To 1660 a large number of pictures is attributed, eighteen being portraits, and one, "Head of Christ," belonging to M. Maurice Kann, coming under the head of subject-pictures. Of these only four portraits are dated, and in two cases there is some doubt as to the last figure. Two of the dated portraits are of himself; one with the full date is in the Louvre [No. 2555], and one with a doubtful date belongs to Sir A. D. Neeld. Both are of extreme interest in their bearing on the personal history of Rembrandt. The portrait of the year before, belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch, shows us a man bearing some traces indeed of a struggle with adversity, but of a not altogether unsuccessful one. The character has been developed rather than shaken in the strife; the man is still strong in body, firm in mind; the hair, as far as it can be made out against the dark background, is still untouched by the hand of time; yet it is beyond question Rembrandt himself. In the two pictures now under consideration we find a change truly startling. The hair is thin and white, the face is wrinkled, the eyes weary. But it is in the character conveyed that the chief transformation is perceived; he has sunk suddenly into old age and weakness, the strength, the resolution of the man have gone out of him—he seems, stout as he was, to have broken at last. And yet in the next year he painted the finest work he ever did. There is nothing in his story to account for it. A severe illness seems the only possible explanation, followed by a remarkable, though brief, recuperation; but it is, perhaps, the greatest of the many great puzzles offered to us in the course of his history. Of the other two portraits, one, though fully signed and dated, is of a doubtful authenticity; while the date on "The Portrait of an Old Woman," belonging to Colonel Lindsay, is uncertain. The pictures painted about that year are numerous, and include a pair of portraits, husband and wife, belonging to Prince Jousoupoff; "The Capuchin," in the National Gallery [No. 166]; and two other figures in monks' robes, one belonging to Lord Wemyss, the other to Count Stroganoff; Captain Holford's portrait of a young man supposed to be "Titus"; "The Standard-Bearer," formerly at Warwick Castle but now transferred to America, and others.
There are ten pictures bearing the date 1661, one signed, but with the last figure of the date missing, and three with neither date nor signature. Of these, however, one, "The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis," we know to have been painted that year. A second painted about the time is "The Circumcision," belonging to Earl Spencer. The third is the "Venus and Cupid," at the Louvre [No. 2543], if it should not rather be counted among the portraits, since Dr Bode believes it to represent Hendrickje Stoffels and her daughter Cornelia. The same doubt as to classification applies to the "St Matthew," also in the Louvre [No. 2538], and to "A Pilgrim at Prayer," belonging to Consul Weber at Hamburg. Two figures of "Christ," one at Aschaffenbourg, the other belonging to Count Raczynski at Posen, complete the list of subjects. There is only one "Portrait of Himself," belonging to Lord Kinnaird, the others being one of a man with a knife in his hand, nicknamed, "Rembrandt's Cook," at Downton; the "Portrait of an old Woman," in the Museum of Épinal; another "Old Woman," in the possession of Lord Wantage; "A Man," in the Hermitage [No. 821]; and the misnamed "Jansenius," belonging to Lord Ashburton. All other works of that year are, however, eclipsed by the artist's masterpiece, which, if it alone remained in existence, would compel us to place Rembrandt in the very highest rank of painters—"The Syndics of the Drapers," at Amsterdam [No. 1247].
After that eventful year, the record is a thin one. The very next, indeed, is the other of which no known picture survives. There are a pair of portraits, the "Man" in the collection of M. Maurice Kann, the "Woman" in that of M. Rodolphe Kann, which may have been painted that year; and the same may be said of a portrait called "Hendrickje Stoffels," at Berlin [No. 823B] (see [ill., p. 44]).
The next year is little better. A picture of "Homer reciting his Poems" alone bears part of a signature, and f., with the date 1663. It belongs to Dr Bredius, and is lent by him to the Museum at the Hague [No. 584]. 1664, again, is found on but one canvas, "The Death of Lucretia," belonging to M. Léon Gauchez of Paris, but "The Unmerciful Servant," in the Wallace collection, and the "Portrait of Himself," in the National Gallery [No. 221] (see [ill., p. 46]), belong to about that time. One, a "Portrait of an Old Man," in the Metropolitan Museum, New York [No. 274], is dated 1665. A portrait, signed Rembrandt f., in the collection of Mr Charles Morrison; one of himself, in that of Herr von Carstangen at Berlin; "The Jewish Bride," at Amsterdam [No. 1252], from the date on which the last figure is missing; and "David playing before Saul" were also painted about that year.
1666, however, appears on three portraits—"A Youth," belonging to Lord Leconfield; "A Woman," in the National Gallery [No. 237]; and "Jeremias de Decker," a poet who was one of Rembrandt's rare clients in his later years, at the Hermitage [No. 827]. The "Portrait of an Old Man," at Dresden [No. 1570], and two of himself—one at Vienna [No. 1143], signed but undated, and one in the Uffizi [No. 452]—were in all probability painted either that year, the one before, or the succeeding one, 1667, to which we can otherwise accord only one, a "Portrait of an Old Man," belonging to the Earl of Northbrook.
And now the tale is nearly told; 1668 occurs but once, on "The Flagellation," in the Grand-Ducal Museum at Darmstadt, absolutely the last known work of his; though three others—"Esther, Haman, and Ahasuerus," belonging to the King of Roumania; a large "Family Group," at Brunswick [No. 232]; and "The Prodigal Son," in the Hermitage [No. 797], are believed to date from that year, or possibly even the next and last.
There is still a considerable number of pictures to which no very approximate date can be assigned, but as the attempt to fully consider all the work that Rembrandt did would far exceed all reasonable limits of space, I must reluctantly leave the reader who would seek further to such assistance as the catalogue of pictures at the end of this volume may afford him.