DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Steinborn, Bożena: The triumph of David in the Silesian Museum: another copy of Lucas van Leyden's Work
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18817#0014
2. Fragment of fig. 1, the signature (photc: M. Marciniak)
Younger. He was obliged to change his coat of arms, signet and seal when he came of age, un
like his brother whose name (Hans) was different from that of his father.3
The twists of the snake on the Wrocław picture arc much looser than in the known signatures
of both Cranachs. Perhaps an apprentice, less careful in this rcspect, was the author of the pictu-
re in the Silesian Museum, and perhaps Cranach the Younger gave the snake a little another
form, conscious of signing a copy. The supposition of the authorship of Cranach the Younger
might be supported by identification of typical features of his painting. This is howcver diffi-
cult to determine in a picture which is an exact repetition of an other painter's composition.
The opinion that Cranach the Younger exploited others' examples more often than his father
has no validity as an argument.1 Although the figures of the women and the colouring of their
garments seein very close to the prototype, the head of the singing girl is dccidedly different
from the same head in the other repetitions of the works of Lucas van Leydcn. The face treated
in a broad and rather fiat way, with slightly diffused traits and ahnost disappearing eyes, and
above al] the fluffy reddish of hair seem characteristic for the portrait-types canon by
Cranach the Younger (fig. 3). This also applies to the change in the generał canon of the figures
which are more squarebuilt than the slim figures of other replicas or copies. The old (from 18-
th c ?) inscription on the reverse of the picture Lucas Cranach d.J. may be then an element of
truthworthy tradition.
3. Giesecke, op. cii., pp. 187—189. According to Gieseckc this sigu was uscd at that time to sign all pictures from the work-
shop of Cranaclis regardless of who had painted them: the fatlier, the sons or the apprentices. Gieseckc hypothesizes
that the vast majority of tlie pictures painted after 1540 is the work of Cranach the Younger so der sg. AUerstil Cranachs
ist in der Wahrhcil der,,JugendsliV*seiner beiden Sohne (p. 192). This supposition is in accord with the rcmarks of Fried-
liindcr and Rosenberg who often doubt the authorship of Cranach tlte Elcler when mentioning in their eatalogue the works
created after 1540; cf M. J. Friedliinder, J. Rosenberg, Die Gemalde von Lucas Cranach, Berlin, 1932, passim.
4. W. Sehade, Die Epitaphhildcr Lucas Cranach d.J., [in:] Ze studiów nad sztuką XVI leieku na Śląska i w krajacli sąsied-
nich, Wrocław, 1968, p. 66.
5. Sehade, op. cit., p. 73.
8
Younger. He was obliged to change his coat of arms, signet and seal when he came of age, un
like his brother whose name (Hans) was different from that of his father.3
The twists of the snake on the Wrocław picture arc much looser than in the known signatures
of both Cranachs. Perhaps an apprentice, less careful in this rcspect, was the author of the pictu-
re in the Silesian Museum, and perhaps Cranach the Younger gave the snake a little another
form, conscious of signing a copy. The supposition of the authorship of Cranach the Younger
might be supported by identification of typical features of his painting. This is howcver diffi-
cult to determine in a picture which is an exact repetition of an other painter's composition.
The opinion that Cranach the Younger exploited others' examples more often than his father
has no validity as an argument.1 Although the figures of the women and the colouring of their
garments seein very close to the prototype, the head of the singing girl is dccidedly different
from the same head in the other repetitions of the works of Lucas van Leydcn. The face treated
in a broad and rather fiat way, with slightly diffused traits and ahnost disappearing eyes, and
above al] the fluffy reddish of hair seem characteristic for the portrait-types canon by
Cranach the Younger (fig. 3). This also applies to the change in the generał canon of the figures
which are more squarebuilt than the slim figures of other replicas or copies. The old (from 18-
th c ?) inscription on the reverse of the picture Lucas Cranach d.J. may be then an element of
truthworthy tradition.
3. Giesecke, op. cii., pp. 187—189. According to Gieseckc this sigu was uscd at that time to sign all pictures from the work-
shop of Cranaclis regardless of who had painted them: the fatlier, the sons or the apprentices. Gieseckc hypothesizes
that the vast majority of tlie pictures painted after 1540 is the work of Cranach the Younger so der sg. AUerstil Cranachs
ist in der Wahrhcil der,,JugendsliV*seiner beiden Sohne (p. 192). This supposition is in accord with the rcmarks of Fried-
liindcr and Rosenberg who often doubt the authorship of Cranach tlte Elcler when mentioning in their eatalogue the works
created after 1540; cf M. J. Friedliinder, J. Rosenberg, Die Gemalde von Lucas Cranach, Berlin, 1932, passim.
4. W. Sehade, Die Epitaphhildcr Lucas Cranach d.J., [in:] Ze studiów nad sztuką XVI leieku na Śląska i w krajacli sąsied-
nich, Wrocław, 1968, p. 66.
5. Sehade, op. cit., p. 73.
8