MASP

After maintaining a studio in Leiden for five years, Rembrandt moved to Amsterdam, where he gained fame and fortune as an artist, especially by his painting of portraits for private collections. His success as a painter was so great that, around 1633, he commanded one of the greatest studios in Europe, in a four-story palace in downtown Amsterdam. In the 1640s, a series of personal and professional misfortunes led Rembrandt into a gradual decline. He then abandoned the careful finishing and correction characteristic of his first style to dedicate himself to a profound study of light, which resulted in a sublime emotional intensity in his paintings and prints. Portrait of a Young Man with a Golden Chain (Self-Portrait with a Golden Chain) (c. 1635) is traditionally considered a self-portrait, although contemporary criticism tends to contest this hypothesis. Despite the opinion of specialists that the work was made by the “circle” of the Dutch master, it has long been attributed to Rembrandt himself, based on different documents, replicas and graphic records going back to the 17th century. The presence of a signature visible only in infrared light and a pentimento (correction) at chest level may reinforce the idea of a direct intervention by the painter.

— MASP Curatorial Team, 2017

---

The unusual format and the existence of copies suggest that, originally, the painting Portrait of a Young Man with a Golden Chain (Self-Portrait with a Golden Chain) was rectangular. The hypothesis that its dimensions were slightly larger was also raised (RRe 1989, p. 635). Important pentimenti are visible at about the level of the “V” formed by the gold chain. The painting has been a subject of controversial reviews. As early as in 1829 historical literature attributes it to Rembrandt, often with remarks about its being one of his masterpieces (circa 1635). However, soon a few disagreeing voices were raised and gradually became denser. Waagen (1857, p. 150) viewed it as “too tame for him”. Gerson (1968, n. 188) not only observed that the Previous Attribution to Rembrandt “is not wholly convincing”, but also (and from our viewpoint, rightfully) refused the work as a self-portrait. Lecaldano (1969, n. 187) and Wright (1981) seemed to agree with Gerson’s doubts. Schwarz did not include the work in his book published in 1984. Finally, Müller Hofstede (1957, p. 124), Sumovsky (1983), Tümpel (1986), and Benesch have more resolutely attributed the painting to Govaert Flinck (1615/1616-1660). According to scholars of the Rembrandt Commission, the canvas was produced neither at his atelier nor by anyone in his immediate group of artists: “One cannot discount the possibility of the painting coming from Rembrandt’s circle, though it is unlikely that it was done by a direct pupil. To judge from its appearance, a date in the 17th century is however quite acceptable” (1989, p. 636). Within this context, the signature is viewed as unequivocally counterfeited: “The uncharacteristic and perfunctory script make it plainly unauthentic”. These conclusions decisively exclude the artwork from Rembrandt’s sphere of action. However, as we shall see below, there is a number of elements which the Commission disregarded in their analysis, that seems sufficient to attribute the painting at the Masp Collection at least to the master’s atelier, c. 1635. In his letter of August 15, 1985 to P. M. Bardi, Paul A. Hachey, assistant curator at Beaverbrook Art Gallery of Fredericton, Canada, notified the existence at the Canadian museum of a portrait (oil on canvas, 73 x 63 cm) of the notable English engraver and humanist John Pine (1690?-1756), from c.1755, painted by William Hogarth and inspired by the Masp’s painting. As noted by Wright (1982, p. 42, n. 28), there are many copies of the latter. He wrote: “A copy of the head was on the Amsterdam art market in the 196os and several other versions have appeared, most of them very inferior”. The copy at issue shows a few alterations in the sitter’s attire. It was published by rRe (1989, p. 635) that ignores its current location, while acknowledging the existence of the following prints: – mezzotinta by Pieter van Bleek (active in The Hague and England between 1723 and 1764), bearing the inscription “Rembrandt Van Ryn pinxit 1632 – eVB 1747 / Rembrandt Van Ryn (Charrington 32)”. In the print, the original painting was inverted and rendered in oval format; – a print signed by an artist called Murray, bearing the inscription “Rembrandt pinxit – Murray sculpsit / Published by Harrison & Co. Aug. 1794”. In the print, the original painting was inverted and rendered in oval format; – print by Johann Georg Hertel II (active in the mid-18th century in Augsburg). In all three prints the subject is not wearing a necklace.The same scholars refer to an oval drawing (107 x 95 mm.), sold in Berlin at a Boerner-Graupe auction on May 12 1930, n. 41, attributed to Ferdinand Bol (Sumovski, Drawings, I, p. 99, n. 9). They further remarked: “Possibly made after one of the prints” (i.e., the above-mentioned prints). This phrase indicates that the Rembrandt Commission implicitly admits that this drawing was not produced by Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680), nor was it made before the mid-18th century, given that all the prints are dated 1747 and later. If, however, the drawing was effectively created by Ferdinand Bol, and we have hardly any reason to dispute Sumovski’s Previous Attributions, then what we have is more than a mere indication; it is clear evidence that the portrait in the Masp Collection came from Rembrandt’s atelier. After all, it is known that Bol worked with the master only between 1635 and 1637, i.e., exactly during the same period of which the Masp painting is usually dated. While confirming the drawing’s Previous Attributions, one would be confirming ipso facto the origin of the Masp painting as being not only from Rembrandt’s “circle”, as suggested by the Commission, but actually from the master’s atelier. A second important argument is the Previous Attributions of the artwork to Govaert Flinck by four scholars, for it is also common knowledge that, like Bol, Flinck also worked in Rembrandt’s atelier around 1635, and at that time he skillfully replicated his master’s work, only to part with this style subsequently. Taking for basis not only the extant printed records but mainly the reception of the artwork by a connoisseur as experienced as Hogarth, the prestigious treatment given, in the 18th century, to the painting currently in the Masp Collection is a vigorous additional argument for asserting the master’s atelier as source of the painting. One more argument involves the issue of the signature, which the Commission disregarded for merely typological reasons. To establish whether or not the signature was added to the original painting on a later date, it would be necessary to conduct an in-depth and more circumstantiated scientific examination of the painting. The verification of the signature as being coeval with the work still does not prove that the painting was produced by Rembrandt himself, but it will serve as a stronger evidence that it came from his atelier. In this case, it was done under the master’s direct supervision, and based on an original idea by him, given the indispensable presence of the sitter at sitting sessions. Finally, the traditional hypothesis that the painting is a self-portrait is extremely unlikely. Even if the identification of portraits leaves a broad margin for doubt, all one needs to do is compare the portrait at the Masp Collection with the two self-portraits conserved at the Louvre and Berlin, both dated 1634-35, and both unequivocally similar, to see that there is hardly any feature common to the portrait at the Masp and the self-portraits in Europe, except the age of the sitter. In fact, Bauch had already mentioned this fact in 1966, when he gave preference to the generic title of Junger Mann in Reicher Tracht (Young Man in Rich Attire). Rembrandt made around three hundred etchings, many enhanced by drypoint, starting from preparatory drawings, of which approximately seventy still survive. The etching Saint Jeronimo Praying belongs to the first of three periods into which his graphical work is customarily classified, the period finishing in the 30s and which is characterized essentially by the use of what Hind (1923, p. 172) calls “the pure etched line”. The preparatory drawing for this etching provided the artist with a point of departure for his “Saint Francis Praying”, dated 1637, in the Ohio Gallery of Fine Arts and of which various copies are known. Coppier (1929, p. 101, F. 17) published the B101, noting its arched structure. The author included it amongst the artist’s original etchings warning however that it was “mostly the work of a pupil”.

— Unknown authorship, 1998

---