[Paleopsych] NYT: 'Rembrandt's Late Religious Portraits': Humanity With Flaws Forgiven
checker at panix.com
Fri Jan 28 16:08:32 UTC 2005
'Rembrandt's Late Religious Portraits': Humanity With Flaws Forgiven
January 28, 2005
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
THE woman, hand to chest, leans a little forward, head turned and
tilted, lips slightly parted, liquid eyes gazing into the ether. She
is dressed in a dark, fur-lined cloak that reveals a peek-a-boo white
chemise; a robe sewn with gold is draped over her right shoulder and
it glints, like the gold fillet in her hair. Her round, pretty face is
a little puffy and sad, and she seems oblivious of us. But she is no
doubt alert to the painter, her lover, whose gifts are so surpassing
that simply by virtue of being the object of his devotion she looks
This is a portrait of Hendrickje Stoffels, Rembrandt's companion. In
the little Rembrandt show opening Sunday here at the National Gallery,
the picture is tentatively identified (with a question mark after the
title) as "The Sorrowing Virgin."
Had he been a poet instead of a painter, Rembrandt would have seduced
countless women with his love sonnets. Every lover would have believed
him when he wrote yet another poem that swore undying devotion to her
unrivaled feet and peerless earlobes.
His portraits convey pretty much the same message, after all. Each one
says: "Here, stripped bare, is the true essence of this person, the
depth of his or her soul in paint. Have you ever met anyone so
authentic and remarkable?" Painting after painting makes that point.
Rembrandt's touch was itself about his own individuality, suggesting
the inimitability of his genius (never mind that his style was
imitable enough for assistants and followers to flummox future
generations of experts, and delight those who mischievously enjoy
seeing other people's gold turn out to be brass).
Not everybody would want to be painted by Rembrandt - launched into
posterity in such an eloquent brown fog, bearing the weight of the
world on one's shoulders, looking watery-eyed and wrinkled. But it's
flattering to think of yourself as the sort of person, spiritually
speaking, that Rembrandt concocted: soulful, substantial. Every Dutch
burgher became a saint in his hands. My favorite Rembrandt portraits
may be a pair of pictures in London, the ones of Jacob Trip and his
wife, Margaretha de Geer, at the National Gallery there. Trip was a
Dordrecht mining honcho and an arms dealer, rich as Croesus. In his
portrait, he looks like the aged Moses leaning on a cane instead of a
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., the curator of this focused gem of an
exhibition, contemplated including the Trip portrait, which was
painted sometime around 1661. It would have joined 17 other works from
the 1650's and 1660's, pictures late in Rembrandt's career (he died in
1669, at 63), which have mystified scholars.
They are paintings of Jesus, Mary and assorted evangelists, apostles
and monks. Or some are. Others may be. Some look like "portraits
historiés," commissioned portraits in which Rembrandt decked out his
hoity-toity patrons as holy men and women. Some are clearly not
commissioned portraits but models. We know this because the same face
appears in different pictures, here as a St. Bartholomew, there as a
Portraits like the one of Stoffels are more ambiguous: an "Apostle
Bartholomew" is so titled because the alert, heavy-lidded, mustachioed
man with his hand to his chin staring melancholically at us, clasps a
knife, the symbol of Bartholomew's martyrdom. But at one time this
same painting was called "Rembrandt's Cook," then "The Assassin."
Cook, assassin, lover or the Virgin Mary? The first question is why
Rembrandt, reared a Protestant, whose religious beliefs nonetheless
remain largely unknown, would have painted saints and apostles at all.
In Protestant Holland, Catholic religious orders and monasteries were
banned. Reformationists regarded saints as needless intermediaries in
the quest for salvation. For whom did Rembrandt paint these pictures?
For himself? Did he have Catholic patrons, perhaps, outside Holland?
It's clear he was going through a bad patch at the time. The church
condemned his relationship with Stoffels when she bore him a child out
of wedlock in 1654. Debts forced him to auction off his house, his
personal effects, his art collection, even his wife's grave. His style
of painting also fell out of fashion in Amsterdam; young artists were
deserting his brand of expressiveness. It's hard to know how much
trouble Rembrandt really was in, whether he sheltered income from
creditors, whether he still had assistants. He was commissioned to
paint not just Trip's portrait but also the "Syndics of the Drapers'
Guild," so he was not without opportunities.
But in various ways, Rembrandt's difficulties might have caused him to
identify with saints and apostles. His self-portrait as St. Paul, Mr.
Wheelock speculates, is "about the supremacy of grace over law" and
the notion of "the great but flawed man who, saved by God's grace,
reveals the power of the Christian faith to those struggling with
their own human limitations." Rembrandt's Paul is not a sturdy and
forbidding pillar of righteousness but a scruffy, ordinary old man,
hapless, weak-chinned and quizzical, gazing at or just past us with
arched eyebrows, crumpled brow, a big, fleshy nose and wild tufts of
hair escaping from his turban: a humble Paul, on whom God happens to
shines the bright, consoling light of grace.
Perhaps Mr. Wheelock is right. It's as if Rembrandt, at odds with the
law now, were saying the only law that matters ultimately is divine
law. He's also admitting in this picture, "I'm not perfect."
The flawed humanity of his saints is the heart of the art, and what
gives it spiritual truth. Plain sight suggests that some of the
paintings might have been linked as a series because they're the same
size. But others differ; their touch varies wildly - so much so that
people might well wonder whether Rembrandt even did them all.
I prefer to flip the question: could any other artist have painted
with such affective variety? Rembrandt by this stage knew how to do
everything: how to scuff and scratch and scribble, where to leave
passages rough, where to smoothen, how to telegraph forms, to hint at
volumes, to paint thin and dry or thick and pasty. In a version of
"Apostle Paul," this one with a bearded model sitting before a table,
hand to brow, rapt in thought, Rembrandt painted flesh tones as a thin
layer over a warm primary. Then he suggested eyes, nose and beard
without drawing any sharp contours, letting light sculpture the hair,
skin and bone, a different tack from the one he took for "Bartholomew"
or Stoffels or himself.
What's constant is the human aspect. It's what Rembrandt focuses our
eyes on: on St. James's meaty hands; on Simon's long, rugged face,
like a lumberjack's, brooding, his thumb casually hooked over the
handle of the cross saw that is the instrument of his martyrdom; on
the sad eyes of the man with the reddish mustache and bushy beard, a
portrait that used to be called "A Jewish Rabbi."
Rembrandt's power was to show us ourselves in these portraits of holy
men and women. Which is to say, the divine in us.
More information about the paleopsych