Completed British 16th and 17th C, except portraits, Continental European before 1800 19 What's the source for 'David and Abigail'?

ABD_UA_31853
Topic: Subject or sitter

This painting of 'David and Abigail' is by an unknown artist or group of artists, and forms part of the five Old Testament scenes known as ‘The King’s Paintings’ at the University of Aberdeen. Documentary information on the early history of this set is extremely limited, but paint analysis tests undertaken on samples from each of the paintings indicate that they date from the mid-seventeenth century; one plausible suggestion is that the set was produced by journeyman painters local to the East of Scotland, and was displayed at Gowrie House in Perth during Charles II’s brief stay there in 1650–51.

Woodcut and engraved sources have been traced for the other four paintings in the set, but any source for 'David and Abigail' remains elusive – can anyone help?

Helen Pierce, British 16th and 17th C, except portraits, Entry reviewed by Art UK

Completed, Outcome

This discussion is now closed. The source is almost certainly a printed image from a religious text in circulation in Scotland at the time the King’s Paintings were produced, i.e. about 1650. There are similarities with a drawing by Tobias Stimmer (1570–1579), an engraving by Maarten de Vos (1585), and an etching by Matthäus Merian the elder (before 1630). Merian’s prints were known in Scotland at the time. A convincing single source may yet appear, although it is possible that this painting is adapted from more than one print.

Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion. To anyone viewing it for the first time, please see below for all the comments that led to this conclusion.

18 comments

Martin Hopkinson,

What were the other sources drawn on for this set of paintings? The information might help in directing avenues or research

There are four other paintings in the set, all of which can be viewed on Your Paintings:

‘David and Goliath’ (after a woodcut by ‘Master connected to the Protestant Reformation Era Writings’ found in "Biblia, ad vetustissima exemplaria: nunc recens castigata", published in Antwerp in 1570).

‘The Judgment of Solomon’ (after an engraving by Boetius Adams Bolswert, after Rubens, published c.1630).

‘Solomon and the Queen of Sheba’ (after an engraving by Mattheus Merian the Elder, in "Icones Biblicae", published in Stuttgart 1525 and 1630).

‘Jephthah and his Daugher’ (after an engraving by Mattheus Merian the Elder, in "Icones Biblicae", published in Stuttgart 1525 and 1630).

Research into the paintings, their iconography and sources has most recently been carried out by Dr Mary Pryor and Prof John Morrison, my colleagues at the University of Aberdeen. Although there’s a great deal about the King’s Paintings which may have to remain as conjecture, eg. questions as to who painted them and why, we’re hoping that it will be possible to trace a source or sources for ‘David and Abigail’, and fill out a bit more knowledge about the circulation of printed images in seventeenth-century Scotland.

The King's Paintings are still in the conservation studio, progress having been slower than expected. The collection will send new images to Art UK once the work is done.

Images of the proposed sources:

‘David and Goliath’ (after a woodcut by ‘Master connected to the Protestant Reformation Era Writings’ found in "Biblia, ad vetustissima exemplaria: nunc recens castigata", published in Antwerp in 1570). https://bit.ly/371ZvyH (via Google Books, facing p. 89)

‘The Judgment of Solomon’ (after an engraving by Boetius Adams Bolswert, after Rubens, published c.1630). https://bit.ly/3jDgkVY

‘Jephthah and his Daughter’ (after an engraving by Mattheus Merian the Elder, in "Icones Biblicae", published in Stuttgart 1525 and 1630). https://bit.ly/3jED6fS

‘Solomon and the Queen of Sheba’ (after an engraving by Mattheus Merian the Elder, in "Icones Biblicae", published in Stuttgart 1525 and 1630). https://bit.ly/3jGMsI7 (The British Museum doesn’t have an image, but see Google Books, Icones Biblicae, 1659, p. 208 https://bit.ly/3rAm7hE)

The versions of David and Abigail at the British Museum (https://bit.ly/3cYLZjl) will have been considered, which include one from ‘Icones Biblicae’ 1625–1630 (which appears in reverse in 1659, p.178 https://bit.ly/3tJkHTX).

The King's Paintings are still in the conservation studio.

Does anyone think we can get further on the question of a printed source for this painting of David and Abigail? I can't find an engraving that's close enough to count as a single source.

The introductory text above suggests that this set may have been produced by journeymen painters working in the North East and possibly displayed in Gowrie House during Charles II's brief stay there in 1650–1651. Even from these poor images, the work looks rather good for journeyman painters, especially the detailed ‘grisaille’ borders (the figures not so much).

Gowrie House
https://canmore.org.uk/site/28411/perth-gowrie-house

This evening I noticed that the collection's venue page on Art UK only shows part of the original text provided by the curator and stored in Art UK's database. One of the missing paragraphs states 'Recent research suggests that these were originally created as wall hangings for King Charles II’s presence chamber in the House of Errol.’ That would account for the lower borders of fruit and flowers, giving them the appearance of tapestries.

https://thecastleguy.co.uk/castle/errol-castle/

Helen adds that documentary evidence on their early history is extremely limited, so I assume the collection has no idea how they were acquired, but I can ask, and also whether they could share further details of the research carried out by Dr Mary Pryor and Prof. John Morrison.

Jacinto Regalado,

The source is bound to have been a printed image like the others, and of similar origin. The closest is the print after Maarten de Vos from 1585, which conceivably could have been adapted as opposed to copied exactly, but admittedly journeyman painters were more likely to do the latter--unless the original was too complex for them and they chose to simplify it. That is speculation, but not implausible:

https://bit.ly/3aaAnqY

Jacinto Regalado,

Neither the British Museum nor the Rijksmuseum has a print on this subject that matches our painting exactly, and if there was such a print, I expect they would have it. I'm inclined to believe the Maarten de Vos design was simplified for practical reasons.

Andrew Shore,

It seems that the Marten de Vos dates to around 1585 (this drawing that the prints were based on was sold at Christies and has some info: https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6168822)

This drawing by Thomas Stimmer possibly predates that though: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1927-0723-2 (and is then copied in this drawing of 1608: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1883-0714-82)

If the source is likely to be the same as some of the others in the series, there is a Merian engraving from the Icones Bibilicae of this scene, which Marion mentioned in an earlier post (but is here on its own at the British Museum): https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1857-1212-132

Jacinto Regalado,

The source for what almost certainly were local journeyman painters is far more likely to have been a print than any drawing, since the former existed in may copies meant for wide dissemination and was far more accessible. Either we have not found the exact print, or the source print was modified in transcription.

Jacinto Regalado,

I meant "existed in *many* copies." The other possibility is a Bible illustration, but we are still talking about a printed image which could be mechanically reproduced.

Jacinto Regalado,

There is a drawing related to a lost 1636 painting by Guercino (which wound up in London but was destroyed in WWII):

https://www.dorotheum.com/en/l/4662587/

I am not saying this is the source, but it is interesting that it also seems to echo the Maarten de Vos design.

The first documented reference to the paintings that we know of comes in 1889, in Norman Macpherson's "Notes on the Chapel, Crown, and Other Ancient Buildings of King's College, Aberdeen", pp.28-29 (see GoogleBooks). Macpherson states that the paintings were moved in 1823 from the vestibule of the Common Hall at the College, to the Chapel - but we have no further evidence to corroborate this, and no clear indication as to when they actually came into the University's possession.

I contacted Dr Pryor about these new comments, which she was pleased to note. She says: "There are definitely similarities across all of these 'David and Abigail' works – perhaps with the Stimmer drawing most of all (I didn’t discover this before). We scoured all of Merian’s works, as the other matches were so similar with other paintings in the series. This one much less so – a distinctly different composition. It is possibly a free-er interpretation of the Merian work (whose prints we do know were in circulation in Scotland at the time of production of the King's Paintings i.e. circa 1650)."

The compositional options for the subject were limited in the 17th century, so many will be broadly similar. A few more where David's pose is similar are https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/David-und-Abigail/A8B78875E8BB3270 , https://www.niceartgallery.com/Jan-van-Neck/David-En-Abigail.html and https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/David-und-Abigail/A8B78875E8BB3270

I am sure a print closer to ours and a convincing candidate for its precursor will appear eventually.

Helen Pierce has confirmed by email that she is happy to draw this to a close, as we have taken the question of a source as far as we can (the discussion was launched in 2014).