Jump to content

Philosopher in Meditation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PJsg1011 (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 6 May 2023 (→top: sd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Philosopher in Meditation
Philosopher in Meditation (or Interior with Tobit and Anna) by Rembrandt
ArtistRembrandt
MovementDutch Golden Age painting
Dimensions28 cm × 34 cm (11 in × 13 in)
LocationLouvre, Paris

Philosopher in Meditation, recently renamed Philosopher in Contemplation by the museum, is the traditional title of an oil painting in the Musée du Louvre, Paris, that is attributed to the 17th-century Dutch artist Rembrandt.

It is signed "RHL-van Rijn" and dated 1632, at the time of Rembrandt's move from Leiden to Amsterdam.[1] Recent scholarship suggests that the painting depicts "Tobit and Anna waiting for their son Tobias" instead. This interpretation is given in an auction catalogue from 1738 (see "Subject matter"), the earliest known source that clearly refers to this painting.

The painting was brought to Paris from The Hague in the middle of the 18th century and made the rounds of aristocratic collections before being acquired for the royal collections housed in the Louvre Palace.[2] The presumed subject matter of philosophical meditation, the finely graded chiaroscuro treatment and the intricate composition were widely appreciated in France. The painting is mentioned in the writings of many 19th- and 20th-century literary figures, including George Sand, Théophile Gautier, Jules Michelet, Marcel Proust, Paul Valéry, Gaston Bachelard, Paul Claudel, and Aldous Huxley.

The ongoing popularity of the painting may be measured by its presence on the internet, where it is often used as an emblem of philosophy, or interpreted along esoteric or occult lines.

Description

Painted in oils on an oak panel measuring about 11 x 13 in. (28 x 34 cm), the painting depicts in slightly accelerated perspective two figures in a partially vaulted interior that is dominated by a wooden spiral staircase. The architecture includes stone, brick and wood, with arched elements (window, vault, doors) that create an impression of monumentality. On the pre-iconographic level, this is one of the most "graphic" works painted by Rembrandt, in the sense that it contains many straight, curved, circular, and radiating lines: from the lines of the flagstones to those of the window, the bricks, the wainscotting, and of course the staircase. As in the staircase and the basketwork tray at the center of the composition, the curved lines can be said to organize the straight lines.[3] The most conspicuous figure is that of an old man seated at a table in front of a window, his head bowed and his hands folded in his lap. The second figure is that of an old woman tending a fire in an open hearth. A third figure—a woman standing in the stairs carrying a basket and turned to the spectator—is visible in 18th- and 19th-century engraved reproductions of the painting, but virtually invisible in the painting's present state.[4] As it is, the overall lighting is warm and quite subdued owing to the yellowing of the varnish.[5]

Signature

Engraved reproduction by Devilliers l'aîné after Rembrandt's Philosopher in Meditation (1814)

The panel is signed "RHL-van Rijn 163_" at the bottom and left of the center, at a vertical from the figure of the old man. The signature was traced with a fine brush in light pigment on a dark background and is quite difficult to make out. The last digit is a tiny blob of paint, the form and placing of which would tally with a "0," "1" or "2."[6] The type of signature—monogram plus patronymic—would argue for 1632, since the artist is known to have used this type of signature only in that year.[7] This does not mean that the picture was painted in that year or even in Amsterdam, to which Rembrandt had moved in late 1631. In any case, this type of signature is so rare in Rembrandt's oeuvre and date-specific that it argues for authenticity.[8]

Provenance

Close consideration of the known provenance explains how a Dutch scene of biblical domesticity could be turned into a French image of philosophical meditation. In this process, the role of the supposed companion piece (see below), with which it was paired for two centuries and which was also attributed to Rembrandt, proved determinant. Summary mentions of a "Winding stair with a seated old man" in 17th-century inventories could apply to either painting.[9] The earliest unambiguous reference to the painting is in the catalogue for the sale of the collection of the comte de Fraula in Brussels in 1738. The catalogue gives the measurements of the panel and the description: Een Ordonnantie met Tobias, ende eenen drayenden Trap, door Rimbrant (A Composition with Tobit, and a Winding Stair, by Rembrandt).[10]

The painting was bought by Jacques de Roore, an agent bidding on behalf of Willem Lormier, art collector and dealer in The Hague, whose wax seal is still on the back of the panel.[11] On 27 June 1748, Lormier sold the painting for Dfl. 525 to the French collector Marc-René Voyer, marquis d'Argenson.[12] In his manuscript list of the 17 paintings that he sold to Voyer on that occasion, Lormier referred to it as Oud Mannetje en wenteltrap (Old Man with a winding stair). His disregard of the Tobit subject cited in the Fraula catalogue may be due to the fact that he did not attend the auction personally and that he did not own the catalogue.[13] Voyer appears to be the originator of the old man's philosophical vocation, most likely inspired by the companion piece, which he also owned and which clearly shows a scholar in his study. Today, this former "pendant", titled Philosopher with an open book, is attributed to Salomon Koninck.[14]

As late as 1982, the two paintings were believed to have shared the same provenance as far back as 1734, but this was disproved by the Rembrandt Research Project.[15] Korthals Altes claims that Voyer already owned the Koninck when he acquired the Rembrandt, but cites no evidence.[16] In fact, nothing is known of the earlier provenance of the Koninck, or which of the two paintings he acquired first. Assuming that it was the Rembrandt, Anne Leclair notes that: "At an unknown date, Voyer acquired a second 'Philosopher" that he deemed close enough in style and format to make it a pendant".[17] In notes on his "pendants" set down around 1750, Voyer pointed out that "chance brought them together".[18]

Although he waxed enthusiastic about these prized possessions, calling them "unique", by 1752, he had already sold them to his friend, Claude-Alexandre de Villeneuve, comte de Vence. The latter had the two reproduced for the catalogue of his collection by Louis Surugue with the titles Philosophe en méditation (Koninck) and Philosophe en contemplation (Rembrandt). Significantly, the engraver reproduced the Koninck picture first and showed it at the Salon of 1753,[19] while he reproduced the Rembrandt in the following year and showed it at the Salon of 1755.[20] This was the beginning of a long series of graphic reproductions, both in France and Great Britain, that spread the fame of the two "Philosophers", while catering to the vogue for pendants.[21]

The comte de Vence died in 1760, stipulating in his testament that Voyer could choose two paintings from his collection. Interestingly enough, Voyer did not select the two "pendants", but only the Philosophe en contemplation (Rembrandt), thus separating the very pair that he had created and further attesting to the arbirariness of their association.[22] At the sale of the comte de Vence's collection in 1761, the Philosophe en méditation (Koninck) was purchased for 2,999 livres by a relative of the deceased, the marquis de Vence, who turned around and sold it to the duc de Choiseul, then Secretary of State for the Navy and War.[23] Wanting to curry favor with the influential duc de Choiseul, Voyer offered to part with his treasured Rembrandt so that the latter could enjoy possession of both "Philosophers". And so, for another 3,000 livres the two paintings were reunited in 1762, not to be separated again until 1955.

The "Philosophers" continued their brilliant career in Paris, changing hands every few years: Randon de Boisset in 1772 (14,000 livres), Millon d'Ailly in 1777 (10,900 livres), who then sold it to the comte de Vaudreuil.[24] The culmination came when the two pictures were acquired by Alexandre-Joseph Paillet for the royal collection of Louis XVI in 1784 (13,000 livres) and given the honors of the Louvre Palace.

Subject matter

Anna and the Blind Tobit by Rembrandt and Dou (1630)

While the traditional title Philosopher in Meditation has to a large extent been responsible for the painting's popularity, it is iconographically untenable. The painting shows none of the conspicuous attributes of scholarship or philosophy—books, globe, scientific instruments, etc.—and the presence of at least one other figure involved in domestic tasks does not fit in with the solitude associated with study and meditation.[25] Though a large book and a quill seem to be among the few objects on the table in front of the main figure, they are summarily depicted and impossible to identify more precisely: a Bible alone would not suffice to make the figure depicted a scholar or "philosopher." Staircases—whether spiral or not—were not an attribute of philosophy in the early 17th century. Similar observations argue against identifying the main figure as an "alchemist," a subject that would allow for other figures, such as an assistant tending a fire.

The objects depicted suggest a domestic setting, yet the improbable architecture speaks more for a history than a genre subject. The French art historian Jean-Marie Clarke[26] argues that the scene is ultimately derived from the Book of Tobit, one of Rembrandt's favorite Old Testament sources.[27] The sole objection to this interpretation is that, apart from the two main figures—the blind Tobit and his wife Anna— there is no typical iconographic attribute, specifically Anna's spinning wheel. Nevertheless, a plausible interpretation of the scene is Tobit and Anna waiting for the return of their only son, also called Tobias, a scene that Rembrandt had already represented in another version in 1630, in which Anna's spinning gear is minimally indicated.[28] This is supported by an 18th-century source identifying a Rembrandt painting of exactly the same format representing a "Composition with Tobit and a winding stair."[29] The Rembrandt Research Project dismisses this evidence as "certainly incorrect since there are two women in the picture and there is no specific motif from the story of Tobias-" [30]

Earlier inventory mentions of a "winding stair with an old man sitting on a chair" or "winding stair" attributed to Rembrandt are vague and might even refer to the companion painting long attributed to Rembrandt, but now given to Salomon Koninck.[31] Although the title in the Louvre's publications remains Philosophe en méditation[32] catalogues of Rembrandt's painted oeuvre, starting with Bredius (1935) identify the subject more soberly as a "Scholar in an Interior with a Winding Stair."[33] With the rejection of the attribution to Rembrandt by the Rembrandt Research Project in 1986, the title became "Old Man in an interior with a winding staircase."[34]

Companion painting: Philosopher with an Open Book

Philosopher with an Open Book by Salomon Koninck

The explanation for the long-standing misinterpretation of the Philosopher in Meditation lies in the fact that, in the second half of the 18th century, it was sold and collected together with a panel of identical size (28 x 33.5 cm) that presented similar motifs—in particular a spiral staircase—and was also attributed to Rembrandt. The paintings were exhibited together and titled interchangeably Philosophe en méditation and Philosophe en contemplation, or referred to simply as the Philosophes.[35] The companion painting shows an old man in a vaulted interior seated in front of a table at a window on which we can see books, a globe, and a crucifix. These accessories and his solitary condition make him a more plausible candidate for philosophical pursuits than the old man in the so-called Philosopher in Meditation, who occupies a space shared by at least one other person, and maybe even two. In spite of the obvious differences in the composition and execution, its attribution to Rembrandt was never called into question. The exception is the American art historian John C. Van Dyke, who whittled Rembrandt's oeuvre down to less than fifty paintings and made short shrift of the Louvre's Philosophers: "Small pictures over which, in the past, there has been much spilling of good printer's ink with no marked results. The pictures are not wonderful...". With that, he attributed the paintings to Salomon Koninck, though one, today's Rembrandt, only tentatively.[36] In 1955, examinations with X-rays and infrared photography at the laboratory of the Louvre revealed notable differences in treatment and caused the attribution to Rembrandt finally to be dropped.[37]

Jacques Foucart (1982), Curator for Dutch and Fleming Painting at the Louvre, like Horst Gerson (1968)[38] and Werner Sumowski (1983),[39] attributes this work to Salomon Koninck (1609–1656), a Rembrandt imitator, dating it to around 1645 and titling it Philosopher with an Open Book.[40] The subject matter and details of the Koninck picture seem to have been directly inspired by a Rembrandt etching dated 1642 that represents St. Jerome in a dark chamber (Bartsch 105), which is the only other known work by Rembrandt that features a complete helical staircase.[41] The traditional iconography of the Doctors of the Church and St. Jerome provided the attributes for 17th-century representations of scholars in their study, which included books, a globe, and often a human skull.[42] The identical format might well be a product of chance (standard supply) and it was long believed that the "pendant" had been enlarged by 2 cm at the top, but an examination of the panel by Clarke and Foucart in 1988 revealed that it was of one piece. Any further speculation on the relationship between the two paintings must take into account manuscript notes from around 1750 written by their first French owner, the marquis de Voyer d'Argenson, who states that the two pictures were brought together "by chance."[43] The provenance of the former companion piece previous to the late 1740s remains unknown: a wax seal on the back has not yet been identified.[44]

Rembrandt Research Project: disattribution and re-attribution

In the second volume of its Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, which covers the years 1631–1634, the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) rejected the attribution to Rembrandt of the Philosopher in Meditation. Until then, and except for the "heretical" John C. Van Dyke, this attribution had been unanimously accepted by experts and art historians. The RRP did not introduce any new objective or documentary evidence, but based its judgment on an assessment of Rembrandt's "habits," an appraisal of the painting's style, and the difficulty of fitting it within Rembrandt's production in 1632 or the later 1630s.[45] The RRP did not make any guesses as to who the author of this painting might have been, but relegated it to "Rembrandt's immediate circle, or even to his own workshop."[45] This judgment was criticized by Jean-Marie Clarke[46] who maintained the traditional attribution to Rembrandt and pointed out that the RRP might have had a special stake in rejecting this painting, as the following quote suggests: "In the later part of the 18th century the painting enjoyed a great reputation in France as Le Philosophe en contemplation, and it helped to determine the image of Rembrandt's art to an unwarranted extent."[47]

This disattribution was not accepted by the Louvre and other Rembrandt scholars,[48] and the newly configured RRP has changed its stance since then. In the fifth volume of the Corpus (2011), which covers "small history paintings," the painting is classified without further ado as a "re-attribution" by the director of the RRP, Ernst van de Wetering.[49] The painting was officially re-instated in vol. 6 of the Corpus under no. A86 with the title Interior with a window and a winding staircase and the parenthetical information: "a study in Kamerlicht." [50] There is no further mention of the issue of perspective that was highlighted by the Rembrandt Research Project in volume II when it disattributed the painting and called it just that: a study in perspective.[51] Considering the fact that it is supposed to be a study, this painting is executed in great detail (down to individual nails in the woodwork) and bears a signature and date. There is no evidence that "studies" or "interiors" with figures but without a narrative were in demand on the art market. The inconsistencies in the Rembrandt Research Project's position do not lend credence to its argument that, here, Rembrandt was working without reference to iconography.[52]

St. Jerome in a Dark Chamber by Rembrandt
Père de Rembrandt vers 1630

Esoteric, psychological, and philosophical interpretations

In a lecture given at the Goetheanum in Dornach (1916), the ex-theosophist and founder of the Anthroposophical Society, Rudolf Steiner, described the Louvre Philosopher as the "purest expression of light and dark... All that you see here—the architecture and all the other features—merely provided the occasion for the real work of Art, which lies in the distribution of light and dark." This, he held, was precisely the essence of Rembrandt's art. As it was, he showed only a "lantern slide" of the companion painting by Salomon Koninck discussed above.[53]

With his inversion of the title, Aldous Huxley (1954) sums up most of the "deeper" interpretations of the painting: "There hangs in the Louvre a Méditation du Philosophe, whose symbolical subject-matter is nothing more or less than the human mind, with its teeming darknesses, its moments of intellectual and visionary illuminations, its mysterious staircases winding downwards and upwards into the unknown.[54] The caption to an illustration of the painting (reversed) in the psychoanalyst C. G. Jung's Man and His Symbols (1964) reads: "The inward-looking old man provides an image of Jung's belief that each of us must explore his own unconscious."[55]

Jean-Marie Clarke (1980) advanced a psychological interpretation based on the circular form of the composition and the Yin-Yang-like distribution of light, reading the painting as a Mandala in the Jungian sense: an archetypal symbol of the integrated Self. The chiaroscuro treatment and the presence of many straight lines that are structured by curved lines speaks for an effort at reconciling oppositions. Further, Clarke interpreted the concentricity of the composition and wealth of circular motifs as metaphors for the underlying theme of the painting: the eye and vision. Like Julius Held,[56] Clarke believes that the drawing dated ca. 1630 at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford (Benesch 64) with the caption "HARMAN GERRITS van der Rhijn" written in Rembrandt's hand that shows his father in a pose similar to that of Tobit here, suggests that he may have been blind at the end of his life.[57] Accordingly, the figure of the blind old man (Tobit) would stand for Rembrandt's father (d. 1630), who opposed his son's wish to become an artist and whose vision the young Rembrandt (Tobias) "healed" with the help of the archangel Raphael ("God heals", a name that also symbolizes Art).[58] More recently, Clarke published an interpretation on the internet that relates Rembrandt's composition to the design of his signature in 1632.[59]

Jean-Pierre Dautun (1983), a student of the French philosopher Raymond Abellio, offered a detailed phenomenological reading along Gnostic lines, interpreting the central motif of the painting (the basketwork tray) as "the navel, the omphalos of the luminous hermetic secret that Rembrandt wishes to transmit: the phenomenological secret that the eye of the genius will be given to those who will conquer the genius of the eye. It is the ineffable secret of this transmission itself, the 'thou art that' of this mutus liber that is his painting, as if to permit an Occidental satori to a koan of his own devise."[60] The German art historian Karl Clausberg also pointed out the "ocular nature" of the scene and gave it a conceptual framework in his 1999 book "Neuronale Kunstgeschichte."[61] The French philosophy professor Régine Pietra (1992) published an essay in which she used the painting to illustrate the rhetorical figure of hypotyposis;[62] Rembrandt's painting, with its interplay of light and dark, renders the experience of philosophical meditation visually perceptible.[63] The Dutch philosopher Otto B. Wiersma (1999) published an article on the internet that he summarizes in these terms: "The painting of Rembrandt Philosophe en méditation (1632, Louvre Paris) can be characterized as a pictorial meditation on the miracle of vision. A better title would be Méditation visionnaire, because the painting catches the eye in more than one sense."[64] A discussion of the Philosopher in Meditation along essentially Gurdjeffian lines can be found on the Objective Art website (2011).[65]

See also

References

  1. ^ Jacques Foucart, Les Peintures de Rembrandt au Louvre, Éditions de la R.M.N., Paris, 1982, 19-23, 89.
  2. ^ See the Provenance in Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. II, 644. See also, Anne Leclair, "Les deux Philosophes de Rembrandt: une passion de collectionneurs," La Revue des Musées de France-Revue du Louvre, 5, 2006, 38-43.
  3. ^ Jean-Marie Clarke, "Le Philosophe en méditation, de Rembrandt," Cahiers de Psychologie de l'art et de la culture, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, 6, 1980, 132.
  4. ^ For example, this figure is visible in the engraving of the painting by Devilliers l'aîné in Joseph Lavallée, Galerie du musée de France, vol. 8, Filhol, Paris, 1814, pl. III. The third figure does not appear in the turn-of-the-century engraving by Timothy Cole in John Charles Van Dyke, Timothy Cole, Old Dutch and Flemish Masters Engraved by Timothy Cole With Critical Notes by John C. Van Dyke and Comments by the Engraver, The Century Co., New York, 1901, 32.
  5. ^ Ernst van de Wetering et al., A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. V, The Small History Paintings, Springer, Dordrecht, 2011, 197. As Van de Wetering notes, "the paint layers were covered with an extremely thick, yellowed layer of varnish, as a result of which it is very difficult to get any clear insight into its pictorial characteristics."
  6. ^ Jean-Marie Clarke, "Le Philosophe en méditation du Louvre: un tableau signé 'RHL-van Rijn' et daté '1632,'" Revue du Louvre, 3, 1990, 193-94. For the author's English translation, see:https://rkd.nl/en/explore/technical/5007260
  7. ^ Horst Gerson, Rembrandt Paintings, Artabras Books, Harrison House, N.Y., 1968: "The date has always been regarded as 1633, but the last digit may just as well be read as a one or a two, which accords better with the style of this tender painting," 492.
  8. ^ Corpus, II, 641: the members of the RRP who examined this painting in 1968 were unable to see the signature. However, subsequent examinations by Foucart (1982) and Clarke (1990) confirmed its presence.
  9. ^ See Corpus, II, 644, for early provenance.
  10. ^ Gérard Hoet,Catalogus of Naamlyst van Schildereyen met derzelver pryzen..., vol. I, The Hague 1752, lot 135, p. 530 (Lugt 488). The French version of the catalogue gives it lot no. 136 and provides the correction measurements: haut 11 pou(ces) & demi, large 1 p(ied) & 2 pou(ces) & demi.
  11. ^ See Clarke, 1990, figs. 11 and 12, p. 199.
  12. ^ See the page of Lormier's handwritten list reproduced in Everhard Korthals Altes, 2001, p. 289, which does not clearly indicate the year (1746? 1748?). Korthals Altes cites the date of sale as 21 June 1748, p. 271, Anne Leclair as 26 May 1748, p. 38. We follow the reading of the Rembrandt Database.
  13. ^ Korthals Altes, 2001, 259, note 32, which lists the sale catalogues known to have belonged to Lormier.
  14. ^ "[L]e marquis d'Argenson fut le premier auteur du regroupement de ces deux panneaux qu'il exposait 'en regard'. Leclair,. 2006, 38.
  15. ^ Foucart, 1983, 89 and 98, and Corpus, II, 1986, p. 643. Lormier and the marquis d'Argenson are not mentioned in the Provenance section in volume II (1986, C51) or volume VI (2015, A86) of the Corpus. See an up-to-date provenance in Korthals Altes, 2001, pp. 297-298, who also quotes a long note written by Voyer.
  16. ^ Korthals Altes, 2001, 274.
  17. ^ Leclair, 2006, 38.
  18. ^ Leclair, 2006, 42, transcribes the note: This passage remains as a sentence fragment: "Le hasard qui les a rassemblés l'un est plus fin l'autre a plus de piquant . . ." The French verb "rassembler" can mean either "brought together" or "brought back together".
  19. ^ Ruth Bernard Yeazell, Picture Titles. How and Why Western Paintings Acquired their Titles, Princeton, 2015, 84.
  20. ^ Michael Fried, Absorption and Theatricality. Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot, UCLA Press, 1980, 194, note 85.
  21. ^ W. McAllister Johnson, The Rise and Fall of the Fine-Art Print in Eighteenth-Century France, U. of Toronto Press, see the chapter "Pendants," 54-65.
  22. ^ Leclair, 2006, 41 and note 35.
  23. ^ Leclair, 2006, 41.
  24. ^ Leclair, 2006, 42.
  25. ^ Clarke, 1980, 138-9.
  26. ^ Op. cit., 198.
  27. ^ Julius S. Held, Rembrandt and the Book of Tobit, Gehenna Press, Northampton MA, 1964.
  28. ^ Anna and the Blind Tobit, 63.8 x 47.7 cm. This painting at the National Gallery in London has been re-attributed to Rembrandt, with a possible participation by his student at the time, Gerrit Dou. David Bromford et al., Art in the Making: Rembrandt, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2006, 62-69.
  29. ^ Corpus, II, p. 644: See Provenace section above.
  30. ^ Corpus, II, 642.
  31. ^ See the Provenance in Corpus, II, p. 644: "Een wenteltrap van Rembrandt van Ryn met een oudt manneken sittende op eenen stoel" (1673) and ""Een wenteltrap van Rembrandt van Ryn" (1687). Here, as Clarke (1990) points out, the RRP uses the mention of a winding stair to support their hypothesis that the painting was intended as an exercise in perspective by a member of Rembrandt's studio or circle, but ignore the evidence of the mention of the master's name in this source.
  32. ^ In 2019, the official title reverted to Philosophe en contemplation, the title it was given in 1753 by Louis Surugue when he engraved its reproduction.
  33. ^ Gerson, 1968, loc. cit.. Gary Schwarz, Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings, Penguin Books, London, 1985, 198: cat. 214, Scholar in a room with a winding stair.
  34. ^ Corpus, II, 638-44, C 51.
  35. ^ "034 (034, 27): To Theo van Gogh. Paris, Monday, 31 May 1875. - Vincent van Gogh Letters". vangoghletters.org.
  36. ^ John Charles Van Dyke, Rembrandt and His School; a critical study of the master and his pupils with a new assignment of their pictures, New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1923, 114-5."One may be heretical enough to think that someone like Koninck or Dou may have painted them..." He continues with: "The second picture, with the light coming from the left, seems a companion piece, but there may be some doubt about its being by Koninck. Its assignment is tentative."
  37. ^ Madeleine Hours, "Rembrandt. Observations et présentation de radiographies exécutées d'après les portraits et compositions du musée du Louvre," Bulletin des Laboratoires du Musée du Louvre, 1961, 6, 3-43.
  38. ^ Gerson, Op. cit.
  39. ^ Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, vol. III, PVA, Landau, 1983, 1649 (cat. no. 1133): "Interieur mit meditierenden Gelehrter."
  40. ^ Foucart, 1982, 98.
  41. ^ Clarke, 1990, 194-95.
  42. ^ Clarke, 1980, 121-28.
  43. ^ In the wording of the fragmentary note: "Le hasard qui les a rassemblé..." Leclair, 2006, 42.
  44. ^ See Clarke, 1990, fig. 12, p. 199.
  45. ^ a b Corpus, II, 641.
  46. ^ Clarke, 1990, 191-200.
  47. ^ Corpus., II, 642.
  48. ^ Roelof van Straten, Young Rembrandt: The Leiden Years, 1606-1632, Foleor, Leiden, 2006, 229: "It is not understandable that the Rembrandt Research Project does not accept the picture as an original work by the master."
  49. ^ Corpus, V, 197.
  50. ^ Ernst van de Wetering, A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings. Rembrandt's Paintings Revisited. A Complete Survey, vol. VI, Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, 523-24. Kamerlicht is translated as "roomlight"
  51. ^ Corpus, II, 642-644.
  52. ^ Corpus, V, p.196. "Wherever the question of a painting's raison d'être arises, there is a reflexive tendency to prioritise its iconographic meaning, but in the case of these paintings this approach yields very little of interest."
  53. ^ Rudolf Steiner, "The History of Art: Rembrandt" (lecture 5), 28 November 1916, Dornach (Eng. translation, Rudolf Steiner Library, Anthroposophical Society of America, N.Y., 9).
  54. ^ Aldous Huxley, The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell, Harper & Brothers, N.Y., 1954, 95.
  55. ^ Carl Gustav Jung (ed.), Joseph L. Henderson, Marie-Louise von Franz, Aniela Jaffé and Jolande Jacobi, Man and His Symbols, Doubleday, Garden City N.Y., 1964, 103.
  56. ^ Held, 1964, 26-27.
  57. ^ Clarke, 1990, 198.
  58. ^ Clarke, 1980, 115-86.
  59. ^ Jean-Marie Clarke (November 2016). "The Rembrant Search Party". Journal for Artistic Research (11). doi:10.22501/jar.250318.
  60. ^ Jean-Pierre Dautun "Le Philosophe en méditation de Rembrandt", Cahiers Raymond Abellio, 1, 1983, 42-51, 51
  61. ^ Karl Clausberg, Neuronale Kunstgeschichte. Selbstdarstellung als Gestaltungsprinzip, Springer, 1999, 248-250
  62. ^ "Defined as a "vivid description of an action, event, person, condition, passion, etc. used for creating the illusion of reality".
  63. ^ Régine Pietra, Sage comme un image. Figures de la philosophie dans les arts, Editions du Félin, 1992, 105-15.
  64. ^ Wiersma, Otto (1999). "Het is een kunst om te lezen: de dubbelzinnigheid van spiegelbeelden bij Rembrandt en Salomon Koninck".
  65. ^ http://objectiveandsacredart.ning.com/forum/topics/the-philosopher-in-meditation [dead link‍]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Philosopher in Meditation by Rembrandt.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosopher_in_Meditation&oldid=1153460655"