DOI issue:
Nr. 4
DOI article:Monkiewicz, Maciej: A drawing of Elsheimer in the collection of the National Museum in Warsaw
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18904#0109
to the artist's early Roman years. it shows a variant of tlie scenę diffcrent from that occurring
in the painting: the sides of the composition are rcversed so that now it is not Baucis but Phi-
lemon who approacb.es Jupiter and Mercury seated by the table, and we can only surmise that
the \vife*s figurę was represented on the left whcrc a portion of the drawing has been cut off.
Ali other drawings on the subject formerly ascribed to Elsheimer were later attributed to Goudt
who imitated Elsheimer's manner, most of the rc-attribution taking place fifty years ago5.
Later in the 19th century, above three hundred drawings were attributed to Elsheimer.
The numbcr was reduced by Mohle to sixty-eight certain and scventeen ąuestionable works,
and by Andrews to twenty-six (even though he attributed several new drawings to Elsheimer).
The fact should make us extremely cautious whenever a new attribution crops up. On the other
hand, research carried out by J. G. van Gelder, Ingrid Jost, Keith Andrews and others, has
given the first consistent and elear image of Elsheimer's oeume as a draughtsman6, creating
firmer grounds for new hypotheses. Elsheimer's monographists have not yet considered our
drawing which is mentioned only once in the literaturę7. That its value was acknowledged
even in the past, is confirmed by the stamp (Lugt 1740) near the bottom left corner, testifying
to its being part of the collection of Jean-Denis Lempcreur (1701—1779), a famous collector
and connoisseur in European drawing. The artistic class of the drawing is even at first glance
superior to Goudt's similar works, and to the scenę — recently with Lodewijk Houthakker
in Amsterdam — prcviousIy ascribed to Elsheimer, among others by Mohle8. We do not find
in it slender figures with too long legs, characteristic in particular of Goudt's drawings at the
Institut Necrlandais in Paris and the Louvre (inv. no. 23006), but also visible in the scenę in
the British Museum (Figs. 5, 6)9 nor the violent manner and superficial modelling present e.g.
in the drawing on the same subject in the Frank/ort Album'0. The drawing in cjuestion is distinct
for the logie of the spatial lay-out and a sense of form. On the other hand, it has many ąualities
in common with a set of figurative gouaches, the attribution of which to Elsheimer is not que-
stioned by specialists today.
The gouache representations of Tobias and the. Angel (Berlin-Dahlem, Fig. 8), Salome
Recehńng the Head of St. John (Chatsworth), The Bath of Bathsheba (Yienna, Fig. 9), and two
scenes of the histoiy of Ceres (in Hamburg and Zurich, Figs. 10 and 11) come from the latest
period in Elsheimcr's work and were executed in Rome between 1607 and 161011. They are
perhaps his utmost achievements as a draughtsman, which, paradoxically, implies his natura
5. Weizsaoker 1939, pp. 189—192; Mohle (1966, cat. n°. 43, pp. 145—116, and 73; earlier Drost 1933, pp. 93, 140—143
and 1957, pp. 125, 178) considers the attribution of a gouache on the same subject, in 1966 in Lady Robert9on's collection
in London, recently with Lodewijk Houthakker in Amsterdam (our Fig. 7), to Elsheimer to be certain, which, bowever
was not confirmed by Andrews (1977, 1985).
6. Van Gelder/Jost 1967—68; Andrews 1971; Andrews MD 1971; Boon 1972; Andrews 1977; Andrews 1985. The exhibition
in Frankfort in 1966 (catalogue Frankfort 1966/67) stimulated interest in Elsheimer in the late 1960s/early 1970s. It
was the first opporlunity to see together and compare most of the works until then ascribed to the artist.
7. Mrozińska 1980, p. 156.
8. Cf. note 5.
9. The drawing in the Louvre: Demonts 1938, No. 528, table CXII (as Elsheimer); Weizsacker 1939, p. 189—191, Fig. 4.
Another drawing on the same subject in the Louvre, ascribed to Goudt, cf. Demonts 1938, No. 560 (22 976), p. 103 (as
Elsheimer's school); Weizsacker 1939, loc. dl.. Fig. 3, Cf. Mohle 1966, pp. 73—74.
10. Weizsiickcr 1936, Fig. 118 (Table 101); Weizsacker 1939, pp. 189—192, Fig. 2; cf. MOhle, 1966, p. 74.
11. Andrews 1977 and 1985, cat. nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 (Andrews 1977, pp. 162—163 and 42; Andrews 1985, pp. 199—200
and 44). Andrews has recently ascribed to Elsheimer yet another gouache (77 x70 mm, priv. col.) representing a semi-
-nude seated woman, which, so he believes, might have been a study for instance for the Bathsheba (Andrews 1985, cat.
n°. 49 A, pp. 200 and 44).
95
in the painting: the sides of the composition are rcversed so that now it is not Baucis but Phi-
lemon who approacb.es Jupiter and Mercury seated by the table, and we can only surmise that
the \vife*s figurę was represented on the left whcrc a portion of the drawing has been cut off.
Ali other drawings on the subject formerly ascribed to Elsheimer were later attributed to Goudt
who imitated Elsheimer's manner, most of the rc-attribution taking place fifty years ago5.
Later in the 19th century, above three hundred drawings were attributed to Elsheimer.
The numbcr was reduced by Mohle to sixty-eight certain and scventeen ąuestionable works,
and by Andrews to twenty-six (even though he attributed several new drawings to Elsheimer).
The fact should make us extremely cautious whenever a new attribution crops up. On the other
hand, research carried out by J. G. van Gelder, Ingrid Jost, Keith Andrews and others, has
given the first consistent and elear image of Elsheimer's oeume as a draughtsman6, creating
firmer grounds for new hypotheses. Elsheimer's monographists have not yet considered our
drawing which is mentioned only once in the literaturę7. That its value was acknowledged
even in the past, is confirmed by the stamp (Lugt 1740) near the bottom left corner, testifying
to its being part of the collection of Jean-Denis Lempcreur (1701—1779), a famous collector
and connoisseur in European drawing. The artistic class of the drawing is even at first glance
superior to Goudt's similar works, and to the scenę — recently with Lodewijk Houthakker
in Amsterdam — prcviousIy ascribed to Elsheimer, among others by Mohle8. We do not find
in it slender figures with too long legs, characteristic in particular of Goudt's drawings at the
Institut Necrlandais in Paris and the Louvre (inv. no. 23006), but also visible in the scenę in
the British Museum (Figs. 5, 6)9 nor the violent manner and superficial modelling present e.g.
in the drawing on the same subject in the Frank/ort Album'0. The drawing in cjuestion is distinct
for the logie of the spatial lay-out and a sense of form. On the other hand, it has many ąualities
in common with a set of figurative gouaches, the attribution of which to Elsheimer is not que-
stioned by specialists today.
The gouache representations of Tobias and the. Angel (Berlin-Dahlem, Fig. 8), Salome
Recehńng the Head of St. John (Chatsworth), The Bath of Bathsheba (Yienna, Fig. 9), and two
scenes of the histoiy of Ceres (in Hamburg and Zurich, Figs. 10 and 11) come from the latest
period in Elsheimcr's work and were executed in Rome between 1607 and 161011. They are
perhaps his utmost achievements as a draughtsman, which, paradoxically, implies his natura
5. Weizsaoker 1939, pp. 189—192; Mohle (1966, cat. n°. 43, pp. 145—116, and 73; earlier Drost 1933, pp. 93, 140—143
and 1957, pp. 125, 178) considers the attribution of a gouache on the same subject, in 1966 in Lady Robert9on's collection
in London, recently with Lodewijk Houthakker in Amsterdam (our Fig. 7), to Elsheimer to be certain, which, bowever
was not confirmed by Andrews (1977, 1985).
6. Van Gelder/Jost 1967—68; Andrews 1971; Andrews MD 1971; Boon 1972; Andrews 1977; Andrews 1985. The exhibition
in Frankfort in 1966 (catalogue Frankfort 1966/67) stimulated interest in Elsheimer in the late 1960s/early 1970s. It
was the first opporlunity to see together and compare most of the works until then ascribed to the artist.
7. Mrozińska 1980, p. 156.
8. Cf. note 5.
9. The drawing in the Louvre: Demonts 1938, No. 528, table CXII (as Elsheimer); Weizsacker 1939, p. 189—191, Fig. 4.
Another drawing on the same subject in the Louvre, ascribed to Goudt, cf. Demonts 1938, No. 560 (22 976), p. 103 (as
Elsheimer's school); Weizsacker 1939, loc. dl.. Fig. 3, Cf. Mohle 1966, pp. 73—74.
10. Weizsiickcr 1936, Fig. 118 (Table 101); Weizsacker 1939, pp. 189—192, Fig. 2; cf. MOhle, 1966, p. 74.
11. Andrews 1977 and 1985, cat. nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 (Andrews 1977, pp. 162—163 and 42; Andrews 1985, pp. 199—200
and 44). Andrews has recently ascribed to Elsheimer yet another gouache (77 x70 mm, priv. col.) representing a semi-
-nude seated woman, which, so he believes, might have been a study for instance for the Bathsheba (Andrews 1985, cat.
n°. 49 A, pp. 200 and 44).
95