Luca Giordano, called Fa Presto

Perhaps painted for Don Andrea d'Avalos, Prince of Montesarchio (according to Hübner & Woermann, citing De Dominici, under Literature);
In the possession of August der Starke, Elector of Saxony, by 1722.
In 1801hanging in the Inner Gallery of the Electoral Gallery;
By descent to the Kings of Saxony;
Königlich Sächsisches Galerie, later Gemäldegalerie Dresden, inv. no. 474, hanging in the central gallery to the right of the central pavillion of the Zwinger in 1901;
Sold by them in 1926 on the instructions of  Direktor Hans Posse, with a second Giordano of Susanna and the Elders, through Kunsthandlung P. Rusch, Sidionstrasse 27, Dresden, priced at 16,000 Reichsmarks each;
Aquired from the above by Kommerzienrat Dr. Georg Hirsch, Villa Bauer, Gera, in 1926;
Subsequently at Rittergut Kospoda, Thuringia, until 1945; when confiscated by the Russian Army;
Rediscovered in an attic in the 1960s (divided in two pieces) and given to the Gemäldegalerie Dresden for storage;
Restituted to the great-grandson of Dr. Hirsch in 2007.

1722/8 Dresden inventory, p. 1, verso, no. A 32, as Luca Giordano, 'der spinnende Hercules', acquired via the agent 'Kindermann';
Perhaps B. de' Dominici, Vite de' Pittori, Scultori, ed Architetti Napoletani, Naples 1742, vol. III, p. 415;
J.A. Riedel & C.F. Wenzel, Catalogue des tableaux de la Galerie Electorale à Dresde, Dresden 1765, p. 218, no. 264;
Verzeichniss der Gemälde welche in der Churfürstl. Gallerie zu Dresden..., Dresden 1801, p. 163, no. 264;
J. Hübner, Verzeichnis der Königlichen Gemälde-Galerie zu Dresden. Mit einer historischen Einleitung und Notizen über die Erwerbung der einzelnen Bilder, Dresden 1856, p. 157, no. 551;
Idem., last ed., Dresden 1880, no. 639; 
K. Woermann, Katalog der Königlichen Gemäldegalerie zu Dresden, Dresden 1902, p. 171, no. 474.

ENGRAVED:
By Ch. Duflos.

"The following condition report has been provided by Sarah Walden, an independent restorer who is not an employee of Sotheby's. This painting has been recently restored and relined. There was an original joint across the centre, which had been cut open at some point in the mid twentieth century to be rolled and stored at the Dresden Museum, after various vicissitudes when it was recovered from Russia after the war. In the sixties it was evidently consolidated in Dresden, and protected to a great extent with wax and resin although still in two pieces. This wax and resin has now been removed (in so far as wax can ever be entirely removed) and the new Beva double lining has satisfactorily reunited the two pieces finally. There are traces of earlier storage, folded vertically down the centre with various other creases and a few tears, but in general it is astonishing how comparatively little damage it has sustained throughout a turbulent period. The surface has also suffered noticeably little from past rubbing, apparently having been spared restoration over the last century. The vigorous brushwork remains remarkably well intact generally, and the dark ground is kept in a fair balance overall without intruding or swamping the half tones particularly, as tends to be the case. Occasionally the more shadowy areas in the flesh painting have slightly sunk into the ground, for instance the elbow, upper arm and neck of the foreground nymph or parts of her legs, Omphale's shaded breast or some of the more shadowy eye sockets for instance, but the modelling of the figures is largely unusually well preserved with flowing unbroken transitions from dense highlights into deep shadow. The lower sky and landscape has a few slight intrusions of the dark ground into the bright brushwork but the upper right landscape with vivid lights among the depths of the foliage is powerfully intact. The genitals of the putto below have been retouched, whether because of defacement or some previous prudish repaint. Various old tears are visible under ultra violet light including the main central horizontal line of the division along the old joint, and the earlier central vertical crease. This latter which crosses the side of the cheek of the upper nymph has a quite narrow band of retouching, while the former widens out, doubling across the torso and arm of Hercules broadly then narrowing elsewhere, with one other narrower band of retouching across his stomach, another narrow horizontal across his raised arm and one across the stone slab beneath, where there is retouching although the crisp signature is unaffected. Another short horizontal line runs from the lower left edge across to Omphale's leg where there is a small three cornered tear and a few other little retouchings. She also has an irregular slanting crease running down across her chest. A narrow vertical crease runs up a little way beside the right edge, parallel and a few inches away near the middle. There are a few other minor little tears, for instance along the base in the right foreground below the nymph's knee, with some other incidental retouchings in places on the figures and a certain amount of superficial retouching in Omphale's yellow drapery. Essentially however the condition of this painting is surprisingly good, even without considering the facts of its recent history. Such a large painting might normally be expected to have a certain amount of accidental damage, but its secure early life as well as the precautionary measures taken later in Dresden have allowed the painted surface to remain surprisingly fresh and rich in tone. This report was not done under laboratory conditions." Should you wish to obtain a full report on the restoration work carried out by International Fine Arts Conservation Studios of Bristol, please do not hesitate to contact the Old Master Paintings Department.
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."

Julius Hübner, and following him, Woermann believed that this was a picture listed by Bernardo de' Dominici as depicting Jole (Iole) - a misidentification he held to have been widespread - and that it was one of several works painted by Giordano for the renowned Neapolitan General Don Andrea D'Avalos, Prince of Montesarchio.¹  In the absence of any more accurate description or measurements, we cannot be certain of this claim, but it is worth noting that Woermann cites the same provenance for one other Giordano then in the Gemäldegalerie, and he may have had secure grounds for so doing.²  The 1722/8 inventory merely notes that the picture was acquired via an agent called 'Kindermann'.

At various times the date has been read as 1690, but as Woermann points out, it can be securely read as 1670, a more plausible date given the painting's style.

This picture was deaccessioned by the Gemäldegalerie Dresden in 1926, and sold to Kommerzienrat Hirsch of Gera.  An old photograph shows it as it was shortly before leaving the Gemäldegalerie (see Fig. 1).  It was looted by Russian troops in 1945, and then discovered in an attic in the 1960s, cut in two (but in fact divided along the original seam between the two bolts of canvas of which it is comprised).  The two parts were then placed in safe cleaning in the deposits of the Gemäldegalerie Dresden, and were again rediscovered in the clear-up after the Elbe floods.  This painting was returned to the heirs of Dr. Hirsch in 2007, and has recently been the subject of a careful programme of conservation by International Fine Arts Conservation Studios of Bristol, during which the old wax lining was removed, and the two parts of the canvas reunited on a new lining using matching canvas.  A full report on the work done is available on request.

We are grateful to Dr. Andreas Henning of the Gemäldegalerie Dresden for his help in cataloguing this picture.


1. See both, under Literature. O. Ferrari & G. Scavizzi, Luca Giordano, Naples 1992, vol. I, p. 276 (under nos. A161 & A163) and p. 393, list the Andrea d'Avalos Hercules and Iole, together with a Cleopatra, a Tarquin and Lucretia and a Venus and Adonis, and suggest identifications with other pictures for two of them.
2. The other work is a Tarquin and Lucretia.  Ferrari & Scavizzi (op. cit.) identify the D'Avalos picture as the one at Capodimonte, despite the lack of any provenance for it before 1945, and the Dresden picture (A162) as an almost contemporary version. Is this local patriotism?