Reflections on the Jordaens Exhibition
Pages 1 | 2
| 11 | 12
1 "Calvinism in the Work of Jacob Jordaens," AQ,
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.
1969, p. 272, hg. 10.
7 Reproduced again by
(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,
15 Denucé, p. 317.
I, pp. 86-92.
17 Ibid, pp. 177-178.
18 See A. von Schneider, Caravaggio und die Niederliinder,
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 /
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
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
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
33 Held 1969, p. 272.
Top of this page
| Français | Introduction
Index | Author
& Subject | Credits | Contact
This digital collection
was produced under contract to Canada's Digital Collections program,
Collections Program, Copyright
© National Gallery of