CATALOGUE – Please hold your mouse over the ‘Catalogue’ tab to find the number you require.
NB. Please also see the Disclaimer on the Homepage.
To navigate the site, please use the scroller near the left margin of the text or click anywhere on the text and use your computer’s controls (eg. the ‘Page Down’ button – having turned off the ‘Numbers Lock’). This should move you through the text very swiftly. If you click on the text and then press Ctrl+End, you move immediately to the end of the text.
Abbreviations: the bibliographical abbreviations refer to the literature listed under the Bibliography tab. It should be assumed that the authors quoted regarded the drawings referred to as by Rembrandt unless otherwise stated.
For an explanation of the use of question marks in the Summary Attributions, please see under the ‘About’ tab.
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS ARE WELCOME. PLEASE SEE THE “CONTACT” TAB. I AM ESPECIALLY KEEN TO HEAR ABOUT PUBLICATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN INCLUDED.
QUOTING THIS SITE:
Anyone is welcome to quote from this site. Please acknowledge by writing:
‘See rembrandtcatalogue.net, Benesch [number], [date of catalogue entry] (accessed [date])’. For example:
See rembrandtcatalogue.net, Benesch 152, 2 June 2013 (accessed 12 March 2018).
Benesch 0601 (HdG. 1119; Sch. 129)
Subject: The Prodigal Son among the Swine (Luke, 15, 17-19)
Verso: Laid down
Medium: Pen and brown ink. Inscribed verso (verso inspected but the drawing laid down again), in graphite, centre: “334.”
159 x 235. Watermark: countermark: ‘PR’ (probably countermark to a foolscap, cf. Laurentius, pp.233-36, dateable c. 1642-50); chain lines: 25h.
COMMENTS: The subject was and still is often represented in Christian art as an exemplar of the virtue of repentance and forgiveness: Christ’s Parable of the Prodigal Son relates how, having squandered his inheritance, the son is reduced to the lot of a swineherd. Penitent, as shown here, he decides to return to his father and beg his forgiveness: “I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants” (vv.18-19). The specific subject of the son among the swine was treated by numerous artists before Rembrandt, who like many of them may have been inspired by Albrecht Dürer’s celebrated engraving of c. 1496 (Bartsch 28), which shows the same moment in the story.[1]
Rembrandt’s drawing has been dated variously, from the mid-1630s to c. 1650 (see Literature below). The earlier date was probably suggested by Rembrandt’s etching of the ‘Return of the Prodigal Son’ of 1636 (Bartsch 91, Hind 147), in which the son’s pose is superficially related.[2] In the light of the drawing’s stylistic proximity to a number of generally accepted sheets of c. 1645-55, however, the later date of c.1650 or even later is the most plausible.[3] Among the most comparable are two in Berlin, the documentary study for the Hundred Guilder Print, now in Berlin (Benesch 0188), probably of the mid-to-later 1640s, and the Raising of Jairus’ Daughter (also in Berlin; Benesch 1064), which is probably of the 1650s although it has been dated still later.[4] The latter can be stylistically related to the drawing in the Six Album of Homer Reciting Verses (Benesch 0913), which is dated 1652, but the analogies with drawings of the 1640s suggest that the present sheet could have been executed a little earlier, in about 1650-52. It also has features in common with drawings by Rembrandt’s pupil, Willem Drost, who was in the master’s studio at this time, similarities that lend support to the proposed dating without seriously challenging the attribution.
For the larger animals, seen in profile to left and right, Rembrandt seems to have looked back to his earlier drawings, Benesch 0778 and 0779 (see Fig.a),[5] with minor adjustments, especially to the hind legs of the pig on the left. Also shown in Fig.a is the Louvre drawing, Benesch 777, in which the pig on the left could have been the basis of the one seen from behind in Benesch 601.
Condition: Generally good, though perhaps slightly trimmed; some discolouration, especially down the right-hand side.
Summary attribution: Rembrandt.
Date: 1650-55?
COLLECTION: GB London, British Museum (Salting Bequest; inv. 1910,0212.179).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Waagen, 4, 1857, p. 215 (in James Collection); Brunet, 1866, p. 260 (as Waagen, 1857); Michel, 1893, p.585 (Salting, ex-James coll.); Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 1119; Exh. London, 1910, p. 5; Rembrandt Bijbel, 2, 1910, repr. opp. p. 65; Exh. London, 1912, no. 162;
London, 1915, no. 40, repr. pl. VI (c. 1635-40; compares the studies of pigs [Benesch 778 and 779]); Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 387, repr. (c. 1636); Kauffmann, 1926, p. 175, n. 3 (c. 1635-36); Paris, 1933, p. 32, under no. 1193 (as London, 1915); Benesch, 1935, p. 42 (c. 1648-50); Exh. London, 1938, no. 40 (c.1635-40); Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 601, repr. fig.732/774 (c. 1647-8; notes London, 1915 comparisons are with much earlier drawings; compares several sheets including Good Samaritan, Benesch 0615, in Weimar, and Esau Selling his Birthright, Benesch 0606, in London); Sumowski, 1958, repr. fig. 42 (c. 1643); Roger Marx, 1960, repr. p. 334, fig. 154c; London, 1961, p. 22, under no. 187 (c. 1640; grouped with tragic or morbid themes in Rembrandt while discussing Benesch 0485a in Seilern coll.); Rotermund, 1963, p. 185, repr. fig. 200 (perhaps a reminiscence of Dürer); Sumowski, 1963, no. 41, repr. (c. 1643); Bernhard, 1976, 2, repr. p. 375; Clark, 1978, pp. 136-37 (one of several treatments of the subject by Rembrandt); Hoekstra, 4 (deel 2), 1981, repr. p. 46 (c. 1645-8); Exh. London, 1992, no. 52, repr. (c. 1650); Giltaij, 1995, p. 100 (not Rembrandt); London (online) 2010, no. 45 (c. 1650; otherwise as here – see https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1910-0212-179); Schatborn, 2019, no. 129, repr. (c. 1652).
PROVENANCE: Andrew James; his sale, Christie’s, 28 April, 1873, lot 71, bt Parsons, £1-15-0; bequeathed by George Salting, 1910.
[1] As noted by Rotermund, 1963, p. 185. See also Haeger, 1986, for other treatments of the subject. The Dürer engraving is Bartsch 28.
[2] The drawing in Haarlem of the Return of the Prodigal Son, Benesch 0519 (qv), was also dated to c. 1636 (e.g. by Valentiner, I, 1925, no.388) but is now generally placed in the earlier 1640s.
[3] Although there are analogies with Rembrandt’s works of the first half of the 1640s, for example, with Benesch 0606, as pointed out by Benesch.
[4] By Benesch, for example, who placed it in the early 1660s.
[5] The comparison first made by Hind in London, 1915, no. 40.
First posted 22 May 2023.
Benesch 0602 (Hdg. -; Sch. -)
Subject: Hagar Weeping at Abraham’s Door, a fragment (Genesis, 21, 14)
Verso: Laid down
Medium: Pen and brown ink with some white bodycolour; ruled framing lines in pen and brown ink (which encompass the addition to the right). Inscribed on the verso of the mount with a note of the His de La Salle provenance and the drawing’s inclusion in Exh. Paris, 1921.
206 x 94/116 (expanded to 116 by a restorer’s addition to right). Watermark: Arms of Württemberg (fragment; resembles Hinterding, B’.a.a. of 1634; also Heawood 485 of 1625, and Laurentius 212 and 221 of respectively 1624 and 1619); chain lines: 24v.
COMMENTS: In the truncated area to the right, the white bodycolour probably covers part of the figure of Sarah, and below this an arm remains visible, presumably Ishmael’s. For the subject, often treated by Rembrandt and his pupils, compare for example Benesch 0524, Benesch 0916 and Benesch 0948a, as well as the 1637 etching (Bartsch 30; NH 166).
The style, with its even, strong parallel hatching, and the lack of variety in the pressure of the touch, is entirely consistent with drawings from the “Willem Drost “ group (for his stylistic characteristics see further under Benesch 0573). As well as Benesch 0603, one might compare the seated Elijah in Benesch 0944 or Tamar in Benesch A113 (see Fig.a).[1] Here these characteristics are repeated, as in so many drawings now attributed to Drost. Several writers have already questioned the attribution to Rembrandt.[2]
Condition: Truncated to right, otherwise good (with some minor spotting).
Summary attribution: Willem Drost?
Date: 1650-54?
COLLECTION: F Paris, Musée du Louvre (Walter Gay bequest ; L. 1886a ; inv. RF 29037 ; MS inventaire, 25, p. 443).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Lippmann, 3, 64; Exh. Leiden, 1906, no. 2a; Exh. Paris, 1908, no. 290; Exh. Paris, 1921, no. 86; Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 22 (c.1645); Hautecoeur, 1927 (unpaginated); Benesch, 1935, p. 42; Hamman, 1936, p. 557, repr. pl. 123 (school); Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 602, repr. fig. 733/775 (c. 1648; relates style to Benesch 0603, Benesch 0606 and Benesch 0607; pace Hamann, 1936, not a school work); Sumowski, 1961, p. 12 (Van Hoogstraten); Slive, 1965, 2, no. 398, repr. Lippmann’s facsimile (c. 1645-48); Rotermund, 1969, p. 15, repr. pl. 23; Exh. Paris, 1970, no. 191; Paris, 1988, no. 276, repr. (c.1650 or slightly later); Exh. Paris, 1988-89, no. 47, repr. (c.1650-54; one might think of Drost; compares Rembrandt etchings of 1650s for hatching, Bartsch 42 and 83, NH 265 and 286); Royalton-Kisch, 1990, p.136, no. 47 (likely by Willem Drost, cf. Benesch 0944 and Benesch A113 [Sumowski 560x]).
PROVENANCE: A. C. H. His de la Salle (L. 1333); Walter Gay, by whom bequeathed in 1938 (presented through his widow, 1941).
[1] Benesch A 113 is in Rotterdam (inv. R 9 – see Rotterdam, 1988, no. 61, repr., as by Drost, and https://www.boijmans.nl/en/collection/artworks/99318/juda-and-thamar (accessed 26 May 2023). Pen and brown ink, 128 x 155 (on loan from the Stichting Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen 1940 (from the former collection of Franz Koenigs).
[2] See Literature – Hamann, 1936; Sumowski, 1961 (who suggested Van Hoogstraten); Starcky in Exh. Paris, 1988-89 and Royalton-Kisch, 1990.
First posted 26 May 2023.
Benesch 0603 (HdG 1146; Sch. -)
Subject: The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matthew, 20, 10-16)
Verso: Blank
Medium: Pen and brown ink, rubbed with the finger. Inscriptions: none
143 x 122. Watermark: foolscap with 5-pointed collar; chain lines: 24h.
COMMENTS: In the story of Christ’s Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, the owner of a vineyard went out four times in one day to hire labourers. At the end of the day he paid everyone the same amount, but those who had worked all day complained. They were told that they should not begrudge the landlord’s generosity and should accept what they had agreed. The purpose of the story was to explain the difference between worldly and spiritual rewards and God’ mercy. In the drawing, the landlord, seated at his desk with an account-book and pen, turns to reply to two workers. One doffs his cap with his left hand, which was first shown pointing across his chest, and indicates his (unseen) colleagues to the left with his right hand. The second labourer appears on the point of signing his receipt with the pen offered by the landlord while holding his left hand to his chest in a gesture of humility.
Like Benesch 0602, the style of the drawing conforms entirely to works now ascribed to the “Willem Drost” group (for which see under Benesch 0573), with its plethora of evenly-applied hatching that tends to flatten the forms, generally solid outlines, and a tendency towards rectangular and other geometrical forms in the description of the parts of the body, such as the arms in the present example, as well as the drapery. Numerous drawings from the same group may be compared, including the sketches already compared in the entry for Benesch 0603, the Elijah in Benesch 0944 or Tamar in Benesch A113 (now in Rotterdam (see Fig.a).[1] In the Turin drawing, the abbreviated, cursory depiction of the legs and feet are also consistent with drawings in the “Drost” group, as is also the unresolved treatment of the lower periphery generally. These aspects undermine the traditional attribution to Rembrandt and the association with Drost would explain the stylistic drawing’s proximity to Rembrandt’s own works of the early 1650s, when Drost was most probably studying in his studio. The earliest signed and dated paintings by Drost date from 1652, around which time he may have completed his training with Rembrandt, and the Turin drawing was probably made in these years. It may have been preceded by the sketchier version of the subject in Benesch 0604, and be contemporaneous with Benesch 0605. Another, more broadly sketched version of the subject is in the Rijksmuseum, showing the present arrangement of the figures reversed and with many other adjustments and elaborations, the hole executed in a sketchier style. This has also been tentatively ascribed to Drost and may also have preceded the present, more settled composition.[2]
The attribution to Drost should not diminish our appreciation of the drawing’s finer qualities: the poise and balance of the figure group, with the vineyard-owner emphasised by an arch above him; the interaction of the figures through their individual gestures and characterisations; and the economy of the lines that describe them. They reveal Drost to have been capable of emulating his master closely, and it is therefore no surprise that the drawing was for so long considered to be by Rembrandt himself. However, another, inferior version of the subject, apparently by the same artist (Benesch 0604), reveals that his achievements were uneven, and lacked Rembrandt’s consistency. The composition is less compact, the spatial relationships are unclear and the details of the figures less securely drawn. It may be that this other version (and perhaps also the Rijksmuseum’s drawing) preceded the more successful Turin drawing, which greatly improves on these shortcomings. Compare also the treatment of the subject in Benesch 0605.
Rembrandt made a painting of the subject some 15 years before, in 1637.[3]
Condition: Somewhat light-struck and foxed, otherwise good.
Summary attribution: Willem Drost?
Date: 1650-52?
COLLECTION: I Turin (Torino), Biblioteca Reale (L. 2724; inv. 16448b D.C.).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 1146; Frizzoni, 1908, p. 408; Ricci, 1918, p. 63; Hofstede de Groot, 1923-24, p. 114, repr.; Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 371, repr.; Benesch, 1935, p.42; Exh. Turin, 1951, no. 15; Exh. Milan, 1954, no. 235; Benesch, 3, 1955, no. 603, repr. fig. 734/776 (c. 1648; notes pentimento in the raised arm of the further labourer; compares for style Benesch 0602, Benesch 0606-7 and Benesch 0609); Kuznetsov, 1961; Sumowski, 1961, p. 16; Exh. Milan, 1970, no. 18; Sciolla, 1972, p. 72, n. 1; Sciolla, 1974, p. 64, n. 105; Sciolla, 1976, no. 32, repr.; Exh. Turin, 1982, no. 2; Rotterdam, 1988, under no. 151; Exh. Turin, 1989, no. 146 (Willem Drost?); Sciolla, 1990, no. 146; New York, 2006, under no. 241; Exh. Turin, 2006-7, no. 14, repr. (Willem Drost?).
PROVENANCE: Giovanni Volpato; Carlo Alberto of Savoy, King of Sardinia, 1839;
[1] Lugt, 1933, p.54, under no.1287; Henkel 1942, p.44, under no.89. For further details of the Rotterdam drawing, see under Benesch 0602, n.1.
[2] The drawing discussed by Van Sighem and Shoaf Turner with a bibliography including former opinions on the Rijksmuseum’s website at: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.36081 . It relates more closely than the other versions to the composition of a painting, sometimes attributed to Willem Drost or another pupil, now in London at the Wallace Collection (inv. P86; see London, 1992, pp.89-95, repr. and online at https://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMP/eMuseumPlus (accessed 26 Sep. 2023). Another, weaker version was sold, London, Christie’s, 18 April, 1967, one of a pair in lot 150, as by a follower of Rembrandt (repr. London, 1992, p.91 – this reference from New York, 2006, under no. 241). A drawing of the subject in Rotterdam (inv. MB 189) has been attributed to Salomon Koninck (see: https://www.boijmans.nl/collectie/kunstwerken/71656/de-arbeiders-in-de-wijngaard [accessed 30 May 2023]).
[3] State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg (Bredius 558; Wetering 151). The main figures are in reverse and it only resembles the Turin drawing superficially. The painting was classed as a studio copy of a lost Rembrandt by Corpus, 3, 1989, no.C88 (although this writer has always believed it is by Rembrandt himself, as recorded in Exh Turin, 2006-7, under no.14, n. 4) and returned to Rembrandt by Wetering in Corpus, 5, 2011, pp. 206-207 and Corpus, 6, 2015, no. 151. Corpus, 5, p. 573 refers to the inspiration the painting provided for Benesch 0605 and a version in Berlin (HdG 59; Berlin, 2018, no. 33, repr. as Anthonie van Borssom).
First posted 30 May 2023 [n. 2 added 26 September 2023].
Benesch 0604 (HdG. 1349; Sch. – )
Subject: The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matthew, 20, 10-16)
Verso: A Sketch of the Master from the Parable
Medium: Pen and brown ink (in two tones, mostly yellowish-brown but warm brown in places, for example, in the turban, lower section of the balustrade and the steps to left), corrected in white bodycolour; the Master’s turban redrawn on an attached piece of paper; ruled framing lines in pen and brown ink. Inscribed verso in graphite, top left: “43”; top right: “4″ and “44”; centre right: “VII” and lower right: “661”
185 x 275. Watermark: Phoenix in a foliate wreath (cf. Heawood 199 [1644]).
COMMENTS: For the subject, see Benesch 0603 (with reference to other, related drawings of it, also listed under Benesch 0605). Some parts of the drawing are in a warmer brown in than the rest, including the turban (on an added piece of paper), the steps on the left and the area below the balustrade.
In style the drawing has much in common with those in the “Willem Drost” group (for which see under Benesch 0573). Although less prepossessing than Benesch 0603, which also belongs to the group, it exhibits moments of quality, as in the characterisation of the Master and in the lively group of apparently squabbling labourers to the left;[1] yet it retains the characteristic geometricisation of the limbs and the even application of parallel hatching lines found in so many drawings of the group. The pentimenti in the right arm of the Master relate to his passing the pen to the nearest labourer.
The drawing has had a chequered reception in the literature since the mid-nineteenth century, when it was attributed to Rembrandt’s school (see Literature below), and the rather shaky additions in warmer brown ink (see especially in the steps at the lower left) have sometimes been described as later rework. Yet the turban is in the same ink, the higher quality of which undermines the theory. The drawing may have been made prior to Benesch 0603 and Benesch 0605, in which the composition is more resolved. All these drawings have motifs in common with Rembrandt’s much earlier painting of the subject, dated 1637 and now in the Hermitage (Bredius 558; Wetering 151).
The slight sketch on the right is difficult to decipher, and might be a simplified turban.
Condition: Top corners made up; the Master’s turban redrawn on an attached piece of paper; brown stains along the top and down both sides, with some foxmarks.
Summary attribution: Willem Drost?
Date: 1650-52?
COLLECTION: NL Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen (Boijmans bequest; L. 1857; inv. MB 229).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Rotterdam, 1852, no. 754 (school of Rembrandt); Rotterdam, 1869, no. 633 (school of Rembrandt); Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 1349 (Rembrandt); Rotterdam, 1916, no. 590; Stockholm, 1920, p. 45, under II, no. 24; Rotterdam, 1921, no. 590; Rotterdam, 1925, no. 601; Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 370, repr. (copy?); Rotterdam, 1928, no. 601; Hell, 1930, pp. 94-95; Benesch, 1947, p. 38, under no. 185; Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 604, repr. fig. 735/777 (c.1648-49; “reworked extensively” in warmer brown ink; compares Benesch 0603 and for style Benesch 0609; Pigler, 1956, 1, p. 366; Kuznetsov, 1961, p. 70, repr. fig. 7-8; Scheidig, 1962, p. 54, repr. fig. 92; Exh. Amsterdam, 1964-65, no. 104, repr. fig. 24; Rotterdam, 1969, pp. 79-80, repr. figs. 201-2; Turin, 1974, p. 64, under no. 105; Exh. Nice, 1975, no. 22; Rotterdam, 1988, no. 151, repr. (school of Rembrandt or a copy; with Benesch 0603 and Benesch 0605, probably depends on Rembrandt’s painting of the subject of 1637 [on which see above]); New York, 2006, under no. 241; Exh. Turin, 2006-7, under no. 14, repr. fig. 14.2.
PROVENANCE: Bequeathed to the present repository by F.J.O. Boijmans, 1847.
[1] A somewhat similar group appears on the right of Benesch 0605.
First posted 24 September 2023.
Benesch 0605 (HdG 1082; Sch.- )
Subject: The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matthew, 20, 10-16)
Verso: See Inscriptions
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown wash; some later additions in pen and wash in grey; ruled framing lines in pen and brown ink. Inscribed recto, lower right corner, in pen and brown ink, “Rimbrant”; verso, centre, in large characters, in black chalk: “13”; lower left corner, in graphite: “…L / …X [partially cut off]”; next to this, in pen and brown ink:, “B. No 103”. Inscribed on Fairfax Murray’s mount, lower right (underneath the drawing), in his hand, in graphite: “Study for picture at the Hermitage / St Petersburg / Utterson cn [i.e. collection]”.
151 x 195. Watermark: Strasbourg lily in a shield, surmounted by a crown (cf. Heawood 1780; 1680); chain lines: 20-22h.
COMMENTS: Of the several drawings of this subject dating from around the year 1650,[1] the present sheet stands out as of the highest quality. The figures are sketched out in a lively manner with some exceptionally deft descriptions of form, movement and even the fall of the light, as in the nearer sleeve of the central figure who stands in profile. Yet it is impossible – surprisingly so – to place the drawing in Rembrandt’s own oeuvre through stylistic comparisons with other, better-documented drawings. Perhaps the closest are the 1644 Allegory of the Arts (see under the Not it Benesch tab), the Berlin sketch for the Hundred Guilder Print (Benesch 0188), the Star of the Kings (Benesch 0736) and the two studies for the etched Portrait of Jan Cornelisz. Sylvius (Benesch 0762a-763). While there are similarities, the present drawing diverges from them critically in the modelling of the individual heads (which in the standing figure in profile in the centre is drawn with Drost-like scratchy pockets of hatching), the quality of the characterisations, both through facial features and gestures (here perhaps less eloquent than in Benesch 0603), as well as in the rendition of such details as the hands and feet. While that does not absolutely discount the possibility of an attribution to Rembrandt, they do engender sufficient grounds for concern to place the drawing in the ‘attributed to’ Rembrandt category. One commentator has already suggested that the drawing could be by Willem Drost and a few others have questioned its traditional attribution to his teacher.[2] The attribution to Drost cannot be supported by ‘documentary’ comparisons as no independently verifiable drawings by Drost exist. Yet it should be noted that the present work resembles drawings in the “Drost” group only in a few details (as mentioned above), but overall it lacks his customary geometrical formulations and regular hatching – cf. Benesch 0603 – undermining the idea that it is by the same artist.
It has been remarked that the seated figure of the Master harks back to the Judas in Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper, which was copied by Rembrandt via an early engraving and frequently inspired him (see under Benesch 0443-45).[3]
Condition: Repaired at top right corner; some brown stains, mostly near the edge of the sheet; upper right centre an attempted repair to a small round loss or hole.
Summary attribution: School of Rembrandt/Rembrandt??/Willem Drost??
Date: 1648-52.
COLLECTION: USA New York, Morgan Library (inv. I, 182).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Murray, 1905-12, 1, 182, repr. (as Rembrandt); Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 1082; Bruel, 1908, pp. 450-52 and 462; Exh. Paris, 1908, no. 349; Valentiner, I, 1925, no. 369, repr. (“not entirely sure”); Benesch, 3, 1955/73, o. 605, repr. fig. 736/778 (late 1640s); Scheidig, 1962, no. 93, repr.; Rotermund, 1963, pp. 184 and 314, and no. 195, repr.; Bernhard, 1976, vol.. 2, p. 401; Exh. Washington, 1983-84, no. 18, repr. (Rembrandt; figure of the Master depends on Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper); Rotterdam, 1988, under no. 151 (Rembrandt school); Exh. Turin, 1989-90, under no. 146 (no. 146 was Benesch 603); New York, 2006, no. 241, repr. (school of Rembrandt; quotes Lugt’s opinion that the drawing was certainly by Rembrandt [in his file cards at the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie in The Hague] and Schatborn’s attribution to Drost in a letter of 16 December, 2001).
PROVENANCE: E.V. Utterson (L. 909); George Salting (no mark; see L. 2260-61); Charles Fairfax Murray from whom purchased through Galerie Alexandre Imbert, Rome, in 1909 by Pierpont Morgan in 1909; J. P. Morgan, Jr, by whom given to the present repository, 1924.
[1] Benesch 0604-5 and the drawings in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, and the Museum Biujmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam, noted under Benesch 0603, n. 2.
[2] See under Literature, Valentiner, 1925, as well as Giltaij in Rotterdam, 1988 and by Schatborn in 2001, as recorded by Shoaf Turner in New York, 2006 (where the drawing is designated as ‘school of Rembrandt’).
[3] By Wheelock in Exh. Washington, 1983-84 (see Literature above), who believed that the pentimenti in the Master’s arm in Benesch 0605 reflect the change of angle its adapted depiction here.
First posted 28 September 2023.
Benesch 0606 (HdG. 867; Sch. 71)
Subject: Esau Selling his Birthright to Jacob (Genesis, 25, 29-34)
Verso: Laid down on old mat, but studied with transmitted light from the back; see Inscriptions.
Medium: Pen and brown ink with greyish brown wash mixed with some white heightening; the graphite traces recorded by Benesch cannot be distinguished. Inscribed verso, in pen and brown ink, top left: “38”; on a fragment of an old mat or backing paper, inscribed by John Barnard in pen and brown ink (though the letters before his monogram are perhaps by a different hand, which does not seem to be Richardson’s): “F.59 [?58] /P./ JB [in monogram] – Nº: 1067./7 3/4 by 6 ¾ / Engraved by S: Watts for Mr: Rogers”; in graphite (modern): “48 [in a circle]”
200 x 174. Watermark: foolscap (those parts that can be made out resemble the mark on Benesch 0643, repr. Amsterdam, 1985, p. 239, no. 23, where the drawing is dated by Schatborn to the mid-1640s); chain lines: 22/24v.
COMMENTS: The subject is from Genesis, 25, 29-34: Esau, returning exhausted and hungry from hunting in the fields, agrees to sell his birthright to Jacob, “a plain man, dwelling in tents”, in return for some “bread and a pottage of lentils”. The subject was treated again in a drawing now in the Amsterdam Museum (Benesch 0564), the attribution of which has been contested (it is attributed to Ferdinand Bol in the present catalogue, not for the first time) but which was nevertheless probably made at about the same time.[1] A more distant relationship between these drawings and a print after Paulus Moreelse has been observed: it shows the two brothers seated to left and right, facing each other and shaking hands (see Fig. a).[2] But in the present sheet the psychological complexities of the situation, as well as the sheer quality of the drawing, are on Rembrandt’s highest level.
The drawing has been dated variously in the past, from the mid-1630s to the late 1640s (see Literature below). The datable as well as documentary works with which the drawing is stylistically most compatible are the Study of a Kneeling Man in Bayonne (Benesch 0477) and the Two Men in Conversation, dated 1641 (Benesch 0500a). The Bayonne figure, though more liquidly handled, is shaded with small pockets of hatching that closely resemble those seen here, both in the figures and in the shadow behind Jacob. This kind of work reappears in the much larger (and therefore more broadly handled) study in the Courtauld Institute, in which the lines on the ground by the standing figure’s feet are remarkably close to those depicting the shadow cast by Esau’s legs in the present drawing. Although a slightly later dating cannot be entirely ruled out,[3] these analogies suggest that the British Museum’s drawing was made in about 1640-41.[4]
The drawing was engraved by Simon Watts in 1765, when in the collection of Thomas Hudson, and the plate was published in Charles Rogers, “Collection of Prints in Imitation of Drawings”, London, 1778. A copy of Benesch 0606 was drawn by E. V. Utterson (1775/6-1856), the collector (see L.909) and is now also in the British Museum’s collection (inv. 1996,0928.11).
Condition: Generally good, but some foxing (especially near the edges) and surface dirt; trimmed slightly irregularly; rubbed (an erasure) in lower left corner; what appears to be a brushmark across the lower edge is probably glue showing through from the verso.
Summary attribution: Rembrandt.
Date: 1640-1641?
COLLECTION: GB London, British Museum (Rev. C.M. Cracherode bequest, 1799; inv. Gg,2.250).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Bürger, 1858, p. 400 (subject not identified); Blanc, 2, 1861, p. 453; Michel, 1893, p. 581 (subject unknown; erroneously as in J. Anderson collection); Exh. London, 1899, no. A30 (placed between drawings of 1640 and 1642); Kleinmann, 4, no.14; Bell, c. 1905, repr. pl. IX; Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 867; Becker, 1909, p. 40; Wurzbach, 1910, p. 417; London, 1915, no. 33 (c. 1635-40); Valentiner, I, 1925, no. 56, repr. (c. 1637); Kauffmann, 1926, p.176, n.1 (c. 1637-38); Hind, 1932, p. 49 (compares Fodor version, Benesch 0564, and Benesch 0327); Benesch, 1935, p. 42 (c. 1648-50); Exh. London, 1938, no.33 (c.1635-40); Popham, 1939, p. 68; Benesch, 1947, p. 25 and no. 159, repr. (c. 1648-49); Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 606, repr. fig. 737/779 (c. 1648-9; anticipates style of 1650s; compares several sheets, none of which can be dated securely, some having since been rejected); Drost, 1957, p. 185 (compares Elsheimer); Exh. London, 1956, p.24, no.13; Sumowski, 1961, p. 12 (c. 1640); White, 1962, repr. pl. 5 (as Benesch); Rotermund, 1963, p. 17, repr. pl. 35 (Esau clearly characterised as a hunter); Benesch, 1964, p. 149, reprinted 1970, p. 269; White, 1, 1969, p. 54, and 2, repr. fig. 59 (c. 1648; later than Fodor version, Benesch 564; style resembles etched Abraham and Isaac of 1645, Bartsch 34, NH 224, with cross-hatching still supporting outline); Exh. Berlin, 1970, under no. 11; Bernhard, 1976, 2, repr. p. 389; Amsterdam, 1981, p. 53, repr. p. 54, fig.b (improves on Fodor version of this subject, Benesch 0564); Schatborn, 1982, p.254, repr. p. 255, repr. fig.4 (see n.1 above); Hoekstra, 2 (deel 2), 1983, repr. p. 37 (c. 1648-50); Exh. London, 1992, no. 37, repr. (c.1640-41); Exh. Bremen, 2000-2001, p. 49, under no. 13, repr. fig. 6; Exh. Vienna, 2004, no. 104, repr. (c.1640-41; strong psychological characterisation); Exh. London, 2006 (no cat.); Exh. Los Angeles, 2009-10, no. 11.1, repr.; London (online), 2010, no. 34, repr. (c. 1640-41); Corpus, 5, 2011, p. 221, repr. fig. 177 (c. 1642; compares ’emotionally charged’ subjects of c. 1642 including Benesch 0519 and the painting of David and Jonathan in the Hermitage [Bredius 511; Wetering 188]); Schatborn, 2019, no. 71, repr. (c. 1641).
PROVENANCE: Jonathan Richardson, sen. (L.2183); his sale, Cock’s, 11th day, 3 February, 1747 (1746 old style), lot 22? (“Two ‘Rembrandt’, ‘Jacob’ and ‘Esau’, and the portrait of ‘And.Dolia’”, the latter presumably Benesch 1186 in Berlin), sold for £1-3-0; Thomas Hudson (no mark, but engraved when in his collection by Simon Watts in 1765 – see further under Comments above); John Barnard (L.1419 and 1420 verso; his sale, Greenwood’s, from 16 February, 1787, includes many pen drawings by Rembrandt of unspecified historical subjects); Rev. C. M. Cracherode (L.606), by whom bequeathed to the British Museum, 1799.
[1] See further under Benesch 0564. Two later versions, in the Rembrandthuis and in Berlin, were accepted by Benesch (Benesch 0607 and Benesch 0647) but are both doubted today. Another school version was catalogued (as “nicht ganz sicher”) by Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 57, repr. (formerly with F. Muller of Amsterdam).
[2] The engraver was Willem Swanenburgh (Holl.2, repr.), also repr. Amsterdam, 1981, p.54, fig.c. Earlier prints of the subject were made by Coornhert after Heemskerk (NH Heemskerch, no. 23) Étienne Delaune (Robert-Dumesnil, 9, p. 32, no.53) and Mathäus Merian I (Wüthrich, 3, p. 30, no. 20). Somewhat closer to Rembrandt is a drawing by Arent van Bolten (c. 1573- before 1633) in the British Museum – see: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_SL-5217-271 (accessed 21 December 2023).
[3] White, loc. cit., rightly saw parallels with the etching of ‘Abraham and Isaac’ of 1645 (Bartsch 34, Hind 214); see also n.2 under Description on the watermark.
[4] A sketch in Amsterdam of a figure in a pose that resembles Esau’s (Benesch 205) has recently been assigned to the same period by Schatborn in Amsterdam, 1985, no.18.
First posted 1 October 2023.
Benesch 0607 (HdG 1312; Sch. -)
Subject: Esau Selling his Birthright to Jacob (Genesis, 25, 29-34)
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown wash and some later grey wash.
190 x 265.
COMMENTS: For the subject, see Benesch 0606 (qv). The stylistic divergence between that drawing and the present work is so large that either the dates are widely disparate, or else they are by two different artists – or both. In fact the style accords best with Rembrandt’s drawings in the period around 1650-55, a decade after Benesch 0606. Unfortunately, the documentary drawings provide insufficient material to anchor the attribution, perhaps the closest being the two signed drawings of 1652 in the Six album of (Benesch 0913-14). Here we encounter some of the parallel shading that we find in the background of Benesch 0607, where it ranges from short firm lines (immediately to the right of the open door) to the breathtakingly thin ones underneath the table and in the back of the dog beyond the two figures. Their placement almost unerringly assists in the description of the perspective, as does the impressively rendered foreground stone paving. Indeed, paradoxically, it is the background and these peripheral elements rather than the figures that come closest to Rembrandt’s own work, as seen for instance in Benesch 0885 and Benesch 0910 in the Louvre’s collection. But when we compare the figure style of these four comparative drawings with the present work, a huge gap opens up: the solid and sometimes stolid outlines and heavy shading (e.g. down the crouching Esau’s back) and the harshly geometric treatment of for example the legs of the table, point stylistically away from Rembrandt towards the “Willem Drost” group (see under Benesch 0573 for the characteristics of his style). The lucidity of the narrative and the highly Rembrandtesque qualities we have noted suggest that if the drawing indeed belongs to the group, it could depend on some unknown model by Rembrandt himself, whose own participation in the drawing cannot be wholly ruled out. Any judgment of the drawing’s quality is now impaired by the condition of the sheet, which appears at least once to have been partly or even wholly immersed in water (see further under Condition below).
Condition: Has been cleaned/washed, softening the outlines, and a large stain, visible in Valentiner’s reproduction (Valentiner, 1925 – see Literature below), has been removed. Some shading in grey wash has been added by a later hand.
Summary attribution: Willem Drost?? / Rembrandt??? (based on Rembrandt?)
Date: 1652?
COLLECTION: NL Amsterdam, Museum het Rembrandthuis.
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 1312; Lippmann, 4, no. 91; Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 59, repr.; Amsterdam, 1931, no. 6; Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 607, repr. fig. 739/781 (c. 1648-49; wash perhaps later and depletes sharpness of the lines; compares for style Benesch 0606 the dogs to Benesch 0752 and also the profile of Jacob with Benesch 0630-31; hatching in figures compared with Benesch 0602-3); Slive, 1965, 2, no. 541, repr. Lippmann facsimile (c. 1650; wash added later); Amsterdam, 1972, no. VII, repr. (School of Rembrandt; c.1650; compares interior to that in Benesch 0885); Amsterdam, 1991, p. 9, repr. fig. IV and p. 23, no. 8, repr. (Anonymous Rembrandt school; early 1650s; first drawing given to the Museum het Rembrandthuis).
PROVENANCE: A. Artaria; his sale, Vienna, Artaria, 6 May, 1897, lot 1005; Hoogendijk (according to Hofstede de Groot); J.F. Backer, by whom presented to the present repository, 1911.
First posted 15 October 2023.
Benesch 0608 (HdG. – ; Sch. – )
Subject: The Angel Showing Tobias the Fish (Tobit, 6, 1-3)
Medium: Pen and brown ink.[1]
162 x 166.
COMMENTS: The drawing is spartan in providing the context for the story: while showing Tobias alarmed near the angel, the Tigris is barely indicated and the fish is absent (as is the dog that accompanied them). The approach in Benesch 0573, which shows the same moment, is more dynamic and successful.
The bold and calligraphic treatment of the tree bark stands in stark contrast to the more delicate touch in the angel and elsewhere, though it marries to a degree with Tobias’ head. The lighter handling of the angel, with the fine lines of shading in its wings, seems reasonably close in style to the ones in Benesch 0546 and Benesch 0548 (qqv), also drawings of the story of Tobit, and it seems probable that these works were drawn at around the same time. The stylistic similarities with these works, though allowing for a connection to be made with Ferdinand Bol (as explained in the relevant entries), are insufficiently close to allow for a definite attribution to him of the present work.
For Rembrandt’s interest in the Book of Tobit, see under Benesch 0492.
Condition: Uncertain (not seen).
Summary attribution: School of Rembrandt/Ferdinand Bol?
Date: 1645-48?
COLLECTION: Private collection (formerly Ian Woodner. New York).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 608, repr. (c. 1648-49; compares Benesch 0604 for style and especially the profile of Tobias here with that of the worker removing his cap); Exh. New York, 1971, no. 66.
PROVENANCE: Kneppelhout; his sale, Amsterdam, De Vries, 9-11 March, 1920; acquired by Ian Woodner in or before 1971 (see Literature).
[1] Perhaps a touch of brown wash at the lower right, though the effect could also be achieved with the flat of the nib.
First posted 21 October 2023.
Benesch 0609 (HdG. – ; Sch. – )
Subject: Susannah and the Elders (Daniel, 13, 22-23)
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown wash and touches of white bodycolour.
171 x 205.
COMMENTS: For the subject compare especially Benesch 0592.
The condition of the drawing is so poor as to make an assessment very difficult, but in general the lines are rigid enough to suggest that the drawing was always a copy (rather than a retouched original, another possibility that it is worth considering). The stylistic analogies with such drawings as Benesch 0885 and Benesch 0905 are clear,[1] but so is the composition’s dependence on Rembrandt’s painted version of the same subject completed in 1647 (see Benesch 0592, Fig. a; Bredius 516; Wetering 213).[2] Rembrandt himself was unlikely to have created such a closely dependent composition some years later than the painting. That the drawing belongs to the “Willem Drost” group (for which see under Benesch 0573) is suggested here not only on grounds of style – the characteristic parallel shading, for example – but also because of the number of drawings now attributed to Drost that belonged to Joshua Reynolds. But in general the idea that the drawing is simply a copy, given its many weaknesses (for example in the body of Susannah), appears likely; if so the original could have been by “Willem Drost” rather than Rembrandt.[3] However, the darker reinforcements, mostly in the elder to the right, seem more confident in touch and could be corrections by Rembrandt.
Condition: Very faded and generally worn.
Summary attribution: School of Rembrandt/After Rembrandt?/Willem Drost??/Retouched by Rembrandt??
Date: 1652-55?
COLLECTION: F Paris, Musée du Louvre (Collection Edmond de Rothschild; inv. 201 DR, formerly 1148; MS inventory vol. 1, p. 7).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Valentiner, 1914, p. 117; Exh. Paris, 1937, no. 83; Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 609, repr. (c. 1648-49; later than the painting [on which see above] and varies the pose of Susannah; style compared to Benesch 0603-4; pose of elder compared with Benesch 0591; spreading of composition into a more frieze-like arrangement suggests nearer to the 1650s than the painting); Haverkamp-Begemann, 1961, p. 54 (pace Benesch, suggests the drawing could be earlier than the painting and differences in Susannah’s pose depend on earlier, Mauritshuis painting [repr. under Benesch 0590, Fig. b]); Sumowski, 1961, p. 12 (1650-55); Exh. Paris, 1988-89, no.75, repr. (attributed to Rembrandt, 1650s; compares Benesch 0885 and Benesch 0905); Royalton-Kisch, 1990, p. 133 (not Rembrandt); Exh. Berlin, 2015, pp.53-55, repr. fig. 15, and p. 95 (school, c. 1650-52; weak drawing e.g. of Susannah’s legs and the figure on the right speak against his authorship; some motifs refer back the The Hague as well as Berlin painting, and also to Benesch 0157 Melbourne drawing; definitively rejected by Royalton-Kisch, 1990, p.133).
PROVENANCE: N. Hone (L. 2793); J. Reynolds (L. 2364); P. Collin (L. 454 verso annotation); Dr C. Brou; acquired in November 1912 by Baron E. de Rothschild, with whose collection bequeathed to the present repository, 1935.[4]
[1] As suggested by Starcky in Exh. Paris, 1988-89 (see Literature above).
[2] The painting, like the present drawing, belonged to Joshua Reynolds.
[3] In this respect it is worth noting that Benesch compared the drawing to two works that we assign to the “Willem Drost” group, Benesch 0603-4.
[4] Kept in his portfolio XI until 2022.
First posted 23 October 2023.
Benesch 0610 (HdG. – ; Sch. – )
Subject: Boaz Meeting Ruth in his Fields (Ruth, 2, 8-14)
Verso: Laid down.
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown wash. Inscribed lower right in pen and brown ink (by Mariette? See n. 3 below): “Boos rencontre Ruth dans son champ” and “Rembrant”
183 x 203.
COMMENTS: Already doubted or at least questioned by most commentators,[1] the drawing is one of several that depict this scene (cf. Benesch 0133, Benesch 0162 and Benesch 0175) and there is another version perhaps from the earlier 1650s in Rotterdam (Fig. a).[2] In some ways this resembles Benesch 0610, and they were perhaps made at the same time,
The present drawing probably also dates from this decade and is groupable – but perhaps no more than that – with the “Carel Fabritius” group (for which see under Benesch 0500). Compare, for example, the main figure group with Benesch 0498, Benesch 0518a, Benesch 0562 (where they are more tentatively sketched) and Benesch 0595; the landscape links with that in Benesch 0556 and to the right of Benesch 0505, the tree on the extreme right with that in Benesch 0515. For the main and also the subsidiary figures compare Benesch 0612.
Overall, however, these links are not fully persuasive and the group may already include works by more than one hand. It is here integrated into the group with two question-marks. The drawing seems unusually tame – not to say pedantic – while most drawings attributed to Carel Fabritius display a confidence and verve that is lacking here.
Condition: Generally good, though with brown staining around the edges from old adhesives on the verso.
Summary attribution: School of Rembrandt/ Carel Fabritius??
Date: 1645-50?
COLLECTION: F Paris, Musée du Louvre (mark of the Conservatoire, L. 2207, and of the Museum, L. 1955 and L. 1886a; inv. 22955, formerly NIII8624 and MA8144; MS inventory vol. 9, p. 401 as Rembrandt).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Reiset MS (school of Rembrandt); Van Dyke, 1927, p. 65 (Van den Eeckhout); Paris, 1933, no. 1114 (probably Rembrandt, 1640s, comparing Rotterdam version, MB 227, HdG 1427, Valentiner 81, Sumowski 252x as Bol] and Louvre’s drawing of Esther and Ahasuerus, inv. RF 4728); Benesch, 1935, p. 42; Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 610, repr. (c. 1648-49; compares Benesch 0640 and the landscape to Benesch 0611; compares the harvesters to Benesch 0613-14); Starcky, 1993, p. 218, n. 11 (lists with other drawings inscribed by Mariette and presumably from Crozat’s collection); Exh. Paris, 2006-7.3, p. 9 (school of Rembrandt and reminiscent of Van Hoogstraten).
[Not in Schatborn, 2019.] Schatborn, 2019,
PROVENANCE:[3] A.J. Dezallier d’Argenville; his sale, Paris, 18-28 January, 1779, part of lot 285 (Rembrandt Van Rhyn): « Boos rencontre Ruth dans son champ … à la plume & et lavé de bistre », bt Lenglier ; Charles-Paul-Jean-Baptiste Bourgevin Vialart, comte de Saint-Morys (mount LBS 021); seized by the Revolutionary government, 1793; placed in the present repository in 1796-1797.
[1] See Literature above. Only Benesch voiced no doubts at all.
[2] Inv. MB 227, described as anonymous Rembrandt school, c. 1650, by Giltaij in Rotterdam, 1988, no. 140, repr. (see also https://www.boijmans.nl/en/collection/artworks/71707/boaz-and-ruth ). The drawing is also published in Rosenberg, 2022, 1, no. N324.
[3] See Literature above, Starcky, 1993, suggests a possible Crozat provenance.
First posted 16 November 2023.
Benesch 0611 (HdG. – ; Sch. – )
Subject: Christ and the Woman of Samaria (John, 4, 4–30)
Medium: Pen and brown ink, slightly rubbed with the finger at top right.
210 x 190. Chain lines: 25v..
COMMENTS: Although a drawing of exceptional verve, confidence and fluency, the unusual plethora of shading and other characteristics distances the style of the drawing from Rembrandt’s own – especially from the documentary drawings. Here the broad and inescapably calligraphic character of the shading overwhelms the form of the well. Although the drawing must date from the later 1640s or early 1650s, the handling of the figure of the woman seems to hark back to Rembrandt’s style of the mid-1630s and her head may be compared with Benesch 0386, which is almost uncannily close; yet the sprigs of foliage at the right edge, and the head of Christ (who is usually depicted leaning forward as he speaks)[1] seem to approximate more closely to the style of drawings in the “Willem Drost” group. A noticeable feature of the hatching, especially near Christ’s feet, is the multi-directional hatching – verticals, horizontals, diagonals and other angles in between – a stylistic trait that also harks back to earlier drawings, including Benesch 0070, Benesch 0079-80 and Benesch 0204a. So although of high quality, the drawing seems more like a compilation of Rembrandt’s styles a different periods, and though a bold experiment appears more likely to belong more to the Rembrandt school or even to the “Willem Drost” group than among Rembrandt’s own drawings.[2]
Condition: Generally good; somewhat discoloured overall.
Summary attribution: School of Rembrandt / Willem Drost??
Date: 1648-52?
COLLECTION: GB Birmingham, Barber Institute of Fine Arts (inv. 40.6).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Hind, 1941, pp. 92-95 (composition inspired by Moretto); Benesch, 1947, no. 164, repr.; Birmingham, 1952, pp. 184-85; Benesch, 1955/73, no. 611, repr. (c. 1648-49; follows Hind, 1941; foreshadows painting of c. 1655 in Metropolitan Museum, New York [see Corpus, 5, 24]; compares for style Benesch 0606, Benesch 0610, Benesch 0612 and Benesch 0640; landscape related to Benesch 0748); Clark, 1966, pp.114-15, repr. fig. 105; Sumowski, 3, 1980, under no. 527 (comparing figure of Christ to a drawing in Dresden that Sumowski attributed to J. van Dorsten, inv. C1968-338 [see: https://skd-online-collection.skd.museum/Details/Index/879781); Birmingham, 1983, p. 47 (late 1640s); Exh. New York, 1996-97, p. 103, repr. fig. 135 (attributed to Rembrandt).
PROVENANCE: “T.W.” (L. 2468, unidentified – possibly Thomas Williamson of Somers Town); George Evans; J.E. Forbes; acquired by the present repository in 1940.
[1] As in the painting by Moretto that Hind, 1941, thought underpinned the composition, although the two works are not very close – repr. in Exh. New York, 1996-97, p.102, fig. 129. Christ leans forward in the eight other versions by Rembrandt and his school illustrated in the same catalogue; the closest to the present composition is a drawing that seems even closer in style to the “Willem Drost” group, Benesch 0978.
[2] On Drost’s style, see under Benesch 0573; cf. also Benesch A074/Sumowski 551 (compare the figure there to the Christ in Benesch 0611).
First posted 21 November 2023.
Benesch 0612 (HdG. 1419; Sch. – )
Subject: The Parable of the Unworthy Wedding Guest (Matthew, 22, 13)
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown and (later?) grey wash.
181 x 265. Watermark: fragment, with three balls (from a foolscap watermark?)
COMMENTS: As mentioned under Benesch 0597, in which the figure of Anna on the left seems especially close to the seated man on the right here, they are likely to be by the same hand. Slightly less convincing are the similarities to drawings such as Benesch 0512, which forms part of the “Carel Fabritius” group. But in the latter the outlines are generally firmer, and among drawings in the group never as tentative as those in the figures in the right background here. A copy, also in the Albertina (see Fig. a, left), shows that the drawing has been trimmed at the sides.[1]
Condition: Good; small stain lower left and surface dirt and finger-marks along top edge, especially towards the left.
Summary attribution: School of Rembrandt.
Date: 1645-50?
COLLECTION: A Vienna, Albertina (L. 174; inv. 8802).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 1419 (“Nicht ganz zweifellos” – not completely beyond doubt); Benesch, 1935, p. 42; Benesch, 1947, no. 165, repr.; Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 612, repr. fig. 742/786 (c. 1648-49; wrongly states etched by Laurentz, 1756 [see Friedenthal, 2022, in note 1 below, who points out that Laurentz in fact made his print after the copy of the drawing in the Albertina] and by Bartsch [in fact this was also after the Albertina copy – see https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1852-0214-527 (accessed 26 August 2024)]; compares Benesch 0611 and figure on the right with that on the left of Benesch 0599; the group binding the guest compared with secondary figures in Benesch 0610, Benesch 0613 and Benesch 0614; background figures with those in Benesch 0611); Exh. Stockholm, 1956, no. 120; Exh. Rotterdam-Amsterdam, 1956, no. 137; Exh. Vienna, 1956, no. 78; Exh. Vienna, 1969-70, no. 39, repr.; Sumowski, Drawings, 5, 1981, under 1274xx (problematic as Rembrandt, comparing a drawing he tentatively attributes to Samuel van Hoogstraten); Exh. Washington-New York-Vienna, 1984-86, no. 29, repr.; Friedenthal, 2022, p. 455, n. 28 (provenance from Imperial Court Library, Vienna [see further n. 1 below).
PROVENANCE: Vienna Imperial Library (Hofbibliothek); Duke Albert von Sachsen-Teschen (L. 174).
[1] Friedenthal, 2022, p. 454, n. 28 and p. 461, no. 46, reproduces the copy, Albertina inv. 8801 (rather than 8802), which was etched by Laurentsz. when in Hofbibliothek, which reveals both a Prince Eugene of Savoy and Hofbibliothek provenance before Albert of Sachsen-Teschen. Benesch confused these two drawings (see Benesch, 1955 in Literature above). According to the Albertina website, the copy was traditionally attributed to Gerbrand van den Eeckhout – see https://sammlungenonline.albertina.at/?query=search=/record/objectnumbersearch=[8801]&showtype=record (accessed 27 August 2024).
First posted 27 August 2024.
Benesch 0613 (HdG – ; Sch. – )
Subject: Christ Awakening the Apostles on the Mount of Olives (Matthew, XXVI, 45-46; Mark, XIV, 41-42; Luke, XXII, 45-46)
Verso: laid down
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown wash and white bodycolour; ruled framing lines in pen and brown ink (perhaps later). Inscribed
165 x 261. Watermark: none.
COMMENTS: The drawing compares well with those included in the “Carel Fabritius” group (for which see under Benesch 0500). For the figures one might juxtapose Benesch 0513 of the same subject, especially for the apostles sprawled on the ground. Under both those entries it is already noted that many drawings in the “Carel Fabritius” group depict subjects from Christ’s Passion. For the landscape, compare Benesch 0498.
Condition: good.
Summary attribution: Carel Fabritius?
Date: 1650?
COLLECTION: P Warsaw, University Library (inv. Inw.zb.d.4284 [Potocki]).[1]
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Valentiner, 2, 1935, no. 498, repr.; Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 613, repr. (c. 1648-49); Sumowski, 8, 1984, under no. 1049 (drawing of same subject attributed to Maes); Exh. Warsaw, 2006, no. 17, repr. (pupil corrected by Rembrandt; c. 1650). [Not in Schatborn, 2019.]
PROVENANCE: Stanislaus Potocki (by 1821).[1]
[1] Potocki inv. No. T1155, N.6. From 1832 to 1923 the drawing was in the Academy of St Petersburg. The present blue mount (with a white strip and six surrounding black lines) presumably predates 1821.
First posted 1 September 2024.
Benesch 0614 (HdG. 329; Sch. – )
Subject: The Man of Gibeah Offers Hospitality to the Levite and his Concubine (Judges, 19, 17-20)
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown wash; ruled framing lines in pen and brown ink. Inscribed verso, in graphite: “Rembrandt? Samuel van Hoogstraten / siehe Lippmann-Publikation 107 // 9” 2” – 6” 3” ”
165 x 251. Watermark: foolscap with ‘4’ and three balls below.
COMMENTS: For the subject, see Benesch 0554. As in that drawing, the draughtsman has included at least one child, not mentioned in the Biblical text.
The composition, with the central figure of the Levite balanced between the Man of Gibeah on the left and the Concubine on the right, has an almost classical balance that marks it out from most of the drawings with which it has previously been compared.[1] The gestures are restrained and much of the execution, especially in the background, is reduced to little more than cursory indications. Yet the two men are worked up in some detail – indeed, the delicacy, detail and refinement of the shading in the lower drapery and around the feet of the Levite in the centre is breathtaking, as is his characterisation. Nothing in the “Carel Fabritius” group of drawings reaches this degree of finesse, despite some connection between the figures on the right here and on the left in Benesch 0613, and an attribution to Rembrandt must surely come into contention.
Only moderate support for this can be found among the documentary Rembrandt drawings: the shading in Benesch 0500a has something of the same degree of care but is a more detailed work and on a larger scale. Somewhat closer is the parallel shading in the sketchier Louvre drawing for the Hundred Guilder Print, Benesch 0185 (see Fig. a), especially in the head at the top left, which resembles the shading at the lower right of the Levite. The greater emphasis or heavier touch in certain details, as well as the ‘tramline’ description of the nose (on the right) have their links to the present (and many authentic) sheets, but the drawings are not convincingly by the same hand. Furthermore, comparisons with drawings that are not on the documentary list – like the shading in Benesch 0606 or the donkeys in Benesch 0902 – show up the differences in style and touch that appear to outweigh the similarities.
One other comparison that seems apposite is with the Good Samaritan in Berlin (see Fig. b),[2] a drawing that was relegated to the school of Rembrandt through its omission by Benesch in his catalogue raisonné in 1955. Here again we encounter the emphatic touches but above all there is a similarity in the calligraphic flourish in the lower drapery of the central figures (see the detail below in Fig. b). But once more, the comparison remains somewhat unpersuasive, and the Berlin drawing exhibits more fluency of touch overall and less of the exacting refinement seen in much of Benesch 0614, particularly in the shading. But given the exceptional quality of the drawing – not least the expressive face of the Levite, who on close inspection appears to be speaking – the idea that Rembrandt was responsible cannot be wholly discounted and the drawing is here retains as attributed to him. Works by Willem Drost, who might be viewed as an alternative candidate, do not reach the level of subtlety seen here.
A copy was on the New York art market in 2020.[3]
Condition: generally good; some surface dirt (especially top left) and foxmarks.
Summary attribution: School of Rembrandt/Rembrandt??
Date: 1645-50?
COLLECTION: D Frankfurt, Städel (L. 2346; inv. 863). Permalink: staedelmuseum.de/go/ds/863z
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 329 (shows Rest on the Flight into Egypt); Frankfurt, 1913, Lieferung 3, no. 10; Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 339, repr.; Exh. Frankfurt, 1926, no. 366; Benesch, 1935, p. 43; Benesch, 3, 1955/73, no. 614, repr. fig. 746/788 (c. 1648-49; compares for style Benesch 0610 and Benesch 0613; compares ass with that in Benesch 0615 and the landscape with those in Benesch 0610-11 and Benesch 0593); Sumowski, Drawings, 2, 1979, under no. 460x (Doomer version); Exh. Amsterdam-Groningen, 1983, p. 220, no. 64 (c. 1648-49); Sumowski, Gemälde, 1, 1983, p. 11, ill. p. 28 (illustrates the above-mentioned copy on p. 29); Exh. Frankfurt, 2000, no.61, repr. (after the middle of the 1640s; compares Benesch 0616 and for the varied degrees of abstraction in the figures, Benesch 0541; the animals compared with those in Benesch 0601).
PROVENANCE: Johann Friedrich Städel (1728-1816), the founder of the present repository L. 2346).
[1] See Benesch, 1955/73 (in Literature above).
[2] Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 63; Sumowski 238x; Berlin, 2018, no. 114, repr. (with previous literature).
[3] Sold New York, Christie’s, 20 January 2020, lot 46, as school of Rembrandt (property from the Michael Hall Collections), 198 x 243 (see also Literature above, under Sumowski, Gemälde, 1983).
First posted 25 September 2024.
Benesch 0615 (HdG. 519; Sch. 103)
Subject: The Levite Fastening the Dead Concubine to an Ass (Judges, 19, 1-30)
Verso: Slight Sketch of a Man’s Face
Medium: Pen (quill and reed) and brown ink (containing iron gall)[1] with white heightening (much oxidised; see further under condition); ruled framing lines in pen and brown ink (on upper three sides, a warmer brown ink than the drawing). Inscribed verso, top right, in pen and brown ink: “ap2 . fra [?]/ – 2”; below, in graphite, the HdG and Valentiner number and “ex. Coll. Rochlitz”, the inventory number and “Rembrandt”
200 x 207. Watermark: perhaps a countermark FB (not clear); chain lines: 25/27h.
COMMENTS: The subject of the hideous fate of the Levite’s concubine, repeatedly raped and abused all night long and dumped on the doorstep of the house where the Levite was staying, ranks among the most disturbing tales from the Old Testament. After her torture and actual or imminent death, the Levite here ties her to his horse. Once home, he divided her body into twelve pieces and sent them to the twelve tribes of Israel, demanding revenge. Benesch 0997 depicts the slightly earlier moment when the Levite discovers her on the doorstep.
Despite the initially messy impression of the drawing, to a significant degree caused by the oxidation of some of the white bodycolour, the high quality of the drawing remains fully evident. Notwithstanding some hesitant lines, the foreshortened figure of the dead concubine is a tour-de-force of perspectival rendition as well as of characterisation – of death brought about by abuse and exhaustion. In reverse, there are reminiscences of the figure of the dead Christ in Benesch 0482. The description of the elderly couple in the doorway, steadying themselves on a stick and a low wall, reveals again the artist’s exceptional capacity for empathy and insight.
In style one might compare the documentary drawing, The Star of the Kings (Benesch 0736) of around 1645-47, which not only includes some almost unruly work with a broadly handled (and wide-nibbed) pen, but also contains some refined vertical hatching above the figures in the doorway of a type encountered in Benesch 0615 on the steps below. In Benesch 0188 of the same period (the Berlin study for the Hundred Guilder Print), we encounter a similar contrast between heavily and lightly described figures, while the highly economical rendition of the elderly couple behind points towards the greater restraint and delicacy that enters Rembrandt’s work more forcefully in the 1650s, as in the Homer in the Six Album (Benesch 0913).
Some of these stylistic traits exist in drawings attributed to the “Willem Drost” group (the even parallel shading – see under Benesch 0573) and, yet more, the “Carel Fabritius” group: in Benesch 0505, as well as the thin/thick contrast of touch, we also find a comparably boldly laid in donkey; the vertical shading below the steps in Benesch 0615 resembles that in the bank behind Eliezer in Benesch 0491; and the executioner on the left of Benesch 0480a has elements in common with the boy to the left of the present drawing, not least in the feet. But these similarities can be regarded as deceptive, derived by the pupil from Rembrandt, by a follower who never so consistently produced the profundity of characterisations we encounter here in a multi-figured drawing, and whose signature wilfulness with the pen is only distantly approached here (compare again Benesch 0505).
Condition: Generally good, if a little light struck and with oxidation in the lead white bodycolour; some minor staining in the corners and along upper edge; signs of reduced foxing, especially at upper right; some (now blackened) white heightening in the dagger to right could be part of an attempt to restore the sheet, which is thinned in places; in and around the horse’s head there does seem to be some grey ink, but this too could be later; probably slightly trimmed on the left (where some lines run to the edge of the sheet).
Summary attribution: Rembrandt.
Date: 1647-50?
COLLECTION: D Weimar, Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Museen (inv. KK 5497).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Braun photograph No.79,742; Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 519 (represents Good Samaritan); Von der Gabelentz, 1912-13, no. 11/25; Valentiner, 1, 1925, no. 377, repr. (c. 1650-52); Benesch, 1935, p. 42; Münz, 1937, p. 108, repr. fig. 15 (by Flinck); Benesch, 1947, no. 160, repr.; Benesch, 3, 1957/73, no. 615, repr. fig. 747/784 (as Valentiner; compares for style Benesch 0600, Benesch 0616, Benesch 0617, Benesch 0752 and Benesch 0753; rejects Münz, 1937, attribution to Flinck); Scheidig, 1976, no. 148, repr.; Exh. Weimar, 1981, no. 411, repr.; Manuth, 1987, esp. pp.12-13, repr. fig. 1 (identifies subject as the Levite Fastening the Dead Concubine to the Donkey); Exh. London, 1992, under no. 91, n. 7; Van de Wetering 1997, p. 231, repr. fig. 209; Exh. Amsterdam, 1999, p. 79, repr. (Good Saaritan; compares head of the victim with that of Christ in Benesch 0482); Corpus, 5, 2011, p.231, repr. fig.209 (c. 1648-49; remarks on “placing of figures in a strictly perspectival setting” as characteristic of the period); Schatborn, 2019, no. 103, repr. (c. 1651); Ketelsen and Wintermann, 2021, pp. 230 and 233, repr. fig. 11 [in various kinds of multi-spectral et al. images] (c.1650; iron-gall ink is the basis of the thinner lines of the ass and the figures, with some further working up in the same medium; the ass’s head originally pointed ahead but then covered in white and turned to the left using what now seems to be a darker iron-gall ink. Some main contours in the ass and the concubine then strengthened in a similar [2nd type of iron-gall] medium; the Levite’s dagger also lengthened in the same medium [? – can’t see this]; the white covering on his hip is chalk, not liquid, and might be a later retouching; the UVFC image shows both whites as yellowish but the X-ray fluorescence image differentiates them; the framing lines came late; various multi-spectral camera images were combined according to particular algorithms, producing images that differentiate the media, which can be helpful in analysing the drawing); Ketelsen, Wintermann, Melzer et al., 2021, pp. 503-5, repr. fig. 27 (wide-ranging technical discussion; two concentrations of iron-gall in the inks employed; compares donkey in Benesch 0902; the lower framing line in a different ink to the other three; elderly couple based on Rembrandt etching Bartsch 369 NH 177; critiques drawing as a pastiche which does not convince the writers as by Rembrandt himself);[2] Weimar, 2022, p. 148, repr. p. 152, Fig. 6 (early 1660s; drawn with iron-gall ink); Schatborn, 2019, no. 103, repr. (c. 1651); Weimar website: https://ores.klassik-stiftung.de/ords/ksw_internet/r/300/2?p2_ident=502523&p2_dateiname=100-2015-0836 (accessed 6 November 2024).
PROVENANCE: Johann Friedrich Rochlitz, by whom presented to the present repository, 1839.
[1] Ketelsen, and Winterman, 2021 (see Literature) state that iron-gall ink is the basis of the thinner lines of the ass and the figures, with some further working up in the same medium; they note (as have others) that the ass’s head originally pointed ahead but then covered in white and turned to the left using what now seems to be a darker iron-gall ink; some main contours in the ass and the concubine were then strengthened in a similar (second, darker type of iron-gall) medium; the Levite’s dagger also lengthened in the same medium; the white covering on his hip is chalk, not liquid, and might be a later retouching; the UVFC image shows both whites as yellowish but the X-ray fluorescence image differentiates them; the framing lines came later, the lower one in a different ink to the other three; various multi-spectral camera images were combined according to particular algorithms, producing images that differentiate the media. See also Weimar, 2022, p. 148. In the compiler’s opinion the iron-gall ink, if of the type derived from gallnut, may only be an admixture as it differs radically in appearance to the drawings usually described as being in this medium (see under Benesch 0157).
[2] The information and extensive discussion by Ketelsen, and Winterman, 2021 (see Literature) makes for difficult reading but in case it helps I here paste the notes I made which cover most of the arguments made. Any words in square brackets are remarks made by the present writer as he wrestled with the text: “Ketelsen, Wintermann, Melzer et al., 2021, pp. 503-5, repr. fig. 27: subject identified by Manuth, 1987 from Judges, 19, 11-30; Benesch 997 shows the same story (repr. fig. 28; Berlin 2018, no. 44). Many pupils had represented the earlier scene in paintings and drawings (n. – as discussed in Manuth 1987); Benesch 0615 included in Schatborn, 2019 and praised by Van de Wetering, 1997, p. 231, repr. his fig. 209; composition based on Wallace Coll. painting or related etching; major amendment in drawing suggests a less practised artist [??]; drawn in two concentrations [yes, clearly] of iron-gall ink; light brown first which was sometimes also used for emphasis; major pentimento in donkey’s head, which first looked forward, then was covered in lead white and turned to the left (fig. 30 shows Fe and Pb); the correction done in the same iron-gall ink but in a richer concentration, which looks darker; the underlying white shows up in different nuances of the brown ink in the correction; this same second ink then also used to reinforce other main contours in the donkey and in the concubine on its back; the Levite’s dagger also seems to have been lengthened in this medium [this not clear from the illustrations – indeed the sword seems to be covered in white]; the white at the hip of the Levite, though, is chalk [again I cannot see this in the illustrations] and presumably done at a later date, as also the framing lines; (p. 506 n. 105: the bottom framing line in a different ink to the other three); the original arrangement with the donkey’s head forward was apparently deemed wanting and this is surprising as the very similar donkey in the later pose is also found, without pentimenti, in the Berlin Flight into Egypt (Benesch 0902; repr. fig. 31)[but here it turns towards the boy who strokes its nose]; quotes Bevers in Berlin, 2006 on Benesch 902 as calling it – in comparison with another sheet in Dresden – a correction drawing which may have served as a model in the workshop; as Bevers in Berlin 2006 on the Berlin drawing, authors discuss Dresden drawing and the inscription – perhaps by Hoogstraten – on the back which also refers to the position of the donkey, et al., in the composition; authors critical of the Weimar drawing Benesch 0615 – the unoriginal pose of the donkey; concubine’s nearer hand should hang down – eg., Benesch 0482 superior in this respect; in Weimar sheet, proportions of the figures seem wrong; the Levite has little ‘presence’ in the drawing; uniformity of the execution of the ‘doll-like’ figures and their faces; none of the graphic abbreviations found in other multi-figure compositions of 1650s by Rembrandt; Weimar sheet a pastiche, borrowed from the early Good Samaritan and the elderly figures from the etching, NH 177 Bartsch 369 [Not close enough!]; Münz, 1937, suggested Flinck for the drawing; the white in the Levite’s hip is chalk, not bodycolour – perhaps a later restoration [??? doesn’t look like chalk]; (p. 516, n. 105: upper 3 lines of framing a different ink to the lower line.) Benesch 0902 Berlin Setting out on Return from Egypt to Israel has same donkey, so why the hesitation in the Weimar sheet? [but Berlin drawing may be later?]; Bevers hypothesised that the Berlin drawing – in comparison with the Dresden version [not in Benesch; repr. Berlin, 2006, p.158], might be a “correction drawing” [??] used as a workshop model. If by a pupil the Weimar drawing shows how the pupil initially couldn’t give life to the donkey until the correction made. Critiques the Weimar drawing (Benesch 0615): arm of concubine should hang down (as in Benesch 0482 and also Berlin, 2018, no.118); figures’ proportions also poorly judged; Levite has no ‘presence’ ; uniformity of doll-like figures and their faces – none of the abbreviations seen in other multi-figure compositions of 1650s; a kind of pastiche, reassembling motifs from the 1631 etching; elderly couple based on Rt etching Bartsch 369 NH 177; Benesch 0615 given to Flinck by Münz, 1937, esp. p. 108, fig. 15; important to connect Benesch 0615 with other pupils’ drawings such as Benesch 0997, repr. fig. 28; both have prominent vertical parallel hatching in the lower part [But Benesch 0885, Louvre Christ in the Temple, surely similar?]; no extensive wash in either; if paper and materials compared might help to see if they might be ‘affiliated’. Another Berlin drawing might also be compared profitably (Berlin, 2018, no. 131).
First posted 27 December 2024.
Benesch 0616 (HdG. 333; Sch. – )
Subject: The Liberation of St Peter (Acts, 12, 3-7)
Verso: Blank (apart from Städel Museum stamp [L. 2356] and inventory number)
Medium: Pen and brown ink with brown wash with some bodycolour and scratching-out, and later grey wash (especially to either side of St Peter).[1]
195 x 222. Watermark: Foolscap with ‘4’ below and three balls.
COMMENTS: The subject is common in works by Rembrandt and his school, but also generally. The present drawing is a pictorially complete composition and may be compared for style with Rembrandt’s drawings of the later 1640s or early 1650s. But the range of touch is exceptional, from the detail and fine lines in the impressive description of the awakening St Peter to the less focused subsidiary figures, through to the almost careless breadth of the shading in the lower left corner.
The angel, in his head, resembles in expression and handling that of Jan Six in the roughest of the documentary pen sketches of him, Benesch 0767 (see fig. a) and more generally the angels in Benesch 0626, Benesch 0899 and Benesch 0901. The head and hands of St Peter have more than a little in common with both figures in Benesch 0947, and his head with that of Esau in what must be an earlier as well as crisper drawing, Benesch 0606 (with the characteristic combination of small circles for the irises of the eyes without any delineation of the lower eyelid). The chain around him and the outlines of the foreground soldier are picked out with heavier lines, resembling, among other drawings, Benesch 0643 and Benesch 0948, but this is a common trait drawings by Rembrandt and his school. The unruly shading at the lower left resembles the top right corner of Benesch 0899 but also school drawings, such as Benesch 0935 and the hatching in the drawing of the same subject attributed to Willem Drost and now in Ottawa (see note 2; the comparison makes clear, however, that the present drawing is not the work of the same artist).
Despite the confidence of the handling and the masterly characterisation of St Peter, given that many of the above comparisons relate to works ascribed only tentatively to Rembrandt himself, or given to his pupils, a question-mark over Rembrandt’s authorship may seem appropriate. But in the compiler’s opinion, the sheer power and originality of the characterization of St Peter makes an attribution to Rembrandt more likely correct than not.[2] This is here expressed by putting a single question-mark after Rembrandt’s name, but in brackets.
The drawing was etched by the Comte de Caylus (Bartsch Appendix 4; Gersaint 391; Inventaire du fonds français no. 379).
Condition: Generally good; slight foxing upper centre; a few small stains near the angel’s wing; some later grey wash (see under Medium).
Summary attribution: Rembrandt [?]
Date: 1647-50?
COLLECTION: D Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum (L. 2356; inv. 858 Z).
FURTHER LITERATURE/REMARKS: Schönbrunner and Meder, 1893–1908, no. 810; Graul, 1906, no. 42; Hofstede de Groot, 1906, no. 333 (late work); Rembrandt Bijbel, 2, 1912, no. 34; Frankfurt, 1913, Lieferung no. 9; Bredt, 1921,, 2, p. 117; Exh. Frankfurt, 1926, no. 368; Valentiner, 2, 1934, no. 537, repr.; Benesch, 1935, p. 42; Benesch, 3, 1955, no. 616, repr. (c. 1648-49; compares Benesch 0617; plasticity in the figures like Benesch 0615); Amsterdam, 1985, under no. 63, n. 4 (Rembrandt); Exh. Frankfurt, 1994, no. Z59 (Bol?); Exh. Frankfurt, 2000, no. 59, repr. (Rembrandt; rejects attribution to Bol, which was perhaps prompted by certain qualities and contrasts Bol’s drawing in Hamburg, inv. 22412, of Joseph Interpreting the Dreams of the Butler and Baker [repr. Sumowski, Drawings, 1, no. 101]).
PROVENANCE: Purchased (together with Benesch 0586) by J.D. Passavant from a certain Frau Fesch in Kiel, 1846.
[1] Some of the stronger lines, e.g. those in the foreground sleeping soldier and at the lower left, appear to have been made with a reed pen as they do not taper.
[2] For the strength of the invention, compare the drawings of the subject attributed to Samuel van Hoogstraten in Berlin, KdZ. 5285 and 5286 (not described in Berlin, 2018, but see: https://id.smb.museum/object/2338833/die-befreiung-petri and https://id.smb.museum/object/2338834/die-befreiung-petri ), or the drawing from the Seger collection now in the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa attributed to Willem Drost (see: https://www.pubhist.com/w51715 ; Exh. Ottawa-Frankfurt, 2021-22, no. 23, repr.).
First posted 6 March 2025.
.
THE DRAWINGS OF REMBRANDT 