3

Point of View

The figure of Judith differs from other femmes fatales − unlike ancient myths

(Delilah, Lilith, Sphinx and Medusa), Romantic sorceresses, and modern-day divas

steeped in scandal, Judith is positively connoted. She acts with God, and with her

bloody deed she vanquishes evil; her cold-bloodedness and brutality are combined

with fear and valour. Judith has long functioned as the ideal personification of

beauty, strength and intelligence – see only the countless ideological and political

interpretations of her actions, and the continued popularity of her name for girls.

Lucas Cranach produced one of the best-known Renaissance depictions of

Judith: a fashionably attired young woman presents the still-bleeding head of

Holofernes; with her other hand she clutches the naked sword. Here the picture

is confronted with a painting by Joseph Heintz the Elder: Heintz clearly modelled

his Salome, the demonic daughter of Herodias who asked for the execution of

Saint John the Baptist, on Cranach’s Judith. Consequently Salome and Judith

share pose and attire. Only the sword – obviously relevant for Judith but not for

Salome – allows us to identify them. What caused this strange merger? Alice

Hoppe-Harnoncourt, scholarly assistant at the Collection of Paintings, looks at

this and many other interesting questions in this Point of View. Georg Prast from

our Conservation Studio restored Cranach's painting, and the documentation of

his work is included in both the catalogue and the exhibition.

I would like to thank both authors, as well as all the other colleagues at the

Kunsthistorisches Museum for making this 15th edition of our small exhibition

series possible.

Stefan Weppelmann

Direktor der Gemäldegalerie

4 5

w

ill. 1: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Judith with the Head of Holofernes, signed, c. 1525/30, limewood, 87,1 × 58,3 cm (incl. additions), Vienna, KHM, GG 858

The Wily Widow

6 7

Judith with the Head of Holofernes by Lucas Cranach the Elder

Judith, a character from the Old Testament, is depicted as a monumental half-

length figure.1 She is standing behind a stone parapet on which she has deposited

the head of the enemy general Holofernes. Her left hand is grasping the dead

man’s hair, her right hand is clutching the still bloody sword. Judith sports a velvet

barett embellished with ostrich feathers, her long loose hair frames her face with

a single strand falling over her cleavage. Her crimson robe is slashed at both

shoulder and elbow, revealing a delicately pleated white chemise. Her robe is

trimmed with broad bands made of embroidered cloth of gold. The front-laced

bodice is also made of cloth of gold decorated with tiny pearls arranged in a dia-

mond pattern. Around her neck she wears a wide choker embellished with jewels

and pearls, a gold chain with flattened links, and a second necklace comprising

large circular gold links. Her light-coloured gloves are slit at the joints and over

her many rings. Lucas Cranach the Elder (c. 1472−1553) presents Judith, a well-

known character from the Old Testament, as an elegant lady of the German Re-

naissance sumptuously attired in court fashion. Directly facing us, she is present-

ing the severed head of her enemy as proof of her victory over a more powerful

foe.

This portrait of Judith has been in the Picture Gallery’s collection of German

Renaissance painting for many centuries. Two years ago, however, the panel

urgently required stabilization, and it has not been on show since. Even before

the restoration the painting had been carefully analyzed in the course of our

on-going project to catalogue German paintings before c. 1540, which provided

valuable insights into Cranach’s workshop practices.2 It also led to a study of the

painting’s history in the Imperial collection, which, in turn, begs a fascinating

question: was Judith regarded as a heroine or as a “femme fatale”, and did this

interpretation of her actions and character change over time? We will attempt an

answer by looking at the history of our Judith.

Point of View #15Alice Hoppe-Harnoncourt The Conservator’s Point of View

Signs of Work on the Painting and its Condition

The support of the panel comprises five planks (limewood, P. Klein 1980).

In the 19th century the panel was thinned to 4–5 mm and cradled (ill. A).

In addition, the edges were trimmed, repeatedly altering the format (see

also p. 20). A photograph from 1912 (ill. 11) documents that additions had

made the Vienna Judith between 6 cm and 3.5 cm larger than the painting

is today. Soon afterwards, however, the records show that these additions

were removed again: “die Anstückungen auf allen Seiten wurden ent-

fernt” (additions on all sides were removed 1916, Karl Proksch, Restau-

rierbuch 1), and “Wiederherstellung des ursprünglichen Formats” (restor-

ation of original format / Galerieakt Z:33/1916–1919). Currently there

are three narrow additions of 1 cm width each that are concealed by the

frame. In the course of the current restoration intervention we uncovered

a number of original contours of paint and ground along the upper and

lower edges of the painting: proof that the painting was only marginally

trimmed here. They are missing on both long sides, which suggests an

originally broader panel. Extant remains of wood along the edges of the

paint and ground indicate that an engaged frame was used during the

painting’s production. Original wood insertions introduced into the sur-

face of the planks are repairs of smaller damaged areas.

Regarding the painting technique we can observe a conventional color

palette and the use of very binder-rich oil paint in the dark areas. This

caused pronounced primary craquelures and presumably prompted the

later larger overpainting. The layer of red lacquer paint in Judith’s sleeves,

skirt and plumed hat has faded; otherwise the painting’s condition is

good.

The Need for a Restoration Intervention

The cradle blocked all movement of the planks, which caused numerous

cracks (ill. B). Older cracks had been glued during an earlier intervention,

and there was a danger that new cracks would develop. Consequently we

decided to consolidate and stabilize the panel. Removing the cradle of

the support was imperative; the horizontal bars were sawed and taken

Georg Prast

8 9

off, and the glued vertical bars removed with a chisel. We also closed and

glued the open edges of cracks using a special appliance. After the consoli-

dation of the cracks the thin panel was, as expected, too fragile to remain

without additional stabilization; it also exhibited a marked tendency to

warp. The panel was therefore placed in a wooden support strainer, which

was carefully attuned to the now slightly convex curvature. A special fea-

ture of the strainer is that it is equipped with two different flexible spring

systems. One spring system (A) offers adjustable vertical flexibility (the

panel can slightly alter its curvature if required). The second spring system

(B) ensures an individually adjustable tension, linking the wooden sup-

porting frame to the panel. If necessary, this allows lateral movement (ill.

C). A paper-foam board offers mechanical protection and compensates for

the asymmetry that exists between the untreated back of the panel and its

painted obverse.

The restoration of the painting layer consisted mainly of reducing the

thick yellowed and clouded varnish layers, not all of which could be re-

moved. Extensive revisions in border areas were completely removed (ill.

D). In the area of the black background we decided to reduce, rather than

completely remove, the overpainting because here the paint layer is much

reduced due to previous cleanings (ill. E). Finally we added retouchings

in colored base tones and transparent colours, and thin layers of natural

resin to harmonize depp light and lustre.

ill. B: mapping with signs of handling, alterations and damages

ill. D: detail: planar reworkings on the stone parapet before removal

ill. E: detail: initial craquelures and a reduction of reworkings, black background

ill. A: back with cradle and affixed labels prior to the restoration ill. C: back with new support frame, two spring-systems (A) and (B), and back protection

edge of the paint layer remains of the wooden frame

plank joints

orig. insertsrecent inserts

additions

added pearlsoverpainted pearls

retouchings

overpaintings

old cracks in the support

open cracks in the support

A. Vorderseite Malschichtoberfläche: Bearbeitungsmerkmale, Veränderungen, Schäden

GG_858 Judith m. d. Haupt d. Holofernes Lucas Cranach d. Ä. Gemäldegalerie Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien

Retuschen

FrühschwundrisseBorkenbildung

AnstückungenBeschneidungen

RisseBildträger Alt

Dübel

Brettfugen

Malschichtgrenze

Holzreste Rahmen

Bereibungen

Kratzspuren

Dellen

Blasenbildungen

Hochstellungen

Fehlstellen

RisseBildträger offen

Maßstab: A3/1:3

Perlen ergänztPerlen übermalt

Übermalungen

Einsetzung Orig.Einsetzung sek.

58,25 cm

58,4 cm

88,3

cm

1,65 cm 1,3 cm

1,2 cm 1,35 cm

1,15

cm1,

15cm

1,05

cm1,

35cm

88,3

cm

10 11

Lucas Cranach’s Portraits of Judith: A Master of Many Different Versions

The painting is not dated but features the winged serpent, the signature used by

the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder until 1537. Cranach was a native of

Kronach in Franconia, and we first encounter him around 1500 (Crucifixion of

Christ, c. 1501, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum). In 1505, he became court

painter to Duke Frederick the Wise of Saxony and moved to Wittenberg, where

he worked for the Electors of Saxony for almost half a century until his death. At

Wittenberg, Cranach was a contemporary of Martin Luther and witnessed the

Reformation first-hand. From 1508 his coat-of-arms featured the winged serpent,

which he also used as his signature on his paintings and prints. During the fol-

lowing years Cranach developed his characteristic style and handling, which was

suitable and adapted for his growing workshop. From the middle of the 1520s the

workshop’s output increased markedly: once a subject-matter was established

(including many first encountered in Cranach’s early works) it was repeated

again and again with only minor variations. Besides portraits of the Electors of

Saxony and the well-known likenesses of Martin Luther and his wife Katherina,

mythological or biblical stories imbued with a moralizing message played an im-

portant role in Cranach’s oeuvre. 3 In addition to these narrative compositions

featuring Aristotle and Phyllis, Samson and Delilah, or David and Bathsheba,

Cranach introduced in the middle of the 1520s portrait-like depictions of female

protagonists like Judith, Salome or Lucretia, 4 drawing on earlier single-figure

compositions featuring Salome that he had produced around 1508. 5 Informed by

examples from northern Italy and portraiture, this composition-formula was

widely copied and disseminated in the 1520s by other German as well as by

Netherlandish artists. 6 Cranach typically does not depict his heroines in classical

garb; instead his Judiths, Salomes and Lucretias sport contemporary court fash-

ion and jewellery.

He produced variations of this successful pictorial formula, too, and many

similar versions have come down to us. This is best illustrated by comparing sev-

eral examples of almost identical size, some of which are signed as well as dated

(ill. 2): all these versions of Judith were probably produced between 1525 (the

earliest dated work is from 1525) and 1537. Cranach also repeatedly reused the

composition for single-figure depictions of Salome (ill. 2, h and i): here, a platter

with the head of Saint John the Baptist has taken the place of the sword. This

Salome in a green dress is closely related to the female type personified by the

Judith in New York (ill. 2g), while the woman in the painting now in Glasgow (ill.

2e) appears to be a somewhat more delicate type and thus closer to the version

in Berlin-Grunewald (ill. 2d). And our Judith in Vienna has much in common

with her “cousin” in the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart (ill. 3). A closer analysis of these

two portraits will, we hope, illustrate how the workshop may have gone about

producing these variations.

a) Judith, signed and dated 1525, panel, 83,8 × 54,6 cm. Syracuse (NY), University Art Collection

b) Judith, signed, after 1526, limewood, 87,4 × 57,5 cm. Kassel, Gemäldegalerie (FR 230H)

c) Judith, signed, before 1537, panel, 85 × 57,5 cm. Ponce, Puerto Rico, Museo de Arte (FR 230F)

d) Judith, signed and dated 1530, beachwood, 74,9 × 56 cm. Berlin, Jagdschloss Grunewald (FR 234)

e) Judith, signed and dated 1530, panel, 76,7 × 55,8 cm. Glasgow Museums (FR 230D)

f) Judith, signed and dated 1531, panel, 72 × 56 cm. Berlin, Staatliche Museen on loan to Aachen (FR 230G)

g) Judith, signed, c. 1530, limewood, 89,5 × 61,9 cm. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (FR 230E)

h) Salome, c. 1530, panel, 87 × 58 cm. Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum (FR 232)

i) Salome, c. 1526/30, limewood, 73,5 × 54 cm. Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum

ill. 2: Compilation of paintings depicting Judith or Salome by Lucas Cranach the Elder

12 13

Executed on limewood, the painting Judith with the Head of Holofernes has been

in the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart since 1847. The panel has survived in its original

format; it is three centimetres wider than the painting in Vienna, which was

slightly trimmed at the sides. 7 In both versions the positioning of the figure, her

barett, the shape of her face, and her long hair comprising clearly differentiated

strands are almost identical. Among the differences are the more massive choker

and the green dress with a differently-laced bodice. The barett is painted with a

touch more spirit and lacks the decorative ostrich feathers. There are also a few

minor alterations or realignments of some of the pictorial elements: in the paint-

ing now in Stuttgart the sword, Holofernes’ head and the hand clasping his hair

are given more space, while these elements appear more condensed or cramped

in the version now in Vienna. In the Stuttgart version, the anatomical weakness

in the rendering of her shoulders and cleavage is concealed more convincingly by

the green dress that now covers her right shoulder and the gold chain with flat-

tened links that extends a little further down her chest.

An analysis using an infrared camera provided insights into the artist’s crea-

tive process before he applied the paint layer. The IRR scan of the version in

Vienna (ill. 5) revealed a delicate preliminary drawing for the entire figure featur-

ing a variety of brushwork: the contours of the face as well as her eyebrows, the

back of her nose, the lips, the eyes and the chin are all carefully delineated, which

suggests that these details were faithfully traced from a template. Their position

ill. 3: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Judith with the Head of Holofernes, signed, c. 1525/30, limewood, 86,5 × 58,5 cm. Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, inv.no. 643ill. 4: Outlines of the IRR of Judith from Staatsgalerie Stuttgart (see ill. 6) in red digitally superposed on the IRR of Judith from Vienna (see ill. 5).

in the finished painting was marginally altered – see, for example, her right eye,

which has moved a little up, or her lips, which have moved a little down. In other

areas of the painting, e.g. the position of the necklace or the shape of her cleav-

age, the drawing is much more sketchy. The preliminary sketch for the head of

Holofernes and the heroine’s hands is somewhat more detailed but not as precise

as it is for Judith’s face.

The painting at Stuttgart also has a preparatory drawing executed on the

ground (ill. 6). 8 Here, the position of the eyebrows, the contours of the face, her

cleavage and the contours of the robe along her shoulders were sketched with a

brush; they are more or less identical to the painted version. Note the dark shadow

in the area of her parting, presumably an underpainting. Perhaps a different head-

gear was initially projected. The underdrawing suggests that her left sleeve was

originally meant to drape across the stone parapet (see ill. 4).

If we place the true-to-scale underdrawing of the Stuttgart Judith on the IRR

of the painting in Vienna we see that both figure and composition are almost

identical (ill. 4): in Stuttgart the overlapping left sleeve is merely insinuated, but

it is executed in the version in Vienna. And while the position of her right eye

matches the underdrawing in the Vienna painting, in the final version it is placed

slightly higher. As noted above, in the Stuttgart picture the green robe covers her

right shoulder; in Vienna this was planned but not executed (see ill. 5). All this

shows that the underdrawings of the two versions of Judith are more alike than

ill. 5: Infraredflectography (IRR) detail of Lucas Cranach the Elder, Judith with the Head of Holofernes, Vienna, KHM (image: KHM)ill. 6: Infraredflectography (IRR) detail of Lucas Cranach the Elder, Judith with the Head of Holofernes, signed, Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie (image: Cranach Digital Archive)

14 15

the final paintings. There may have been a template that served as the basis for

both pictures and that was traced onto the ground. However, the execution of the

two preparatory drawings on the ground differs: one features large, clear forms

executed in broad brushstrokes (Stuttgart), the other delicate, in some areas

searching lines executed in a presumably dry medium (Vienna).

In addition to these observations we note the heroine’s diverging attire. We

must not assume that a young woman sat for the painter twice; he may very well

have combined different templates to create a new composition. Stylistically and

fashionably the Portrait of three ladies (ill. 7) is very close to the early versions

of Judith: the green robe of the lady on the right is very similar to the one worn

by the Stuttgart Judith, but the pearl embroidery on her bodice is like the one

worn by the Vienna Judith. We could easily continue these comparisons with

many other paintings from this period (see also ill. 2); as we lack incontrovertible

proof that these three ladies are, in fact, Saxon princesses, 9 scholars have sug-

gested that we may be looking at three genre portraits of fashionably dressed la-

dies, or even at a workshop template for different elegant attires. 10 Looking at

these paintings of Judith clearly suggests a selection of templates for workshops

versions. Even if we do not assume that the panel featuring the three female por-

traits was such a template, we can assert that the artist must have had access to

the same repertoire of forms employed for portrait-like depictions of biblical fe-

male characters.

Judith as Allegory: A Wily Woman or a Valiant Heroine?

Her attributes clearly identify the protagonist as Judith, but the depiction tells us

but little about the dramatic story recounted in the Book of Judith in the Old

Testament:

King Nebuchadnezzar of Assyria demanded unconditional subjugation from all

the nations he had vanquished. He planned the destruction of their temples so that

they would worship him alone (Judith 3, 8). If the defeated refused to obey him he

vowed that “their wounded shall fill their ravines and gullies, and the swelling river

shall be filled with their dead.” (Judith 2, 8) The Jewish people were also thus

threatened. Holofernes, the Assyrian king’s faithful general, laid siege to the city of

Bethulia in Judea, cutting off its water and food supplies. In the city lived the young

widow Judith: “She was beautiful in appearance, and was very lovely to behold”

and “no one spoke ill of her, for she feared God with great devotion.” (Judith 8,

7-8). To avert the certain destruction of her city, Judith decided to go with her loyal

maid to the enemy camp where she pretended to be a defector, quickly winning

Holofernes’ trust. When after three days she was invited to attend a banquet, Ju-

dith dressed in her finest clothes and put on her jewellery, intent on beguiling the

general with her beauty. In her charming company Holofernes consumed a great

deal of wine and fell asleep as soon as he was alone with her in his tent. Judith saw

her chance, said a prayer and “came close to his bed, took hold of the hair of his

head, and said, ‘Give me strength today, O Lord God of Israel!’ Then she struck his

neck twice with all her might, and cut off his head.” ( Judith 13, 7–8) After the deed

was done she quickly left the tent, handing the severed head to her maid who hid

it in a linen bag. Without attracting attention the two women crept through the

camp back to Bethulia. The next morning Judith displayed the decapitated head of

Holofernes on the ramparts of her city, causing the now leaderless Assyrians to

disperse in panic. By defeating the enemy Judith had saved the people of Israel.11

Saint Jerome incorporated the story into his Latin translation of the Bible as

a deuterocanonical book. Consequently, the Book of Judith has been passed on

as part of the Old Testament since early Christianity; the Council of Trent con-

firmed it as a canonical book. However, because the book contains many histor-

ical inconsistences Martin Luther decided not to include it in his 1534 German

translation of the Bible. But he regarded the story as useful and concurrently

published a version in the Apocrypha.12

Following Saint Jerome’s biblical text, the Middle Ages regarded the figure of

Judith as a symbol of chastity and humility, and her victory as a triumph over

vanity and lust (Holofernes). Popular writings north of the Alps, for example the

Speculum Humanae Salvationis, interpreted Judith’s victory over Holofernes as

the prefiguration of the Virgin Mary’s triumph over Satan. 13

In the early Modern Era, however, the interpretation of Judith began to

change: as soon as the story’s female protagonist was recognized as someone

acting on her own initiative rather than merely as an instrument of divine provi-

dence, her actions were regarded in a more ambivalent light.

ill. 7: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Portrait of Three Ladies, possibly the Princesses Sibylla (1515–1592), Emilia (1516–1591) and Sidonia (1518–1575) of Saxony, c. 1530, limewood, 62 × 89 cm. Vienna, KHM, GG 877

16 17

In the 15th century both artists and writers began to revisit her story. In addition

to the virtuous Judith we now increasingly also encounter her in series depicting

“Weibermacht” (“Power of Women”): stories of wise or powerful men dominated

by mythological or biblical women such as, for example, Eve, Phyllis, Delilah or

Salome; these series were popular both in the decorative arts (to embellish pri-

vate apartments and luxury artefacts) and in literature.14 Judith now finds herself

among women who use their female charms to embarrass or even kill men su-

perior to them. There are also a number of paintings produced around 1525 that

depict Judith in the nude, personifying her seductive charms that had cost a man

his head. 15

Very interesting in this context is the picture of a nude Judith presumably paint-

ed around 1530 (ill. 8): recalling pictures of Salome with the Head of Saint John the

Baptist, Holofernes’ head has been placed on a platter.16 This turns Judith into a

morally dubious seductress, and the depiction of the decapitated Holofernes func-

tions as a drastic warning for men to be aware of their weaknesses.

It is interesting to note that Judith also evolved into an identification figure

for political groups or entities: Donatello’s almost life-size bronze sculpture is

regarded as an early example and personifies the virtues of the republican gov-

ernment of the city of Florence. Not long afterwards the statue became the sym-

bol of her citizens’ successful revolt against “tyrannical” Medici rule. 17 North of

the Alps, too, the biblical figure of virtuous Judith vanquishing a much stronger

enemy provided political and military encouragement: even before the Reforma-

tion, Hans Schäufelin had decorated the walls of the “Hall of the Swabian Coven-

ant” in the town hall at Nördlingen with her story, in what was clearly a political

statement. 18 A few years later, in 1531, the Protestant German princes formed

the Schmalkaldic League in opposition to the Emperor, who had remained loyal

to the Pope, and, presumably to commemorate the event, Cranach the Elder pro-

duced two panels with narrative scenes recounting the story of Judith. 19 In both

cases, Judith’s heroic deed functions as an inspiration for the members of a polit-

ical alliance.

In his depictions of Judith (ill. 2) Cranach sticks to the biblical story by show-

ing her sumptuously attired and bejewelled. They all exude courtly elegance but

not necessarily erotic frisson. The raised sword in their right hand and the deter-

mined gaze fixed on the viewer, together with a generally imposing depiction,

bring to mind heroines that inspire valour – like Cranach’s narrative scenes of

Judith produced in 1531 in connection with the founding of the Schmalkaldic

League. A number of art historians have suggested that this connection also sup-

ports the identification of other individual depictions of Judith as allegories of

Protestant resistance against the Imperial troops. 20 However, we now know that

Cranach had established the composition by 1525 (ill. 2a). In addition, in one of

his earlier versions of Judith (ill. 2b) she sports on her barett a medal commemor-

ating King Louis of Hungary, who died in 1526 in the Battle of Mohacs, which

turns her into an allegory of taking a stand against the Ottoman threat rather

than of Protestant defiance of Imperial power. 21 This example illustrates that

pictures showing Judith as a monumental portrait-like elegant lady were general-

ly regarded as depictions of a virtuous heroine who through her inner strength

had vanquished a powerful tyrant. Although our painting contains no specific

details that identify the political context or the patron who commissioned it,

Cranach depicted her as a biblical heroine − be it as an encouragement for Chris-

tian Europe in the face of the growing Turkish threat, or of Protestants in their

spiritual battle against Imperial power.

Judith with Salome in the Imperial Collection

Cranach’s Judith is first recorded in the Inventarium und verzaichnus ihrer

römischen kaiserlichen Majestät gemäld und conterfähten so in der Neuenburg

zu Wien liegen (Inventory and record of the paintings and portraits of his Imper-

ial Roman Majesty housed in Stallburg Palace in Vienna), which was compiled

between 1612 and 1619. It lists: “3 stuckh vom Khrainacher, als 3 jungfrauen: no.

2 die Judith, no. 3 Herodis dochter, eine copey” (3 pieces by Cranach, i.e. three

virgins: no. 2 Judith, no. 3 Herod’s daughter, a copy).22 This tells us that three of

Cranach’s paintings – the Portraits of three ladies (ill. 7), Cranach’s depiction of

Judith (ill. 1) and a copy of Herod’s daughter − were housed together. As the in-

ventory also lists numerous works by Hans von Aachen, Joseph Heintz the Elder

and Bartholomäus Spranger – all court painters to Emperor Rudolf II (1552−1612)

− we may assume that they, too, were part of Rudolf’s extensive collections at

Prague Castle. 23 In the inventory of the same galleries written shortly afterwards,

ill. 8: German or Netherlandish, c. 1530, Judith with the Head of Holofernes, oak panel, 92,6 × 77,5 cm, Gotha, Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein, inv.no. SG 713

18 19

they are described in more detail: “no. 58. Ein original, Judit mit Holoferno kopf

und schwerd vom Kronacher” (an original, Judith with the head of Holofernes

and a sword by Cranach), und no. 59: “Ein dito, ist ein copeia vom Kronacher;

bedeitung: des Herodis tochter mit sanct Johannes haubt in der schissel” (the

same, it is a copy of Cranach; content: Herod’s daughter with the head of Saint

John the Baptist on a platter).24 Cranach’s Judith is not described in detail, but

the fact that she is mentioned in conjunction with a copy depicting Salome en-

ables us to identify the painting.

The copy is obviously Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist (ill. 9).

Stylistically the painting can be dated to around 1600; today it is attributed to

Joseph Heintz the Elder. 25 Judith clearly inspired this composition: note the

slashed and laced crimson dress, the gold bands, the barett embellished with os-

trich feathers, her strawberry blond hair falling over her shoulders with a single

strand straying across her cleavage, and, last but not least, her haunting gaze fixed

on the spectator. But instead of faithfully copying his model the artist decided to

bring the sitter’s attire up to date: he omitted the characteristic chains with gold

links, and replaced the choker with a simple pearl necklace. Instead of a cloth-of-

gold bodice embellished with a rigid diamond pattern Salome wears a chemise

embroidered with flowers and edged with lace. Instead of Judith’s contrasting

black lacing on bodice and dress, Salome’s reddish-gold lacing creates a more el-

egant pulled-together look. Salome’s belt comprises glass links from which a fra-

grant pomander is suspended. Closer inspection reveals her monochrome hat or-

nament to be a mounted figurative image, similar in shape and styling to the

pieces of jewellery frequently used to embellish a barett (ill. 12 and 13).26

Both by avoiding contours and by his levigated handling the artist who pro-

duced our Salome softened the appearance of the figure placed before a black

background. These stylistic idiosyncrasies and the conceit of producing a work in

the style of the German Renaissance reflect the refined taste prevalent at the

court of Rudolf II. We know that the Emperor was keen to acquire a Judith by

Cranach; he wanted to buy her from the burgher in Wroclaw who owned her and

asked the city council for help. When the sale did not go through the city present-

ed the Emperor with a Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist instead.27

No inventories of the imperial painting collection around 1600 have survived so

we cannot establish with absolute certainty the provenance of Judith with the

Head of Holofernes. But the fact that Cranach’s Judith served as the model for

the Salome described here − which perfectly reflects the taste of Rudolf’s court

at the turn of the 17th century − supports the contention that the painting was

once in Rudolf’s Kunstkammer.

We do not know what happened to the paintings originally at Prague when

they were moved to Vienna: under Emperor Ferdinand II (1578−1637, ruled from

1619) Vienna once again became the capital of the empire; the imperial palace

comprised a treasury (Schatzkammer), located next to the Ballsaal (ballroom).

Travellers recorded seeing paintings in the Schatzkammer but did not describe

them. 28 In the late 1720s the Schatzkammer had to be moved, and may by then

already have been installed somewhere in the Schweizerhof part of Hofburg Pal-

ace. 29 Its new installation was only completed in 1747.30 Immediately afterwards

a new inventory of the paintings in the Schatzkammer – which included both Ju-

dith and Salome, with their respective numbers and both attributed to Cranach –

was compiled: it lists as no. 88 “Ein stuckh, die herodias mit den haubt Johanes,

von Lucas Granich” (a piece showing Herodias with the head of Saint John, by

Lucas Cranach), and a little further down as no. 103 “Ein stuckh, worauf die Ju-

dith mit den haubt Holoferni, von Lucas Granich” (a piece depicting Judith with

the head of Holofernes, by Lucas Cranach).31 The back of Salome (ill. 10) is still

inscribed with “no 88”, confirming that they were once in the Schatzkammer. The

cradle added in the 19th century destroyed all the older inscriptions on the back

of our Judith (ill. A). In the course of yet another reorganization of the Imperial

collections, the director of the Picture Gallery, which had by now been moved

from Stallburg Palace to Upper Belvedere Palace, took over the paintings formerly

in the Schatzkammer. Shortly afterwards, in 1781, Judith and Salome were includ-

ed in his new installation of the collection and listed in the first printed catalogue

as nos. 63 and 64: “Zwey weibliche Bildnisse, beyde das Portrait eines jungen

vornehmen Frauenzimmers, welches der Künstler in dem ersten Gemälde als Ju-

dith mit Holofernis Kopf und Schwert in der Hand, und in dem andern als Hero-

dias, die das Haupt Johannis auf einer Schüssel trägt, vorgestellet hat. In beyden

ill. 9: Joseph Heintz the Elder, Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist, c. 1600, oak panel, 86 × 59,5 cm. Vienna, KHM, GG 862ill. 10: The reverse of Joseph Heintz the Elder, Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist (see ill 9)

20 21

ist sie mit halb entblößter Brust, einem breiten rothen Federhut auf dem Kopf,

und in kostbarer damals üblicher Kleidung mit vielem Schmuck abgebildet.” (two

female likenesses, both portraits of an elegant young woman, which the artist in

the first painting depicted as Judith with the head of Holofernes and clutching a

sword, and in the other as Herodias carrying the head of Saint John the Baptist

on a platter. In both she is shown with a half-bared breast, a wide red plumed hat

and costly contemporary attire, wearing a great deal of jewellery.)32

The attribution to Lucas Cranach the Younger in the 1783 catalogue probably

derives from the male portrait associated with them. A portrait of a man, signed

with a serpent and dated 1564, is listed as no. 62. A source on some necessary

restoration work undertaken in connection with the proposed new installation

tells us that the three paintings were viewed as a unit: “No. 62 Ein männliches

Portrait von Kranach ist angesetzt und auch No. 63. Judith von Kranach seinem

Compagnon gleich gerichtet worden. No. 64 gebuzt und repariert worden.” (no. 62

a male portrait by Cranach has been enlarged, and also no 63. Judith by Cranach

has been adapted to match its companion piece. No 64 has been cleaned and

repaired).33

Both the formats listed in the 1783 catalogue and old photographs (ill. 11)

document that the formats of the three panels really were altered and adjusted to

match each other; visitors were thus presented with portraits of the same young

woman playing two roles – Judith and Salome.

The stylistic differences between Judith and Solome were only recognized much

later. In the 1816 inventory Salome was attributed to an “anonymous artist”, but by

1824 “Herodias, after Lucas Cranach” was listed as a work by Joseph Heintz the

Elder. 34 This attribution may have been based on a new familiarity with the faithful

copy (KHM, GG 1588) of Cupid Carving his Bow after Parmigianino (KHM,

GG 275) that was already listed as a work by the elder Heintz in the Vienna Inven-

tory G (1612–1619), an attribution continued in the 1783 catalogue.

Despite the attribution of Salome to a younger artist, she remained with Ju-

dith in the gallery showcasing 16th century German painting at Upper Belvedere

Palace, and initially also in the newly-erected Kunsthistorisches Hofmuseum on

the Ringsstrasse; from 1896, however, the painting by Heintz the Elder was dis-

played together with the other works produced at the court of Rudolf II at the

turn of the 17th century. 35 Only occasionally – for example, now for this Point of

View #15 – can the two paintings exert their charms together, as Rudolf II had

presumably intended.

Judith with Salome: A Metamorphosis?

The Gospels tell of Salome, who was responsible for the death of Saint John the

Baptist: Saint John had criticized King Herod for marrying his own sister-in-law,

Herodias, which aroused the lady’s wrath and made her want to kill the holy

man. During a banquet Herod was so taken by a dance performed by his

step-daughter (the Gospels do not record her name, Salome is a later addition)

that he promised to fulfil any wish she made. To please her mother, Salome asked

for the head of Saint John. Although Herod did not approve of the saint’s execu-

tion he felt he had no choice but to keep his promise. The executioner performed

his grisly task and presented Salome with John’s severed head on a platter (Marc

6:17–29 and Matthew 14:3–12)

ill. 11: images taken before the removal of the additions of 1781: Lucas Cranach the Younger, Portrait of a Man, 1564 (GG 885); Lucas Cranach the Elder, Judith with the Head of Holofernes (GG 858); Joseph Heintz the Elder Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist (GG 862); all: Vienna, KHM, Picture Gallery

22

When Cranach painted his portrait of Judith she was regarded primarily as a

model of virtue. An early exception is the Judith dated around 1530 (ill. 8) who

presents the head of Holofernes on a platter, clearly an allusion to the death of

Saint John the Baptist, which was a direct result of Salome’s erotic dance: the

artist is not praising Judith’s heroic victory but offers a warning of the dangers of

succumbing to female charms.36 Here references to two wily female characters

seem to have been conflated into a single composition; around 1600 Cranach’s

Judith once more served as the model for a Salome. The clearly intended resem-

blance between the two women suggests that Judith’s virtuous allegorical role

changed by being presented together with the undoubtedly cunning Salome. 37

Unlike her template Judith, the Salome produced by Heintz the Elder wears a

piece of jewellery on her barett that can be identified as a depiction of Venus and

Cupid (ill. 13). It has much in common with Cranach’s pictures of Venus and Cu-

pid, most of which feature an inscription exhorting the spectator to beware of the

god of love’s painful arrows. Did Rudolf’s court artist deliberately add the hat or-

nament? Once the spectator regards Salome and Judith as a pair, he is confronted

with the terrible fate of two men who fell foul of the seductive charms of a cun-

ning woman: Holofernes, who was a victim of his own carnal desires, and Saint

John, who paid for King Herod’s weakness with his life. It seems that by the turn

of the 17th century the chaste heroic Judith that Cranach had invented around

1525 had morphed into a cunning man-eater. Daniela Hammer-Tugendhat has

shown that in the late 20th century the figure of Judith continued to have negative

moral connotations; the by now highly sexualized view of the figure of Judith was

also informed by Friedrich Hebbel’s play written in 1840, which for Freud, too,

personified the character’s real intentions: although her victory over Holofernes

was disguised as a patriotic deed Judith’s true motif was sexual, and his decapita-

tion certainly not heroic.38 It seems that it was no longer possible for a woman to

be a heroine acting on her political convictions, not even symbolically.

Today, we are free to view the biblical figure of Judith from unconventional

vantage points: in 2013 the comic artist Lewis Trondheim (born in 1964) drew a

female guitarist who used her instrument to decapitate the man sprawled at her

feet (ill. 14) – with blood, much like in Cranach’s painting, still dripping from its

headstock. 39 He dedicated the work to the singer Judith Holofernes (her self-cho-

sen stage name), who, in a fitting tribute to our valiant Judith, is the lead singer

of the band “Wir sind Helden” (We are Heroes).

ill. 14: Lewis Trondheim, Judith and Holofernes, pencil on paper, 2013

ill. 12: Venus and Cupid, cameo, last third of the 16th century, chalcedony, setting gold, enamel, pendant pearl, 2,1 × 1,6 cm. Vienna, KHM, Kunstkammer, inv.no. Ansa XII 122ill. 13: detail of the hat ornament in Joseph Heintz the Elder, Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist (see ill. 9)

23

24 25

Jahrhunderts in der Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister und im Hessischen Landesmuseum Kassel (Be-standskataloge der Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister Kassel), Kassel 1997, p. 74.

22 Wiener Inventar G, quoted after W. Köhler in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 26, 1906/07, reg.no. 19446. The original inventory is now at Wolfenbüt-tel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 370 Novi.

23 Alphons Lhotsky, Festschrift des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien. 1891–1941. Zweiter Teil: Die Geschichte der Sammlungen. Erste Hälfte: von den Anfängen bis zum Todes Kaiser Karls VI. 1740, 2 vols., Vienna 1941–1945, vol. 2, Part One, pp. 307–308; Gudrun Swoboda, Die Wege der Bilder. Eine Geschichte der kaiserlichen Gemäldesammlungen von 1600–1800, Vienna 2008, pp. 31–32.

24 Wiener Inventar H, quoted afer W. Köhler (see FN 22), reg.no. 19448. This inventory is also now at Wolfenbüttel.

25 Jürgen Zimmer, Joseph Heintz der Ältere als Maler, Weissenhorn 1971, cat.no. A41, confirms the attribution for stylistic reasons. The dendrochronological analysis of one of the planks of the sup-port has shown that the oak originated in southern Germany and may have been used for the painting in 1602; see Peter Klein’s report of February 17, 2016.

26 I would like to thank Paulus Rainer, curator of the Kunstkammer of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, for his comments on the jewellery and its function.

27 Alwin Schultz, Über die Herkunft des jetzt in der k.k. Gallerie des Belvedere befindlichen Gemäldes von Lucas Cranach dem Älteren, darstellend Herodias mit dem Haupte Johannes des Täufers, in: Mittheilungen der k.k. Central-Commission 12, 1867, pp. L–LI.

The Salome (ill. 2i) now at Budapest was formerly in the Imperial collection.28 The oldest extant travelogue, which has only survived in manuscript form, was produced by an

anonymous traveller in 1677, published by Luschin von Ebengreuth, Die ältesten Beschreibungen der kaiserlichen Schatzkammer zu Wien, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Aller-höchsten Kaiserhauses 20, 1899, pp. CXC-CXCVI, Regest 18307. He was followed by Eduard Brown’s travels through the Low Countries, Germany etc.; in 1668/69 Brown was in Vienna: Ed-ward Brown, M.D., Auf genehm gehaltenes Gutachten und Veranlassung der Kön. Engell. Medici-nischen Gesellschafft in Londen Durch Niederland/Teutschland/Hungarn/Serbien […] gethane ganz sonderbare Reisen […], Nuremberg 1686, pp. 247–253.

29 Lhotsky (see FN 23), vol. 2, Part One, pp. 398–399.30 Lhotsky (see FN 23), vol. 2, Part Two, pp. 415–416.31 “Specification, wasz sich vor bilder nach dem no. sowoll die histori als auch von wasz vor einen

maitre solche verfertiget worden, bei neier einrichtung der kais. königl. schatzcammer befinden, so geschechen anno 1747 et 1748” (specifications about the paintings according to their numbers, both their histories and which master painted them, in the newly installed imperial Schatzkammer, in A.D. 1747 and 1748), quoted after H. Zimmermann, Reg. 6243, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistor-ischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 10, 1889, pp. CCXLIII-CCXLVI.

32 Christian von Mechel, Verzeichnis der Gemälde der kaiserlich königlichen Bilder Gallerie in Wien […], Vienna 1783. For the most recent discussion of Mechel’s new installation of the gallery and his catalogue see: Nora Fischer, Kunst nach Ordnung, Auswahl und System. Transformationen der kaiserlichen Gemäldegalerie in Wien im späten 18. Jahrhundert, in: Gudrun Swoboda (ed.), Die kaiserliche Gemäldegalerie in Wien und die Anfänge des öffentlichen Kunstmuseums, vol. 1: Die Kaiserliche Galerie im Wiener Belvedere (1776–1837), Vienna 2013, pp. 23–89.

33 “Verzeichnis jener Gemälde der k.k. bildergalerie, welche bey Anlaß ihrer neuen Einrichtung […] sind gebutzt und repariert, auch zum Theil wegen vorher geschehener Verstümmelung und Weg-schneidung sind ergänzt, oder in ihre wahre Größe gebracht worden […]” (inventory of those paintings in the imperial picture gallery that were cleaned and repaired, some of which also required additions to replace earlier mutilations or trimmings, or returned to their original size, for the new installation...), quoted after Swoboda (see FN 32), pp. 286–291. The original document is now at the State Archive in Brünn, Kaunitz Family Archive, box 460, inv.no. 4619.

34 These inventories are preserved in the archive of the Kunsthistorisches Museum’s Picture Gallery. For more in the inventories and the changes to the paintings displayed in the Second Floor Gallery at Belvedere Palace in the early 19th century see: Alice Hoppe-Harnoncourt, Eine ungewöhnliche Einrichtung wird zum fixen Bestandteil der kunsthistorischen Ordnung. Die Malereischule der ‚Alten deutschen Meister‘ von 1781 bis 1837, in: Swoboda (see FN 32), pp. 91–114, pp. 100–103.

35 Albrecht Krafft, Verzeichniss der kais. kön. Gemälde-Gallerie im Belvedere zu Wien, Vienna 1837, pp. 200–201, no. 42; see also Führer durch die Gemäldegalerie. I. Theil. Gemälde alter Meister. Kunsthistorisches Museum des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Vienna 1892, no. 1477 and no. 1479 ; and the reprint of 1896, no. 1458 and no. 1524. On the new installation during the 1830s see Hoppe-Harnoncourt (see FN. 34), pp. 105–107.

36 See Uppenkamp (see FN 12).37 Börsch-Supan (see FN 20, p. 416) suggests that paintings by Cranach depicting a single Judith

should be read as Protestant icons. The addition of Salome would have detracted from their reli-gious-political message. Uppenkamp (see FN 12, p. 7) points out that during the Counter-Reforma-tion Judith functioned as a widely disseminated prefiguration of the Virgin Mary. This suggests to me that religio-political reasons did not require her to be conflated with Salome.

38 Hammer-Tugendhat (see FN 14), p. 344.39 See www.judith-holofernes.de. On the dedication of the comic in 2013: Arte programme “Durch die

Nacht mit Judith Holofernes und Lewis Trondheim” , published on September 24, 2013 (last accessed on youtube on February 2, 2016). Her latest solo album is called “Ein leichtes Schwert” (a light sword).

1 Wherever possible we have included the numbers of the Cranach paintings discussed here as listed in the catalogue raisonné published by Max Friedländer and Jakob Rosenberg, The Paintings of Lucas Cranach, New York 1978 (abbrev. FR 1978). Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv.no. GG 858, limewood, 85,9 × 55,7 cm (without additions), see FR 1978, 230A.

2 The technological analyses of the research project (financed by the FWF) were carried out by Ute Tüchler and Monika Strolz; 2007–2012 the project was headed by Karl Schütz, in 2013 he was succeeded by Guido Messling.

3 The “Cranach Digital Archive”, a project headed by Professor Gunnar Heydenreich, see its website www.lucascranach.org, offers a scholarly survey of the entire oeuvre of the Cranach dynasty includ-ing bibliography, archivalia and biographical information.

4 Veronique Bücken, Heroinen und Femmes Fatales im Werk von Lucas Cranach, in: Die Welt des Lucas Cranach, ed. by Guido Messling, exhib.cat. Bozar, Brussels, 2010/11, pp. 54–65. For Weibermacht (Power of Women) subjects in works by Cranach see Dieter Koepplin in: Dieter Koepplin & Tilman Falk (eds.), Lukas Cranach. Gemälde, Zeichnungen, Druckgraphik, exhib.cat. Basle 1974, pp. 562–585.

5 Salome with the Head of Saint John the Baptist, oak panel, 61 × 49,5 cm, Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, inv. 739 (FR 1978, 33).

6 Koepplin (see FN 4), p. 420, with references to works by Pencz and Ostendorfer; Anna Coliva & Bernard Aikema (eds.), Cranach: l’altro rinascimento, exhib.cat. Rome, Galleria Borghese, 2010, p. 232 with references to Venetian works. A recently discovered Netherlandish example was last dis-cussed by Maryan Ainsworth & Abbie Vandivere, Judith with the Head of Holofernes: Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen’s Earliest Signed Painting, JHNA 6:2 (Summer 2014), DOI: 10.5092/jhna.2014.6.2.2; on-line http://www.jhna.org/index.php/past-issues/vol-62-2014/300-judith-with-the-head-of-holofernes (last accessed on January 28, 2016).

7 We would like to thank Elsbeth Wiemann for the detailed information (documentation by the re-storer Bärbel Seebich from 1990/91) on the painting in the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart. The painting in the KHM was analyzed in 2008 by Monika Strolz for the project Katalog der deutschen Gemälde im KHM bis ca. 1540 (see FN 2).

8 Gunnar Heydenreich (Cranach Digital Archive, www.lucascranach.org) kindly provided the IRR, with the permission of the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart. In 1990/90 the underdrawing visible with the naked eye was traced on a transparent foil (see FN 7).

9 Heinrich Zimmermann, Zur Ikonographie von Damenbildnissen des älteren und jüngeren Lucas Cranach, in: Pantheon 27, 1968, pp. 283–293, pp. 284–286.

10 Tanja Holste, Die Porträtkunst Lucas Cranachs d. Ä. PhD, Christian-Albrecht-Universität, Kiel 2004, p. 125; Ernst Rebel, Lucas Cranachs Porträtkunst. Personendarstellungen zwischen Vitalität und For-mel, in: Claus Grimm & Johannes Erichsen & Evamaria Brockhoff (eds.), Lucas Cranach. Ein Ma ler-Unternehmer aus Franken, exhib.cat. Festung Rosenburg, Kronach, und Museum der Bildenden Kün-ste, Leipzig, Regensburg 1994 (Veröffentlichungen zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur, 26), pp. 131–138, p. 136; most recently in Karl Schütz & Christof Metzger & Christiane Lange (eds.), Dürer, Cranach, Holbein. Die Entdeckung des Menschen. Das deutsche Porträt um 1500, exhib.cat. Kunst-historisches Museum Vienna, Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung Munich, 2011, cat.no. 69.

11 Quoted after: http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/Judith (last accessed in February 2016).12 Henrike Lähnemann, Hystoria Judith. Deutsche Judithdichtungen vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert

(Scrinium Friburgense, 20), Berlin 2006, pp. 16–32, 300–310; Bettina Uppenkamp, Judith und Holofernes in der italienischen Malerei des Barock, Berlin 2004, pp. 20–25; Adelheid Straten, Das Ju-dith-Thema in Deutschland im 16. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Ikonographie, Munich 1983, pp. 10–11.

13 Lähnemann (see FN 12), pp. 419–424; Uppenkamp 2004 (see FN 12), pp. 34–41.14 Lähnemann (see FN 12), pp. 297, 416–419. Bücken (see FN 4); Daniela Hammer-Tugendhat, Judith

und ihre Schwestern. Konstanz und Veränderung von Weiblichkeitsbildern, in: Anette Kuhn & Bea Lundt & Evelyn Korsch (eds.), Lustgarten und Dämonenpein. Konzepte von Weiblichkeit in Mit-telalter und früher Neuzeit, Dortmund 1997, pp. 343–385.

15 Hans Baldung Grien, Judith mit dem Haupt des Holofernes, 1525, 208 × 74 cm, Nuremberg, Ger-manisches Nationalmuseum, inv.no. Gm 1093. Straten (see FN 12), cat.no. 4.

16 Bettina Uppenkamp, Judith – Zur Aktualität einer biblischen Heldin im 16. Jahrhundert, in: Simo-na Schellenberger & André Thieme & Dirk Welich (eds.), Eine STARKE FRAUENgeschichte – 500 Jahre Reformation. Begleitband zur Sonderausstellung auf Schloss Rochlitz im Auftrag der Staat-lichen Schlösser, Burgen und Gärten Sachsen GmbH, 2014, pp. 71–77, p. 77.

17 Donatello, Judith und Holofernes, bronze, 1453–57, Florence, Palazzo Vecchio. Uppenkamp 2004 (see FN 12), pp. 43–54.

18 Hans Schäufelin, Die siegreiche Verteidigung der Stadt Bethulia gegen Holofernes, 1515, oil on plaster, 221 × 427 cm, Nördlingen, Rathaus-Stube des Schwäbischen Bundes. Christof Metzger, Hans Schäufe-lin als Maler, Berlin 2002 (Denkmäler deutscher Kunst), pp. 146–155, 347–355, ill. 258, cat.no. 34.

19 Judith at the Table of Holofernes und The Death of Holofernes, 1531, Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein, Schlossmuseum Gotha, Sammlungen der Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha’schen Stiftung für Kunst und Wissenschaft, inv.nos. 720/674 and 721/675 (FR 1978, 214 and 215). Werner Schade, Das unbekannte Selbstbildnis Cranachs, in: Dezennium – Zwanzig Jahre VEB Verlag der Kunst Dresden, 1972, pp. 368–375, pp. 374–375.

20 Schade 1972 (see FN 19), p. 374–375; Helmut Börsch-Supan, Cranachs ‚Judith‘ in der Sammlung des Jagdschlosses Grunewald, in: exhib.cat. Basle 1974 (see FN 4), pp. 413–418, pp. 417–418, and Dieter Koepplin, ibid., p. 580.

21 Anja Schneckenburger-Broschek, Altdeutsche Malerei. Die Tafelbilder und Altäre des 14. bis 16.

26

Illustration and copyright creditsill. 2: compilation by the author, images 2 a, b, c, d, e, f, g taken from: Simona Schellenberger & André Thieme & Dirk Welich (eds.), Eine STARKE FRAUENgeschichte-500 Jahre Reformation. Begleitband zur Sonderausstellung auf Schloss Rochlitz im Auftrag der Staatlichen Schlösser, Bur-gen und Gärten Sachsen GmbH, 2014, pp. 74–75, ills. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. ill. 2 h: taken from: Anna Coliva & Bernard Aikema (eds.), Cranach. L’altro rinascimento, exhib.cat. Rome, Galleria Borghese, 2010, ill. cat.. 30. ill. 2 i: taken from: Guido Messling (ed.), Die Welt des Lucas Cranach, exhib.cat. Brussels, Bozar, 2010/11, ill.cat. 115ill. 3: © bpk – Bildagentur für Kunst, Kultur und Geschichteill. 5: © Cranach Digital Archive and Staatsgalerie Stuttgartill. 8: © Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein, Gothaill. 14: © Lewis Trondheim, taken from: www.judith-holofernes.deill. 4: Digital image edited by G. Prast und A. Hoppe-Harnoncourt.ill. B-E: Georg Prast, KHM, Wienthe rest: © KHM, Vienna

AcknowledgementsMonika Strolz, Ute Tüchler, Michael Eder, Gunnar Heydenreich, Elsbeth Wiemann, Paulus Rainer, Katja Schmitz-von Ledebur, Wencke Deiters and Thomas Hoppe

About this publication

Published by: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sabine Haag and Stefan Weppelmann Texts: Alice Hoppe-Harnoncourt, Georg Prast Coordination: Guido Messling Translation: Agnes StillfriedEditing: Karin ZelenyArt Director: Stefan ZeislerGraphic design: Johanna KoppPhotographs: Andreas UldrichPhoto Editing: Tom RitterPrinted by: Druckerei Walla, ViennaISBN: 978-3-99020-112-1© 2016 KHM-Museumsverband. All rights reserved