Rocznik Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie (2(38).2013)

Piotr Borusowski Esther before Ahasuerus: A Design for a Tapestry by Pieter Coecke van Aelst

335

design. Because of the evident influence of Italian art on it, one of the earliest attributions was
to Tommaso Vincidor (died c. 153 6 ; a pupil of Raphael, who was one of the team working on
the cartoons for the tapestries in the series “Acts of the Apostles” and the decorations of the
Vatican Loggia), who spent roughly the last ten years of his life making tapestry cartoons in the
Netherlands.50 Regardless of its authorship, Anna Gray Bennett proposes c. 1535 as the date
the original was made.51 Guy Delmarcel, who does not dismiss the possibility that its author
was an Italian, believes that it may have been made by a Flemish artist heavily influenced by
Italian art, someone like Michiel Coxie.52 Campbell supports this attribution, suggesting that
the tapestry be dated 1540-45.53 He recently restated his opinion and went one step further,
pointing to the visible idealization of the figures and the classical architecture. He ventured
that the figures of Romulus and his companions may be imitations of the figures painted by
Raphael and his collaborators in the Vatican Stanze.54 Looking at the Warsaw drawing, we
should also consider another work. The tapestries bought by Henry VIII in the middle of the
1540S most likely included the “Story of Solomon” series. Even though it has not survived,
we know about the appearance of two compositions from the series of tapestries made in
Mortlake around 1625, including one entitled The Queen of Sheba Arrives at the Court of King
Solomon. Its composition and protagonists seem to echo the Warsaw drawing.55 According to
Campbell, its figures are very similar to those from the “Story of Abraham” series, although
they lack their grace, which may mean that the designs and the cartoons of the original works
were made by someone from Coecke’s circle, and not by the master himself.
Determining the relationship between Esther before Ahasuerus and Romulus Reveals the
Head of Numitor to Amulius may shed a light on the attribution of not only the drawing but
also of the tapestry design. The similarity of their motifs is too great to be accidental, as is
the chance that two artists used identical models. Another explanation may be that the two
works share a prototype, whether a tapestry, a painting or a fresco. This, however, is unlikely
since the cartoon for Romulus must have been a mirror image of Esther. If, therefore, there
does exist an interdependence between the two, one must have been the model for the other
and, hence, either the Warsaw drawing was inspired by a scene from the history of Rome or
Romulus is a copy of a tapestry based on the cartoon from the National Museum. Resolving
this issue continues as a challenge for art historians, but it seems that Esther before Ahasuerus
may serve as the starting point for a renewed effort to resolve the question of the attribution
of the cartoons to “Story of Romulus and Remus.”
Should we consider the work from Warsaw, much like the drawings in Paris and London, to
be the work of Pieter Coecke van Aelst? The sketch fits in stylistically with his works of the
first half of the 1540s, the time Coecke was working on a translation into Dutch of the trea-
tise by Serlio and was strongly influenced by his architectural inventions. The attribution of
Esther before Ahasuerus should take into account a slightly different character of the stroke,
50 Mahl, op. cit., pp. 38-40, which includes older literature and a recapitulation of an earlier discussion
of the authorship of this design.
51 Gray Bennett, op. cit.
52 Delmarcel, op. cit., p. 156.
53 Campbell, Tapestry in the Renaissance..., op. cit., p. 397, fig. 189.
54 Campbell, Henry VIII and the Art of Majesty..., op. cit.
55 Easton Neston, Northamptonshire. Ibid., pp. 304-5, fig. 15.5.