Joachim Wtewael (1566–1638), who was born and spent almost all of his life in Utrecht, stages this story of incest as a kind of biblical bacchanal in which nudity, lewd looks, and touches dominate. The recent events of the escape from Sodom are almost forgotten and are only hinted at by Lot’s frozen wife, distantly visible in silhouette on the right of the painting.

Our gaze initially slides from the alabaster-like skin of the naked daughter reclining in the foreground to her legs which intertwine with those of her aged father. This motif of the ‘slung-legs’ is a classic symbol of sexual union (Steinberg 1968: 343). But, meanwhile, Lot’s other daughter is already pulling him towards her with her hand on his neck and gazing at him seductively. The laid table not only allowed the artist to present his artistic skills but also to create a series of subtle hints. Next to the phallus-like vegetables, the apples catch the eye—traditionally that forbidden fruit of paradise from which Eve and Adam ate. The silk-like textiles, the fruits, and the fine Venetian drinking glass are all references to the luxury the protagonists indulge in. But the depiction also contains a warning against voluptas oculorum (the pleasure of the eye) alongside voluptas carnis (carnal lust), which distract from the Christian path of virtue.

For example, wine—synonymous with intoxication, lust, and pleasure—stands here as a reference to the incestuous union, but can also be interpreted together with bread as components of the Eucharist. Such christological symbolism in this incestuous scene plays on Lot's ambivalent character. On the one hand, it points out that Lot was a sinner who was redeemed by Christ. On the other hand, it reminds us that Lot was considered a prototype of Christ by St Augustine of Hippo, among others (Augustine, Contra Faustum, 22.41–45; see also Lowenthal 1988: 15).

By exploiting the ambiguities inherent in the theme, Wtewael provokes a series of questions in the viewer: is Lot guilty of drunkenness or incest? Are the daughters driven by lust or the desire to produce offspring?

Meanwhile, the viewers are tempted by the artist playing with their own desires and morals, and must also ask questions of themselves.

References

Augustine. Contra Faustum. 1887. St Augustine: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Vol. 6, trans. by Philip Schaff (New York: The Christian Literature Company)

Lowenthal, Anne W. 1988. ‘Lot and His Daughters as Moral Dilemma’, in The Age of Rembrandt: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Painting, ed. by Roland E. Fleischer and Susan S. Munshower (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press), pp. 12–27

Steinberg, Leo. 1968. ‘Michelangelo’s Florentine Pietà: The Missing Leg’, Art Bulletin, 50.4: 343–53