DOI issue:
Nr. 1
DOI article:Steinborn, Bożena: The triumph of David in the Silesian Museum: another copy of Lucas van Leyden's Work
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18817#0024
Having no direct accraaintance with the picturesmcntionedin the table I only can put together
several facts and suppositions.
a. There existed in Rubens' collection a picture by Lucas van Leyden representing the
Triumph of David (dated 1515 by Calberg on the basis of the master's style visible in the engra-
ving by Saenredam;30 between 1517 and 1519 by Hoogewerff;31 between 1520 and 1527 by Wol-
ter32). This picture was certainly the primary composition which initiated a series of repetitions,
replicas or copies. The figures hołd objects in their right hands, and David approaches the group
of singers from left to right; such arrangement should be accepted as primary not only because
of the logie of the gestures, but also because Lucas van Leyden represented in 1514 another
Triumph of David in copperplat with only 3 musicians; David is there standing on the left of the
composition.33
b. Hoogewerff and Calberg duły claim that the primary composition should be sought among
pictures with non-reversed disposition. Among known representations only two have such dis-
posilion: a picture in an unknown private collection (fig. 5; no. 5 in the table)34 and a picture
in the collection of C.J. Reijerse in the Hague (fig. 6; no. 9 in the table).35 The first has been
described by its discoverer as being painted on a red-brown ground with tempera and glaze of
oils and resin. Let us hope that Wolter understood by „Grund" the underpainting, otherwise
the picture should be excluded from potential originals, which could not have a red ground as
it does not oceur in the first half of the 16-th century.30
c. The Milan Triumph of David painted on glass, is very probably the one which was once in Golt-
zius collection and as one may suppose is Lucas van Leyden's own work (fig. 4; no 2 in the table).37
It may be accepted that it is the author's replica, and the reversal of the composition was pro-
bably the result of the techniąue of painting on glass.38 The picture from Milan does not seem
to be a copy of Saenredam's engraving — as one may be inclined to suppose;33 the engraver
tried to reproduce faithfully nearly every line of the prototype and the print makes the impres-
sion of a photograph like copy. The picture on glass demonstrates, like the mentioned engra-
ving, the typical features of Lucas van Leyden's style but differs from the engraving in vital
details: the landscape on the right has been presented in another way, the line of the sword is
different, and also different is the position of the face cut by the edge of the picture. Above all
30. Calberg, op. cii., p. 32.
31. Hoogewerff, op. cii., p. 317.
32. Wolter, op. cii., p. 234.
33. Cf. footnote 20.
34. Wolter, op. cii., fig. 2.
35. Hoogewerff, op. cii., fig. 167.
36. I agree with M. Calberg that the comparison of technological deseriptioris may be decisive in determining the original.
That is why the following description by Frimniel (op. cii., p. 150) should be (ruoted: the picture from the Arie eollection
has a thin ground of chalk and ghie and the paiut used consists of oil and resin. This description could support the authen-
ticity of the picture. D. Stankiewicz kindly conveyed to me her observations about tlie technique of painting of Lucas
van Leyden. These observations may be worth mentioning: the ground used by the painter was always whitc, consisting
of chalk and gluc. The drawiug in the picture is very graphic with lined shadows; on the Lasl Judgemunl in Leida it is
made with a pencil and washed with gray paint; on the Dance around the Golden Calf in Amsterdam the drawing is
washed with black paint. The painter used coloured underpainting; on the Madonna in Amsterdam it is pinkish violet;
on the Lasl Judgcnient, golden yeilowr and brown; on the Danse around the Golden Calf — golden brown. Paint with a
Iow oil content or tempera were used for those underpaintings. The paint used for the picture itself contains oil and
resin. Characteristic for the master from Leida is the usc of fairly transparent paint with a high content of binding
materiał producing the effect of glaze technique.
37. Hoogewerff, op. cit., p. 314.
38. Neither herc does the existing literaturę define morc accurately the techniąue of painting. If the picture was painted on
the back of a glass plate then the reversal of the composition with respect to the pattern drawing could be explained
in a simple way.
39. As Wolter thinks, op. cii., p. 288. I am greatly obliged to E. Hiltter, Ph.D., for the photograph of Saenredam's print
from the Dresden collection.
18
several facts and suppositions.
a. There existed in Rubens' collection a picture by Lucas van Leyden representing the
Triumph of David (dated 1515 by Calberg on the basis of the master's style visible in the engra-
ving by Saenredam;30 between 1517 and 1519 by Hoogewerff;31 between 1520 and 1527 by Wol-
ter32). This picture was certainly the primary composition which initiated a series of repetitions,
replicas or copies. The figures hołd objects in their right hands, and David approaches the group
of singers from left to right; such arrangement should be accepted as primary not only because
of the logie of the gestures, but also because Lucas van Leyden represented in 1514 another
Triumph of David in copperplat with only 3 musicians; David is there standing on the left of the
composition.33
b. Hoogewerff and Calberg duły claim that the primary composition should be sought among
pictures with non-reversed disposition. Among known representations only two have such dis-
posilion: a picture in an unknown private collection (fig. 5; no. 5 in the table)34 and a picture
in the collection of C.J. Reijerse in the Hague (fig. 6; no. 9 in the table).35 The first has been
described by its discoverer as being painted on a red-brown ground with tempera and glaze of
oils and resin. Let us hope that Wolter understood by „Grund" the underpainting, otherwise
the picture should be excluded from potential originals, which could not have a red ground as
it does not oceur in the first half of the 16-th century.30
c. The Milan Triumph of David painted on glass, is very probably the one which was once in Golt-
zius collection and as one may suppose is Lucas van Leyden's own work (fig. 4; no 2 in the table).37
It may be accepted that it is the author's replica, and the reversal of the composition was pro-
bably the result of the techniąue of painting on glass.38 The picture from Milan does not seem
to be a copy of Saenredam's engraving — as one may be inclined to suppose;33 the engraver
tried to reproduce faithfully nearly every line of the prototype and the print makes the impres-
sion of a photograph like copy. The picture on glass demonstrates, like the mentioned engra-
ving, the typical features of Lucas van Leyden's style but differs from the engraving in vital
details: the landscape on the right has been presented in another way, the line of the sword is
different, and also different is the position of the face cut by the edge of the picture. Above all
30. Calberg, op. cii., p. 32.
31. Hoogewerff, op. cii., p. 317.
32. Wolter, op. cii., p. 234.
33. Cf. footnote 20.
34. Wolter, op. cii., fig. 2.
35. Hoogewerff, op. cii., fig. 167.
36. I agree with M. Calberg that the comparison of technological deseriptioris may be decisive in determining the original.
That is why the following description by Frimniel (op. cii., p. 150) should be (ruoted: the picture from the Arie eollection
has a thin ground of chalk and ghie and the paiut used consists of oil and resin. This description could support the authen-
ticity of the picture. D. Stankiewicz kindly conveyed to me her observations about tlie technique of painting of Lucas
van Leyden. These observations may be worth mentioning: the ground used by the painter was always whitc, consisting
of chalk and gluc. The drawiug in the picture is very graphic with lined shadows; on the Lasl Judgemunl in Leida it is
made with a pencil and washed with gray paint; on the Dance around the Golden Calf in Amsterdam the drawing is
washed with black paint. The painter used coloured underpainting; on the Madonna in Amsterdam it is pinkish violet;
on the Lasl Judgcnient, golden yeilowr and brown; on the Danse around the Golden Calf — golden brown. Paint with a
Iow oil content or tempera were used for those underpaintings. The paint used for the picture itself contains oil and
resin. Characteristic for the master from Leida is the usc of fairly transparent paint with a high content of binding
materiał producing the effect of glaze technique.
37. Hoogewerff, op. cit., p. 314.
38. Neither herc does the existing literaturę define morc accurately the techniąue of painting. If the picture was painted on
the back of a glass plate then the reversal of the composition with respect to the pattern drawing could be explained
in a simple way.
39. As Wolter thinks, op. cii., p. 288. I am greatly obliged to E. Hiltter, Ph.D., for the photograph of Saenredam's print
from the Dresden collection.
18