.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This fascinating picture, which vividly illustrates a passage from the Apocryphal Book of Tobit (12:21-2), is based on a painting by Rembrandt of 1637 now in the Louvre, Paris (fig. 1). Having guided the young Tobias, son of Tobit, on his journey to Rages in Media, the disguised Archangel Raphael returned with his young charge to Nineveh, where he helped cure Tobit’s blindness, before revealing his true identity and departing to heaven, as depicted here. The Louvre picture appears to have remained in the master’s workshop for a number of years after its completion and consequently to have become a valuable tool in the instruction of Rembrandt’s pupils. This painting is one of three known versions of the Louvre picture: the other known variants have been attributed to Ferdinand Bol and dated to circa 1637-38 (Private collection); and to an unidentified painter, active in either Rembrandt, or Bol’s workshop, likewise dated to the late 1630s (Germany, Private collection; see E. van de Wetering, Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings: Small-Scale History Paintings, Dordrecht, 2011, V, p. 279, fig. 3). Unlike other more faithful workshop copies after Rembrandt’s original works, such as Bol’s copy in the Rembrandthuis, Amsterdam, of Rembrandt’s Christ appearing to the Magdalene (London, Royal Collection), these three copies after Rembrandt’s Raphael taking leave of Tobit differ from the master’s prime composition in one important and consistent aspect: the attitude of the figure of Archangel Raphael. In Rembrandt’s painting, the angel is shown elevated with his back to the viewer, following a composition established by Marten van Heemskerk in a woodcut of the same subject, published in circa 1548. In the present picture and the other two versions, however, Raphael is shown facing the viewer. This significant divergence from the original offers a certain insight into seventeenth century workshop practice, which encouraged students not only to copy successful designs by the master, but also to create their own individualised treatments of these compositions.
Invention was deemed a crucial aspect of a painter’s training and practice, with van Hoogstraten commenting that ‘success or failure of the entire work hangs on skilled invention in composition’ (quoted in D. de Witt and L. van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol: Rembrandt’s Pupil’, Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, exhibition catalogue, 2017, p. 47). In a studio copy now in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, after Rembrandt’s The Sacrifice of Abraham (St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum), the positioning of the figures of Abraham and Isaac remain unchanged, while the angel approaches from a completely different angle. The existence of a drawing of this changed composition by Rembrandt himself (London, British Museum), dated to shortly after the completion of the St Petersburg picture, suggests that the master rethought the figure after executing his painting, and then requested a talented pupil to execute a second version reflecting the new design. Similarly, it would appear that after Rembrandt had painted his own treatment of Raphael taking leave of Tobit in 1637, the painting was used as a starting point from which his pupils and assistants could produce their own interpretations of the subject. The Louvre painting also provided patterns, or designs for later paintings: for example, the figures of Sarah and Tobit are reworked into Bol’s Holy Women at the Sepulchre of 1644 (Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst). Arnold Houbraken commented, in his famed De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders (Amsterdam, 1718-21), that in addition to borrowing and learning from Rembrandt’s designs, it was important for pupils to emulate his particular manner of painting. The virtuoso application of the paint in the present picture displays many of the traits of Rembrandt’s own painterly technique, in particular his thick impasto brushwork.
In addition to its design and stylistic affinities with Rembrandt’s work, technical evidence further confirms the picture’s genesis in the master’s workshop. Dendrochronological analysis of the panel dates its use to around the late 1630s at the earliest. The panel has in fact been identified as coming from the same tree as two other works from Rembrandt’s studio: one by the master himself, his Landscape with the Good Samaritan of 1638 (Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe); and a second painting by an unidentified artist of a Still life with dead game dated to circa 1636-40 (Ithaca, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art). This Raphael taking leave of Tobit can therefore be placed, with relative certainty, not only within Rembrandt’s workshop but, given the dates of the other paintings, dated convincingly to the late 1630s, likely between 1637 and 1640.
The history of this painting has been consistently confused with that of the other two versions of the subject by Bol and another Rembrandt pupil. All three works have been identified as that engraved by Anthony Walker in 1765 (fig. 2) after a work in the collection of the Irish painter Nathaniel Hone. The present painting differs from the other two works in an important detail: in the presentation of the figure of Tobit’s wife Anna. Following Rembrandt’s original more closely, Anna is shown here with her eyes closed, while in the other two versions she is depicted with her eyes open. This small, but significant detail, helps establish this picture as that copied by Anthony Walker in 1765 and thus places it in the Hone collection. Given this evidence, it seems logical that the work can also be regarded as that remaining in the possession of English collectors during the nineteenth century.
Invention was deemed a crucial aspect of a painter’s training and practice, with van Hoogstraten commenting that ‘success or failure of the entire work hangs on skilled invention in composition’ (quoted in D. de Witt and L. van Sloten, ‘Ferdinand Bol: Rembrandt’s Pupil’, Ferdinand Bol and Govert Flinck: Rembrandt’s Master Pupils, exhibition catalogue, 2017, p. 47). In a studio copy now in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, after Rembrandt’s The Sacrifice of Abraham (St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum), the positioning of the figures of Abraham and Isaac remain unchanged, while the angel approaches from a completely different angle. The existence of a drawing of this changed composition by Rembrandt himself (London, British Museum), dated to shortly after the completion of the St Petersburg picture, suggests that the master rethought the figure after executing his painting, and then requested a talented pupil to execute a second version reflecting the new design. Similarly, it would appear that after Rembrandt had painted his own treatment of Raphael taking leave of Tobit in 1637, the painting was used as a starting point from which his pupils and assistants could produce their own interpretations of the subject. The Louvre painting also provided patterns, or designs for later paintings: for example, the figures of Sarah and Tobit are reworked into Bol’s Holy Women at the Sepulchre of 1644 (Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst). Arnold Houbraken commented, in his famed De groote schouburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders (Amsterdam, 1718-21), that in addition to borrowing and learning from Rembrandt’s designs, it was important for pupils to emulate his particular manner of painting. The virtuoso application of the paint in the present picture displays many of the traits of Rembrandt’s own painterly technique, in particular his thick impasto brushwork.
In addition to its design and stylistic affinities with Rembrandt’s work, technical evidence further confirms the picture’s genesis in the master’s workshop. Dendrochronological analysis of the panel dates its use to around the late 1630s at the earliest. The panel has in fact been identified as coming from the same tree as two other works from Rembrandt’s studio: one by the master himself, his Landscape with the Good Samaritan of 1638 (Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe); and a second painting by an unidentified artist of a Still life with dead game dated to circa 1636-40 (Ithaca, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art). This Raphael taking leave of Tobit can therefore be placed, with relative certainty, not only within Rembrandt’s workshop but, given the dates of the other paintings, dated convincingly to the late 1630s, likely between 1637 and 1640.
The history of this painting has been consistently confused with that of the other two versions of the subject by Bol and another Rembrandt pupil. All three works have been identified as that engraved by Anthony Walker in 1765 (fig. 2) after a work in the collection of the Irish painter Nathaniel Hone. The present painting differs from the other two works in an important detail: in the presentation of the figure of Tobit’s wife Anna. Following Rembrandt’s original more closely, Anna is shown here with her eyes closed, while in the other two versions she is depicted with her eyes open. This small, but significant detail, helps establish this picture as that copied by Anthony Walker in 1765 and thus places it in the Hone collection. Given this evidence, it seems logical that the work can also be regarded as that remaining in the possession of English collectors during the nineteenth century.