Rembrandt's Kris (?)

[ariel]

OK, now is the hard part :-)
Here is a famous Rembrandt's self -portait with a dagger. Usually it is described as a "Kris"
But... The width is strange, the tip presupposes the existence of a Turkish yelman, the gangya is peculiar and the luks are only on one side.
We cannot say that Rembrandt was a lousy or an inattentive painter. So, what kind of keris did he have, and was it a kris at all?

With a long weekend ahead, there is plenty of time to ponder the mystery:-)

[drdavid]

This topic has been explored somewhat a few times before for example:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=rembrandt

[Lew]

Originally Posted by ariel

OK, now is the hard part :-)
Here is a famous Rembrandt's self -portait with a dagger. Usually it is described as a "Kris"
But... The width is strange, the tip presupposes the existence of a Turkish yelman, the gangya is peculiar and the luks are only on one side.
We cannot say that Rembrandt was a lousy or an inattentive painter. So, what kind of keris did he have, and was it a kris at all?

With a long weekend ahead, there is plenty of time to ponder the mystery:-)

Looks like some type of sudang from Moro land

[David]

Ariel, i do see why you question this particular drawing, but as you can see from some of the other paintings that he did, he clearly is depicting a keris in some of those and i believe he is known to have had more than one in his personal collection. The blade in this drawing may or may not have been have been derived from one of his keris and i think it is also important to remember that these are paintings and drawings, not photographs, and artists will adapt, bend and change "reality" for their own artistic purposes. It is possible that he simply took certain elements for the keris form to create a completely nonexistent fantasy blade for this drawing that is only loosely based upon the keris. I am afraid that we will never know for sure.

[Rick]

Ariel, I don't think those are Luks; I believe they are folds/wrinkles in Rembrandt's jacket .

As for the sword ?
Looks a bit like a Keris Buda on steroids .

I think there is artistic license at work here .

[ariel]

Rick,
Look at the first and second luks: they are not even touching the jacket.
I also do not think we should write it off as artistic license: Rembrandt was very precise. Look at his rendition of the Ceylonese Patisthanaya in the "Blinding of Samson", and the kris in the same pic: one can easily see the structure of the handle ( Balinese?).
I am sure he had a weapon we just cannot recognize easily, but Rembrandt must have been onto something. This was not a quick recollection of something he had seen earlier for a moment and filled the memory gaps: he actually posed for this picture.
I am intrigued.

[Henk]

Ariel, I think Rick is right. If Rembrandt was so precise in his drawings and paintings as you say, can you explain to me where the luks on the other side of the blade are? If you look at the pommel of the handle it could be a Moro kris as well. Rembrandt was by the way well known for his collection weapons from the Orient.

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

I also do not think we should write it off as artistic license: Rembrandt was very precise.

Rembrandt was, IMHO, a brilliant painter. But his painting style is highly romanticized. It is not photo-realism in style. He used his imagination quite a bit in his work and i don't think that we can accept the depictions of the weapons in his work as being exactly as the models themselves looked. If we look carefully at the gonjo of the Blinding of Samson painting he has clearly added extra curvature which would most probably not be present of on his actual keris. It is one of the great advantages painting has over photography as an art form (though not quite so anymore with photoshop ).