.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The states of this print have been re-assessed in New Hollstein. As before, the niche, window, signature and the inscription identifying the sitter constitute the second state. According to New Hollstein however, the inscription in the lower right F. Lutma Ex., the address of Jan Lutma's son François, has been added later, constituting a previously undescribed third state. The authors of New Hollstein themselves had some doubt as to this assessment, stating that 'Craddock & Barnard, Münz and Björklund assumed the inscription was by the same hand as the engraved inscription in the previous state and was added at the same time. Whether this is indeed correct, cannot be established with certainty.' (New Hollstein, p. 262) In conversation with Eric Hinterding, one of the authors, he expressed the view that probably all inscriptions were added at the same time and that the inscription F. Lutma Ex. only becomes visible as the densely worked area at the lower right begins to wear.
The existence of several early impressions already bearing François Lutma's address, such as the Cracherode impression on oatmeal paper in the British Museum, the Rudge impression on Japanese paper in the Lugt collection and the fine impression on Fool's Cap paper offered in these rooms on 3 December 2013 (lot 78), leads us to believe that New Hollstein's second and third states are in fact identical. The printing quality of these impressions confirms an early printing date, while the paper evidence - the use of unusual papers such as oatmeal and Japanese paper - suggests that they were printed in or in close collaboration with Rembrandt's workshop and during his lifetime. This is in accordance with Nowell-Usticke's observation that 'early impressions exist on oatmeal paper'.
Would it be possible that François Lutma agreed with Rembrandt to publish his father's portrait, whereupon Rembrandt completed the background and signed the plate while Lutma added the inscriptions identifying his father as the sitter and himself as the publisher? And did Rembrandt continue to pull the prints for François Lutma, who then distributed them? What we do know with certainty is that the address has been added while Rembrandt was alive, since he outlived François Lutma by five years.
The existence of several early impressions already bearing François Lutma's address, such as the Cracherode impression on oatmeal paper in the British Museum, the Rudge impression on Japanese paper in the Lugt collection and the fine impression on Fool's Cap paper offered in these rooms on 3 December 2013 (lot 78), leads us to believe that New Hollstein's second and third states are in fact identical. The printing quality of these impressions confirms an early printing date, while the paper evidence - the use of unusual papers such as oatmeal and Japanese paper - suggests that they were printed in or in close collaboration with Rembrandt's workshop and during his lifetime. This is in accordance with Nowell-Usticke's observation that 'early impressions exist on oatmeal paper'.
Would it be possible that François Lutma agreed with Rembrandt to publish his father's portrait, whereupon Rembrandt completed the background and signed the plate while Lutma added the inscriptions identifying his father as the sitter and himself as the publisher? And did Rembrandt continue to pull the prints for François Lutma, who then distributed them? What we do know with certainty is that the address has been added while Rembrandt was alive, since he outlived François Lutma by five years.