Interpretations of Rembrandt's collection have shifted with the vicissitudes of his critical reputation. From shortly after his death to the present, much has been written about Rembrandt's collection, his motivations as a collector, and his extensive and inventive use of objects from his collection in the creation of his art. Yet, to a surprising extent, critics have interpreted and distorted Rembrandt's collection and collecting habit to their own ends. They have tended to seek, and prompt, overly simplified explanations that focus on only part of his varied collection; indeed, typically critics have been unable to see Rembrandt's collection as a whole, or even as a collection. Early critics, who knew Rembrandt's collection primarily through word of mouth, accused Rembrandt of buying up old clothes and bizarre or exotic objects. More recent critics, who rely on the inventory made on the occasion of Rembrandt's bankruptcy (fig. 4.1), have reduced his collection to a strategy for social climbing. Still others have seen it as primarily functional, whether for his artistic practice or as dealer's stock.

Historiographically speaking, Peter Paul Rubens is the artist-collector most comparable to Rembrandt, though he collected on a significantly grander scale. The difference between the two collections is mirrored in the contrast between the Rembrandthuis, impressive for an Amsterdam painter circa 1640, and the magnificent Rubenshuis with its triumphalarch, separate studio wing, and semi-circular sculpture gallery.