Caniglia
Cover Image: Overlay of David with the Head of Goliath, by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. c.1606- 1607. oil on canvas. 125 by 101 cm. (Galleria Borghese, Rome), and Lucretia, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1666. oil on canvas. 105.1 by 92.3 cm. (Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, MN).
2
Caniglia
3
A Matter of Light and Death: Rembrandt’s Minneapolis Lucretia and Caravaggio’s Legacy in the Dutch Master’s Work Jeremy E. Caniglia Acknowledgements: I would like to thank artist James Robinson for his contributions to this work, especially his analysis of Belshazzar’s Feast and Bellona, and C.D. Caniglia for his editing and contributions to this study. Abstract: Recent scholarship and exhibitions have unearthed striking connections between the style of the seventeenth century Dutch Masters and the Caravaggisti in Italy1,2,3. While much has been made of Dutch painters’ travels to Italy in the 1600s to view the paintings of Caravaggio and his associates, the idea that Rembrandt van Rijn drew inspiration from Caravaggio has been met with skepticism. Rembrandt never visited Italy4,5, and his adoption of Italian baroque color palettes and compositional schemes has been widely regarded as an adaptation of their use by Dutch Nonetheless, many of Caravaggisti6,7. Rembrandt’s paintings use compositions and poses familiar to those who study Caravaggio. By historical contextualization and painterly analysis, expanding upon a connection first made by Michael Hirst in 19688, we examine the reasons behind striking similarities between Rembrandt’s Lucretia (1666) and Caravaggio’s Borghese David with the Head of Goliath (here dated 1606, following analysis by Friedlaender and Vodret9,10). We establish that Rembrandt must have been familiar with (even, perhaps, in possession of) a painted copy or drawing of Caravaggio’s David with the Head of Goliath. We
also contextualize the 1666 Lucretia within Rembrandt’s oeuvre and consider the implications of this previously unidentified influence on contemporary views of his work.
1
6
W. Liedtke: ‘Rembrandt (1606-1669): Paintings.’ The Metropolitan Museum: Heilbrunn: Timeline of Art History. (2003), n.p. 2 V. Manuth: ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio, who does wondrous things in Rome: On Rembrandt’s knowledge of Caravaggio.’ Rembrandt/Caravaggio. 2 (2006), pp.180-194. 3 M. van Eikema Hommes and E. van de Wetering: ‘Light and colour in Caravaggio and Rembrandt, as seen through the eyes of their contemporaries.’ Rembrandt/Caravaggio. 1 (2006), pp.164-179. 4 W. Liedtke, ‘Rembrandt (1606-1669): Paintings.’ (2003), n.p. 5 E. van de Wetering: Rembrandt: The Painter Thinking, Amsterdam 2016, pp.15-17.
Figure 1: Left Portrait of the Italian Painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, by Ottavio Leoni. c. 1621. chalk on paper. 23.4 by 16.3 cm. (Biblioteca Marucelliana, Florence). Right Crop of Self-Portrait, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1659. oil on canvas. 84.5 by 66 cm. (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.).
Introduction: Recent scholarly works, and exhibitions such as the Dutch Masters exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York11, have showcased connections between the Dutch Masters of Rembrandt’s time and Caravaggio’s tenebrist followers in Italy. While many Dutch painters traveled to Italy to view paintings by Caravaggio (among many others) in the early seventeenth
E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt: The Painter Thinking.’ (2016), pp.15-17. 7 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), pp. 180194. 8 M. Hirst: ‘Rembrandt and Italy.’ The Burlington Magazine. 110(781) (1968), pp.221-223. 9 W. Friedlaender: Caravaggio Studies, Princeton, NJ 1974, p. 119. 10 R. Vodret: ‘David with the Head of Goliath,’ Caravaggio: Works in Rome, Technique and Style, Vol. II. 21 (2016), p.655. 11 Open source
Caniglia century12, however, Rembrandt van Rijn never made the voyage13,14. It has therefore been suggested that his adoption of Italian baroque color palettes and compositional schemes stems from their widespread use by other Dutch artists. As Michael Hirst first pointed out in 196815, though, the close resemblance of Rembrandt’s 1666 Lucretia to Caravaggio’s Borghese David with the Head of Goliath seems too strong to have been purely coincidental. Hirst notes similarities between the angle or the heads in each figure, and their expressions. He also identifies a strong resemblance between David’s and Lucretia’s clenched left hands, the chain in Lucretia and the angle with which David’s shirt cuts across his chest, and the contour lines in the lower bodies of both figures. He concludes that, in light of these similarities, it is highly unlikely that Rembrandt was not familiar with Caravaggio’s Borghese David with the Head of Goliath, even if only through drawings or copies. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that Rembrandt’s familiarity with the earlier work must have been quite intimate. Not only do the lower body drapery portions of both paintings have similar contours, but these contours overlay perfectly when images of the two paintings are superimposed (Figure 2). The heads of David and Lucretia are not simply similar; the noses, mouths, and hairlines (in Lucretia’s case the hair in front of her halo) of the two figures are of nearidentical proportions. Even outlines of the background drapery, faintly visible in the upper left of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath, appear again in the 1666 Lucretia (Figure 2).
12
E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt: The Painter Thinking.’ (2016), pp. 15-17. 13 W. Liedtke, ‘Rembrandt (1606-1669): Paintings.’ (2003), n.p 14 E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt: The Painter Thinking.’ (2016), pp. 15-17. 15 M. Hirst, ‘Rembrandt and Italy.’ (1968), pp.221-223. 16 S. Schama: Rembrandt’s Eyes. New York (1999), pp.660661
4
These congruencies go past cursory resemblance. They are widespread and rendered with almost scientific accuracy to the dimensions of Caravaggio’s Borghese David with the Head of Goliath, a painting Rembrandt could not have seen. Even familiarity with a drawing does not seem sufficient to account for every similarity. It seems that Rembrandt must have had, for reference, a master copy of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath, in order to create of it a figure for Lucretia as faithfully as he did. That the model for his 1666 Lucretia has never been identified16 lends further credence to the notion that the work was rendered with a painted figure, not a living person, in view. Neither direct appropriation of compositions from other artists, nor a deep respect for Caravaggio’s emotional depictions should seem unusual in the scope of Rembrandt’s career. With regard to master copies, Rembrandt could sometimes be a prodigious creator17. He was known to occasionally create series of them, as he did with the Mughal miniatures in his collection. A print-maker, Rembrandt was also an expert at using mirrors to invert compositions and was known to have done so18. Recent scholarship suggests that he wanted strongly to empathize with artists he admired19. Often, this involved adapting their compositions, from the placement of figures to their bodies’ positioning20. It is known that he used paintings by artists from Raphael to Rubens, mainly from his own collection, to outline the structures of his works21. Thus, the use of an external source as the basis for Lucretia would have been entirely in character.
17
H. Williams. Rembrandt on Paper. J. Paul Getty Museum: Los Angeles, 2009. p. 17-19. 18 F. O’Neill, S. P. Corner: ‘Rembrandt’s Self-Portraits,’ J. Optics. 18 (8), 2016. 19 A. Golahny. ‘Rembrandt’s Treasures.’ Historians of Netherlandish Art Book Reviews. 2001. 20 A. Golahny, ‘Rembrandt’s Treasures.’ (2001). 21 A. Golahny, ‘Rembrandt’s Treasures.’ (2001).
Caniglia
5
Figure 2: Top Left David with the Head of Goliath, by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. c.1606-1607. oil on canvas. 125 by 101 cm. (Galleria Borghese, Rome). Top Right Lucretia, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1666. oil on canvas. 105.1 by 92.3 cm. (Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, MN). Bottom Highlighting of key contours in Lucretia. Note that creases in Lucretia’s robes, which, in the top right, appear to have been painted before the yellow robe (while higher-contrast black marks visible in the same area would have been painted after). These contours highlight David’s figure.
Caniglia Rembrandt’s painterly relationship to Caravaggio, though indirect, is also readily apparent. Rembrandt’s first teacher, Jacob Isaacsz van Swanenburg, lived in Naples during both of Caravaggio’s stays in the city, from 1606 to 1607 and from 1609 to 1610, and returned to Lieden in 161722. It is possible that van Swanenburg and Caravaggio met, and certain that van Swanenburg was familiar with his work. It is easy to imagine this proximity having made its way into van Swanenburg’s instruction of Rembrandt, who he taught in Lieden after his return from Italy. Rembrandt’s next teacher, Pieter Lastman, was a noted Dutch Caravaggist and who likely visited Naples around the time Caravaggio was there23. He was also an acquaintance of Abraham Vinck, a Flemish painter who, along with Louis Finson, worked with Caravaggio to make master copies of the latter’s works during his Naples period in 1606 and 160724. After leaving southern France in 1615 (at the same time that Finson, in conjunction with Peter de Bruyn, sold a large lottery of paintings in Toulouse that included what was cited as a Caravaggio David with the Head of Goliath25), he made his way back to Amsterdam, where Finson was living in Vinck’s house on the corner of the Oude Doelenstraat and the Oudezijds Voorburgwal26. It has been suggested that Lastman, known as a Caravaggio expert, could have helped Finson and Vinck to pass off their copies as originals27. When Caravaggio fled Naples for Malta, Finson and Vinck remained and kept possession of many of his works while selling their renditions of existing paintings as bona fide Caravaggio’s for high prices (this may have been at Caravaggio’s behest)28. Finson made his way to Toulouse by
22
V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 182. V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 182. 24 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 25 M. Labarbe, et. al. ‘Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes,’ Labarbe and Turquin. Toulouse, 2019, p. 36. 26 M. Dirkx. ‘Caravaggio in the Netherlands.’ Rembrandt’s Room. 2013. 27 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 28 A. Graham-Dixon. Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane. Norton & Co., New York, 2012. p. 352. 23
6
1614, but became ill after an extended stay and died in Amsterdam in 1617, in the home of Vinck29. After his death, the Caravaggio paintings and master copies in his possession passed to Vinck30,31. After his time in Naples, Vinck left Italy for Amsterdam32. In his possession during this time were Caravaggio’s 1605/1606 Madonna of the Rosary and a rendition of The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew33. The latter painting was expertized by none other than Pieter Lastman (though whether it is an original Caravaggio or a Finson copy has since come into dispute). This appraising, more than those previously conducted, has called into question Lastman’s motives, since the painting’s attribution to Caravaggio would have aided Finson’s heirs, who Lastman knew well34. In any case, Lastman was clearly considered the foremost local expert on Caravaggio’s work, and this influence on the young Rembrandt cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, the documented presence of two Caravaggio paintings in the immediate vicinity of Amsterdam (upon Vinck’s death, the Madonna of the Rosary was purchased by a group including Peter Paul Rubens and sold to the Dominican Fathers of Antwerp35) would have made them easily accessible to Rembrandt. Since his second mentor was an expert in Italian tenebrism tasked with expertizing one of these paintings, it seems reasonable to assume that Rembrandt saw one or both of them (and perhaps others) personally. Even if he did not, his familiarity with their subjects and compositional structures is not difficult to envision. It is possible, for instance, that Rembrandt could also have become acquainted with Caravaggio’s
29
M. Labarbe, et. al. ‘Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes,’ (2019). p. 35. V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 31 M. Labarbe, et. al. ‘Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes,’ (2019). p. 35. 32 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 33 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 34 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 35 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 30
Caniglia work through his wife’s relative Wybrand de Geest36. After leaving to Rome in 1614, de Geest returned to Amsterdam in 1621. His familiarity with Caravaggio’s work is underscored by his creation of a copy of Mary Magdalen, painted by Caravaggio (attribution disputed) in 161037. It should be noted that de Geest’s painting was probably a copy of a copy, as it is more likely that he was familiar with a version by Finson than with the original Caravaggio38. It is well-documented that Rembrandt and his studio roommate, Jan Lievens, were influenced throughout their training by an admiration for the work of Gerard von Honthorst39. Honthorst, who returned to Amsterdam from Rome in 1620 after accepting commissions on behalf of the same Borghese family that owned Caravaggio’s David with the Head of Goliath, was one of the leading Dutch Caravaggisti40,41. His proximity to the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath and his stature in Amsterdam’s burgeoning artistic community underscore his importance in the transmission of Caravaggio’s techniques from Rome to Holland. Rembrandt’s admiration for his art, therefore, indicates, at a minimum, respect for Caravaggio. It is likely that this the connection was far more proximal. It is even possible that Honthorst was responsible for Rembrandt’s familiarity with the David with the Head of Goliath’s composition. More likely, though, the connection can be explained by the inventory of Finson and de Bruyn’s 1615 lottery. The David with the Head of Goliath listed appears, at first glance, to be the Caravaggio owned by Cardinal Borghese (it could not be the version currently in Vienna, which was in Naples at the time and sold to buyers in Spain in 161742). That painting, however, is shown by correspondence to have been in Borghese’s 36
V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), pp. 184185. 37 W. Friedlaender. ‘Caravaggio Studies.’ (1974). p. 205. 38 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), pp. 184185. 39 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), pp. 188189. 40 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), pp. 188189.
7
possession shortly after it was finished, possibly as early as 160643. It remained in the family’s collection thereafter, as evidenced by a 1650 inventory44. The lottery rendition, therefore, was likely a master copy by Finson. If the painting did sell (no documentation exists to suggest that it did), it would likely have passed to de Bruyn’s contacts in Antwerp. If it did not, however, it would have travelled, along with The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew, to Abraham Vinck’s home in Amsterdam45 and remained there following Finson’s departure and death in 1617. This latter possibility seems the most probable and intriguing. If true, Rembrandt’s most influential early teacher would have lived in a residence containing a master copy of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath, the whereabouts of which are currently unknown. It is difficult to say what would have happened to this painting after Vinck’s death. It seems incredibly likely, however, that, if it existed, Rembrandt would have seen it through his connection to Lastman. It could have taken any number of paths in the years to follow. Perhaps it even entered Rembrandt’s estate, and the reason it has not been traced is that the 1666 Lucretia, which exactly mimics its composition, was painted over it. Further investigation of Finson’s activities in France and during his final years in Amsterdam will be necessary to determine any possibility for certain. What is beyond question, however, is that Rembrandt grew up surrounded by artists intimately familiar with Caravaggio’s work. He likely studied in the vicinity of master copies of Caravaggio’s paintings and there is a strong possibility that he was well-acquainted with a Finson rendition of Caravaggio’s Borghese David 41
J. Richard, J. Judson. Gerrit van Honthorst: A Discussion of his Position in Dutch Art. Springer: The Hague, 1959. p. 12. 42 W. Friedlaender. ‘Caravaggio Studies.’ (1974). p. 203. 43 A. Graham-Dixon. ‘Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane.’ (2012). pp. 332-334. 44 W. Friedlaender. ‘Caravaggio Studies.’ (1974). p. 202. 45 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183.
Caniglia
8
with the Head of Goliath. Rembrandt did not need to travel to Italy to immerse himself in the tradition of the Caravaggisti; he was surrounded by it46. This underscores the importance of the 1666 Lucretia’s relationship to the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath, which seems the culmination in a long-standing Caravaggist impulse in Rembrandt’s work. Analysis: An in-depth expansion upon Hirst’s analysis47, with the intent of establishing a definitive compositional continuity between the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath and the 1666 Lucretia, must begin with the faces of Caravaggio’s David and Rembrandt’s Lucretia. David is depicted with his head at a slight angle, tilted towards his left shoulder. Lucretia’s head is placed in the same position (Figure 3). The proportions of both heads are nearly identical as well. The most peculiar similarity is the feminizing of David’s face in Lucretia’s. The models portrayed in both paintings possess nearidentical characteristic facial features. For instance, the eyes of both David and Lucretia are caught in a melancholic gaze, looking outward towards their raised left hands. Both sets of eyes have heavy lids and glossy white highlights that suggest wet tears. Rembrandt paints Lucretia with a high, bare forehead, thick eyebrows, rounded cheek bones, and thick upper and lower lips; these features are all present in Caravaggio’s David. The shape of both figures’ noses is identical as well. To construct the unknown model for Lucretia48, all that is necessary is to place earrings on Caravaggio’s David and add a halo feature outside her first circle of hair. The placement of shadows in Rembrandt’s Lucretia, across the face and the body, also matches the pattern in Caravaggio’s David.
46 D. Hammer-Tugendhat. The Visible and the Invisible: On Seventeenth-Century Dutch Painting. De Gruyter: Boston, 2015. p. 77.
Figure 3: Top Left Head of David in David with the Head of Goliath, by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. c.1606-1607. oil on canvas. 125 by 101 cm. (Galleria Borghese, Rome). Top Right Head of Lucretia in Lucretia, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1666. oil on canvas. 105.1 by 92.3 cm. (Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, MN). Bottom Left Overlay of David and Lucretia’s heads, illustrating their resemblance. Bottom Right David on left, Lucretia on right, showing continuity between key facial features from one painting to the other, particularly the lips and nose.
Another clue suggesting David as Lucretia’s model comes from David’s right arm, which holds his sword. This area is the weakest modeling point in Caravaggio’s composition. He hides the fact that the arm and hand are placed awkwardly by letting David’s right arm fall into shadow so that only the right hand’s knuckles and fingers, holding the sword, are clearly visible. Rembrandt seems also to have been confused as to the layout and modeling of the right arm of Lucretia, whose right arm holds the dagger that she has just thrust into her chest. His placement of the arm and hand (particularly in outlines of what appears to be its original position, further to the edge of the canvas) are again almost identical to Caravaggio’s (Figure 4). Had Rembrandt had time to paint from a real model, he could have sorted out the arm’s proper placement in space. Instead, he overlaid Lucretia’s arm on precisely
47 48
M. Hirst, Rembrandt and Italy.’ (1968), pp.221-223. S. Schama. ‘Rembrandt’s Eyes.’ (1999). pp.660-661.
Caniglia the same area of canvas occupied by David’s in Caravaggio’s painting.
Figure 4: Top Left David with the Head of Goliath, by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. c.1606-1607. oil on canvas. 125 by 101 cm. (Galleria Borghese, Rome). Top Right Lucretia, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1666. oil on canvas. 105.1 by 92.3 cm. (Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, MN). Bottom Overlay of the two paintings, showing striking figural similarities. Note that Lucretia’s garments perfectly cloth David’s figure. Images in black and white for contrast.
Even the dagger in her right hand protrudes at exactly the same angle as David’s sword. The distinct round hand guard, spacer, and blade are foreshortened, with the highlight catching the lower part of both David’s sword and Lucretia’s dagger. The awkward modeling of Lucretia’s right hand showcases Rembrandt’s confusion concerning how to exactly copy what he sees in David’s hand holding the sword. Lucretia’s little finger looks unnaturally long, as does her ring finger. The hand’s foreshortening looks unrealistic, which is explained if Rembrandt was working from a copy and not a model in his studio. Rembrandt decided to move Lucretia’s right hand slightly closer to her body so that her dagger breaks her dress’ plane in the shaded area of the right hip, emphasizing the blade’s highlight and
49
S. Schama. ‘Rembrandt’s Eyes.’ (1999). p.663.
9
bringing the viewer’s eye back into the composition. While the final positioning of the arm does not match David’s exactly, it should be noted that this highlighting was used by Caravaggio with David’s sword. Another match is found in the sash slung over Lucretia’s right shoulder, which extends down to the left side of her waist, across her blood-stained blouse. This sash mimics the positioning of David’s rugged, rag-tied half-shirt, the upper edge of which travels across his entire chest in the same placement (Figure 4). The blood stain of Lucretia’s wound overlays with the knot in David’s shirt. Rembrandt also makes a conscious decision to leave Lucretia flat-chested, presumably to more closely resemble David’s physique and to facilitate his mimicking of the chest’s movement in Caravaggio’s David. This exposes more of Lucretia’s left side and wound to the viewer. Caravaggio creates the same effect for a viewer’s eyes, which are directed towards Goliath’s head, with highlights on David’s chest. It is particularly striking that Rembrandt seems to have only added a slight shadow below where Lucretia’s breasts should have been to indicate their presence. This small gesture conceals the fact that her figure is in fact that of Caravaggio’s David, and not a model. Lucretia’s broad thighs and hip placement both clearly overlay with David’s as well. The movements in her drapery have the same contours as those in Caravaggio’s David, and her left hip structure is identical to David’s (Figure 2). The right hip is depicted in an awkward position in both paintings, with the express purpose, in each, to highlight the blade, which crosses over the top of the right leg in the foreground of both compositions. The most telling point in Rembrandt’s composition is Lucretia’s left arm, raised in the same position as David’s and grasping a cord which will open the concealing curtains of a canopy bed49. Instead of Goliath’s head placed below the arm he creates a sphere, where the
Caniglia 10 severed head would be, out of Lucretia’s open gown sleeve, with bright highlights on the left side matching those in Goliath’s face. Rembrandt even adds a knob at the end of Lucretia’s cord that is positioned at the same point as the rock in Goliath’s head wound. This is no coincidence; rather it is a masterful compositional reinvention. Even the cord in Lucretia’s hand serves a similar function to the muted tent and canopy movements in the background of Caravaggio’s painting, and follows their angles50,*. Two tent lines on the right side of Caravaggio’s composition come down the side of the canvas towards Goliath head. These subtleties are concealed within the dark background of Caravaggio’s painting, but it seems that Rembrandt noticed them. He painted the cord leading to Lucretia’s hand in order to bring these background elements to the foreground as compositional, rather than architectural, gestures. Rembrandt uses contours in the folds of Lucretia’s gown that flow in the same directions and angles as those in the lower-body drapes of Caravaggio’s David (Figure 2). He added an extraordinary volume of creases in the fabric of Lucretia’s white blouse that serve a similar function to the wrinkles in David’s garment. Both painters use this technical device to expose the left side of the chest, above the heart, to as much light as possible, perhaps to emphasize the purity that each painting’s subject feels they have lost. These observations lead us to the conclusion that, rather than using a live model, Rembrandt took Caravaggio’s composition as the basis for Lucretia. A final detail of note in Rembrandt’s Lucretia is the emphasis placed on red blood flowing downward across a white, golden yellow, brown, and black composition, contrasting starkly with 50
P. Tollo: ‘David with the Head of Goliath: Conservation Report,’ Caravaggio: Works in Rome, Technique and Style, Vol. II. 21 (2016), pp.661-677. * It is worth noting that a mirror image of the same background features appears in Rembrandt’s 1664 Lucretia, housed in the Washington National Gallery. The fact that the background aspects of David with the Head of Goliath’s interior appear here as well as in the 1666 painting could
the other tones of the piece. Caravaggio executed the David with the Head of Goliath using a muted earthen palette that resembles the basic Apelles palette of black, white, yellow, and red – the same variation of colors used by Rembrandt for Lucretia. Though the golden and greenish qualities in David’s lower-body robes and Lucretia’s robes, respectively, are not exactly the same colors, they can be derived from combinations of the same tones (in the case of green, e.g. bone black, lead white, and earthen yellow). However, the yellows that form the base of both paintings bear resemblances worth noting beyond their palette alone. In both cases, a backdrop on which blood, from Goliath’s head in the Caravaggio and from Lucretia’s wound in the Rembrandt, allows striking reds to stand out to the viewer. Rembrandt emphasizes this to an even greater extent than Caravaggio by placing the blood against a white backdrop, creating a particularly distinct contrast and calling to mind metaphors of purity. Discussion: If Rembrandt was familiar with Caravaggio’s David with the Head of Goliath, it remains to be elaborated how this might have been possible. The 1656 bankruptcy inventory of Rembrandt’s collection, which included works by Rubens, Raphael, Carracci, mentions nothing of Caravaggio51. It must be remembered that Rembrandt tried his best to delay authorities and conduct his own auctions, allowing himself some degree of control over what details of his estate’s contents were mentioned publicly52, however, so if he was truly attached to a rendition of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath he might have found a way to avoid parting with it. Worth mentioning, as well, is the fact that the 1656 inventory includes a large painting of Lucretia, presumed lost, which may have been
shed some light on the 1664 Lucretia’s authorship, which has been disputed. See Figure 6. 51 H. Williams. ‘Rembrandt on Paper.’ (2009). p. 13. 52 P. Crenshaw. Rembrandt’s Bankruptcy: The Artist, his Patrons, and the Art Market in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2006. p. 23
Caniglia 11 painted over in 1666 to create the final rendering of the Minneapolis version53. Since he never travelled to Italy54,55 and the original David with the Head of Goliath would have been in Rome even during his earliest days as a painter56, it is almost certain that the version Rembrandt was acquainted with was in fact a copy. It is known that, during Caravaggio’s stay in Naples from 1606 to 1607, Dutch painters Louis Finson and Abraham Vinck made numerous master copies of his works57,58. It seems that the two, quite possibly at Caravaggio’s suggestion, often marketed these copies as originals59. A letter from Frans Pourbus the Younger, a painter in the Duke of Mantua’s court, to his benefactor, mentions having viewed a Madonna of the Rosary and a Judith and Holofernes in the possession of Finson and Vinck in Naples in 160760. He mentions that the paintings were priced at 400 and 300 ducats, respectively. Since Caravaggio’s Seven Acts was sold for 400 ducats near the same period, we have reason to believe that Finson and Vinck were familiar with his pricing and methods of sale61. It should be noted that the attribution of both works to Caravaggio has since fallen into dispute, largely on account of it being unclear which renditions of both paintings Finson and Vinck possessed. The deal eventually fell through, and the Madonna of the Rosary in question appears to be the same that eventually found its way into the collection of Peter Paul Rubens before being given to the Dominican Friars of Antwerp62. This episode thus served an important role in bringing northern European artists into direct contact with Caravaggio’s works. That having been said, the
53
D.M. Field. Rembrandt. Grange Books: Kent, 2003. p. 386. V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 180. 55 E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt: The Painter Thinking.’ (2016), pp. 15-17. 56 A. Graham-Dixon. ‘Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane.’ (2012). pp. 332-334. 57 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 182185. 58 W. Friedlaender. ‘Caravaggio Studies.’ (1974). p. 205 59 W. Friedlaender. ‘Caravaggio Studies.’ (1974). pp. 200201. 60 A. Graham-Dixon. ‘Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane.’ (2012). pp. 352-353. 54
painter responsible for many works brought north by Finson has since been questioned63, indicating that contemporary collectors buying Naples-era “Caravaggio” paintings from Finson and Vinck often were unaware if the work they purchased was a master copy. Thus, mention in municipal archives from Toulouse of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath in a lottery of 160 paintings organized by Finson and Pieter de Bruyn in 161564 should be taken with great skepticism. Considering that Caravaggio painted the David with the Head of Goliath for Cardinal Scipione Borghese and that, as early as 1606, correspondence places the work in Borghese’s possession65, the painting’s presence in Toulouse in 161566 and in Cardinal Borghese’s 1650 inventory67 could only be explained by an extraordinarily unlikely sale and re-purchase of the painting by Borghese’s estate. More probably, the Toulouse archive indicates that a Finson master copy of Caravaggio’s Borghese David with the Head of Goliath existed. Though this painting has since been lost, it is no stretch to imagine that it made its way to Antwerp, with one of de Bruyn’s clients, or to Amsterdam (where Finson stayed with Vinck68) in the case that it did not sell. In either case, its presence in Flanders or Holland would have made it accessible to a young Rembrandt. Pieter Lastman would surely have known about the painting as well, and if it existed we can surmise that Rembrandt would have been aware of this fact and would likely have seen it. Further evidence for this conjecture can be found in the 1666 Lucretia itself. In places where Rembrandt’s oils have thinned, the outline of a
61
A. Graham-Dixon. ‘Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane.’ (2012). p. 352. V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 63 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183185. 64 M. Labarbe, et. al. ‘Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes,’ (2019). p. 36. 65 A. Graham-Dixon. ‘Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane.’ (2012). pp. 332-334. 66 M. Labarbe, et. al. ‘Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes,’ (2019). p. 36. 67 W. Friedlaender. ‘Caravaggio Studies.’ (1974). p. 202. 68 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 62
Caniglia 12 ghost sword is visible in the approximate location of the dagger. This suggests that he painted over a previous attempt at the right arm, which is obscured in both the Lucretia and Caravaggio’s David with the Head of Goliath, and that Lucretia’s dagger was initially a sword the approximate length of David’s. Three theories come to mind to explain this observation. First, it is possible that Rembrandt’s Lucretia initially followed the composition of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath even more closely than the finished painting appears to. This would account for not only the longer sword but also the match between the contours of Lucretia’s lower body garments and David’s. In reworking the right arm, which is not anatomically rendered in Caravaggio’s painting, Rembrandt may have opted to replace the sword with a dagger and enlarge the area covered by Lucretia’s lower garments so as to increase the blade’s contrast with the fabric behind it.
precedent and would especially help to explain the thick layering of paint on the 1666 Lucretia. It is noteworthy that these discoveries coincide with advances in X-radiograph technology and that scans from the 1960s and before of paintings like Portrait of Frederick Riehl on Horseback (ca. 1663) did not show double-images70 (so even if treatment records for the 1666 Lucretia were recovered71, modern technology may be necessary to find what is underneath). Finally, and least likely, it is possible that the aforementioned missing Finson painting is the underpainting of Rembrandt’s 1666 Lucretia, and that, nearing his death and too poor to buy canvas, he reinvented a deeply personal subject using one of his favorite compositions. The Minneapolis Institute of Art has not responded to requests for X-ray and infrared analyses of the Lucretia, and existing treatment records from a 1956 cleaning by Richard Buck have been lost72. A reinvestigation of the painting would hopefully show whether any of these three explanations account for the ghost sword and other striking compositional similarities.
It is also possible that the ghost sword and similarities indicate that Rembrandt painted over not a rendition of Lucretia’s suicide, but one of David holding Goliath’s head. If Rembrandt created his own copy of a Finson master copy, that would clearly explain the resemblance between all aspects of his Lucretia and Caravaggio’s David. Perhaps Rembrandt made a copy of a Finson rendition of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath during his time as a student of Pieter Lastman’s, and later decided to paint a scene to which he was more attached over the composition. There are welldocumented cases wherein cleanings of Rembrandt canvases (particularly half-length portraits) revealed earlier works by the artist underneath (the works in question seem to have been painting after Rembrandt’s bankruptcy, when he may have lacked money to purchase canvas)69, so such an act would have had strong
Beyond Lucretia: David’s Use in Rembrandt’s Earlier Works As the 1666 Lucretia makes clear, the composition of Caravaggio’s Borghese David with the Head of Goliath must have made a strong impression on Rembrandt. Perhaps the thematic interplay between life and death and the regretful, contemplative gaze of David also struck a chord, considering that both are present within a single figure in the Minneapolis Lucretia73. Whatever the case, it is worth noting that the figure of Caravaggio’s David, with its unusual hanging right and foreshortened left arms74, is not foreign to Rembrandt’s earlier work. Rather, David’s pose is rendered in many paintings by the Dutch master, and the direct homage in his last Lucretia can be viewed as the culmination of a
69
72
M.E. Wieseman. ‘Rembrandt’s Portrait(s?) of Frederik Rihel.’ Nat. Gallery Tech. Bulletin. 31, 2010. 70 M.E. Wieseman. ‘Rembrandt’s Portrait(s?) of Frederik Rihel.’ (2010). 71 B.E. Smith. Rembrandt’s Anatomy Lessons. University of Western Australia, 2010. pp. 138-141.
B.E. Smith. ‘Rembrandt’s Anatomy Lessons.’ (2010). pp. 138-141. 73 D. Hammer-Tugendhat. ‘The Visible and the Invisible.’ (2015). pp. 77-78. 74 D. Hammer-Tugendhat. ‘The Visible and the Invisible.’ (2015). pp. 77-78.
Caniglia 13 longtime admiration, rather than an unusual oneoff. The motif of a foreshortened, outstretched arm to which a figure’s gaze is directed, paired with a lowered arm near the hip in the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath is rendered with what must have been, at the time of its painting, unprecedented emotional weight. Though variations of the pose crop up in other artists’ work, both the frequency with which it is used by Rembrandt and the degree to which is directly adapted from Caravaggio’s David for Rembrandt’s Lucretia suggest that David with the Head of Goliath was a stronger influence on the Dutch master’s art than has previously been identified. Numerous Rembrandt paintings invoke a figure gazing over an outstretched left arm, with lowered right arm and a sash (or similar object) strung from right shoulder to left hip. Bellona (1633), who also grasps a Medusa shield that calls to mind both Rubens and Caravaggio, is not portrayed from the same angle as David but nonetheless adapts his pose. Particularly noteworthy is a mirrored depiction in Aristotle with a Bust of Homer (1653). In it, Aristotle gazes over an outstretched right hand while lowering his left to his hip and wearing a chain that cuts across his chest. Of note is the fact that Aristotle, like David, gazes towards a head while apparently contemplating life, death, and time. A master of inverting images, Rembrandt could easily have taken a cue from the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath’s composition here. A similar case could be made with regard to the Metropolitan Museum’s Flora (ca. 1654), who is also clad in a shirt similar to Lucretia’s. Perhaps the simplest comparison, though, at least from a figural standpoint, can be made to Belshazzar’s Feast (1635) (Figure 5). Belshazzar looks over an outstretched left hand, appearing but for an apparition to be ready to grip a servant’s head by the hair much as David holds Goliath’s. The right arm is lowered at about the same angle as David’s; it is almost possible to imagine a sword in it. A chain runs across the
length of Belshazzar’s chest, and hist coat obscures his right arm as darkness obscures David’s. Though not anatomically exact, Rembrandt’s rendering certainly incorporates noteworthy elements of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath.
Figure 5: Left Belshazzar’s Feast, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1635. oil on canvas. 167.6 by 209.2 cm. (National Gallery, London). Right David with the Head of Goliath, by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. c.1606-1607. oil on canvas. 125 by 101 cm. (Galleria Borghese, Rome). Note especially the position of the fingers on the right hand, the direction of the figure’s gaze over the left arm, and the head beneath the left hand.
Other works, though less conspicuous, speak to the influence of David’s pose on Rembrandt. Examples are plentiful, but the positioning of Mordecai in The Triumph of Mordecai (1641), and of Juno’s arms in Juno (1661-1665) serve as two of note. Even the figure of Frans Banning Cocq in The Night Watch, or Militia Company of District II under the Command of Captain Frans Banning Cocq (1642), which is marked by a gaze over an outstretched left arm, a sash from right shoulder to left hip, and a lowered right arm (holding a cane instead of a sword) brings to mind Caravaggio. While other artists have used the David motif, Rembrandt seems to have adopted it with particular zeal, and the shear number of his paintings in which David’s pose can be identified speaks to a direct Caravaggist influence on his works long before the 1666 Lucretia. Such a longstanding attachment to the composition of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath makes chronological sense. If Rembrandt’s familiarity with the painting came from the existence of a copy by Finson (or even one by Honthorst), his first exposure to the work would have occurred in the 1620s. Rembrandt
Caniglia 14 was known to use figural poses and groupings from other artists, notably Raphael, Rubens, and Lucas van Leyden75 (many of whose works he kept in his Amsterdam home along with numerous quick sketches he made of paintings that he had seen at auctions and exhibitions, including Titian’s 1509 Portrait of a Man with a Quilted Sleeve76,77). There is even a body of literature suggesting the setting of Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper as the inspiration behind Rembrandt’s 1638 Samson Tells a Riddle at his Feast78. Thus, it would be no surprise if Rembrandt assimilated forms from artists who are currently unidentified influences in his work. Clearly, Caravaggio was one such painter.
Conclusions: Though an uncanny similarity has been previously observed between Caravaggio’s Borghese David with the Head of Goliath and Rembrandt’s 1666 Lucretia, we have expanded upon previously analyses79,80 of the two works and of Rembrandt’s early associates to establish how the Dutch master could have come into contact with and drawn so directly from David’s form. It is apparent that a master copy of the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath, likely produced by Louis Finson and transported to Amsterdam during Finson’s stay with Abraham Vinck in 161681, was known to Rembrandt’s instructor Pieter Lastman. Rembrandt probably was, from his early years, familiar with this piece. Early works wherein Rembrandt’s models adopt approximations of David’s pose suggest that the now-lost copy was an early and persistent influence on him. Rembrandt is known to have kept sketches and made copies of paintings that influenced him82, and throughout his life he used
these, and, eventually, paintings in his collection, as reference for figures and groupings of figures in his own work83. This fact accounts for groupings in Rembrandt’s work that appear to be drawn directly from Raphael, Rubens, and van Lieden84, and gives strong precedent for Lucretia as anatomical analogue in David. Rembrandt’s willingness to switch the genders of subjects in other paintings for use in his own should be noted, with regard to Lucretia among many other works85. A thorough investigation of this aspect of his paintings is beyond the scope of this paper. It seems, however that Rembrandt was a master of transposing facial expressions and figural poses across genders and subjects. This analysis also seeks to open an avenue of inquiry into our present understanding of Caravaggist influences in Rembrandt’s work. Clearly the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath was a major influence on the Dutch master, but we have also established that numerous master copies (and, in the case of Madonna of the Rosary, perhaps an original) of Caravaggio’s painters were in the immediate vicinity of Rembrandt during his formative years as an artist-in-training86,87. Pieter Lastman, Rembrandt’s teacher, was close with two master copyists of Caravaggio’s work who had lived in Naples during the latter’s stay there from 1606 to 160788. It is highly unlikely that Rembrandt was unacquainted with these master copies, and it stands to reason that further research could illuminate their influence on his work beyond the 1666 Lucretia. It is also worth noting that the Louis Finson-Peter de Bruyn connection has recently resulted in the identification and sale of a previously unknown
75
83
76
84
A. Golahny, ‘Rembrandt’s Treasures.’ (2001). A. Golahny, ‘Rembrandt’s Treasures.’ (2001). 77 H. Williams. ‘Rembrandt on Paper.’ (2009). p. 17. 78 E. van de Wetering, ‘Rembrandt: The Painter Thinking.’ (2016), pp. 258-259. 79 M. Hirst, Rembrandt and Italy.’ (1968), pp.221-223. 80 D. Hammer-Tugendhat. ‘The Visible and the Invisible.’ (2015). pp. 75-80. 81 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183. 82 H. Williams. ‘Rembrandt on Paper.’ (2009). p. 17.
A. Golahny, ‘Rembrandt’s Treasures.’ (2001). A. Golahny, ‘Rembrandt’s Treasures.’ (2001). D. Hammer-Tugendhat. ‘The Visible and the Invisible.’ (2015). pp. 15-38. 86 W. Friedlaender. ‘Caravaggio Studies.’ (1974). p. 205. 87 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), pp. 182185. 88 V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), pp. 182185. 85
Caniglia 15 work by Caravaggio89. The role of Pieter Lastman in appraisals of apparent Caravaggio paintings in Finson and Abraham Vinck’s possession seems to be poorly understood, given that the influence of his association with Finson and housemate Vinck on his assessments (several of the paintings he identified as Caravaggio’s have later had their authenticity called into question) is not known90. A more thorough investigation of any connections between Lastman, Finson, and de Bruyn could uncover information about an important pathway for the transmission of artistic ideas between Naples and Amsterdam that seems, at the present, to have been described only in parts. Notes: * Figure 6 from footnote on Page 10:
Figure 6: Top Left David with the Head of Goliath, by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. c.1606-1607. oil on canvas. 125 by 101 cm. (Galleria Borghese, Rome). Top Right Mirrored image of Lucretia, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1664. oil on canvas. 120 by 101 cm. (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.). Obviously the figures here are not the same. The line above the head to the left of the canvas, which stretches down to the right hand, is visible in both pieces, however, as is some drapery in the upper right hand corner. The gaze above the left hand is also a key feature in both pieces. It should also be noted that the canvas sizes are almost identical.
** It may also be worth noting that David’s body position is adapted in a variety of other Rembrandt paintings, with varying degrees of
89
M. Labarbe, et. al. ‘Caravaggio: Judith and Holofernes,’ (2019). pp. 1-55.
similarity. Some examples are given in Figure 7:
Figure 7: Top Left Bellona, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1633. oil on canvas. 127 by 97.5 cm. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, Friedsam Collection, New York). Note especially the darkened right arm, the implied position of the left arm, and the sash strung from right shoulder to left hip. Top Right Mirrored image of Juno, by Rembrandt van Rijn. c.1661-1665. oil on canvas. 127 by 107.5 cm. (Armand Hammer Collection, Los Angeles), illustrating the lowered right and foreshortened left arm. Bottom Left Aristotle with a Bust of Homer, by Rembrandt van Rijn. c.1653. oil on canvas. 143.5 by 136.5 cm. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, Lehman Collection, New York). A mirror image of this painting brings the positions of the arms into greater connection with those in Caravaggio’s David with the Head of Goliath. Attention should be drawn, however, to the figure’s gaze, just above his right hand (below which is a human head), and the golden sash extending from right shoulder to left hip. Bottom Center Self-Portrait with Plumed Cap and Lowered Sabre, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1634. etching. 19.7 by 16.3 cm. (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). Bottom Right Cropped image of Mordecai from The Triumph of Mordecai, by Rembrandt van Rijn. 1641. 17.5 by 21.5 cm. etching and drypoint. (Multiple Collections).
As with the 1664 Lucretia, the figures in Bellona and Juno are three-quarter portraits painted on canvases almost identical in size to that on which the Borghese David with the Head of Goliath is rendered.
90
V. Manuth, ‘Michelangelo of Caravaggio.’ (2006), p. 183.
