5. Hendrick ter Brugghen,
Pilate Washing his Hands,
Lublin, Muzeum Lubelskie,
X-ray radiograph detail
(upper left side)
in differentiation of parchments and complexions, permit us to qualify the
Lublin Pilate without any doubt to a category higher than “workshop replica”.
It also surpasses the Repentant St. Peter in the Boymans-van Beuningen
Museum in Rotterdam, which - in spite of the opinion of van Thiel - Slatkes
does not believe to be an original but only a repetition (a workshop replica?)
of a lost prime version, signed and dated 1616.9 Practically this alone -
together with its refined colour scheme (deep tones of brownish-red in the
bottom robe of Pilate and his dark orange overcoat, combined with the
olive-green in the attire of the younger servant, cooler in its lights, warmer in
9 B.Nicolson, Hendrick Terbrugghen, op. cit., cat. no. D90, Plate 2b (as: Copy of a lost original by
Terbrugghen); Van Thiel, op. cit., passim; Slatkes, “Rethinking ter Brugghen’s early Chronology”,
op. cit., pp.80-81, note 26, on p.84. On the question of the authenticity of this painting cf. also
the lecture of Prof. L. J. Slatkes during the present symposium.
225
Pilate Washing his Hands,
Lublin, Muzeum Lubelskie,
X-ray radiograph detail
(upper left side)
in differentiation of parchments and complexions, permit us to qualify the
Lublin Pilate without any doubt to a category higher than “workshop replica”.
It also surpasses the Repentant St. Peter in the Boymans-van Beuningen
Museum in Rotterdam, which - in spite of the opinion of van Thiel - Slatkes
does not believe to be an original but only a repetition (a workshop replica?)
of a lost prime version, signed and dated 1616.9 Practically this alone -
together with its refined colour scheme (deep tones of brownish-red in the
bottom robe of Pilate and his dark orange overcoat, combined with the
olive-green in the attire of the younger servant, cooler in its lights, warmer in
9 B.Nicolson, Hendrick Terbrugghen, op. cit., cat. no. D90, Plate 2b (as: Copy of a lost original by
Terbrugghen); Van Thiel, op. cit., passim; Slatkes, “Rethinking ter Brugghen’s early Chronology”,
op. cit., pp.80-81, note 26, on p.84. On the question of the authenticity of this painting cf. also
the lecture of Prof. L. J. Slatkes during the present symposium.
225