Rembrandt and the Changing Print (Introduction to Rembrandt's Changing Impressions)

rembrandt_001-160_end_Layout 1 30.07.15 13:13 Seite 14

We often call Rembrandt an experimental printmaker, and the descriptionis apt for a number of reasons. He extended the possibilities of what the cop-perplate medium could produce in terms of technique and the unprece-dented variety of papers and other supports on which he printed. Above all,he realized the potential of the copperplate to be reworked, at times dramat-ically, for both aesthetic and iconographic reasons, and also perhaps for thedemands of patrons. These aspects of his work astonished and fascinated hisearliest collectors just as they occupy us today. At the same time, the term ex-

perimental is also slightly misleading, not least for its connotations in modernscientific thought, but also because it suggests uncertainty about the finaloutcome of his efforts. On the contrary, Rembrandt frequently knew exactlywhat he was doing.

Rembrandt did leave behind a number of proof impressions of hisprints, surviving in merely one or a few examples each, that reveal hisprocess as he tentatively worked out a composition on the plate to his satis-faction. These were true working proofs, generally not available for sale,though obviously preserved and perhaps even collected at an early date. An-other group of prints, however, survives in higher numbers of impressionsin both earlier and later variations of the same image, and for them we canassume a certain attitude of finish. This latter group—comprising the varia-tions that clearly circulated outside of the studio—is the subject of the presentexhibition, and has never been treated as a body of work in its own right. Itforms the public face of Rembrandt’s variations.

Rembrandt andthe Changing Printrobert fucci

Re

mb

ra

nd

t:S

t. J

erom

e in

a D

ark

Ch

am

ber,

1642

. Sta

teIo

f III

, det

ail.

(see

Cat

. 4.1

, pg.

60)

rembrandt and the changing print 15


In some cases, an early version of an image appears “proof-like” in na-ture despite its relatively wide distribution. In other cases, both early andlate versions of the same work appear more or less finished. SometimesRembrandt added to his compositions, other times he removed from them.A sense of sequence is not always obvious, nor, it seems, intended. Further-more, some changes are conspicuous at first glance, while others are quitedifficult to detect unless you know where to look for them. What they havein common, however, is that in almost all of these cases we can safely assumethat these variations constituted works intended for circulation. Rembrandtwas not the first artist to disseminate proofs or rework his copperplates dur-ing the course of printing, but he appears to have been the first artist to takefull advantage, on a regular basis, of printmaking’s capacity to create a mul-tiple finished product.

This is certainly not the first exhibition or critical study to focus on thevariations in Rembrandt’s prints. Two exhibitions held in 1969 on eitherside of the Atlantic set a standard for describing variant impressions, andremain useful guides for looking closely at the effects of these changes.1 Thestandard critical study of Rembrandt’s changes in terms of artistic processremains Christopher White’s magisterial Rembrandt as an Etcher, first pub-lished in 1969 and updated in 1999.2 In intervening years, the inclusion of mul-tiple impressions has become de rigueur in any exhibition of Rembrandt’sprints, most notably in the landmark Amsterdam and London exhibitionRembrandt the Printmaker of 2000–2001.3 The present exhibition takes ad-vantage of a considerable amount of knowledge that has emerged in thepast decade, especially Erik Hinterding’s monumental study of watermarksin Rembrandt’s papers (2006), and his equally monumental catalogue ofRembrandt’s printed œuvre co-authored with Jaco Rutgers (2013).4 Thanksto these efforts, it is now far easier to determine which versions of Rembrandt’sprints circulated more widely, whether his alterations took place close to-gether or far apart in date, and which changes are most likely by Rembrandthimself rather than a result of the many posthumous reworkings of the platesby other hands.5

In discussions regarding the changing imagery of Rembrandt’s prints,one of the continual problems with the conflation of true working proofswith those that were likely circulated as products in their own right has beentheir evaluation in similar critical terms. For example, there has been a ten-dency to describe some widely circulated prints in a slightly deprecatory tonein order to reveal Rembrandt’s supposed unhappiness with a work, as if somefault in compositional or formal conception led him to change his mind.Likewise, we are sometimes disposed to seeing the changes as leading to afinal, canonical version of the subject. In these formulations, the earlier ver-

16 robert fucci


sions offered for sale were meant to provide collectors with a peek behindthe curtain, so to speak, thus allowing them to become privy to Rembrandt’screative processes. There are some problems with these approaches, as willbe discussed later in this essay. Not all of his changes should be regarded witha priori assumptions concerning notions of improvement. His variations resist a universal method of interpretation, and aspects of correction orprocess made visible cannot entirely account for the array of changes foundin his œuvre.

Techniques and Supports

Before considering the changes themselves, it is necessary to examine Rem-brandt’s processes and materials.6 Although he used a variety of techniques,etching served as the primary means by which Rembrandt made his prints(which is why one frequently sees Rembrandt’s prints generically referredto as etchings, although this is not strictly correct). Etching was not a newtechnique, but it had become increasingly popular in Rembrandt’s day. Oneof the primary reasons for this was its ease of use. Engraving, the more traditional technique for incising lines on a copperplate, required the labor-intensive process of pushing a sharp-edged burin around the plate andremoving the thin strips of copper that would curl up in front of it. Engravingwas slow and patient work, often requiring the services of a specialist whohad an apprenticeship in the craft, and therefore it could prove expensive aswell. Etching, by contrast, offered a freer and more spontaneous line. Bycoating the plate with a wax ground, the artist needed only to inscribe thesoft wax with an etching needle to expose the copper below. An acid bathwould then “bite” the lines that the engraver had to carve out by hand. Etch-ing was not necessarily easy to master, but it certainly did not require yearsof training, and manuals or even friendly colleagues could offer recipes andinstruction to those wishing to make prints themselves. Rembrandt was oneof those artists, and after some awkward early efforts, he clearly found hisown voice in the medium.

Early in his career Rembrandt developed a habit of continuing to workon a plate even after it had been bitten in the acid bath. For this “dry” workhe would often add lines using an engravers’ burin, hence these prints aremore properly deemed both etching and engraving. Likewise, he would alsoadd lines in “drypoint” by using a heavy needle to scratch directly into theplate. Unlike engraving, which removes copper from the grooves, the dry-



18 robert fucci

point technique simply plows it up on either side. These raised edges tendto catch additional ink when the plate is charged, and then print as “burr”:soft, velvety lines that create aesthetically pleasing effects. Unfortunately,burr wears down quickly as a result of pressure from the press and the mal-leable nature of copper. One frequently finds evidence of both engraved linesand drypoint work in Rembrandt’s prints, although almost all of his printedimages consist primarily of etched lines. Only in a few cases did he resort topure drypoint alone, notably for the large and majestic plates of The Three

Crosses (cat. 11) and Christ Presented to the People (cat. 13).7

Rembrandt was undoubtedly conscious of wear to his plates during thecourse of printing, an issue that did not escape the notice of print collectorsin the seventeenth century.8 Later impressions would appear visibly weakerthan earlier ones, and especially those with drypoint lines, which could losetheir burr after a few dozen impressions. On certain of his prints that featureheavy drypoint there is even some evidence, in the form of inscriptions onthe versos, that Rembrandt kept track of the order in which the impressionscame off the press.9 His purely etched lines could also be delicate in nature,and often lost their vivacity much more quickly than those of other print-makers who bit their plates more deeply. What Rembrandt preferred to gainin nuance with his subtle line work, he often lost in commercial feasibility.The urge to refresh an image by strengthening weak lines or adding hatchingwas one of the primary reasons he returned to work on a plate, regardless ofwhether or not he made any changes to the subject matter at the same time.Modern cataloguers deem that rework of any sort results in a new “state,”defined as any intentional change made to the plate that can be documentedfrom surviving impressions.10 Many of Rembrandt’s state changes, espe-cially those from earlier in his career, simply consisted of reworking inengraving or drypoint to make certain passages print more strongly again.Occasionally—and more often later in his career—he added to or modifiedthe subject matter as well. For rework he almost always employed dry tech-niques, without recourse to rebiting the plate with acid. In this way he couldadd new lines directly to the plate. If he chose to replace or remove part ofthe image, he could scrape or rub the surface of the plate with a burnisher toerase (more or less) certain passages.11

Rembrandt was not just in the habit of altering the image on the plateduring the course of printing; he also imparted individual characteristics tocertain impressions during the wiping process, in which he modulated theamount of ink left on the surface of the plate before printing. Many print-makers would leave a thin film of ink on the surface to create “plate tone,” alight gray tone that evenly pervades the entire image of the resulting impres-sion. This sensibly and often pleasingly reduced the contrast between the



black lines of the image and the white background of the paper. Rembrandtoccasionally took matters a step further by wiping certain passages morecleanly than others. This “selective wiping” allowed him to modify theamount of tone that appeared in certain parts of the image by choice. He usedthis technique with particularly compelling results in some of his so-calleddark-manner works, or nocturnes, in order to regulate lighting effects withinthe image (see especially cat. nos. 9, 11, and 12). Given his propensity to re-work plates and to employ selective wiping for individual impressions, itseems likely (although by no means certain) that Rembrandt did much of hisprinting himself, and that he probably kept a printing press at home to gen-erate much of his output.12 We cannot rule out the possibility that he also hadhelp from pupils, assistants, or even professional printers, especially for pe-riods of substantial production such as the early 1650s, during which bothnew plates and old ones were printed in large numbers.13 While we have longhad a good idea about the date of creation for most of his plates, the issue ofwhen, exactly, he reprinted certain ones has only been clarified recentlythrough extensive watermark analysis.14 In essence, every print has twodates: the date Rembrandt executed the plate, and the year that he (or some-one else) printed the impression. One of the most revealing results from recent watermark research is that some of his most dramatically differenteditions were printed in quick succession shortly after the creation of theplate, rather than years apart as was often assumed.

Rembrandt made use of a wider variety of papers and other supportsthan any other printmaker of his day. Others had occasionally used non-paper materials such as vellum and silk for printing a few special impres-sions outside of a normal paper edition, particularly for expensive projectsor certain commissions. Rembrandt himself employed vellum for certainworks, especially ones with heavy drypoint lines, since its less absorbent sur-face enhanced the tonal effects of burr by smearing it slightly. There is noevidence, however, that he ever printed on silk.15 What interested Rembrandtfar more, and really distinguished his œuvre from others at the time, werethe variety of Asian papers that he began to use quite profusely from 1647onward. The trading activities of the Dutch East India Company, or VOC(Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie), made these exotic paper productsavailable in Amsterdam.16 There are two basic types of Asian papers foundin Rembrandt’s prints: “Japanese,” a heavier paper ranging in tone but gen-erally a pale brownish color; and “Chinese,” which is lighter in tone andremarkably thin, almost like tissue. Both papers may have actually originatedin Japan, despite the conventional naming convention that has developed todistinguish the two (which is retained here for the sake of con venience). Ini-tial analyses indicate that Japanese paper consists of gampi fibers and Chi-


20 robert fucci

nese paper of bamboo and mitsumata fibers, but future studies might findother varieties and provide more information about their exact locations oforigin.17 For the purposes of printing, Rembrandt found that Japanese paper,like vellum, also picked up drypoint lines with particularly attractive results.Its generally softer tone also reduced the contrast between lines and paper,much like plate tone. Chinese paper, on the other hand, provided desirableeffects for its capacity, due to its thin nature, to pick up every deli cate nuancein texture from the image on the plate.

Since Rembrandt apparently did not begin using Asian papers until1647, they necessarily serve as supports in works primarily from the latterhalf of his career. From this point onward, he frequently used a mix of Euro-pean and Asian papers for various printings. By the early 1650s he regularlyprinted the first state of many of his prints primarily on Japanese (and oc-casionally Chinese) paper, in effect creating a “special edition” that couldeasily have been marketable as such.18 This practice has a particular logic fordrypoint lines, which usually feature in his works from this period, since theearliest impressions from a plate also have the freshest burr, which itselfprints especially well on Japanese paper. Far from being experimental, mostof the time Rembrandt made measured use of his papers in certain circum-stances to achieve desired results. What may have started as experiment be-came a regular part of his craft.

Changing Images

Not all of Rembrandt’s state changes would have been immediately obviousto collectors. Slight rework or the adjustment of a passage here and theremight easily have escaped their notice. More pronounced changes, especiallyin iconography or composition, deserve discussion as a separate category ofchange. There are actually some consistencies in the specific types of iconog-raphy he would adjust. Hats and headwear, for example, are frequent sitesof alteration throughout his career, as are curtains and the areas near orwithin windows. He was also inclined to transform certain genres more no-ticeably than others: portraits more often than landscapes, for example. De-spite the extensive cataloguing of Rembrandt’s prints, and detailed analysesof changes to individual works, his state changes require more study in termsof their broader categorization and use over the course of his career.

In the latter half of the 1630s, still relatively early in his career, Rembrandtbegan to circulate impressions of prints that appear overtly unfinished or



proof-like in character, such as those for the portrait Jan Uytenbogaert (“The

Goldweigher”) (cat. 3). As mentioned earlier, Rembrandt was not the firstartist to circulate proof impressions of his work.19 A notable example froma decade earlier is the proof of Anthony van Dyck’s Self-Portrait (fig. 1).20 Ashe did with many other works, including those for the series known as theIconography that followed the Self-Portrait, Van Dyck etched the head alone,leaving the rest of the plate for completion by engravers according to his de-sign.21 In this case, part of the appeal of the proof was the isolation of workon the plate by the artist himself.

More often, artists who wanted prints after their designs never laid ahand on the plate. Proofs, in these circumstances, served to further theworking process between designer (often a painter) and printmaker (usuallya highly trained professional engraver). After initial work on a plate, theprintmaker would send a few proof impressions of these reproductive printsto the designer to receive approval or corrections. Printmakers often savedtheir proof impressions in albums, as did the noted engraver Jan Muller, andthese albums served as a complete record of their artistic output over thecourse of their careers.22 That some of these proofs made their way outsideof the studio and became desirable to collectors is no surprise. The artistsinvolved may have even facilitated such collecting, as Van Dyck apparentlydid. Another type of work that falls into a similar category is a print such

Fig. 1

Anthony van Dyck

Self-Portrait, c. 1630Etching, 24.2 × 15.7 cm

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (rp-p-ob-11.722)


22 robert fucci

as Hendrick Goltzius’s Adoration of the Shepherds, left unfinished at hisdeath and therefore proof-like by nature, which we know circulated widelyfrom frequent posthumous reprinting in the seventeenth century (fig. 2).23

Rembrandt must have been well aware of the collectors’ appeal of theseitems.24 Furthermore, it appears that he actively collected such works him-self: his inventory of 1656 reveals that he owned albums full of prints by andafter Goltzius, Muller, and Van Dyck, and one album specifically describedas full of proefdrucken (proof impressions) of the works of Rubens and JacobJordaens.25

“The Goldweigher” (cat. 3) is one of the earliest prints by Rembrandt forwhich a large number of proof impressions survive.26 Given that the sitter,Jan Uytenbogaert, was one of the most prominent and active print collectorsin Amsterdam at the time, it seems reasonable to suggest that he particularlywelcomed the extra proofs for purposes of collecting, gift, sale, or ex-change.27 In this light, we might reasonably ask whether some of the changesin Rembrandt’s other printed portraits could be construed as intentionallygenerated proofs or “proof-seeming” works that had particular appeal forcollectors. Clement de Jonghe (cat. 10) begins with a blank background andgains the semblance of an arch. Jan Lutma (cat. 15) begins with a blank wallin the background but is then changed to have a full window installed in itsplace. One sees an idiosyncratic reversal of this procedure in Jan Asselijn

Fig. 2

Hendrick Goltzius

Adoration of the Shepherds,

c. 1598–1600Engraving, 21.4 × 15.3 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam (rp-p-ob-10.028)



(cat. 6), which goes from having an easel in the background to having it com-pletely burnished out. In contrast to “The Goldweigher”, whose unfinishedface in the first state clearly signals its status as a proof, these other portraitsappear to us more or less finished even with only a nominal background ornone at all. To Rembrandt’s early collectors, however, the question of finishmight still come to mind, especially when viewing different states side byside.28 Rembrandt had developed a reputation with regard to notions offinish, in particular with his prints. When Arnold Houbraken noted that theartist “worked up many things only by half, both in his paintings and evenmore so in his prints,” it was to set up Rembrandt’s reported response that“a work is complete if in it the master’s intentions have been realized.”29 Inother words, Rembrandt felt a need to remind his early audience of a mod-ern-sounding axiom that we take for granted today: finish is a matter of artis-tic intent, not viewer opinion.30

In other portraits, degree of finish does not appear to have been anissue, but different states do contain intriguing alterations in iconography.Pieter Haaringh (cat. 14) receives a curtain and rod arrangement, while Lieven

van Coppenol (cat. 17) gains a triptych on the wall behind him. One also seesthese types of changes in Rembrandt’s portrait of Abraham Francen, in whichseveral aspects, such as the curtain and the artwork he holds in his hands,change over the course of states (fig. 3). As has long been observed, many ofthese sitters have a common interest in the arts, either as artists, collectors,or connoisseurs.31 One might add that all of them also had a common interestin printmaking specifically. De Jonghe was a prominent print dealer; Lutma,

Fig. 3

Rembrandt

Abraham Francen,

Apothecary, c. 1657Etching and drypoint,

15.8 × 21.0 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam

(rp-p-1962-98)Bequest of Mr and Mrs

De Bruijn-van der Leeuw,Muri, Switzerland


24 robert fucci

Asselijn, and Van Coppenol all had experience in making prints; Haaringhwas an auctioneer who likely handled many prints; and Francen, apparently,was an incredibly avid print collector.32

Overlooked in regard to their states is that the changing nature of theseportraits stands in distinct contrast to the more staid, or less art trade relatedpersonages in Rembrandt’s œuvre, such as the several preachers and physi-cians he depicted, whose portraits remain fundamentally static by compar-ison.33 In other words, we can sometimes relate the particular nature of thestate changes to the type of sitter involved. Proof-seeming or iconographi-cally adjusted works occur more frequently in the portraits of the liefhebbers

(“connoisseurs”), in which the abundance of variant impressions suggestsfinished products in multiple forms. In some cases, an earlier state was printedas a smaller special edition, usually on special papers or supports (cat. nos. 3,14, and 17), while in other cases, more or less equal numbers of earlier andlater impressions survive (cat. nos. 6, 10, and 15). That overall paper varietyin the liefhebber portraits is greater, too, is surely no accident.

Making changes to a finished plate was not an entirely new idea inRembrandt’s time. The most common type of change made in the era was asimple and unartistic one: the inscribing of a new publisher’s name when a plate or group of plates changed hands, as they frequently did over thecourse of decades or even centuries. On occasion, however, the imagery itself

Fig. 4

Nicolaes de Bruyn

Judas Maccabeus, 1594State I of III

Engraving, 12.4 × 8.9 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam(rp-p-bi-5037)



Fig. 5

Nicolaes de Bruyn

Judas Maccabeus, 1594State II of III

Engraving, 12.2 × 9.0 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam

(rp-p-bi-5038)

also changed noticeably.34 Nicolaes de Bruyn’s head of Judas Maccabeus, forexample, appears completely different in a later state while retaining its orig-inal ornate border (figs. 4 and 5).35 Perhaps the intent in this case was to replace the Mannerist armor and sword with more authentic counterparts(or so it was thought), and by exchanging the rather Flemish-looking mus-tache with a full, untrimmed beard. One wonders if Rembrandt had similarconcerns with some of his frequent changes to headgear. It has long beennoted that Rembrandt borrowed the eccentric layered hat that appears in The

Three Crosses (cat. 11) from a medal by Pisanello depicting Gian FrancescoGonzaga.36 Since he used a similar hat for his painting of The Conspiracy of

the Batavians under Claudius Civilis, he may have construed this as appropriateheadwear for the ancient Roman era, and therefore a biblical setting aswell.37 Some of the other riders seen between the crosses also change armorand lose their feathered plumes. An aspect of the removal of figures in a laterstate of Christ Presented to the People (cat. 13) might similarly relate to per-ceptions of historical accuracy, since the loss of two figures bearing obvi-ously seventeenth-century stovepipe hats removed an incongruous type ofcostume.

Other minor but still noticeable changes to headwear may have acted as“marker changes” that could have served as a convenient means to distin-guish different editions at a glance (for example, cat. nos. 1, 7, and 10). While


26 robert fucci

this remains a conjectural idea in terms of Rembrandt’s practice, such a typeof marker was not unheard of among printmakers and print publishers atthe time. Johannes Wierix (1549– c. 1618), for example, made a number ofdeceptively close copies of Dürer’s engravings in which he would intention-ally change one distinct but barely perceptible aspect of the subject, such asa button or a key.38 Dealers and collectors would no doubt be aware of someof these minute but intentional changes between original and copy as a formof trade lore or craft knowledge. Perhaps it is no accident that some of theslight but regular changes to the headband and button that Rembrandt madebetween states in his Portrait of Clement de Jonghe, Printseller are similar typesof alterations (cat. 10). Several of Wierix’s plates after Dürer were reprintedand sold in Amsterdam during Rembrandt’s lifetime, including some thatwere published by Clement de Jonghe.39

In the case of Rembrandt’s own prints, a later owner of some of theplates around the year 1700 added two small dots or a cross in one corner ofthe plate, likely to easily determine which impressions came off the pressunder his auspices.40 That most of these “Kruzel points” (as they are called,after their discoverer) went unnoticed until the twenty-first century is tellingin itself. Some changes to plates in the sixteenth and seventeenth centurieswere clearly designed with different levels of visibility in mind. It thereforeappears that some state changes could serve a more private function than otherones. They could provide a visual language, or code, for certain individualsas a part of trade practice. This was especially important in an era that did

Fig. 6

Hendrick Goudt, after Adam Elsheimer

The Flight into Egypt, 1613Engraving, 35.6 × 39.8 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam (rp-p-ob-52.972)



not have use of the reference books we rely upon today, since differences neededto be communicated or understood without recourse to visual aids. Worthnoting in this regard is that Adam von Bartsch devoted five of his twenty-four illustrations in his seminal 1797 catalogue of Rembrandt’s prints to de-scribing state changes in the portrait of Clement de Jonghe.41 Bartsch hadoverlooked the regular changes to De Jonghe’s hat and hatband that he couldhave used to provide a strictly textual description for his readers, as was hisnorm. It is impossible to say with certainty that Rembrandt indeed intendedsome of his slight alterations as markers of this sort, but also worth consid-ering are the facts that several types of changes bear similarities in aspectand location within the visual field. Many of them remain useful even todayfor distinguishing states or various editions at a glance once one knows whereto look for them.

A number of Rembrandt’s most notable changes revolve around his useof light within the image without changing much, or any, of the iconography.This applies especially to his so-called dark-manner works. Many of themexplore the possibilities of low-level window or lamp light to illuminatefigures or an interior setting (cat. nos. 4, 5, 9, 14, and 16).42 Rembrandt wasundoubtedly inspired by the generation of Dutch printmakers before himwho had considerably expanded the dark-manner print tradition, also foundearlier in sixteenth-century German prints, to produce some of the most re-

Fig. 7

Jan van de Velde II

Star of Kings, c. 1625Engraving, 20.6 × 16.3 cm

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (rp-p-1898-a-20261)

Bequest of D. Franken, Le Vésinet


28 robert fucci

markable examples of the genre.43 Works by these artists are still widely ad-mired today for their virtuosic performances in achieving soft illuminationusing only the white of the paper. Rembrandt would have known the cele-brated engravings by Hendrick Goudt (1583–1649) after the paintings ofAdam Elsheimer that share some of the same biblical subjects Rembrandttreated in his dark-manner prints, such as The Flight into Egypt (fig. 6).Rembrandt also certainly knew the prints of Jan van de Velde II (c. 1593–1641),who made several notable dark-manner works such as his Star of Kings (fig. 7).This latter work features a particular motif Rembrandt would explore to greateffect: the expressive use of light emanating from a lantern.44 When Florentle Comte described the ideal print collection in 1699, he suggested gatheringsuch nuits et pièces noires by Rembrandt along with Goudt and Van de Veldeinto a separate album for viewing as an independent category of works.45

What set Rembrandt’s dark-manner works apart from his predecessorswas his publishing multiple versions of these subjects that show differentapproaches to light in otherwise nearly identical images. This procedurereaches its apotheosis in works such as Rembrandt’s The Flight into Egypt:

A Night Piece (cat. 9), which achieves a stunning range of subtle effects with-out altering any of the subject matter. Likewise, for the second state of The

Entombment (cat. 12.2), he employed a combination of heavy drypoint andplate tone to plunge the entire scene into nearly impenetrable darkness,

Fig.8

Hendrick Goltzius

Hercules and Cacus, 1588Chiaroscuro woodcut, 41.3 × 33.3 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam (rp-p-1878-a-933(r))



Fig. 9

Hendrick Goltzius

Hercules and Cacus, 1588Chiaroscuro woodcut,

41.0 × 33.3 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam

(rp-p-1937-741)Bequest of F.G. Waller,

Amsterdam

thereby imparting a mood of total solemnity. Many effects rely on his use ofplate tone and selective wiping procedures that were nearly unknownamongst his contemporaries. Furthermore, The Entombment and The Adora-

tion of the Shepherds: A Night Piece (cat. 16) use a range of papers to enhancethe different lighting effects. Japanese paper works particularly well in thisregard, since its tone often suffuses the scenes with a warmer, less stark lightby comparison with white European papers. Early critics found Rembrandt’sdark-manner prints a tour de force of innovative artistry. Filippo Baldinuccifound his technique bizarre, but greatly admired the results.46 ArnoldHoubraken probably had these works in mind when he lamented that the se-cret of their manufacture died with the inventor, since Rembrandt would notshare his printing methods with his pupils.47 In making multiple variationsof a print without changing the actual iconography, Rembrandt may havetaken inspiration from chiaroscuro woodcuts, which were often printed invariant impressions using different inks and alternate block combinations.48

Goltzius produced a number of works using this technique, some of whichcollectors such as Rembrandt would have encountered in the marketplacein a considerable array of printing variations, such as those found in Goltzius’sHercules and Cacus from 1588 (figs. 8 and 9).49

On one curious occasion, Rembrandt radically transformed the plate ofanother artist, Hercules Segers (1589/90–c. 1638), whose innovative prints


30 robert fucci

Fig. 10

Hercules Segers

Tobias and the Angel, c. 1615–30Etching, 20.1 × 27.6 cm Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam(rp-p-ob-796)

Fig. 11

Hercules Segers, withalterations by Rembrandt

The Flight into Egypt, c. 1653Etching and drypoint,21.1 × 28.4 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam(rp-p-1962-31)Bequest of Mr and MrsDe Bruijn-van der Leeuw,Muri, Switzerland



did not circulate widely, although we know that Rembrandt owned several ofhis paintings and must have had a strong interest in his work.50 At somepoint, Rembrandt acquired Segers’s plate for Tobias and the Angel, perhapsafter the latter’s death (fig. 10). Around 1652, Rembrandt burnished out thefigures and replaced them with a smaller-scale Holy Family, thus reimagin-ing the scene as a Flight into Egypt (fig. 11).51 His reasons for doing so are un-clear. Both subjects rely on a wilderness setting, and the trees and foliage ofSegers have their own distinctive style that Rembrandt likely admired. Theappropriation and transformation of Segers’s original plate has been framedas a form of artistic dialogue initiated by Rembrandt, but impressions ofSegers’s original Tobias and the Angel are incredibly rare (only two survive),leaving one to wonder how public Rembrandt would have considered anysuch dialogue.52

The Early Reception of

Rembrandt’s Changing Prints

We know of precious few reactions to seeing Rembrandt’s prints in variantimpressions in the seventeenth century. In 1668, the English traveler EdwardBrowne noted “a strange variety of excellent prints” in Amsterdam, including“diverse good ones of Rembrandt and some upon Indian paper that look likewashing, though scratched after his manner.”53 “Indian” paper in Browne’susage meant more generally “from Asia” (as a corruption of East Indian),and he appears to have noted Rembrandt’s heavy tone from either drypoint,wiping, or both. The earliest reference to any particular state change is prob-ably the inscription in a seventeenth-century hand on the back of an im-pression of The Artist’s Mother Seated with an Oriental Headdress stating, “Thisis uncommon, with hatching behind the back.”54 Indeed, the first state ofthis print survives today in only a few impressions before Rembrandt removedthe additional hatching, likely to make the head and headdress more legible,but the inscription provides an early sign that its rarity was worth remarkingupon (figs. 12 and 13). The earliest published references to Rembrandt’schanges in his prints come only at the end of the century, and long after theartist had died. Roger de Piles noted that Rembrandt “touched his Printsover again 4 or 5 times, to change the Claro Oscuro and heighten the effectthey had on the Spectator,” while Florent le Comte, using similar phrasing,wrote that he would make “as many as four or five proofs [epreuves], more orless finished.”55 Le Comte’s language of “more or less finished” demon-


32 robert fucci

strates an early awareness of the issue of completion within a sequence ofstates, and that certainty in this regard was not necessarily taken for granted.Both De Piles and Le Comte also mentioned Rembrandt’s frequent use ofAsian papers.56

None of these writers couched their language in derogatory terms. In1718, however, in his compilation of biographies of Dutch painters, ArnoldHoubraken accused Rembrandt of making changes to his plates as a meansof taking advantage of collectors for financial gain:

“Doing this brought him great fame, and not little profit: especially thelittle trick of making a slight change or a small and trifling addition to hisprints which would allow him to sell them again a second time. Indeed, thezeal was so great in those days that people would not be taken for true con-noisseurs who did not have the Juno with and without the crown, the Josephwith the white and dark face, and so forth. Indeed, the woman by the stove,albeit one of his lesser works, each must have with and without the white cap,and with and without the stove-key . . .”57

The works he singled out in this passage are Medea: or, The Marriage of

Jason and Creusa (cat. 7), Joseph Telling His Dreams (cat. 2), and Woman Sitting

Half-Dressed beside a Stove (cat. 18). Houbraken’s accusation has developeda history in Rembrandt scholarship of being dismissed without much furthercomment.58 It is true that within the context of Houbraken’s biography of

Fig. 12

Rembrandt

The Artist’s Mother Seated

with an Oriental Headdress, 1631State I of VI

Etching, 14.5 × 12.9 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam (rp-p-ob-740)



“money-loving” Rembrandt, the statement paints him as too coldly merce-nary. We probably also suffer from an unwillingness to see Rembrandt, oneof the most inventive artists of his age, as a cynical producer of some of ourmost dearly regarded masterpieces in the print medium. That said, there aresome problems with treating Houbraken’s statement strictly in terms of ac-cepting or rejecting his accusation. It seems too much like a blanket charge,since it is unlikely that Rembrandt’s sole motives were mercenary. There isenough to suggest that in many cases the state changes functioned in bothiconographically and aesthetically explicable ways.

The changes could also be viewed as intentionally created to serve thecollectors’ market in more positive terms than Houbraken’s. As we haveseen, some of Rembrandt’s commissioned works (such as his portraits) un-dergo some of his most notable changes, and he might not have been the onlyagent in this process. We should thus be willing to accept the essence ofHoubraken’s charge without agreeing with its defamatory tone: Rembrandtsometimes deliberately created new states to indulge a new class of sophis-ticated print collectors, many of whom were friends and colleagues. Oneneed not accept or reject Houbraken’s accusation on its own terms, sinceRembrandt could have (and likely did) make changes that catered to enthu-siastic collectors without necessarily having motives that were as base orduplicitous as Houbraken painted them.

Fig. 13

Rembrandt

The Artist’s Mother Seated

with an Oriental Headdress, 1631State III of VI

Etching, 14.5 × 12.9 cmRijksmuseum, Amsterdam

(rp-p-ob-741)


34 robert fucci

Furthermore, the fragile nature of his etching and drypoint work frequentlywould not yield many impressions before showing wear (a point lost onHoubraken), and reworking the plates was a means by which Rembrandtcould make his prints more economically viable, and attempt parity with themore traditional methods of printmaking that could easily generate higherquantities of satisfactory impressions. Rembrandt generally remained un-compromising in adhering to methods that produced his distinctively beauti -ful but low-count results. Moreover, both as a collector and printmaker, heappears to have been concerned with the notion of rarity as a driving force.Making changes to a plate could also be a means of arbitrating the rarity ofcertain states once a print was in circulation, since a new state necessarilyfixes the relative availability of the old one. By changing a plate, Rembrandtmay have gained a newly marketable product, but he also lost the ability toprint earlier versions. This might explain why he reportedly bid on some ofhis own prints at auction (see cat. 1).

Two sources from the 1730s give us our first substantial records of howcollectors themselves regarded Rembrandt’s state changes. The first isValerius Röver’s personal manuscript inventory (his Memorie) of his significantcollection of over 400 Rembrandt prints, which he began writing in 1731 andcompleted sometime before his death in 1739.59 The second is the 1735 auc-tion catalogue of the collection of Samuel van Huls that included around 200Rembrandt prints, a number of which were listed individually by title.60 Bothtook special care to record and describe various states of the same prints, anddo so using remarkably similar phrasing. In both collections, for example,one finds Jan Asselijn (cat. 6) “with and without the easel” and Jan Lutma (cat.15) “with and without the window.”61 Likewise, the state changes Houbrakendescribed can be found catalogued using exactly the same terms. This sharedphrasing is significant in that it appears to reflect a commonly accepted parl-ance among collectors and dealers for the description of Rembrandt’s variousstates.62 It seems likely that this parlance predates Houbraken’s comments,and that he merely appropriated a language that had already been in wide-spread use, perhaps as early as the seventeenth century.

Along with the collectors’ argot of “with and without” that one finds inearly sources regarding aspects of iconography in the state changes, one alsofrequently comes across the phrase “with the changes in light and dark” forRembrandt’s dark-manner prints or those that otherwise undergo notice-able changes in the chiaroscuro or hatching.63 What is striking about thislanguage is its lack of concern for the ordering of the states when returned tothe context of early collecting practices. Despite the tendency in Rembrandtscholarship to assume that widely circulated states were a means of con-sciously making his working processes visible, there is no evidence that col-



lectors in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries viewed statechanges in terms of witnessing artistic progression. There is also a notablelack of concern in early sources about the canonicity of one state over another.Rather, comprehensiveness, as Houbraken suggested, appears to have beencollectors’ main concern.64 Edme-François Gersaint did not fault Rembrandtfor encouraging this practice, but rather laid the blame on the mania amongcollectors themselves. In his catalogue of Rembrandt prints published in1751, he cautioned against such fervor:

“But when the Difference between two Impressions is trivial, both as tothe Composition and the Effect, the Possession of both should not be eagerlydesired; nor should that which has least Merit, if the Difference is great, beprocured at an exorbitant Price.”65

Gersaint’s work marked the first appearance of a collector’s manual forRembrandt’s prints. His catalogue is also significant for art history generallyas the first catalogue raisonné (or “reasoned catalogue”) of an artist’s œuvre.The bewildering variety of Rembrandt’s prints found in the marketplace andcollections evidently inspired him to generate a catalogue that did not justdocument one particular collection, but rather a sort of ideal collection, witha particular eye for noting all of the states (often in sequence for the firsttime) as well as other variations in paper and tone. It is telling that his projectnever seems to finish. Eighteen catalogues raisonnés have been publishedon Rembrandt’s prints between 1751 and 2013, more than for any other artistworking in any medium.66 With each new catalogue came new discoveriesthat built on the old. Even the latest offering, which furnishes a definitivedescription of every work, and deserves the highest praise for illustratingevery single state of every print over thousands of pages of text and images,still cannot offer a fully described set of illustrations that show the markedlydifferent effects of plate tone, selective wiping, or the use of different papersand other supports. Rembrandt’s prints simply defy containment. Like somany seashells of endless variety that obsessed collectors of his day (and thathe himself collected), Rembrandt created an œuvre that not only strains ourmodern apparatus of documentation, but, for early collectors, resisted allattempts at true completion.67 It was the perfect œuvre for the age of theWunderkammer.

If Rembrandt generated some of his changes in the hope that collectorswould purchase multiple impressions, we might consider that they welcomedthe occasions to do so. His changes in print offered the opportunity for com-parison in a way generally unavailable in other mediums, and invited dis-cussion—then, as now—about the possibilities of expanding the way an imagelooked and the meanings it conveyed, in both aesthetic and iconographicterms. Rembrandt thematized the notion of change. Regardless of his mo-


36 robert fucci

tivating factors (and certainly there were several), Rembrandt’s conceptionof printmaking as a flexible medium for the creation of a changing multipleproduct designed to remain visible to the public in its variations, whethersubtle and shimmering, or dramatic and enigmatic, is surely one of the mostcreative projects ever undertaken in the history of art.

1 Boston–New York 1969– 70, and London1969. Another exhibition devoted tochanges in Rembrandt’s prints, althoughwith a less descriptive catalogue, wasAmsterdam 1981. For high standards of descriptive connoisseurship recently, seethe catalogue of a private collection byStogdon 2011, and the exhibition catalogueby Eeles for San Diego 2015.

2 White 1999.

3 Amsterdam–London 2000–2001. Some ofthe same impressions have been reprisedrecently in London–Amsterdam 2014–15.An important exhibition that drew mainlyfrom American collections and includedmany print variations was Boston–Chicago2003–4.

4 Hinterding 2006; and NHD Rembrandt (the New Hollstein series, 7 vols. for Rembrandt). For a review of the latter,see Filedt Kok & Fucci 2014.

5 For the history of Rembrandt’s plates,see Hinterding 1993–94. About half ofRembrandt’s 300 plates were printed afterhis death (and 81 plates still survive today).For the changes made by later owners of theplates, see especially Wiebel 2011; and theintroduction by Hinterding & Rutgers toNHD Rembrandt, vol. I, pp. lvi–lx.

6 For in-depth discussions of Rembrandt’sprintmaking techniques, see especiallyRassieur in Boston–Chicago 2003–4, pp.45– 60; and White 1999, pp. 5–18.

7 Other pure drypoints include a pair oflandscapes of 1652, Clump of Trees with a

Vista (Bartsch 222, NHD Rembrandt 272),and Landscape with a Farmhouse Beside a

Canal (Bartsch 221, NHD Rembrandt 273).The portrait of Thomas Haaringh (“Old

Haaringh”) (Bartsch 274, NHD Rembrandt291) might have some engraved lines but

is very nearly pure drypoint, as well. Alsoworth mentioning is St. Francis Beneath a

Tree Praying (Bartsch 107, NHD Rembrandt299), which Rembrandt began in drypointbut finished in etching in the second state.

8 Robinson 1981, p. xlii.

9 Inscriptions of this nature can be found on a first-state impression of The Three

Crosses, a first-state impression of St. Jerome

Reading in an Italian Landscape, and twofourth-state impressions of Christ Presented

to the People. For a description of these, seethe respective entries in NHD Rembrandt, nos. 274, 275, and 290.

10 Some print catalogues treat a state as anychange made to a plate, whether intentionalor accidental, but it has become more com-mon to consider only intentional changes,while scratches and other such marks mightbe treated as “sub-states.”

11 For major alterations to intaglio plates, see Stijnman 2012, pp. 152–53.

12 For Rembrandt’s press and the printing of his plates, see especially Hinterding2006, vol. I, pp. 35–42; Roscam Abbing2006; and Hinterding in Amsterdam 2011a,pp. 191–92.

13 For this period of increased print produc-tion, which may be related to Rembrandt’sgrowing financial problems, see Hinterding2006, vol. I, pp. 118–24.

14 The fundamental study of the watermarks is Hinterding 2006, with additional infor-mation incorporated into the recent NHDRembrandt volumes.

15 Roscam Abbing 1996. While several im -pres sions of Rembrandt prints exist onsilk, these all appear to date to the eigh-teenth century. Overlooked in NHDRembrandt (no. 172) is a second-state



impression of “The Goldweigher” on silk in the Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam (rp-p-ob-570), although this was perhapsprinted in the eighteenth century as well.

16 Biörklund 1968, pp. 172– 73, identified aVOC ship, De Swaen, that carried Asianpapers to Amsterdam in 1643. Kofuku 2012,p. 130, found other records of paper ship-ments as well, and surmised that it formeda regular part of the carrying trade.

17 Van Breda 1997 remains the best technicalstudy of Rembrandt’s Asian papers pub-lished to date, but his sample size was lim-ited to seven works: five “Japanese” papersthat used gampi, one “Chinese” paper thatused both bamboo and mitsumata, and an-other just bamboo. All of these fibers growin Japan, where Dutch ships frequentlytraded, thus the term Chinese might be amisnomer, but they might also have origi-nated in China and Korea. For an earliertechnical study of Rembrandt’s Asian papers, see Biörklund 1968.

18 Hinterding 2006, vol. I, p. 120.

19 For a brief history of proof impressionsin the history of printmaking up to Rembrandt, see Luijten 1999.

20 NHD Van Dyck 1. For this print, see alsoLuijten in Antwerp–Amsterdam 1999–2000, no. 5, pp. 92–100, and Parshall2001, p. 19. Turner, in the introduction toNHD Van Dyck, p. xxxii, speculates thatunfinished proofs were made available toacquaintances and certain parties, and thattheir circulation may have functioned togenerate interest for the Iconography series.That Rembrandt knew Van Dyck’s image(and probably the proof) is strongly sug-gested by the fact that one of his own self-portrait prints from a few years later ap-pears inspired by it (Bartsch 7, NHDRembrandt 90). For a study of the proofsfor Rembrandt’s self-portrait, see Royalton–Kisch 1993.

21 For the preparation of the Iconography

series, see Spicer 1994.

22 NHD Muller Dynasty, vol. I, p. 27.

23 NHD Goltzius 14. For this print, see alsoFiledt Kok 1991, pp. 363– 64, and Parshall2001, pp. 14–17.

24 See especially Luijten 2000.

25 Items nos. 213, 228, and 245 in Rembrandt’sbankruptcy inventory, or boedelinventaris

(Gemeente Archief, Amsterdam). For atranscription, see Appendix 2 in Amster-dam 1999–2000, pp. 147–52 (by Jaap vander Veen). For Rembrandt’s bankruptcy,see Crenshaw 2006.

26 A notable exception that dates slightly earlier is The Great Jewish Bride from 1635(Bartsch 340, NHD Rembrandt 154), whichalso survives in a large number of proof impressions before the bottom half of theplate was completed. Left out of the discus-sion, since they are beyond the scope of thisstudy, are the two prints Rembrandt leftunfinished: Old Man Shading His Eyes with

His Hand (Bartsch 259, NHD Rembrandt175) and the Artist Drawing from the Model

(Bartsch 192, NHD Rembrandt 176). Rembrandt’s work on these plates neverprogressed beyond proof-appearing form,although his motives for abandoning themremain obscure. Both, however, date to the same year (c. 1639) as “The Goldweigher.”

27 For more information about Uytenbogaertand his collecting habits, see Dickey 2004,pp. 75– 78; and cat. 3 in the present volume.

28 For a consideration of how our modernperception of finish in Rembrandt’s printsmight differ from those of early collectors,see Scallen 1992.

29 Houbraken 1718–21, vol. I, pp. 258–59: vele

dingen maar ten halven op gemaakt heeft, zoo

in zyne schilderyen als nog meer in zyn geëtste

printkonst; and, idem., een stuk voldaan is als

de meester zyn voornemen daar in bereikt heeft.For these comments, see Hinterding inLondon–Amsterdam 2014–15, p. 191, andParshall in Washington 2001, p. 19. For thequestion of finish in Rembrandt’s prints,see also Scallen 1992.

30 A remark aptly made by Parshall inWashington 2001, p. 19.

31 For these sitters and their relationshipswith Rembrandt, the fundamental study isDickey 2004. See also Amsterdam 1986–87.

32 Gersaint 1751, p. 199, who reported thatFrancen had such a passion for prints thathe would often go without food or drink toafford his acquisitions. Gersaint likelypicked up this lore from one of many tripsto the Netherlands. See Dickey 2004, p. 143.


38 robert fucci

33 Some examples of Rembrandt’s portraitprints in this group include: the preachersJan Cornelis Sylvius (Bartsch 266, NHDRembrandt 124), Jan Uytenbogaert (Bartsch279, NHD Rembrandt 153; the Remonstrantpreacher, not to be confused with hiscousin by the same name known as “The

Goldweigher”), the second and posthumousversion of Jan Cornelis Sylvius (Bartsch 280,NHD Rembrandt 235), and Cornelis Anslo

(Bartsch 271, NHD Rembrandt 197); and the physicians Ephraim Bonus (Bartsch 278,NHD Rembrandt 237), Arnold Tholinx

(Bartsch 284, NHD Rembrandt 294), andJan Antonides van der Linden (Bartsch 264,NHD Rembrandt 314). Most of the statechanges for these works, when they occur,reflect slight repair work or line strength-ening rather than iconographic adjust-ments. This is not to say that such changeswent unnoticed by early collectors. Hou braken 1718, p. 271, for example, had already noted the subtle differencesbetween states in the later of the twoSylvius portraits.

34 There is no comprehensive study of thetype of iconographically significant statechanges to already finished works that onefinds in print history before Rembrandt.Incidents that bear mentioning include the occasion when Goltzius changed thephysiognomy of his mother, Anna Fullings,in an engraving from c. 1580 (NHD Goltzius222). Schapelhouman 1987, p. 152, alsonotes that Claes Jansz. Visscher (1587–1652) changed the figures in several land-scape prints by Johannes van Londerseelafter David Vinckboons.

35 NHD De Bruyn 268, dated 1594 in the plate.The image is part of a series of Nine Worthies.

36 First noted by Musper 1935. For an imageof the medal, see Amsterdam–London2000–2001, p. 303.

37 Oil on canvas, c. 1661– 62 (Nationalmuseum,Stockholm). For this painting, see Corpus,vol. VI, no. 298.

38 For example, Wierix’s copy of Dürer’s Coat

of Arms with a Skull (Hollstein, Wierix Family, 1999) is an exact facsimile of everyline except for the addition of an extra but-ton near the visor of the helmet. Likewise,his copies of Melancholia (Hollstein, WierixFamily, 2000 and 2001) are precise in every

way except for the slight change to the keyhanging from the woman’s belt.

39 For example, NHD Wierix 1248 (St. Jerome

in his Study), state III, and NHD Wierix 2001(Melancholia), state III, both inscribed“Clement de Jonghe Exc.”

40 Kruzel 2006 first noted these marks on18 prints. The NHD Rembrandt volumes extended that number to 29 works. Foradditional remarks, see the introductionby Hinterding and Rutgers to NHDRembrandt, vol. I, p. lviii; and the review of those volumes by Filedt Kok & Fucci2014, p. 146.

41 Bartsch 1797, no. 272.

42 For Rembrandt’s prints in this idiom, see most recently Hinterding in London–Amsterdam 2014–15, pp. 173–91; as well as various entries in Dublin 2005, and Munich 2005– 6.

43 For a discussion of these as part of a questfor printed tone in seventeenth-centuryDutch printmaking, see Ackley 1981.

44 While prints by Jan van de Velde II arenot specifically in Rembrandt’s boedelinven-

taris, it is clear that Rembrandt basedsome of the compositions of his prints onthose of Van de Velde. For example, The

Good Sama ritan of 1633 (Bartsch 90,NHD Rembrandt 116) bears remarkablecompositional similarities to Van deVelde’s depiction of the same subject(Hollstein 12).

45 Le Comte 1699–1700, vol. I, p. 21. Cited by Robinson 1981, pp. xlv–xlvi.

46 Baldinucci 1686, p. 79. For further earlycomments about Rembrandt’s use of light in his works, see Hinterding in London–Amsterdam 2014–15, p. 173. VanHoog straten 1678, p. 268, also commentsupon Rembrandt’s dark-manner prints.

47 Houbraken 1718–21, vol. I, p. 271.

48 Kettner 2006, p. 28.

49 NHD Goltzius 304, recording at least tenvariants in terms of block combinationsand colors. For this print, see also Amster-dam–New York–Toledo 2003–4, no. 34,pp. 100–101; and Amsterdam–Cleveland1993–94, no. 25, pp. 103–5.



50 For the paintings by Segers that Rembrandtowned, see the boedelinventaris of 1656,nos. 17, 40, 70, 93, 104, 124, and 292. For atranscription, see Appendix 2 in Amster-dam 1999–2000, pp. 147–52. For Segers’sprints generally, see especially Haver kamp–Begemann 1973.

51 Bartsch 56, NHD Rembrandt 271. For thiswork, see also (among others): Ackley inBoston–Chicago 2003–4, nos. 114–15, pp. 183–86; Schapelhouman in Amster-dam–London 2000–2001, no. 71, pp.290–92; and White 1999, pp. 245–49.

52 One of the two surviving impressions fromSegers’s unaltered plate (Paris, Musée duLouvre) bears a watermark closely relatedto that used for one of Rembrandt’s otherprints, Christ Preaching (La Petite Tombe)

(Bartsch 67, NHD Rembrandt 298), indicat-ing that Rembrandt may have printed ithimself before altering the plate. Recentredating of Christ Preaching to c. 1657 inthe New Hollstein, however, might compli-cate the issue. For the watermarks, seeHinterding 2006, vol. II, p. 135.

53 Hinterding 1993–94, p. 264.

54 Bartsch 348, NHD Rembrandt 86. Theinscription, found on an impression inthe Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam(rp-p-ob-740), reads: Dit is Ongemeen:

met asseerin achter de rugh. See Hinterding2006, vol. I, p. 184, note 373.

55 De Piles 1699, p. 434 (the English transla-tion taken from De Piles 1706, pp. 317–18);and Le Comte 1699–1700, vol. III, p. 126.For the reception of Rembrandt’s prints inFrance at the time, see Vermeulen 2009–10, who points out that De Piles wouldnot have found various states of the sameRembrandt print in the renowned print albums of Michel de Marolles, but musthave known of this practice through othermeans (idem., p. 171).

56 De Piles 1699, p. 434; Le Comte 1699–1700, vol. III, p. 126.

57 Houbraken 1718–21, vol. I, p. 271: Dit doen

bragt hem grooten roem en niet min voordeel

by: inzonderheid ook het kunsje van lichte

verandering, of kleine en geringe byvoegzelen,

die hy aan zyne printjes maakte, waar door

dezelve andermaal op nieuw verkogt werden.

Ja de drift was in dien tyd zoo groot dat zulke

luiden voor geen regte liefhebbers gehouden

wierden, die het Junootje met en zonder ‘t

kroontje, ‘t Josephje met het wit en bruine

troonitje en diergelyke meer, niet hadden.

Ja het Vrouwtje by de kachel, schoon van zyn

geringste, moest elk met, en zonder ‘t witte

mutsje, met, en zonder het sleutelkacheltje

hebben . . . Translation by the author.

58 The strongest objection comes fromWhite 1999, pp. 2–3 (although with moretemperate wording than in the original1969 edition, p. 4), who prefers to seeRembrandt’s state changes strictly in termsof artistic process. Alpers 1988, pp. 100–101,accepted Houbraken’s statement at facevalue to argue that Rembrandt intentionallycreated a demand for his works in progressas part of an adroit marketing operation.Alpers’s statement was rejected by White(in the 1999 edition); Bevers 1991, p. 166(stating that, never theless there was agrain of truth to Houbraken’s statement);Scallen 1992, p. 8; and Bevers 2006, p. 21.Hinterding 2006, vol. I, p. 122, suggeststhat Rembrandt would have been aware ofthe collectors’ market for his early statesand catered to it (particularly from 1648onward), but stops short of saying that hedeliberately created new states for thismarket.

59 For a study of Röver’s Memorie of Rembrandtprints and a transcription, see Van Gelder& Van Gelder-Schrijver 1938. For Röver asa collector generally, see Moes 1913.

60 Van Huls 1735.

61 For Röver’s inventory, see the transcriptionin Van Gelder & Van Gelder-Schrijver 1938,p. 11: Asselin, of Crabbetje, met en zonder de

schilder Ezel; and, idem., Lutma met en

zonder het Venster. In Van Huls 1735, p. 37,lot 982: Crabbetie met en sonder Ezel; and, p. 37, lot 989: Lutma met het Venster.

62 The culmination of this early parlance isarguably found in the auction catalogue ofDe Burgy 1755, which lists 655 individualRembrandt prints.

63 In Dutch, commonly as: met veranderingen

van ligt en bruin. For examples, see VanGelder & Van Gelder-Schrijver 1938,pp. 11–16, and Van Huls 1735, p. 37.


40 robert fucci

64 For print collectors’ mania for completionat the time, see Robinson 1981, pp. xl–xliv,citing specifically in relation to Rembrandt’sprints the collections of Jan Pietersz. Zomer(1641–1724) and Richard Maitland, fourthEarl of Lauderdale (1653–95). To thesecan be added the manuscript inventory ofValerius Röver begun in 1731 and the titlepage of the auction of Amadé de Burgy in1755, both of which claim a complete col-lection of Rembrandt’s prints “with all ofthe changes” (met alle veranderingen).

65 Gersaint 1751, no. 56, p. 43 (the Englishtranslation taken from Gersaint 1752, no.56, p. 33).

66 For a recent overview of the many catalogues of Rembrandt’s prints, see Hinterding 2012.

67 Despite the boastful claims by some collec-tors that their collections of Rembrandt’sprints were complete (see above, note 64),tacit acknowledgment of such a claim’simpossibility is found in the inventory ofValerius Röver, who added a considerablenumber of works to his collection long afterstating that he had “all of the changes.”To view these many revisions and inser-tions, it is necessary to consult the originalmanuscript (Universiteit van Amsterdam,Bijzondere Collecties, H.S. II A 17 No. 6)rather than rely on the transcription foundin Van Gelder & Van Gelder-Schrijver 1938.

Re

mb

ra

nd

t: T

he

Res

t on

the

Fli

ght i

nto

Egy

pt: A

Nig

ht P

iece

,c. 1

644.

Sta

te I

of IX

, det

ail.

( see

Cat

. 5.1

, pg.

64)


Documents

Rembrandt and the Changing Print (Introduction to Rembrandt's Changing Impressions)