David and Saul. Study
Artist/Maker
Material / Technique
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 27 x 24 cm h x w x d: Ram 32 x 30 x 3 cm
Inventory numberNM 24
AcqusitionTransferred 1866 from Kongl. Museum (Martelli 1804)
Other titlesTitle (sv): David och Saul. Skiss Title (en): David and Saul. Study Title (en): Alexander the Great before his Father King Philip II (?), sketch, 1730s
DescriptionCatalogue raisonné: Description in Italian Paintings: Three Centuries of Collecting, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2015, cat.no. 34: FORMER INV. NOS.: 388 (M. 1796–97); 104 (F. 1798); 58 (M. 1804); KM 31. TECHNICAL NOTES: Labelled on verso (1) “Benefiali. Davidde e Saul. Mart. 58.”; (2) “Konglig Museum. Benefiolio. No 132.”. The support is a thin, densely woven, plain-weave linen fabric (22 × 24.5 threads/cm2). It is mounted with staples on a Martelli strainer. A thin red ground covers the whole support. The paint layers are thin and the technique is sketchy, using a rather fluid paint. There is an old repair at the lower right corner, but otherwise the painting is in very good condition. PROVENANCE: Martelli 1804. BIBLIOGRAPHY: NM Cat. 1867, p. 2 (as Benefial); Sander 1872–76, III, p. 98, no. 58 (as Benefial); Göthe 1887, p. 14 (as Benefial); NM Cat. 1958, p. 13 (as Benefial, attributed to); NM Cat. 1990, p. 84 (as Sebastiano Conca). According to the 18th-century label placed on the verso of the canvas of this oil sketch, the attribution by Domenico Corvi, Stefano Tofanelli and most likely Martelli himself had suggested Marco Benefial (1684–1764) as the author.¹ In the mid 1960s it was re-attributed on stylistic grounds by Anthony M. Clark to the Neapolitan artist Sebastiano Conca, active in Rome at approximately the same time as Benefial. Although Clark’s attribution remains unquestioned, the subject of the sketch represents a problem to which it is possible to offer a solution if we consider Conca’s career and overall oeuvre. The 18th-century nomination “David and Saul” is an unlikely one. The fact that Conca painted several works featuring the Old Testament king provides a clear view of how he treated this particular iconography, showing David in full beard and wearing a crown, details that are missing in the present sketch.² On the contrary, the evident military clothing of the protagonists suggests a theme taken from ancient Greek or Roman history, presumably from the life of Alexander the Great, a well-known theme to Conca. His best known painting relating to this particular subject matter is Alexander in the Temple of Jerusalem, a commission that was part of a large series on the deeds of Alexander the Great, conceived for the Spanish King Philip V, at the Palacio de la Granja in Segovia. Conca, who had declined to move to Spain to join the team of artists working on the cycle, nevertheless delivered the painting in 1735.³ Another painting in which the artist celebrated the life and deeds of the Macedonian king is Alexander and Campapse before Apelles (1715).⁴ This specific subject matter featured in the libretto of Alessandro Scarlatti’s opera La Statira (1690), whose author was Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni (1667–1740).⁵ The cardinal’s love for all forms of artistic expression was an important catalyst in early 18th-century Rome, and his particular patronage of Sebastiano Conca is well documented.⁶ All these factors underline a contextual predisposition that reinforces the suggested subject matter of the NM sketch. In a catalogue of the Uffizi collection of artist portraits, published in 1762, there is an interesting mention of a further commission concerning the Alexander theme: Anche al Re di Polonia dipinse il Conca due quadri esprimenti le azioni d’Alessandro, effigiandolo nel primo quando doma il Bucefalo, e si presenta al Re Filippo suo Padre, coll’accompagnamento di molt’altre figure al natural, e coll’adornamento di magnifica architettura; e dimostrando nell’altro lo sposalizio del medesimo con Rossane figlia di Dario Re di Persia.⁷ Although the whereabouts of these paintings remain unknown, their full description provides valuable testimony, which is of interest in the present case and permits the formulation of a hypothesis. The NM sketch offers a rather conventional composition focusing on a moment of presentation between the protagonists. Formally, it connects well with many other Conca paintings of similar subjects, and in particular with The Queen of Sheba before Solomon (c. 1753), a lost fresco painting that was commissioned in 1752 by the nuns of the Convent of Santa Chiara in Naples.⁸ The left part of this fresco, showing the king on his drapery-covered throne and surrounded by courtiers and allegorical figures as the queen approaches, is, from a compositional point of view, repeated in the NM sketch, though only in its left part. As a contrast, the right part of the lost fresco extends the narrative and permits the painter to include elaborated architecture as well as a significant number of figures. The wide and symmetrical, yet turbulent, composition of The Queen of Sheba before Solomon compares well to the written description of the lost painting of the young Alexander dominating the headstrong horse Bucephalus and eventually gaining his father’s praise – all set in a scene with elaborate architecture and a numerous crowd. Since the description of the motif clearly states that the young heir presents himself to his father after having dominated the horse, it is possible to link the NM sketch to this particular subject matter. Following this thought, it may be assumed that the NM sketch represents a preliminary stage of a larger bozzetto of a grander composition – not only including the left part where Alexander presents himself to the king and symbolically offers himself and his courage in his father’s service. If the assumption is correct, the final study would have included a grand architectural setting with a wondrous crowd and the tame Bucephalus close by his dominator. The hypothetical composition would have projected a majestic and triumphant atmosphere that may not be in perfect line with Plutarch’s version of the story – clearly turbulent, passionate and full of action – but it recollects very well its moral sense. As Philip II is moved to tears by his son’s bravery, he bursts out: O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.⁹ In short, this means that Alexander has been initiated into the bellicose world of grown men and that his father sees him as a first-rate conqueror presumptive. In the NM sketch the military theme is evident. The figures close to the throne hold a helmet and a sword, and Philip gestures directly at the soldiers who surround him, as well as pointing at an object that may represent a suit of armour. Alexander’s courtly bow is elegantly contrasted with his firm gaze towards his father, which presumes a greater equality in their relationship as a result of the taming of Bucephalus. Thus, the motif summarizes a morality that includes themes such as parental love and the encouraging and challenging of the bold. The sketch’s style, hasty and fluent, yet precise in terms of detail and composition, places it shortly after the Spanish commission and thus in the years 1735–40. A wider market for bozzetti in 18th-century Rome would have made it easier for Martelli to acquire the sketch. The format and the reduced composition with a subject hard to identify must have been appealing on the market for medium- sized works, where its courtly atmosphere could inspire many possible readings. SNE 1 The attribution is confirmed in the earliest inventory of the Martelli Collection. Catalogue du Cabinet de Martelli (à Rome), no. 104. 2 “Il trasporto dell’Arca santa”, c. 1733–38, Palazzo Reale, Torino, quoted in Macco et al. 1981, cat. no, 69; “Davide”, whereabouts unknown, Macco et al. 1981, cat. no. 114 a. 3 The painting is still in the collection at the Royal Palace at Segovia. For the existing preparatory sketches, see Macco et al. 1981, cat. nos. 65a, 65b, 66. 4 In 1981 the painting was part of the Mostyn-Owen Collection in London, Macco et al. 1981, p. 413 and cat. no. 13 a. 5 Boyd 1970, pp. 495–497. 6 Olszewski 2000, pp. 139–165. 7 “For the Polish king, too, Conca painted two works with the deeds of Alexander, the first showing him when he tames Bucephalus and then presents himself to King Philip his father, accompanied by many other figures and adorned by magnificent architecture; and the other one showing the marriage of the very same to Roxana, daughter of Darius, King of Persia.” Museo fiorentino che contiene i ritratti dé pittori... (Stamperia Francesco Moücke), Florence, 1762, vol. IV, here quoted from Macco et al. 1981, pp. 405–406. The Polish king who commissioned the paintings was either Stanisław Leszczyński, who reigned 1733–36, or Augustus III, who reigned 1734–36, the overlapping dates due to the power struggle that occurred in Poland during this period. It is likely, however, that the commission was given after the Spanish painting was delivered in 1735. 8 Macco et al. 1981, cat. no. 122 b. 9 Dryden and Hugh Clough 1971, p. 808. [End]
Motif categoryReligion/Mythology
Collection
TechniquePainting
Object category
Keyword