Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
How to cite
Lara Yeager-Crasselt. “Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions.” In The Leiden
Collection Catalogue. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/(accessed February 28, 2020).
This page is available on the site’s Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions
are added only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 2 of 24

History paintings tell stories. They may depict episodes of confrontation,
recognition, or reconciliation, or moments inciting fear, betrayal, or desire.
Often driven by an individual’s weakness, a deep passion, or an innerconflict, historical narratives have the potential to reveal either vice orvirtue, to display a flawed moral character or an expression of unwaveringfaith. Capturing the complex relationship between the “movements of thesoul” and their outward manifestation in gesture and expression constituted
one of the greatest challenges for seventeenth-century Dutch artists.

[1]

One

approach was to render history paintings, which were primarily drawn fromthe Bible, ancient history, and mythology, with great naturalism, so thatFig 1. Pieter Lastman, David
Gives Uriah a Letter for Joab ,1619, oil on panel, 42.8 x 63.3
cm, The Leiden Collection, New
York, inv. no. PL-100.

beholders could understand—and even personally experience—the
passions, or emotions, portrayed before them.[2] At the turn of theseventeenth century, Karel van Mander (1584–1606) called the passions“the kernel and soul of art,” while Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–78)
considered them “the most noble [part of art].”[3] To achieve the lofty goal of
depicting the passions meant that Dutch artists should not only “instructand delight” the beholder but, above all, “stir our minds.”[4]The Amsterdam painter Pieter Lastman (1583–1633) was one of the mostconsequential Dutch history painters in the early seventeenth century.[5]Fig 2. Hans Holbein, David and
Uriah, 1538, woodcut, 60 x 85
mm, Rijksprentenkabinet,
Amsterdam, inv. no. RP-POB-4511S(R).

The extraordinary aptitude for storytelling on view in hisDavid Gives Uriaha Letter for Joab (fig 1), a pivotal scene from the life of the Old Testament
King David, situates this work at the nexus of The Leiden Collection, whichfeatures paintings of the human figure, not only portraits and tronies, butalso historical, mythological, and genre subjects.[6] Lastman brought anerudition, innovation, and expressiveness to his depiction of historicalthemes that impacted a generation of artists in the Netherlands, mostimportantly in the work of his pupils Jan Lievens (1607–74) and Rembrandt
van Rijn (1606–69), but also in paintings by Rembrandt’s students,
including Ferdinand Bol (1616–80), Govaert Flinck (1615–60), and CarelFig 3. David and Uriah, 1556,
woodcut, 59 x 85 mm, from Den
Bibel, published by Hans de Laet,
Antwerp, VU Amsterdam
University Library, inv. no.
XC.05058.

Fabritius (1622–54). Lastman’s artistic heritage was likewise significant for
artists working outside of Rembrandt’s immediate circle, such as Frans van
Mieris (1635–81) and Jan Steen (1626–79), who painted history scenes
into the later seventeenth century.[7]This essay explores key aspects of Lastman’s approach to history painting
through the lens of David Gives Uriah a Letter for Joab . It addresses someof Lastman’s central concerns as a history painter in seventeenth-century
Amsterdam as well as the pictorial implications his narrative and stylistic
choices had for Dutch history painting.[8] More specifically, it examines theFig 4. Pieter Lastman, KingDavid Handing the Letter to
Uriah, 1611, oil on panel, 51.1 ×
61.3 cm, Detroit Institute of Arts,© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 3 of 24

artist’s interest in portraying a moment of intense inner conflict anddemonstrates how his knowledge of antique visual and textual sources,
along with contemporary cultural and intellectual traditions, impacted his

inv. no. 60.63, Detroit Institute ofArts, USA Founders Societypurchase and Dexter M. Ferry Jr.
Fund / Bridgeman Images.

storytelling.[9] Exploring these issues provides insight into Lastman’s
ingenuity as a painter and offers a broader perspective on his place within
The Leiden Collection.

Lastman and Religious History Painting in
Early Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam
History painting held an important role in the artistic and cultural life of the
Dutch Republic, and by the second quarter of the seventeenth century,

Fig 5. Rembrandt van Rijn, Judas
Returning the Thirty Pieces ofSilver, 1629, oil on panel, 79 x
102.3 cm, Private Collection.

Amsterdam had risen to become the genre’s center.[10] While stories drawn
from ancient histories and mythologies, such as Ovid’s Metamorphoses,
Pliny’s Natural History, and Virgil’s Aeneid were popular among Dutch
collectors, religious subjects from the Old and New Testaments flourishedalongside them.[11] Despite the contentious role of religious imagery in theCalvinist Reformed Church, the official religion of the Republic, narrative
biblical scenes were tolerated and even encouraged for the ways in which
they could evoke moral themes and provide a source of emulation forpeople’s daily lives.[12] Depictions of Old Testament patriarchs, kings, andprophets, apocryphal stories from the Book of Tobit and Book of Esther,and episodes from the life of Christ, the Apostles, and the Evangelists,

Fig 6. Ferdinand Bol, Angel
Appearing to Elijah, ca. 1642, oilon canvas, 162.6 x 177.8 cm, The
Leiden Collection, New York,
FB-104.

could be seen in historical terms and provided models for human behavior,
whether displayed in private homes or public, civic spaces.[13]In a city like Amsterdam, which represented the multiconfessional nature of
Dutch society, members of the different sects of the Reformed Church(predominantly Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants) lived alongside
Roman Catholic and Jewish populations.[14] Artists, regardless of their own
faith, negotiated these various belief systems.[15] Religious history paintings
were therefore not strictly made along confessional lines, but rather could
be viewed from within an individual’s own set of beliefs.[16] As a Catholic
artist, Lastman would have produced works for Protestant as well as
Catholic households, and neither his religious convictions nor those of hiscollectors and patrons would necessarily have determined his choice of
subject matter.[17] Yet, as Tico Seifert and others have observed, LastmanFig 7. Carel Fabritius, Hagar andthe Angel, ca. 1645, oil oncanvas, 157.5 x 136 cm, The
Leiden Collection, New York, inv.
no. CF-100.

may have adapted the manner in which he approached certain biblicalthemes to reflect the faith of his patrons, many of whom came from the highend of the art market.[18]© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 4 of 24

These broader circumstances laid the groundwork for a new approach tohistory painting in the early decades of the seventeenth century. For
Lastman, this meant turning away from the exaggerated expressions ofMannerism that had dominated history painting at the end of the sixteenth
century—large-scale works, often with nude figures in active poses—andtoward the depiction of biblical and profane themes with small, multifigure
compositions, often set into landscapes, with “historical” details.
Orientalizing motifs, for instance, were intended to situate biblical scenes ina context that resembled the holy land.[19] A group of contemporaries inAmsterdam, including Claes Cornelisz Moeyaert (1591–1655), Jan(1581/82–1630) and Jacob Pynas (1592/3–after 1650), François Venant(1590–1636), and Jan Tengnagel (1584–1635), followed Lastman’s
narrative approach and rendered their scenes with a similar clarity of formand historical consciousness.[20] Together, they helped to establish
Amsterdam’s new artistic tradition.[21]Lastmanemerged[22]

contemporaries.

as

the

most

innovative

anderuditeofhis

His work was informed by a vast knowledge of literary

and historical texts, as well as antique, Italian, and Netherlandish pictorial
sources. Significant for his artistic development was the journey to Italy that
he undertook between ca. 1602/3 and 1607, which likely included time in
Venice, Padua, Florence, and Rome. He studied the work of Titian,Veronese, and Tintoretto in Venice and saw the paintings and sculptures ofRaphael and Michelangelo in Rome alongside antique sculpture andarchitecture. Elements of these artists’ works served as inspiration for
Lastman and would later become part of his pictorial repertoire.[23] Amongthe contemporary artists in Rome, some of whom Lastman may haveencountered directly, were Caravaggio (1578–1610), the Flemish artist
Paul Bril (ca. 1553/54–1626), and the German artist Adam Elsheimer(1578–1610), whose small-scale figures, depictions of landscapes, andnight scenes greatly impacted Lastman’s handling of narrative andcomposition.[24]Back in his native Amsterdam in 1607, Lastman increasingly looked tosixteenth-century prints and biblical illustrations, incorporating theirsubjects and motifs into his paintings. Biblical prints by Maarten van
Heemskerck (1498–1574) and Maarten de Vos (1532–1603), for example,
which brought an historical vantage point deeply informed by antiquity totheir depictions of Old Testament scenes, supplied Lastman with subject
matter that had never before—or rarely—been depicted in paintings. With
this visual inspiration he combined his vast knowledge of literary© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 5 of 24

sources.[25] He was familiar with ancient Greek and Roman texts, stretchingfrom Euripides, Herodotus, and Ovid to Livy, and with contemporary
sources like Karel van Mander’s Het Schilderboeck, Guillaume du Choul’s
Discours de la religion des anciens romains , as well as sixteenth- andseventeenth-century emblem books.[26] By combining a range of pictorialmodels and multiple textual sources in the depiction of a single subject,
Lastmanimbuedauthenticity.

[27]

his

scenes

with

their

narrative

andhistorical

Such erudite paintings would have appealed to Amsterdam

liefhebbers (art lovers), who—as the diplomat and poet Balthasar Gerbier(1592–1663) noted in his monumental poem of 1620, Eeer ende ClaghtDicht Ter Eeren van den Lofweerdighen Constrijcken ende Gheleerden
Henricus Goltizus—would have gazed upon Lastman’s paintings withpleasure.[28]Lastman’s iconographic choices, careful selection of authentic details,
handling of paint, and modeling of forms were not the only aspects of his
work that distinguished him in the early seventeenth century. He also
understood the significance of selecting a precise narrative moment.
Lastman favored scenes from the Old Testament in which the “hero” isshown in a moment of great conflict, particularly one that represented achange in the individual’s fate. Such episodes—meetings, encounters, andappearances of the divine—affected the expressive potential of the story
and placed the protagonist at a crossroads.[29] Lastman could achieve thisexpressiveness in his work by representing dramatic physical action, butalso by capturing the character’s inner struggles, passions, and strengths,
thereby portraying the essence of an emotional moment.

Lastman’s David and Uriah: Moving the
Passions
In Lastman’s David and Uriah, which depicts a story from the Book ofSamuel (2 Samuel 11), a youthful King David sits on a dais between twolarge columns placed slightly off center. He grasps a letter that he will giveto Uriah, a document that is tantamount to a death warrant as it orders thesoldier to be sent to the front line of battle.[30] Though David’s bearing is
powerful, his furrowed brow and twisted body language bespeak the moral
ambiguity of his position.[31] Uriah, in contrast, kneels beside the throne
forthrightly, his right hand outstretched to receive the letter, the otherplaced resolutely on his thigh. The young scribe looks on incredulously; his
hand hovers in space as if frozen in time. Bystanders in the© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 6 of 24

background—even the dog beside the throne—gaze upon the exchange
between David and Uriah with anticipation, heightening the composition’s
emotional and psychological tension.
The well-informed viewer would have recognized what preceded andfollowed Lastman’s scene: David had committed adultery with Uriah’s wife,
Bathsheba, while her husband was away serving in the king’s army, andshe had become pregnant with his child. In an attempt to conceal his act,
David recalled Uriah on a pretense and tried to send him to Bathsheba, but
Uriah’s loyalty to his fellow soldiers prevented him from lying with his wife.
David’s letter to Joab, the commander of his forces, essentially condemns
Uriah to be killed at the front, allowing David to marry Bathsheba.
Although Lastman’s depiction of this biblical narrative had few pictorial
precedents, sixteenth-century prints provided him with important models
for the representation of the exchange between the two men. In a woodcut
by Hans Holbein (1497/98–1543), which first appeared in the 1538 editionof the Biblia Utriusque Testamenti iuxta Vulgatam Translationem (fig 2),
David’s outstretched hand and pointed finger pass on the command,creating a physically charged encounter with Uriah.[32] Hans de Laet’s(1524?–66) slightly later woodcut, published in Antwerp in 1556 (fig 3),
depicts Uriah kneeling obediently by David’s side as he accepts theletter.[33] In each of these examples, the balance of power is absolute. In his
painting, however, Lastman presents an earlier moment in the story: David
has not yet handed over the letter that will seal Uriah’s fate. The
compositional structure and expressive poses of the figures thus present a
more visually and emotionally complex relationship between the men andunderscore David’s compromised position.[34]The narrative moment reflected in Lastman’s painting belongs to theclassical Greek tradition of peripeteia (turnaround) that Aristotle describedin his Poetics. Peripeteia signifies the plot’s reversal, or transformation,
resulting in a significant change or resolution in the lives of the story’s
characters.[35] Germane to its development is the act of recognition, agnitio,or what Aristotle called “a change from ignorance to knowledge,” and fromwhich the most intense and uncertain moment of the narrative emerges.[36]Lastman’s challenge in David and Uriah was to portray David’s betrayal inprogress—at the cusp of the plot’s transformation—for the viewer towitness as it unfolds. David and Uriah represents a dramatic reversal ofevents not through physical means, but by stirring the conflicting passionsof loyalty, betrayal, and desire that shaped this moment of peripeteia.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 7 of 24

In the 1640s, the playwright and author Joost van den Vondel(1587–1679), who was keenly interested in the visual arts and in
Lastman’s work, described the role of peripeteia for contemporary theater,
calling it staetveranderinge (“change of state”).[37] Vondel explained how“both principal rules of embellishment, called by the ancients peripeteia
and agnitio / or pivotal moment and recognition, function together.”[38] Theirrepresentation—in the visual arts or theater, in this case—was intended to
produce the greatest narrative tension. While Vondel’s concepts only
became crucial for theater in the second half of the seventeenth century, as
Amy Golahny and others have noted, they had already gained currency inintellectual and artistic circles in the 1610s, when Daniel Heinsius(1580–1655) first introduced Aristotle’s text into the Netherlands.[39] A poet,scholar, and Leiden University professor, Heinsius published his influential
edition of Aristotle’s Poetics in 1610, followed by his commentary De
Tragoediae constitutione, in 1611.[40] Heinsius discussed peripeteia andagnitio and their role in stirring the passions, following Aristotle’s
explanation of the modes of recognition, and similarly emphasized theprinciple one as being when “the recognition gradually arises from the very
subject matter.”[41] Lastman was familiar with Heinsius, and likely also with
Aristotle.[42] Whether or not he sought to demonstrate these authors’precepts of dramatic theory directly, his command of storytelling andpoignant evocation of a crucial turning point in David and Uriah indicatesthat he was receptive to such ideas and applied them to his own history
paintings.
Lastman’s powerful portrayal of human passions in David and Uriah was
the result of a masterful combination of elements: a clear, structured
composition with a bright palette, even lighting, and carefully selected
details that reflected his knowledge of various literary and pictorial sources.
As Christian Tümpel first demonstrated, Lastman consulted both thebiblical account and Flavius Josephus’s Antiquity of the Jews (book 7,
chapter 7), a record of the Jewish people written in the first century AD.[43]Lastman included details only found in Josephus’s text, namely the redseal on the letter, signifying lawful authority. He also added other pictorial
elements, such as the scribe, which are not mentioned by Josephus or in
the Bible.[44] At the same time, Lastman incorporated antique motifs andarchitectural elements in order to suggest the scene’s historicalauthenticity, including a dome resembling St. Peter’s, which was intended
to evoke Jerusalem, and Uriah’s helmet, which he based on an Italianhelmet all’antica that he had seen in Amsterdam.[45]© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 8 of 24

Lastman had treated the subject of David and Uriah eight years earlier (fig4).[46] While the episode represented in the two works is nearly
identical—the handing over of the letter—Lastman initially depicted a later
moment from the narrative, when Uriah has already accepted the letter andthus his fate. In the first painting, Lastman arranged the figures in a more
tightly organized vertical composition than the expansive, stage-like space
he would utilize in the Leiden Collection work. The former scene is moreclosely related to De Laet’s sixteenth-century woodcut (fig 3) in theexpression of power dynamics between the figures. When Lastman
revisited the subject in 1619, he introduced more storytelling to the scene
and situated his figures parallel to the picture plane, encouraging thebeholder to “read” the narrative as if played out before him. By expanding
the space between the figures and allowing the exchange of glances toreveal itself slowly, Lastman instilled the composition with greater
expressive and emotional anticipation. With this evolved approach almost a
decade later, Lastman composed his story so that it could resonate more
directly with the viewer, thereby fulfilling the aim of stirring the mind, andthe heart.[47]From Lastman to Rembrandt and His Pupils
In 1629, Constantijn Huygens, the secretary to the Stadholder Frederick
Hendrik (1584–1647), art lover and poet, visited the studios of Lievens andRembrandt in Leiden and observed how “Rembrandt was superior . . . inhis sure touch and liveliness of emotions,” qualities that were essential for
painting expressive history scenes.[48] Both men had studied with Lastman,with Lievens spending several years with the master from 1617 to 1621,
and Rembrandt six months in 1625. Lievens and Rembrandt would havelearned the key principles of history painting from Lastman, from thearrangement of figure groupings within a composition to portraying emotion
through action and expression. Lastman would have showed both pupils
the essence of storytelling, demonstrating how gestures and glances, bodylanguage and composition, could contribute to depicting deeply moving
episodes of the human experience.[49] Nevertheless, Rembrandt, more than
Lievens, excelled in capturing the “movements of the soul.”[50]In his unpublished autobiography written between 1629 and 1631,
Huygens summarized Rembrandt’s depiction of the passions in Judas
Returning the Thirty Pieces of Silver (fig 5):
Rembrandt devotes all his loving concentration to a small painting. . . .
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 9 of 24

The gesture of the single man, the despairing Judas . . . wailing,
begging for forgiveness, and at the same time completely without
hope, preserving no trace of hope in his expression, the horrible face,
the torn-out hair, the ripped garment, the twisted arms, his hands
clenched to the point of being bloody, lying prone and on his knees
because of some dark impulse, the whole body wracked by somehorrific misery. . . . I maintain that it did not occur to Protogenes,
Apelles, or Parrhasios, nor could it occur to them, were they to return toearth, that a youth, a Dutchman, a beardless miller, could put so muchinto one human figure and depict it all.[51]Huygens’s ekphrastic account of Rembrandt’s painting revealed his
admiration for the young artist’s ability to represent a complex range ofemotions in a single figure, qualities that reflect a critical aspect ofLastman’s teachings. Rembrandt had successfully transformed Judas’s
inner despair into its outward expression, evoking for the viewer by
naturalistic and forceful means the truthfulness of his emotions.
Lastman’s sophisticated approach to history painting, defined by its
attention to narrative and historical detail and a wide range of pictorial andtextual sources, continued to exert an impact on Rembrandt and his circle
into the mid-1630s and beyond.[52] Two paintings in The Leiden Collection
by Rembrandt’s pupils Ferdinand Bol (1616–80) and Carel Fabritius(1622–54), display some of the ways in which Lastman’s narrative choices
and understanding of dramatic concepts like peripeteia resonated in thework of later Amsterdam artists.[53] Both Bol’s Angel Appearing to Elijah (fig 6) and Fabritius’s Hagar and the Angel (fig 7) depict biblical subjectsof divine intervention at their most pivotal moments.[54] In Bol’s painting (1Kings 16:29–34 and chapters 17–19), Elijah will soon be awoken andsaved by the angel who exhorts him to “arise and eat.”[55] In Fabritius’s
moving scene (Genesis 21:15–19), the angel’s appearance to Hagar, whograsps her hands in prayer and has begun to weep, will result in Hagar andher son Ishmael’s salvation.[56] Each painting portrays the narrative
moment just prior to when the characters’ lives will change. Bol’s andFabritius’s large-scale works, which were rendered with earth-toned
palettes and contrasts of light and dark, differ from Lastman’s paintings inform, style, and in their precise attention to historical specificity. Yet themanner in which these artists sought to capture the inner struggles of themain protagonists at a pivotal and as yet unresolved point in the© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 10 of 24

narrative—a strategy dependent upon the viewer’s knowledge of the story
and its consequences—is consistent with Lastman’s treatment of historicalsubjects and the evocation of their human element.
Pieter Lastman was a seminal figure in establishing the character of Dutch
history painting. His rich knowledge of various visual and textual sources
and motifs, erudition, and familiarity with dramatic theater shaped his
sophisticated approach to the representation of historical themes. At thecore of this achievement was the depiction of the passions and his ability tokindle for the beholder the inner motions of the mind and soul, often stirredby peripeteia. Lastman impacted painters well into the seventeenth
century, his work offering artists a model for rendering this noble genre ofpainting. His powerful, nuanced representation of the human experience inDavid and Uriah makes this work enduringly compelling and aptly reflectsVondel’s characterization of the artist as the “Apelles of our Age.”[57]- Lara Yeager-Crasselt
2020© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 11 of 24

Endnotes
1. Samuel van Hoogstraten described Rembrandt’s mastery in representing “the movementsof the soul” in his Inleyding tot de hooge schoole de schilderkonst: Anders der zichtbaere
werelt (Rotterdam, 1678), 75. Dutch art theorists such as Karel van Mander, Franciscus
Junius, and Van Hoogstraten discussed the importance of representing the passions intheir respective treatises. For further discussion, see Thijs Weststeijn, “Between Mind andBody: Painting the Inner Movements According to Samuel van Hoogstraten and Franciscus
Junius,” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie S.
Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden,2010): 263–83.
2. While the emergence of a hierarchy of subject matter only developed in the later
seventeenth century, history paintings were long considered the highest form of art
because they dealt with subjects of great moral consequence. For a broad discussion ofhistory painting, see Albert Blankert, “Introduction,” in Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch
Painting in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Albert Blankert et al. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C.,
National Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)(Washington, D.C., 1980), 14–33.
Artists sought to represent the passions across all genres. For an introduction to the role ofthe passions in the art of the early modern Netherlands, as well as additional literature, see
Stephanie S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, “Introduction: The Motions of the Mind,” in
The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie S. Dickey andHerman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 6–16.
Dickey and Roodenburg note that no “unified concept of ‘emotion’” existed in this period,and “the (sensual) ‘passions’ were distinguished from the (intellectual) ‘affections’ withvarious shades of meaning.” They use the terms “passions” and “emotions”
interchangeably in their edited volume, a usage that this essay follows.
3. “Kern en ziel van de kunst,” as described by Karel van Mander in “Wtbeeldinghe derAffecten/passien/begeerlijckheden/en lijdens der Menschen (The representation of theaffects, passions, desires, and sorrows of men),” in Karel van Mander,Den grondt der edelvrij Schilder-konst, ed. Hessel Miedema (Utrecht, 1973), 6: 55, f. 27r. Van Mander’s Grondt
was primarily directed at history painters (or figure painters). Van Hoogstraten referred tothe passions as “alleredelste deel der kunst.” Samuel van Hoogstraten, Inleyding tot dehooge schoole de schilderkonst: Anders der zichtbaere werelt (Rotterdam, 1678), 109;
Thijs Weststeijn, “Between Mind and Body: Painting the Inner Movements According toSamuel van Hoogstraten and Franciscus Junius,” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early
Modern Netherlands, ed. Stephanie S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 12 of 24

Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 264.
4. In his treatise The Painting of the Ancients , which was published in Latin in 1637 and in
Dutch in 1641, Franciscus Junius summarized the artists’ duty as akin to that of orators or
ancient rhetoricians. Citing Cicero’s De optimo genere oratorum, Junius wrote, “It is [theartists’] duty . . . that they should teach; it is for their owne credit that they should delight; itis altogether requisite that they should move and stirre our minde.” See Franciscus Junius,
The Literature of Classical Art. 1. The Painting of the Ancients: De picture veterum,
According to the English Translation (1638) (Berkeley, 1991), 297, 330; and Thijs
Weststeijn, “Between Mind and Body: Painting the Inner Movements According to Samuelvan Hoogstraten and Franciscus Junius,” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern
Netherlands, ed. Stephanie S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for
History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 280n20.
5. Cities across the Republic boasted respective traditions of history painting in the earlyseventeenth century, including the work of Hendrick Goltzius and Cornelis van Haarlem inHaarlem, for example, and of Abraham Bloemaert, Joachim Wttewael, Hendrick ter
Brugghen, Gerrit van Honthorst, and Dirck van Baburen in Utrecht. For history painting in
Amsterdam, see note 10, and for Lastman, see Christian T. Seifert, “Pieter Lastman,
Constrijcken history Schilder tot Amsterdam—kunstreicher Historienmaler zu Amsterdam,”in Pieter Lastman: in Rembrandts Schatten? , ed. Martina Sitt (Exh. cat. Hamburg,
Hamburger Kunsthalle) (Munich, 2006), 14–24.
6. At present, The Leiden Collection does not include any landscapes, and includes only one
still life.
7. Little attention has been paid in the scholarship to the development of the treatment ofhistories by genre painters, many of whom turned to historical subjects in the second half ofthe seventeenth century. For further discussion, see Susan Kuretsky, “Independents andEccentrics,” in Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt , ed.
Albert Blankert et al. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit
Institute of Arts; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (Washington, D.C., 1980), 253–89; for Fransvan

Mieris’shistoricalthemes,seeQuentinBuvelot,ed., Fransvan

Mieris1635–1681 (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis; Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art)
(New Haven, 2005), nos. 44 and 47; and Otto Naumann, Frans van Mieris (1635–1681)
the Elder (Doornspijk, 1981), 1: 89–91; 2: nos. 85, 97, 121. For Jan Steen as a history
painter,see

LyckledeVries,

“Jan

Steen

zwischen

Genre-und

Historienmalerei,” Niederdeutsch Beitragen zur Kunstgeschichte 22 (1982): 113–28;
Ariane van Suchtelen, ed., Jan Steen’s Histories (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis)(Zwolle, 2018). The investigation of the history paintings of the Leiden fijnschilders as wellas those of Jan Steen will be explored in future essays in The Leiden Collection Catalogue.
8. Dutch history painting in the seventeenth century has long been relegated to a minor role in© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 13 of 24

the scholarship. In the decades following Gods, Saints and Heroes, 1980, the first major
exhibition to treat the subject, thematic exhibitions on aspects of history painting andpublications on individual artists have appeared sporadically. See, for example: ChristianTümpel, ed., Het Oude testament in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw (Exh. cat.
Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum; Jerusalem, Israel Museum) (Zwolle, 1991); Albert
Blankert et al., Dutch Classicism in Seventeenth-Century Painting (Exh. cat. Rotterdam,
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen; Frankfurt am Main, Städelsches Kunstinstitut)(Rotterdam, 1999); Peter Schoon et al., Greek Gods and Heroes in the Age of Rubens
and Rembrandt (Exh. cat. Athens, National Gallery / Alexandros Soutzos Museum andNetherlands Institute; Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum) (Dordrecht, 2000); Eric Jan Sluijter,
Rembrandt and the Female Nude (Amsterdam, 2006); Eric Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt’s
Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630–1650 (Amsterdam, 2017); Ariane van
Suchtelen, ed., Jan Steen’s Histories (Exh. cat. The Hague, Mauritshuis) (Zwolle, 2018).
The subject of history painting is conspicuously absent in the more recent assessment of
the field in Wayne Franits, ed., The Ashgate Research Companion to Dutch Art of theSeventeenth Century (Burlington, Vt., 2016).
9. This essay builds upon the wide-ranging scholarship on Lastman’s painting, particularly themore recent contributions made by Amy Golahny, but takes a new perspective by focusingon Lastman’s strategies for depicting a dramatic narrative and evoking the passions as acentral means of storytelling. See Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman: Moments ofRecognition,” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie
S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden,2010): 179–201; and Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman’s Paintings of David’s Death Sentence
for Uriah, 1611 and 1619,” in The Primacy of the Image in Northern European Art, Essaysin Honor of Larry Silver , ed. Debra Taylor Cashion, Henry Luttikhuizen, and Ashley D. West
(Leiden, 2017), 500–514. For full references to David Gives Uriah a Letter for Joab , see
the entry in this catalogue.
10. For a recent discussion regarding Amsterdam’s role as a new center for history painting
spurred by a confluence of wealth, trade, and a growing merchant class, see Eric Jan
Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630–1650 (Amsterdam,2017). Sluijter notes that “history painting had developed into an Amsterdam specialty. Not
only in absolute numbers but also the percentage of artists making history paintings in
Amsterdam, from the mid-1620s until the late 1660s, was considerably higher than in thenext two largest centers of painting production, Haarlem and The Hague” (14). For
Amsterdam as a center for Old Testament subject matter, see Christian Tümpel, “Die
Alttestamentliche Historienmalerei im Zeitalter Rembrandts,” in Im Lichte Rembrandts: Das
Alte Testament im Goldenen Zeitalter der niederländischen Kunst , ed. Christian Tümpel
(Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum; Jerusalem, Israel Museum; Münster,Westfälischen Landesmuseum) (Munich, 1994), 16–19.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 14 of 24

11. As John Michael Montias observed in his extensive examination of seventeenth-century
Amsterdam inventories, this could also be meant literally: religious and secular works could
often be found displayed beside one other in private homes. See John Michael Montias,“Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects andAttributions,” in Art in History, History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch
Culture, ed. David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (Chicago, 1991), 331–72, especially
337–40; and John Loughman and John Michael Montias, Public and Private Spaces:
Works of Art in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Houses (Zwolle, 2000). For an overview ofhistorical subject matter popular in the Dutch Republic, see Albert Blankert, “Introduction,”in Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Albert Blankert
et al. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts;
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (Washington, D.C., 1980), 18–26. For mythological subjects,
see Eric Jan Sluijter, De “Heydense fabulen” in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw:
Schilderijen met verhalende onderwerpen uit de klassieke mythologie in de Noordelijke
Nederlanden, circa 1590–1670 (Leiden, 2000); and for Old Testament subject matter, see
Christian Tümpel, ed., Im Lichte Rembrandts: Das Alte Testament im Goldenen Zeitalter
der niederländischen Kunst (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum; Jerusalem,
Israel Museum; Münster, Westfälischen Landesmuseum) (Munich, 1994).
12. For an excellent discussion of the religious landscape of the United Provinces in this period,
see Shelley Perlove and Larry Silver, Rembrandt’s Faith: Church and Temple in the Dutch
Golden Age (University Park, Penn., 2009), 17–67.
13. Blankert noted how biblical subjects were understood as historical events by seventeenthcentury artists and patrons, though he did not reflect on the display of religious art within
Catholic households or hidden churches in cities like Amsterdam and Haarlem—works thatwere intended for devotional purposes. The availability of the Bible in translation and the
popularization of illustrated editions contributed significantly to the popularization of biblicalimagery. See discussions in Albert Blankert, “Introduction,” in Gods, Saints and Heroes:
Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Albert Blankert et al. (Exh. cat. Washington,
D.C., National Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)(Washington, D.C., 1980), 18–26; Christian Tümpel, “Religious History Painting,” inGods,
Saints and Heroes: Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Albert Blankert et al. (Exh.
cat. Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam,
Rijksmuseum) (Washington, D.C., 1980), 45–54; Christian Tümpel, “Die Ikonographie derAmsterdamer Historienmalerei in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts und die
Reformation,” Jahrbuch des deutschen Bibel-Archivs Hamburg 2 (1980): 127–58;
Christian Tümpel, ed., Im Lichte Rembrandts. Das Alte Testament im Goldenen Zeitalter
der niederländischen Kunst (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum; Jerusalem,
Israel Museum; Münster, Westfälischen Landesmuseum) (Munich, 1994). For the displayof biblical paintings in private homes and public spaces, see Gabriël Pastor, “Biblische© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 15 of 24

Historienbilder im Goldene Zeitalter in Privatbesitz,” in Im Lichte Rembrandts: Das Alte
Testament im Goldenen Zeitalter der niederländischen Kunst , ed. Christian Tümpel (Exh.
cat. Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum; Jerusalem, Israel Museum; Münster,Westfälischen Landesmuseum) (Munich, 1994), 122–33; and Marloes Huiskamp,“Öffentlicher Unterricht in Geschichte und Moral: Das Alte Testament in Rathäusern undanderen öffentlichen Gebäuden,” in Im Lichte Rembrandts: Das Alte Testament imGoldenen Zeitalter der niederländischen Kunst , ed. Christian Tümpel (Exh. cat.
Amsterdam,

Joods

HistorischMuseum;Jerusalem,

IsraelMuseum;Münster,

Westfälischen Landesmuseum) (Munich, 1994), 134–55.
14. Although Calvinism was the official religion of the Dutch Republic, the Dutch were notforced to become members of the denomination, and adherents of many other sects were
tolerated, including not only Catholics and Jews but also Mennonites (Anabaptists),
Lutherans, Socinians, Collegiants, and Quakers. Catholic worship was outlawed in
Amsterdam in 1581, but the ban was not actively enforced, and Catholics continued topractice in secret. See Xander van Eck, Clandestine Splendor: Painting for the Catholic
Church in the Dutch Republic (Zwolle, 2008); and Shelley Perlove and Larry Silver,
Rembrandt’s Faith: Church and Temple in the Dutch Golden Age (University Park, Penn.,2009), 45–61.
15. Christian Tümpel, “Religious History Painting,” in Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch Painting
in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Albert Blankert et al. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National
Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (Washington,
D.C., 1980), 52; and Volker Manuth, “Denomination and Iconography: The Choice ofSubject Matter in the Biblical Painting of the Rembrandt Circle,” Simiolus 22, no. 4(1993–94): 235–52.
16. Gabriël Pastor notes how, within the private space of the home, people could haveunderstood and interpreted biblical themes in a variety of ways outside of their religious
convictions. Other factors that would have contributed to their understanding of religious
subject matter included education, intellectual interests, and social and personal
backgrounds. For further discussion, see Gabriël Pastor, “Biblische Historienbilder imGoldene Zeitalter in Privatbesitz,” in Im Lichte Rembrandts: Das Alte Testament imGoldenen Zeitalter der niederländischen Kunst , ed. Christian Tümpel (Exh. cat.
Amsterdam,

Joods

HistorischMuseum;Jerusalem,

IsraelMuseum;Münster,

Westfälischen Landesmuseum) (Munich, 1994), 122–33; John Michael Montias, “Works of
Art in Seventeenth-Century Amsterdam: An Analysis of Subjects and Attributions,” inArt inHistory, History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture , ed. David Freedberg
and Jan de Vries (Chicago, 1991), 331–72; and John Michael Montias,Art at Auction in
17th Century Amsterdam (Amsterdam, 2002), passim.
17. The possible early provenance of David and Uriah, for example, which has been long
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 16 of 24

overlooked in the scholarship, provides some insight into these dynamics. A series ofauction sales published by John Michael Montias several decades ago shows theownership of a painting of “David and Uriah” changing hands over a short period of time. In
the sale of the possessions of Elbert Symonsz. Pool, a butter merchant in Amsterdam, on 4
December 1620, was a painting described as “a little piece by Lastman of David and
Uriah.” What is presumed to be the same painting appears for a second time in the sale ofthe possessions of Pieter Claesz. Codde, a ropemaker, also from Amsterdam, on 30
October 1624. Both men were members of the Reformed Church, though some membersof their families were Roman Catholic. In the latter sale, the painting is simply described as“David and Uriah” without an attribution. In both instances, the work appears with apendant, described in the 1620 sale as “a painting of Bersabe [Bathsheba] by Pijnas,” andin 1624 as “a little painting of Bersabe washing herself.” The paintings sold as a pair in therespective sales of 1620 and 1624 to members of the sellers’ families. The prices theyfetched in each sale were so similar that the two auction lists must refer to the same
painting. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine whether the “David and Uriah” in thepossession of Pool or Codde can be identified with the Leiden Collection painting or
Lastman’s other version of this subject from 1611, now in Detroit (see fig 4). No painting ofBathsheba by Jan or Jacob Pynas is known.
Montias points out that it would have been unusual for men of Pool or Codde’s social
standing to own history paintings by artists of the caliber of Lastman and Pynas, and hesuggests that their ownership of these works may have been the result of a personalconnection with the artist. Pieter Claesz. Codde had served as a witness at the signing of
the marriage contract of the Roman Catholic jeweler Zeger Pietersz., Lastman’s brother, on
1 September 1601, with the artist present. However, the number of Lastman’s paintings
that subsequently appear in the inventories of members of the merchant class inAmsterdam reflects a wealthier and more intellectual class of liefhebbers that was
beginning to take shape in the city. In this light, it seems less surprising that either Pool or
Codde would have been early owners of the painting. See further discussion below and inJohn Michael Montias, “Trois ventes de tableaux aux enchères à Amsterdam vers 1620,”
in Curiosité: Études d’histoire de l’art en l’honneur d’Antoine Schnapper , ed. Olivier Bonfait(Paris, 1998), 285–95; John Michael Montias, Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam(Amsterdam, 2002), 226–33; and Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu Leben
und Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken
Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg, 2011), 128–33.
18. The lack of documentation about Lastman’s early patrons or commissions makes it difficult
to assess fully the relationship between the iconography of his paintings and the religious
convictions of his patrons. The only two known commissions of Lastman’s concern three nolonger extant scenes from the Life of Christ, which were executed for the Oratory atFrederiksborg Castle for the Danish king, Christian IV (Lastman was selected along with© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 17 of 24

several other history painters, including Adriaen van Nieulandt and Jan Pynas, to complete
the series of 23 paintings), in 1619, and a painting of Jonah and the Whale (Düsseldorf,
Museum Kunstpalast) for an Amsterdam merchant, Isaac Bodens, in 1621. There is no
indication that Lastman worked exclusively for one religious denomination, and like many of
his contemporaries, he must have taken advantage of—and adapted to—the wealthyclientele and burgeoning art market in Amsterdam (see additional discussion in note 17 andfurther below). For discussion of Lastman’s patrons, see Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter
Lastman: Studien zu Leben und Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit
Themen aus der antiken Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg, 2011), 44–45, 66, 133–39.
19. Christian Tümpel, ed., Het Oude testament in de schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw (Exh.
cat. Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum; Jerusalem, Israel Museum) (Zwolle, 1991),
10–13.
20. These artists have long been referred to as the “Pre-Rembrandtists” because of theirsignificance as Rembrandt’s “precursors,” but this nomenclature does not accuratelyreflect their contribution to seventeenth-century painting. See Astrid Tümpel, ed.,The PreRembrandtists (Exh. cat., Sacramento, E.B. Crocker Art Gallery) (Sacramento, 1974);
Christian Tümpel, “The Iconography of the Pre-Rembrandtists,” in The Pre-Rembrandtists,
ed. Astrid Tümpel (Exh. cat., Sacramento, E.B. Crocker Art Gallery) (Sacramento, 1974),
127–50; and Astrid Tümpel, “The Pre-Rembrandtists,” in Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch
Painting in the Age of Rembrandt , ed., Albert Blankert et al. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C.,
National Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)(Washington, D.C., 1980), 123–35. Eric Jan Sluijter has recently discussed how Lastman,by painting in a novel style and developing a new type of biblical painting, encouraged agroup of likeminded artists to gather around him and follow his approach. He describes thisnotion as “clustering,” by which artists “cluster” around a successful painter and give shape
to a distinctive specialization in painting. He credits Lastman with spurring the tradition ofhistory painting in Amsterdam, which later came to include Rembrandt and his pupils. Eric
Jan Sluijter, Rembrandt’s Rivals: History Painting in Amsterdam 1630–1650 (Amsterdam,2017), 14–19.
21. This tradition was largely defined by a predilection to depict Old Testament subject matter.
See Christian Tümpel, “The Iconography of the Pre-Rembrandtists,” in The PreRembrandtists, ed. Astrid Tümpel (Exh. cat., Sacramento, E.B. Crocker Art Gallery)(Sacramento, 1974), 127–50; Christian Tümpel, ed., Het Oude testament in deschilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Joods Historisch Museum;
Jerusalem, Israel Museum) (Zwolle, 1991), 10–13.
22. For Lastman, see Astrid Tümpel and Peter Schatborn, Pieter Lastman: Leermeester van
Rembrandt: The Man Who Taught Rembrandt (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum het
Rembrandthuis) (Zwolle, 1991); Martina Sitt, ed., Pieter Lastman: In Rembrandts© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 18 of 24

Schatten? (Exh. cat. Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle) (Munich, 2006); and Christian Tico
Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu Leben und Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis derWerke mit Themen aus der antiken Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg, 2011).
23. For further discussion of Lastman’s Italian sojourn, which may have included several other
cities, see Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu Leben und Werk: Mit einem
kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken Mythologie und Historie(Petersberg, 2011), 30–36, 145–54. Lastman’s period in Venice is documented by thedrawn copy (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum) he made ca. 1603 after Veronese’s
Adoration of the Shepherds in the Cappella dei Setaioli der Chiesa dei Crociferi. While inRome, Lastman also went on sketching trips in the countryside; see his drawingView of thePalatinate, 1606 (Private Collection, Germany). In David and Uriah, for example, Amy
Golahny has shown how Lastman incorporated motifs and poses from Michelangelo’sangel in Bologna and sculpture of Giuliano de’Medici in Florence for the pose of David. See
Amy Golahny, “Reflections on Caravaggio, Lastman, and Rembrandt,” inCulture figurativea confronto tra Fiandre e Italia dal XV al XVII secolo: Atti del convegno internazionale
Nord/Sud: Ricezioni fiamminghe al di qua delle Alpi: Prospettive di studio e indagini
tecniche, ed. Anna De Floriani and Maria Clelia Galassi (Milan, 2008), 157–65.
24. For Lastman’s relationship to Caravaggio, Bril, and Elsheimer, see Christian Tico Seifert,
Pieter Lastman: Studien zu Leben und Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke
mit Themen aus der antiken Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg, 2011), 33, 45–47, 149,
152–53, and 155–62. Seifert points out that Elsheimer had achieved “monumentality in aminiature format” in his works, which were conceived with a close eye to their textual
sources, qualities that would be important for Lastman’s painting.
25. Astrid Tümpel, ed., The Pre-Rembrandtists (Exh. cat., Sacramento, E.B. Crocker Art
Gallery) (Sacramento, 1974), 132–38, 142–46; Christian Tümpel, “Die Ikonographie derAmsterdamer Historienmalerei in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts und die
Reformation,” Jahrbuch des deutschen Bibel-Archivs Hamburg 2 (1980): 135–40, 146–52;
and Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu Leben und Werk: Mit einem
kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken Mythologie und Historie(Petersberg, 2011), 162–76.
26. Lastman’s vast literary interests have been widely recognized. Upon his death in 1633, theartist’s library contained around 150 books, an exceptional number for the time. Although
the titles were not indicated in the inventory, Golahny and Seifert have suggested aprobable list of ancient and contemporary texts based on Lastman’s works and likely
education in a Latin school, where he would have first encountered this wide range ofancient texts. With the exception of Euripides, Herodotus, and Lucian, nearly all of the otherancient texts would have been available in Dutch translation. See Amy Golahny,
Rembrandt’s Reading: The Artist’s Bookshelf of Ancient Poetry and History (Amsterdam,© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 19 of 242003), 71; Christian T. Seifert, “Pieter Lastman, Constrijcken history Schilder tot
Amsterdam—kunstreicher Historienmaler zu Amsterdam,” in Pieter Lastman: In
Rembrandts Schatten?, ed. Martina Sitt (Exh. cat. Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle)(Munich, 2006), 17; and Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu Leben und
Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken Mythologie
und Historie (Petersberg, 2011), 71–72, 97–111, 119–21.
27. Kurt Bauch first called Lastman’s tendency for exacting historical and narrative details a“monströse Sachlichkeit.” See the discussion in Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman:
Studien zu Leben und Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus
der antiken Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg, 2011), 139–44.
28. Written in 1618, though only published in 1620, Gerbier’s poem was a tribute to Hendrick
Goltzius and included an imagined procession of the most famous artists gathered tocelebrate him. Lastman was singled out for high praise in Gerbier’s lines: “Lastman, d’eer
d’Amstels voet, die wil ick hier aen voeghen, Op wiens Const ‘tweeld’ rigst oogh moest
sterren met genoege Liefhebbers sit vry neer, en met aendacht eens siet Oft niet derConsten mergh Pictura u dar biet. ” By the time Gerbier composed the poem, Lastman was
already well known in the Netherlands. See Otto Hirschmann, “Balthasar Gerbiers eer ende
Claeght-Dight ter eeren van Henricus Goltius,” Oud Holland 38 (1920): 104–25; David
Freedberg, “Fame, Convention and Insight: On the Relevance of Fornebergh and Gerbier,”in The Ringling Museum of Art Journal: Papers Presented at the International Rubens
Symposium, 1982 (1983): 236–59; and Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu
Leben und Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken
Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg, 2011), 65–67. For discussion of the early provenanceof Lastman’s painting, see note 17.
29. Christian Tümpel, “Religious History Painting,” in Gods, Saints and Heroes: Dutch Painting
in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Albert Blankert et al. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National
Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) (Washington,
D.C., 1980), 48; Astrid Tümpel and Peter Schatborn, Pieter Lastman: leermeester van
Rembrandt: The Man Who Taught Rembrandt (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum het
Rembrandthuis) (Zwolle, 1991); and Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman: Moments ofRecognition,” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie
S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden,2010): 179–202.
30. David’s letter commanded that Uriah be placed on the front lines of battle “so that he may
be struck down and die” (2 Samuel 11:15).
31. Infrared imaging revealed that David originally looked Uriah in the eye. Lastman made thiscompositional and narrative change. See the entry and technical summary in thiscatalogue.
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 20 of 24

32. Holbein’s woodcut was influential for a number of late sixteenth-century Bibles. See Erika
Michael, “The Iconographic History of Hans Holbein the Younger’s Icones and Their
Reception in the Later Sixteenth Century,” Harvard Library Bulletin 3, no. 3 (1992): 28–47.
For Holbein’s woodcut and other illustrations of this subject, see Bart Rosier,The Bible inPrint: Netherlandish Bible Illustration in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden, 1997), 1: 37, 65; 2:
fig. 275, 282. In 1638, Wenceslaus Hollar (1607–77) executed a more elaborate print ofDavid giving the letter to Uriah, after a drawing by Holbein.
33. Bart Rosier, The Bible in Print: Netherlandish Bible Illustration in the Sixteenth Century(Leiden, 1997), 2: fig. 297. At least one painting of the subject, from ca. 1560 by Hans
Vredeman de Vries (1527–ca. 1606) and Gilles Mostart (1528–1598), is known, as is ananonymous tapestry in the Musée de la Renaissance, Paris. For an overview of thepainting’s iconographic precedents, see Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman’s Paintings ofDavid’s Death Sentence for Uriah, 1611 and 1619,” in The Primacy of the Image inNorthern European Art, Essays in Honor of Larry Silver , ed. Taylor Cashion, Henry
Luttikhuizen, and Ashley D. West (Leiden, 2017), 500–514.
34. For discussion of King David, including John Calvin’s commentary on his moral
shortcomings that led to “self-awareness and deep feelings that provided him with true
knowledge of the heart,” see Shelley Perlove and Larry Silver,Rembrandt’s Faith: Church
and Temple in the Dutch Golden Age (University Park, Penn., 2009), 120–26. For analternative reading of the painting, which takes into account its potential political dimension,
see the entry in this catalogue.
35. Aristotle, Poetics XI: 1–4, cited in Samuel Henry Butcher, Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry andFine Art, with a Critical Text and Translation of ‘The Poetics’ (New York, 1951), 41. Albert
Blankert first argued that the concept of peripeteia was an important narrative tool used by
Ferdinand Bol and within Rembrandt’s larger circle. He called attention to these artists’preference for representing moments of revelation or the appearance of the divine. Amy
Golahny and Eric Jan Sluijter have taken up more recent and nuanced discussions of theuse of this term in the work of Lastman and Rembrandt, which have helped to shape mydiscussion. See Albert Blankert, Ferdinand Bol (1616–1680), Rembrandt’s Pupil(Doornspijk, 1982), 34–36; Albert Blankert, “Introduction,” in Gods, Saints and Heroes:
Dutch Painting in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Albert Blankert et al. (Exh. cat. Washington,
D.C., National Gallery of Art; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts; Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)(Washington, D.C., 1980), 26; Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman: Moments of Recognition,” in
The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie S. Dickey andHerman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 179–202;
Eric

Jan

Sluijter,“Rembrandt’sPortrayalofthePassions

andVondel’s‘staetveranderinge,’” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , eds.
Stephanie S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 21 of 24(Leiden, 2010): 283–301. For discussion of peripeteia in the context of depictions of Cimon
and Pero (or Roman Charity) in the seventeenth century, see Michiko Fukaya, “Aristotelian
Peripeteia? The Backward Gaze in Depictions of Cimon and Pero in the Early SeventeenthCentury Netherlands,” in Aspects of Narrative in Art History: Proceedings of theInternational Workshop for Young Researchers, Held at the Graduate School of Letters,
Kyoto University, Kyoto, 2–3 December 2013, ed. Kayo Hirakawa (Kyoto, 2014), 47–60.
36. When recognition is combined with reversal, as Aristotle stated, it “will produce either pityor fear; and actions producing these effects are those which, by our definition, Tragedy
represents.” Aristotle, Poetics XI: 1–4, cited in Samuel Henry Butcher,Aristotle’s Theory ofPoetry and Fine Art, with a Critical Text and Translation of ‘The Poetics’ (New York,
1951), 41.
37. Vondel first translated this term in the preface to his play Jephta of 1640/59. It would
become a key concept of his late tragedies. See Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman: Momentsof Recognition,” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed.
Stephanie S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60(Leiden, 2010): 181–83. Golahny has suggested that Lastman’s paintings may have
impacted Vondel himself.
38. Vondel, as quoted in Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman: Moments of Recognition,” in The
Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie S. Dickey andHerman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 183n8.
39. A number of Lastman’s works indicate that he enjoyed a long engagement with
contemporary theater in Amsterdam, often combining ancient sources with seventeenthcentury drama. For Lastman’s relationship to contemporary theater, see Kurt Bauch,Derfrühe Rembrandt und seine Zeit, Studien zur geschichtlichen Bedeutung seines Frühstils(Berlin, 1960), 68–75; Christian Tümpel, “The Iconography of the Pre-Rembrandtists,” in
The Pre-Rembrandtists, ed. Astrid Tümpel (Exh. cat. Sacramento, E.B. Crocker Art
Gallery) (Sacramento, 1974), 146; Christian Tico Seifert, “Pieter Lastman, Constrijcken
history Schilder tot Amsterdam—kunstreicher Historienmaler zu Amsterdam,” in Pieter
Lastman: in Rembrandts Schatten?, ed. Martina Sitt (Exh. cat. Hamburg, Hamburger
Kunsthalle) (Munich, 2006): 16–17; and Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu
Leben und Werk: Mit einem kritischen Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken
Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg, 2011), 111–17. Lastman also knew a number of
Amsterdam playwrights personally, including Gerbrand Adriaensz Bredero (1585–1618)
and Joost von den Vondel.
40. Heinsius’s translation and commentaries were well known across Europe and had asignificant impact on contemporaries such as Vondel and Hugo Grotius. Daniel Heinsius,
De Tragoediae constitutione: On Plot in Tragedy , trans. Paul R. Sellin and John J.
McManmon (Northridge, 1971).
© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 22 of 24

41. Aristotle lists the different modes of recognition that relate to tragedy, including from thetoken, or inanimate object, which was the least inventive, to memory, reasoning, and soforth, but he states that the best kind of recognition derives from the events themselves.
Both Aristotle and Heinsius cite ancient narratives in which these modes of recognition may
be observed, such as Iphigenia recognizing Orestes and Pylades or Ulysses in Homer’s
Odyssey. Aristotle, Poetics XVI, cited in Samuel Henry Butcher, Aristotle’s Theory ofPoetry and Fine Art, with a Critical Text and Translation of ‘The Poetics’ (New York,
1951), 57–61; and Daniel Heinsius, De Tragoediae constitutione: On Plot in Tragedy ,trans. Paul R. Sellin and John J. McManmon (Northridge, 1971), chapter 6, 39–42.
42. On multiple occasions, Lastman referred to ancient narrative examples mentioned by
Heinsius, such as in Iphigenia Recognizing Orestes and Pylades , 1614 (Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam) and Ulysses Meeting Nausicaa, 1619 (Alte Pinakothek, Munich). For
Lastman’s use of Heinsius, see Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman: Moments of Recognition,”in The Passions in the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie S. Dickey andHerman Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 183;
Christian Tico Seifert, Pieter Lastman: Studien zu Leben und Werk: Mit einem kritischen
Verzeichnis der Werke mit Themen aus der antiken Mythologie und Historie (Petersberg,2011), 78, 84, 296; Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman’s Paintings of David’s Death Sentence
for Uriah, 1611 and 1619,” in The Primacy of the Image in Northern European Art, Essaysin Honor of Larry Silver , ed. Taylor Cashion, Henry Luttikhuizen, and Ashley D. West
(Leiden, 2017), 505–6.
43. Christian Tümpel, “Die Rezeption der Jüdischen Altertümer des Flavius Josephus in den
holländischen Historiendarstellungen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts,” in Wort und Bild in
der niederländischen Kunst und Literatur des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts , ed. Herman
Vekeman and Justus Müller-Hofstede (Erfstadt, 1984); and Astrid Tümpel and Peter
Schatborn, Pieter Lastman: Leermeester van Rembrandt: The Man Who Taught
Rembrandt (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum het Rembrandthuis) (Zwolle, 1991), 108–9.
44. Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman’s Paintings of David’s Death Sentence for Uriah, 1611 and
1619,” in The Primacy of the Image in Northern European Art, Essays in Honor of Larry
Silver, ed. Taylor Cashion, Henry Luttikhuizen, and Ashley D. West (Leiden, 2017), 509,
suggests that another source may still come to light to explain Lastman’s inclusion of thescribe, whether another text or evidence of a Latin school play that he may have seen.
45. The helmet is a parade burgonet all’antica, which was made by Filippo Negroli (ca.
1510–1579) in Milan sometime around the early 1530s. Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640)
acquired the helmet in 1628, but not before it had been seen and copied by several artists
in Amsterdam. Jeremy Wood characterized Lastman’s representation of the helmet inDavid and Uriah as a “free version.” See Jeremy Wood, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig
Burchard. Part 26, Copies and Adaptations from Renaissance and Later Artists, Italian© 2020 The Leiden Collection

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 23 of 24

Artists. Vol. 3, Artists Working in Central Italy and France (London, 2011), 1: 399–400, no.
247.
46. Amy Golahny, “Pieter Lastman’s Paintings of David’s Death Sentence for Uriah, 1611 and
1619,” in The Primacy of the Image in Northern European Art, Essays in Honor of Larry
Silver, ed. Taylor Cashion, Henry Luttikhuizen, and Ashley D. West (Leiden, 2017),
500–514.
47. Lastman revised his approach to the depiction of historical subjects on other occasions. For
instance, he depicted the story of Ulysses Meeting Nausicaa in 1609 (Herzog Anton UlrichMuseum, Braunschweig) and again in 1619 (Alte Pinakothek, Munich).
48. Alan Chong, ed., Rembrandt Creates Rembrandt: Art and Ambition in Leiden, 1629–1631(Exh. cat. Boston, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum) (Zwolle, 2000), appendix, 135–36.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. made the latter observation about Huygens’s statement in Arthur K.
Wheelock Jr., “Jan Lievens: Bringing New Light to an Old Master,” inJan Lievens: A Dutch
Master Rediscovered, ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat. Washington, D.C., National
Gallery of Art; Milwaukee, Milwaukee Art Museum; Amsterdam, Museum Het
Rembrandthuis) (New Haven, 2008), 10. Huygens’s praise for Rembrandt’s painting also
distinguished him from Lievens, who, Huygens believed, was better suited to painting on alarge scale.
49. For some discussion of this topic, see, Wolfgang Stechow, “Some Observations on
Lastman and Rembrandt,” Oud Holland 84, nos. 2–3 (1969): 148–62; Amy Golahny,“Pieter Lastman: Moments of Recognition,” in The Passions in the Arts of the Early
Modern Netherlands, ed. Stephanie S. Dickey and Herman Roodenburg, Netherlands
Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 196–98.
50. This may have been because Lastman’s own understanding of how to paint a history
painting had evolved by the time Rembrandt arrived in his studio. Lievens’s andRembrandt’s training with Lastman would have also included an introduction to graphic
traditions and a range of ancient and literary sources. See, for example, Christian Tümpel,“Pieter Lastman and Rembrandt,” in Pieter Lastman: Leermeester van Rembrandt: The
Man Who Taught Rembrandt, ed. Astrid Tümpel and Peter Schatborn (Exh. cat.
Amsterdam, Museum het Rembrandthuis) (Zwolle, 1991), 54–84. For Rembrandt’s
depictions of the passions, especially in his self-portraits, see H. Perry Chapman,“Reclaiming the Inner Rembrandt: Passion and the Early Self-Portraits,” inThe Passions in
the Arts of the Early Modern Netherlands , ed. Stephanie S. Dickey and Herman
Roodenburg, Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 60 (Leiden, 2010): 232–61.
51. Alan Chong, ed., Rembrandt Creates Rembrandt: Art and Ambition in Leiden, 1629–1631 .
(Exh. cat. Boston, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum) (Zwolle, 2000), appendix, 135–36.
52. There was a “Lastman revival” in Amsterdam in the mid-1630s at the time of the master’s
death, and Rembrandt continued to be inspired by his work. He made a number of copies© 2020 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Pieter Lastman’s David and Uriah: Storytelling and the Passions
Page 24 of 24

after Lastman’s works and painted his own versions of certain subjects: Pieter Lastman,
The Expulsion of Hagar, 1612 (Hamburger Kunsthalle) / Rembrandt, The Expulsion of
Hagar, 1637, etching and drypoint (Museum het Rembrandthuis, Amsterdam); Pieter
Lastman, Susanna and the Elders, 1614 (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin) / Rembrandt after Pieter
Lastman, Susanna and the Elders, ca. 1637, red chalk (Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin); Pieter
Lastman, Paul and Barnabas at Lystra , 1614 (present whereabouts unknown) / Rembrandt
after Pieter Lastman, Paul and Barnabas at Lystra , ca. 1637, red chalk (Musée Bonnat,
Bayonne); and Pieter Lastman, Joseph Distributing Corn in Egypt , 1612 (National Galleryof Ireland, Dublin) / Rembrandt after Pieter Lastman, Paul and Barnabas at Lystra , black
chalk (Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna). Thus, Lastman’s ideas continued in
Rembrandt’s own teaching and practice well beyond his training with the master in 1625.
For further discussion, see Christian Tümpel, “Pieter Lastman and Rembrandt,” inPieter
Lastman: Leermeester van Rembrandt: The Man Who Taught Rembrandt , ed. Astrid
Tümpel and Peter Schatborn (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum het Rembrandthuis) (Zwolle,1991), 65–84; Martina Sitt, “Pieter Lastman und Rembrandt—von der stummen Sprache
des Körpers zur Verdichtung von Emotion,” in Pieter Lastman: In Rembrandts Schatten? ,ed. Martina Sitt (Exh. cat. Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle) (Munich, 2006), 72–85.
53. Albert Blankert, Ferdinand Bol (1616–1680), Rembrandt’s Pupil (Doornspijk, 1982),
34–36.
54. Lastman depicted episodes in the life of Hagar on several occasions: The Dismissal of
Hagar, 1612 (Hamburger Kunsthalle); Hagar and the Angel, 1614 (Los Angeles County
Museum of Art); and Hagar and the Angel in the Desert , 1621 (The Israel Museum,
Jerusalem). Rembrandt treated the subject in a drawing from around 1650: The Angel
Appears to Hagar and Ishmael in the Wilderness , reed pen with touches of opaque white(Hamburger Kunsthalle). He depicted “Hagar’s Dismissal” in several drawings andetchings in the late 1630s and into the 1650s. For example: Rembrandt,Abraham Casting
Out Hagar and Ishmael, 1637, etching and drypoint (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, NewYork).
55. See the entry in this catalogue.
56. See the entry in this catalogue.
57. Vondel expressed this in a poem that he wrote on Thomas de Keyser’s portrait of Lastman,
which is now lost. Vondel compared Lastman not only to Apelles, but also to Rubens. Joostvon den Vondel, “Op d’afbeeldinge van Peter Lastman, den Apelles onzer eeuwe,” inHollantsch Parnas, of verscheide gedichten , ed. T. van Domselaar (Amsterdam, 1660),
151.

© 2020 The Leiden Collection