This process also revealed changes in colour. These were most evident in the tablecloth, which was originally green, then red with light purple detailing, and finally gold and silver. Such modifications in colour are suggestive of a unique, creative process. Again, it became clear that the Upton painting was an original artwork and not a copy.
Rembrandt or Lievens?
Having established that the Upton painting was not a copy after an original, but rather, the prime version, there was still the matter of authorship to determine.
There are many parallels in the lives of Rembrandt van Rijn and Jan Lievens. They were both born in Leiden – Rembrandt in 1606, Lievens in 1607. Both apprenticed with Pieter Lastman in Amsterdam. It is possible they shared a studio and it is certain that they shared models and painted each other. By the 1630s, Rembrandt and Lievens employed similar compositions and subjects, and as a result their work from this period can be difficult to tell apart.
Ultimately, however, Rembrandt would achieve unrivalled posthumous fame and Lievens would be relegated to his shadow. For this reason, Rembrandt’s ‘signature’ was often added to the works of lesser-known contemporaries and followers. It is possible this is what happened to 'A Magus at a Table'.
Given this, it was important to contextualise these scientific discoveries within the art historical framework. Lievens is widely regarded for his inventiveness and bold compositions. His final paintings often deviated from his preliminary sketches; indeed, extensive reworking during painting is more typical of Lievens than of Rembrandt. This, coupled with the information yielded by the technical analysis, has allowed for the definitive attribution to Lievens to be made.
Perhaps in time, if technical analysis continues to provide more certain attributions, Jan Lievens will emerge from Rembrandt’s shadow as a comparable master of the Dutch Golden Age.