DOI Heft:
Nr. 4
DOI Artikel:Monkiewicz, Maciej: A drawing of Elsheimer in the collection of the National Museum in Warsaw
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18904#0116
9. Adam Elsheimer, The Bath of Bathsheba, gouache, 91x84 mm, Yienna, Albertina (photo
after Andrews 1977)
Probably the Warsaw gouache or its counterpart in oil served Emanuel de Witte (1617—1692)
known mostly for hia paintings of church interiors as a pattern for his early painting (1647)
on the same subject (Prisenhof Delft, Fig. 12) whicli preceded Rembrandt's work (1658, Na-
tional Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.). Goudt might have been in possession of Elsheimer's
drawing or painting (he owned his othcr works) and might have taken it along to Holland about
1611 where it might have attracted the young artist's attention as a pattern for imitation.
De Witte's Jupiter and Mercury in the House of Philemon and Baucis retains EIsheimer's cha-
racteristic parallel disposition in relation to the piane of the painting, combined with the spatial
isolation of the characters with regard to one another. That he employed the veraion known
from the Warsaw gouache is tcstified both by the generał lay-out and the division of the char-
acters' functions. The same goes for the bipolar disposition of light (the candle in Baucis' left
hand merely performs an auxiliary function), with Jupiter and Mercury illuminated from the
front, not the back, and the source of light placed between them and Philemon standing in
the centrę of the composition. De Witte'a is aimilarly a genre-like piece though his interpre-
tation differs considerably from Elsheimer's, mostly because of de Witte's different type of
lighting, cold and hard, which brings the characters out of the environment in a Caravaggionist
faghion. The presence of the goose in the foreground may, but does not necessarily have to,
eyidence de Witte's famjliarity with the Dresden version23.
Translated by Joanna Holzman
23. Until now, de Witte's painting hag been referred to EIsheimer's representation of Philemon and Baucis at the Dresden
Gallery, to Goudt's print raodelled on it or to one of the popular editions of Ovid: cf. Van Rijckeyorsel 1938; Manke
1963, pp. 10—11, »nd oat. n°. 4, p. 78; Liedtke 1982, p. 79-80, note 11.
The rendering of Baucis in de Witte's image i* borrowed from Domenico Fetti's (1589—1623) painting Parable on Widou>'i
JHite (c. 1618—1622, from the series of Biblietil parables at the Dresden Gallery, inv. n°. 418). For thia Information, I am
indebted to Profeasor Jan Białostocki.
102
after Andrews 1977)
Probably the Warsaw gouache or its counterpart in oil served Emanuel de Witte (1617—1692)
known mostly for hia paintings of church interiors as a pattern for his early painting (1647)
on the same subject (Prisenhof Delft, Fig. 12) whicli preceded Rembrandt's work (1658, Na-
tional Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.). Goudt might have been in possession of Elsheimer's
drawing or painting (he owned his othcr works) and might have taken it along to Holland about
1611 where it might have attracted the young artist's attention as a pattern for imitation.
De Witte's Jupiter and Mercury in the House of Philemon and Baucis retains EIsheimer's cha-
racteristic parallel disposition in relation to the piane of the painting, combined with the spatial
isolation of the characters with regard to one another. That he employed the veraion known
from the Warsaw gouache is tcstified both by the generał lay-out and the division of the char-
acters' functions. The same goes for the bipolar disposition of light (the candle in Baucis' left
hand merely performs an auxiliary function), with Jupiter and Mercury illuminated from the
front, not the back, and the source of light placed between them and Philemon standing in
the centrę of the composition. De Witte'a is aimilarly a genre-like piece though his interpre-
tation differs considerably from Elsheimer's, mostly because of de Witte's different type of
lighting, cold and hard, which brings the characters out of the environment in a Caravaggionist
faghion. The presence of the goose in the foreground may, but does not necessarily have to,
eyidence de Witte's famjliarity with the Dresden version23.
Translated by Joanna Holzman
23. Until now, de Witte's painting hag been referred to EIsheimer's representation of Philemon and Baucis at the Dresden
Gallery, to Goudt's print raodelled on it or to one of the popular editions of Ovid: cf. Van Rijckeyorsel 1938; Manke
1963, pp. 10—11, »nd oat. n°. 4, p. 78; Liedtke 1982, p. 79-80, note 11.
The rendering of Baucis in de Witte's image i* borrowed from Domenico Fetti's (1589—1623) painting Parable on Widou>'i
JHite (c. 1618—1622, from the series of Biblietil parables at the Dresden Gallery, inv. n°. 418). For thia Information, I am
indebted to Profeasor Jan Białostocki.
102