d’État, Salon of 1860 nº3733 from Musée
d’État; Gazette des Beaux-Arts 1860; Exhibited in
Troyes August 1860; Exposition Universelle 1867
nº1036
Muller, Louis Jean (b.1864)
Nargeot, Jean-Denis (1795-after 1865)
– Untitled, vignette, Salon of 1850 nº3823
Olivier, Marie-Thérèse
– Portrait of Rembrandt, etching, Salon of 1893 nº4090
Payrau, Angèle
– Jupiter in the house of Philemon and Baucis, etching,
Pélicier, Georges-Louis (b.1858)
nº4098
Pelissier, Jean-Joseph
– The Pilgrims of Emmaus (Louvre), lithograph,
Pierruges, Jules
Pilet, Berthe
– Reader, etching, Paris à l’eau-forte 10 January 1876
Pinet, Charles (1867-1932)
– Slaughtered Ox, etching, Salon of 1891 nº3572
Pingenet, Cléopha Dosithée
– Mill, wood engraving, Salon of 1879 nº5788
Pirodon, Louis-Eugène (b.1824)
– Anatomy Lesson, lithograph, Salon of 1888 nº5422
– Ruth and Boaz (Aachen, Suermondt collection),
wood engraving after drawing by Comte, Gazette
des Beaux-Arts April 1874
Poynot, Gabrielle
– Philosopher, engraving, Salon of 1885 nº4955; 1885
sent by the artist to Rouen as part of Félix Buhot’s
mission to create print rooms in the provinces
Privat
– The Night Watch, engraving, Magasin pittoresque 1
November 1893
Proffit, Berthe
– St. Matthew, wood engraving, Salon of 1896 nº4787
Protche, A
– Portrait of Rembrandt, etching, Paris à l’eau-forte
10 May 1873
Quidor, Gabriel-Pascal (1875-1928)
– Study, wood engraving, Salon of 1893 nº4123
Raale, Doris
Ragot, Jean-Baptiste-Abel (d.1904)
– Sacrifice of Manoa, etching and engraving, Salon of
1896 nº4793
Rajon, Paul-Adolphe (1842/3-88)
– Old Woman (London, National Gallery), etching,
Salon of 1874 nº3556, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 1874
Regnier, Isidore-Désiré
– Adolphe Gelderen showing his fit to his Father,
(Vienna, Museum), wood engraving, Salon of
1864 nº2977
Roupini, Venceslas
– Self-Portrait, engraving, Salon of 1891 nº3603
Roux, Jean-Marie-Paul
– Interior of a Butcher’s Shop, etching, Salon of 1898
nº4946
Salmon, Emile-Frédéric (1840-1913)
– Syndics, etching, Salon of 1892 nº3952
Sauvigny, Alfred
– Untitled, lithograph, Salon of 1899 nº4843(1)
Schultheiss, Albrecht (German, 1823-1909)
– Saskia, engraving, Salon of 1886 nº5354
– Woman with a Carnation, engraving, Salon of 1886
nº5355
Sefman, Ferdinand
Serres, Raoul-Jean
– Portrait of an Old Man, engraving, Salon of 1899
nº4845
– Portrait of a Young Rembrandt, engraving, Salon of
1898 nº4968
Simon, Clémentine
– St. Matthew, wood engraving, Salon of 1895
nº4509
Sivé, Louis
– Portrait of an Old Man, wood engraving, Salon of
1892 nº3959
Soderlund, Charles (Swedish, b.1860)
– Philosopher Meditating, etching, Salon of 1896
nº4832
Thommès, Henri
– Portrait of a Man, lithograph, Salon of 1897 nº4289
Tinayre, Jean-Julien (1859-1923)
– St. Matthew the Evangelist, wood engraving, Salon
of 1890 nº5278
– Rembrandt’s Father, wood engraving, Salon of
1894 nº4519
appendix
353
Tirpenne, Félix
– Self-Portrait, lithograph, Salon of 1896 nº4846
Unger, William (German, 1837-1932)
– Portrait of a Man (Vienna, Lissingen collection)
Gazette des Beaux-Arts March 1876
Vallotton, Félix-Édouard (Swiss, 1865-1925)
nº5785
Veyrassat, Jules-Jacques (1828-93)
– The Carpenter’s Household (Louvre Inv.1742), etching, Salon of 1857 nº3286, Louvre Chalcography
1860 nº617, L’Artiste 1856
Vigné, Eugène
– Syndics, engraving, Salon of 1897 nº4309
Vintraut, Godefroy-Frédéric
– Syndics, wood engraving, Salon of 1888 nº5510
Viollat, Eugène Joseph (d.1901)
– Portrait of a Man (Venice, Malfrini Palace),
Magasin pittoresque May 1866
Vion, Henry (1863-91)
– Head of Rembrandt, engraving, Salon of 1888
nº5512
– Portrait of a Man, Man Laughing (Dresden,
Museum), Louvre Chalcography, 1891 supplement nº5953
Voisin, Philibert-Alexandre
– St. Matthew the Evangelist, lithograph, Salon of
1898 nº5018
Voruz, Élise (1844-1909)
– Head of a Man, lithograph, Salon of 1893 nº4198
Vuillon, G.
– Portrait of a Man Laughing (Vienna, Belvedere
Gallery), Magasin pittoresque January 1887
Waltner, Charles Auguste (1846-1925)
– Portrait of a Man, etching, Salon of 1874 nº3616
nº5606
354
– Portrait of a Rabbi, etching, Salon of 1882 nº5607
– Portrait of Rembrandt, Salon of 1883 nº4937; MM.
Goupil & Co.
– The “Doreur” (Paris, Duc de Morny collection),
engraving, Salon of 1884 nº4663, Georges Petit
– An Old Man, engraving, Salon of 1885 nº5031
– The Oath of Jan Ziska , Gazette des Beaux-Arts
November 1874
– Self-Portrait, (London, National Gallery)
– Rembrandt’s Brother
– Martin Daey (Paris, Gustave de Rothschild collection), 1884, Goupil & Co.
– Mrs. Daey (Paris, Gustave de Rothschild collection), 1884, Goupil & Co.
– The Night Watch (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum),
1888, Boussod-Valadon
– Jacob Blessing (Kassel, Staatliche
Kunstsammlungen)
– A Rabbi, 1887, Obach & Co., London, 2 February
1887
– Elizabeth Jacob Baas (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum),
1887, Boussod, Valadon & Co.
Widman, Frédéric-Jacques
– Portrait of a Woman, wood engraving, Salon of
1895 nº4560
Zaleski, Bronislaw (Polish, 1819-80)
– Landscape (Florence, Offices Gallery), Salon of
1868 nº415
Zilcken, Charles Louis Philippe (1857-1930)
– Portrait of an Old Woman, engraving, Salon of
1887 nº5316
* dates included when known
b i b l i o gr a p h y
primary sources
Anonymous
– “Mendiants, par Rembrandt”. Magasin pittoresque
vol. 15 (July 1847): 217-18.
– “Le Docteur Faustus”. Magasin pittoresque vol. 15
(December 1847): 393-4.
– “Un tableau de Rembrandt”. Magasin Pittoresque
vol. 32 (May 1864): 145-6.
– “Un portrait par Rembrandt”. Magasin Pittoresque
vol. 34 (May 1866): 137-8.
vol. 37 (July 1869): 212-13.
– “Un dessin du musée de Berlin”. Magasin
Pittoresque vol. 64 (October 1878): 340.
– “Librarie, l’Œuvre complet de Rembrandt, par
M. Eugène Dutuit”. Le Temps (10 March 1881): 2.
– “Gravures extraites de l’Œuvre complet de
Rembrandt, décrit et catalogué par M.E. Dutuit”.
L’Illustration vol. 86 (19 July 1885): 44-5.
vol. 55 (January 1887): 40-1.
– “L’administration des domaines”. Le Petit Journal
(15 February 1890): 1.
– “Dernières nouvelles, une vielle dame”. Le Temps
(15 February 1890): 4.
– “Le ‘Rembrandt’ du Pecq”. Le Temps (16 February
1890): 2.
– “Le Rembrandt du Pecq”. Le Petit Journal
(16 February 1890): 1-2.
– “Un incident bien curieux”. Le Figaro (16 February
1890): 1.
– “Voici quelques nouveaux détails”. Le Figaro
(17 February 1890): 1.
– “Le Rembrandt du Pecq”. Le Temps (18 February
1890): 2.
– “Le Rembrandt du Pecq”. Le Petit Journal
(18 February 1890): 2.
1890): 2.
– “L’affaire du Rembrandt”. Le Figaro (19 February
1890): 1.
– “Encore le Rembrandt”. Le Petit Journal
(19 February 1890): 2.
1890): 2.
– “Tribunaux, Le Rembrandt du Pecq”. Chronique
des Arts et de la Curiosité (24 May 1890): 166.
– “Tribunaux, Le ‘Rembrandt du Pecq”.
Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité (2 August
1890): 213.
– “Un nouvelle méthode de classement des eauxfortes de Rembrandt”. Le Temps, Le Petit Temps
supplément (9 January 1896): 1.
– “Les Rembrandt de la princesse de Sagan”.
Le Temps (11 November 1897): 3.
– “Ce matin la reine... visitaient l’exposition
Rembrandt”. Le Temps (22 October 1898): 2.
– “Exposition de l’œuvre de Rembrandt”. Le Temps
(3 November 1898): 2.
– “La Clôture de l’exposition Rembrandt”.
– “Un grave accident”. Le Temps (9 November
1898): 2.
bibliography
355
– “L’une des pièces les plus importantes de la
recente exposition Rembrandt”. Le Temps
(19 November 1898): 2.
– “Leçon d’anatomie (La)”. In Grand dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle. Pierre Larousse. vol. 10 Paris:
Slatkine, 1982 ed., p.302.
– “Ménage du menuisier (Le)”. In Grand dictionnaire
universel du XIXe siècle. vol. 11 Pierre Larousse.
Paris: Slatkine, 1982 ed., p.9.
– “Rembrandt (Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Ryn,
connu sous le nom de)”. In Larousse, grand dictionnaire universel du XIX siècle. vol. 13 Paris: Slatkine,
1982 ed., pp. 917-18.
– “Ronde de nuit (La)”. In Grand dictionnaire universel
du XIXe siècle. Pierre Larousse. vol. 13 Paris:
Slatkine, 1982 ed., p. 1366.
– “Samaritain (Le bon)”. In Grand dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle. Pierre Larousse. vol. 14 Paris:
Slatkine, 1982 ed., p. 154.
– “Syndics des drapiers (Les)”. In Grand dictionnaire
universel du XIXe siècle. vol. 14 Pierre Larousse.
Paris: Slatkine, 1982 ed., p. 1328.
– Tableaux et dessins de Rembrandt, 25 eaux-fortes par
Flameng, Waltner, Lalauze, etc. Paris: Central Fine
Arts Bookstore, n.d.
Arnoult, André
– “Le Cabinet des estampes et le musée de gravures
à Dijon”. Journal des arts (28 April 1885): 1.
Auvray, Louis
– Salon de 1861. Paris: Artistic Review, 1861.
– Salon de 1865. Paris: n.p.,1865.
– Le Musée Européen: Copies d’après les grands maîtres
au palais des Champs Élysées. Paris: Renouard, 1873.
Barthélemy, Édouard de
– “Albert Dürer et Rembrandt van Rijn”. L’Artiste
(15 December 1866): 58-60.
Bartsch, Adam von
– Catalogue Raisonné de toutes les estampes qui forment
l’œuvre de Rembrandt et ceux de ces principaux imitateurs composé par les sieurs Gersaint, Helle, Glomy et
P. Yver. Vienna: A. Blumauer, 1797.
– Catalogue raisonné de toutes les estampes qui forment
l’œuvre de Rembrandt et ceux de ces principaux imitateurs composé par les sieurs Gersaint, Helle, Glomy et
P. Yver. 2 vols. Paris: Rapilly, 1880.
– Le Peintre-graveur. vols. 1-5 Vienna: J.G. Degen,
1921.
356
Baudelaire, Charles
– “L’eau-forte est à la mode”. Revue anecdotique
(April 1862): 169-71.
– Le Peintre de la vie moderne”. In Claude Pichois
(Ed.), Œuvres Complètes. vol. 2 Paris: Gallimard,
1976, pp. 683-722.
– “Painters and Etchers”. In Jonathan Mayne (Ed.
and Trans.), Art in Paris 1845-1862: Salons and
Other Exhibitions. Oxford: Phaidon, 1981, 217-22.
Beauquier, Charles
– “Victor Hugo et Rembrandt, a propos de
l’homme qui rit”. Revue Britannique vol. 3
(June 1869): 395-402.
Beaurin, Charles
– “Les disciples d’Emmaus, Titien et Rembrandt”.
L’Artiste (1 March 1865): 97-102.
Beraldi, Henri
– Mes Estampes, 1872-1884. Lille: Danel, 1884.
– Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle, guide de l’amateur
d’estampes modernes. 12 vols. Paris: L. Conquet,
1885-92.
Berger, Georges
– “Les dessins de maîtres anciens, les écoles étrangères, suite et fin”. L’Art vol. 19 (1879): 121-9.
Berthoud, H.
– “La Nuit de Toussaint”. Revue de Paris vol. 50
(February 1838): 237-65.
Bertrand, Aloysius [Louis]
– Gaspard de la nuit: Fantaisies à la manière de Callot
et Rembrandt. Paris: Labitte, 1842.
Blanc, Charles
– “Janus Lutma”. L’Artiste vol. 2 (1839): 179-81.
– L’Œuvre de Rembrandt reproduit par la photographie,
décrit et commenté. Paris: Gide et J. Baudry, 1853.
– “Une exposition de curiosités à Amsterdam”.
L’Artiste vol. 62 (1 August 1858): 203-5.
– L’Œuvre de Rembrandt, reproduit par la
photographie. Paris: Gide and Baudry, 1858.
– “Rembrandt”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April 1859):
77-92.
– “La Ronde de nuit de Rembrandt, lithographiée
par M. Mouilleron, Paris, chez l’auteur, 6, rue de
Seine, 1860”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1860): 368-72.
– “De la gravure à l’eau-forte et des eaux-fortes de
Jacque”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (February 1861):
193-208.
– Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles: École hollandaise. 2 vols. Paris: Renouard, 1861.
– L’Œuvre Complet de Rembrandt décrit et commenté:
catalogue raisonné de toutes les eaux-fortes du maître
et de ses peintures orné de bois gravés et de quarante
eaux-fortes tirés a part et rapportées dans le texte.
Paris: Gide, 1861.
– “La Galerie Delessert”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(February 1869): 105-27, 202-22.
– Grammaire des arts du dessin: architecture, sculpture,
peinture. Paris: Renouard, 1870.
– L’Œuvre de Rembrandt décrit et commenté: catalogue
raisonné de toutes les estampes du maître et de ses
peintures, orné de bois gravés, de quarante eaux-fortes
de Flameng, et de trente-cinq héliogravures d’Amand
Durand. 2 vols. Paris: A. Lévy, 1873.
– “La Ronde de nuit de Rembrandt gravée par
M. Flameng”. Le Temps (3 August 1874): 3-4.
– “Lettres de hollande, visite à Rubens et à
Rembrandt, Amsterdam, septembre 1876”.
Le Temps (11 October 1876): 3.
– “Une visite à San Donato-galerie de peintures
des écoles flamande et hollandaise, 1er article”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (July 1877): 5-14.
– “Une visite à San Donato-galerie de peintures
des écoles flamande et hollandaise, 2e article”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (September 1877): 201-10.
– “Une visite à San-Donato-galerie de peintures des
écoles flamande et hollandaise, 3e et dernier article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (October 1877): 410-21.
– l’Œuvre de Rembrandt décrit et commenté: ouvrage
comprenant la reproduction de toutes les estampes du
maître exécutée sous la direction de M. Firmin
Delangle. 2 vols. Paris: A. Quantin, 1880.
– Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles: École hollandaise. Ed. Henri Laurens. 2 vols. Paris: Renouard,
1883.
Boinoir, G.
– “Scènes biographiques: l’Atelier de Rembrandt”.
Mercure de France vol. 31 (1830): 183-8.
Bonnat, Léon
– “Comment je suis devenu collectioneur”. (20 June
1893) Archives of Graphic Arts Department,
Louvre Museum. Later publ. by Neveux without
source in La Revue de Paris (15 February 1926):
757-64.
Bouchot, Henri
– “Deux épreuves de la Petite tombe de Rembrandt
au Cabinet des Estampe de Paris”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (November 1899): 381-9.
Braquemond, Félix
– “Exposition Universelle, La Gravure, IV”
Le Rappel (12 October 1878): 3.
Buhot, Félix
– “A Monsieur J.F. Raffaëlli, au journal l’Evénement”. Journal des Arts (21 November 1884): 1.
– “Les Salles d’estampes dans les musées de province”. Journal des arts (25 November 1884): 1.
– “Les Salles d’estampes dans les musées de province”. Journal des arts (28 November 1884): 1-2.
– “Les Salles d’estampes dans les musées de province”. Journal des arts (5 December 1884): 2-3.
– “Les Salles d’estampes dans les musées de province”. Journal des arts (19 December 1884): 2.
– “Les Salles d’estampes dans les musées de province”. Journal des arts (23 December 1884): 1.
– “Communications relatives aux Salles d’Estampes”.
Journal des arts (10 February 1885): 3.
– “A MM. les Graveurs”. Journal des arts (6 March
1885): 1.
– “Première liste des dons envoyés au Journal
des arts pour le Cabinet des Estampes de la ville
de Rouen”. Journal des arts (27 March 1885): 1.
Buhot, Félix, and Auguste Dalligny
– “Liste générale des dons envoyés au Journal
des arts pour le Cabinet des Estampes de la
ville de Rouen”. Journal des arts (7 August
1885): 1.
Burgy, Amadé de
– Catalogue de l’incomparable et la seule complete
collection des estampes de Rembrandt. The Hague:
Pierre Gerard van Baalen, 1755.
Burty, Philippe
– “L’Œuvre de Francis Seymour Haden (premier
article)”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts. (September 1864):
274-87.
– “L’Œuvre de Francis Seymour Haden (deuxième
et dernier article)”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts.
(October 1864): 356-66.
– Études à l’eau-forte, par Francis Seymour Haden.
Paris: Claye,1866.
– Exposition rétrospective, tableaux anciens empruntés
aux galeries particulières, palais des Champs-Élysées,
Paris: n.p., June 1866.
bibliography
357
– “La Gravure au salon de 1866”. Gazette des BeauxArts (August 1866): 184-94.
– “Théodore Rousseau”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(April 1868): 305-25.
– “Paul Huet”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1 April 1869):
297-315.
– “L’Eau-forte moderne en France”. La Renaissance
littéraire et artistique (November 1873): 321-3,
330-1.
– “L’Eau-forte moderne en France”. In L’Eau-forte
en 1874. Paris: Cadart, 1874, pp. 5-13.
– “La Belle épreuve”. In L’Eau-forte en 1875.
Paris: Cadart, 1875, pp. 7-13.
– Maîtres et petits maîtres. Paris: G. Charpentier, 1877.
– “Qu’est-ce que la gravure?” In L’Eau-forte en 1878.
Paris: Cadart, 1878, pp.5-13.
– Lettres de Eugène Delacroix. 2 vols. Paris: G. Charpentier, 1880.
Cadart, Alfred
– Catalogue complet d’eaux-fortes originales et inédites.
Paris: Cadart, 1878.
Cambray, Sosthène
– “Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (26 November 1843):
343-6, 372-5, 387-9.
Cardon, Émile
– “L’Eau-forte des peintres”. In L’Eau-forte en 1879
vol. 2 Paris: Cadart, 1879, pp. 5-10.
Catalogue des planches gravées composant le fonds de la
chalcographie et dons les épreuves se vendent dans cet
établissement au musée impérial du Louvre. Paris:
Charles de Mourgues Brothers, 1860.
Catalogue descriptif des dessins de maîtres anciens exposés à
l’École des Beaux-Arts. Intro. Charles Ephrussi and
Gustave Dreyfus. Paris: Georges Chamerot, 1879.
Catalogue des planches gravées composant le fonds de la
chalcographie et dont les épreuves se vendent au musée.
Paris: National Printers, 1881.
Catalogue de l’exposition de gravures anciennes et modernes.
Paris: Bookstore Circle, 1881.
Catalogue illustré de l’exposition internationale de blanc et
noir. Intro. François Bournand. Paris: E. Bernard
and Company, 1885.
and Company, 1886.
noir. Intro. Georges Amigues. Paris: E. Bernard &
Company, 1888.
358
noir. Paris: E. Bernard & Company, 1890.
Catalogue de l’exposition de peinture des maîtres hollandais
au profit des pauvres de Paris. Paris: Art Publishers,
1891.
& Company, 1892.
Catalogue des tableaux, études peintes, aquarelles, dessins,
gravures, objets d’art et d’ameublement... composant
l’atelier Charles Jacque, Paris, Galerie Georges
Petit, 12-15 November 1894.
Catalogue officiel de l’exposition nationale de l’eau-forte
moderne à l’École des Beaux-Arts. Paris: General
Printers, 1896.
Catalogue de l’exposition des portraits des femmes et
d’enfants. Paris: Philanthropic Society, 1897.
Cent chefs d’œuvres des collections parisiennes. Text by
Albert Wolf. Georges Petit and Ludovic Baschet
(Eds.). Paris: Georges Petit, 1883.
Champfleury
– Histoire de l’imagerie populaire. Paris: E. Dentu, 1886.
– Le Réalisme. Genviève and Jean Lacambre (Eds.).
Paris: Hermann, 1973.
Claretie, Jules
– “L’Eau-forte en 1880”. In L’Eau-forte en 1880.
vol. 2 Paris: Cadart, 1880, pp. 5-11.
– “La Vie à Paris, A propos de la Ronde de nuit de
Rembrandt”. Le Temps (8 September 1885): 3.
Claussin, J. J. de
l’œuvre de Rembrandt et des principales pièces de ses
élèves, composé par les sieurs Gersaint, Helle, Glomy,
et P. Yver. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1824.
– Supplément au catalogue de Rembrandt, suivi d’une
description des estampes de ses élèves, augmentées de
pièces et d’épreuves inédites. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1828.
Clément de Ris
– Les Musées de province. 2 vols. Paris: Jules Renouard,
1859.
– Les Musées de province. Paris: Jules Renouard, 1872.
Cook, Herbert F.
– “Correspondance d’Angleterre: L’Exposition
Rembrandt à Londres”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(March 1899): 248-57.
Coquerel fils., Athanase
– Rembrandt et l’individualisme dans l’art. Paris:
Sandoz and Fischbacher, 1869.
Couder, Auguste
– Considérations sur le but moral des beaux-arts. Paris:
Renouard, 1867.
Coypel, Antoine
– Discours prononcez dans les conférences de l’Académie
Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture. Paris: Jacques
Collombat, 1721.
Dalligny, Auguste
– “Un musée d’estampes au Louvre, lettre de
M. Félix Buhot à M.J.F. Raffaëlli”. Journal des arts
(21 November 1884): 1.
– “A MM. les conservateurs des musées de province”. Journal des arts (2 December 1884): 1.
Delaborde, Henri
– “La gravure depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours,
première partie”. Revue des deux mondes vol. 8
(1 December 1850): 902-34.
deuxième partie”. Revue des deux mondes vol. 8
(15 December 1850): 1008-39.
dernière partie”. Revue des deux mondes vol. 9
(1 January 1851): 31-59.
– “La photographie et la gravure”. Revue des deux
mondes (1 April 1856): 617-38.
– “Le musée des copies”. Revue des deux mondes
(1 May 1873): 209-18.
– La département des estampes à la Bibliothèque
Nationale, notice historique suivie d’un catalogue des
estampes. Paris, 1875.
Delacroix, Eugène
– “Le dessin sans maître, par Mme Élisabeth Cavé”.
Revue des deux mondes vol. 3 (15 September 1850):
1139-46.
– “Questions sur le beau”. Revue des deux mondes
vol. 3 (15 July 1854): 306-15.
– The Journal of Eugène Delacroix. Trans. Walter
Pach. New York: Friede Publishers, 1937.
– “Des variations de beau”. In François-Marie
Deyrolle and Christophe Denissel (Eds.),
Écrits sur l’art. Paris: Séguier, 1988, pp.
33-49.
Delage, Émile
– Note sur une œuvre ignorée de Rembrandt, ou l’étude
peinte du Jeune homme à toque de velours. Paris:
All Libraries, 1898.
Deleschamps, Pierre
– Des mordans, des vernis et des planches dans l’art du
graveur, ou traité complet de la gravure. Paris:
Huzard, 1836.
Descamps, Jean Baptiste
– “Rembrandt”. In La vie des peintres flamands, allemands et hollandois, avec des portraits gravés en tailledouce, une indication de leurs principaux ouvrages,
& des réflexions sur leurs différentes manières. vol. 2
Paris: Charles-Antoine Jombert, 1754, pp. 1-63.
Desnoyers, Fernand
– “Du Réalisme”. L’Artiste (9 December 1855):
197-200.
Drumont, Edouard
– La France Juive, édition populaire. Paris: Victor
Palme, 1888.
Du Camp, Maxime
– Le Salon de 1861. Paris: New Library, 1861.
Duchesne, J.
– Notice des estampes exposées à la Bibliothèque Royale.
Paris: Leblanc and Delauney, 1819.
– Notice des estampes exposées à la Bibliothèque
Nationale. Paris: Charles Heideloff, 1837.
– Description des estampes exposées à la Bibliothèque
Impériale. Paris: n.p., 1855.
Dumesnil, Alfred
– La foi nouvelle cherchée dans l’art, de Rembrandt à
Beethoven. Paris: Comon, 1850.
Dumesnil, Jules Antoine
– Histoire des plus célèbres amateurs étrangers espagnols,
anglais, flamands, hollandais et allemands et de leur
relations avec les artistes. Paris: Jules Renouard, 1860.
Dumur, Louis and Virgile Josz
– Rembrandt. Paris: Blais, Roy and Company for the
Mercure de France, 1896.
Duplessis, Georges
– Histoire de la gravure en France. Paris: Rapilly, 1861.
– “Les eaux-fortes de Rembrandt”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (May 1875): 477-84.
– Histoire de la gravure en Italie, en Espagne, en
Allemagne, dans les Pays-Bas, en Angleterre, et en
France. Paris: Hachette and Company, 1880.
– “Coup d’oeil sur l’histoire de la gravure”. In
Catalogue de l’exposition de gravures anciennes et
modernes. Paris: Bookstore Circle, 1881, pp. 5-32.
– Catalogue des dessins, aquarelles et estampes de
Gustave Doré. Paris: Bookstore Circle, 1885.
Durand, Amand
– Héliogravure Amand-Durand, œuvre de Rembrandt.
Paris: Amand-Durand and Goupil & Co., 1880.
bibliography
359
– L’Œuvre de Rembrandt. Paris: Amand-Durand,
1880.
Durand-Gréville, É.
– “Beaux-Arts, de la conservation des tableaux, à
propos d’une polémique récente”. Revue politique
et littéraire (3 November 1883): 564-8.
– “Les Nouveaux document hollandais sur la Ronde
de nuit de Rembrandt”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(March 1887): 175-84.
– “Monographies artistiques: La Leçon d’anatomie du
Dr. Tulp, par Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (April 1888):
241-50.
– “Le Bon samaritan de Rembrandt au Louvre”.
L’Artiste (October 1888): 250-60.
– “François Bonvin et les maîtres hollandais”.
L’Artiste (November 1888): 347-56.
– “Saskia”. L’Artiste (December 1888): 438-52.
– “À propos de Saskia”. L’Artiste (January 1889): 40-2.
– “Encore le tableau du Pecq”. L’Artiste (May
1890): 362-6.
– “Les Dernières recherches sur Rembrandt, par M.
Woermann”. Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité
(30 August 1890): 228-9.
– “Les Dernières recherches sur Rembrandt, par
M.K. Weoermann, suite”. Chronique des Arts et de
la Curiosité (8 November 1890): 268-9.
– “Les Dernières Recherches sur Rembrandt, par
M.K. Woermann, suite et fin”. Chronique des Arts
et de la Curiosité (15 November 1890): 276-8.
– “L’Exposition Rembrandt à Amsterdam”.
L’Artiste (January 1899): 1-15.
– “L’Exposition Rembrandt à Amsterdam, suite”.
L’Artiste (April 1899): 214-50.
– “Le Nettoyage de la Ronde de nuit”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (July 1889): 102-4.
– “Le Nettoyage de la Ronde de nuit”. L’Artiste
(September 1889): 177-89, 252-61, 350-60.
– “Le Tableau du Pecq”. L’Artiste (February 1890):
131-43.
– “Un portrait du père de Rembrandt au Musée de
Tours”. Chronique des Arts et de la curiosité (27
December 1890): 324-5.
– “Un nouveau livre sur Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (July
1891): 61-3.
– “Monographies artistiques, la mère de Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (August 1891): 81-9, 161-8.
– “Rembrandt et le Dr. W. Bode”. L’Artiste (April
1896): 278-80.
360
– “Rembrandt à Leyde, 1e article”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (October 1896): 265-72.
– “Rembrandt à Leyde, 2e et dernier article”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (November 1896): 407-16.
Duranty
– Réalisme (10 July 1856, 15 November 1856-May
1857).
– “Bibliographie: L’Art et les artistes hollandais,
par M. Henry Havard”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(August 1879): 169-72.
Dutuit, Eugène
– Manuel de l’amateur d’estampes: école flamande et
hollandaise. Paris: A. Lévy, 1881-5.
– L’Œuvre complet de Rembrandt décrit et commenté
et reproduit a l’aide des procédés de l’héliogravure par
M. Charreyre, catalogue raisonné de toutes les estampes du maître accompagné de leur reproduction en
fac-similé de la grandeur des originaux au nombre de
360 environ précédé d’une introduction sur la vie de
Rembrandt et de l’appréciation de ses œuvres. 2 vols.
Paris: A. Lévy, 1883-86.
– Tableaux et dessins de Rembrandt, Catalogue historique et descriptif, description de tous les tableaux connus et des dessins du maître existant dans les galeries
publiques et privées ou ayant figuré dans des ventes
publiques avec vingt-cinq planches en héliogravure ou
eaux-fortes gravées par Flameng, Waltner, Lalauze,
etc., Supplement à l’Œuvre complet de Rembrandt.
Paris: A. Lévy, 1885.
Eekhoud, Georges
– “Chronique de Bruxelles...des Rembrandt exposés
à Amsterdam”. Mercure de France vol. 31
(November 1898): 515-22.
Ephrussi, Charles
– “Dessins de la collection His de la Salle, 2e
article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April 1882):
297-309.
Erckman, Émile
– “Le sacrifice d’Abraham, conte hollandais, I”.
L’Artiste (12 April 1857): 25-32.
– “Le Sacrifice d’Abraham, conte hollandais, fin”.
L’Artiste (19 April 1857): 55-9.
Etex, Antoine
– Cours élémentaire de dessin. Paris: Etex, 1850, 1853
2nd ed.
Étienne, C.G., Morel, Servières, and Picot de Moras
– Rembrandt, ou la vente après décès, vaudeville anecdotique. Paris: Theatrical Play Shop, 1800.
Explication des ouvrages de peinture exposés au profit de la
Colonisation de l’Algérie par les Alsaciens-Lorrains.
Paris: Jules Claye, 1874.
Exposition de peintures, cent chefs d’œuvres des collections
parisiennes. Paris: Georges Petit, 1883.
Exposition de tableaux de Maîtres anciens au profit des
inondés du midi. Paris: Art Printers, 1887.
Exposition de peinture, cent chefs-d’œuvre des écoles
françaises et étrangères (deuxième exposition).
Paris: Georges Petit Gallery, 1892.
Filhol, Antoine-Michel and Joseph Lavalée
– Galerie du Musée de France. 11 vols. Paris: Filhol,
1804-15, 1828.
Flameng, Léopold
– Paris qui s’en va. Paris: Cadart, 1860.
Fontainas, André
– “Rembrandt Chez Lui”. Le Mercure de France
vol. 39 (January 1899): 35-48.
Fromentin, Eugène
– Les Maîtres d’autrefois, Belgique-Hollande. Intro.
and Ed. Jacques Foucart. Paris: Le Livre de
Poche, 1965 ed.
Galichon, Émile
– “Quelques mots à propos d’un portrait de
Corneille-Nicolas Anslo, par Rembrandt”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (March 1866): 234-9.
– “Les Rembrandt de l’ermitage impérial de SaintPétersbourg, quarante planches gravées à eauxfortes par M. Massaloff”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(September 1872): 250-3.
Galletti, R.
– Salon de 1861, album caricatural. Paris: New
library, 1861.
Gault de St. Germain, Pierre-Marie
– Guide des amateurs de tableaux pour les écoles allemande, flamande et hollandoise. 2 vols. Paris:
Antoine-Augustin Renouard, 1841.
Gautier, Théophile
– Albertus ou l’âme et le péché, légende théologique.
Paris: Paulin, 1831.
– “Esquisse de Voyage. Rembrandt-La Garde de
nuit et la Leçon d’anatomie”. Le Cabinet de l’amateur
et de l’antiquaire vol. 4 (1846): 385-99.
– “Histoire de la peinture: flamande et hollandaise”.
L’Artiste vol. 9. no.4 (7 March 1847): 11-12.
– “Études sur Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (15 September
1851): 50-3.
– “De l’art moderne”. L’Artiste (1 June 1853): 135-6.
– “La Famille du menuisier d’après Rembrandt”.
L’Artiste vol. 57 (26 October 1856): 237-8.
– L’Art moderne. Paris: Michel Lévy Brothers, 1856.
– “Ce qu’on peut voir en six jours”. Moniteur universel (29, 31 May; 3, 4, 10, 12, 21 June 1858): 2-3.
– Guide de l’amateur au musée du Louvre, suivi de
la vie et les œuvres de quelques peintres. Paris:
G. Charpentier, 1882
Gautier, Théophile, Arsène Houssaye, and Paul de
Saint-Victor
– Les Dieux et les demi-dieux de la peinture. Paris:
Morizot, 1864.
Gersaint, Edme François
– Catalogue raisonné de toutes les pieces qui forment
l’œuvre de Rembrandt. Updated and Augmented
by. Helle & Glomy. Paris: Hochereau, 1751.
l’œuvre de Rembrandt, et ceux de ses principaux
imitateurs. 2 vols. Leipzig: A. Danz, 1880 ed.
Goethe, G.
– “La Conjuration de Jean Ziska”. Chronique des Arts
et de la Curiosité (14 May 1892): 157-8.
– “La Conjuration de Jean Ziska par Rembrandt
(au musée de Stockholm), suite”. Chronique des
Arts et de la Curiosité (28 May 1892): 172-4.
Goffic, Charles le
– “Le Faust historique”. L’Illustration (15 December
1894): 499, 501.
Goncourt, Edmond and Jules de
– Journal, mémoires de la vie littéraire. Ed. Robert
Ricatte. 4 vols. Paris: Flammarion, 1956 ed.
Gonse, Louis
– “La Galerie de M. Schneider”. Gazette des BeauxArts (March 1876): 494-6.
– “La Galerie de M. Schneider”. Gazette des BeauxArts (April 1876): 511-28.
– “Eugène Fromentin, peintre et écrivain, 8e
article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (September 1880):
216-27.
– “Eugène Fromentin, peintre et écrivain, 9e article”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (October 1880): 319-32.
– “Eugène Fromentin, peintre et écrivain,
10e et dernier article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(November 1880): 404-18.
– “L’Œuvre gravé de Rembrandt, reproduit par
l’héliographie, décrit et commenté par M. Charles
Blanc, 1er article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(November 1880): 448-52.
bibliography
361
– “L’Œuvre de Rembrandt, étude de la publication
récente de M. Eugène Dutuit, 1e article”. Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (October 1885): 328-36.
– “L’Inauguration du nouveau musée d’Amsterdam:
La Ronde de nuit et les dernières années de la vie de
Rembrandt, avec une lettre de M. Durand-Gréville”.
– “L’Œuvre de Rembrandt, 2e et dernier article”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (December 1885): 498-510.
– “Un tableau de Rembrandt découvert au Pecq”.
Chronique des arts et de la curiosité (15 February
1890): 5.
– “Le ‘Rembrandt’ du Pecq”. Chronique des arts et de
la curiosité (22 February 1890): 58-9.
– “Le Rembrandt du Pecq”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(April 1890): 324-6.
– “Bibliographie: Les Chefs-d’œuvre du Musée
d’Amsterdam, ouvrage de M. Bredius, traduit par
M. E. Michel, compte rendu”. Gazette des BeauxArts (April 1891): 338-40.
– “Le Rembrandt de la galerie Schœnborn à Vienne”.
Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité (31 December
1892): 324.
– “Rembrandt d’après un livre nouveau”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (January 1893): 57-74.
Gruyer, F.A.
– Voyage Autour du Salon Carré au musée du Louvre.
Paris: Firmin Didot 1891.
Guérard, Henri.
– “Notes relatives à la question de la belle épreuve”.
Paris à l’eau-forte vol. 6 (3 January 1875): 25-6.
Guiffrey, J.J.
– L’Œuvre de Ch. Jacque, catalogue de ses eaux-fortes et
pointes sèches. Paris: Lemaire, 1866.
Haden, Francis Seymour
– The Etched Work of Rembrandt. London: MacMillan & Co., 1879
– L’Œuvre gravé de Rembrandt. Paris: Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 1880.
– The Etched Work of Rembrandt: True and False
London: Macmillan & Co., 1895.
Havard, Henry
– “Les Chef-d’œuvres de l’école hollandaise exposés
à Amsterdam en 1872, 1er article”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (September 1872): 211-24.
– “Les Chefs d’œuvre de l’école hollandaise exposés
à Amsterdam en 1872, 2e article”. Gazette des
362
– “Les Chefs-d’œuvre de l’école hollandaise exposés
à Amsterdam en 1872, 3e article”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (November 1872): 373-92.
– “Les Chefs-d’œuvre de l’école hollandaise exposés
à Amsterdam en 1872. V. Les Peintres de paysage,
de marine, d’architecture et de nature morte,
(May 1873): 394-403.
– “A propos de deux tableaux de Rembrandt, 1er article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (January 1879): 48-52.
– “A propos de deux tableaux de Rembrandt, 2e et
dernier article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (February
1879): 147-51.
– L’Art et les artistes hollandais. 4 vols. Paris:
A. Quantin, 1879-81.
– Histoire de la peinture hollandaise. Paris: Quantin
House, 1881.
Hermann, J.
– “Les Syndics des drapiers de Rembrandt”. Magasin
Pittoresque vol. 65 (1 July 1897): 217-18.
Hix
– “La galerie La Caze, au Louvre”. La Vie Parisienne
(23 April 1870): 330-1.
Hofstede de Groot, C.
– L’Exposition Rembrandt à Amsterdam, 40 planches
sur cuivre avec texte. Amsterdam: Scheltema &
Holkema, 1898.
– Rembrandt: 26 Photogravures d’après les plus beaux
tableaux des expositions à Londres Jan.-Fév. 1899 et
Amsterdam Sept.-Oct. 1898 (supplément).
Amsterdam: Scheltema & Holkema, 1899.
– A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most
Eminent Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth Century.
London, 1908.
Horion, Ch.
– “Le Saint Jérome de Rembrandt”. Chronique des
Arts et de la Curiosité (13 September 1890): 236-7.
Houssaye, Arsène.
– “Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (6 December 1846): 65-70.
– Histoire de la peinture flamande et hollandaise. 2 vols.
Paris: Ferdinand Sartorius, 1847.
Hugo, Victor.
– Nôtre Dame de Paris. Paris: Gallimard, 1966 ed.
Hymans, Henri.
– “L’Œuvre complet de Rembrandt, par M. Eug.
Dutuit”. L’Art vol. 26 (1881): 285-7.
– “L’Œuvre de Rembrandt, par M. Charles Blanc”.
L’Art vol. 28 (1882): 159-60.
– “A Descriptive Catalogue of the Work of Rembrandt van Rhyn, by Charles Henry Middleton”.
L’Art vol. 29 (1882): 19-20.
“Inventory of Musée Napoléon” DD17, 1810-11.
Paris, Archives des Musées nationaux.
Jacque, Charles.
– “Gravure et imprimerie en taille-douce”.
Magasin Pittoresque (June 1852): 188-9, 236-7,
292-3, 331-4, 372-4.
Jacquemart, Albert.
– “Les Collections d’art”. In Paris Guide par les
principaux écrivains et artistes de la France, première
partie la science-l’art. vol. 1 Paris: International
Bookstore, 1868, pp. 551-6.
Jacques, L.G.
– “Un portrait de famille, eau-forte de la semaine”.
Paris à l’eau-forte vol. 5 (6 September 1874):
86-9.
L., A. de
– “Le ‘Rembrandt’ du Pecq”. L’Illustration
(22 February 1890): 165.
Lafenestre, Georges.
– “Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669)”. In Artistes
et Amateurs. Paris: Artistic Society, 1893,
pp. 75-97.
– “Rembrandt van Rijn, 1606-1669”. Revue Bleue
(7 October 1893): 466-72.
– “La Peinture hollandaise au musée du Louvre”.
Revue des deux mondes (15 April 1900): 894-924.
Lagrange, Léon.
– “Salon de 1861”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (May,
June, July and August 1861): 193-211, 257-82,
321-47, 49-73, 135-71.
Lalanne, Maxime.
– Traité de la gravure à l’eau-forte. Paris, 1866.
Landon, C.P.
– Vies et œuvres des peintres les plus célèbres de toutes les
écoles. Paris, 1843.
Lebrun, Jean-Baptiste-Pierre
– “Rembrandt”. In Gallerie des peintres flamands,
hollandais et allemands. vol. 2. Paris: Poignant,
1792-6, pp. 1-3.
Lecomte, Florent
– Cabinet des singularitez d’architecture, peinture,
sculpture et graveur, ou Introduction à la connoissance
des plus Beaux Arts, figurés sous les tabeaux, les statues
& les estampes. 3 vols. Paris: Lambert Marchant,
1699-1700.
Lenormant, François
– “Une publication nouvelle sur Rembrandt”.
Correspondant (25 December 1874): 1367-78.
Lepic, Comte
– “Comment je devins graveur à l’eau-forte”.
In Raoul de Saint-Arroman, La gravure à l’eauforte. Paris: Cadart, 1876, pp. 87-109.
Leroi, Paul
– “Émile Michel, Rembrandt sa vie, son œuvre et son
temps”. L’Art vol. 55 (1893): 61-2.
Leroy, Louis
– “De la gravure à l’eau-forte: A propos de la publication de la Société des aqua-fortistes”. Le Nain
Jaune (19 August 1863): 5-6.
Lesclide, Richard
– “Au Lecteur”. Paris à l’eau-forte vol. 1 (March
1873): 1-3.
– “Silhouettes de quelques artistes de ce temps-ciGuérard”. Paris à l’eau-forte vol. 5 (4 October
1874): 152-7.
Mantz, Paul
– “Livres d’art: Histoire des Peintres: École Hollandaise,
de M. Charles Blanc”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(December 1861): 552-9.
– “Salon de 1867”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (June
1867): 513-48.
– “La Collection La Caze au musée du Louvre,
1er article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (May 1870):
393-406.
– “La Collection La Caze au Musée du Louvre,
(July 1870): 5-25.
– “La Galerie de M. Rothan, 1er article”. Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (April 1873): 273-94.
– “La Galerie de M. Rothan, 2e et dernier
article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (May 1873):
428-49.
– “L’Œuvre de Rembrandt par M. Charles Blanc”.
– “Les Cent chefs-d’œuvre”. Le Temps (24 July
1883): 3.
1890): 2.
– “La Ronde de nuit par Rembrandt”. Magasin
Pittoresque vol. 61 (1 November 1893): 352-4.
Martial, A.P.
– Nouveau traité de la gravure à l’eau-forte. Paris:
A. Cadart, 1873.
bibliography
363
Ménard, René.
– “Un Portrait de Rembrandt”. Gazette des BeauxArts (May 1870): 464-7.
Merson, Olivier
– Exposition de 1861, la peinture en France. Paris:
E. Dentu, 1861.
– “M. Gérôme”. In Fr. Ducuing (Ed.), L’Exposition
Universelle de 1867 vol. 1 Paris: Ch. Lahure, n.d.
(1867), pp. 275-8.
Michel, André
– “Art: Renaissance et Temps Modernes”. In
Grand Encyclopédie Larousse du XIX. vol. 3 Paris:
Lamiraut and Company, n.d., pp. 1150-3.
– “Le musée de Brunswick, 1er article”. Gazette des
– “A propos du ‘Rembrandt du Pecq’ ”. Journal des
Débats (22 February 1890): 2-3.
Michel, Émile
– “Rembrandt, l’homme et son œuvre”. L’Art vol. 39
(1885): 192-8.
– “Hendrickje Stoffels et les dernières années de
Rembrandt”. L’Art vol. 39 (1885): 209-16.
– Les Artistes Célèbres: Rembrandt, ouvrage accompagné
par 41 gravures. Paris: J. Rouam, 1886.
– “Le Mouvement de la critique et des musées en
Hollande”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (July 1888): 62-71.
– “Les Dessins de Rembrandt, 1er partie”. L’Art
vol. 49 (1890): 41-56.
– “La Jeunesse de Rembrandt 1606-1631, 1e article”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (February 1890): 97-117.
– “Les Études récentes sur l’école hollandaise-livres
et musées”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April 1890):
350-60.
– “La Jeunesse de Rembrandt, 2e article”. Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (May 1890): 426-36.
– “La Jeunesse de Rembrandt, 3e article”. Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (August 1890): 154-66.
– “La Jeunesse de Rembrandt, 4e et dernier article”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (September 1890): 236-59.
– “La Ronde de nuit”. Chronique des Arts et de la
Curiosité (8 November 1890): 269-70.
– “Les Tableaux de corporations militaires”. Revue
des deux mondes (15 December 1890): 865-909.
– “Les Biographes et les critiques de Rembrandt”.
Revue des deux mondes (1 December 1891): 640-71.
– “Les Musées et les publications relatives a l’histoire de l’art en Hollande”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(November 1892): 414-32.
364
– “Un tableau de Rembrandt au musée royal de
Stockholm”. L’Art vol. 53 (1892): 61-7.
– Rembrandt, sa vie, son œuvre et son temps. Paris:
Hachette, 1893.
– “Rembrandt, sa vie et son œuvre”. Lectures pour
tous (1895): 627-36.
– “L’Exposition Rembrandt à Amsterdam, 1e article”.
– “L’Exposition Rembrandt à Amsterdam, 2e et
dernier article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (December
1898): 467-80.
Michelet, Jules
– Histoire de France. vol. 13 Paris: C. Marpon and
E. Flammarion, 1879.
– “Histoire de France au dix-septième siècle”.
In Robert Casanova (Ed.), Œuvres complètes.
Paris: Flammarion, 1982.
– L’Amour. Paris: Flammarion, 1985 ed.
Michiels, Alfred
– Histoire de la peinture flamande et hollandaise. 3 vols.
Paris: J. Renouard, 1847.
– Histoire de la peinture flamande et hollandaise.
10 vols. Paris: Librarie Internationale, 1876 ed.
Montrosier, Eugène
– “L’Expression de la gravure à l’eau-forte”.
In L’Eau-Forte en 1876. Paris: Cadart, 1875,
pp. 7-13.
Morice, Charles
– “Le Couronnement de la reine de la Hollande et
l’exposition de Rembrandt”. Mercure de France
vol. 28 (November 1898): 289-316.
M.R.
– “L’Exposition des eaux-fortes de M.G. Leheutre”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (January 1897): 70-72.
Müntz, Eugène
– “Rembrandt et l’Art Italien”. Gazette des BeauxArts (March 1892): 196-211.
Nerval, Gerard de
– “Les fêtes de mai en Hollande”. Revue des deux
mondes vol. 2 (15 June 1852): 1186-1204.
– Lorely, souvenirs d’Allemagne, Rhin et Flandre, Les
Fêtes de Hollande. Paris: Gustave Gratiot, 1852.
Nicolle, Marcel
– “Dissertation élémentaire sur la gravure a l’eauforte et les états des planches”. Journal des arts
(27 March 1885): 2-3.
– Rembrandt aux expositions d’Amsterdam et de Londres.
Pref. Léon Bonnat. Paris: Paul Ollendorff, 1899.
Noel, G.
– “Gazette de Hollande, La leçon d’anatomie de
Rembrandt”. L’Art vol. 10 (1877): 189-90.
Notice des portraits d’artistes exposés dans la salle Denon
au musée du Louvre. Georges Lafenestre. Paris:
United Printers Bookshop, 1888.
Notice des tableaux des écoles françaises et flamande, Exposés
dans la grande Galerie du musée central des arts, dont
l’ouverture a eu lieu le 18 Germinal an VII [7 April
1799]. Paris: Arts and Sciences Printers, 1799.
Notice des tableaux exposés dans la galerie du musée royal.
Paris: Madame Hérissant-le Doux Printers, 1816.
Notice des tableaux exposés dans la galerie Napoléon. Paris:
L.P. Dubray, Napoleon Museum Printers, 1911.
Paillot de Montabert, J.N.
– Traité complet de la peinture. vol. 3 Paris: J.F. Dellon,
1828.
Pays, A. J. du
– “L’Annonciation des bergers, par Rembrandt”.
L’Illustration vol. 33 (15 January 1859): 35-7.
Péladan, Joséphin
– “Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (September 1881): 326-35.
Perrot, A.M.
– Manuel de Graveur, ou traité complet de l’art de la
gravure en tous genres, d’après les renseignemens
fournis par plusieurs artistes. Paris: Roret, 1830.
– Nouveau-manuel complet du graveur ou traité de l’art
de la gravure en tout genre d’après les renseignements
fournis par plusieurs artistes. F. Malepeyre (Ed.).
Paris: Roret, 1865.
Petroz, Pierre
– “L’École hollandaise (1609-1688), 1er partie”.
L’Art vol. 48 (1890): 149-55.
Philips, Claude
– “L’Exposition des maîtres anciens à la Royal Academy”. Gazette des Beaux Arts (March 1893): 221-37.
Pilgrim, Lord
– “Les Aquafortistes, M. Le Comte Lepic” L’Artiste
(May 1876): 326-8.
Planche, Gustave
– “Histoire de l’art, Rembrandt”. L’Artiste vol. 4
(1832): 233-6.
– “Rembrandt, sa vie et ses œuvres”. Revue des deux
mondes (15 July 1853): 244-77.
– Études sur les arts. Paris: Michel Lévy Brothers, 1855.
Proudhon, P.J.
– “Études sur l’École hollandaise”. Revue trimestrielle (January 1859): 276-89.
– Du principe de l’art et de sa destination sociale. Paris:
Garnier, 1865.
Quinet, Edgar
– “Fondation de la république des Provinces-Unies,
III. Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde, réligion, politique et art des gueux”. Revue des deux mondes
vol. 2 (1 June 1854): 977-1005.
Raffaëlli, J.F.
– “Un musée des estampes au Louvre”. L’Événement
(18 November 1884): 2.
Registers of Copies after Flemish and Dutch Schools.
ll22-25, 1851-71 and 1882-1900. Paris, Archives
des Musées nationaux.
Reiset, Frédéric
– Notice des dessins, cartons, pastels, miniatures et émaux
exposés dans les salles du 1er étage au musée impérial du
Louvre, première partie: écoles d’italie, écoles allemande,
flamande et hollandaise; précédée d’une introduction
historique et du résumé de l’inventaire général des dessins. vol. 1. Paris: Charles de Mourgues Frères, 1866.
Renouvier, Jules
– Des types et des manières des maîtres graveurs pour
servir à l’histoire de la gravure, en Italie, en Allemagne, dans les Pays-Bas et en France. Montpellier:
Boehm, 1853.
– “Les Origines de la gravure en France”. Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (April 1859): 5-22.
Ris, Clément de
– “Le Musée de Stockholm, écoles allemandes,
flamandes et hollandaise”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(November 1874): 398-409.
Ronchaud, L. de
– “Varietés, Histoire des peintres de l’école hollandaise,
par M. Ch. Blanc”. Le Temps (3 January 1864): 4.
Royer, Alphonse
– “Des arts en Hollande”. Revue des deux mondes
vol. 3 (15 August 1835): 424-49.
Saint-Arroman, Raoul de
– La gravure à l’eau-forte. Paris: Cadart, 1876.
Saint-Victor, Paul de
– “Beaux-Arts: Histoire des peintres de toutes les écoles,
depuis la Renaissance jusqu’à nos jours, par
M. Charles Blanc”. Annuaire des Artistes et
Amateurs (1860): 240-6.
– “Salon de 1865”. La Presse. (11 June 1865): 3.
Saugé, Jacques
– “La Ronde de nuit”. Les Lettres et les arts vol. 2
(1886): 91-6.
bibliography
365
Scheltema, Pieter
– “Rembrand[t], discours sur sa vie et son génie,
avec un grand nombre de documents historiques”.
Revue universelle des arts vol. 8 (1858): 273-99,
369-90, 485-516.
– Rembrand[t], discours sur sa vie et son génie, avec un
grand nombre de documents historiques. Ed. ThoréBürger. Trans. Alphonse Willems. Brussels:
A. Labrou Printers, 1859.
– Rembrand[t], discours sur sa vie et son génie, avec un
grand nombre de documents historiques. Ed. ThoréBürger. Trans. Alphonse Willems. Paris: Jules
Renouard, 1866.
Sensier, Alfred
– Souvenirs sur Theodore Rousseau. Paris: Leon
Techner, 1872.
– La vie et l’oeuvre de J.F. Millet. Manuscript
published by Paul Mantz. Paris: A. Quantin,
1881.
Société des aqua-fortistes français
– Salon de 1886. Paris: Lahure and Salmon, 1886.
Société des aqua-fortistes français
– Salon de 1887. Paris: Ludovic Baschet, 1887.
Société des artistes français
– Explication des ouvrages de peinture, sculpture, architecture, gravure et lithographie des artistes vivants.
Paris: Paul Dupont, 1849-1900.
Société des peintres-graveurs
– L’Illustration nouvelle. Paris: Cadart and Luce
Editors, 1868-81.
– Catalogue de la première exposition. Pref. Philippe
Burty. Paris: Art Printers, 1889.
– Catalogue de la deuxième exposition. Pref. Philippe
Burty. Paris: Dumoulin & Co., 1890.
Société de peintres-graveurs français
– Catalogue de la troisième exposition. Pref. Roger
Marx. Paris: Art Printers, 1891.
– Catalogue de la quatrième exposition. Paris: Art
Printers, 1892.
– Catalogue de la cinquième exposition. Paris: Art
Printers, 1893.
– Catalogue de la sixième exposition. Paris: Bodinière,
1897.
Somof, A. de
– “Correspondance de Russie: Les nouveaux
Rembrandt et Adam Elsheimer à l’Ermitage
impériale”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (March 1899):
258-64.
366
Statues, Bustes, Bas-Reliefs, Bronzes, et autres antiquites,
peintures, dessins, et objets curieux, Conquis par la
Grande Armée, dans les années 1806 et 1807; dont
l’exposition a eu lieu le 14 October 1807, premier
anniversaire de la Bataille d’Iéna. Paris: Dubray,
Napoleon Museum Printers, 1807.
Stendhal
– Histoire de la peinture en Italie. vol. 1. Paris:
P. Didot, 1817.
Stern, Daniel
– Histoire des commencements de la république aux PaysBas 1581-1625. Paris: Michel Lévy Brothers, 1874.
Stevens, Alfred
– “Je lis dans les échos du Figaro”. Le Figaro
(20 February 1890): 1.
Supplément au catalogue de 1881 des planches gravées
composant le fonds de la chalcographie et dons les
épreuves se vendent dans cet établissement au musée
du Louvre. Paris: National Printers, 1891.
Swarte, Victor de
– “Rembrandt, exposition du ‘couronnement’
à Amsterdam”. La Nouvelle revue. vol. 125.
(December 1898): 479-98.
– Au Pays de Rembrandt et de Frans Hals, coups de
crayon sur un carnet de voyage. Lille: L. Daniel, 1899.
Taine, Hyppolite
– Philosophie de l’art dans les pays-bas. Paris: Germier
Baillière, 1869.
Tardieu, Charles
– “Les grandes collections étrangères, II, M. John
W. Wilson, 1er article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(September 1873): 215-22.
W. Wilson, 2e article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(October 1873): 319-36.
W. Wilson, 3e article”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(November 1873): 390-403.
Thiébault-Sisson
– “Autour de Rembrandt”. Le Temps (20 October
1898): 3.
Thoré-Bürger
– Catalogue de dessins des Grands Maîtres Italiens,
Espagnols, Allemands, Flamands, Hollandais et
Français provenant du cabinet de M. Villenave.
Paris: Administration of the Alliance of Arts, 1842.
– Le Salon de 1844, précédé d’une lettre à Théodore
Rousseau. Paris: Alliance des Arts, 1844.
– Le Salon de 1845, précédé d’une lettre à Bétranger.
Paris: Alliance des Arts, 1845.
– “Galerie de M. le Comte de Morny”. L’Artiste
vol. 10 no.4 (25 July 1847): 51-4.
– Trésors d’Art exposés à Manchester en 1857 en provenant des collections royales, des collections publiques et
des collections particulières en la Grande-Bretange.
Paris: J. Renouard, 1857.
– “Les dessins de Rembrandt au British Museum à
Londres”. Revue Germanique vol. 3 (1858): 392-403
– “Les Rembrandt de Buckingham Palace”. Revue
Universelle des Arts vol. 7 (July 1858): 335-44.
– “Généalogie de Rembrandt”. L’Artiste (18 July
1858): 161-3.
– “Rembrandt au Musée d’Amsterdam”. L’Artiste
(25 July 1858): 182-8.
– “Les Rembrandt des collections particulières
d’Amsterdam, galeries de M. Six van Hillegomde M. van Loon-du Baron van Brienen”. L’Artiste
(12 September 1858): 17-22.
– Études sur les peintres hollandais et flamands: Galerie
d’Arenberg à Bruxelles avec le catalogue complet de la
collection. Paris: Renouard, 1859.
– Études sur les peintres hollandais et flamands: Galerie
Suermondt à Aix-la-chapelle. Paris: Jules Renouard,
1860.
– “Petit guide des artistes en voyage, Hollande”.
Annuaire des Artistes et des Amateurs vol. 1 (1860):
247-64.
– Musées de la Hollande: I Amsterdam et la Haye-études
sur l’école hollandaise, II musée van der Hoop à
Amsterdam, et musée de Rotterdam. 2 vols. Paris:
Jules Renouard, 1860.
– “Bibliographie Etrangère: Rembrandt Harmens van
Rijn, Ses précurseurs et ses années d’apprentissage,
par C. Vosmaer, La Haye, 1863; Rembrandt et ses
spectateurs aux musées de Cassel, de Brunswick et de
Berlin, par le même”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(January 1864): 73-80.
– “Bibliographie Étrangère. La Femme de
Rembrandt, par M.W. Eekhoff”. Gazette des BeauxArts (February 1864): 189-92.
– “Les Cabinets d’amateurs à Paris: galerie de
MM. Pereire (premier article)”. Gazette des BeauxArts (March 1864): 193-213.
– “Les Cabinets d’amateurs à Paris: la galerie de
MM. Pereire (deuxième et dernier article)”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April 1864): 297-317.
– “Correspondance de Holland, le musée de Rotterdam”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (July 1864): 101-4.
– “Le Christ bénissant les enfants, par Rembrandt”.
Gazette des Beaux Arts (September 1866): 250-61.
– “Les Collections particulières”. In Paris Guide,
par les principaux écrivains et artistes de la France,
première partie la Science, l’Art. vol. 1 Paris:
International Bookstore, 1868, 536-50.
– Salons de T. Thoré 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848.
Paris: International Bookshop, 1868.
– “Nouvelles tendances de l’art”. In Salons de
Théophile Thoré 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848.
Paris: International Bookseller, 1868, xiii-xliv.
– Salons de W. Bürger 1861 à 1868. 2 vols. Paris:
Jules Renouard, 1870.
– “Un mot sur l’eau-forte”. In Nouveau traité de la
gravure à l’eau forte pour les peintres et les dessinateurs. A.P. Martial. Paris: A. Cadart, 1873, v-x.
Thoré-Bürger (Ed.)
– La Vrai République, journal politique, quotidien
(26 March- 21 August 1848).
Valbert, G.
– “Rembrandt et son dernier biographe”. Revue des
deux mondes (1 April 1893): 684-95.
Viardot, Louis
– “De l’école hollandaise”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(February 1860): 146-52.
– “La Galerie de Cassel”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(October 1869): 281-300.
Villot, François
– Notice des tableaux exposés dans les galeries du musée
impérial du Louvre, 2e partie écoles allemande, flamande et hollandaise. Paris: National Museums, 1857.
Vitet, Louis
– “Les Peintres flamands et hollandais en flandre et
en hollande, II Rembrandt et van der Helst, les
hollandais”. Revue des deux mondes (15 April 1861):
777-801.
Vosmaer, Carel
– Rembrandt Harmens Van Rijn. Ses precurseurs et
ses années d’apprentissage. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1863.
– Rembrandt Harmensz van Ryn, sa vie et ses œuvres.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1868.
– “Un mot à propos de Rembrandt”. L’Art vol. 5
(1875): 166-7.
– Rembrandt, sa vie et ses œuvre. The Hague and Paris:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1877. 2nd.ed.
bibliography
367
– “Les Leçons d’anatomie dans la peinture hollandaise”. L’Art vol. 9 (1877): 108-13.
Willems, A.
– “Rembrandt Harmensz, van Rijn, sa vie et ses œuvres,
par C. Vosmaer”. L’Artiste (1 May 1874): 349-54.
Wolff, Albert.
– “Courrier de Paris: Depuis l’aventure du Pecq”.
Le Figaro (21 February 1890): 1.
Wyzema, T. de
– “Le Mouvement des arts en Allemagne et en Italie,
les portraits de Rembrandt dans la galerie Liechtenstein”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (April 1891): 351-2.
– “Le Mouvement des art en Allemagne et en
Angleterre, la question Rembrandt”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (December 1891): 516-18.
– “A propos d’un tableau de Rembrandt”. Le Temps
(12 June 1895): 2.
Yver, Pierre
– Supplement au catalogue raisonné de M.M. Gersaint,
Helle & Glomy de toutes les pieces qui forment l’œuvre
de Rembrandt. Amsterdam: Pierre Yver, 1756.
secondary sources
Ackerman, Gerald M.
– La vie et l’œuvre de Jean-Léon Gérôme Pref. Jacques
Foucart Paris: acr Edition, 1986.
Alpers, Svetlana
– The Making of Rubens. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1995.
Angrand, Pierre
– Histoire des musées de province au XIX siècle: sud-ouest.
vol. 3. Les Sables d’Olonne: The Golden Circle,
1985.
Aquilino, Marie Jeannine. “Painted Promises: The
Politics of Public Art in Late Nineteenth-Century
France”. Art Bulletin (December 1993): 697-712.
Bacou, Roseline
– Maîtres du blanc et noir au XIXe siècle de Prud’hon à
Redon. Paris: Louvre Museum, 1968.
Bailly-Herzberg, Janine
– “La resurrection de l’eau-forte originale à la fin
du XIXe siècle”. Jardin des Arts vol. 159 (February
1968): 2-15.
– L’eau-forte de peintre au dix-neuvième siècle, la
Société des Aquafortistes 1862-67. Paris: Leonce
Laget, 1972.
368
– Dictionnaire de l’Estampe en France 1830-1950.
Paris: Arts and Graphic Works, 1980.
Bann, Stephan
– Parallel Lines: Printmakers, Painters and Photographers in Nineteenth-Century France. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2001.
Barthes, Roland
– Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. London:
Vintage, 1972 ed.
– The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies. Trans.
Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1979.
Baxandall, Michael
– Patterns of Intention, On the Historical Explanation of
Pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
Bazé, Paul
– Dessins, eaux-fortes et peintures de Rembrandt;
Dessins de Hans Holbein, le vieux. Bayonne:
Bonnat Museum, 1968.
Bellanger, Claude et al
– Histoire générale de la presse française. Paris:
University Presses of France, 1972.
Benesh, Otto
– “Rembrandt’s Artistic Heritage I: From Rembrandt to Goya”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (May
1948): 281-300.
– “Rembrandt’s Artistic Heritage II: From Goya
to Cézanne”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (July 1960):
101-16.
Bertin, Claudie
– “Henri Guérard (1846-1897), L’Œuvre gravé”.
3 vols. Mémoire de l’École du Louvre, Cours
d’Histoire de la Gravure, 1975.
Bialostocki, Jan
– “Rembrandt and Posterity”. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek vol. 3 (1972): 131-57.
Biörklung, George and Osbert H. Barnard
– Rembrandt’s Etchings True and False. Stockholm:
Esselte Aktiebolag, 1968.
Blankert, Albert et al
– Rembrandt: A Genius and His Impact. Zwolle:
Waanders Publishers, 1997.
Boas, George
– “The Mona Lisa in the History of Taste”. Journal
of the History of Ideas. (April 1940): 211-35.
Bode, W. von
– Rembrandt, Beschreibendes Verzeichniss seiner
Gemälde mit den heliographischen Nachbildungen. 8
vols. Paris: Charles Sedelmeyer, 1897-1905.
Boime, Albert
– “Le musée des copies”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(October 1964): 237-47.
– The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth
Century. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 1971.
– “Les Hommes d’affaires et les arts en France au
19e siècle”. In Actes de la Recherche en Sciences
Sociales. Trans. Christophe Charle. no.28 Paris:
Midnight Editions, June 1979, 57-76.
Bonnet, Alain
– La Réforme de L’École des Beaux-Arts de 1863,
problèmes de l’enseignement artistique en France au
XIXe siècle. Third-Cycle Dissertation, Université
de Paris X, 1993.
Boomgaard, Jeroen
– De verloren zoon: Rembrandt en de Nederlandse
Kunstgeschiedschrijving. Amsterdam: BabylonDe Geus, 1995.
Boomgaard, Jeroen and Robert W. Scheller
– “A delicate Balance: a brief Survey of Rembrandt
Criticism”. In Christopher Brown, Jan Kelch and
Pieter van Thiel (Eds.), Rembrandt: The Master
and His Workshop, Paintings. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1991, 106-21.
Bouillon, Jean-Paul
– “La correspondance de Félix Bracquemond”.
– Félix Bracquemond. Geneva: Skira, 1987.
Bouillon, Jean-Paul et al
– La Critique d’art en France 1850-1900. ClermondFerrand: Center for Interdisciplinary Studies and
Research on Contemporary Expression, 1989.
– La Promenade du Critique Influent, Anthologie de la
critique d’art en France 1850-1900. Paris: Hazan,
1990.
Bourcard, Gustave
– Félix Buhot catalogue descriptif de son œuvre gravé.
Rev.ed. James Goodfriend New York: Martin
Gordon, Inc., 1979.
Broude, Norma
– “The Influence of Rembrandt Reproductions
on Seurat’s Drawing Style: A Methodological
Note”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts (October 1976):
155-160.
Bruel, François-L.
– “L’Exposition de dessins et d’eaux-fortes de
Rembrandt à la bibliothèque nationale”. Gazette
des Beaux-Arts (June 1908): 441-62.
Bryson, Norman
– Tradition and Desire, from David to Delacroix.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Bussierre, Sophie de
– “Esquisse d’un étude sur le goût pour Rembrandt
en France au XVIIIe siècle”. Nederlands
Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek vol. 23 (1970): 159-66.
– “Les artistes français du dix-huitième siècle et
Rembrandt”. In Albert Châtelet and Nicole
Reynaud (Eds.), Etudes d’art français offertes à
Charles Sterling. Paris: University Press of France,
1975, 287-305.
Bussierre, Sophie de et al
– Rembrandt: Eaux-Fortes. Paris: Musée du Petit
Palais, 1986.
Cayeux, Jean de
– “Watelet et Rembrandt”. Bulletin de la société de
l’histoire de l’art français (1965): 131-62.
Chillaz, Valentine de
– Inventaire générale des autographes, Musée du
Louvre, Musée d’Orsay. Paris: National Museums,
1997.
Chu, Petra ten Doesschate
– French Realism and the Dutch Masters: The Influence
of Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting on the
Development of French Painting between 1830 and
1870. Utrecht: Haentjens Dekker & Gumbert,
1974.
Cohen, Janie L.
– “Picasso’s Exploration of Rembrandt’s Art, 19671972”. Arts Magazine vol.58 no.2 (October 1983):
119-26.
Collier, Peter, and Robert Lethbridge (Eds.)
– Artistic Relations: Literature and the Visual Arts in
Nineteenth-Century France. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1994.
Couprie, L.D.
– “A Statue for Rembrandt Amsterdam, 1852”.
Delta vol. 12 no.2 (1969): 89-95.
Cugnier, Gilles et al
– Jean-Léon Gérôme 1824-1904: peintre, sculptueur,
et graveur, ses œuvres conservées dans les collections
françaises publiques et privées. Vesoul: City of
Vesoul, 1981.
Cuzacq, René
– Bonnat, L’Homme et l’Artiste, Notes sur le Musée
Bonnat et l’École bayonnaise. Pref. H. Jeanpierre.
Mont-de-Marsan: Jean-Lacoste, 1940.
bibliography
369
Cuzin, Jean-Pierre et al
– Copier Créer: De Turner à Picasso: 300 œuvres
inspirées par les maîtres du Louvre. Paris: National
Museums, 1993.
Dagen, Philippe
– “L’influence de Rembrandt sur la peinture contemporaine en France de la fin du XIXe siècle à
nos jours”. 3 vols. Third Cycle Thesis, University
of Paris, Sorbonne, 1982.
Demetz, Peter
– “Defenses of Dutch Painting and the Theory of
Realism”. Comparative Literature vol. 15 (March
1963): 97-115.
Demonts, Louis
– “L’album de dessins de Rembrandt donné au
musée du Louvre par M. Bonnat”. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (January 1920): 1-20.
Druick, Douglas, and Michel Hoog
– Fantin-Latour. Ottawa: National Gallery of Art, 1983.
Dubreuil-Blondin, Nicole
– “La légende de Raphaël. Les ‘grandes’ et les
‘petites’ vies d’une figure exemplaire de l’art,
écrites en France au cours du XIXe siècle”.
Revue d’art canadienne/Canadian Art Review
vol. 22 (1995): 80-6.
Ducourau, Vincent
– Le Musée Bonnat à Bayonne: l’art du dessin et de
l’esquisse. Bayonne: Albin Michel, 1988.
Dufresne, Jean-Luc
– “Félix Buhot 1847-1898: Étude et catalogue
raisonné des peintures, pastels, aquarelles et
gouaches”. Third Cycle Dissertation, University
of Paris, Sorbonne, 1981.
Durey, Philippe and Constance Cain Hungerford
– Ernest Meissonier rétrospective. Lyon: Museum of
Fine Arts, 1993.
Duro, Paul
– “Le Musée des copies de Charles Blanc à l’aube
de la IIIe République”. Bulletin de la Société de
l’Histoire de l’Art français (1985): 283-313.
– “Copyists in the Louvre in the Middle Decades of
the Nineteenth Century”. Gazette des Beaux-Arts
(April 1988): 249-54.
Eliel, Carol S.
– “Genre Painting During the Revolution and the
Goût Hollandais”. In Alan Wintermute (Ed.),
1789: French Art During the Revolution. New York:
Colnaghi, 1989, 47-61.
370
Emmens, J.A.
– Rembrandt en de regels van de Kunst, Rembrandt and
the Rules of Art. Utrecht: Haentjens Dekker &
Gumbert, 1968.
Exposition hollandaise: tableaux, aquarelles, et dessins
anciens et modernes. Paris: Jeu de Paume, 1921.
Exposition rétrospective des grands et des petits maîtres
hollandais. Paris: Jeu de Paume, 1911.
Fanica, Pierre-Olivier
– Charles Jacque 1813-1894, Graveur originale et
peintre animalier. Paris: Bizon Art, 1995.
Fisher, Jay McKean and Colles Baxter
– Félix Buhot peintre-graveur: Prints, drawings, and
Paintings. Baltimore: Baltimore Museum of Art, 1983.
Flanary, David A.
– Champfleury: The Realist Writer as Art Critic.
Ann Arbor: umi Research Press, 1980.
Focillon, Henri
– Maîtres de l’estampe. Paris: Flammarion, 1969.
Foucart, Bruno
– “IV. Le XIXe siècle: Les modèles élusifs et le ‘musée des copies’”. Revue de l’art vol. 21 (1973): 23-7.
Foucart, Jacques
– Les Peintures de Rembrandt au Louvre. Paris: rmn,
1982.
– Peintres rembranesques au Louvre. Paris: National
Museums, 1988.
Foucault, Michel
– The Order of Things, An Archaeology of the Human
Sciences. New York: Vintage Books, 1970.
Gaudron, Guy
– “Charles Blanc, directeur des Beaux-Arts”. Revue
historique et littéraire du Languedoc vol. 19 (1948):
205-6.
Georgel, Chantal et al
– La Jeunesse des musées: les musées de France aux
XIXe siècle. Paris: RMN, 1994.
Gildea, Robert
– The Past in French History. New Haven: Yale
Gillis, Eric
– “Des originaux de Rembrandt aux héliogravures:
le cas d’Amand-Durand”. In Nicole Minder (Ed.),
Rembrandt: Les collections du Cabinet des Estampes de
Vevey. Vevey: Jenisch Museum, 1997, 221-32.
Gilson, Etienne
– “Charles Blanc, écrivain et critique”. Revue historique et littéraire du Languedoc vol. 19 (1948): 197-201.
Gotlieb, Marc J.
– The Plight of Emulation, Ernest Meissonier and
French Salon Painting. Princeton: Princeton
– “Poussin’s Lesson: representing representation
in the Romantic Age”. Word and Image vol.16
(January-March 2000): 124-43.
– “The Painter’s Secret: Invention and Rivalry from
Vasari to Balzac”. The Art Bulletin vol.84 n.3
(September 2002): 469-90.
Gould, Cecil
– Trophy of Conquest: The Musée Napoléon and the
Creation of the Louvre. London: Faber and Faber
Limited, 1965.
Grange, Juliette
– La Philosophie d’August Comte, science, politique,
religion. Paris: University Press of France, 1996.
Grijzenhout, Frans and Henk van Veen
– The Golden Age of Dutch Painting in Historical
Perspective, Trans. Andrew McCormick. New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Gruyer, Gustave
– Musée Bonnat, Collection Bonnat, catalogue
sommaire. Bayonne: A. Lamaignère, 1902.
– “La Collection Bonnat au musée de Bayonne”.
Gazette des Beaux-Arts (March 1903): 193-213.
– Musée de Bayonne, Collection Bonnat, catalogue
sommaire. Paris: Braun, 1908.
Guiffrey, Jean
– “Le Musée Bonnat à Bayonne”. Beaux-arts revue
d’information artistique. (August 1923): 209-24.
Guillaud, Jacqueline and Maurice
– Rembrandt, la figuration humaine. Paris: Guillaud
Editions, 1986.
Hadjinicolaou, Nicolas
– “Sur l’idéologie de l’avant-garde”. Histoire et
critique des arts (July 1978): 49-76.
Harlé, Daniel
– “Les cours de dessin gravés et lithographiés du
XIXème siècle conservés au Cabinet des Estampes
de la Bibliothèque Nationale”. 4 vols. Memoire,
École du Louvre, 1975.
Haskell, Francis
– “The Old Masters in Nineteenth-Century French
Painting”. Art Quarterly vol. 34 (March 1971): 55-85.
– Rediscoveries in Art: Some Aspects of Taste, Fashion
and Collecting in England and France. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1980.
– Past and present in art and taste: selected essays.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
– History and Its Images: Art and the Interpretation of
the Past. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Haverkamp-Begemann, Egbert
– Creative Copies: Interpretive Drawings from
Michelangelo to Picasso. London: Sothebys, 1988.
Hébert, Michèle
– Hommage à Rembrandt, 51e exposition de la société
des peintres graveurs français. Paris: National
Library, 1969.
Hecht, Peter
– “Rembrandt and Raphael back to back: the contribution of Thoré”. Simiolus vol. 26 no.3 (1998):
162-78.
Heenk, Liesbeth
– Rembrandt and his Influence on Eighteenth-century
German and Austrian Printmakers. Amsterdam:
Rembrandt Information Center, 1998.
Held, Julius
– “Debunking Rembrandt’s Legend”. Art News
vol. 48 (February 1950): 20-4, 60-2.
Huet, René
– Paul Huet d’après ses notes, sa correspondance et ses
contemporains, documents recuiellis par son fils.
Pref. Georges Lafenestre. Paris: Renouard, 1911.
Janis, Eugenia Parry
– “Setting the Tone - The Revival of Etching,
The Importance of Ink.” In Colta Ives (Ed.),
The Painterly Print: Monotypes from the Seventeenth
to the Twentieth Century. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1980, pp. 9-28.
Joubin, André (Ed.)
– Correspondance genérale d’Eugène Delacroix. Paris:
Librairie Plon, 1936.
Jouffroy, Alain
– “Coup de maître: d’une copie faire un chef-d’œuvre”. Connaissance des Arts (March 1959): 118-25.
Jowell, Frances Suzman
– “Thoré-Bürger and the Revival of Hals”. Art Bulletin vol. 56 (1974): 101-17.
– Thoré-Bürger and the Art of the Past. New York:
Garland, 1977.
– “Thoré-Bürger - a critical rôle in the art market”.
Burlington Magazine vol. 138 (February 1996): 115-29.
Keppel, Frederick
– The Golden Age of Engraving. New York: Baker &
Taylor, 1910.
bibliography
371
Koumans, Madeline Marie Caroline
– La Hollande et les Hollandais au XIXe Siècle Vus par
les Français. Maastricht: E. en Ch. Van Aelst, 1930.
Krauss, Rosalind
– “The Originality of the Avant-Garde”. In The
Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist
Myths. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985, 151-70.
Kris, Ernst and Otto Kurz
– Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist,
a Historical Experiment. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
Kuspit, Donald
– The Cult of the Avant-Garde Artist. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Lacambre, Genviève and Gary Tinterow
– Manet/Velázquez: la manière espagnole au XIXe
siècle. Paris: rmn, 2002.
Lavocat-Quinquandon
– “His de la Salle, collectioneur”. Master’s thesis,
University of Paris IV, 1985.
Lieure, J.
– Jacques Callot. 3 vols. Paris: Gazette des BeauxArts, 1927.
Lochnan, Katherine A.
– The Etchings of James McNeill Whistler. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1984.
Luxenberg, Alisa L.
– “Léon Bonnat (1833-1922)”. Ph.D. Thesis,
New York University, 1991.
Macmillan, Duncan
– “Sources of French narrative painting: between
three cultures”. Apollo vol. 137 (May 1993):
297-303.
Mainardi, Patricia
– The End of the Salon: Art and the State in the Early
Third Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
– “Copies, Variations, Replicas: NineteenthCentury Studio Practice”. Visual Resources:
An International Journal of Documentation vol.15
(1999): 123-47.
Malbos, Louis
– Hommage à Rembrandt, ses sources, son œuvre, ses
élèves, son influence dans les collections du Musée
Granet. Aix-en-Provence: Granet Museum, 1969.
Malvano, Laura
– “Le débat autour du realisme entre 1855 et 1865”.
Histoire et critique des arts (May 1978): 62-72.
372
Martino, Enzo di and Isadora Rose-de Viejo
– Rembrandt inspirazioni per/an inspiration for Goya.
Milan: Mazzotta, 2001.
Massarani, Tullo
– Charles Blanc et son œuvre. Intro. by Eugène
Guillaume. Paris: J. Rothschild, 1885.
McCauley, Elizabeth Anne
– Industrial Madness: Commercial Photography in Paris
1848-71. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
McClellan, Andrew
– Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the Origins of
the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
McCoubrey, John W.
– “The Revival of Chardin in French Still-Life
Painting, 1850-1870”. The Art Bulletin (1954):
39-53.
McQueen, Alison
– “Félix Buhot et le culte de Rembrandt dans la
France du XIXe siècle”, In Félix Buhot: Peintre
Graveur entre Romantisme et Impressionisme, 18471898. Trans. Anne Bertrand. Jean-Luc Dufresne,
Valérie Sueur, and Alison McQueen. Cherbourg:
Isoète, 1998, 164-75.
– “Reinventing the Biography, Creating the Myth:
Rembrandt in Nineteenth-Century France”.
Simiolus vol. 28 no. 3 (2000-2001): 163-80.
– “Rembrandt and 19th-Century French Printmakers”, Dutch Crossing vol.25 no.2 (Winter
2001): 221-42.
– “Les copies d’après les estampes de Rembrandt
dans la France du XIX siècle”, Nouvelles de
l’Estampes Trans. Anne Bertrand. no. 179-180
(December 2001-February 2002): 78-88.
Melot, Michel
– L’Estampe Impressioniste. Paris: Bibliothèque
Nationale, 1974.
– The Impressionist Print. Trans. Caroline Beamish.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.
Meltzoff, Stanley
– “Nineteenth-Century Revivals”. Master’s essay,
New York University, 1941.
– “The Rediscovery of Vermeer”. Marsyas vol. 2
(1942): 145-66.
– “The Revival of the Le Nains”. The Art Bulletin
vol. 34 (1942): 259-69.
Moreau-Vauthier, Ch.
– Gérôme, peintre et sculpteur, l’homme et l’artiste
d’après sa correspondance, ses notes, les souvenirs de ses
élèves et des ses amis. Paris: Hachette, 1906.
Mras, George P.
– Eugène Delacroix’s Theory of Art. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966.
Neumann, Carl.
– Rembrandt. 2 vols. Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1922.
Nochlin, Linda.
– Realism. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
– Gustave Courbet: A Study of Style and Society.
New York: Garland Publishing, 1976.
– Realism and Tradition in Art 1848-1900 Sources and
Documents. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Orwicz, Michael R. (Ed.)
– Art criticism and its institutions in nineteenth-century
France. New York: Manchester University Press,
1994.
Panofsky, Erwin
– Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art.
Copenhagen: Russak & Company Ltd., 1960.
Perez, Marie-Félice
– “De Boissieu à Appian: l’eau-forte à Lyon au
XIXe siècle”. Nouvelles de l’Estampe no.148-9
(October 1996): 31-41.
Poggioli, Renato
– The Theory of the Avant-Garde. Trans. Gerald
Fitzgerald. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1968 ed.
Poseq, Avigdor W.G.
– “Soutine’s paraphrases of Rembrandt’s Slaughtered Ox”. Konsthistorisk Tidskrift vol. 60 (1991):
210-22.
Preston, Frances Lawrence
– “Rembrandt’s paintings: The development of an
œuvre”. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1991.
Raffaëlli, Jean-François
– Les Promenades d’un artiste au musée du Louvre.
Pref. Maurice Barrès. Paris: Annales Politiques &
Littéraires, n.d. (1913 2nd ed.)
Réau, Louis
– “Charles Blanc et l’histoire de l’art”. Revue historique et littéraire du Languedoc vol. 19 (1948): 202-4.
Rebeyrol, Philippe
– “Art Historians and Art Critics - I: Théophile
Thoré”. The Burlington Magazine vol. 94 (June
1952): 196-200.
Reed, Sue Welsh, and Barbara Stern Shapiro
– Edgar Degas: The Painter as Printmaker. Boston:
Museum of Fine Arts, 1984.
Reff, Theodore
– “Degas’s Copies of Older Art”. Burlington
Magazine vol. 105 (June 1963): 241-51.
– “Copyists in the Louvre, 1850-70”. The Art
Bulletin vol. 46 (1964): 552-9.
– “New Light on Degas’s Copies”. Burlington
Magazine vol. 106. (June 1964): 250-9.
– “Manet’s sources: A critical evaluation”.
Art Forum no.8 (September 1969): 40-8.
– “Further Thoughts on Degas’s Copies”. Burlington Magazine vol. 113 (September 1971): 534-43.
– The Notebooks of Edgar Degas: A Catalogue of the
thirty-eight Notebooks in the Bibliothèque Nationale
and Other Collections. New York, 1985.
Robinson, F.W.
– “Rembrandt’s Influence in Eighteenth-Century
Venice”. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek vol.
18 (1967): 167-81.
Rosenberg, Martin
– Raphael and France: the Artist as Paradigm and
Symbol. University Park: The Pennsylvania State
Rosenthal, Léon
– Du romantisme au réalisme. Essai sur l’évolution de la
peinture en France de 1830 à 1848. Intro. Michael
Marrinan. Paris: Macula, 1987 ed.
Röver Anne and Gerhard Gerkens
– In Rembrandts Manier: Kopie, Nachahmung und
Aneignung in den graphischen Künsten des 18. Jahrhunderts. Bremen: Kunsthalle, 1986.
Saint-Affrique, Odile de, et al
– Fromentin, le peintre et l’écrivain (1820-1876).
La Rochelle: Municipal Publishers, 1970.
Samis, Peter S.
– “The Appropriation of Rembrandt by the Nineteenth Century-French Etchers”. Master’s thesis,
University of California, Berkeley, 1988.
– “Aemulatio Rembrandi: the 19th-century printmaker Flameng and his prises/crises de conscience”.
Schama, Simon
– Rembrandt’s Eyes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.
Scheller, R.W.
– “Rembrandt’s reputatie van Houbraken tot Scheltema”. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek vol. 12
(1961): 81-118.
Schneiderman, Richard
– A Catalogue Raisonné of the Prints of Sir Seymour
bibliography
373
Haden. London: Robin Garton Ltd., 1983.
Shapiro, Barbara Stern
– “Camille Pissarro, Rembrandt and the use of
tone”. In Studies on Camille Pissarro. Ed. Christopher Lloyd. New York: Routledge & Kegal Paul,
1986, 123-35.
Sillevis, John, and Hans Kraan
– L’École de Barbizon: un dialogue franco-néerlandais.
The Hague: Haags Gemeentemuseum, 1985.
Slive, Seymour
– Rembrandt and his Critics 1630-1730. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1953.
Sloane, Joseph
– French Painting between the Past and Present: Artists,
Critics, and traditions from 1848 to 1870. Princeton,
1951.
Song, Misook
– Art Theories of Charles Blanc, 1813-1882. Ann Arbor:
umi Press, 1984.
Stückelberger, Johannes
– Rembrandt und die moderne: Der Dialog mit Rembrandt in der deutschen Kunst um 1900. Munich:
Wilhelm Fink, 1996.
Swart, Koenraad W.
– “Individualism in the mid-nineteenth-century,
1826-1860”. Journal of the History of Ideas vol. 23
no.1 (January 1962): 77-90.
Toussaint, Hélène
– Théodore Rousseau, 1812-1867. Paris: National
Museums, 1967.
Vaisse, Pierre
– “Charles Blanc und das Musée des Copies”.
Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte vol. 39 (1976): 54-66.
Vallery-Radot, Jean
– Rembrandt graveur. Paris: National Library, 1956.
Van der Tuin, H.
– Les Vieux Peintres des Pays-Bas et la Critique Artistique en France de la Première Moitié du XIXe Siècle.
Paris: J. Vrin Philosophical Library, 1948.
– Les Vieux Peintres des Pays-Bas et la Littérature en
France dans la Première Moitié du XIXe Siècle.
Paris: Nizet Library, 1953.
– “Théophile Gautier et Rembrandt”. Revue de
littérature comparée vol. 54 (1960): 456-64.
Verbeek, J.
– “Bezoekers van het Rijksmuseum in het Trippenhuis van 1844-1885”. Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum
no. 4 (1958): 59-71.
374
Vergnet-Ruiz, Jean et al
– Le siècle de Rembrandt, tableaux hollandais des collections publiques françaises. Paris: Petit Palais, 1970.
Viatte, Françoise
– “Chalcographie du Louvre d’hier à aujourd’hui:
I. Les grandes heures de la ‘Chalco’ ”. Nouvelles de
l’Estampe no.148-9 (October 1996): 43-4.
Weisberg, Gabriel P.
– “Philippe Burty: A Notable Critic of the Nineteenth Century”. Apollo (April 1970): 296-300.
– “François Bonvin and an Interest in Several Painters of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”.
– The Etching Renaissance in France: 1850-1880. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah, Museum of Fine
Arts, 1971.
– The European Realist Tradition. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1982.
– The Independent Critic: Philippe Burty and the Visual
Arts of Mid-Nineteenth-Century France. New York:
Peter Lang, 1993.
Weisberg, Gabriel P. et al
– The Realist Tradition, French Painting and Drawing
1830-1900. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art,
1980.
Weisberg, Gabriel P and Yvonne M.L. Weisberg
– The Realist Debate, A Bibliography of French Realist
Painting 1830-1885. New York: Garland
Publishing, 1984.
Westermann, Mariët
– Rembrandt. London: Phaidon Press, 2000.
White, Christopher
– “Rembrandt and England”. Britain and Holland
vol. 9 no.1 (1957): 13-22.
White, Christopher et al
– Rembrandt in Eighteenth-Century England. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Wilcox, Timothy et al
– Alphonse Legros 1837-1911. Dijon: Museum of
Fine Arts, 1988.
Zell, Michael
– Reframing Rembrandt: Jews and the Christian Image
in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2002.
Ziff, Norman D.
– Paul Delaroche, A Study in nineteenth-century French
History Painting. New York: Garland Publishing,
1977.
i l l u s t r at i o n
acknowledgements
color plates
plate 1 – Paul Delaroche, Hemicycle des Beaux-Arts
(Left Section), wall painting, 1841. Paris, École des
Beaux-Arts.
plate 2 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait with
Easel, oil on canvas, 1660. Paris, Musée du Louvre.
plate 3 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Angel Raphael Leaving
Tobias’ Family, oil on panel, 1637. Paris, Musée du
Louvre.
plate 4 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of a Woman,
oil on canvas, n.d. Paris, Musée du Louvre.
plate 5 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Philosopher in Meditation, oil on panel, 1632. Paris, Musée du Louvre.
plate 6 – School of Rembrandt van Rijn, The Good
Samaritan, oil on canvas, n.d. Paris, Musée du
Louvre.
plate 7 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Carpenter’s
Household/The Holy Family, oil on panel, 1640.
Paris, Musée du Louvre.
plate 8 – After Rembrandt van Rijn, Hendrickje
Stoffels as Venus/Venus and Amor, oil on canvas,
n.d. Paris, Musée du Louvre.
Plate 9 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Militia Company
of Captain Frans Banning Cocq, oil on canvas, 1642.
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.
plate 10 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Anatomy Lesson
of Dr. Tulp, oil on canvas, 1632. The Hague,
Mauritshuis.
plate 11 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Woman at the Bath,
oil on canvas, 1652. Paris, Musée du Louvre.
plate 12 – Alphonse Martinet, Rembrandt’s Studio,
hand-colored print, c.1857. Bordeaux, Musée
Goupil.
plate 13 – Frédéric Regamey, Paris à l’eau-forte.
Paraît tous les samedis, lithograph, 1875. Paris,
Musée de la publicité.
plate 14 – Henri-Patrice Dillon, Nouveau théâtre de
la rue Blanche, color lithograph, 1898. Paris,
Musée de la publicité.
plate 15 – Aert de Gelder, Abraham and the Angels,
oil on canvas. Rotterdam, Boymans van Beuningen Museum.
plate 16 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn, Head of a
Rabbi, oil on canvas. Bayonne, Musée Bonnat.
plate 17 – Copy after Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait
of Burgomeister Six, oil on panel. Bayonne, Musée
Bonnat.
plate 18 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn, Suppliant
before a Biblical Prince, oil on panel. Bayonne,
Musée Bonnat.
plate 19 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn, Samplers
in a Cave, oil on panel. Bayonne, Musée Bonnat.
plate 20 – Manner of Rembrandt van Rijn, Head of
an Old Man, oil on canvas on panel. Bayonne,
Musée Bonnat.
illustration acknowledgements
375
black and white figures
fig. 1 – Attributed to Rembrandt 1807-1815, Landscape with Goats. Engraved by Geissler. Reproduced from Antoine-Michel Filhol and Joseph
Lavalée Galerie du Musée de France vol. 8 (Paris,
1804-15), plate 508. Paris, Bibliothèque d’Art et
d’Archéologie Jacques Doucet.
fig. 2 – Attributed to Rembrandt 1807-1815, Landscape with Hunters. Engraved by Bovinet. Reproduced from Antoine-Michel Filhol and Joseph
Lavalée Galerie du Musée de France vol. 9 (Paris,
1804-15), plate 581. Paris, Bibliothèque d’Art et
fig. 3 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Man Urinating, etching, 1631. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet
des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 4 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Woman Urinating,
etching, 1631. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 5 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Doctor Ephraïm Bonus
(“Juif à la rampe”), etching, drypoint, and
engraving, 1647. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
fig. 6 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Nude Female Seated on
a Mound, etching, 1631. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 7 – Hix, Woman at the Bath, caricature after
Rembrandt, 1870. (La Vie Parisienne, April 26th,
1870, p. 331). Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale.
fig. 8 – Hix, Bathsheba, caricature after Rembrandt,
1870. (La Vie Parisienne, April 26th, 1870,
p. 331). Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale.
fig. 9 – Pierre Nolasque Bergeret, Rembrandt in his
Studio, oil on canvas, 1834. Paris, Musée du
Louvre, on deposit at the Assemblée nationale.
fig. 10 – Jules-Jean-Baptiste Dehaussy, Last Moments
of Rembrandt, He Asks to See his Treasure Once
More Before Dying, oil on canvas, c.1838.
Location unknown, photograph courtesy of Mrs.
Pat Holman.
fig. 11 – Fabien-Henri Alasonière, Rembrandt in his
Studio, etching after painting by Jean-Louis
Ernest Meissonier, 1863 (Georges Petit Galleries
1893, catalogue 48). Paris Bibliothèque d’Art et
fig. 12 – Alexandre Joseph Oliva, Rembrandt, bronze,
1853. Besançon, Palais Granvelle.
376
fig. 13 – Alberto Masso Gilli, Rembrandt, etching,
estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 14 – Honoré Cavaroc, Portrait of Rembrandt,
drawing, late 19th century. Paris, Institut Néerlandais, Collection Frits Lugt.
fig. 15 – Louis George Brillouin, Rembrandt in his
Studio, preparatory drawing for painting exhibited at Salon of 1859. Paris, Institut Néerlandais,
Collection Frits Lugt.
fig. 16 – Adolphe Mouilleron, Rembrandt painting his
Mother, lithograph after painting by Joseph Nicolas
Robert-Fleury, 1845. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 17 – Adolphe Mouilleron, Burgomaster Six in
Rembrandt’s Studio, lithograph after painting by
Henri Leys, 1853. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
fig. 18 – Charles Baude and Studio, Rembrandt and
Saskia, wood engraving after painting by Léon
Brunin, c.1900. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
fig. 19 – Léopold Flameng, Rembrandt’s House,
fig. 20 – Unknown Artist, Rembrandt Working in his
Studio, woodcut after painting by Hendrik Hollander, 1852 (Couprie “A Statue for RembrandtAmsterdam, 1852” p. 95). Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 21 – Prosper-Louis Roux, Rembrandt’s Studio,
oil on canvas, 1857. St. Petersburg, The State
Hermitage Museum.
fig. 22 – Alphonse Martinet, Rembrandt’s Studio,
etching, aquatint and mezzotint after painting by
Prosper-Louis Roux, c.1857. Paris, Bibliothèque
nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 23 – Galletti, Rembrandt Painting the Anatomy
Lesson, caricature after painting by Tony François
de Bergue, 1861 (Galletti Album Caricatural,
Salon de 1861, plate 37). Paris, Bibliothèque d’Art
et d’Archéologie Jacques Doucet.
fig. 24 – Christoffel Bisschop, Rembrandt going to the
Anatomy Lesson, photograph after a painting,
c.1866. Bordeaux, Musée Goupil.
fig. 25 – Eugène Le Roux, Rembrandt Painting
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
Susanna at the Bath, lithograph after painting by
Joseph Nicolas Robert-Fleury, c.1859. Paris,
Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et
de la photographie.
26 – Paul-Adolphe Rajon, Rembrandt biting an
etched plate, etching after painting by Jean-Léon
Gérôme, c.1861. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
27 – Louis Marvy, Doctor Faust, engraving after
Rembrandt, 1840s. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
28 – Louis Marvy, Beggars at the Door of a House,
engraving after Rembrandt, 1840s. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la
photographie.
29 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Monk in the
Cornfield, etching and drypoint, c.1646. Paris,
de la photographie.
30 – Charles Jacque, “Tout les gouts sont dans la
nature,” etching, 1840s. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
31 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Three Trees,
etching, drypoint, and engraving, 1643. Paris,
de la photographie.
32 – Paul Huet, The Marsh/The Voyageur, clichéverre, n.d. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet
33 – Théodore Rousseau Site de Bérry, etching,
34 – Charles Jacque, Seven Etchings on One Plate,
35 – Félix Braquemond, Two Trees with a Sunset,
mezzotint, 1856. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
36 – Henri Guérard, The Thatched Cottage,
etching, c.1881. Paris, Paul Prouté S.A.
37 – Alphonse Legros, Sheepfold on the Hillside,
etching, n.d. Paris, Paul Prouté S.A.
38 – Alphonse Legros, The Hovel on the Hill,
etching, n.d. Paris, Paul Prouté S.A.
39 – Ludovic Lepic, Nemi Lake, etching, 1870.
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
40 – Francis Seymour Haden, Sketch in Burty’s
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
fig.
Garden, etching and drypoint, 1864. Paris, Paul
Prouté S.A.
41 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Male and Female Beggar, etching, 1630. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
42 – Henri Guérard, Frontispiece for Dix Têtes de
Vieillards, etching, 1872. Paris, Paul Prouté S.A.
43 – Henri Guérard, Head of an Old Man,
etching, 1872. Paris, Paul Prouté S.A.
44 – Henri Guérard, Old Sweeper, drypoint, n.d.
Paris, Paul Prouté S.A.
45 – Adolphe Hervier, Child with a Basket,
46 – Léopold Flameng, Letterhead for Auguste
Delâtre, etching, c.1860. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
47 – Ferdinand Roybet, Frontispiece for the Fourth
Annual Publication of the Société des Aquafortistes,
48 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Descent from the Cross,
etching and engraving, 1633. Paris, Bibliothèque
49 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ Preaching,
etching, drypoint and engraving, c.1652. Paris,
de la photographie.
50 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ Healing the Sick,
etching, drypoint and engraving, c.1649. Paris,
de la photographie.
51 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Resurrection of
Lazarus, etching and engraving, c.1632. Paris,
de la photographie.
52 – Rembrandt van Rijn, The Good Samaritan,
etching and engraving, 1633. Paris, Bibliothèque
53 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Christ Presented to the
People, etching, 1635 and 1636. Paris, Bibliothèque
54 – Rembrandt van Rijn, St. Jerome, etching,
c.1629. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des
illustration acknowledgements
377
fig. 55 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait with a
Sabre and Heron, etching with touches of engraving, 1634. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet
fig. 56 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Janus
Lutma, etching, drypoint, and engraving, 1656.
fig. 57 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Burgomaster
Six, etching, drypoint, and engraving, 1647.
fig. 58 – Rembrandt van Rijn, A Shell, etching, drypoint, and engraving, 1650. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 59 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Thatched Cottage with
Barn, etching, 1641. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 60 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Thatched Cottage with
Large Tree, etching, 1641. Paris, Bibliothèque
fig. 61 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Doctor Faust, etching,
drypoint, and engraving, c.1652. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la
photographie.
fig. 62 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait Leaning
on a Stone Sill, etching and drypoint, 1639. Paris,
de la photographie.
fig. 63 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Le Lit à la française,
etching, drypoint, and engraving, 1646. Paris,
de la photographie.
fig. 64 – Francis Seymour Haden, Amstelodamus,
fig. 65 – Norbert Goeneutte, Portrait of the Printmaker Henri Guérard, drypoint, 1888. Paris,
de la photographie.
fig. 66 – Rembrandt van Rijn, Pendant Beggar, etching, 1634. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet
fig. 67 – Félix Buhot, Les salles d’estampes en province,
gouache and wash on photograph, 1887. Paris,
de la photographie.
378
fig. 68 – Félix Buhot, Sketches for les salles d’estampes
en province, preparatory drawing, 1887. Paris,
Collection of A. and A. Bonafous-Murat.
fig. 69 – Félix Buhot, Frontispiece for Volume IV of
Henri Béraldi’s Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle, preparatory drawing, 1885. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 70 – Félix Buhot, Frontispiece for Volume IV of
Henri Béraldi’s Les Graveurs du XIXe siècle, etching, 1885. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet
fig. 71 – Léopold Flameng, Anatomy Lesson, engraving after Rembrandt, 1876. Paris, Bibliothèque
fig. 72 – Léopold Flameng, Syndics, engraving after
Rembrandt, 1876. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
fig. 73 – Adolphe Mouilleron, The Night Watch, lithograph after Rembrandt, 1854. Paris, Bibliothèque
fig. 74 – Albert Duvivier, Portrait of Charles Courtry,
engraving, 1887. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale,
fig. 75 – Charles Waltner, The Night Watch, etching,
aquatint, and mezzotint after Rembrandt, 1887.
Brother, etching after Rembrandt, first state, n.d.
Brother, etching after Rembrandt, second state,
n.d. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des
fig. 78 – Charles Waltner, The “Doreur”, etching
after Rembrandt, 1884. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
fig. 79 – Léopold Flameng, Hundred Guilder Print,
etching after Rembrandt, 1873. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la
photographie.
fig. 80 – Léopold Flameng, Charles Blanc and Unknown Artists, Several Prints on a Plate, etchings
after Rembrandt, 1859. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, cabinet des estampes et de la photographie.
index
Italicized page numbers refer to illustrations
rembrandt’s works
by title
A Shell 193, 203
The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp 52, 74, 117, 126, 127,
132, 144, 148, 150, 151, 154, 266, 267, 285, 291
Angel Raphael Leaving Tobias’ Family 19, 67, 98, 147
Annunciation to the Shepherds 252
Bathsheba 92-94, 294
Black Woman Lying Down 93
Bust of a Man with a Plumed Hat 21
The Carpenter’s Household/The Holy Family 22, 71,
119, 147
Christ Healing the Sick 164, 193, 194, 195, 203, 205,
213, 220-221, 231, 237, 246, 252, 275, 280
Christ Preaching 193, 194, 194, 203
Christ Presented to the People 193, 198
Descent from the Cross 160, 191, 192, 193
Doctor Ephraïm Bonus (“Juif à la rampe”) 61, 62
Doctor Faust 205, 206, 212, 245, 249-251
Family Portrait 23
Four Subjects for a Spanish book 61
The Goldweigher’s Field 214
The Good Samaritan (etching) 193, 197
The Haybarn 214
House with Three Chimneys 214
The Hundred Guilder Print see Christ Healing the Sick
Jupiter and Antiope 93
Kouk Seller 249
Landscape with Canal 214
Le Lit à la française 203, 214
Male and Female Beggar 183, 184
Man Urinating 34, 35
The Militia Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq
40, 56, 61, 73, 97, 117, 120, 126, 127, 132, 144,
145, 153, 229, 246, 266, 271, 272, 280, 285, 291,
293
The Monk in the cornfield 161, 163
The Night Watch see The Militia Company of Captain
Frans Banning Cocq
Nude Female Seated on a Mound 91, 92
Old Man 21
Old Tobias and his Son 291
Pendant Beggar 249, 249
Philosopher in Meditation 20, 69, 147
Pilgrims of Emmaus 22
Portrait of Jan Six see Portrait of Burgomaster Six
Portrait of a Man/Jewish Man with a Fur Hat 22
Portrait of a Man Trimming his Quill 23
Portrait of a Woman 19, 23, 57, 61, 68
Portrait of a Young Man 152, 291
Portrait of Burgomaster Six 129, 160, 202, 205, 213,
221, 252
Portrait of Janus Lutma 201, 213, 224, 228
Portrait of Rembrandt with a Round Hat and
Embroidered Coat 121
Portrait of Rembrandt’s Sister with a Veil/Bust of a
Young Woman 22
Portrait of Saskia 129
Presentation in the Temple 21
The Resurrection of Lazarus 193, 196, 231
St. Jerome 193, 194, 199, 204
index
379
St. Matthew and the Angel 22
Self-Portrait 21
Self-Portrait at the Age of Thirty-four 8
Self-Portrait before an Architectural Background
20, 228, 248
Self-Portrait Leaning on a Stone Sill 137, 205, 207,
245
Self-Portrait with Easel 19, 66, 291
Self-Portrait with a Sabre and Heron 193, 200
Self-Portrait with Bare Head 22
Self-Portrait with Cap and Gold Chain 22
Self-Portrait with Saskia 212
The Slaughtered Ox 98
Supper at Emmaus 19, 249
Susanna at the Bath 21, 75, 92-94, 151-152, 291
Thatched Cottage with Barn 193, 204
Thatched Cottage with Large Tree 193, 204
The Three Trees 164, 165, 166, 166, 170, 193, 205,
213
View of a Canal 193, 194
Winter Landscape 23
Woman Urinating 34, 35
Academic training 26, 84, 88, 90, 219, 264, 270
Academy (French) 16, 21, 26, 27, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89,
90, 94, 104, 160, 174, 187, 195, 210, 219, 221,
263, 264, 270
Adeline, Jules 247
Alasonière, Fabien-Henri 132
Rembrandt in his Studio (after Meissonier)
131, 132
Aligre collection 296
Amiens 253, 254
Amsterdam 41, 48, 54, 55, 58, 60, 61, 63, 100, 112,
115, 120, 129, 143, 151, 170, 218, 221, 229, 230,
237, 284, 285, 292, 294, 295
Botermark (Butter market) 41
ancien régime 19, 54, 286
Angiviller, Comte d’ 20
Apelles 98
Arozarena collection 213
Arti et Amicitiæ society 41
Augusta 48
authenticity 17, 52, 90, 143, 147, 182, 183, 220, 222,
226, 227, 228, 249, 287, 288
Auvray, Louis 154, 155
380
Baillie, William 170
Baldinucci, Filippo 42-45
Balzac, Honoré de 120
Banville, Théodore de 235
Barbizon school 99
Basan, Henri-Louis 212
Basan, Pierre François 212
Baude, Charles and Studio 141
Rembrandt and Saskia, after Léon Brunin 141, 141
Baudelaire, Charles 95, 96, 140, 174, 256
Baxandall, Michael 19
beauty 34, 36, 51, 84, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 113, 164, 180, 236, 284
Bégassière collection 296
Beistegui collection 296
belle épreuve see Burty, Philippe
Beraldi, Henri 227, 228, 243, 261, 271
Bergeret, Émile 278, 278
Bergeret, Pierre Nolasque 125, 128, 129, 130, 138
Honors Bestowed on Raphael after his Death 130
Rembrandt in his Studio 124, 125, 128-9, 138
Bergue, Tony François de 148, 150
Rembrandt painting The Anatomy Lesson
148, 149, 150
Beringhen, Jacques-Louis de 191
Berlin 22
Bernard, Auguste 212
Bertand, Aloysius 179, 180
Besnard, Paul Albert 208
Beurnonville collection 296
Bibliothèque nationale 178, 191, 210, 262
Bibliothèque Royale 191
Bingham, Robert Jefferson 155
Bisschop, Christoffel 151
Rembrandt going to the Anatomy Lesson 149, 151
Bisson, Auguste-Rosalie see Bisson brothers
Bisson, Louis-Auguste see Bisson brothers
Bisson brothers 176
Blanc, Charles 18, 33-37, 38, 41, 49, 57, 87, 88, 92,
100, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 121, 143, 156, 176,
180, 181, 189, 190, 208, 211, 223, 224, 225, 226,
227, 228, 230, 232, 237, 265, 277, 278, 291
Director of Fine Arts 110, 111
founder, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 35
Blanc, Louis 110
Blois 254
Boilly, Louis Léopold 31
Boissière collection 296
Bonaparte, Charles-Louis-Napoleon (Napoleon III)
38, 89, 177
Bonaparte, Joseph 20
Bonaparte, Louis 20
Bonaparte, Napoleon (Napoleon I) 20, 22, 24, 112
Bonnat, Léon 18, 94, 205, 211, 290-293, 294, 295,
296
The Anatomy Lesson (after Rembrandt) 291
The Night Watch (after Rembrandt) 291
Susanna at the Bath (after Rembrandt) 291
The Syndics (after Rembrandt) 291
Bonvin, François 183
Bosse, Abraham 231
bourgeois 34, 54, 57, 58, 63, 177
Bourgeois, Stéphane 288-289
Boussod-Valadon 271, 272
Braquemond, Félix 169, 256
Two Trees with a Sunset 169, 169
Braun, Adolphe 176
Braun and Company 176
Braunschweig 21, 22, 23
Breton, Jules 247
Brillouin, Louis George 137, 208
Rembrandt in his Studio 136, 137
British Museum 224
Brouwer, Adrian 51
Brunin, Léon 141
Rembrandt and Saskia 141, 141
Buhot, Félix 211, 238, 243, 247, 251-254, 256-258,
261-262
Frontispiece for Volume IV of Henri Béraldi’s Les
Graveurs du XIXe siècle (etching) 258, 260, 261
Frontispiece for Volume IV of Henri Béraldi’s Les
Graveurs du XIXe siècle (preparatory drawing)
258, 259
Les salles d’estampes en province 254, 255
Sketches for les salles d’estampes en province
256-258, 256
Bürger, William see Thoré-Bürger
Burlington Fine Arts Club 226
Burty, Philippe 165, 172, 190, 208, 230, 235-238,
240-244, 248, 254, 257, 261, 262, 279
definition of a “belle épreuve” 236, 241-242,
244, 248, 261
Cabanel, Alexandre 92
Cabinet des estampes 88, 178, 189, 191, 194, 195,
205, 208, 209, 210, 231, 252
Cadart, Alfred 177, 179, 221, 222, 232, 235, 236,
245, 265, 266
Callot, Jacques 178-183, 189, 218, 219, 279
comparisons of Rembrandt and Callot 179-183
Calmatta, Luigi 224
Cambray, Sosthène 119
Camp, Maxime du 154, 155
canon 9, 15, 27, 87, 97, 104, 105, 266
Cardon, Émile 247
Carracci, Annibale 85, 86, 89, 92
Carracci brothers 51
carte album 128, 153
carte de visite 128, 145, 151, 153
Cassatt, Mary 187, 238
Catholic religion 34, 38, 40, 58, 107, 110, 111, 112,
114, 115, 116, 117, 119
Cavaroc, Honoré 137
Portrait of Rembrandt 135, 137
Cavé, Marie-Elisabeth
88
Chalcography 119, 175, 252, 253
Champfleury (Jules-François-Félix Husson) 27, 60,
105, 108, 109, 208, 256
Champollion, E. 248
Portrait flamande 248
Chaptal 24, 25
Chardin, Jean-Baptiste Simon
27
Chartres 254
Chennevières-Pointel 27
clair-obscur 36, 44, 86, 108, 126, 148, 155, 160, 165,
169, 189, 193, 246, 265
Claretie, Jules 177, 208, 231, 232
Clément, Charles 178, 189, 205, 211, 213
Clément collection see Clément, Charles
cliché-verre 165-166
Coginet, Léon 128
Colbert, Jean-Baptiste 191
Commission of Public Instruction 20
Commission of Sciences and Arts 20
Compiègne 22
Comte, Auguste 118
Concordat, 1802 112
contre-jour 160, 165, 166
Coquerel fils., Athanase 98, 112, 113
Correggio 108
Couder, Louis-Charles-Auguste 98, 130
Courbet, Gustave 18, 92, 105
Courtry, Charles 205, 247, 253, 266, 268, 269, 270,
276, 279, 280
index
381
The Carpenter’s Household (after Rembrandt) 266
Coypel, Antoine 84
croquis 87, 160, 165, 169, 265, 271
cult 7, 15, 42, 59, 118, 153, 160, 165, 191, 217, 235,
246, 251, 261, 263, 283, 286, 290, 294
Danlos and Delisle 205, 211
Daubigny, Charles 208, 237
Daumier, Honoré 208-209
David, Jacques-Louis 31
Degas, Edgar 208, 238
Dehaussy, Jules-Jean-Baptiste
Last Moments of Rembrandt, He Asks to See his
Treasure Once More Before Dying 129-130, 130
De Hooch, Pieter 129, 264
Delaborde, Henri 179
Delacroix, Eugène 18, 88, 95, 102-104, 107-108,
120, 250
Delaroche, Paul 16, 176
Hemicycle des Beaux-Arts 16, 65, 176
Delâtre, Auguste 161, 186-187, 226, 229, 240-241,
275-276
Deleschamps, Pierre 218
Delessert collection 189, 211
Della Bella, Stefano 178, 181
democracy 63, 110, 114, 116, 118, 119, 284
Descamps, Alexandre 18
Descamps, Jean-Baptiste 31-32, 42-46, 84
Desnoyers, Fernand 106
Desperet 211
Dillon, Henri-Patrice
Nouveau théâtre de la rue Blanche 77, 286
Dircks, Geertge 57
Dou, Gerard 155
Double collection 296
Dresden 292
Drolling, Michel Martin 31
Drumont, Edouard 59-60
drypoint 165, 170, 226
Duclos collection 296
Dumur, Louis 284
Duplessis, George 56, 88, 191, 231
Durand, Amand 224
Durand-Ruel 266, 294
Duranty, Edmond 106
Dürer, Albrecht 183, 186, 187, 189-191, 244, 252
Saint Jerome 189
Duret, Théodore 208
382
Duseigneur, Georges 183
Dusolier, Alcide 178
Dutch art (seventeenth century) 19, 27, 28, 31, 126,
129, 248, 253
historiography of 31-42
Dutuit, Eugène 156, 211, 213, 223, 227, 228, 230,
256, 292
Duvivier, Albert
Portrait of Charles Courtry 266, 268, 269, 270, 279
L’Eau-forte en… 137, 235, 236, 244, 245, 247
ébauches 265
École des Beaux-Arts 16, 26, 84, 89, 90, 176, 270,
271, 280, 289, 290
El Greco 108
engraving 42, 119, 159, 174, 175, 176, 181, 187, 189,
218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 232, 239, 244, 247, 264,
265, 266, 274
épreuve(s) avant-lettre 253
épreuve(s) d’artiste 253
etching 7, 8, 42, 128, 132, 134, 143, 145, 148, 153,
155, 156, 159, 161, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172,
179, 181, 183, 186, 187, 189, 204, 218, 219, 220,
221-228, 230-236, 239, 241, 243-246, 251, 257258, 261-264, 271, 273, 275, 278-280
etching as a challenge to engraving and photography
174-178
Etex, Antoine 88
Étienne, C.G. 47
Exposition Internationale de Blanc et Noir 279
Exposition Nationale de l’eau-forte moderne 280
Exposition Universelle, 1855 132, 144, 264, 266
Exposition Universelle, 1867 151, 153
Exposition Universelle, 1878 239
Fantin-Latour, Henri 86, 208, 253
Félibien, André 42, 45
finemaleri 155
Firmin-Didot collection 189, 211, 213, 214
Flameng, Léopold 208, 221, 224, 246, 256, 265, 270,
296
Anatomy Lesson (after Rembrandt) 266, 267
The Hundred GuilderPrint (after Rembrandt)
246, 275, 276, 280
Letterhead for Auguste Dêlatre 186, 186-187
The Night Watch (after Rembrandt) 246, 280
Rembrandt’s House 142, 143-144
Syndics, after Rembrandt 266, 267
Several Prints on a Plate (after Rembrandt)
277-278, 277
Flemish art (seventeenth century) 26, 28, 31, 32, 34,
37, 39, 40, 89, 101, 106-107
Flers, Camille 165
Florence 21, 22, 87
Fontainebleau 22
Franck, Paul 286
François I 19
Frederick Hendrick, Stadholder, Prince of Orange
49
French Academy see Academy
French aristocratic collections 21-22
French Ministry of Public Instruction and Fine Arts
20, 40
Frey, Jan de 193
Fromentin, Eugène 33, 39-40, 41, 54, 61, 92, 97,
108, 143, 286
Galerie du Musée de France 22
Galerie espagnole 26
Galichon, Louis 189, 208, 211
Galichon collection see Galichon, Louis
Galletti
Rembrandt Painting The Anatomy Lesson (after de
Bergue) 148, 149, 150-151
Gaucherel, Léon 247, 253, 256
Gautier, Théophile 33, 94, 98, 119, 220, 233, 234,
235, 250
Gavarni, Paul (Guillaume-Sulpice Chevalier) 104
Gelder, Aert de 290
Abraham and the Angels 76, 288-294
genius 9, 32, 36, 49, 51, 52, 63, 87, 88, 93, 101, 103,
121, 126, 156, 164, 165, 181, 186, 218, 223, 228,
235, 239, 244, 246, 262, 284, 285, 286, 288, 290
Géricault, Théodore 18
Gérôme, Jean-Léon 92, 132, 152, 208, 292-293
Egyptian Smoker 155
Rembrandt biting an etched plate 152, 153-156
Gersaint, François 42, 43, 44, 47, 84, 90, 170, 223,
224, 226
Gervaise collection 178
Gide & Baudry 176
Gigoux collection 189, 211
Gilli, Alberto Masso
Rembrandt 134, 134, 137, 245-246
Giorgione 51, 108
Giotto di Bondone 50
Goeneutte, Norbert
Portrait of the Printmaker Henri Guérard
242, 242
Goldschmidt collection 294, 296
Goncourts, the 61, 104, 120, 187, 208
Gonse, Louis 208
goupillage 271
Goupil and Company see Goupils
Goupils 145, 176, 271
Granet, François Marius 127
Greek art 26, 36, 37, 90, 98, 116, 117, 126, 220
Guérard, Henri 183, 238, 241-242, 247, 248, 262
Frontispiece for Dix Têtes de Vieillards 185
Head of an Old Man 185
The Microcosm 249-251
Old Sweeper 185
The Thatched Cottage 170, 170
Un Gueux 249
Guys, Constantin 96
Haden, Francis Seymour 187, 223, 226-228, 236,
237, 238, 240-241, 262
Amstelodamus 229-230, 229
Sketch in Burty’s Garden 172, 173
Hague, the 20, 21, 291, 292
Hals, Frans 27, 40
Hamerton, Philip Gilbert 241
Harjes collection 296
Havard, Henry 33, 40, 41, 56
Inspector of Fine Arts 40
Henner, Jean Jacques 292
Henriquel-Dupont, Louis-Pierre 176, 232, 271
Hervier, Adolphe 183
Child with a Basket 185
Heugel collection 296
Hirsch de Gereuth collection 294
His de la Salle 211, 291
Hix 92-93
Bathsheba (after Rembrandt) 93
Woman at the Bath (after Rembrandt) 93
Holbein 51
Holford, R.S. 191
Hollander, Hendrick
Rembrandt Working in his Studio 144-145, 144
Honfleur 254
Houbraken, Arnold 42, 44-46, 90, 138, 143, 193, 225
Houssaye, Arsène 33-36, 38, 39, 41, 101, 102, 106,
118-119
index
383
Huet, Paul 99-100, 164
The Marsh/The Voyageur 166, 167
Hugo, Victor 119, 186, 243, 250, 257
Hulot collection 178
Huygens, Constantin 49
impasto 42, 45, 287, 294
individuality 38, 47, 52, 63, 105, 107, 109, 114, 160,
174, 219, 233
influence 18-19, 159
Ingres, Jean-Auguste-Dominique 26, 92, 95, 127
Raphael and the Fornarina 127
Venus anadyomène 176
Institut Français 26, 290
interpretive print 248, 263, 265, 266, 270-273, 275,
278, 280, 281, 284
Israël, Menasseh-ben 61
Israëls, Joseph 179
Italian art 20, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 37, 39, 43, 50, 51,
85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 94, 95, 100, 101, 103, 104, 219,
220, 222, 286
Jacque, Charles 160-161, 203, 208-209
Head of a Woman, after Rembrandt 161
Rembrandt Drawing, after Rembrandt 161
Rembrandt’s Mill, after Rembrandt 161
Seven Etchings on One Plate 168, 169, 183
“Tout les gouts sont dans la nature” 161, 163
Jacquemart, Jules 232, 237, 264
Jacquemart, Nélie 208
Jacquemart-André collection 294
Jean, Auguste 212
Joly, Hugues-Adrien 191
Josz, Virgile 284
Judaism 22, 47, 48, 58-63
July Monarchy 232
Kann collection 294, 296
Kassel 21, 22, 23, 129
Kris, Ernst 16
Kurz, Otto 16
Lacaze collection 92, 151, 294, 296
Lafenestre, George 289
Lagrange, Léon 154-155
Lalanne, Maxime 187, 219-220, 222, 237, 278
landscape 23, 25, 26, 36, 37, 99, 107, 159, 160-161,
164-165, 169
384
Langlois collection 296
Lastman, Pieter 43, 50, 231
Lebrun, Charles 89, 108
Lebrun, Jean-Baptiste-Pierre 31-33, 42, 46, 84, 88
Lecomte, Florent 42, 43-44
Ledru, Alexandre Auguste
see Ledru-Rolin, Alexandre Auguste
Ledru-Rollin, Alexandre Auguste 113-114
Legrand, Mme 288-289
Legros, Alphonse 86, 93-94, 183, 187, 221, 227, 229,
256, 262
Sheepfold on the Hillside 170, 171
The Hovel on the Hill 170, 171
Lehmann collection 294, 296
Le Nain Brothers 27
Lenormant, François 87-88, 92, 101
Leonardo da Vinci 36, 86, 129, 264
Lepic, Ludovic 238
Nemi Lake 172, 172
Lesclide, Richard 247
Lostalot, Alfred de 264-265
Lesueur, Eustache 89
Leys, Henri 137
Burgomaster Six in Rembrandt’s Studio 139,
140-141
liberty 37, 43, 52, 112, 114, 118, 119, 236, 263, 275,
284
lithograph 137, 140, 151, 266
Lorrain, Claude 178, 219, 252
Louis XIV 19, 31, 48, 191
Louis XV 19, 31
Louis XVI 19, 20, 31
Louvre 18, 19-25, 26, 57, 61, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94, 95,
98, 106, 119, 129, 144, 147, 151, 152, 153, 175,
210, 227, 248, 253, 266, 272, 278, 279, 289, 291,
292, 294
Luther, Martin 116, 118-119, 121
Malmaison 22
Manet, Edouard 18, 95, 183, 208
Mantz, Paul 208, 290
Mariette, François Auguste Ferdinand 258
market for Dutch Art 33
Marnix, Philippe de see Marnix de Saint-Aldegonde
Marnix de Saint-Aldegonde (Philippe de Marnix,
Baron de Sainte-Aldegonde) 111
Marolles, Michel de 191
Martial, Adolphe 179, 187, 220, 222, 235
Martinet, Alphonse
Rembrandt’s Studio, after Prosper-Louis Roux
76, 145, 146
Marvy, Louis 160, 161, 208, 238, 250
Beggars at the Door of a House, after Rembrandt
161, 162
Christ and the Samaritan Woman at a Well,
after Rembrandt 161
Christ Chasing the Moneylenders from the Temple,
after Rembrandt 161
Descent from the Cross, after Rembrandt 160
Doctor Faust, after Rembrandt 158, 160
The Night Watch, after Rembrandt 160
Portrait of Burgomaster Six, after Rembrandt 160
The Resurrection of Lazarus, after Rembrandt 161
Masaccio (Maso di Ser Giovanni di Monde Cassai)
130
Medici, Marie de’ 106
Meissonier, Jean-Louis Ernest 155
Rembrandt in his Studio 131, 132
Ménageot, François Guillaume 129
Mercuri, Paolo (Paul) 224
Méryon, Charles 187, 221, 236, 237, 238
Metsu, Gabriel 31, 129
Metz 294
mezzotint 145, 169, 170, 177, 271
Michel, André 293-294
Michel, Émile 120, 156, 231, 289
Michelangelo 51, 264
Michelet, Jules 181-182
Michiels, Alfred 33, 34, 38, 40, 41
Mieris, William 154-155
Millet, Jean-François 49-50, 165, 183, 237
Waiting 49
Ministry of Fine Arts 40, 233
Montabert, Paillot de 85-86, 92
Montauban 254
Montrosier, Eugène 190, 245-246
Moras, Picot de 47
Morel 47
Morny collection 273, 296
Mouilleron, Adolphe
Burgomeister Six in Rembrandt’s Studio,
after Henri Leys 139, 140
The Night Watch, after Rembrandt 266, 268
Rembrandt painting his Mother, after Joseph
Nicolas Robert-Fleury 137, 138
Musée d’estampes 251-262
Musée des copies 18, 291
Musée Napoléon 129
naiveté 52, 90, 106
Napoleon III see Bonaparte, Charles-Louis-Napoleon
Napoleonic Museum see Musée Napoléon
National Archives, France 21
Nerval, Gérard de 42
Neuville, Alphonse de
208
Nîmes 254
northern art 16, 20, 22, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 51,
101, 106, 107, 109, 117, 127
Notre Dame Cathedral 186
Nouveau Théâtre 284, 286
old master 7-9, 15, 17, 25-28, 41, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55,
63, 83, 93, 94, 95, 121, 125, 126, 140, 145, 155,
156, 165, 170, 208, 213, 214, 223, 226, 227, 230,
231, 232, 234, 241, 248, 251, 253, 254, 261, 263,
279, 280, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 292, 295, 296
Oliva, Alexandre Joseph
Rembrandt 132, 133, 134, 137
Oppenheim, Baron 289
original print 159, 174-178, 193, 210, 217, 232-233,
235, 241, 261, 262, 263-281
originality 36, 37, 52, 90, 105, 109, 160, 170, 191,
233, 234, 248, 263, 264, 265, 270, 283
Orléans collection, Henry d’ 291
painter-printmaker 15, 47, 86, 129, 148, 153, 154,
155, 156, 159, 173, 187, 190, 217, 219, 223, 225,
226, 227, 231, 232, 245, 251, 252, 258, 261, 264,
280, 281, 284
Palais de Luxembourg
19, 20, 32, 106
Palais Royale 32
Paris 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 42, 144, 187, 205,
212, 213, 226, 252, 253, 261, 272, 273, 284, 285,
286, 287, 288, 289, 292, 294
Paris à l’eau-forte 241, 242, 247-251
Pecq 287, 288, 290, 294
Péladan, Joséphin 190
Penon, Henry 289
Périer, Paul 94
Perot, A.M. 265
Perugino (Pietro Vannucci) 102
Peters, Antoine de 191
Petit, George 273
Phidias 36, 101, 103
385
photography 160, 174-178, 232, 257, 266, 280
Piles, Roger de 42, 43-44, 45, 51, 84, 140, 143
Pilet, Berthe
Le Lecteur 248
pillaging of art 20-22
Piranesi, Giovanni Battista 190, 279
Pissarro, Camille 183, 238
Planche, Gustave 86, 99, 105, 106
Plato 101
Porgès collection 294, 296
positivism 118
Potémot see Adolphe Martial
Potsdam 22
Potter, Paulus 241
Poulet-Malassis, Auguste 256
Portalès Gorgier collection 294
Poussin, Nicolas 22, 26, 84, 86, 89, 193
Private print collection 32, 89, 189, 191, 211, 253,
294, 295, 296
see also individual collectors
Prix de Rome 26, 210
proletariat 54, 143, 286
Protche, A.
Portrait of Rembrandt 248
Two Heads after Rembrandt 248
Protestant religion 34, 40, 112, 113
Proudhon, Pierre Joseph 104, 113-118
Prussia 21
Public print collections 178, 191-205, 252
see also Cabinet des estampes
Pynas 50
Quinet, Edgar 111-112
Raffaëlli, Jean-François 09-211, 252
Raimondi, Marcantonio 90, 221
Rajon, Paul-Adolphe 08, 270
Rembrandt biting an etched plate, after Jean-Léon
Gérôme 52, 153
Raphael 5, 16, 22, 34, 51, 85, 86, 88, 89, 116, 127,
130, 193, 194, 195, 221, 264, 270
comparisons of Rembrandt and Raphael 94-106
Rembrandt and Raphael as the Janus of art 103
realism 34, 38, 41, 105, 106, 246
Realists, the 50, 98, 105-6
Regamey, Frédéric 247
Paris à l’eau-forte. Paraît tous les samedis 77,
249-250
386
Rembrandt van Rijn
art collection 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 55, 60, 140, 145,
152, 218
association with the lower classes 43, 45, 46,
53-54, 58, 59, 143, 181
bankruptcy 8, 45, 46, 55, 60, 284, 290
bidding on his prints at auction 44
depictions of beggars 52, 87, 103, 111, 180-181,
182, 183, 203, 249, 286
and drawing 43, 83-90, 92, 102, 248, 254
etching technique 156, 160, 204, 205, 218, 221,
229, 230, 231, 283
exhibition of prints after Rembrandt at the Salons
263-270, 276
growing up in a windmill 43, 45, 53, 54
inventory of his home 55, 148, 225, 237, 290
and Italian Art 43, 51
miser 44, 45, 46, 47, 54-55, 59, 237
nudes 90-94, 203
ownership of printing presses 148, 225, 237, 238,
244, 258
painting technique 23, 25, 44, 46, 84, 132, 154,
155, 287, 294, 295, 296
patrons 47, 126, 127, 140, 148, 248
pet monkey 45, 128, 138, 140, 148, 248
question of trip to Italy 43-44, 51
rapport with Jewish people 47, 48, 58-63
“Rembrandt” play 47-48, 284-288
Rembrandt Research Project 7, 288, 296
reprinting of copper plates 212-215
retrospective exhibition, 1898 284, 287, 294-296
self-trained artist 47, 50, 52, 63, 217, 231
states of his prints 193, 203, 205, 219, 225, 237
wives and marriage 23, 43-44, 45, 54, 56-57,
128, 130, 153, 294
Rembrandt van Rijn, After
Hendrickje Stoffels as Venus/Venus and Amor
22, 72, 147
Rembrandt, Attributed to, 1807-1815
Landscape with Goats
23, 24, 25
Landscape with Hunters 23, 25, 25
Rembrandt van Rijn, Copy after
Portrait of Burgomaster Six 77, 295
Rembrandt van Rijn, Manner of
Christ on the Cross 295
Head of a Rabbi 77, 291, 295
Head of an Old Man 80, 295
Noli me Tangere 295
Samplers in a Cave 79, 295
Suppliant before a Biblical Prince 78, 295
Rembrandt van Rijn, School of
The Good Samaritan 20, 70, 147
Rembrandt Corpus 21
Renouvier, Jules 100, 101, 218, 220
reproductive print 159, 160, 175, 176, 177, 190, 193,
232, 257, 263-265, 270, 280
republicanism 36, 110, 114, 118, 283
revivals 26-28, 159, 183, 217, 233, 262
Revolution, 1789 20, 31, 118
Revolution, 1848 114, 115
Revolution, 1870 111
Ribot, Théodule 183
Ris, Clément de 256
Robert-Fleury, Joseph-Nicolas 127-128, 137, 141, 145
Rembrandt painting his Mother 137, 138, 140
Rembrandt painting Susanna at the Bath 150, 151,
153
Robert-Fleury, Tony 94, 208, 290
Roberts, Emma 208
Rochelle, La 254
Rococo art 27
Roman art 26, 92, 116, 117, 126, 220
Romano, Giulio 85-86, 92
Rops, Félicien 208
Rosenberg, Martin 95
Roth collection 178, 189
Rothschild, Edmond de 211, 213
Rouen 253, 261
Rousseau, Théodore 164, 187, 211, 213
Site de Bérry 166, 167, 169
Roux, Eugène Le
Rembrandt Painting Susanna at the Bath
(after J. N. Robert-Fleury) 150, 151
Roux, Prosper-Louis 137, 151, 152
Rembrandt’s Studio 145-148, 146
Roybet, Ferdinand
Frontispiece for the Fourth Annual Publication of the
Société des Aquafortistes 187, 188, 189
Royer, Louis 41
Rubens, Peter Paul 23, 26, 32, 33, 38, 40, 89, 137,
193, 264
comparisons of Rembrandt and Rubens 106-109
Ruysdael 39, 264
Saint-Arroman, Raoul de 221-222, 225
Saint-Cloud 22
Saint-Simon 118
Salmon, A. 275-276
Salomon, Léonard 288-289
Salon 17, 26, 49, 128, 129, 130, 137, 141, 145, 148,
151, 153, 155, 232, 245, 258, 263, 264, 266, 268,
270, 278, 280, 293
Salon Carré 21, 57
Sandrart, Joachim von 42-44
Saskia (Rembrandt’s wife) see van Uylenburgh, Saskia
Scheffer, Arry 250
Scheltema, Pieter 41, 42, 54, 61, 208, 225, 237
Schickler collection 294
Schloss collection 294, 296
Schongauer, Martin 51
Secrétan collection 296
Sedelmeyer, Charles 296
Seghers, Hercules 51
Sensier, Alfred 164
Servières 47
Shakespeare 97, 119-121, 186
Silvestre, Théophile 164
Six, Jan 128, 129, 137, 141, 193, 203, 221, 295
Société des Aquafortistes 159, 161, 177, 178, 179,
182, 183, 187, 189, 222, 233-247, 251, 264, 278
Société des aquafortistes français 278
Société des peintres-graveurs 262
Société des peintres-graveurs français 262
Société internationale des aquafortistes 256
Somm, Henri 247, 251
Soumy, Joseph 183
southern art 37, 39, 51, 117
Spanish art 26, 39, 89
Spanish Inquisition 34
Stendhal 85
Stevens, Alfred 290, 292
Stoffels, Hendrickje 56-57, 92
Strasbourg 294
Subercaze, Léon 161
Sueur, Eustache Le 22
Swanenburg 50
tableaux vivants 285
Taine, Hippolyte 33, 38, 39, 41, 54, 120, 121, 208,
286
Teniers the Younger, David 31
Thibaudeau, Adolphe 211
Thiers, Adolphe 179, 211
Thiers collection see Thiers, Adolphe
387
Thoré, Théophile see Thoré-Bürger
Thoré-Bürger (Théophile Thoré; William Burger)
27, 33, 37-38, 39, 40, 41, 49-50, 86, 103-104, 106,
107, 108, 109, 113-115, 118, 143, 154, 211, 220221, 225, 231, 235, 244
publication of Liberté 38
Tintoretto 108
Titian 95, 108, 264
Titus van Rijn 44, 46, 56-57, 58, 129, 141, 143, 147,
151
tourism, in the Netherlands 33
train travel 33
Troubadour school 127
truth 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 52, 88, 90, 100, 101,
102, 105, 106, 108, 113, 218, 233, 234, 265, 293
Tuin, H. van der 21
Twelve-year Truce, 1609 39
Unknown Artist
Rembrandt Working in his Studio (after Hollander)
144-145, 144
van Dyck, Anthony 219, 264
van Ostade, Adriaen 161, 219, 241
van Soelen, Jan Gijsbert Verstolk 191
van Uylenburgh, Saskia 45, 55-56, 129, 141, 143,
153, 212, 284, 294
admirer Albertus 284, 286
Vasari, Giorgio 50
388
Vermeer, Jan 27
Versailles 19
Veyrassat, Jules 208
The Carpenter’s Household/The Holy Family
(after Rembrandt) 119
Viardot, Louis 33, 37
Villot, Frédéric 88, 222
Vitet, Louis 33, 37
Vollon, Antoine 208, 211, 290
von Siegen, Ludwig
Amelia Elizabeth, Landgravine of Hesse-Kassel 170
Vosmaer, Carel 54, 97-98
Walewski, Alexandre 179
Waltner, Charles 208, 232, 270, 276
The “Doreur” (after Rembrandt) 273, 274, 275,
280, 293
The Night Watch (after Rembrandt) 271-272, 272
Portrait of Rembrandt’s Brother (after Rembrandt)
272-273, 273
Warneck collection 296
Wassermann collection 294, 296
Watelet, Claude-Henri 212
Whistler, James MacNeill 187, 229, 238
Willem V, Stadholder 20, 21
Willems, A. 56
Wilson collection 296
Wolff, Albert 292
wood engraving 141, 160, 190

document/133234 - UvA-DARE

Transcription

Documents pareils

[Descartes e il Seicento 5] Jean-Robert Armogathe, Vincent Carraud

Jolie Môme / Sample repertoire

4228 Holland Dr Des Moines, IA 50310 | Home for Sale | Real

"John" Console Table

Imagine you are working for the Scottish Tourist Board and you are

Revue de presse ANGLAIS Semaine du 31 octobre au 06 novembre

Revue de presse ANGLAIS Semaine du 24 au 30 octobre 2011

Méribel par Tougnète

GEM plaquette anglais - Emits

Cercle de la Terrasse - Oxford and Cambridge Club of Geneva