Philosopher in Meditation
Philosopher in Meditation (Bredius 431) is the traditional title of an oil painting in the Musée du Louvre, Paris, that has long been 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. 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 first source that clearly refers to this painting. The painting was brought to Paris from The  Hague at 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. The presumed subject matter of philosophical meditation, the finely graded chiaroscuro treatment and 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. 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. As it is, the overall lighting is warm and quite subdued owing to the yellowing of the varnish. Signature. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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 exact 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). The painting was bought by Jacques de Roore, an agent bidding on behalf of Willem Lormier, art collector and dealer in The Hague. On 27 June 1748, Lormier sold the painting for Dfl. 525 to the French collector Marc-René Voyer, marquis d'Argenson. 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. 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. 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. Korthals Altes claims that Voyer already owned the Koninck when he acquired the Rembrandt, but cites no evidence. 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". In notes on his "pendants" set down around 1750, Voyer pointed out that "chance brought them together". 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, while he reproduced the Rembrandt in the following year and showed it at the Salon of 1755. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 argues that the scene is ultimately derived from the Book of Tobit, one of Rembrandt's favorite Old Testament sources. The sole objection to this interpretation is that, apart from the two main figures—the blind Tobit and his wife Anna— there is no identifying attribute, such as Anna's spinning wheel. Nevertheless, a plausible interpretation of the scene is Tobit and Anna waiting for the return of their only son, Tobias, a scene that Rembrandt had already represented in  another version in 1630. 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." 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. Although the title in the Louvre's publications remains "Philosophe en méditation", 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. 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." Companion painting: " Philosopher in Contemplation" or "Philosopher with an Open Book". The best 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 together with a pendant of identical size (28 x 33.5 cm) that presented similar motifs—including a spiral staircase—and that 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". 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 objects and his solitude make him a much better candidate for philosophical tasks than the old man in the alleged "Philosopher in Meditation". In spite of the obvious differences in the composition and execution, no one called its attribution to Rembrandt in doubt. The great  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...". In 1955, examinations with X-rays and infrared photography at the laboratory of the Louvre revealed notable differences in treatment and caused this attribution to be dropped. Jacques Foucart (1982), Curator for Dutch and Fleming Painting at the Louvre, like Horst Gerson (1968) and  Werner Sumowski (1983), attributes this work to Salomon Koninck (1609–1656), a Rembrandt imitator, dating it to around 1645 and titling it "Philosopher in Contemplation" or "Philosopher with an Open Book". Yet the real credit for the attribution to Koninck should go to John C. Van Dyke, who wrote: "In fact, one may be heretical enough to think that someone like Koninck or Dou may have painted them..." The subject matter and details of the Koninck picture seem to have been directly inspired by a Rembrandt etching dated 1642 and representing "St. Jerome in a dark chamber" (Bartsch 105), which is  the only other known work by Rembrandt that features a complete helical staircase. The traditional iconography of the Doctors of the Church and St. Jerome in particular provided the attributes for 17th-century representations of scholars in their study. In the last analysis, the only thing that the pendant has in common with the "Philosopher in Meditation" is the medium and format, which reflects more on Koninck's intentions than on those of Rembrandt. Any further speculation on the relationship between the two paintings must take into account a manuscript commentary from around 1750 by their first French owner, the  marquis de Voyer d'Argenson, who states that the two pictures were brought together "by chance." 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. 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 his own workshop." This judgment was analyzed and criticized by Jean-Marie Clarke who maintained the traditional attribution to Rembrandt and pointed out that the RRP may 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." This disattribution was not accepted by the Louvre and other Rembrandt scholars, 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 current director of the RRP, Ernst van de Wetering. The painting was officially re-instated in vol. 6 of the "Corpus" under no. 86 with the title  Interior with a window and a winding staircase and the parenthetical information: ""a study in Kamerlicht."" Considering the fact that it is supposed to be a study, this painting is very finely executed and even bears a signature. 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. 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. 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." 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, 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. 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). More recently, Clarke published an interpretation on the internet that relates Rembrandt's composition to the design of his signature in 1632. 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." 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." The French philosophy professor Régine Pietra (1992) published an essay  in which she used the painting to illustrate the rhetorical figure of hypotyposis; Rembrandt's painting, with its interplay of light and dark, renders the experience of philosophical meditation visually perceptible. 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." A discussion of the "Philosopher in Meditation" along essentially Gurdjeffian  lines can be found on the Objective Art website (2011).