Rembrandt, his life, his work and his time . omposition. The Virgin was perhapsdrawn from his sister, orat least from somemember of the house-hold, for the type recursin several of the mastersother works—the smallnose and eyes, the palecomplexion, the fair hairdrawn back from a high,and somewhat promi-nent brow. We recog-nise them in the Virginof the Présentai ion, inone of Lots Daughters,and in various otherpictures. The samemodel seems to have satfor a study of a head,No. 591 in the Stock-holm Museum, cata-logued as the Portraitof a Young Girl, andformerly ascribed to Fer-dinand Bol. I was s
Rembrandt, his life, his work and his time . omposition. The Virgin was perhapsdrawn from his sister, orat least from somemember of the house-hold, for the type recursin several of the mastersother works—the smallnose and eyes, the palecomplexion, the fair hairdrawn back from a high,and somewhat promi-nent brow. We recog-nise them in the Virginof the Présentai ion, inone of Lots Daughters,and in various otherpictures. The samemodel seems to have satfor a study of a head,No. 591 in the Stock-holm Museum, cata-logued as the Portraitof a Young Girl, andformerly ascribed to Fer-dinand Bol. I was struck by the likeness at the first glance, and waspleased to find my opinion confirmed by the learned Director of theMuseum, Mr. Goethe, who classifies the work as of the School otRembrandt. It might even be attributed to the master himself withsome show of probability, and, if indeed by him, was one of hisearliest works. The naive and somewhat timid handling recalls thatof his first essays, and I recognised the same cold and rather hard. HOLY FAMILY. (1631) Munich Pinacothek. 7o RKMIJKANDT shadows, the same delicate modelling of the nose and forehead, thesame gray tonality I had noted but a few days before in the portraitsof this period in the Cassel and Gotha Museums. Though the Holy Family of Munich bears the date 1631, its breadth of conception and freedom of handling distinguish it essentially from the St. Anastasius and the Presentation in the Temple. It is on a much larger scale (76 x 51^ inches) than the earlier works, but the increase in size is not sufficient to account for the notable difference in execution. The painter, renouncing that minute finish he had used with so much success in former pictures, seems to have determined on a larger and bolder manner. The beauties of the Holy Family are tempered, however, by certain defects. The contrast of light and shadow is abrupt and violent ; the outlines slightly woolly, and the brushing staccato and uneven. The pictu
Size: 1292px × 1934px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, bookpublisherlondo, bookyear1894
