This freely brushed sketch of a bearded old man wearing a beret is one of four oil studies on panel that depict the same model. Traditionally these works have been considered autograph sketches that Rembrandt made in preparation for his painting Saint Matthew and the Angel, 1661, now in the Louvre, Paris [fig. 1]
[fig. 1] Rembrandt van Rijn, Saint Matthew and the Angel, 1661, oil on canvas, Musée du Louvre, Paris. Photo © RMN. In the last fifty years, however, only one of these sketches, in the collection of Alfred Bader, has been generally accepted as by Rembrandt.
The broad, impressionistic handling of the paint in Head of Saint Matthew was considered a hallmark of Rembrandt’s late style when this sketch first entered the Rembrandt literature in the 1880s. Indeed, during the last years of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth, a large number of sketches attributed to Rembrandt’s later years were added to his oeuvre, particularly by Wilhelm von Bode and Wilhelm Valentiner. Scholars now recognize that many of these works, including this one, lack the structure of form that underlies Rembrandt’s own creations. An X-radiograph [see X-radiographyA photographic or digital image analysis method that visually records an object's ability to absorb or transmit x-rays. The differential absorption pattern is useful for examining an object's internal structure as well as for comparing the variation in pigment types.] of the painting [fig. 2]
[fig. 2] X-radiograph composite, Rembrandt Workshop, Head of Saint Matthew, probably early 1660s, oil on panel, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Widener Collection, 1942.9.58 confirms that the Rembrandtesque characteristics of the image derive from broad brushstrokes across the surface of the image and that the head lacks the firm modeling so typical of the master’s works.
The first scholar to reject the attribution to Rembrandt in print was Bauch in 1966. Van Regteren Altena concluded that the broad handling had characteristics of nineteenth-century imitations of Rembrandt. Gerson agreed that this work was “an imitation of a later period.”
Dating such studies can be extremely difficult, because followers of Rembrandt from his own time through the nineteenth century have emulated his work with little variation in style. In this instance examinations of the paints and panel have not yielded information that helps provide a specific chronological framework for the painting. Although the character of the paints is consistent with seventeenth-century studio practice, similar materials are also found on later paintings. The only unusual feature for Rembrandt is the presence of verdigris under the beard, but verdigris is found in seventeenth-century paintings. Although DendrochronologyA method of dating wood by examining the annual growth rings. could not date the oak panel, the irregular beveling is similar to that found in seventeenth-century paintings. There thus are no technical grounds for questioning the work’s seventeenth-century origin.
Because of differences in the figure’s expression and in the character of the beret, it is unlikely that this study is a copy of the head of Saint Matthew from Saint Matthew and the Angel. It seems more probable that it and the other tronies depicting this figure were made in Rembrandt’s workshop while the master was occupied with the Louvre painting. From the evidence of drawings it is known that Rembrandt, as part of his teaching process, encouraged his students to work from live models. This painting could have been such a study piece, executed by an unidentified student around 1661.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.
April 24, 2014
