Bulletin du Musée National de Varsovie (37.1996)

(still being more cautious about identifying it with our painting) c. 1616—18.6
On the same occasion van Thiel stated that the painting in Lublin is “the only
serious candidate” among several versions of the composition.7 Finally, in his
recent catalogue of the Kassel collection, Schnackenburg decisively qualifies the
Kassel painting as a copy, adding that “Das Exemplar im Museum von
Lublin/Polen, das am qualitätvollsten ist und im Röntgenbild Veränderungen
während des Malvorgangs zeigt, ist wahrscheinlich eigenhändig”.8

ln effect, the comparison with other versions, including the one in Kassel,
passing for the best of them, leaves no room for doubt about the superiority of
the Lublin picture. We would only add to Schnackenburg's reasoning that the
brushwork in our painting is incomparably more diverse, and that the attempts
to match its masterly depiction of textures in other versions are rather
awkward. The thickness and fluidity of the pigment, as well as the efficiency

6 L.J. Slatkes, “Rethinking ter Brugghen’s early Chronology”, in: Hendrick ter Brugghen und die
Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland (ed. R. Klessmann), Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig
1987, p.80 and notes 22 and 23, on p.83. Slatkes also raises the question of the scene in the
background, speculating about the possible traces of “something painted in this portion”, still visible
in the photograph.

P.J.J. van Thiel, “In Quest of the early ter Brugghen”, in: Hendrick ter Brugghen und die
Nachfolger Caravaggios in Holland, op. cit., note 14, on p.88.

8 B. Schnackenburg, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister: Gesamtkatalog, Staatliche Museen, Kassel
1996, p.73.

4. Hendrick ter Brugghen,
Pilote Washing his Hands,
Lublin, Muzeum Lubelskie,
X-ray radiograph detail
(hands of Pilote)

224