DOI Heft:
Nr. 3-4
DOI Artikel:Slatkes, Leonard J.: Bringing Ter Brugghen and Baburen up-to-date
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18945#0213
2. Dirck van Baburen, Christ
Cleansing the Temple,
canvas, 1 58 x 206 cm, art
market, Mew York
the same theme, in Leyden, is almost unthinkable without the example of ter
Brugghen’s Pilate.11
Thus, given the execution of this early work, the Toledo, Ohio, Supper at
Emmaus, with its difficult to read signature and date of 1616, would appear to
provide the painterly foundation for ter Brugghen’s early style.22 As this writer
demonstrated in 1986, the Toledo picture is closely related to an anonymous
North Italian painting of the same subject in Vienna.23 This work was once
thought by Nicolson to be a collaboration between ter Brugghen and the
unknown north Italian artist, although he later gave up on this belief.24 During
the 1987 symposium in Braunschweig the controversial Utrecht Penitent St.
Peter, with its signature and 1616 date, was hung next to the Toledo picture for
study purposes. Although most, but not all scholars at the 1987 Braunschweig
symposium, recognized the weaknesses of the St. Peter, some - for instance
Lublin picture is the best of the known versions and most likely the prime version by ter Brugghen.
Unfortunately, the painting is in poor condition.
21 See R. Klessmann, “Jan Lievens und die Utrechter Caravaggisten,” in this issue of the Bulletin.
22 Utrecht/Braunschweig exh. 1986/87, cat. no. 1.
23 Utrecht/Braunschweig exh. 1986/87, under cat. no. 1, p.76, Fig. 64.
24 Nicolson, Hendrick Terbrugghen, op. at., cat. no. A73, plates 11, 14, 22, 82. Later, Benedict Nicolson,
The International Caravaggesque Movement, Oxford 1979, p.39, listed the painting under “North
Italian,” where he noted that it is “close to Serodine and Terbrugghen but the problem is unsettled.”
203
Cleansing the Temple,
canvas, 1 58 x 206 cm, art
market, Mew York
the same theme, in Leyden, is almost unthinkable without the example of ter
Brugghen’s Pilate.11
Thus, given the execution of this early work, the Toledo, Ohio, Supper at
Emmaus, with its difficult to read signature and date of 1616, would appear to
provide the painterly foundation for ter Brugghen’s early style.22 As this writer
demonstrated in 1986, the Toledo picture is closely related to an anonymous
North Italian painting of the same subject in Vienna.23 This work was once
thought by Nicolson to be a collaboration between ter Brugghen and the
unknown north Italian artist, although he later gave up on this belief.24 During
the 1987 symposium in Braunschweig the controversial Utrecht Penitent St.
Peter, with its signature and 1616 date, was hung next to the Toledo picture for
study purposes. Although most, but not all scholars at the 1987 Braunschweig
symposium, recognized the weaknesses of the St. Peter, some - for instance
Lublin picture is the best of the known versions and most likely the prime version by ter Brugghen.
Unfortunately, the painting is in poor condition.
21 See R. Klessmann, “Jan Lievens und die Utrechter Caravaggisten,” in this issue of the Bulletin.
22 Utrecht/Braunschweig exh. 1986/87, cat. no. 1.
23 Utrecht/Braunschweig exh. 1986/87, under cat. no. 1, p.76, Fig. 64.
24 Nicolson, Hendrick Terbrugghen, op. at., cat. no. A73, plates 11, 14, 22, 82. Later, Benedict Nicolson,
The International Caravaggesque Movement, Oxford 1979, p.39, listed the painting under “North
Italian,” where he noted that it is “close to Serodine and Terbrugghen but the problem is unsettled.”
203