Rembrandt's Etching Smnt Jeranereading in an ltmianLandscape. The Question

of Finish reconsidered

Catherine B. Scallen *

Among the technically most sophisticated of Rembrandt 's late etchings is his Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape (fig. 1), dating from about 1653.1 In the twentieth century writers have particularly admired its range of finish, which varies from the carefully worked-out lion and background landscape to the virtually blank areas on the upper left of the large tree and in the foreground , and thence to the sketchily outlined figure of Jerome him­self.2

Such admiration of differences in execution proves however to be in part of recent vintage. The aim of this study is to understand the his­tory of the print's reception in the light of the particular question of finish , meaning both de­gree of comp le ti on and smooth execution. Above all I wish to establish how the style and technique of this etching could have been re­garded by Rembrandt's contemporaries, i.e ., his original market. Before doing so, however, it will be useful to trace the shifting stylistic appraisals of Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape in the scholarly literature.

In the first catalogue ofRembrandt 's etchinn­gs, published in 1751, Edme-Fran\:ois Gersaint commented upon " ... ce qui fait regretter que Rembrandt n 'y ait pas mis la derniere main .. . La disposition du sujet est riche; & tout ce qui est acheve, est d 'un gout admirable." 3 While one can ascribe Gersaint's opinion to the in­fluence of classicizing taste - ascendant from the second half of the seventeenth century into the eighteenth - which frowned upon rough­ness or lack of finish , scholars of Rembrandt etchings continued to agree with this judge­ment during the nineteenth century .4 Only the

I. Rembrandt , Saint Jerome reading in an Italian landscape. Etchin g (B 104, II). New York , The Pierpont Morgan Library

2

critic Charles Blanc demurred. Allied with proponents of romanticism, Blanc in 1859 agreed that the Jerome print was unfinished but defended its artistic value. "Sou vent nous avons entendu des amateurs exprimer, apres Bartsch, et sans doute d'apres Jui, le regret que Rembrandt n 'eG t pas entierement termine une aussi belle planche. Mais Jes artistes, en general, ne sont pas de cet a vis. L'inacheve de ce morceau Jeur plait. Ils aiment ce qu 'ii ya de fruste dans !'execution , et d 'agreste dans le paysage."5 He believed that its in~om­plete condition allowed the beholder to participate in the work by finishing it in the mind's eye.

While later nineteenth-century cataloguers continued to designate the print 'unfinished,' appreciation for its perceived qualities grew. Charles Middleton in 1878 considered the sketchy figure of Jerome to be the finest part of the print.6 By 1912, the idea that Rembrandt had chosen to leave the print 'unfinished' and had not simply abandoned it gained hold through Arthur Hind 's catalogue.7 And by 1917 Andre-Charles Cop pier could ask" ... mais n'est-ce pas son execution qui le rend si beau et plein d'interet?"8 Finally, in 1960 Ludwig Goldscheider stated flatly that" ... the etching must not be dubbed unfinished."9

Clearly, changes over time in the concept of what a finished print could look like affected the reception of the Jerome etching. The perception of Rembrandt's intentions shifted in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries coincident with the emergence of modernism and its emphasis on process and technique.

However, the current acceptance of the range of finish in Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape is not inherently any more correct in a historical sense than the opposite stance propounded in the eighteenth century. Shaped as it is by the aesthetic theory and standards of our own time, this acceptance does not gain us greater understanding of the work within the context of the culture in which it was made. What needs to be established, then, is the attitude towards the 'unfinished' art work in the seventeenth century. Rec­ognition of the parameters of print making practice and reception in Rem­brandt's time allows for comprehension of the role of such works for artist and public.

While statements from seventeenth-century sources about artistic style in Holland are notoriously scarce, several writers did make passing comments about Rembrandt's etching style. In 1662 John Evelyn referred to the "par­ticular spirit" of the artist's etchings, a comment echoed by Andre Felibien in 1685, who called attention to their singular, unique manner:" ... ii a grave a l'eau-forte d 'une fa~on tou te singu liere. L'on voit qu antite d 'es tam pes de Juy, tres-curieuses ... tres-differens, comme je vous ay dit, des gravGres ordinaires."10 Most notably Filippo Baldinucci, in his history of engraving and etching published in 1686, described Rembrandt 's etching style thus:

'That in which this artist truly showed his worth was a most bizarre manner which he invented for engraving on copper with acid, this too all his own ... with certain scrawls and scribbles and irregular strokes and without outline, making on that account a deep chiaroscuro of great vigour result from the whole and a picturesque flavour until the last touch, covering the ground in some places completely with black and leaving in others the white of the paper, and according to the colouring he wished to give to the clothes of his figures, whether near or distant, using sometimes very little shadow and sometimes again a simple outline, without anything else.'ll

What Baldinucci makes clear then, some thirty years after Rembrandt etched the Saint Jerome, is that linear irregularity, tonal range, and sketchi­ness helped to characterize Rembrandt's etching style, which all seventeenth­century writers insist was unique to him. Critics also noted his predilection for working plates through a number of states; Roger de Piles in 1699 commented that Rembrandt" ... a retouche plusieurs de ses Estampesjusqu 'a quatre et cinq fois pour en changer le Clair-obscur et pour chercher un bon effet."12 Yet when Arnold Houbraken, himself an etcher and writer active some fifty years after Rembrandt's death, but from the classicist' school, described the same characteristics, he lamented Rembrandt's practice of leaving some etchings half completed. 13 Significantly, Houbraken quoted a maxim which he attributed to Rembrandt, that a picture is finished when the master has achieved his intention in it.14

lfwe turn from these historical literary views of Rembrandt's technique to the evidence of the etchings themselves, a wide range of finish can be found, from almost obsessively worked up plates such as Saint Jerome in a Dark Chamber, dating from 1642, to works of a mixed style, partly sketched in and partly detailed, such as the Presentation in the Temple from about 1639.15 Apparently unfinished works exist as well, for instance, Old Man Shading His Eyes from about 1639. While this last etching was relatively rare, Rembrandt considered its 'final' form carefully enough to pull a counter proof from it and to print at least one impression on Oriental paper. Thus we should accept as fact that Rembrandt regarded this print as suitable for publication and distribution in an ostensibly unfinished condition.16

There is another seemingly unfinished print from about the same time, around 1639, that is preeminently apropos to this discussion. The Artist Drawing from a Model (fig. 2) is the most extreme example in Rembrandt's etched corpus of contrast between finished and unfinished areas. Yet it was a relatively common print among Rembrandt's etchings, which indicates that it enjoyed commercial success. 17 As Jan Emmens suggested, this print might well function in part as aw itty jest by Rembrandt which lays bare the working process itself; it is this very aspect of the work which may have proven most

3

4

2. Rembrandt, The A rtist drawingfrDln aM ode/. Etchin g (B 192, I). London , The British Muse­um

~\( \ ;\

\ \,

\ \ ___. · t.,--_...

\

engaging to collectors.18 These three works reveal Rembrandt's concern with questions of finish

around 1639. In the 1650s this issue remained important to him, but his approach to it became more complex. In this decade he completely reworked plates in successive states, such as Christ Presented to the People, of which he made eight states yet first signed only in the seventh , or The Three Crosses, signed in the third of four states. A third work, dated 1657 and thus probaJ?ly made after the St. Jerome etching, serves as a particularly useful counterpart to it. This is the etching Saint Francis Praying Beneath a Tree(fig. 3) in two states, apparently unfinished in the first state though signed. Rembrandt printed each of these late prints on papers of various tones and textures and even on

J ~f -;:H=

~~ ~~-

~~

'r. I::-!·

~-- ....... _ , 1~

' ' -.:Y

. \\ · ~ \ '~ \ I ~- ~

r - \)~·~) ~.~ _',-'J.· l j(,:~ ~'/~

vellum. Impressions of them are scarce, and they have always figured among those Rem­brandt etchings most prized by collectors. 19

These etchings of the 1650s show Rem­brandt's increasingly flexible attitude to­wards finish and what constituted a com­pleted etching. The medium of etching allowed him to create ongoing works of art -ones which could be modified time and again, often radically, in a way that paintings and drawings could not be. While one cannot make absolute claims about the import of signatures in Rembrandt's etched oeuvre, his withholding of his signature until the later states of some of these etchings of the 1650s is intriguing in relationship to Saint Jerome Read­ing in an Italian Landscape, neither signed nor dated in either of its two states.20 It suggests that Rembrandt sometimes reserved judge­ment of what constituted the ultimate state of an etching, but nonetheless believed that his work along the way was worthy of preserva­tion and pu blication--indeed, that it deserved to be carefully printed on a variety of sur­faces.21 The phrase 'provisional finish' can be used to describe these earlier states and per­haps best characterizes the Jerome print as well. While Rembrandt did make a second state of the print in order to modify the piers of the bridge slightly, indicative of his con­cern for even the smallest detail, he may still

I

have retained the right to alter it further - even ifhe never did so.22

Fortuitously, a preparatory drawing for the Saint Jerome etching still exists, one of the few examples of such in Rembrandt's art (fig. 4). In this pen and wash drawing (now in the Kunsthalle in Hamburg) Rembrandt had worked out the basic design and many individual details of the etching's appear­ance.23 However, in the drawing Rembrandt indicated that the foreground area should appear in shade, including the entire figure of Saint Jerome. This is precisely the area left blank in the etching, and where the figure of the saint was sketched in lightly. This change suggests that Rembrandt experimented with the plan of his print at a late stage, and may have left this area relatively u netched in order to allow for further changes. Possibly, then , he felt satisfied with the reverse effect from the drawing - of saint, boulder, and ground appearing almost insubstantial in the wash of bright sunlight.

In addition to the quality of provisional finish, Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape has much in common with Rembrandt's other ambitious late etchings. It too was printed in small numbers on several kinds of paper, was generously scaled, and paid witness to Rembrandt 's technical facility through the variety of linework and manipulation of tone and texture.24 In all of these late prints, but above all in the Jerome etching, it is the range of finish which is so remarkable, rather than any sketchiness alone.25

3. Rembrandt, Saint Francis praying beneath a Tree. Etching (B 107, I). New York, The Pier­pont Morgan Library

5

6 4. Rembrandt , Saint Jerome reading in a Land­scape. Drawing. Hamburg, Kunsthalle

One might well call these etchings connoisseur's pieces, for it is likely that Rembrandt had such an audience in mind for these scarce late etchings when making them. Even before mid-century a group of sophisticated print collec­tors, who could appreciate the experimental qualities of Rembrandt's prints, existed in Amsterdam .26 His etchings also had an international clientele from the 1630s onward, and we know that at least by 1699 collectors sought after his impressions on papers of various tones.27 Rembrandt undoubtedly ~new by the early 1650s that he could rely on this market to support or even vie for his etchings in various states and incorporating various degrees of finish.

Indeed the Jack of finish would have had its own appeal among certain connoisseurs . An appreciation for a 'rough' style in painting, one lacking finish and displaying broad strokes and an irregular, discontinuous surface, emerged in sixteenth-century Venice and was epitomized by the later work of Titian.28 Giorgio Vasari, while predisposed to Florentine disegno and the ideal of a perfected work of art, nonetheless acknowledged the power of Titian 's late style and its deceptive simplicity, which led many lesser artists astray:" ... the method is judicious, beautiful, and magnificent, because the pictures seem to come alive and are executed with great skill, hiding the effort that went into them."29

In Holland, the aesthetic of rough style was incorporated into the most important theoretical and practical Dutch treatise on art, Karel van Mander's Het Schilderboeck of 1604. Drawing from Vasari's life of Titian, Van Mander described the rough (rouw) style as more difficult to handle successfully than a smooth (net) style.30While the smooth style dominated Dutch painting after 1640 (and had already gained favour in the _ works of the fijnschilders in Leiden), the formal challenge of the rough style was still recognized and had its adherents.31

Rembrandt was the most famous painter of the rough style in seventeenth­century Holland, particularly in his later works. Does an etching such as Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape rep resent Rembrandt's translation of this style into a graphic medium?32 If so, the range of finish found in it can be seen as an advertisement of Rembrandt's technical skill. Additionally, the perceived influence of Italian art, particularly Venetian landscape painting, upon this etching's composition (as indicated by the accepted English title) might well apply to the style of execution as well. That is, Rembrandt might have considered a rough style of execution, one suggestive of incompletion, as appropriate to a depiction of this saint in a Venetian mode.33 It is likely that his intended audience would have understood and enjoyed such com­positional and stylistic allu sions.

Precedents for the public acceptance of specifically unfinished works of art also existed for seventeenth-century artists and audiences. While a distinc­tion should be maintained between specifically unfinished works and those

lacking finish, the two categories can be conjoined in one important sense. In both cases, the critical acceptance of such art depends upon the viewer's active participation in the completion of the works. Again, the positive reception of these objects implies a visually sophisticated audience. Accord­ing to Pliny, works left unfinished at the death ofan artist of stature held great cachet in classical antiquity.34 Closer to Rembrandt 's time, the unfinished sculptures of Michelangelo provide an important example of the recognition of non finito in art. While sixteen th-century writers such as Vasari or Ascanio Condivi may have regretted that a number of Michelangelo's most im­pressive sculptures were never brought to an ultimate state of technical completion, they nonetheless accepted these works as objects of beauty, worthy of admiration; Vasari even helped to arrange the unfinished sculp­tures of Giuliano de Medici's tomb.35 Juergen Schulz has also pointed to the approval of Michelangelo's unfinished works as complete in their 'idea' (which was of greater significance than the execution) in mid-seventeenth century Italy by Pietro da Cortona and G.D. Ottonelli in the Trattato della pittura e scultura of 1652.36

It is significant that the etchings by Rembrandt which evoke questions about finish do not stand alone in his time and country. One can draw a parallel between Rembrandt's apparently unfinished prints and several un­finished published engravings by the master print maker Hendrick Goltzius, active in Holland a generation before Rembrandt.37 One example, The Ador­ation of the Shepherds (fig. 5), was released bearing an inscription stating Goltzius's authorship and Jacob Matham's role as publisher, and included the imperial privilege which functioned as a copyright protection.38 This safeguard indicates that Matham foresaw commercial success for this en­graving, and wished to protect his interests.39 Jt is inconceivable that Rem­brandt would not have known of these prints by a famed predecessor, particularly as he had purchased graphic works by Goltzius as early as the 1630s and owned Goltzius prints in 1656.40

These unfinished engravings by Goltzius bear witness to the fascination in the seventeenth century with the creative process of much admired print makers and acceptance of the unfinished work of art as worthy of collecting.41 Further evidence for such an appreciation of the unfinished on the part of seventeenth-century collectors can be adduced. As William Robinson has demonstrated, a number of contemporary sale catalogues and print auction announcements specifically mentioned that artist's proofs would be offered for sale.42 These early trial proofs of prints clearly functioned as draws for such sales and must have been particularly sought after. Following the 1688 sale of the artist Peter Lely's collection in London, Roger North wrote that" ... above all a proof print is most esteemed, which is an impression before the plate is finished, done for the satisfaction of the graver ... that he may mend

5. Hendrick Goltzius , TheA doraJion of the Shep· herds. Engraving (B 21,II). The Art Museum , Princeton University, Bequest of Junius S. Morgan

8

or alter it if he sees cause. And these proof prints are known by some unfinished part that appears."43 Rembrandt, himself renowned as a print collector who would pay an extremely high price for a graphic work he admired, also owned a volume of these artist's proofs reproducing the work of his Flemish contemporaries Peter Paul Rubens and Jacob Jordaens.44

Then, too, we should recall the ostensibly unique nature of Rembrandt's etching style, for which the range or lack of finish could be one identifyi,ng characteristic. Svetlana Alpers has suggested that Rembrandt's" ... repeated reworkings of his [etching] plates and the resulting series of states were deployed as a marketing device which gained him great success .... Rem­brandt's long drawn-out working procedure was made to pay off at each of several stages along the way in the working of a plate."45 Her argument is based on both the etchings themselves and the account of Rembrandt's career in Houbraken (the latter a less reliable source of evidence, given his basic classicist bias against the artist). While I believe that by 1650 Rembrandt recognized the commercial value which his singular style of etching had attained, and would continue to emphasize qualities (such as a range of finish) that set him apart from most of his contemporaries, he would do so only as long as the results still suited his own artistic intent.

Whether or not Rembrandt considered the etching Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape to be an unfinished work of art is, given the lack of specific documentary evidence, ultimately an unanswerable question. Yet several conclusions can be made from the evidence of Rembrandt's printed oeuvre and contemporary aesthetics. In the last decade of his etching career, Rem­brandt reserved the right to return to his copper plates and rework compo­sitions, imagery and meaning. Rembrandt may have finished the Jerome etching - as a purposefully unfinished work, one which referred to formal distinctions and proclaimed his allegiance to the rouw style - or he may have put it aside for future reconsideration, satisfied to release it in its state of provisional finish but still believing he would alter it further. One further point can be asserted. While eighteenth-century writers regretted that Rem­brandt left the print as it is, and some twentieth-century writers have denied the lack of finish in it at all, surely Rembrandt's contemporary audience of print connoisseurs would have understood and appreciated his engagement with the aesthetic of the unfinished in Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape.

* The author is Assistant Professor at Fair­field Univers ity in Fairfield , Connecticut. The text of thi s article was prese nted in January 1992 at the Rembrandt sy mp osium in Amsterdam; an earlier ve rs ion was presented in a sess ion on unfinished works of art at the 1991 meeting of the College Art Association. The author would like to thank Lynette Bosch, David Eisenberg, Douglas Nickel, Charles Steiner, and John Walsh for their sug­gestions.

I. Cynthia P. Schneider has recently argued that both drawing and print should be dated earlier than has been customary, to about 1649-50 instead of about 1653; see Schneider, Rembrandt 's Landscapes: Drawings and Prints, exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art (Washington, 1990), pp. 168 and 179, cat. nos. 42 and 43. As Schneider based her date on comparison of Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape to otherundated works by Rembrandt, her revision of the accepted date should be seen as one possible alternative.

2. "This print is a splendid example of Rem­brandt 's use of varying degrees of finish in the same etched plate .... The sketchy defini­tion of St. Jerome's figure serves to heighten his fusion with the landscape.", Clifford S. Ackley , Printmaking in the Age of Rembrandt, exh. cat., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Bos­ton, 1981), p. 242, cat. no. 166.

3. Edme-Fran~ois Gersaint, Catalogue rai­sonne de toutes Les pieces quiforment /'oeuvre de Rembrandt, compose par feu M. Gersaint, et mis au }our, avec Les augmentations necessaires, par les sieurs Helleet Glomy (Paris, 1751), p. 91, cat. no. 104. Gersaint 's belief that this print was unfinished was noted by Ackley, op. cit. (note 2), p . 242.

4. The critique of Rembrandt's art by classi­cist writers was articulated by Seymour Slive, Rembrandt and His Critics 1630-1730 (The Hague, 1953) and Jan Em mens, Rembrandt en de Regels van de Kunst (Utrecht , 1968).

5. Charles Blanc, L'Oeuvre Comp/et de Rem­brandt (Paris, 1859), vol. 1, p. 245, cat. no. 75. On Blanc's Romantic aesthetics see Em mens , op. cit. (note 4), pp. 24-25.

6. Charles Middle ton, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Work of Rembrandt van Rhyn (London, 1878), p. 227.

7. "The foreground and figureofthe saintare left white or merely outlined", Arthur M . Hind, Rembrandt's Etchings, An Essay and a Catalogue, with Some Notes on the Drawings, vol. I (London, 1912), p . 145, cat. no. 267.

8. Andre-Charles Cop pier, Les £aux-Fortes de Rembrandt (Paris, 1917), p . 67 .

9. Ludwig Goldscheider, Rembrandt: Paint­ings Drawings and Etchings (London, 1960), p. 175, cat. no . 74.

10. John Evelyn, Sculptura;or, the History, and A rt of Chalcography and Engraving in Copper: with an ample enumeration of the most renowned Masters, and their Works (London, 1662), p. 81 , and And re Felibien, Entretiens sur les vies et sur Les ouvrages des plus excellens peintres anciens et modernes, vol. 4 (Paris, 1685), p. 157. Evelyn specifically mentioned a "St. Hierom, of which there is one very rarely graven with the Burine"; unfortunately, we cannot know if he was referring to Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian Landscape or one of the other six etchings of Jerome made by Rembrandt.

11. Filippo Baldinucci, Cominciamento, e pro­gressodell 'arte dell'intagliare in rame, colle vitedi molti de ' piu eccellenti Maestri dellastessaProfes­sione (Florence, 1686), p. 80; English transla­tion from Ludwig Miinz, Rembrandt 's Etch­ings: Complete Edition , vol. 2 (London, 1952), p. 212.

12. Roger de Piles,Abregedela Vie des Peintres, A vec des reflexions sur leurs Ouvrages (Paris, 1699), p. 434.

13. "Maar een ding is te beklagen dat by zoo schigtig tot veranderingen, of tot wat anders gedreven, vele dingen maar ten halven op gemaakt heeft, zoo in zyne schilderyen, als nog meer in zyn geetste printkonst ... " Ar­nold Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der N ederlantsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen , vol. 1(Amsterdam,1718), pp . 258-259.

14. " ... dat een stuk voldaan is als de meester zyn voornemen daar in bereikt heeft ... ", ibi­dem , p. 259.

15. For illustrations of these prints see Chris­topher White and K. G. Boon , Rembrandt's Etchings: An Illustrated Critical Catalogue, vol. 2 (Amsterdam, 1969), p. 102 for Bartsch 105, Saint Jerome in a Dark Chamber, and p. 37 for Bartsch 49, The Presentation in the Temple.

More work need s to be done on the relation ­ship between the form of Rembrandt's etch­ings and their meaning . In one such consider­ation, Stephanie S. Dickey has suggested that Rembrandt incorporated an emblematic ap­proach to imagery in several plates which juxtaposed a detailed nature study with a sketchy scene, often of human activity. The sketch thu s commented upon and amplified in a metaphoric way the meaning of the na­ture study; see her "'Judicious Negligence ': Rembrandt Transforms an Emblematic Con­vention'', The Art Bulletin 68 (1986), pp . 253-62. While my consideration of the issue of finish involves questions different from those Dickey addressed, our methods are com­plementary in suggesting the range of con­cerns Rembrandt may have addressed through style, in this case through the incor­poration of varying degrees of finish on one plate.

16. See White and Boon, op. cit. (note 15), vol. 2, p.199foran illustration ofBartsch 259, 0ld Man Shading His Eyes. In a telling irony, the plate was 'finished' in the later eighteenth century by the German printmaker G.F. Schmidt for sale by the print dealer Trible. Schmidt completed the figure of the old man , and placed him in a library setting. This re­working of the plate is itself an indication of changed taste. Schmidt's additions, and in­formation on impressions and the counter­proof in the Rijksprentenkabinet in Amster­dam, are discussed in White and Boon , vol. I , p. 117, under Bartsch 259.

17. In his catalogue Rembrandt 's Etchings, States and Values (Narberth, Pa. , 1967), n.p., G.W. Nowell-Usticke lists this print, Bartsch 192, as being fairly common, i.e., over one hundred impressions of it were still extant in the twentieth century , probably representing only a limited portion of those made in Rem­brandt 's time. No early catalogues, such as Gersaint 's or Daulby 's, list it as being uncom­mon .

18. Em mens, op. cit. (note 4), p. 224. Its in­complete condition would in itself be almost a rejoinder to classicist theorists, who other­wise would sanction the allegorical homage to disegno.

19. See White and Boon , op. cit. (note 15), vol. 1, pp . 41-42 on Bartsch 76, Christ Presented to the People, and pp. 43-44 on Bartsch 78, The Three Crosses, both illustrated in vol. 2, pp .

9

10

67-70 and 73-75. For their scarcity, see No­well-U sticke, op. cit. (note 17), on Christ Presented to the People, " ... a rare and much sought after plate ... " , and on The Three Crosses, " ... a very scarce, but exceptionally desirable large plate." On the rarity of Saint Francis Praying beneath a Tree see ibidem , " ... a rare plate, especially when fine, and much sought after ... ", under B. 107. Their rarity was already noted in the eighteenth century ; see, for instance, Daniel Daulby ,A Descriptive Catalogue qfthe Works of Rembrandt, and qf His Scholars, Bal, Livens, and Van Vliet, Compiled from the Original Etchings, and from the Cata­logues of De Burgy, Gersaint, Helle and Glomy, Marcus, and Yver (Liverpool, 1796), pp. 54-55 (Christ Presented to the People), p. 57 (The Three Crosses), and p. 77 (Saint Francis). For a recent discussion of the issue of completion in the first state of Saint Francis Praying Beneath a Tree see Schneider, op. cit. (note l), p.173,cat. no. 44, where both states are illustrated (44a and 44b).

20. Wolfgang Stechow used the evidence of Rembrandt 's signature in the first state of Saint Francis Praying beneath a Tree to support his assertion that Rembrandt considered this to be a finished state; "Rembrandt 's Etching of St. Francis" , A lien Memorial A rt Museum Bulletin 10 (1952), p. 3. It seems reasonable, therefore , to consider the possible signifi­cance of Rembrandt's withholding of his sig­nature from the early states of the other prints.

21. Margaret Deutsch Carroll has postulated the similarity of Rembrandt's making the successive states of The Three Crosses and Christ Presented to the People to a med itational sequence; "Rembrandt as Meditational Print­maker", TheArt Bulletin 63 (1981), pp. 585-610, while Cynthia Schneider has suggested that in Saint Francis Praying beneath a Tree " ... the alteration of the second state reflects not so much the completion of an idea, as the realization of a different interpretation of the same subject ... ",op. cit. (note 1), p. 173.

22. On the two states see White and Boon, op. cit. (note 15), vol. I, p. 57, B 104. The existence of these two states should give us pause in considering the print to be definitively unfin­ished , as opposed to being provisionally un­finished.

23. For a discussion of the relationship be­tween the drawing and the etching of Saint

Jerome Reading in an Italian landscape see Christopher White , Rembrandt as an Etcher: A Study qf the Artist at Work, vol. l (London, 1969), p . 221.

24. On the various papers used for im­pressions see White and Boon, op. cit. (note 15), vol. I , p. 57; on the rarity of this etching see N owell-Usticke, op. cit. (note 17), under B. 104, " .. . an extremely scarce print. "

25. Rembrandt made a number of etchings which are entirely sketchy in aspect and which have been accepted as finished be­cause of their technical unity.

26. See William R. Robinson, '"This Passion for Prints ': Collecting and Connoisseurship in Northern Europe during the Seventeenth Century", in Ackley , op. cit. (note 2) , pp. xxxiv, xliii, xlviii , note 98. Robinson's article is in valuable for advancing our know ledge of print collecting in Rembrandt 's century.

27. On the market for Rembrandt 's prints outside of Holland see Slive, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 30-32 and 60. For Rembrandt's use of papers of different tones see De Piles, op. cit. (note 12), p. 434.

28. This distinction had a still more ancient lineage, as Svetlana Alpers has pointed out; see Rembrandt's Enterprise: The Studio and the Market (Chicago, 1988), p. 16.

29. Cf. Giorgio Vasari, Le vitede' piu eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori, Gaetano Milanesi, ed. (Florence, 1878-1885), VII, p. 452; English translation by David Rosand , "Titian and the Critical Tradition", in his Titian: His World and His Legacy (New York, 1982), p. 22.

30. For Van Mander 's text and a discussion of this issue in Dutch art see B.P.J. Broos, "Review of Seymour Slive, Frans Hals, (Lon­don and New York, 1970-74)", Simiolus 10 (1978-79), p. 122.

31. Ibidem, p. 123. Svetlana Alpers has also pointed out that the general literary reception of the 'rouw' style from 1640 onward was cool, leading her to state that" ... instead of appealing to a knowing and imaginative courtier, the rough style was seen as passe, and, in the case of Rembrandt at least, as being tainted with the marks of the studio ... " , op. cit. (note 28), p. 18. That is, the Italian sixteenth-century model was not applicable

to mid-seventeenth century Holland. How­ever, the connoisseurship of art has never been so clear cut. While the dominant aes­thetic shifted in favor of the smooth style, Rembrandt' s rough painting style found pa­tron s until the end of his career. In the realm of etching in particular Rembrandt's 'singu­lar manner' found favor throughout his career and into the eighteenth century.

32. There is a distinction between a rough style in painting , which presumes an irregu­lar surface over all, and a rough etching style, which might incorporate a range of finish, or variation in line style, or both. Several early writers made equations between Rem­brandt 's painting and etching styles; see De Piles, op. cit. (note 12), p. 433, and Houbraken , op. cit. (note 13), vol. 1, pp. 258-259.

33. Amy Golahny has suggested that" ... in the St. Jerome, Rembrandt's rough, unmodu­lated transitions between dark textures and luminous paper tone give the impression of unfinished imagery. In this St. Jerome may be compared to drawings by Titian and his circle ... ",in Golahny, "Rembrandt's Paint­ings and the Venetian Tradition," Ph.D. dis­sertation, Columbia University, 1985, p. 278. Saint Jerome Reading in an Italian landscape was first affiliated with Italian, particularly Vene­tian art in 1877. Until that date writers had instead associated it with the graphic art of Albrecht Dtirer. It appears likely that this shift in the perceived source of Rembrandt's inspiration influenced the subsequent posi­tive reception of this etching's lack of finish . For a more detailed discussion see Scallen , "Rembrandt and Saint Jerome" , Ph .D. disser­tation, Princeton University, 1990, pp. 269-274.

34. C. Plinius Secundus, Historia naturalis, book 35, sec. 45, cited by Teddy Brunius, "Michelangelo's non finito ", in Acta univer­sitatis upsaliensis , Figura, n.s. 6, Contributions to the History and Theory qf Art (Stockholm, 1967), p. 49.

35. See Brunius, op. cit. (note 34), p. 34, citing Vasari and Condivi.

36. Juergen Schulz, "Michelangelo's Unfin­ished Works" , The A rt Bulletin 57:3 (1975), p. 366. Schulz emphasized that" ... continuous self-criticism and a constant readiness to dis­card working solutions were at the heart of Michelangelo's creative method .. . " p. 373.

While differences in media separate Michel­angelo's and Rembrandt 's unfinished works (as well as Michelangelo's seemingly greater dissatisfaction with his creations) the process of continual revision and rethinking of works during the course of their execution is quite comparable in each case.

37. For these unfinished engravings of Hendrick Goltzius see most recently, J. P. Filedt Kok, " Proefdrukken uit Goltzius' ate­lier omstreeks 1587", Bulletin van het Rijksmu­seum 39 (1991), pp . 363-274, and Walter L. Strauss, ed., Hendrick Goltzius 1558-1617: The Complete Engravings and Woodcuts (New York, 1977), vol.I, pp. 340-41, cat. no. 206, and vol. 2, pp. 676-683, cat. nos. 362-363. This parallel was drawn as well (after the completion of this article) by Holm Bevers in the exhibition catalogue Rembrandt: The Master & his Work­shop. Drawings & Etchings, exh. cat., Staat­liche Mu seen PreuBischer Kulturbesitz, Ber­lin , Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, and The Na­tional Gallery, London, 1991, under cat. no. 15, p.208,note II.

38. Strauss speculated that Matham publish­ed thisprintafterGoltzius'sdeath in 1617,op. cit. (note 37), p. 676. This possibility points back to Pliny's comment on the desirability of works left unfinished at an artist's death.

39. And in fact two same-size copies of it were made; see ibidem, p. 676.

40. Walter L. Strauss and Marjon van der Meulen , The Rembrandt Documents (New York, 1979), p. 150, doc. 1638/ 2 for Rem­brandt's purchase of Goltzius drawings in 1638, and p. 375, doc. 1656/ 12, in which "printen van ... Goltseus" (prints by ... Golt­zius) are listed among Rembrandt's pos­sessions in the inventory drawn up in 1656.

41. J.P. Filedt Kok has pointed out that ac­cording to Van Mander, Goltzius did not want anyone to see his unfinished work; Fi­ledt Kok, op. cit. (n. 37), p. 363. While this clearly was Goltzius's preference, the fact that his stepson and former apprentice Jacob Matham had several of the proofs published (most likely after Goltzius's death in 1617) surely indicates that there was indeed a con­temporary market for such works. Given this evidence, and corroborating material cited by William Robinson (see following text) I must disagree with Filedt Kok , who states that an interest in collecting unfinished

proofs is a product of the eighteenth century, not the seventeenth.

42. Robinson , op. cit. (note 26), pp . xlii-xliii.

43. Roger North, The Autobiography of Roger North, ed. A. Jessopp (London, 1887), p. 202, quoted in Robinson, op. cit. (note 26), p. xlviii.

44. Strauss and Van der Meulen, op. cit. (note 40), 1642/ 10, p. 232, and 1656/ 12, p. 375.

45. Alpers, op. cit. (note 28), p. 100.

Delineavit et Sculpsit Tijdschrift voor N ederlandse prent- en tekenkunst tot omstreeks 1850

Redactie Dr. J. Bolten, drs. Ch. Dumas, drs. A.J. Elen, drs. A.T. von Oven, drs. R.J.A. te Rijdt, drs. J. van Tatenhove

Redactiesecretariant p/ a Prentenkabinet der Rijksuni­versiteit, Rap en burg 65, 2311 OJ Lei­den cl o Print room of the University, Rapenburg 65, NL-2311 GJ Leiden, The Nether land s

Kopij Aanlevering van kopij in het N eder­lands, Du its, Engels of Frans op dis­kette in ASCII of aangemaakt met behulp van een van de gangbare wordprocessors (zonder code's) word top prijs gesteld.

Delineavit et Sculpsit is een uitgave van de Stichting 'Vrienden van het Prentenkabinet der Rijksuniversi­teit te Leiden' en wordt gedrukt door Drukkerij De Dageraad BV te 's-Gravenhage. Omslag en basis­lay-ou t werden ontworpen door Arlette Brouwers te Amsterdam.

A bonnementen Het tijdschrift verschijnt 2 a 3 keer per jaar. De abonnementsprijs voor een serie van 5 nummers bedraagt Hfl 50.- bij verzending binnen Ne­derland en Belgie. Abonnering kan geschieden door starting van dit be­d rag op rekeningnummer 699654 van de Postbank ten name van Deli­neavit et Sculpsit te Leiden of reke­ning nr. 46 95 08 620 van de Amro­bank te Leiden.

Subscriptions A frequency of2 or 3 issues annual­ly is strived after. Subscriptions are for 5 consecutive issues, starting with No. 1 - 5, the second containing the Nos. 6 - 10, and so forth. The price of5 issues sent to a foreign address is Hfl. 75.- or US$ 40.- (bank charges and mailing costs inclu­ded). Subscriptions can be paid by credit card (Visa-, Euro- or Mastercard) or by sending the amount mentioned above to the Postbank (The Hague branch; no further address neces­sary), account No. 699654 of Delinea­vit et Sculpsit, Rapenburg 65, NL-2311 GJ Leiden , Holland.

Ajbeelding omslag D.P.G. Humbert de Superville, "R. Gagliuffi ammalatoepensieroso", in het ziekenhuis van Civitavecchia Potlood­tekening. Leiden , Prentenkabinet d er Rijksu niversiteit

De uitgave van Delineavit et Sculpsit wordt financieel ondersteund door Kunsthandel N oortman (Maast­richt) BV.

The publication of this magazine is financially supported by Kunsthan­del N oortman (Maastricht) BV.

Illustrations scanned with Agfa Co­lor Plus and PcViewColor.

N r. 8 (October 1992)

Inhoud

1/ Rembrandt's Etching Saint Jerome reading in an Italian Landscape. The Question of Finish reconsidered Catherine B. Scallen

12/ Sculpturen van Francis van Bos­suit getekend door Willem van Mieris Emke Elen - Clifford Kocq van Breu­gel

25/ Humbert de Superville en het her­senonderzoek van F.J Gall J. Schaeps

30/ Miscellanea Jan De Bisschop , Crispijn de Passe de Ou de, Philip Tideman, Jan Wan­delaar

ISSN 0923-9790