PicturingLudwig Burchard

1886–1960a rubens scholar in

art-historiographical Perspective

edited byLieneke nijkamp, Koen Bulckens, and Prisca valkeneers

harveY MiLLer PuBLishers

103

A Brief History of the catalogue Raisonné

Koen Bulckens

•

the prospe�us issued by Burchard in 1939 contains a specimen of an entry of his Rubens catalogue, which shows how he envisioned it to be. There is

a rudimentary description of the subje� with an account of the colours, some remarks on painterly technique, a dating and attribution, and the medium and measurements. Next are the provenance and exhibitions, followed by the a�ual catalogue text, which in this case consists mostly of remarks on the provenance, and a reference to the motive of the painting in Renaissance art. To conclude, the copies and relevant literature are mentioned. The entries would be grouped mostly according to subje� matter, and each se�ion was to be preceded by an essay discussing its specific chara�eristics.

Burchard wanted his work to be ‘the complete embodiment of our improved knowledge of Rubens works’.1 thorough historical research and sound connoisseurship were to result in a sober yet meticulous oversight of rubens’ oeuvre in the form of a catalogue raisonné. Burchard’s relationship to this particular kind of art-historical writing led me to provide a brief account of its history.2 to start, i will discuss some eighteenth-century print catalogues, as these were the first publications in which authors tried to describe an oeuvre in

1. L. Burchard, The work of Peter Paul Rubens . An illustrated catalogue of the paintings, drawings and engravings, in six volumes demy quarto (Amsterdam, 1939), (unpaginated). The attribution consists of the words ‘Entirely by the master’s own hand’.

2. When writing an art-historiographical study, the Di�ionary of Art Historians (online) is indispensible for basic information and further references. The literature specifically discussing catalogues raisonnées is scarce. For an overview, see: A. Ross, ‘Catalogue’, in J. Turner (ed.), The Di�ionary of Art, VI (New York, 1996), pp. 78-82. The reader will find that the present discussion is indebted to this article for its basic stru�ure. For a discussion of nineteenth-century changes in art-historical monographs, see: G. Guercio, Art as Existence. The Artist’s Monograph and Its Proje� (cambridge, Ma, 2004). Parts of it are relevant for the catalogue raisonné. When presenting this paper, I was unaware of the writings of dr antoinette Friedenthal, who has fruitfully focused on the origin of the catalogue raisonné and its relation to the art market. Her articles contain references not mentioned here: A. Friedenthal ‘“[…] par le bonnefoi, ou l’ignorance de quelques Marchands […]” Prolegomena zur Entstehung des Catalogue raisonné im Spannungsfeld von Handel und Wissenschaft’, in P. Griener, K. Imesch (eds.), Klassizismen und Kosmopolitismus . Programm oder Problem? Austausch in Kunst und Kunsttheorie im 18 . Jahrhundert (Zurich, 2004), pp. 107-124; A. Friedenthal, ‘Defining the Oeuvre: Shaping the Catalogue Raisonné’, in G. u. Grossman and P. Krutisch (eds.), The Challange of the Obje�. 33rd Congress of the International Committee of the History of Art (Nuremberg, 2013), pp. 723-727. She is also preparing a book on the subje�.

104

a BrieF historY oF the cataLogue raisonné

its totality. Next, I will outline the general evolutions of the catalogue raisonné in the nineteenth century through a sele�ion of three hallmark publications. I will conclude with Max Rooses and a brief account of how he influenced Burchard, and in turn the Corpus Rubenianum.

Édme-François Gersaint (1694–1750)The first catalogue raisonné devoted to the graphic oeuvre of a single artist appeared in 1751, when helle and glomy posthumously published a book on rembrandt etchings (fig. 1). It was written by Édme-François Gersaint,3 a marchant-mercier based in Paris at the Pont Notre-Dame. The catalogue is preceded by an introdu�ion, an appreciation of Rembrandt as an etcher, and a short biography. The entries consist of a subje� description, remarks on the differences between the states, rarity, measurements, and a transcription of the inscriptions. The prints are arranged according to subje� matter, and the catalogue concludes with an account of Rembrandt’s imitators.

rembrandt’s etchings and drawings gained a particular popularity among colle�ors during the eighteenth century, which gave way to ‘a lot of later prints – often from worked up plates –, copies, and countless works in Rembrandt’s manner’.4 this context facilitated the need for what helle and glomy call ‘exa� catalogues’.5 gersaint’s catalogue was revised by Pieter Yper in 1756 and by adam von Bartsch in 1797. Another catalogue of Rembrandt’s etchings by Daniel Daulby was published in 1796, and similar works on other artists also began to appear.6 Most of them should be seen as a guide for the amateur, often explicitly linked to the realm of colle�ing.

it is important to note that before gersaint works were sometimes mentioned in artists’ biographies. Also, Gersaint’s entries did not differ considerably from those we might find in contemporary colle�ions or au�ion catalogues. In the case of the latter, works by a single artist put up for sale would occasionally be preceded by a brief appreciation or short biography. Lastly, Florent Le comte’s Cabinet des Singularités, published in 1699 and referred to in gersaint’s introdu�ion, bundled descriptions of artists and provided lists of their works.

3. E.-F. Gersaint, Catalogue raisonné de toutes les pieces qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt (Paris, 1751).4. J. Boomgaard and R. W. Scheller, ‘In wankel evenwicht: de Rembrandtwaardering in vogelvlucht’, in Rembrandt . De

Meester en zijn Werkplaats (exh. cat., Gemäldegalerie, Berlin – Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam – National Gallery, London, 1991–92), (Zwolle, 1991), p. 107.

5. Helle and Glomy, ‘Avertissement des editeurs’, in E.-F. Gersaint, Catalogue raisonné de toutes les pieces qui forment l’oeuvre de Rembrandt (Paris, 1751), p. v.

6. For example, the print catalogues by Adam von Bartsch of Antonie Waterloo (1795), Guido Reni (1795) and Lucas van Leyden (1798). More examples can be found in Friedenthal (2004) (as in note 2).

105

Koen BuLcKens

therefore, it would be an overstatement to call gersaint’s book a revolution, but it was nevertheless new.

John Smith (1781–1855)The reason that the first catalogues focused on the graphic rather than the painted oeuvre of an artist is, of course, that prints were more widely available for study and colle�ing. After the Napoleonic wars and the spe�acular growth of the art market in the decades after the 1820s, a lot of paintings became known to a

Fig. 1. Frontispiece of Gersaint’s Rembrandt catalogue .

106

a BrieF historY oF the cataLogue raisonné

Fig. 2. Frontispiece of Smith’s first volume.

broader public.7 Hereby we arrive at the first self-proclaimed catalogue raisonné of a painted oeuvre, or oeuvres, namely the monumental work by the London art dealer John Smith (fig. 2). It consists of eight volumes that appeared between 1829 and 1837, and a supplement published in 1842.8 smith was considered the pioneer by Max rooses9 as well as Ludwig Burchard10 in the authors’ respe�ive

7. For an introdu�ion with further references to this period and how it facilitated the need for connoisseurship, see: C. Scallen, Rembrandt. Reputation and the Pra�ice of Connoisseurship (Amsterdam, 2004), pp. 24-33.

8. J. Smith, A Catalogue Raisonné of the most Eminent Dutch, Flemish and French Painters, I–IX, (London, 1829 –42).9. M. Rooses, L’Oeuvre de P . P . Rubens . Histoire et Description de ses Tableaux et Dessins, I (Antwerp, 1886), p. 2.10. Burchard (as in note 1).

107

Koen BuLcKens

discussions of their Rubens catalogues. I have found other biographies containing a list of works published before smith, but they are neither as comprehensive nor as systematic as his work.11

In the scarce literature specifically discussing catalogues raisonnés, John smith is, however, usually omitted. I assume that the reason for this is that in his volumes, smith often described the work of several artists, including a short biography on each of them. His enterprise, therefore, bears a formal similarity to colle�ions of Lives and Works like houbraeken’s, van Mander’s, and ultimately Vasari’s. However, Smith stated, that the ‘di�ionaries of the Lives of the Painters [were] sufficiently numerous’, and claimed that there was ‘no work, in the English Language, similar to the present’.12 It is puzzling that Smith specifies works ‘in the English language’, without mentioning any in a foreign language. As he did give full references to other literature, it can be assumed that there was no such work at all to smith’s knowledge, but that he nevertheless deemed it possible that someone somewhere in Europe had embarked on a similar venture.

Smith differed from his predecessors by including a separate and extensive catalogue of each painter’s work. It is probable that he derived this novelty from the print catalogues mentioned earlier, which he certainly knew, as he referred to Gersaint and the others in his discussion of Rembrandt’s etchings.13 Moreover, in the volume on Rembrandt, Smith followed Gersaint’s iconographical subje� arrangement, while in the other volumes the paintings are arranged by colle�ion.

smith’s entries, although markedly uneven, contain the medium and measurements, followed by a subje� description, evaluation of the pi�ure, a provenance, and account of prints. The systematic inclusion of measurements and subje� description is a welcome progression opposed to eighteenth-century writing. Smith himself had experienced the annoying ‘impossibility of identifying pi�ures, in some catalogues’ where the sizes and descriptions are mentioned ‘defe�ive and unintelligible’ .14

As a dealer, Smith was writing for an audience of amateurs and colle�ors, much like Gersaint. This becomes most obvious in his elaborate account of the five most common schemes used by fraudulent pi�ure dealers, which he concluded by stating that:

11. For example: J. F. M. Michel, Histoire de la vie de P . P . Rubens (Brussels, 1771); A. Hume, Notices of the Life of Titian (London, 1829). See also Waagen’s monograph on Hubert and Jan Van Eyck, discussed below.

12. J. Smith, A Catalogue Raisonné of the most Eminent Dutch, Flemish and French Painters, I (London, 1829), p. xxi. 13. J. Smith, A Catalogue Raisonné of the most Eminent Dutch, Flemish and French Painters, VII (London, 1836), p. xl. It should

also be noted that the term ‘catalogue raisonné’ was used exclusively for print catalogues before smith’s volumes appeared. The term is not used by Hume (as in note 11), or Waagen (infra). Even Passavant (infra) in 1839 still only refers to his catalogue as being the ‘Zweiter Theil’.

14. Smith (as in note 12), pp. xxvii-xxviii.

108

a BrieF historY oF the cataLogue raisonné

[…] those who are so duped have scarcely a right to complain, for it is well known that some that have bought sad trash in this way, will not buy of one whom they know to be well acquainted with the value of works of art.15

Smith contrasts himself to these maleficent men, and also profiles himself as a worthy connoisseur. The appearance of his catalogue did indeed benefit his reputation as a dealer. However, his affiliation with the market, especially his decision to include price estimates for paintings in the first five volumes, was critiqued by Gustav Waagen and Johann David Passavant.16

smith’s volume on rubens has almost 1,400 entries, which are grouped according to colle�ion. The artist’s oeuvre for Smith, however, was like a limited list. Generally, he did not date works, displaying a notion of connoisseurship similar to that of Jonathan richardson, whose Treatise on Art smith considered one of the best texts on connoisseurship.17 For richardson, the connoisseur had to master three skills: judging a painting’s quality, naming its author, and distinguishing originals from copies.18 all of these reveal more of a concern with the contemporary classification and value of artworks than with establishing an oeuvre as a result of complex historical and stylistic developments.

smith studied previous literature on the artists he discussed, and also colle�ed a wealth of information from colle�ion and au�ion catalogues. We must credit him for accumulating this information, and for presenting it in the relatively new form of the catalogue raisonné. However – and one could argue that this was because of the task at hand – smith did not undertake systematic archival research. In this respe� he differed considerably from his German contemporaries.

Johann David Passavant (1787–1861)In 1764 Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717–68) published his Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums, gradually causing a major shift in art-historical writing. 15. Smith (as in note 12), p. xvi.16. Smith’s occupation as a dealer and its influence on the reception of his work by Waagen and Passavant were

addressed recently by: C. Sebag-Montefiore and J. Armstrong-Totten, A dynasty of dealers: John Smith and successors 1801–1924 (London, 2013), pp. 107-110; A. Friedenthal, ‘John Smith, his Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the Most Eminent Dutch, Flemish, and French Painters (1829–1842) and the “stigma of PICTuRE DEALER”’, The Journal of Art Historiography, IX (2013), pp. 1 -20.

17. Smith (as in note 12), p. xx.18. J. Richardson, Two Discourses (London, 1719). In the subtitle Richardson stated he wanted his essay to serve for ‘Shewing

how to judge I. Of the Goodness of a Pi�ure; II. Of the Hand of the Master, and; III. Whether ’t is an Original or a Copy.’ For a thorough analysis of Richardson’s work, see the writings of Dr Carol Gibson-Wood: C. Gibson-Wood, Studies in the Theory of Connoisseurship from Vasari to Morelli (unpublished PhD dissertation, Warburg Institute, London, 1982), pp. 95-136; C. Gibson-Wood, Jonathan Richardson: Art Theorist of the English Enlightenment (New Haven, CT, 2000).

109

Koen BuLcKens

Winckelmann saw the history of art not as a mere colle�ion of lives and works, but rather as styles growing organically according to their historical circumstances.19 in the decades to come, more studies in his spirit – focusing on the development of schools and eras – appeared. Another influential German scholar, Karl Friedrich von Rumohr (1785–1843), stressed that attributions should only be made after inspe�ing works in the flesh, and that art historians should study primary source material, instead of the literary tradition.20

In the first half of the nineteenth century, there was a return to the study of specific artists refle�ing these changes. A publication that deserves mentioning here is Über Hubert und Jan Van Eyck by Gustav Friedrich Waagen (1794–1868).21 The book, which predates Smith’s first volume by seven years, is the first in which winckelmann’s notion of organic historical development and rumohr’s method were applied to an artist’s oeuvre.22 it is a narrative account of the van eycks’ life and work, with attention for their place in the broader history of Early Netherlandish art. As it is concluded with a list of the Van Eycks’ works,23 Waagen’s book has been named the first catalogue raisonné of a painted oeuvre.24 however, the entries do not possess much of a catalogue’s customary chara�eristics. Waagen does not discuss provenance,25 and measurements are, if present, generally taken from previous publications. There is a noteworthy focus on the interrelation of the van eycks’ oeuvre, but the analysis of the parts of it is limited to iconographic and stylistic descriptions. It was only in Passavant’s Raphael catalogue (fig. 3), published in 1839, that the changes heralded by winckelmann and rumohr resulted in the catalogue raisonné as we know it.

Johann david Passavant was a painter and a member of the german romantic Nazarene movement, having been taught his method of art history by Rumohr.26 Passavant complained that up until his endeavour, Raphael biographies chiefly revised vasari’s Vita of the artist. There was an absence of critical visual analysis

19. A concise overview of Winckelmann’s role in the historiography of art can be found in u. Kultermann, The History of Art History (Norwalk, CT, 1993), pp. 47-58. For an in-depth analysis, see: A. Potts, Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History (New Haven, CT, 1994).

20. For Rumohr’s influence, see: Gibson -Wood (1982) (as in note 18), pp. 152-165; G. Bickendorf, Der Beginn der Kunstgeschichtsschreibung unter dem Paradigma ‘Geschichte’ (Worms, 1985); Kultermann (as in note 19), pp. 87-89.

21. G. F. Waagen, Über Hubert und Jan van Eyck (Breslau, 1822).22. Waagen mentions Rumohr’s work explicitly as a precedent in Renaissance studies: Waagen (as in note 21), pp. iiv-iv.

He states that he did not carry out archival research (p. vi), but he nevertheless displayed a novel historical attitude towards earlier literature and Van Eyck’s oeuvre. For a detailed discussion, see: Bickendorf (as in note 20), pp. 98 -187; Guercio (as in note 2), pp. 61-69 (esp. p. 66).

23. Waagen (as in note 21), pp. 195 -270.24. For example, by Ross (as in note 2), p. 78.25. The works that were taken to the Musée National after the French Revolution are an exception. See, for example, the

entry on the Ghent Altar Piece: Waagen (as in note 21), pp. 211 -232 (esp. pp. 228-229).26. W. Waetzold, von Passavant bis Justi (Deutsche Kunsthistoriker, II), (Leipzig, 1924), p. 19. The most detailed analysis of

Passavant’s Raphael catalogue is: Guercio (as in note 2), pp. 91 -106.

110

a BrieF historY oF the cataLogue raisonné

supported with primary source material, conforming to the ‘heutigen Stand der Kunstbildung und der Wissenschaften’.27 apart from spending six years in italy analysing all works attributed to raphael, Passavant searched archives and libraries throughout Europe for relevant documents, and studied all previous literature.28

His catalogue consists of two volumes, the first being a narrative description of Raphael’s life and work, and a lengthy appendix of documents. The second volume is a catalogue, which is subdivided into three parts. The first part

27. J. D. Passavant, Rafael von urbino und sein Vater Giovanni Santi, I (Leipzig, 1839), p. vii. We can assume that the ‘heutigen Stand’ Passavant refers to is the new methodology that started with Winckelmann and Rumohr.

28. Passavant (as in note 27), vol. I, pp. xix-xxi.

Fig. 3. Frontispiece of Passavant’s Raphael catalogue .

111

Koen BuLcKens

discusses paintings, tapestries, designs for sculpture and archite�ural plans chronologically; the second drawings according to location; and the third prints made after Raphael’s compositions.

Passavant’s entries contain medium and measurements, and a brief description of the subje�. Often there are remarks on the painting’s condition, and the provenance is consistently addressed (although it is marked often by a notable gap in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries). The catalogue already has an implicit relative dating – as it is arranged chronologically – but specific dates are often suggested. Passavant also mentions which works he thinks to be chiefly executed by Raphael’s assistants. Lastly, engravings and prolific copies are mentioned at the end of some entries, and the finished compositions are related to preparatory drawings with cross-references. It is important to note that Passavant stated that he would not reiterate the aspe�s of the works addressed in the first volume.29 in this volume, life and work go hand-in-hand, with Passavant illustrating how historical circumstances influenced Raphael’s style by the use of specific examples. The two volumes are therefore complementary.

The book was received well. It was revised and translated into French in 1860, and into English in 1872. It would also lead to Passavant’s appointment as Inspektor of the Städelsches Kunstinstitut in Frankfurt.30 Passavant’s study marked the beginning of the modern catalogue raisonné. On a formal level, the catalogue may not differ much from Smith’s. However, Passavant’s use of a critical historical method and notion of an artist’s oeuvre as developing according to inner aspirations and outside influences should be considered a manifestation of major changes in art historiography. As a result of publishing a considerable amount of new information, Passavant’s work remains a point of reference for contemporary scholars.

Max Rooses (1839–1914)Max Rooses, the first curator of the Antwerp Plantin-Moretus Museum, published a monumental Rubens catalogue between 1886 and 1892 (fig. 4). It could be argued that the changes in art historiography exemplified in his catalogue are not as fundamental as in the case of Passavant,31 as rooses follows the latter’s method quite closely. His discussion of Rubens’ oeuvre is based on thorough

29. Passavant (as in note 27), vol. II, p. 3.30. Waetzold (as in note 26), pp. 24-25. It was also reviewed favourably by Charles Eastlake: C. Eastlake (review) ‘J. D.

Passavant, rafael von urbino und sein vater giovanni santi’, Quarterly Review, LXVI (1840), pp. 1-40.31. ross maintains that rooses manifests a new turning point in art-historical writing, as he displays an awareness of his

research as ‘being part of a continuing arthistoriographical tradition […], marking the beginnings of a scholarly art history infrastru�ure’. Ross (as in note 2), p. 79.

112

a BrieF historY oF the cataLogue raisonné

archival research on the one hand, and visual observation on the other. There is, however, a notable difference in tone between Passavant and Rooses. The former’s writing still refle�s his roots in Romanticism, whereas the latter’s is dry and obje�ive. Rooses’ catalogue displays an urge for consistency and the pursuit of the matter of fa�, that are to be understood within the positivistic tendencies that had been growing during the nineteenth century, in part as a rea�ion to the Romantic movement.32 the main reason that rooses’ catalogue 32. rooses’ contributions to rubens scholarship also have to be seen in light of the Flemish movement, in which he was

an a�ive participant. See: u. Heinen, ‘Kunstgeschichte als Funktion populistischer Ideologie: Max Rooses (1839–1914) – Kunsthistorieker und “Führer im flämischen Lager”’, Kritische Berichte, XXXVII (2009), pp. 55-93.

Fig. 4. Frontispiece of Rooses’ first volume on Rubens.

113

Koen BuLcKens

cannot be omitted from the present discussion is, of course, its significance for Rubens scholarship.33

rooses arranged rubens’ oeuvre iconographically, basing himself on the catalogues of Rubens’ prints by Hecquet, Basan, and Voorhelm Schneevoogt. He made some minor modifications in order to make the system as rational and uniform as possible.34 this might seem like a step back, in comparison to Passavant’s obje�ive to describe the development of Raphael’s oeuvre chronologically. However, Rooses declared that two things preoccupied him while writing: the first being the refinement of the chronology of Rubens’ works, and the second the part played by the Rubens’ workshop in them. These two matters that account for the inconsistencies in rubens’ oeuvre, rooses continues, were commonly known for two centuries, but had been omitted from the judgements of critics and historians. He credits Waagen for first addressing this issue,35 and similarly praises the catalogues of the Berlin and Munich museums. But, rooses states, ‘jusqu’ici, ces principes, sans lesquels une saine appreciation de Rubens est impossible, n’ont jamais éte appliqués à la totalité’.36 rooses wanted to provide the first methodologically sound overview of the ensemble of Rubens’ works. The idea of an oeuvre, as it is presented here, is not very different from that of Passavant. Yet, in trying to make his monumental volumes of pra�ical use, Rooses opted for an iconographical rather than chronological stru�ure.

There are four volumes of entries on paintings, and a fifth discussing drawings and including addenda. The entries, although addressing the same subje�s, are lengthier than Passavant’s, mainly due to the systematic descriptions. In them rooses dates most works and separates the input of the master from that of his pupils, often suggesting specific names. Rooses’ catalogue does not contain a biography,37 making it the first plain catalogue raisonné of this size.

To conclude, let us return to Ludwig Burchard and briefly look at the Corpus Rubenianum.38 Burchard gave two motivations for writing a new rubens catalogue: the first being that a lot of works had changed hands since Rooses’ volumes had

33. See: H. Vlieghe, ‘De historiek van de Rubensvorsing: van Max Rooses tot het Rubenianum’, in Feestbundel bij de opening van het Kolveniershof en het Rubenianum . Aangeboden aan ere-conservator Frans Baudouin (Antwerp, 1981), pp. 11-14.

34. Rooses (as in note 9), p. 2.35. It can be assumed that Rooses referred to G. F. Waagen, ‘Über den Maler Petrus Paulus Rubens’, in F. von Raumer

(ed.), Historisches Taschenbuch, III (Leipzig, 1833). For Rubens’ workshop, see: pp. 213, 269-271. For the subsequent development of hypotheses about Rubens’ workshop, see: A. Balis, ‘“Fatto da un mio discepolo”: Rubens’s studio pra�ices Reviewed’, in Rubens and his Workshop: The Flight of Lot and his Family from Sodom (exh. cat., National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo), Tokyo (1994), pp. 97-127, for Rooses, pp. 98, 111.

36. Rooses (as in note 9), pp. 11-12.37. He would write a thorough one later: M. Rooses, Rubens’ leven en werken (Antwerp, 1903).38. For an in-depth discussion of the Corpus Rubenianum, see K. Bulckens, ‘Cataloguing Rubens and Rembrandt. A closer

look at the Corpus Rubenianum and the Rembrandt Research Proje�’, Rubensbulletin, V (2015), pp. 93-128.

114

a BrieF historY oF the cataLogue raisonné

appeared; and the second being that great progress had been made in matters of attribution and dating. Moreover, technical progress made it possible to provide an illustrated catalogue, which meant that Rooses’ lengthy subje� descriptions could be left out. Burchard retained Rooses’ catalogue as a framework to present all new information, introducing only two minor changes. Whereas Rooses treated drawings in a separate volume, Burchard wanted to treat them in dire� relation to the entries of the final work. Also, Burchard continued Rooses’ subje� arrangement but added introdu�ory texts to the different subje�s.39

As the prospe�us was used as a guideline for publishing the Corpus Rubenianum, the stru�ure suggested in it is largely found in the Corpus today.40 There was a further subdivision according to subje� matter, and it was decided that large commissions would be treated as a monograph, with an additional catalogue raisonné. The entries grew lengthier, refle�ing the growth of Rubens research as time went on. The increase of input was made possible by dividing the labour among different authors. Also, the introdu�ory texts gained importance due to the developments in art historiography in the last half of the twentieth century. A lot of these essays have indeed become worthy contributions to Rubens’ scholarship in their own right.

39. Burchard (as in note 1).40. For an account of the proje�’s genesis, see: R.-A. d’Hulst, F. Baudouin, ‘Foreword’, in J. R. Martin, The Ceiling Paintings

for the Jesuit Church in Antwerp (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, i), (Turnhout, 1968), pp. i-xiii; C. Van de Velde, ‘the centrum voor vlaamse Kunst van de 16e en 17e eeuw’, The Rubenianum Quarterly, I (2010), 2.

•