Beskrivning: Ett ovanligt inslag i Rosas verk under 1660-talet är de genomarbetade teckningarna på trä. Trots att det rör sig om teckningar äger de en målerisk verkan, vilket främst beror på konstnärens rika användning av lavering och täckvitt liksom på att han införlivar träets grova yta i bilden. Sannolikt är verket tecknat på en del av en packlår avsedd att skickas som gåva eller som arbetsexempel till någon av konstnärens vänner och välgörare.

Description: An unusual aspect of Rosa’s work during the 1660s are the carefully worked drawings on wood. Despite their being drawings, they have a painterly effect which primarily is due to the artist’s frequent use of washes and white heightening, as well as the fact that he includes the coarse surface of the wood in his pictures. It is probable that the work was drawn on part of a packing case destined to be sent as a present or as a sample of his work to one of the artist’s friends or patrons.

Res. Katalogtext: Description in Italian Paintings: Three Centuries of Collecting, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2015, cat.no. 80: 

FORMER INV. NOS.: 1168 (M. 1796–97); 290 (F. 1798); 93 (M. 1804);
S.N. 58.

TECHNICAL NOTES: The support was originally a single panel
of wood, probably poplar, but it is now cracked vertically into two
panels. There is one vertical crack, 9.5 cm long, running from the
upper edge, 10 cm from the left, and two cracks running from the
lower edge, one 14.2 cm long, 3.2 cm from the right, and another,
4.5 cm long. There is no ground and the imprimatura is white. There
are visible tool marks on the verso, and both the structure of the
wood grain and tool marks are visible on the recto through the
thin white imprimatura. There are two battens nailed horizontally
to the panel from the recto, through the panel. The paint is a thin,
fluid sepia. There is no varnish

PROVENANCE: Martelli 1804.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sander 1872–76, III, p. 101, no. 93 
(as Salvator Rosa); Prytz and Eriksson 2010, pp. 82–85.

The present work is very close to Rosa’s famous
etching of the subject, probably executed in
1663. The Oedipus etching and its companion
piece, the etching of the Fall of the Giants, 1663,
are notable not only for their quality, but also
for their unusually large format and the marked
verticality of their compositions. These etchings
are commonly referred to as Rosa’s late prints,
together with The Dream of Aeneas and Jason and
the Dragon, which were executed in 1664. Because
of a thematic similarity, The Abandoned Oedipus
and The Fall of the Giants have also been linked to
the two prints that precede them chronologically:
The Crucifixion of Polycrates (c. 1662) and The
Death of Atilius Regulus (1662).¹

In an often quoted passage from a letter
written by Rosa to his close friend and patron
Giovanni Batista Ricciardi on 21 October 1663,
Rosa claims that he had not made any paintings
related to his etchings since the Atilius print, of
the large ones, and the Democritus and Diogenes
and the Bowl prints, of the medium-sized ones.²
As for the fact that he still had some of his etchings
from the period inscribed “Salvator Rosa
Inv. pinx. Scul”, he writes: “Per sodisfarvi circa a
quell’pinx delle mie carte, ce l’ho messo per mia
cortesia e per far credere ch’io intanto l’ho intagliate,
in quanto l’haverle dipinte”. Concerning the
existence of a possible painting of the Fall of the
Giants, Rosa comments: “Nè è stata bastanta una
fantasia come quella de’ Giganti a movere la voglia
a nessuno di vedersela collorita”.³

These remarks have been taken to mean that
Rosa executed corresponding paintings after, rather
than before, most of his major etchings, and
that he would only paint the Fall of the Giants and
the Abandoned Oedipus if the etchings aroused an
interest amongst patrons in commissioning those
paintings. As Rosa stated in his letter of 1663, he
had failed to generate interest in a painting of
the Giants, and in a letter written on 15 December
1666 he claimed that “I giganti e L’Edipo non
sono stati da me ancora dipinti…”:⁴ “The Giants
and Oedipus have not yet been painted”. Despite
having many traits that would offer evidence to
the contrary, paintings such as those of Glaucus
and Scylla, c. 1662, the Crucifixion of Polycrates, the
Dream of Aeneas and Jason and the Dragon have
often been considered to have been made after the
corresponding etchings, based solely on the information
given in Rosa’s letters. However, this is not
universally accepted and has, most recently been
questioned by Xavier F. Solomon with regard to
the Dream of Aeneas painting.⁵

For The Fall of the Giants, many preparatory
drawings are known, and even a highly finished
cartoon in the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon.⁶
The existence of an abundance of drawings seems
natural for such a large and complex composition,
packed with dramatically animated figures. For
the companion piece Oedipus, however, hardly any
preparatory drawings are known. This difference
can possibly be explained by its serene character,
contrasting with and complementing the liveliness
of the Giants print. Rosa chooses here to show
an episode of the Oedipus myth that is seldom
or never depicted, but which is still of the utmost
significance for the actual setting in motion and
eventual outcome of the tragedy. Having learnt
of the future doom over Oedipus’ life, King Laius
decides to abandon him in the forest to die, but
the shepherd’s act of mercy in saving the child
ensures that the evil fate of Oedipus’ adult life is
fulfilled.⁷

Rosa himself claimed that no preparatory
drawings were done for the Oedipus etching.⁸
Even allowing for Rosa’s undeniable sprezzatura,
this seems unlikely, especially concerning the
figures which are of course of particular importance
and the central focus of the composition.
One study for the figures can in fact be linked
to the etching, in the Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan.

It is quite exploratory in nature and differs
from the figures of the etching in several ways;
the stance of the shepherd is the same, but he is
shown not just in reverse, which is to be expected
in a preparatory drawing for an etching, but also
with his back turned to the viewer. The Oedipus
child is also depicted lower down than in the
etching, almost resting his hands on the shepherd’s
shoulders.⁹

How, then, does the present work, drawn in
ink with white heightening on wood panel, fit into
this context? If we take Rosa at his word, it has to
have been made after the etching. However, there
are certain features that point to it having been
done before, or at the same time as, the etching.
Although it exhibits quite a high degree of finish,
there is also, in part, an exploratory character to
the present work, which would not be expected of
a drawing, or cartoon for a painting, based on an
etching, even if the artist was seeking to change
various details of the composition in preparation
for the actual painting. The tentative line of the
present work is found in parts of the composition
that seem to be later affirmed and fully established
in the etching. For example, in the depiction
of some of the shorter branches of the tree to
the right of Oedipus, the outlines of the branches
have been drawn across the outline of the trunk,
which is still visible in places where it should have
been obscured in a more finished composition.

However, the tentative line is perhaps most
obvious in the depiction of the shepherd and
the child. Clearly, Rosa was exploring different
solutions for how the hands of the shepherd and
the child meet; the shepherd’s back is not as bent
as in the etching, and Rosa seems to be working
out the placing of his left hand in accordance with
this and with the placement of the child. Rosa has
drawn two positions for the hand and appears to
have settled on the one that is lower and further
back, which has been heightened with white.

Taking the present panel into account, together
with the previously known drawing, Rosa seems
to have worked a great deal on the figures of the
composition. That they posed a particular compositional
challenge is also evidenced by the fact that
the artist adjusts the shepherd’s pose even further
while etching, as seen in the multiple lines etched
for his back in one of the two known versions of
the print, in Boston. Yet, of the two versions, the
other print, in the Louvre, seems to be the earlier,
a trial run which is only known in this particular
copy. The shading in certain areas of this
print is marked with black chalk, which in the
later print found in Boston has been translated
into dry-point. Through the preparatory sequence,
Rosa develops his figures, and it seems he has
still not finally established them when he begins
etching.¹⁰

Despite these facts, there are also features of
the present work that would point to it having
been done after the etching. For instance, the
lighting of the composition compares closely to
that of the etching; it seems to have been clearly
thought out beforehand and is defined to great
effect by the heavy use of white heightening.
There is also the fact that the composition of the
Nationalmuseum work is in the same direction as
the print. However, in Rosa’s oeuvre this cannot
be taken as definitive proof that a drawing or
painting has a later date than the corresponding
etching. The Atilius painting, for example, was
executed several years before the etching, which
is in the same direction as the painting. In that
case, Rosa produced a cartoon for the etching in
reverse to the painting, so that the composition of
the print would face the same way as that of the
painting.¹¹

There are a handful of works by Rosa which,
like the present study, were drawn on simple
wooden boards. The foremost example is, of
course, the Death of Empedocles in the Palazzo
Pitti.¹² This was drawn on the inside of the lid
of a packing crate which was part of a specific
shipment to one Cosimo Fabretti, brother-in-law
of Riccardi, as is proved by the addressee’s name
and address written in Rosa’s hand on the verso.
The crate is mentioned in a letter written by Rosa
to Ricciardi.¹³ According to Rosa, the crate contained
one painting, possibly of the same subject,
now in an English private collection. In the same
letter, the artist also mentions three other crates
that had been sent to Ricciardi himself.¹⁴ Luigi
Salerno believes that the Pitti sketch on wood is
a study for the painting, while Helen Langdon
views it as a reduced monochromatic version of
the motif.¹⁵ Despite the close similarities between
the two works, the Pitti sketch is not as tentative
in execution as the one of Oedipus which reinforces
Langdon’s point of view.

Because of Rosa’s claim that he had still not
been commissioned to paint The Abandoned
Oedipus by 1666, it has been surmised that the
painting was never produced.¹⁶ Yet it seems as
if one crucial mention of the existence of the
painting has been continuously overlooked.
In Lady Morgan’s work on Rosa published in
1822, it is listed under paintings by the artist in
British collections. It is quite clear that it is this
specific painting she is referring to, and not some
other treatment of the Oedipus subject, as it is
described as Oedipus; A Child exposed on a Tree.¹⁷
Based on the information in Lady Morgan’s book,
Salerno, in 1963, listed the painting among lost
works by Rosa.¹⁸

If we accept the present work as a study for a
painting, possibly based on the etching, it could
have been made at any time from 1663 onwards.
If we believe that Rosa would only make preparatory
drawings if he received a commission for
a painting, it must have been done after 1666.
The Nationalmuseum work should probably be
considered a preparatory drawing for a painting,
but because of its specific features it is particularly
difficult to place it before or after the etching.

If we suppose the drawings on wood of the
Death of Empedocles and the Abandoned Oedipus
to be Rosa’s original treatments of their respective
subjects, we can determine the relationship of
each to the corresponding painting and/or etching
and chart a possible creative sequence as follows.
In these drawings, Rosa starts with a concentrated
focus on the figures and later, at the stage of painting
and/or etching, he fills out the background
and the respective compositions become larger,
emphasizing even more the contrast and interplay
between the landscape and the central action of
the solitary figures.

These suppositions, however, can only be more
definitely affirmed or rejected if the lost painting
is found and published. Hopefully, the publication
of the present work can contribute to that end.
dp

1 Wallace 1979, pp. 93–101, 304–307, cat. no. 116
2 Ibid., p. 93, note 1, pp. 102–103, note 21.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Langdon, Volpi and Salomon 2010, pp. 93, 230–232, no. 40
(cat. entry by X. F. Salomon). Of course R. W. Wallace was
also of the opinion that the Aeneas painting preceded the
corresponding print and not vice versa, Wallace, pp.
304–307.
6 The drawings range from early, characteristically sketchy,
studies for different groups of figures in the composition, to
the detailed finish of the cartoon in Dijon and of another
study for the entire composition, in the British Museum
7 In the present sketch, this paradoxical and “Rosaesque”
moment is shown with the concentrated emotion and
compositional brilliance familiar from the Empedocles
sketch and painting and from the etching and painting of
the Cumaean Sybil. Wallace, pp. 100–101.
8 This claim is found in Rosa’s reply to his friend de Rinaldi’s
direct query asking for preparatory drawings for the
Oedipus etching. Rosa writes “Circa all’altro disegno
dell’Edipo, non posso prometervelo per non havervi fatto
disegno, che per esser material di paesi, e ho disegnato
sopra il medaglione di rame”. The fact that Rosa specifically
mentions that there were no preparatory drawings for the
landscape of the composition can possibly be interpereted
as meaning that he actually produced drawings for the
figures, as was his wont. Wallace, pp. 95–97.
9 Wallace, pp. 95–97, pp. 304–307, cat. no. 116 a. Pinacoteca
di Brera, Milan, no. 304.
10 Wallace, pp. 95–97, 304–306, cat. nos. 116/I–II. As Wallace
points out “for the trees and other landscape elements Rosa
seems to have thought of the early states of the etching
itself as being in the nature of preparatory studies for the
final state”. Of course, this would actually give some
additional credence to his claim that he established the
composition while etching.
11 Wallace, pp. 72–79, 275–280, cat. nos. 110, 110 b.
12 Salerno 1975, cat. no 232, plate LXIV.
13 Guratzsch 1999, pp. 198–200.
14 Guratzsch 1999, pp. 198–200; Langdon 2008, p. 140, cat. no.
26; Langdon, Volpi and Salomon 2010, p. 212, cat. no. 34.
15 Salerno 1975, cat. no. 232, plate LXIV; Langdon, Volpi and
Salomon 2010, pp. 212, cat. no. 34; Langdon, 1973, cat. nos.
44–45.
16 Wallace, p 93, note 1.
17 Lady Morgan, The Life and Times of Salvator Rosa, vols.
I–II, vol. II, p. 366.
18 Salerno 1963, p. 151. However, Salerno misinterprets the
triple asterisk next to the description of the painting in
Lady Morgan’s listing as meaning that it belonged to the
Dowager Marchioness Lansdown, marked as the owner of
the two works listed directly before it. I would interpret the
symbol as meaning, in this case, that Lady Morgan had
information that the painting was in Britain although its
whereabouts were unknown, or its owner wished to remain
anonymous, at the time of writing. [End]

Foto: Erik Cornelius / Nationalmuseum 2010

Titel (sv): Den övergivne Oidipus
Titel (en): The Abandoned Oidipus
Etikett (sv): Den övergivne Oidipus (Spädbarnet Oidipus räddas)
Etikett (en): The Abandoned Oedipus (The Rescue of the Infant Oedipus)