Circle of Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn

Probably Jacques Meyers, Rotterdam;
His deceased sale, Rotterdam, 9 September 1722, lot 168, for 180 florins;
Probably William Six;
His deceased, Amsterdam, 12 May 1734, lot 58 for 250 florins to S. Ligtenhorst;
Probably M. Servad;
By whom sold, Amsterdam, 25 June 1778, lot 80, where described as dated 1657, for 1,000 florins to Fouquet;
Possibly with The Gallery, 22 Piccadilly, London, 1809, no 34;
From whom purchased by Delahante 1809;
Probably Delahante sale, London, Phillips, 2-3 June 1814, lot 40, as 'Rembrandt', for £215,5 s to Dr Rainer;
Sir Thomas Baring, 2nd Bt (1772-1848), Stratton;
His deceased sale, London, Christie's, 2-3 June 1848, lot 113 as 'Rembrandt' for 135 Guineas, to Nieuwenhuys;
Thomas Baring (1799-1873), son of the above, by 1854;
Bequethed to his nephew Thomas George Baring (1826-1904), first Earl of Northbrook, by 1889;
By descent to The Right Honorable Florence Anita, Countess of Northbrook, C.B.E. (1860-1946), London;
By whom sold London, Christie's, 11 June 1937, lot 16, as 'Rembrandt', for 100 Guineas to Spink;
A.J. Grotendorst, Nijmegen, 1963;
Anonymous sale, London, Christie's, 11 April 1986, lot 39, as van den Eeckhout, for £40,000, where purchased by Guterman;
Linda and Gerald Guterman, New York;
Their sale, New York, Sotheby's, 14 January 1988, lot 13, as Attributed to van den Eeckhout, where purchased after the sale by the present owner.

London, British Institution, 1845, no. 2 (as Rembrandt, lent by Sir Thomas Baring).

Probably John Smith, Catalogue Raisonné of the Works..., 1836, vol. VII, pp. 25-26, cat. no 82, as dated 1657, and as possibly a copy after the painting in the Royal Collection;
Dr. Waagen, Art Treasures in Great Britain, 1854, vol. II, p. 182 as by Rembrandt, ("an excellent repetition of the picture at Buckingham Palace");
A Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Pictures belonging to the Earl of Northbrook, 1889, p. 61, no 84, as by Rembrandt and on panel, signed to the left and dated 1659; 
C. Hofstede de Groot, Catalogue Raisonné..., 1916, vol. VI, pp. 70-71, under no. 84 (as an old copy but with its provenance confused with the painting in the Royal Collection);
C. White, The Dutch Pictures in the Cllection of Her Majesty the Queen, Cambridge 1982, p. 109, where given as 'style of Rembrandt', and where listed as on panel with dimensions of 120.7 by 102.2 cm; "apparently signed and dated 1659";
W. Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, Landau 1983, vol. IV, p. 2954, under cat. no. 1946, erroneously listed as both copy a) and c).

The tone of the painting is cooler than the catalogue illustration suggests. The canvas has a sympathetic 20th century relining. Indeed, the impasto of the painting is extremely well preserved, particularly in the elaborate clothing of the visiting Magi and in the roof of the stable. The paint surface is generally well preserved, clean and secure, under a thick, glossy varnish. Some frame abrasion is visible along the upper, right and left hand margins of the painting. The aforementioned varnish largely precludes a proper inspection of the painting under UV light, but this does reveal some large groupings of spot retouchings throughout the background. There are some small clusters of further more minor, spot retouchings throughout the principal figure group and in the extreme foreground. Offered in an elaborate gilt plaster moulded frame with some losses.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

This softly-lit Adoration of the Magi repeats the composition of a work in the Royal Collection, dated 1657, now attributed to an anonymous follower of Rembrandt but until 1950 thought to be by the Master himself.¹  The compositions are almost identical and the dimensions of the two works are also very similar: the Royal Collection version is on panel with dimensions of 122.6 by 104.1 cm.  Indeed the 1937 sale catalogue (see Provenance) calls the present work "an excellent repetition of the picture at Buckingham Palace". Direct comparison of the paintings suggests that despite the closeness in the designs, the works are not necessarily by the same hand as the handling of paint is markedly different. However, both works are undoubtedly related to Van den Eeckhout's Adoration of the Magi, signed and dated 1665, in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow ² for which there is a preparatory - or certainly related - drawing in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.³ It is more likely that the Moscow version is the source of the design than vice versa. If the composition offered here is based on the Pushkin painting then we can safely reject the date on the Royal Collection version and propose a date of execution in the mid to late 1660s.

What is less debatable is that all of these compositions are linked by an unusual iconographical interpretation of the subject for it is not clear whom the figures depicted are: presumably one king is kneeling before the Infant Christ and a second king should be the figure standing behind him. However, the third king could be either one of the turbaned figure standing before the camel and the bearded man on the far right. Moreover, it remains to be explained who the kneeling couple in the foreground is as they are not a traditional part of the story.

The provenance of the painting is not entirely clear, partly due to its having been incorrectly listed at various times as being on a panel support and partly due to it often being described as also bearing a Rembrandt signature and date. Curiously, both versions have Baring Provenance (though different branches of the family), a fact which confused Hofstede de Groot. The provenance listed here is based on some relatively safe assumptions but can not be considered as definitive. When Christie's sold the work in 1986 they stated in their catalogue that the stencil on the reverse corresponds to the 1937 sale, when the painting was offered by Lady Baring. If this is the case, then Sumowski (see Literature) is wrong to list the present work as two separate copies as the Earl of Northbrook ownership is confirmed by the Descriptive Catalogue... (see Literature). Again in the 1986 catalogue Christie's stated that the present work was sold in Sir Thomas Baring's deceased sale in 1848 yet it appears to have immediately entered the collection of his son, Thomas Baring. Presumably Christie's would have consulted their records to confirm this but there is a potential area of uncertainty here as inscribed in catalogues of that sale it states that the work was bought by the dealer Niewenhuys - though of course this does not prevent him from having bought it for Thomas, the son of Sir Thomas Baring. Further back than this point the provenance becomes less certain though is entirely possible, and is in large part based on the suggestions of Smith and in particular White (for both see Literature).



1. See White, under Literature.
2. See W. Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, Landau 1983, vol. II, p. 738, cat. No. 454, reproduced p. 817.
3. See W. Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School, New York 1980, p. 1406, cat. no. 648.