Rembrandt’s “Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp”: A Collision of Art and Science
“Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) is a line that has been discussed for more than four hundred years since it was written in French thinker, René Descartes’ book Discourse on the Method (1637). The quote is both enigmatic but straightforward at the same time, being one of the most significant propositions in the world of philosophy. Descartes is named to be one of the founders of modern philosophy, and he was also a pronounced figure in the Dutch Golden Age, in which his ideas helped shape the way art was made in the Dutch Republic at that time.[1] Descartes particularly introduced the mind-body dualism, or also known as the Cartesian dualism, which stems from classical studies.[2] The mind-body dualism is defined to be the distinction between the rational mind and the material body. This essay will examine the Cartesian dualism and Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, along with how the conventions of the painting recognizes a new or era of art and science of the time. Alongside this, the essay will also look into Caravaggio’s Incredulity of Saint Thomas for comparison purposes.
One way to understand René Descartes’ theory and philosophy is by giving light to how the world worked before him. Modern philosophy as we understand began with the philosopher himself, spanning in Western Europe from the seventeenth to the eighteenth century. It is a subject that constantly tries to attribute the world with either science, which stems in empirical investigation, or theology, which is the invocation of God and refers to the metaphysical world.[3] In respect to this, the Renaissance studied and practiced classical knowledge and moral philosophy, which was developed through Scholastic Aristotelianism in Athens.[4] The rejection of the traditional ways of thinking and of the scholasticism was one of the reasons why philosophers like René Descartes are canonical, as a new way of criticism has emerged.
Moving on from this, there is a dissimilarity between the Aristotelianism belief and modern philosophy on how knowledge is understood. The ancient philosophy believes that knowledge is everything that is true, and in order for it to be true, it must be justified. A way to justify truth is through the human senses — or, in other words, sensory perception.[5] It is important to note that a humanist at the time believed that humans were the centre of the universe, unlike Copernicus and Galileo’s theory that claims otherwise, which was agreed by Descartes himself. However, Descartes believed that human knowledge is like a tree, in which the trunk is physics, and the root is metaphysics. This means that in order for science to be understood, metaphysics must be explored.[6] Therefore, the Cartesian ideas are collectively accumulated ideas that stem from previous understandings of the world. Descartes does not at all disregard the significance of faith and the existence of God, in fact, in his writings, he expresses that he does not wish to propose that religion is inferior to science.
As a post-Renaissance thinker, Descartes’ dualism theory challenges the Aristotelianism beliefs of the power of human senses. In his First Meditation (1641), he writes that whatever he considers to be of par excellence derives from his senses, or by the means of his senses. But he “have sometimes caught the senses deceiving [him].”[7] Later then in his Second Meditation, he emphasises on the separation of the mind and the body by questioning himself, “Am I so bound to a body and its senses that without them I cannot exist?”[8] He proceeds to define that the body is whatever that is bounded by some shape, and whatever occupies space which excludes other bodies, as well as that the body perceived by the senses,[9] but it does not give the certainty that he exists, as what he sees, what he hears, and what he touches, may be mere illusions.
He suggests that the only certainty that humans have of their existence is through their consciousness, intellect, and reason. Humans are, therefore, conscious beings,[10] as a supportive argument for “I think, therefore I am.” In fact, the subtitle for his Second Meditation is Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That the mind is more known than the body. In this way, he is saying that the mind is more significant in the sense that it can exist without the body, but the body cannot exist without the mind. He even states that the mind is made of substance, whereas, the body is made of only “accidents.”[11] Descartes also gives an example for his argument by saying that we know what a solid wax is through our senses because they inform us about things in the world. But the senses cannot inform us that the solid wax is still the same wax when it has been melted. Only imagination and intellect can help understand and make sense of what is being perceived by the senses.[12] Opposing the Aristotelianism epistemology, Descartes places rationality above empiricism, because the senses can only give disorganised information, which can only be understood by the mind. Although, sincerely speaking, one must also realize that without Aristotelianism, the Cartesian dualism would not have existed. This is partly why the Cartesian dualism is influential, because Descartes did not dismiss philosophies and ideas before him, but worked in conjunction with them.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Descartes had written his books not in Latin, but in French, which was more accessible for not only high-society scholars but also for the lower class societies. Apart from this, Descartes had also written in a way which was readable for women as well, as himself had put it.[13] This highlights how there were more people influenced by Descartes and how his writings became popular amongst artists, poets, and other writers. What is so intriguing about his texts is that Descartes asks questions that no one could actually answer. He questions what it means to be human, and he allows for many possible answers to this by providing another potential reason apart from humanity and God.
As said before, Descartes’ ideas on the mind-body dualism have undoubtedly changed the way art was made during the Dutch Golden Age, and this was partly made possible due to his living in the Dutch Republic for about twenty years.[14] In the 1630s, the rationalistic, anti-emotional Cartesian movement was significant in that it influenced Rembrandt’s use of geometry in his paintings, as well as many other artworks in the seventeenth century.[15] For more context, it was known that Descartes had initially begun his career as a mathematician, and the fact that geometry had become a significant part in the process of painting signifies the rise of math and science in activities other than natural science itself.[16]The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (see figure 1) by the old master, now hung in the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague, is also one of the fine examples of how art history has changed from the material to the reasonable.
Rembrandt’s Anatomy of Dr. Tulp is group portrait, commissioned by none other than himself Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, a praelector of the Amsterdam’s Guild of Surgeons in 1632.[17]In seventeenth century Amsterdam, a praelector of the time had the responsibility to give a public lesson or lecture on human anatomy.[18] Looking at The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, there is a sense of neglect and oversight from the cadaver that is laid on the table. One of the most important keys to understanding the painting is to realize that the body seems untouchable and unapproachable. Part of his head is covered by the shadow of the surgeon who is “shown leaning eagerly forward in the direction of the open folio” while the body is being cut open.12 The cadaver is also painted diagonally, and this highlights the motif of spatial illusion that bodies painted at an angle to the picture plane indicates its “passivity, defencelessness, suffering, and death.”[19] This underlines how Rembrandt tries to show that the body itself is completely passive and useless without the soul and the mind, which gives it life, inhibiting it. Thus, the book at the feet of the body gives guidance and knowledge necessary to comprehend their sights.[20] With this, Rembrandt points out that the body is nothing without the mind and soul that inhibits it, and that intellect is necessary to give guidance to practice.
Besides this, another important detail is that no one is touching the body. Even when Dr. Tulp is performing a practical surgery, he is not using his hands to touch the body, instead using the medical tool to show the tendons.[21] With this, the painting activates the tension between the mind and the body. Unquestionably, this denies the Aristotelianism belief that knowledge comes from the senses. This shows how that the academics were prioritised and it also supports Descartes’ belief of the importance of the mind and the intellect, rather than the body. Another crucial note to remember is that the painting only shows a small fraction of how the event is typically organized, with it usually having a large lecture room filled with two to three-hundred students. Knowing this also gives better knowledge on how not just students, but artists, visitors, physicians were eager to learn science. In fact, events like human dissection were considered to be entertaining.[22] Rembrandt’s work encapsulates the reality of the Dutch Golden Age, by giving homage to the manifestation of a new era.
The significance of the intellect as well as the mind is also represented through the appearances of the surgeons and their clothing. All of the surgeons are wearing ruffs, which were considered to be symbolic of wealth and status.[23] This clothing item emphasises the distinction and the separation between the head and the bodies of the surgeons. As a matter of fact, the bodies are painted specifically darker, looking almost invisible. During that time in the Netherlands, light connotes enlightenment, and darkness associated with “spiritual blindness,”[24] which gives a significant characteristic of the painting. Rembrandt’s union of both light and dark in The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp signifies the emergence of enlightenment through modern science. Considering the use of light, Rembrandt has also incidentally placed the two strong light sources at the left and the top of painting as a way to invite the spectators into the painting. From the eye of the beholder, it is as if we are all invited to participate at the scene despite its formal elements.
In regards to Rembrandt’s masterpiece, it is also imperative to investigate artworks that are in contrast of its ideas. A painting that is no less beautiful but completely oppositional to The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp is by another Old Master who had famously painted plenty of religious paintings, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, notably known as Caravaggio. Caravaggio’s painting The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (see figure 2), is a biblical reference to Saint Thomas the Apostle, who had not believed of Jesus’s resurrection because he was not with the disciples when Jesus came, saying that unless he can see the nail marks in Jesus’s hands and put his finger where the nails were, he will not believe.[25] The scene in the painting specifically refers to the moment when Jesus came to see Thomas and the rest of the disciples the week after. Jesus had reached for Thomas’ hand and put his finger in his whipped scar. Jesus then said to Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.[26] This encloses the whole idea of the painting, and how it opposes Rembrandt’s work.
The very direct emphasis that this painting proposes is that through the senses, knowledge and truth can be obtained. By touching Jesus’s body and his scar, Thomas immediately knows that Jesus is real, and by even seeing Jesus in front of their eyes, the disciples instantly believe so. To strengthen this idea, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas is a painting with no exact setting, giving full attention to the subjects and the event that is occurring.
When comparing the two powerful artworks, the use of lighting is similar yet very distinct. As previously mentioned, Caravaggio’s chiaroscuro technique had made sure that our focus is solely pointed to the subjects and the event that is taking place, emphasizing on the very fact that Thomas is using his senses to receive information. Whereas, in The Anatomy of Dr. Tulp, although looks faint and blurry, the background is still visible and observable. Through this, Rembrandt accentuates openness in the field of knowledge, as well as the start of the Enlightenment. By looking at the background, Rembrandt suggests the possibility of knowledge to be gained not by only books and theories, but from anything that informs and inspires.
On the other hand, it is crystal clear that Caravaggio’s Incredulity of Saint Thomas strongly stands on the idea that human senses is of greatest importance, and he paints this in such vivid actuality of empirical detachment. Additionally, this scientific detachment can also be supported by knowing that Caravaggio himself insisted to paint only what and who stood before him, highlighting an emotional connection with the painting.[27] In contrast to Rembrandt’s painting, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas also gives equal light to the bodies of the subjects. In fact, Jesus and his three disciples’ heads are all looking at Jesus’s body and the play of hands in this painting. Unlike Rembrandt’s, even Thomas’s hand and fingers are still painted very clearly despite it not receiving as much light. But just like The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp, the light source appears to be from the top left of the painting, highlighting brightly the body of Jesus more so than the rest of the subjects, which signifies the prominence of the Christ.
Being only thirty years apart, the difference between these two works are quite extensive. However, one must consider that these Rembrandt and Caravaggio did not come from the same place and these paintings also depict two different places. Rembrandt was painting during the Dutch Golden Age in Amsterdam, and Caravaggio have been producing works in Italy. Although, this acknowledges the abrupt shift in the art world. As both works were in the same period of Baroque, it calls to the attention that even within the same period of art history, each celebrated artists use different techniques and skills to convey their unique ideas, and it also definitely shows that the history of art is so broad and complex that there is no simple definition for each point of history.
Returning back to The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp, the amount of influence and greatness that it has achieved is unaccountable. Rembrandt himself had wished that the painting would help teach, delight, and move others.[28] By analysing Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp, there is a notable connection between the Cartesian dualism with the way Rembrandt painted the scene. Ultimately, the whole painting tells us of the rise of the scientific gaze in the seventeenth century through both the objects and subjects. The body in the painting also plays a huge role, highlighting that it is not at all being touched or looked at, but rather all the attention goes to the book that represents knowledge. The Cartesian dualism has given light to not only rationality, but also reasoning.
Although it may be easy to consider artworks to be mere illustrations of these theories, but it is important to understand that these works only give light to how these theories are applicable to human life. It is also necessary to consider that philosophy and all the ideas being brought up in this essay only engage not with the realms of actuality and the truth, but rather, in the realms of possibility and capability. By making these connections of art and worldviews and philosophy, one is able to see how the history of art shifts into different notions and cultures in the past and even in the present. Looking at Rembrandt’s and Caravaggio’s works, there is a definite distinction between the mind and the body, and science and faith. Through the use of light and different techniques, both paintings digest two different realities. By examining Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp, one is also able to comprehend the complex relationship between what can be seen and what is invisible to the eye.
NOTES:
[1] Steven Nadler, The Philosopher, the Priest, and the Painter: A Portrait of Descartes (Princeton University Press, 2015, ISBN 978–0–691–16575–2)
[2] The editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Mind-body dualism,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/mind-body-dualism.
[3] Roger Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein. Vol. 2nd., and enl. ed. (London: Routledge, 1995), 4
[4] Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought II: Papers on Humanism and the Arts (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), p. 178.
[5] Christopher Shields, “Aristotle,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Winter 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=aristotle
[6] Ibid., 28
[7] Elizabeth Anscombe, Peter Thomas Geach, “First and Second Meditations (1641)” in Descartes: Philosophical Writings (London: Nelson University Paperbacks, 1954), 62
[8] Ibid., 67
[9] Ibid., 68
[10] Ibid., 69
[11] Georges Dicker, Descartes: An Analytic and Historical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)
[12] Anscombe, Geach, “First and Second Meditations (1641)” in Descartes: Philosophical Writings, 72–73
[13] Kenan Malik, “Descartes’ Ghost,” Pandaemonium, May 12, 2013, https://kenanmalik.com/2013/05/12/descartes-ghost/
[14] Nadler, The Philosopher, the Priest, and the Painter: A Portrait of Descartes
[15] William Sebastian Heckscher, Rembrandt’s Anatomy of Dr. Nicolaas Tulp: An Iconological Study (New York: New York University Press, 1958), 6
[16] Gary Hartfield, “René Descartes.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, January 16, 2014, plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/. This page explains Descartes’ career starting from being a mathematician to ending up as one of the most influential philosophers.
[17] Heckscher, Rembrandt’s Anatomy of Dr. Nicolaas Tulp: An Iconological Study, 7
[18] Bryan Zygmont, “Rembrandt, The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp,” Khan Academy, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/monarchy-enlightenment/baroque-art1/holland/a/rembrandt-the-anatomy-lesson-of-dr-tulp
[19] Heckscher, Rembrandt’s Anatomy of Dr. Nicolaas Tulp: An Iconological Study, 17
[20] Alva Noë, “An Intersection of Science and Art in Rembrandt’s ‘Anatomy Lesson’,” NPR, May 29, 2015, https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/05/29/410488508/an-intersection-of-science-and-art-in-rembrandts-anatomy-lesson?t=1575479521573
[21] Dolores Mitchell, “Rembrandt’s “The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp”: A Sinner among the Righteous.” Artibus Et Historiae 15, no. 30 (1994), 147
[22] Heckscher, Rembrandt’s Anatomy of Dr. Nicolaas Tulp: An Iconological Study, 5
[23] The Contributors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Ruff,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/ruff-collar
[24] Mitchell, “Rembrandt’s “The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp”: A Sinner among the Righteous,” 147
[25] John 20:25
[26] John 20:29
[27] Brendan Prendeville, “A Heartfelt Gesture: Separation and Feeling, Darkness and Illusion in Caravaggio.” Oxford Art Journal 36, no. 2 (June 2013), 187
[28] Heckscher, Rembrandt’s Anatomy of Dr. Nicolaas Tulp: An Iconological Study, 4
