Bulletin 13, 1969

Home
Français
Introduction
History
Annual Index
Author & Subject
Credits
Contact

Reflections on the Jordaens Exhibition

by Michael Jaffe

Pages  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12

Notes

1 "Calvinism in the Work of Jacob Jordaens," AQ, XXII, 1959,  p. 356.

2 Gentse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgesch. & tot de Oudheidkunde, xx, 1967, pp. 71-95. This article was not published until 1969.

3 The oral opinion off. Lugt, recorded at the Fitzwilliam Museum, that No.252 might have been drawn by Jacob de Wit may be set aside. Atypical imitation by de Wit of a Jordaens drawing is the ADORATION OF THE SHEPHERDS, attributed to "J. Jordaens (?):" in Weimar (hg. I). This presents a striking contrast to a Jordaens drawing of the subject, see under No. 23 below (hg. 2.), in handling the media; and the treatment of the winged heads of putti, and of the heads of St. Joseph and of the young shepherd, reveals the prettiness of de Wit's touch as a draughtsman.

4 See L. Burchard, "CHRIST BLESSING THE CHILDREN by Anthony van Dyck" Burl M, LXXII, January 1938, pp. 25-30, pls. A and C.

5 For example, Antwerp / Rotterdam 1966-67, No. 25; d'Hulst 1956, No. 32.

6 Held 1969, p. 272, hg. 10.

7 Reproduced again by Held 1969 (frontispiece) as by Jordaens, but, incorrectly, as on canvas; it has always been on oak panel.

8 d'Hulst 1956, pp. 22, 23, 27, 31, 54, 63, 77, 194.

9 d'Hulst 1967 (p. 84, hg. 5), following Gerson, supports the attribution of this comparatively new discovery to Jordaens, whilst abandoning his earlier judgement of the Brunswick painting which he now considers (p. 85, hg. 6) to be "een latere kopie, waarshijnlijk uit het atelier."

10 Held 1969, p. 271, denies the presence of Ceres (and Bacchus) in this most poetic painting - for him by a follower.

11 Not noticed by Goris-Held, No. A. 68, or by Held 1969, p. 271.

12 Held 1969, p. 268, feels this painting is the work of a follower. Haverkamp-Begemann 1969A, p. 130, accepts the composition as by Jordaens but regards the Mainz picture as a second version of a missing first version. It does not, however, have the evenness of quality in execution which characterizes repetitions.

13 Held 1969, p. 271, challenges the claim first made by R. Eigenberger that this is a characteristic study by Jordaens. But it appears to have been painted by the same hand as the two studies of the head of a maidservant (originally both on one panel) published correctly as Jordaens by L. Burchard, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten, 1960, III-IV, pp. 175-178, hgs. I and 2. The suggestion by Held that there is "a closer connection" with the work of Jacob van Oost is less persuasive. 

14 Madeleine Hours, "A propos de quelques radiographies récentes," Bulletin du Laboratoire du Musée du Louvre, No. 12, 1968, pp. 54, 55.

15 Denucé, p. 317.

16 Rubens-Bulletijn, I, pp. 86-92.

17 Ibid, pp. 177-178.

18 See A. von Schneider, Caravaggio und die Niederliinder, Marburg, 1933, pp. 110,133, Taf. 45a.

19 Haverkamp-Begemann 1969A, p. 130, proposes N. Lauwers (not known as a painter) as the author of this modelletto for his engraving. He does not propose Marinus as the author of No. 43!

20 Which must also have misled d'Hulst in his entry for Antwerp / Rotterdam 1966-67, p. 62, under No. 30.

21 Held 1969, p. 271, states that this portrait is "the work of a pupil, possibly the same who painted a picture of the PRODIGAL SON, now in the Atheneum in Helsinki, Finland." Haverkamp-Begemann 1969A, p. 130, finds the landscape untypical of Jordaens C. 1635. Nevertheless it accords with a signed and dated painting of that year [No. 35]. Rowlands 1969, supporting my view, states that this portrait "does not present any problems of attribution."

22 Held 1969, p. 271, states that the date was originally 1647 or even 1657. Neither his contention, nor that of Haverkamp-Begemann 1969A, p. 130, that this is a replica of the Hermitage version meets the visual evidence.

23 The signature remarked by Held 1969, p. 272, was not visible when the surface was dirty, and was not previously recorded. He does not state that J. Jor is to be found beneath Neptune's trident.

24 Held 1969, p. 266, however, states that "the central conceit of the picture is religious."

25 Pace Haverkamp-Begemann 1969B, p. 176.

26 Pace the disbelief of Held 1969, p. 267.

27 Held 1969, p. 268, considers this drawing and No. 124 "highly questionable." Haverkamp-Begemann 1969B, p. 176, is also unconvinced by the attribution of this series at Düsseldorf. My view, supported by both Bauch and van Regteren Altena, is unchanged.

28 Held 1969, p. 268, considers it "a mediocre piece, done by one of Jordaens's followers."

29 Although Held 1969, p. 268, doubts the attribution of No. 151, he accepts No. 150.

30 This attribution, traditional at the Albertina, was not doubted until Held 1969, p. 267. Haverkamp-Begemann 1969B, p. 177, also considers it "entirely different from anything Jordaens is known to have made."

31 Haverkamp-Begemann 1969B, p. 176, is correct in pointing out that the hand drawn at the right connects with the left hand of the mother holding the baby. Held 1969, p. 267, "concurs gladly" with me in reclaiming this sensitive study for Jordaens.

32 Held 1969, p. 268; presumably he means Chapter VII rather than VI.

33 Held 1969, p. 272.

34 Ibid.

Top of this page