Taras Voznyak

As a matter of fact, understanding of the paintings by the Lotharingian artist Georges de La Tour (13 March 1593, Vic-sur-Seille (Lorraine) ? 30 January 1652, Lunéville) is impossible without comprehending the essence of the era, in which he had to live and create.

Georges de La Tour was born in the late years of Counter-Reformation ? a great period of history in terms of both impact made and results produced. In fact, the reform of church, society, and art was initiated by the Roman Catholic church itself. The problems, which existed in these spheres of life, had been accumulating since the Middle Ages and did not reflect the spirit of the epoch, which brought about a powerful Renaissance, i.e. a cultural and philosophical movement of the 15th-16th century based on the values of humanism and oriented towards ancient Greek and Roman artistic heritage. The Renaissance was mainly focused on antiquity when a Man but not a Diving Being was ? though somehow naively and barbarically ? deemed to be a center of the Universe. That is why not only science and arts but also theology itself went through secularization. However, there still were few efforts to combine the heritage of antiquity and Christianity ? in its peculiar Western, Roman Catholic variety. Obviously, de La Tour had little relation to the Proto-Renaissance generated under the influence of Byzantium (namely a massive wave of migration from Byzantium after the fall of Constantinople) and the Arab world (the second half of 12th ? 15th century). Similarly, he had little to do with Early (10s-25s of the 15th ? late 15th century), High (late 15th ? early 16th century) or Late Renaissance (mid 16th ? 90s of the 16th century), which thrived in Italy but not in Lorraine ? the latter was on the periphery, after all. However, the Northern Renaissance that thrived in the Netherlands (16th century) must have had a huge impact on the neighboring lands, including Lorraine. Moreover, the impact was made not by the Renaissance itself but rather its consequences. In particular, one of the consequences was not only the realization but also the need for reforming the Church.

The movement for the revitalization of the Roman Catholic church originated in the heyday of the Renaissance, i.e. in the late 19th-century Spain, where the church rules were being reformed with the support of the House of Habsburg. Back in 1511-1517, the Church itself initiated the change: the Lateran Council initiated the renewal of the Roman Catholic church. Nonetheless, this initiative yielded an unexpected result: Martin Luther put forward his 95 theses in 1517. It was a kind of bomb explosion, which resulted not only in numerous theological disputes but also the German Peasants? War (1524-1526) and long-lasting Thirty Years? War ? the first all-European war between the coalitions of Roman Catholic and Protestant countries (1618-1648). The Roman Catholic coalition included the Holy Roman Empire and Spain led by the Habsburg dynasty as well as German principalities of the Catholic League (mainly Western and Southern ones, such as Bavaria, Cologne), Italian city-states, Portugal. The anti-Habsburg coalition included Protestant German Principalities (mainly Eastern and Northern ones, such as Saxony, Brandenburg-Prussia, Pfalz, Brunswick-Lüneburg), Netherlands, Denmark-Norway, England, Scotland, Sweden and Catholic France (joined in 1635).

To that end, Lorrain found itself in the middle of the war of all against all ? bellum omnium contra omnes. Of course, this fact was reflected in the heritage of almost all artists who lived and worked in the regions, where this European disaster was raging. Unimaginable horrors of seemingly «God-willed» wars could not but lead to disillusionment with the human race, its essential ? or even metaphysical ? depravity. As a result of those endless wars, Lunéville ? the city of Georges de La Tour ? was almost completely destroyed by the fire In 1636. Many artist?s works painted before the fire were likely to be burned.

Having faced the Reformation movement, the Church finally realized that the change was necessary ? not only doctrinal but also structural one. It had also to admit the role of the art, which had always been one of the most powerful means of communication between the Church and the faithful. Recognizing the need to refresh its external manifestation, the Church and society generated a new style ? Baroque ? aimed at carrying the ideas of the renewed Christian faith to as many believers as possible in a new, more expressive and dynamic way. Magnificent, festive, and bright colors, contrasting, extravagant ornaments, and asymmetrical design served that purpose perfectly. The final goal was to impress, capture, convert. And, finally, to conquer. The architecture is characterized by the contrast of volumes, riotous rhythm of facades, spectacular play of colors and lighting. Painting and sculpture were marked by the decorative and theatrical compositions, delicate coloration and light effects, complicated plasticity, pageantry. In a way, it was a style of the Roman Catholic counter-reformist propaganda ? a weapon in the fight against Reformation. However, this aesthetic extravagance inevitably led to the result the Church had not expected ? a birth of ethical perversion. The rampage of Baroque gave rise to perversion. Similar to Luther?s incident, the Church then encountered a new one: a Baroque painting tradition unexpectedly stated its leader Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1573-1610) ? unruly child (enfant terrible) of Baroque. His life was dramatic as well as his art: after committing a murder, he had to flee Rome ? the Pope?s patience had run out. Still, it was Caravaggio, who, by using contrasts of light and shade and focusing exactly on the objects, created a grand painting style, which soon defined the Baroque painting tradition. Saints and even the Holy Virgin were often portrayed as ordinary Romans, people on the streets and markets, or even robbers and harlots! That was probably the last thing the Church expected from the Baroque revolution. Nevertheless, the inflow of the street and even backstreet life into painting ? Church painting as well ? had a fantastic effect and spread from Malta to Amsterdam.

At the intersection of the two phenomena ? Baroque style in art and disillusionment with the human race as the result of the endless wars ? the small-town artist Georges de La Tour started his artistic career. Despite the fact that a large part of Lorraine was under the sovereignty of the French kings, Georges de La Tour and the art of his native lands were largely influenced by the Spanish Netherlands. This was not only because he visited the country in 1627.

De La Tour?s early paintings are united by a frenetically repeated theme: a young, possibly noble, well-dressed man falls a victim of some crooks ? wandering fortune-tellers or card sharps. What was it ? the influence of the migratory subject or his personal experience? Everyone actually knows the origin of the subject: it first appeared in the works of Caravaggio. Later it was actively used by his followers ? especially in the Netherlands. It can be explained by the fact that such a down-to-earth and simple story was the best for promoting the democratic spirit of the Netherlands that lived through the first ever bourgeois revolution. The scenes have not only a didactic component ? be careful and prudent ? but also a sadistic one ? a simpleton, i.e. bourgeois, scoffs at the aristocrat. The world of cheats and harlots is the cynical and rotten world where no one can be trusted. All cheat all ? bellum omnium contra omnes though by other means. Sidelong glances of the characters get crossed like rapiers ? once you run upon, you are stabbed. Once you relax ? you are killed. If you don?t stab yourself with a rapier of a dandy Ranuccio Tomassoni from Umbria (as Caravaggio did), you will be killed.

This is a so-called «light» period in the creative life of Georges de La Tour. The «lightness» of this period is not so much about the natural light highlighting nastiness of the scenes but rather the profanity of this light. The light in the works of the «light period» is attributed to laymen and deceivers. In other words, this is the light of the peasant world. Sometimes this is the light of the world abandoned by God. It comes from nowhere. It belongs to nobody. In spite of the transparency and straightforwardness of the scene, the pictures show the dark, even the darkest sides of human life. De La Tour virtually postulates: the people?s light is the darkness that metaphysically engulfs the people?s world, which is a product of the original sin and abandonment of the Lord.

Not everyone can see it. Not everyone can catch the deep sadness of the early works by de La Tour. De La Tour was one of the few artists who interlaced sorrow and melancholy into such truly ugly scenes. There was no bravado (like in some other pictures) but grief. Other artists could not have entirely comprehended the tragedy of such burlesque or rather ostensibly innocent scenes, their sardonic horror. To my mind, the youthful blindness like that stroke many brave Dutchmen of the time, e.g. Hendrick Jansz ter Brugghen (or Terbrugghen) (1588-1629), Dirck Jaspersz van Baburen (1595-1624), Matthias Stom ?? Matthias Stomer (1600-1652). The list also includes the Frenchman Nicolas Tournier (1590-1639), the Italians Mattia Preti (1613-1699), Bernardo Strozzi, named il Cappuccino and il Prete Genovese (1581-1644), Orazio Lomi Gentileschi, (1563-1639). The picture «A Luterplayer Carousing With a Young Woman Holding a Roemer» by Hendrik Terbrugghen (private collection) looks especially spectacular with regard to its cynicism and contempt to the human race.

Therefore, may you not be betrayed by the stagy irony of de La Tour?s works of this period. He barely conceals his deep disappointment in the human race ? his melancholy. At the same time, we should not forget that melancholy is one of the greatest human sins. Actually, it reveals the disbelief in the fact that the Lord can save the human race suffering from the fall of the man. In the future, he would hide this melancholy under the guise of philosophical meditation and melancholic reflections. In conclusion, we can definitely claim that de La Tour was the Baroque artist, but he stood apart from the others from the ideological viewpoint. His philosophy is much deeper than the one of his contemporaries, though it may not be caught at once. Therefore, in order to understand his paintings, one needs to look for philosophical foundations, which may be beyond art.

De La Tour strives to focus on the moral mission he was to accomplish with the help of his art. That is why he rejects the Baroque redundancy, pathos, and exaltation of his contemporaries, especially the Flemish. He does not tell the stories, but his images saturate. Metaphorically, he makes us grasp the truth not through rhetoric or didactics but through epiphany. As compared to the Lunéville maitre, the above-mentioned artists look somewhat childish or even frivolous (though there are a few exceptions). It is not about age. It is about their philosophical depth. De La Tour stands as an artist who knows what sorrow and affliction of the human race really are. He does not put on a show and fool around. That is why he stands aside in a way. He was distinct from all ? both maitres of the Late Baroque and ones of the Classicism, as de La Tour had been working at the turn of the epochs and styles.

But let us return to the life of de La Tour: wars in the Lorraine had still dragged on. Pious Christians kept killing each other «in the name of God». After the fire in Lunéville with most of the paintings of the «light» period burnt, he and his family moved to Nancy. France was reigned by the Cardinal Richelieu (Armand-Jean du Plessis, duc de Richelieu, 1585-1642) and, to be more exact, Louis XIII (Louis le Juste; 1601-1643). Richelieu aimed to mold an absolutist monarchy, where everything had to be absolute: the classics he relied on did not come amiss. Though, according to the historical records, de La Tour visited Paris and received the official title of «Painter in Ordinary to the King» in 1639, his «Caravaggesque» style and philosophical melancholy had nothing to do with it. Generally, Baroque had never really fit in Richelieu?s France. Instead, Classicism dominated. Even a radical change of the subjects ? not even style, when he became a convinced caravaggesque ? could not help. De La Tour began choosing religious images, though he kept painting human beings like Caravaggio. However, de La Tour was a special caravagesque not in terms of the painting technique but the skilled use of the light. In the works of the mature de La Tour, the light became less «profane» but more «metaphysical». We do not talk about the transition from the soft lighting in the pictures of the «light» period to the condensed light, chiefly candlelight, but about the philosophical conceptualization of the light and its source. In my opinion, de La Tour became more and more focused on the divine source of the light, though represented by a plain candle. In this «dark» period of his artistic career, the world was illuminated by the divine, metaphysical light. He seemed to say: we are all under His light and His eyes. This is a very simple statement that we, ordinary people, usually tend to forget. The source of the divine light is usually hidden ? as well as the Creator, who appears only to a few. It is present in the canvas but covered by a hand or a figure. De La Tour seems to be afraid to show it, although it is just a candle or a torch. However, the artist sees it as something greater ? an Eternal Source of Light. The characters of the paintings of the «dark» period are in dialogue with this Eternal Source of Light.

Consumed with a deep melancholy, Magdalene is holding a skull on her knees and sinking in candlelight («Magdalene with the Smoking Flame», 1638, La Madeleine ? la flamme filante, Los Angeles, Californie, Los Angeles County Museum of Art).

A tired woman seemingly reads a book to a girl, but a candle in the girl?s hands embraces herself and the girl?s self («The Education of the Virgin», 1640, L?éducation de la Vierge, The Frick Collection, New York).

Saint Irene pulls an arrow out of Saint Sebastian?s leg, a girl is watching the process. However, it is not the arrow but the candle ? they all are looking at the source of the light! («Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene», 1652, Sainte Irene soignant saint Sébastien, Honfleur, Musée Eugene Boudin).

The shepherds and the Virgin Mary are looking at the glowing bundle ? a newly-born Jesus («Adoration of the Shepherds», 1644, L?Adoration des bergers, Musée du Louvre, Paris). This light shapes not only the space of the picture but the world.

This is the essence of the late de La Tour, to my mind. He paints the world flooded with the light of the Divine. In this regard, he is a deeply religious artist. He remains religious even when painting classic scenes, images of soldiers or vagabonds playing dice. Nobody knows what this picture depicts, what is the plot. The plot is not the one that seems obvious; it is much deeper. Perhaps, those Roman soldiers played dice for Christ?s shirt: «Let?s decide by lot who will get it» (John 19:24). Or perhaps vagabonds played dice for their worthless lives («The Dice Players», 1640, Les Joueurs de dés, Preston Hall Museum, Stockton-on-Tees) ...

De La Tour managed to overcome Caravaggio ? the uncrowned king of the pictorial art of that time. Caravaggio and his followers did not work in the field of easel painting but mural painting. Their works had a very practical aim ? to replace frescoes in the monumental cathedrals quickly and effectively. That was a sort of social demand of Counter-Reformation, as the flamboyancy of the picture and the speed of painting were appreciated the most. As a rule, the light hit those «frescoes» from above. Taking this aspect into account, the caravaggesques-muralists painted their works in the studio with the light falling from above. The light illuminated the picture. In de La Tour?s works, in turn, the light shapes the space of the picture coming from a small source ? the candle. De La Tour?s picture centers around the candle. That is why the «philosophy of the candle» is so important to him. This is not just a technique but his philosophical idea. Everything is in the «light of God». It could not have been otherwise in the counter-reformist Lorraine that was gradually integrating into the absolutist Richelieu?s France. This was not because of de La Tour being friendly to the Frenchmen (who were strangers in Lorraine at that moment), but because of him thinking and looking at the world in that specific way.

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606 (or 1607)-1669), who was a little younger than de La Tour, managed to go even further ? his «candle» was burning inside a human. His images are not lit even by the divine light ? they are glowing from the inside. Ordinary people become the Beacons of God... As God?s light is in everyone. However, the Netherlands ? Protestant and, thus, more liberal ? provided more freedom for such experiments. As a Protestant, Rembrandt saw people as the Beacons of God. It was, of course, too much for the Roman Catholics.

What can we observe in de La Tour?s picture exhibited in Lviv (1641, L?Argent versé, Lviv, Borys Voznytskyi National Art Gallery Of Lviv)? Nobody knows the real title of the picture. If it was known, it could be metaphorical and would be not very helpful. That is why all the titles and, consequently, plot interpretations are pure speculations.

The misinterpretation of «The Night Watch» by Rembrandt is a classic example. As it seemed that figures are on the dark background, the picture was titled «The Night Watch». So, the picture joined the world artistic heritage under this title. Only after the restoration in 1947, it turned out that the work was coated with a dark varnish, which distorted its original colour. After the varnish was removed, the painting turned out to depict a daytime scene. The shadow of Captain Cocq?s left hand points to the action time ? it is no later than 2 p. m.

Of course, different epochs offered various interpretations. In Soviet times, the painting was supposed to be titled «At Usurer?s» or «The Payment». As for me, it is a pure Soviet-style vulgarization ? there should also be Marx?s quotation about the exploitation of the Lotharingian peasants or treachery of the Jewish moneylenders...

Therefore, we can try to look at the painting on our own and try to interpret its plot. Moreover, it is now being restored, so there are aspects, which nobody had seen and comprehended before.

At the moment, the painting is related to the late period of de La Tour?s creativity. As we may observe, the more mature the maitre became, the deeper was the philosophy of his works. Thus, we can look for the philosophical and religious overtones in his paintings. As a matter of fact, the caravaggesques actively shared the plots with one another, despite a certain disparity in the depth of their philosophical understanding of the world. The idea of the painting may be chosen not only by the artist but also the customer. However, the philosophical depth of the painting was up to the artist?s talent. De La Tour was not a superficial painter. As we can see, late de La Tour?s works were much deeper than the ones by his predecessors and contemporaries. Nevertheless, he remains discreet by concealing the plot and essence of the pictures. So, we can obviously look for a deeper meaning in the painting exhibited in Lviv.

The painting «Saint Peter paying the Tribute Money» (636 ca.-1644 ca.; sec. XVII; 1636-1644, Milano, Pinacoteca di Brera) by another caravaggesque Mattia Preti (1613-1699) exhibited in Brera Art Gallery seems to me very similar to our Lviv work. Obviously, the plot is the only similarity. The painting depicts a famous gospel story about «Saint Peter?s fish».

So, let me cite Matthew 17:24-27: «After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, «Doesn?t your teacher pay the temple tax?» «Yes, he does», he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. «What do you think, Simon?» he asked. ?From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes?from their own children or from others?» «From others,» Peter answered. «But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours...»

This proverb touches upon various issues, particularly ? one cannot pay for entering the temple, the House of Lord. Still, the lowly of this world have to be paid. Woe to them and those who played dice for the Savior?s shirt...

Of course, this is only one of many interpretations. It is up to you to decide whether it is feasible. Not only the plot but also placing of figures are almost identical.

The difference between these two plots is the character standing behind Saint Peter: in Mattia Pretti?s painting, this is Jesus Christ with all the necessary attributes, i.e. a halo; in Lviv painting, this is a young man wearing a hat who stands behind suggested Saint Peter. So, where is the halo that was obligatory for the image of Jesus in the paintings of that time?

However, even a cursory look at de La Tour?s iconography makes it clear that he had almost never used the techniques popular among his contemporaries and depicted the biblical figures without or with a minimum of features associated with them, e.g. the work «Saint Jerome at Prayer» (1628-1630, Saint Jerome pénitent (? l?auréole), Grenoble, Musée de Grenoble) with St. Jerome depicted without the «usual» lion or temptresses. Other examples are «Saint Jacques le Mineur» (Albi, Musée Toulouse-Lautrec), «Saint Jude Thaddée» (1620), «Saint Philippe» (Norfolk, Virginie, Chrysler Museum of Art), «Saint Thomas» (1620, Tokyo, Musée national de l?art occidental), «Saint André» (1620, Saint André, Switzerland, private collection), «Saint Jerome Reading» (Saint Jérôme Lisant, Madrid, Musée du Prado) etc. «Saint Joseph the Carpenter» (1642, Saint Joseph charpentier, Paris, Musée du Louvre) is also depicted without the halo as well as a little Jesus standing in front of him ? they are just a man and a boy. In «The Education of the Virgin» (1650, L?éducation de la Vierge, New York, The Frick Collection) there is a mother with an open book and a girl who learns to read ? no halos, just the mother and the daughter from Lorraine. Though they are images of Anna and Maria. Without the title, one cannot identify who is depicted and what is the idea of the painting. The list goes on. Notably, during Counter-Reformation such «designation» of the images was a sort of truism. At that time, the encyclopedias, i.e. instructions, with the list of all the necessary attributes were published. For example, there was a famous «Iconology» (Iconologia overo Descrittione Dell?imagini Universali cavate dall?Antichit? et da altri luoghi, Roma, 1593) written by Cesare Ripa (1555-1622) published in 1593.

However, de La Tour was not concerned about it. Definitely, he was a Catholic, but the intention to «humanize» the biblical tradition was so close to him (in the nearby Netherlands or just across the street) that it could become a part of de La Tour?s artistic philosophy. Obviously, it had nothing to do with style or techniques of de La Tour ? it was his principled position. If he depicted Saint Irene as an ordinary Lotharingian woman (without the halo, of course), why could not he portray Christ as an unknown young man with a hat standing behind Saint Peter? Was it necessary for Jesus to reveal himself in front of the Roman soldiers (think ? German, Swedish, Dutch mercenaries who burned Lunéville) near the temple gates? Simultaneously, one should pay attention to a seemingly insignificant detail ? the young man?s scarf of the red colour similar to Jesus?s shirt. Is it a symbol? It is hard to know...

Now let me say a few words about the image of Saint Peter who is in the center of the composition. It is impossible not to notice that despite the fact that there are certain differences between the paintings depicting Saint Peter, the artist always portrays the same old man. For example, let us compare his «Tears of St. Peter» (1645, Les Larmes de saint Pierre ou Saint Pierre repentant Cleveland, Art Museum) and «The Denial of St. Peter» (1650, Le Reniement de saint Pierre, Nantes, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nantes). Moreover, the latest researches point to the fact that the work exhibited in Lviv is temporary close to the abovementioned ones. In all the pictures Saint Peter is an ordinary Lotharingian old man in the trivial situation for those times ? «war of all against all».

Identification of the plot is complicated by the fact that, according to the recent findings, the canvas was cut from all sides. Even de La Tour?s signature was cut. Why so? It might have been cut in order to fit some place on the wall. It was a common practice in those days. The similar case was «The Night Watch» by Rembrandt: in the 18th century, the canvas was cut from all sides to fit the new hall. There might also be some ideological reasons: if the painting fell into the hands of some Protestant extremists, it could be turned into a conversation piece by cutting Christ off.

There is another strange thing unnoticed before. There is a left hand on the back of the chair behind the old man (Saint Peter?). Whom does it belong to? Is it the young man in the hat (Christ)? Or another figure behind him that was cut off (Christ)? The latter is unlikely from the viewpoint of composition. However... if the candle was supposed to be a geometric center of the composition, there would be enough space for one more figure on the right ? Christ, I mean.

One more observation: if we talk about a «multicomponent» composition, such as the one exhibited in the Lviv Art Gallery, there should be a certain «balance of power». The four figures on the left representing the profane, if not evil, world are antithesized by two figures only, i.e. the old man and the young man in the head (he is clearly thoughtful, not one of the four churls on the right). So, one more figure on the right might be missing ? at least if taking into account my philosophical speculation.

Therefore, this painting by Georges de La Tour may portray the famous gospel story about «Saint Peter?s fish», and its tentative title may sound as «Saint Peter paying the Tribute Money».

Nevertheless, I think that this issue cannot be solved once and for all. Unless some documents revealing the truth are miraculously found after the centuries of wars and fires in our unfortunate Europe.

25-30 January 2019, Lviv-Kyiv