Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth- Century Netherlandish Workshops (Me Fecit) 250351605X, 9782503516059

Citation preview

Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops

Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops Edited by Molly Faries

H F

‘Me Fecit’ As a sign not only of a burgeoning artistic self-awareness, but also of a certain level of excellence long maintained by the medieval craft tradition, early Renaissance artists began to inscribe their paintings along with the declaration,‘Me fecit’. This series, which takes its inspiration from this phrase, features one or more paintings by artists of the fifteenth- and early sixteenth-centuries that are deemed autograph due to inscriptions, through reliable documentary evidence, or on account of manifest self-portraiture.The aim is to explore such paintings in an interdisciplinary manner, from all points of view : the nature of the documentation, the physical characteristics of the painting and the apparent working procedure, the place of the work within the œuvre of the artist, the iconographic problems the theme presents, and the unique manner in which the artist solved the challenge of a given commission – be it traditional or innovative. Each book in the series will attempt to unite the results of the technical investigation of paintings with art historical concerns in order to provide the most fully integrated study possible of documented works by a number of well-known artists. In turn, it is hoped that in-depth views of artistic production will provide the foundation for the investigation of other works or oeuvres. These publications may be the product of one author or enriched by collaboration among specialists in different fields of expertise. Maryan W. Ainsworth The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Cover illustration: Bernard van Orley, Last Judgment Triptych (interior) Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten.

© 2006, Brepols Publishers n.v.,Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2006/0095/151 ISBN 2-503-51605-X Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

Contents Editor’s Foreword

Molly Faries ‘Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process’

VII

1

Micha Leeflang ‘The Saint Reinhold Altarpiece by Joos van Cleve and his Workshop: New Insights into Albrecht Dürer’s Influence on the Working Process’

15

Ron Spronk and Catharina van Daalen ‘Two Scenes from the Passion at the Harvard Art Museums: a Tale of Two Antwerp Workshops?’

43

Daantje Meuwissen ‘A ‘Painter in Black and White’: the Symbiotic Relationship Between the Paintings and Woodcuts of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen’

55

Anne H. van Buren ‘Collaboration in Manuscripts: France and the Low Countries’

83

Maryan W.Ainsworth ‘Romanism as a Catalyst for Change in Bernard van Orley’s Workshop Practices’

99

Linda Jansen ‘Shop Collaboration in the Painting of Background Landscapes in the Workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst’

119

Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute ‘Copies, Pastiches, and Forgeries after Bosch’

143

Margreet Wolters ‘Creativity and Efficiency:Aspects of Joachim Beuckelaer’s Use of Patterns and Models’

155

Maria Galassi ‘Jan Massys and Artistic Relationships Between Antwerp and Genoa during the Sixteenth Century’

179

V

VI

Liesbeth M. Helmus ‘Journeymen and Servants: Sixteenth-Century Employment Contracts with Painters from the Netherlands’

201

Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters ‘Artists by Numbers: Quantifying Artists’Trades in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp’

211

Bibliography

223

Color Plates

244

Illustration Credits

277

CONTENTS

Editor’s Foreword This volume derives from a session organized for the Historians of Netherlandish Art International Conference entitled ‘Painters’Workshops in the Sixteenth-Century Netherlands’, which was held in Antwerp in March, 2002. Five of the speakers at that session gratiously agreed to take time from their busy schedules to work up their presentations into articles for this publication.1 Nine other scholars, Maria Galassi, Liesbeth M. Helmus, Linda Jansen, Daantje Meuwissen, Ron Spronk, Anne van Buren, Catharina van Daalen, Roger Van Schoute, and Hélène Verougstraete, were kind enough to submit important additional contributions to this volume. The contents have now been expanded to cover artists working from the fifteenth up to and beyond the middle of the sixteenth century, not only in the northern and southern Netherlands but also in France.While the focus is on painters and painting, the articles also touch on the related artistic traditions of manuscript illumination, printmaking, and tapestry production. It will be evident from the table of contents that this publication concentrates on the activities of sixteenth-century masters. It is intended to highlight the achievements of artists like Joos van Cleve, Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Bernard van Orley, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Joachim Beuckelaer, and Jan Massys, who are still not as well-known as they should be, especially when compared with their fifteenth-century counterparts.This volume is also intended to rectify a common misconception about the term workshop: that it implies only a working locale with sizable personnel capable of streamlined, or ‘mass’ production.The idea of mass production must in any case be qualified, and this publication is meant to show a range of possibilities in workshop organization – from the types of complex collaboration that can be detected in some shops, on the one hand, to the ingenious methods of one-person enterprises on the other. Infrared reflectography is the technical method of choice in most of the articles in this volume, but the research should not be misconstrued as ‘underdrawing studies’ alone.What is gained by this type of research is insight into the painting process as a whole, and this is why the words ‘painting process’ are stressed in the title.The elucidation of the overall painting process is indispensable in any study of artistic production; and it therefore forms the basis of this publication. Some articles in this volume present the results of new technical studies that are comprehensive in nature, revealing the inter-relationship between prints and painting practices, modes of collaboration, shifts in procedure, the development and use of shop models, and the impact of international commerce. Other articles present equally valuable information about historical context: new documentary evidence and new methods of historical statistics revealing trends in workshop size, career trajectories, and immigration. I would like to express my thanks to those museums, granting institutions, and colleagues who have made this publication possible. Much of the infrared documentation, research, and brainstorming took place within the context of a grant at University of Groningen from 200004, ‘Antwerp Painting Before Iconoclasm: a Socio-Economic Approach’ (co-directors Molly Faries and Maximiliaan P. J. Martens; post-doc, Natasja Peeters; Ph.D. candidates, Linda Jansen and Micha Leeflang, and technical assistant, Daantje Meuwissen), funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).This grant afforded all of us exceptional research opportunities, many intense work sessions, and much stimulating discussion. Other research projects have also played a role in this publication, such as the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research / Flemish-Dutch Committee for Dutch Language and Culture (NWO/VNC) grant that supported Margreet Wolter’s research on Joachim Beuckelaer. My fellow authors and I are deeply indebted to the museums and collections whose works are discussed in this volume; the technical investigations in particular required much staff time in making arrangements and offering friendly assistance and interest in countless other ways. In return, we hope to have offered some sort of compensation by making the technical documents available and seeing to it that VII

they are properly archived. In that regard, I would like to thank the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) for agreeing to house my own IRR archive as well as that of the Antwerp research project mentioned above. With this publication, Brepols Publishers continues to show its loyalty to the study of Netherlandish painting, and I would like to thank Johan Van der Beke, in particular, for shepherding this volume through the publication process.Thanks also go to Maryan W.Ainsworth for agreeing to have this publication in the ‘Me fecit’ series. Finally, as always, I owe more than I can possibly express, to my partner, Eileen Fry, for her patience and willingness to become involved in discussions dealing with matters ranging from editorial minutiae to grand hypotheses. Molly Faries

NOTES

1.The session, held Friday, March 15, 2002, was chaired by Molly Faries and included the following talks: Micha Leeflang and Peter van den Brink,‘Demystifying the Process: Practices in Early Sixteenth-Century Antwerp Painters’ Workshops’; Maryan W.Ainsworth,‘Bernard van Orley: Evolution and Standardization in the Workshop’; Margreet Wolters, ‘Creativity and Efficiency: the Use of Cartoons and Patterns in Paintings by Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer’; and Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters,‘Artists by Numbers: Quantifying Artists’Trades in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp.’ I would like to thank Peter van den Brink for kindly allowing Micha Leeflang access to his research materials for her article in this volume.

VIII

EDITOR’S FOREWORD

Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process Molly Faries Professor Emerita, University of Groningen and Indiana University, Bloomington

Introduction This publication is about workshop practice. It is intended to highlight the contributions of recent socio-economic and technical research: the recognition that the painter’s workshop is a corporate entity and that the working methods employed by a shop can be made visible for documentation and study.This applies to the one-person workshop that, according to Max Martens and Natasja Peeters, was predominant during the period under discussion. It also applies to the larger enterprises of artists such as Joos van Cleve and Pieter Coecke van Aelst, two Antwerp painter-entrepreneurs who are presented in this volume by, respectively, Micha Leeflang and Linda Jansen. Many issues have emerged for consideration: the size of the workshop based on an estimate of its personnel, the amount and type of collaboration, standardization and/or change in shop routine, the appearance of shop replicas as opposed to later copies, and actual practices related to the creation and repetition of workshop models.The production of art may also be categorized according to the presumed percentages of on spec as opposed to commissioned works, and in relation to other demographic trends, such as immigration and emigration. While the essays in this volume cannot be expected to provide a complete overview of these topics, it is important to note that they are based on extensive research projects that have garnered large quantities of primary source material. One article, a traditional case study by Ron Spronk and Tinke van Daalen, offers links to other articles dealing with Antwerp artists and reports on another form of shop collaboration, that between the two crafts of painting and carpentry. Other essays present a broad synthesis of findings. Max Martens and Natasja Peeters utilize a relational database comprising several thousand records from the Antwerp archives. Micha Leeflang describes a working procedure that cuts across a number of workshops active in early sixteenthcentury Antwerp. Other authors present findings deriving from the study of literally hundreds of paintings. Helénè Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute’s essay stems from years of researching the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and his followers.Anne van Buren’s article on collaboration in manuscripts also represents a lifetime’s expertise. For the remaining essays, up to fifty or more works have been studied by technical means in each of the following artistic groups: Joos van Cleve, Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Bernard van Orley, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer. Such solidly-researched contributions bring out issues vital to the study of artistic workshops from the end of the fifteenth century to ca. 1565. Recognizing Workshop Practices One of the premises underlying this publication is that workshop practices become more discernable during this approximately seventy-five-year period.This statement can apply to either one- or multi-person shops, although discerning collaboration, i.e.‘hands’, is an easier matter in the large-scale commissions or compositional replicas that are usually associated with sizeable, more productive workshops.This is in contrast to the early fifteenth-century situation where the presumed collaboration of Jan and Hubert Van Eyck in the Ghent Altarpiece remains invisMAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

1

ible to the ‘eyes’ of technical examination.The first obvious signs of the diversity of style and method typical of a large and busy shop appear around mid-century with the Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden groups.1 No studies of fifteenth-century masters, however, have been able to identify specific collaborators, as has been done for sixteenth-century painters. The hand of one assistant, called the Master of the Good Samaritan, has been identified in the Jan van Scorel group.2 Technical investigations just completed within the last few years suggest that it may be possible to identify the hand of one of Joos van Cleve’s apprentices as well as that of his son, Cornelis van Cleve.3 Huybrecht Beuckelaer’s small oeuvre has also come to light in the context of the study of many works attributed to his brother, Joachim Beuckelaer.4 Undoubtedly, future research will lead to similar identifications. If the identity of shop assistants can become more recognizable, so, by extension, can that of other forms of collaboration, such as ‘side-byside’ collaboration in the foreground and background of paintings. This topic is the focus of Linda Jansen’s essay and is also discussed by three of the volume’s authors: Daantje Meuwissen, Anne van Buren, and Maria Galassi. Copying routines and serial production are strong markers for our period. Specifically, we now know that copies of early Netherlandish paintings concentrate in the years from ca. 1470 to 1530.5 Dendrochronology has provided us with this statistic, remarkable in itself, but also with wider implications. Producing copies, whether in the form of shop replicas or later imitations, requires extensive rationalization of the painting process.6 Copying implies the use of mechanical methods of compositional transfer, such as pouncing, tracing, and squaring, as well as the use of standardized formats.While it has been assumed that pouncing might have been employed as early as Dirk Bouts’s shop activity, it has not been possible to detect any direct evidence of this technique. Most overt examples of pouncing have been documented after the turn of the sixteenthcentury, particularly in works by Adriaen Isenbrant.7 In this case, evidence of pouncing implies more than Isenbrant’s working knowledge of the method. Pouncing dots can be erased.That Isenbrant chose instead to allow the pouncing to function as the sole layout method implies that the artist was consciously eliminating two other stages in the underdrawing process: first connecting the dots to form contour lines; and then taking the time to erase every single, tiny dot. Overt pouncing thus signals the streamlining of the layout stage and the selection of a particular production routine by Isenbrant’s shop. In her book on original and copy, Jellie Dijkstra suggests that the phenomenon of late fifteenthcentury copies may relate to an increasing tendency to produce for the art market.8 With the recent appearance of more detailed studies on the commercialization of art, it seems hardly coincidental that the years from 1470 to 1530 correspond closely to the period economic historians have now defined as the first expansion of the Antwerp art market (1490 – 1520), or with their assumption that on spec production increases during this time.9 What is needed now is more dendrochronology for works from the mid to late sixteenth century, as it is this method that best distinguishes contemporary copies from later ones. Secondly, it would be important to see to what extent the taste for reproducing ‘old masters’ forms a continuous tradition.As Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute mention in their article for this volume, dendrochronology has shown that copies after Bosch were made both during and after the artist’s lifetime. Copying routines also underlie the decisions taken by certain workshops to expand into the production of compositional replicas.Works serializing devotional subjects such as the Virgin and Child, the Holy Family, the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, etc., are well known in the circles of Gerard David,Adriaen Isenbrant, Joos van Cleve, Jan van Scorel and many other artists.The present publication will not place undue emphasis on this particular phenomenon since previous and upcoming studies are readily available. Publications on this subject concern Gerard David’s replicas of the Milksoup Madonna,10 Jan van Scorel’s several versions of the Madonna and Child,11 and a variety of works by other masters discussed in the forthcoming papers of the 2003 colloquium on underdrawings and painting technology which was devoted to copies, répliques, and pastiches.12 In the present publication, Daantje Meuwissen mentions that a kind of serial pro2

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

duction – that is, variants of Crucifixion scenes and compositions with the Virgin and Child rather than exact replicas – appeared in works associated with Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen’s shop in the second decade of the sixteenth century. Maryan Ainsworth is able to discern Bernard van Orley’s first use of a cartoon, not only in an original composition but also in copies. Margreet Wolters’s essay shows that serial production remained a part of shop routine up to the period of Joachim Beuckelaer’s work, although by this time the subject specialty has changed and the process has taken on a form characteristic of that artist. A number of scholars have drawn our attention to the importance of standardization, in materials and motifs as well as in the painting process itself. Such a seemingly simple matter as size can have a far-reaching effect. Some carved retables of the early sixteenth century have housings (or caisses) that can be measured according to units of Antwerp feet (one Antwerp foot = 28.7 cm) and in width to height ratios that correspond to the golden mean.13 Interestingly, some of the panel paintings that Margreet Wolters discusses in her article exhibit this same phenomenon. Jørgen Wadum has mentioned that the standardization of panel sizes may vary from city to city, probably due to differences in the length of the local measurement for feet used by the woodworkers making panels. Nonetheless, he implies an increase in standard formats during the sixteenth century and their eventual transfer to canvas supports in the seventeenth century.14 Little research into quantifying size has been done for the sixteenth century in the Netherlands. For Germany, Gunnar Heydenreich has been able to discern the following panel formats in Lucas Cranach the Elder’s works from 1520 to 1535: 18.5-22.5 x 14-16 cm, 33.5-39 x 23.530 cm, 51-59 x 34-40 cm, 82-90 x 55-63 cm, 114-121 x 77-84 cm, and 149-158 x 112-119 cm.15 Occasionally, however, scholars have isolated groupings in Netherlandish works that may eventually prove to be standard formats. Measurements in the ranges of 30 x 40, 55 x 70, and 110 x 160/165 cm have been mentioned. 28-33 x 40-46 cm is the approximate size Dijkstra postulated for the designs or cartoons used for some Madonna and Child compositions in the following of Rogier van der Weyden.16 55 x 70 and 110 x 160/165 cm are close to 2 x 21/2 and 4 x 6 Antwerp feet.17 Standardization in the size of the support would also facilitate the use of compositional modules, as well as the systematic employment of a method like squaring to resize motifs as needed. Lars Hendrikman has completed a study of this type by comparing the relative sizes of similar motifs in a series of works in the Bernard van Orley group.18 It would be useful to undertake statistical surveys of large numbers of paintings to see if the measurements mentioned above would be borne out or if other standard formats would emerge. Consideration of this issue for individual masters could also reward study. The primary method of investigation used by the scholars contributing to this volume is infrared reflectography (IRR). It is this technique in particular that can ‘see’ into the painting process from the initial layout of the composition to the finalized image. In this sense, IRR is especially suited to study of workshop practice. IRR is capable of revealing the underdrawing stage of paintings, where the layout may vary according to its function in the shop and where the links to shop models have often been observed. This stage, moreover, gives access to the modes of collaboration involved in the working process.Although collaboration can take many forms, two distinct types have been mentioned in earlier literature: vertical (defined originally as in juxtaposed areas of the composition) or horizontal (in the build-up of layers of the painting process).19 Since these terms have not been used at all consistently since their introduction into the literature, it is proposed here to avoid further confusion by simply using the words, ‘superimposed’ and ‘juxtaposed’. Superimposed collaboration would refer to collaboration in the build-up of layers in the painting process, while juxtaposed collaboration would refer to artists working side by side in the same layer. IRR has also detected the curious practice of writing titles in underdrawings, a phenomenon first reported in 1989 and found in other early sixteenth-century Antwerp works since then.20 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

3

In this volume, Micha Leeflang, Ron Spronk and Tinke van Daalen add to the known examples of this practice. X-radiographs have been consulted by the authors when possible, and several articles refer to close-up study of the paint application.The essay by Ron Spronk and Tinke van Daalen is the only essay in this volume for which samples were specifically taken, and it thus includes valuable findings from cross-section and pigment analysis. Dendrochronological datings have been referenced as much as possible by all of the authors, and such datings were critical to Maria Galassi’s argument refuting the hypothesis that Jan Massys traveled to Genoa and worked there for a period of time. Examples of Making and Marketing The following discussion highlights some of the themes in workshop practice that are discussed in the essays. The interrelationship of prints and paintings in the sixteenth century is a subject deserving intensive study, and several aspects of this intriguing topic are presented in this volume.Three essays mention prints as models: those by Micha Leeflang,Anne van Buren, and Margreet Wolters, whose essay describes Joachim Beuckelaer’s use of Serlio’s woodcuts for the backgrounds of his paintings. Daantje Meuwissen discusses the inter-relationship of Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen’s prints and underdrawings, explaining how an artist’s overall drawing activity functions as the ‘connective tissue’ underlying the various activities of a workshop. It is infrared reflectography and the revelation of the underdrawing, of course, that make this kind of observation possible. The first example of an underdrawing with the so-called ‘woodcut look’ was discovered in 1986.21 No one could have predicted then just how widespread this technique would prove to be.The first instance was found in a painting attributed to the Antwerp Master of 1518, and this type of underdrawing has since been found in many other works in this artistic group. Micha Leeflang describes the obvious influence of Albrecht Dürer’s woodcuts on the underdrawings in Joos van Cleve’s Reinhold Altarpiece of ca. 1516, and also mentions the similar example of Adriaen van Overbeke in an altarpiece documented to 1513-1514. Ron Spronk and Tinke van Daalen offer related examples of this phenomenon, and still more can be added. Several panels with groupings of apostles, divided between museums in Cologne and Ann Arbor, Michigan, have been attributed variously to the circle of Jan Joest of Kalkar and the Master of Alkmaar.22 As infrared reflectography reveals, they display a comparable layout (fig. 1).23 The underdrawing shows many typical features: it is fully worked up in a spectacular calligraphy of undulating contours combined with volumetric hatching. In attempting to clarify the attribution of these panels, scholars might want to consider this master as one of many producing wings or predellas for carved retables in early sixteenth-century Antwerp. Using woodcuts as models for underdrawings is clearly a production method that was shared by many workshops in Antwerp at this time. This practice is more involved than it seems at first glance.As Lynn Jacobs has observed, there is no indication of prints as an influence on the sculpted scenes in early sixteenth-century carved altarpieces.24 The woodcut look in underdrawings seems, therefore, to be a phenomenon related specifically to painters and their shops.As is well known, Dürer’s influence was widespread in the Netherlands at this time.Yet some of the first artists to show such an influence, Jan Provoost and Jan Gossaert, accept compositional motifs from Dürer’s prints but do not allow the graphic woodcut style to permeate the painting process to influence the underdrawing.25 For other masters, it was not so much the form of the motif but the graphic rendering of form in Dürer’s prints that appealed, and the reasons for using woodcuts as models must be sought in the way underdrawings function in the painting process.There may have been some similarity in the size and type of line achieved by brushing the design on a woodblock and on the ground of a panel that made woodcuts a logical choice as models. Prints, especially woodcuts, were widely available at 4

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

Fig. 1.Attributed to Jan Joest, The Apostles John the Evangelist,Thomas, and James the Less, or Jude.Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Museum of Art, 1973/2.77. Infrared reflectogram digital composite showing elaborate brush underdrawing. (IRR and digital composite: Molly Faries).

the time.As Micha Leeflang explains in her essay, they could have easily provided a standard model that would facilitate the complexities of collaboration involved in the production of early sixteenth-century retables. In these examples, however, the use of prints as models did not involve their simple transfer to the ground by means of pouncing or tracing, as one might expect. Instead, the underdrawings of new compositions were worked up so that they recreated the style and shading system of their models. The woodcut look in underdrawings can be analyzed even further. Although much has been said about streamlining and cost cutting in the expansion of production presumed for this period, this type of layout would certainly not fit that model.The elaborate Düreresque underdrawings must have been both time-consuming and labor intensive, regardless of whether the master or MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

5

an assistant was responsible for the work. Since the woodcut look is often more a mode of underdrawing, rather than a personal artistic idiosyncracy, attribution of the underdrawing to one hand or another may not always be possible.This type of layout must have served, in fact, to facilitate the faultless and efficient application of paint, which as Micha Leeflang argues, was the responsibility of assistants in Joos’s shop. The effort expended on the underdrawing saved time and costs elsewhere.Those costs would obviously have included the pigments and other materials used for paint, which were regulated by the guild. Described in this way, this mode of production can be associated with Michael Montias’s concept of ‘process’ innovation, as opposed to ‘product’ innovation. In other words, the woodcut look was an innovative procedure that cut costs without changing the basic appearance of the product, not the introduction of an entirely new commodity.26 The inescapable conclusion seems to be that, in this period, labor cost less than materials; but one wonders if this observation would hold up under careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, the information needed for further argument is either lacking or is just beginning to surface. Pigments have been identified in many more works from the sixteenth-century northern Netherlands than for works from the southern provinces,27 with the possible exception of publications dealing with the restoration of winged retables. Almost nothing is known about the cost of pigments. The pharmacy price lists that existed in sixteenth-century Germany and provide us with relative values for colorants28 apparently have no counterparts in Antwerp.A recent lecture by Filip Vermeylen represents a first foray into this field.29 Antwerp must have been the major emporium of painting materials in the north.The port was known as a center for the importation of both raw and processed materials; and some pigments, such as vermilion, were manufactured in the city, as an early sixteenth-century treatise thought to have been written in Antwerp suggests.30 As reported by Guicciardini, verdigris was imported into Antwerp from Montpellier, France.31 It is well known that Albrecht Dürer was able to obtain expensive natural ultramarine blue in Antwerp, and the artist also reported that he paid for a red pigment new to him that was found in the bricks of Antwerp.32 Obviously, historical research into painting materials must be expanded before we can fully characterize the wealth of materials available to the artists of this period. This observation also applies to artisans’ wages. In this sense, Liesbeth Helmus’s contribution to this volume is especially relevant since she assembles a sizable number of archival records about annual and daily wages and develops ways of making comparisons. Her article also adds to what little we know about the status of the journeyman assistant (or gezel), another notoriously opaque area in our understanding of workshop personnel.33 She publishes the first examples we have of contracts with assistants, who were clearly ‘working for money’. Such wage earners participated in Joos van Cleve’s Reinhold Altarpiece, as technical examination proves their presence and defines their role in the completion of the work. This commission thus provides the opportunity to refer to both technical and documentary evidence, and to speculate about the relative value of labor and materials in the painting process. While the preceding discussion has described painting practice that was widely shared by a number of painters’ shops, Maryan Ainsworth’s essay demonstrates that it is also possible for certain procedural changes to typify the shop routine of one master. In her discussion of Bernard van Orley, Ainsworth shows that direct contact with Italian shop practices, in this case via Raphael’s assistant,Tomasso Vincidor, had a substantial impact on many aspects of Van Orley’s drawing and painting practices. Since procedural change can occur for any number of reasons, it is an important indicator of the functioning of a given workshop in its specific historical setting. It can signal the period when a shop settles into a characteristic, standardized routine; a response to changes in shop personnel; or the moment when a master decides to expand into serial production. An important commission, or opportunity for export, can determine the characteristics of a particular working phase in the overall activity of a shop. It has already been shown that at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century, several painters working in Bruges began 6

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

to adapt different aspects of their works to the possibilities provided by the Antwerp market. Obviously, this can also apply to more distant locales.The working procedures Gerard David followed in creating the Cervara Altarpiece for Genoa and the Saint Anne Altarpiece for Majorca differed considerably, as Maryan Ainsworth has shown in her monograph on the artist.34 It also appears that Joos van Cleve adapted his working methods for the altarpieces his shop exported to his widely-dispersed international clientele in the Baltic region, along the Rhine, and in Italy.35 The noticeable differences in working procedure employed by Jan van Scorel in altarpieces produced around 1540 can also be explained on this basis: one commission was for Breda, not far from Utrecht where Scorel’s shop was established, but the second was for export to an abbey in northern France.36 Seen in this light, documented change in a shop’s working procedure is a critical interpretive clue. Certain themes have been mentioned in the literature as having commercial potential.They include the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, the Holy Family, the Adoration of the Magi, and the worldview landscapes that were popularized in the early sixteenth century through the mechanisms of the market. Another type of thematic production that could be viewed in this way is what has been dubbed the ‘Bosch industry’ of the sixteenth century. In this volume, Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute elucidate the way Bosch pasticheurs went about their work. The authors also bring up the important issue of forgeries, and argue convincingly that several of the works they discuss should be categorized in this way. In this regard it is important to recall that Hieronymus Bosch was an artist who had name recognition, an exception for the time. As Micha Leeflang points out in her essay, inventories at the beginning of the sixteenth century do not usually make reference to artists’ names. Liesbeth Helmus also mentions in her article that the contracts she has studied from 1430 to 1576 very rarely stipulate that the contracted work be solely by the master. On the other hand, it was common by the mid-sixteenth century to mention authorship in documents dealing with commercial transactions of works of art.37 It is during our period, then, that we see the beginnings of name recognition as another facet in the commercialization of art. Given the trends just discussed, it is interesting to learn that more reuse of supports has been found in studies of panels in the Bosch following than in any other artistic group.There are some notable, but random instances of new subjects painted over other compositions by artists such as Dirk Bouts, the Master of the Saint Ursula Legend, and Adriaen Isenbrant.38 To date, as many as four examples of the same phenomenon have been found in the Bosch group, with copies of known Bosch compositions covering over other paintings or underdrawings.Two of these works have portraits in the underlying compositions, and two were painted over with entirely different, more modern subjects: one an Italianate Burning of Troy, and the other, a fashionable Parable of the Prodigal Son.39 The dates of the last two works, based on subject matter, style, and dendrochronology, fall in the early 1530s and 1540s,40 a period well after Bosch’s lifetime. The copy after Bosch’s Temptation of Saint Anthony in the Indianapolis Museum of Art was also executed after Bosch’s death. Dendrochronology has established that it could have been painted anytime after 1531.41 Infrared reflectography and X-radiography have revealed that this ‘Bosch’ was painted over a portrait oriented in the opposite direction (fig. 2).The male figure holds a sheet of paper with an inscription which is legible in IRR; the text, which is in German, identifies the sitter as a certain Hieronymus Sulzer ‘zu’ (at) Antwerp (fig. 3). Assuming this is not a frequently occurring name, the individual portrayed can be identified as a merchant recorded in the city of Augsburg who was born in 1518, died in 1556, and from 1549 until the year of his death, was on the city council.42 Although the inscription certainly implies Sulzer was in Antwerp at one point, there are no Augsburg records confirming this. A member of Sulzer’s wife’s family, however, did have extensive documented commercial ties to the city.43 Although it is safe to assume that the origins of the work can be found in Antwerp’s international trading community, we may never know why this portrait was abandoned. Recycling the image involved changMAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

7

Fig. 2. Copy after Hieronymus Bosch, Temptation of Saint Anthony. Indianapolis, Indianapolis Museum of Art, Clowes Collection, C 10008. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the painting (upside down) showing traces of an underlying portrait. (IRR and digital composite: Molly Faries).

ing what was presumably a portrait made on commission into a work most likely produced on spec.The transformation into a ready-made ‘Bosch’ thus confirms the continuing marketability of Boschian imagery. Further technical study of the hundreds of paintings representing the ‘Bosch industry’ would undoubtedly turn up more examples of this type of commercial adaptation. 8

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

Any publication on workshop practice must deal with the stock of patterns and models that shops collected, created, and consulted in their business ventures.This topic is particularly relevant for the present publication, because technical investigations have shown that it is possible to prove that such models existed and to reconstruct them. This extremely important finding goes back to the IRR study of the Rogier van der Weyden group published in 1992 by J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, J. Dijkstra, and R.Van Schoute,44 and it has been substantiated in studies of other artists. Motifs in underdrawings that were subsequently changed in the final painting were found to resurface in works by followers of Rogier who were considered to have been his shop assistants. Models, very likely drawings on paper or some other type of pattern, must therefore have existed and been available to those Fig. 3. Detail of fig. 2 with inscription turned upright. in the select, inner circle of the workshop.The (IRR and digital composite: Molly Faries). lawsuit between Gerard David and Ambrosius Benson is frequently quoted in this regard to affirm the protected status of workshop patterns, called patronen in these legal records. In this volume,Anne van Buren cites a comparable document from the manuscript tradition.An accusation was made against the manuscript illuminator, Jacquemart des Hesdin, and two of his associates for breaking into a chest and stealing the colors and patterns of another colleague. While it is extremely useful to have another source testifying to the privileged nature of shop models, one cannot completely exclude the possibility that patterns might also have circulated more freely in some instances.The documents related to the Gerard David lawsuit in fact mention that several of the contested patterns had been rented from an artist other than either David or Benson. This point has been discussed by Maryan Ainsworth, who has proposed recently that patterns might have been shared, but only by artists collaborating on joint projects.45 Certainly, the serial production associated with the period under discussion would have proliferated images based on a common model that could then be appropriated by other shops.The example of the Bosch pasticheurs in this volume would seem to represent such a phenomenon. Another relevant example, published here for the first time, suggests both the dependence on fixed motifs, or models, as well as the fairly widespread knowledge of those motifs (figs. 4 and 5).The Rest on the Flight into Egypt by Adriaen Isenbrant (Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten) is known to have been based on a pounced cartoon for the figures.46 Other sections of the painting, such as the fields and farmstead in the background, may have been traced from separate patterns. Since other versions occur in the Isenbrant group repeating the main figures of this composition, cartoons must have existed and been reused. All the compositional elements making up this image, the twig fence in the foreground, the figures seated in the center on a little hill, the fields in the distance, and the dense forest of trees on the left surrounding a house, are repeated in another painting that has been attributed to the School of Antwerp,47 although some motifs are in reverse.The motifs and their combination are too close to be coincidental. In the series of images popularizing this theme, the same models were somehow known to two masters in entirely different artistic circles, painting at slightly different points in time and – one presumes – in different locales. MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

9

Fig. 4. School of Antwerp, Rest on the Flight into Egypt. Whereabouts unknown.

Fig. 5. Adriaen Isenbrant, Rest on the Flight into Egypt. Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 1914-CE.

In this volume, two articles focus on the use of shop models. First, Linda Jansen explains how the use of model drawings can facilitate collaboration, in this case ‘juxtaposed’ collaboration in the painting of background landscapes.This information, combined with the view into the painting process provided by infrared reflectography (IRR), allows Linda Jansen to suggest that the shop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst often regarded the execution of the background as a separate stage.This portion of a painting could be delegated to a workshop assistant, who, as the author argues, need not be regarded as a landscape specialist.This is an important distinction. In this case, technical examination can discern a division in labor, but not an identifiable, recurring ‘hand’. Jansen then goes on to refute the long-standing notion in the literature that Jan van Amstel could have been such a landscape specialist in Coecke’s shop. The second article on this topic deals with aspects of Joachim Beuckelaer’s use of models. Margreet Wolters judiciously selects works that comprise one of this artist’s serial productions – versions of a Market Scene with Ecce Homo – thereby setting up a controlled case for the observation of repeated motifs. Beuckelaer’s use of models, as described by the author, seems remarkably supple, with ongoing alterations, reversals, and repositioning that are somewhat reminiscent of the methods of the Bosch pasticheurs.What is especially noteworthy about Margreet Wolter’s discussion is that it goes well beyond the basic discovery of evidence for models that no longer survive. She not only identifies the models the artist used, but also makes observations about their possible size, the degree to which they were worked up in their details, and whether they might have had indications for color.Wolters also shows the origin of one motif during the painting process and its further elaboration in later works. Both Wolters and Jansen clearly contribute significant insights into this aspect of workshop practice. 10

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

Maria Galassi’s essay deals with Jan Massys, a contemporary of Beuckelaer who, because he was exiled for heresy, worked outside the city of Antwerp between 1544 and 1555. Galassi casts some light on this obscure period by arguing against the notion that one of the places Massys worked during this time was Genoa.To this end, the author ingeniously weaves together historical information and technical data. For the panels under discussion, both provenance and the identity and dating of the wood are critical. By studying the paintings from a fresh perspective, Galassi is able to bring into sharp relief the extent of the commercial ties between Antwerp and Genoa – ties that ostensibly were strong enough to transmit the detailed information Massys needed to paint for his Genoese patrons, without necessitating his actually making the trip to Genoa. Galassi’s essay presents the first technical documentation we have of Jan Massys’s painting technique. As the author demonstrates, information from this type of study can help in refining attributions previously made to this artist.What also becomes apparent is the general similarity of Massys’s technique to Beuckelaer’s. Both painters still rely on a white, reflective ground and utilize the transparency of sections of paint. The underdrawing consists for the most part of loose placement lines, which are only provisional in locating forms.As a result, shapes often overlap each other, a feature not commonly seen in earlier underdrawings.There is little indication of shade, with the exception of some loose diagonals or zigzags.The designing is clearly not finished in the underdrawing stage, but continues into the next phase of the painting process with broad lines laid in with brush and paint.All this suggests a rapid manner of working on the part of both artists, and one that ultimately tends to merge the drawing and painting stage. As yet, there is little technical study of other artists of this generation, such as Frans Floris, so that comparisons with earlier or contemporary masters must remain somewhat tentative.The small number of masters discussed in this volume cannot provide a comprehensive survey, even though good numbers of paintings have been studied. Nonetheless, the ‘woodcut’ convention at the beginning of the century, which, as we have seen, was widely shared, is totally different in method from the streamlined painting process of Beuckelaer and Massys. The studies of Beuckelaer and Massys bring out changes in working procedure that are generational. Broad trends of this type may, in fact, link up more easily with the socio-economic concerns discussed by Max Martens and Natasja Peeters. Beuckelaer and Jan Massys most likely ran one-person shops with only occasional collaboration, in a period when one-person workshops were on the increase and when there had been an explosion in the enrollment of new masters. Seen in this light, the streamlined painting process of Beuckelaer and Massys seems appropriate to the historical situation. Most of the earlier masters discussed in this volume directed larger shops with more personnel; the painting processes detected there can be described as more regimented. Otherwise, as Martens and Peeters explain, it is difficult to obtain a small enough cross section in time to relate general statistics to the careers of individual artists.Tendencies can only be determined in running averages and over periods from two to three decades. In addition, when compared with statistics for all masters, some individuals clearly stand out as exceptions. Both Joos van Cleve and Pieter Coecke van Aelst ran shops that, over time, accepted more than three apprentices.As calculated by Martens and Peeters, shops with more than this number of apprentices were rare.Therefore, the personnel situation in their shops cannot be expected to correlate with trends in either the surplus or the decline in apprentices that have been charted by Martens and Peeters. Still, some material is emerging that may be offered for further study. Micha Leeflang has cited an intriguing statistic for Joos van Cleve: that around thirty percent of his compositions are based on some sort of mechanical transfer.48 This is a percentage with a certain margin of error, for it is based in part on stylistic decisions determining whether or not compositional replicas actually belong to Joos’s shop production. It is also based on overt methods of transfer, and since some may not always be detectable, the figure could be higher. Since Joos van Cleve ran an exceptionally large workshop, this figure might serve to gauge the level of on spec production obtained MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

11

by a large shop working during the first phase of expansion in the Antwerp market. It could then serve as a basis for comparison. In the case of Joos van Cleve, the thirty percent figure is almost entirely due to serial production of devotional subjects. If, as is speculated, this practice has its origins in the fifteenth century in Dirk Bouts’s workshop, and is thought to have been relatively limited in Bruges,49 a series of comparisons could demonstrate the degree to which Joos van Cleve’s productivity might reflect the more favorable opportunities of the Antwerp market. Attempting to quantify the amount of workshop collaboration could lead to other hypotheses. As is well known, painters’ guilds only required the registration of apprentices, not assistants, so that the number of assistants employed by a master remains unknown.50 Determining the size of this work force remains a challenge, but it does become a historical reality when socio-economic estimates can be combined with the results of technical investigation.51 Information about the levels of collaboration from a number of shops might lend itself to further statistical analysis and help elucidate broader socio-economic trends in artistic production. However useful it will be to continue working with broader trends, one should not lose sight of the importance of individual examples.The essays in this volume have presented a rich array of workshop practices.The amount of attention given by shops to the underdrawing stage can vary dramatically as well as the extent to which underdrawing remains a discrete stage in the painting process.The handling of models can also change from shop to shop. Some workshops use models in a strict fashion; some attempt to control production by using cartoons for exact replication; others handle their models freely.As also observed, procedural change is a phenomenon that is especially indicative of workshop strategies in a particular historical context. From the examples presented in this volume, it is clear that the workshops of this period had many options at their disposal and that these options were made manifest in the painting process. Conclusions Many of the essays in this volume venture into previously uncharted territory. Although the workshop has been considered in the study of a number of fifteenth-century painters, the practices of sixteenth-century masters – particularly masters from the important commercial centers of the southern Netherlands – have not been the focus of such attention until very recently. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that technical investigation, which is central to the type of research presented in this volume, requires substantial financial support, long-distance travel, and institutional cooperation.When circumstances permit, as has been the case with a number of the essays presented in this volume, the results deserve to be made public to a wider scholarly audience. Furthermore, these research endeavors have coincided with socio-economic interests that are now becoming stronger factors in art historical interpretation.This combination is a felicitous one, leading to new ways of analyzing workshop practice and artistic production. As outlined in the preceding discussion, a number of themes have been emphasized in the current publication: more overt working procedures; varied schemes of collaboration; forms of standardization; changes in procedure; copying routines and serial production; the handling of shop models; widespread versus specific practices; broad changes in technique over time; and the marketability of imagery.These have proven to be useful approaches to the study of workshop practice during this period and can help determine viable avenues for further research.

12

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

NOTES

1. van Asperen de Boer et al. 1992. 2. See Faries 2003, 31-32, with references to previous literature. 3. Leeflang forthcoming (Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Groningen). 4.Wolters 1997. 5. Dijkstra 1990, 43-44, 66. 6. For comments on these processes, see Faries 2003, 26-29. 7. For the publication of an additional example of pouncing in a work by Isenbrant, along with citations of relevant literature on this artist, see Faries 2001, 97-98. 8. Dijkstra 1990, 7. 9. See for instance,Vermeylen 2001, 47-48, and 2003, 7, 15, 29-30. 10.Ainsworth 1998, 295-308. 11. Faries and Helmus 2000. 12.The conference, organized by Helénè Verougstraete and Rogier Van Schoute, was held in Bruges, September 11-13, 2003; the papers of the conference are forthcoming in 2006. 13. Serck-Dewaide 1993, 114, citing Horace Doursther (Dictionnaire des poids et mesures, Amsterdam, 1865) for the length of Antwerp feet.

24. Jacobs 1998, 224; this stands in apparent contrast to German practice. 25.The Adam and Eve scene on the exterior of Gossaert’s famous Malvagna triptych, taken from Dürer’s woodcut of the same subject from the Small Passion, has in fact no detectable underdrawing; see the forthcoming 2006 article on this work by Ainsworth and Faries in the colloquium papers mentioned in note 12. 26. For an explanation of these concepts, see Vermeylen 2003, 5. In this case, process and product innovation may in fact be blended, for, as Micha Leeflang mentions in her essay, this type of underdrawing was so fully worked up that it also appropriated something of Dürer’s style. In attempting to coopt the Düreresque-look for their images, these artists were also producing a new commodity. 27. See Filedt Kok et al. 1986. 28. Krekel and Burmester 2001. 29. Lecture by Filip Vermeylen, ‘The Colour of Money: Dealing in Pigments in Sixteenth-century Antwerp,’ February 12, 2005, at the symposium organized by the Courtauld Institute of Art and the National Gallery, London, on European Trade in Painters’ Materials to 1700 (publication forthcoming by Archetype Press).Vermeylen 2003, 17, also mentions the import of exotic materials such as cochineal (for a red color) from Central America into Antwerp. 30.Vandamme 1996.

14.Wadum 1995a, 160.

31. Eikema Hommes 2002, 83.

15. Heydenreich 1998, 106-07.

32.Vandamme 1996, 105.

16. See Faries 2003, 27, citing Dijkstra 1990, 116-30. 17.These formats will be discussed further in the Ph.D. dissertation by Margreet Wolters on Joachim Beuckelaer for the University of Groningen. 18. Lars Hendrikman, ‘Variations on a Theme: Meeting the Demand for Adapted Compositions in Bernard van Orley’s Workshop in Brussels,’ forthcoming in Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie/Musées Royaux des Beauxarts de Belgique (papers of the Symposium Brueghel Enterprises, Brussels, June 20-21, 2002). 19. Faries 2003, 30, for the derivation of these terms from studies of Rogier van der Weyden. 20. For an overall listing of examples, see the essay by Ron Spronk and Tinke van Daalen in this publication.

33. The papers of a conference held at the University of Groningen on this subject are now being edited by N. Peeters for the forthcoming publication, Invisible hands? Role and Status of journeymen in artists’ and craftsmens’ workshops in the Low Countries ca. 1450-1650, Leuven, Uitgeverij Peeters. 34.Ainsworth 1998, chapter 4. 35. Leeflang forthcoming (Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Groningen). 36. Faries 1976. 37. See Vermeylen 2003, 158, 161. 38. For a listing of examples of the re-use of panels, see Faries and van Asperen de Boer 1997, 9-10; for Isenbrant, see Urbach 2001.

22. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, inv. nos. WRM 432, 433, 434 (see Hiller et al. 1969, 73-74), and Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Museum of Art, inv. no. 1973/2.77.

39.The first painting, a Temptation of St.Anthony in ‘s-Hertogenbosch with the Burning of Troy underneath, is discussed in van den Brink 2003; the second painting, an Adoration of the Magi in Aachen with the Parable of the Prodigal Son underneath, is discussed in Faries and van Asperen de Boer 1997.

23. The panel in Ann Arbor was studied with IRR by Molly Faries, Nov. 12, 1984, with Indiana University’s Grundig equipment: a Grundig 70 H television camera outfitted with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon, a TV Macromar 1:2.8/36 mm lens, and a Kodak 87A filter. Reflectograms were documented from the screen of the Grundig BG 12 monitor with black and white film, IRR MF 349/18351/21.

40.The panel with the Temptation of St. Anthony can have been painted anytime after 1530; see van den Brink 2003, 94 note 43 (citing the report by Pascale Fraiture dated July 8, 2002).The dendrochronlogical dating of the Adoration of the Magi in Aachen can be estimated from around 1540 with the addition of an average number of 15 sapwood rings and a minimum of 2 years seasoning (report by P. Klein, dated June 13, 1995).

21.Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 31-35.

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

13

41. See Faries 1997, 16, citing Peter Klein’s report dated July 20, 1994. The fact that the panel is on Baltic oak helps to confirm that the portrait was done in the Netherlands, rather than Augsburg, where one would presume another wood might have been used, such as fir or beech. 42. For Hieronymus Sulzer, see Reinhard 1996, 830-31. Sulzer was a Mehrer, a class between the patricians and the professions. I would like to thank Natasja Peeters for drawing my attention to Reinhard’s publication. There is another portrait of Sulzer by Christoph Amberger in Gotha, Schlossmuseum Friedenstein, inv. no. SG 664, dated 1542. Sulzer is presumably older and depicted with a beard. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make close comparisons of the features of the sitter in Gotha with the underlying portrait in Indianapolis, since too much of the face still remains obscured in both IRR and the X-radiograph. 43. Lukas II Rem, the uncle of Maria Rem, Sulzer’s wife, had contacts with Antwerp from 1511-1518; Reinhard 1996, 686. 44. van Asperen de Boer et al. 1992, esp. cat. nos.W4 and W8; also cited by Faries 2003, 22.

14

45.Ainsworth 2003. 46. Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. no. 1914CE, 38.4 x 29.7 cm. For the publication of the results of the IRR study of this painting, see note 7. 47. School of Antwerp, 48.6 x 34 cm, lot 37 in Arts of the Renaissance, sale 7600, Sotheby’s, New York, Jan. 25, 2001. 48. See Micha Leeflang,‘Serial Production in Joos van Cleve’s workshop,’ forthcoming in the publication mentioned in note 18; also cited by Vermeylen 2003, 125-26. 49.This discussion deals only with devotional imagery, leaving aside the other, obvious replication of subjects in the works of Antwerp Mannerists; for the latter, see Vermeylen 2003, 29, 163. 50. For a summary of this situation, ibid., 124-25. 51. Some estimates will be provided by N. Peeters and M.P.J. Martens in their forthcoming article,‘ ‘Large in number’: workshop assistants in artists’ workshop in the Southern Netherlands, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries’, in the publication mentioned in note 33.

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

The Saint Reinhold Altarpiece by Joos van Cleve and his Workshop: New Insights into the Influence of Albrecht Dürer on the Working Process* Micha Leeflang University of Groningen Introduction In his 1890 article on the Reinhold Altarpiece, L. Kaemmerer wrote that:‘a detailed description does not exist; nor are reproductions of the altarpiece possible to obtain, and the fine description in the fragmentarily preserved book on the Sankt Marienkirche in Gda nsk ´ by Th. Hirsch is not available’.1 It has taken more than one hundred years for this situation to change, although the book by Theodor Hirsch is still difficult to obtain.2 John Hand included one of the first detailed descriptions of the Reinhold Altarpiece in his 1978 dissertation on Joos van Cleve, and Ryszard Szmydki followed in 1986 with descriptions of both the painted wings and the sculpted interior of the altarpiece in the chapter in his book on Antwerp retables in Poland.3 In 2001, the Reinhold Altarpiece (Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe) was examined with infrared reflectography (IRR) as part of the NWO-sponsored research project, ‘Antwerp Painting before Iconoclasm: a Socio-Economic Approach’, at the University of Groningen.4 In the following year, chronicles and other relevant documents in the State Archives of Gdansk ´ were also studied.5 Finally, the color reproductions published here give the reader for the first time overviews of the painted wings in color (plates 1 and 2).6 The Reinhold Altarpiece is one of the key works in the oeuvre of Joos van Cleve and is a prime example of a work by the artist and his workshop influenced by the Antwerp Mannerists.The artist signed the altarpiece with his monogram ‘IvaB’ for ‘Joos vander Beke’, which is also found in two other works: the triptych with the Death of the Virgin in Cologne (Wallraf-Richartz Museum)7 and the altarpiece with the Adoration of the Magi in Detroit (Detroit Institute of Arts).8 In the late nineteenth century, this ‘IvaB’ monogram led to the identification of the unknown Master of the Death of the Virgin as Joos van Cleve.9 In addition to the monogram, the artist added his self-portrait as Saint Reinhold in the exterior right wing of the altarpiece (figs. 1 and 2).10 A comparison between Saint Reinhold’s face with the self-portrait by Joos van Cleve in Madrid (Thyssen Bornemisza Collection), which he probably made in honor of his marriage with Anna Vijdts in 1519, is convincing proof that they are the same person.11 Despite these ‘signatures’, research has shown that the altarpiece could not have been executed without the collaboration of workshop assistants. Infrared reflectography (IRR) provides us with new insights into the working procedure of Joos van Cleve and his shop and shows that Dürer influenced the artist to an extent that was not previously surmised in the literature.12 Joos van Cleve, Dürer, and the Altarpiece for the Saint Reinhold Brotherhood in Gda nsk ´ Joos van Cleve, who was probably born around 1485, obtained his first experience in painting wings for a compound work in the Kalkar Altarpiece, which was installed in the Sankt NicoTHE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

15

Fig. 1. Detail of the self-portrait of Joos van Cleve (right exterior wing), Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

laikirche in Kalkar in 1508. (Besides the altarpiece for the Sankt Nicolaikirche and the Reinhold Altarpiece, there are no other examples of wing panels for carved retables that can be connected to Joos van Cleve.) A certain Master Matheus had begun the wings for Kalkar some time before and had presumably died before completing them. In the spring of 1506 Jan Joest was contracted to finish the work.13 Van Cleve assisted Jan Joest in the execution of the painted wings, though it is not certain whether Joest was his first master or Van Cleve was a pupil in another master’s studio before coming to work as Joest’s assistant. Scholars generally assume that Van Cleve was an apprentice of Jan Joest, but he could just as easily have been a journeyman hired by Joest specifically for the execution of the Kalkar Altarpiece.14 Even though he was never mentioned by name in the Kalkar documents,Van Cleve’s portrait is painted on the left side of the panel with the Raising of Lazarus in the Kalkar Altarpiece.This self-portrait could be considered the source of his continuing use of self-portraits in his later works such as the Reinhold Altarpiece and two panels with the Adoration of the Magi in Dresden.15 After the completion of the Kalkar Altarpiece, Joos van Cleve went on to the Netherlands. Hand thought that Van Cleve might have gone to Bruges first, but no documentary evidence can prove this assumption.16 In 1511, the artist was registered as a free master in the Liggeren, the membership lists of the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke.17 He was active in Antwerp until his death in 1540/1541. He accepted five apprentices into his workshop: one in 1516, another in 1523, two in 1535, and the last one in 1536. Five years after Van Cleve obtained master’s status, the Reinhold Altarpiece, commissioned by the Reinhold Brotherhood, was installed in the Sankt Marienkirche in Gdansk. ´ 18 Georg Meelman wrote in both his 1522 chronicle as well as the 1548 edition:‘Year 1516. After the week of Corpus Christi (May 22), the altarpiece was installed for the high altar of the parish church of Our Lady in Gdansk; ´ [it] can no longer be seen today, and was made by 16

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Fig. 2. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the self-portrait of Joos van Cleve, Reinhold Altarpiece. Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

a master called Michel. In the same year an altarpiece was installed in the Reinhold Chapel around Saint Michael’s day’.19 The Reinhold Altarpiece has a sculpted interior with double wings painted by Joos van Cleve and his workshop.When the altarpiece is completely closed, Saints John the Baptist and Reinhold, standing in niches and identified by their attributes and the inscriptions on their pedestals, are visible on the left and right exterior wings (plate 1). Opening the exterior wings reveals the painted interior sides of the outer wings and the exterior sides of the second, inner set of wings. Eight painted scenes from the Passion of Christ are shown on two levels across the interior: from left to right in the upper tier, the Presentation in the Temple, the Baptism of Christ, the Last Supper, and Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane; and in the lower tier, the Ecce Homo, Christ Before Pilate, Christ Carrying the Cross, and the Crucifixion (plate 2). The bright colors, the use of shot color (couleur changeante), and the twisted positions of the figures on the inner wings are typical of what Friedländer has called ‘Antwerp Mannerism’.20 Hand mentioned that ‘the earliest date we have for a ‘mannerist’ work is 1513, the year of Adriaen van Overbeek’s altarpiece in Kempen’.21 Van Overbeek’s altarpiece shows many similarities to the Reinhold Altarpiece, even in its working procedure.22 Since the Reinhold Altarpiece was installed three years after the altarpiece in Kempen was commissioned, it also can be considered an early work in the Mannerist style. Szmydki, Hand, Friedländer, and Bial/ostocki have discerned a number of different influences on the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece, notably prints by Dürer and the painted panels in the Kalkar Altarpiece by Jan Joest and his assistants.They, and other scholars, also note influences THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

17

Fig. 3. Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

Fig. 4.Albrecht Dürer, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (Large Passion), 1511.

from other Antwerp Mannerists.23 They also propose that Gerard David and Patinir influenced the scene with the Baptism of Christ.24 Still, scholars have yet to notice the remarkable similarities between the triangular composition of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (fig. 3) and the print of the same subject by Albrecht Dürer from the Large Passion series, published in 1511 (fig. 4).25 Christ, dressed in a purple garment and kneeling in prayer before a dark cave, forms the top of the triangle in the painting, while the apostles Peter and John the Evangelist are situated in the lower left and right corners.An angel flies in from above in the backgrounds of both the painting and the woodcut, and a group of soldiers arrives at a wooden gate.Yet since the figures of Christ and the angel are reversed from those in the Dürer woodcut, Joos van Cleve may have used another source for this part of the composition. He probably adapted his Christ from another of Dürer’s prints, Saint John’s Vision of Christ and the Seven Candles in the Apocalypse from 1498 (fig. 5).This figure is indeed more comparable to the kneeling Christ in the Reinhold Altarpiece than to the one in the Large Passion.The long, curly hair, and the placement of hands and bare feet are exactly the same. As in the preceding scene, the Ecce Homo is drawn to a large extent from Dürer, specifically his print of the same subject in the Small Passion, dated 1509, but published in 1511.26 Two men stand beside Christ in the upper part of the composition and perform similar actions in both 18

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

the print and the painting.The three men in the foreground of the painting are more directly related to the print.The figure seen in profile on the left points with his right arm towards Christ.The seated man in the lower foreground turns his head to the right and holds a halberd in his right hand. Of the two men standing on the right side of the composition, the one on the left corresponds more closely to the figure designed by Dürer. Other elements that Van Cleve adapted from Dürer’s Small Passion further confirm his acquaintance with this series. In the panel with Christ Before Pilate, there are some similarities between the figure of Pilate seated on his throne on the left side of the composition and the figure of Pilate in the series.27 The men on horseback in the Carrying of the Cross have faces and elaborate headgear that resemble these same features in the woodcut. Furthermore, the position of the figure seen in profile with his head through the ladder is also comparable. In the more sober scene of the Crucifixion, the two soldiers on the left derive from the print.28 Fig. 5.Albrecht Dürer, Saint John's Vision of Christ and the

It should be mentioned that Joos van Cleve’s Seven Candles (The Revelations of Saint John, Apocalypse), workshop did not produce the predella with 1495. Christ as the Man of Sorrows in the center, flanked by four saints on each side.This panel differs in style and technique from the rest of the altarpiece. It was difficult to detect any underdrawing with IRR: only a few sketchy lines registered. It is plausible that the predella was made by another workshop from the Netherlands or by a local artist from Gdansk. ´ 29 It is known that some workshops specialized in the produc30 tion of predellas alone. Although the sculpted interior is not the subject of this essay, some description and remarks about attribution are worth mentioning. When both sets of wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece are completely open, six sculpted scenes are visible in the central compartment: the Birth of the Virgin, the Virgin Entering the Temple, Joseph Refusing the Marriage with Mary, the Visitation, the Nativity, and the Presentation in the Temple (see fig. 6).The sculptures on the wings are divided into two compartments with two narrative scenes each. Saints in niches have been placed along the outer edges. Bial/ostocki and Szmydki attributed the carved part of the altarpiece to Jan de Molder and his workshop.31 This sculptor was active in Antwerp from 1513 until 1518.32 Only two altarpieces can be attributed to him, both bought by the Abbey of Averbode. Szmydki based his attribution of the carved interior of the Reinhold Altarpiece on stylistic similarities to Averbode Altarpiece (now in Paris, Musée de Cluny), ordered in 1513.The second, more expensive altarpiece ordered in 1518 for its chapel of Saint John is known now only from documents.33 Marks of the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke, the so-called ‘Antwerp hands’, appear on some heads of the carved figures in the interior (fig. 7) as well as the frame.34 Often it was the deacons of the guild who burned or pressed these stamps into the wood before it was painted as a guaranTHE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

19

Fig. 7. Antwerp brand mark (a hand) on the head of a sculpted figure, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

tee of the quality of the panels.35 The deacons’ role also was to inspect the final product and, if approved, burn or press the Antwerp castle into the completed altarpiece.The combination of these two stamps guarantees the quality and production in Antwerp, and was particularly important for clients who bought non-commissioned works, as the presence of Fig. 6. Detail of the sculpted interior of the Reinhold these marks was their only guarantee.36 Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. Nonetheless, there are other examples of works produced on commission, besides the Reinhold Altarpiece, that have been stamped.37 During the research of the Reinhold Altarpiece in 2001 and 2002, we only noted the Antwerp hands. Szmydki mentions the castle, but we did not find this particular mark.38 On top of a head in the background of the Nativity, a single ‘Antwerp hand’ is visible. Elsewhere on the caisse, pairs of hands appear, ranging in size of either one or two centimeters.The size differences may indicate the use of two different brands, or the occurrence of two different inspections by the guild. The Reinhold Brotherhood and the Sankt Marienkirche In 1457 (or 1488)39 the Reinhold Brotherhood founded their chapel in the Sankt Marienkirche.40 In this period, the brotherhood of Saint Reinhold was one of six companies in the Artus Court, the building that housed the main brotherhoods of the city of Gda nsk ´ and was the site of social gatherings such as weddings and feasts.41 The five other brotherhoods were: the Drei Köningsbank (Three Kings Brotherhood), Christopherbank (Christopher Brotherhood), also called the Lübeck Brotherhood because its members were primarily merchants from that region, the Hollandische Bank (Netherlandish Brotherhood), Schiffer Bank, the brotherhood of sailors, and the Mariënburger Bank (Mariënburg Brotherhood). Of the six brotherhoods, the Reinhold Brotherhood was the most important in the second half of the fifteenth century.42 Its members were merchants from Mechelen, Dordrecht, Ghent,Amsterdam, Kempen,Augsburg, and so on.43 It is likely that there were also some members from Bruges and Antwerp, since both cities were important economic centers at that time. 20

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

During World War II, most of the documents related to the commission of the Reinhold Altarpiece and the Reinhold Brotherhood were destroyed.44 The Meelman and Hirsch publications mentioned earlier comprise the only remaining information. In addition to the installation date of 1516, Hirsch mentions a payment for the retabel:‘hebbe ik gefen Bernt Tullen, dat he vor de tafel ut gegefen heft 100 Mk’ (I gave Bernt Tullen 100 M[ar]k for the altarpiece he paid for).45 Since the original sixteenth-century document from which Hirsch transcribed is now lost, the name of the Reinhold Brotherhood member who gave the money to Tullen remains unknown. Who was this Bernt Tullen? Since the membership list has also been destroyed, it is not possible to say if he was a member of the Reinhold Brotherhood. He may just have been the intermediary between Joos van Cleve (or the sculptor, who might have been Jan de Molder) and the Reinhold Brotherhood because he had received the money from the brotherhood to pay for the altarpiece.The name Bernt Tullen is not recorded in the Antwerp archives, but in 1525, a ‘Beern Danswyck’ is mentioned, which could be interpreted as Bernt from Danzig.46 A more definitive identification seems impossible. It is interesting to note that Hirsch also mentioned ‘…dass Albrecht Dürer das Bild [the Reinhold Altarpiece] gemalt habe.’ Hirsch was not entirely convinced by this information, but he nevertheless wanted to emphasize the relationship between the brotherhood of Saint Reinhold and Nuremberg.47 This legendary attribution continued to be mentioned in some later literature, such as that by Brausewetter.48 When Firmenich-Richartz discoverd the ‘IvaB’ monogram in 1894, scholars accepted the attribution to Joos van Cleve and his shop and no longer mentioned Dürer as the author of the altarpiece.49 During World War II, almost the entire interior of the Marienkirche was damaged. By the end of 1944, many of the art works from the church, including the Reinhold Altarpiece, had been placed into storage in small village churches, land houses and barns near Gda nsk. ´ 50 On July 7, 1945, the Reinhold Altarpiece was transported to the Muzeum Narodowe in Warsaw from a depot in Koscierzyna (East Pomerania, near Gda nsk). ´ 51 Besides the Reinhold Altarpiece, some works of art still remain in museums in Warsaw and Gdansk ´ (such as Hans Memling’s famous Last Judgment triptych now in the Gdansk ´ museum); others have been restored to their original location in the Sankt Marienkirche.52 Trading connections between Gdansk ´ and Antwerp are well known.The shipment of grain from the Baltic to Antwerp was already quite important by the beginning of the fourteenth century.53 In the fifteenth century, Gdansk ´ became the principal center for export to the west, 54 especially to Antwerp. In addition to grain, the export of wood – for panel paintings, for instance – from the Baltic region must have been considerable.55 The importation of goods from the Netherlands into Gdansk ´ was also significant. In the sixteenth century,Antwerp became an important city for the export of luxury goods. Documents on shipments in the Gdansk ´ State Archive 56 record the import of paintings from Antwerp to Gdansk. ´ As North wrote, Gdansk ´ was the most frequented harbor of the Baltic Sea.57 The increasing number of merchants moving to Gdansk ´ contributed to the prosperity of this Baltic harbor.58 A connection between the Reinhold Brotherhood and the city of Antwerp seems plausible, but how do we account for ordering of the Reinhold Altarpiece? Even though the commission could have been given to either Joos van Cleve or the sculptor, the reputation of Joos van Cleve makes him a strong candidate for the offer. At the time of the commission, Joos van Cleve was already known for his painted altarpieces and had achieved a good reputation in the five years since obtaining mastership in Antwerp. By 1515 he had already finished the small altarpiece with the Death of the Virgin for the Hackeney family in Cologne (Cologne,Wallraf-RichartzMuseum).59 Bial/ostocki felt that this altarpiece explained why the Reinhold Brotherhood asked Joos van Cleve to paint for them and even proposed that the artist met his future commissioners during a stay in Cologne.There is, however, no proof for such a journey.Another posTHE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

21

sibility is that the aforementioned Bernt Tullen was the contact person between Joos van Cleve and the commissioners of the Reinhold Altarpiece.A contract that specified the iconographic program as well as the quality of the materials must have accompanied the commission because Saint Reinhold, who is uncommon in the Netherlands, appears on the outer wings.60 Study of the Reinhold Altarpiece with Infrared Reflectography (IRR) John Hand wrote:‘The Saint Reinhold retable is the only work in Joos van Cleve’s oeuvre in which a firm, documented date, the artist’s monogram, and a recognizable self-portrait are all conjoined. Paradoxically, and notwithstanding Joos’ insistence on being recognized, the greatest part of the altarpiece is the product of Joos van Cleve’s atelier.’61 These facts, along with the observation of underdrawing that showed through the paint in many areas in the available black and white photographs, formed the basic reasons for a closer examination of the altarpiece.62 Study with IRR, as we hoped, provided us with more insights into the making of the altarpiece, the collaboration of assistants, and the pervasive influence of Albrecht Dürer. During the IRR examination, most colors became transparent except for the black areas and some blues that were perhaps mixed with black paint or underpainted with a gray layer.63 The underdrawing, for the most part executed with a brush in a liquid medium (possibly ink), could be revealed easily because the artist applied paint over it thinly, in just one or two layers. Most of the background elements, such as the walls and floors of the eight scenes as well as other areas, were prepared with a dry material, probably black chalk.The areas in chalk are underdrawn with heavier and longer hatchings than similar lines applied in brush. The IRR assembly of the Carrying of the Cross and other areas of revealed underdrawing in the altarpiece provide good examples of the graphic vocabulary that Joos van Cleve and his shop employed (see plates 3 and 4 and figs. 8 and 9). Hatching is applied in all directions. Series of parallel lines are sometimes curved and therefore suggest volume and shade. Cross-hatching defines the darkest shadows, as in the darkest parts of Christ’s purple robe in the Carrying of the Cross. Particularly striking are the zones of diagonal hatchings that cross over forms to indicate broad areas of shade, as in the face and chest of the man holding the ladder behind Christ.The artist also uses contour lines, often hooked at the ends, to strengthen the edges of figures and objects as well as to mark the edge of a shadow.The hands, which have attenuated fingers (as can be seen in the man on horseback in the left background), are also outlined by contours and, if in shadow, covered with hatching. Another characteristic detail of the underdrawing is the use of the so-called ‘white line’ that Ainsworth and Faries describe as ‘a thin open space bordered by contour lines on each side’; it is a graphic effect found in Dürer’s woodcuts.64 Such a white line appears in the lower part of the garment of Christ. Another remarkable feature of the Reinhold Altarpiece is the presence of forty-three color notations found in the inner painted narrative scenes. In the Carrying of the Cross, IRR registered six (see plate 4).65 Notations for red, ‘r’, appear in both the man with the red mantle on horseback in the left background and the man in red to the right of the cross, who is about to hit Christ with a rope.A ‘p’ for purper/ paars (purple) registers in the garment of Christ and ‘ge’ (geel/ yellow) for the yellow cloth of figure in the back on the right side of the composition. Not all of the colors that were planned were followed in paint. A ‘b’ for blauw (blue) appears in the man who is seen in profile just behind Christ. In paint, however, he wears a yellow garment. In the Virgin’s blue mantle, an ‘r’ for rood (red) can be seen in the sleeve, which of course does not correspond to iconographic tradition in which the Virgin is dressed in blue. During the application of the paint layers, it probably became clear that the woman on the left is the Virgin Mary, and that her cloak must be blue. Since the man next to her with the color notation ‘b’ could not be blue as well, the artist changed the planned color to yellow. 22

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Fig. 8. Detail of a figure in Christ before Pilate, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

Fig. 9. Infrared reflectogram digital composite corresponding to fig. 8. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

The collaboration of workshop assistants in this altarpiece is quite significant, as has already been suggested in the literature.66 It is, however, uncertain whether the color notations are decisive proof of this collaboration. Color notations can also indicate the amount of pigments needed.67 It is noteworthy that most of the notations were for the red and purple areas, the latter plausibly a combination of a red and blue pigment. Since some red and blue pigments were, as Kirby has suggested, the most expensive, the color notations could have been an indication of the costs of the required materials.68 (It is not certain which specific pigments were used, since no paint samples exist from the Reinhold Altarpiece.) The artist also likely used the color notations to get a sense of the distribution of color. Ceninni wrote in his Il Libro dell’Arte in approximately 1390 that red was the color to key on in a composition.69 Several authors have mentioned that strong and bright colors are typical for the painted wings of compound altarpieces by the Antwerp Mannerists.70 The division of these colors over a composition makes it easier to read at a distance. An inscription may provide clues about the iconographic program and the working process. The fully written-out word, aventmael (Dutch for avondmaal,‘supper’), was detected by IRR near the upper right edge of the Last Supper (fig. 10).71 No other underwritten titles for scenes were found, although if they were also near edges or the frame, dark, impenetrable paint may have obscured them.The members of the Reinhold Brotherhood may have stipulated a specific iconographic program.72 With ten different scenes painted on four separate wings, it was necessary for the artist and his assistants to know where each scene had to be placed. If the inscription in THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

23

Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a detail in the Last Supper, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

the Last Supper is indeed the only underwritten title, it could have been a very important scene for the commissioners; they may have wished it to have a specific location.This may also have been the reason why Joos van Cleve added his monogram to this panel (which is the reverse of the Saint Reinhold wing). The outer wings are underdrawn differently than the inner wings.The entire underdrawing of both outer wings with Saints John the Baptist and Reinhold was done in a dry material, probably chalk (figs. 2 and 11), and is less elaborate and more sketchy than the inner wings.This is especially evident in John’s attribute, the lamb.73 The layout in these wings must have had another function and may have been made by a different hand.The underdrawing shows many similarities with other works for which Joos van Cleve executed the underdrawing.The outer contour of Saint John’s head and collar is obscured by paint, but loose, curling underdrawn lines appear in his hair and beard, along with loosely sketched contours in his nose, mouth and ear. There is only a rough line for the eye socket. Long diagonal hatchings locate the shade on the right side of his neck. Slightly curved parallel lines are drawn in the collar of his garment, indicating both shadow and volume.These features are similar to the underdrawing in the figure of Mary in the Brussels Virgin and Child with Joachim and Anna.74 The head of Saint Reinhold is underdrawn with a wavering contour along the left side of the face.The nose is drawn higher, and the eyes, like those of Saint John’s, are barely indicated in the layout. A simple contour marks the mouth and ear.The artist placed some diagonal hatching for shading and volume on the right side of his face. Only minimal changes between the underdrawing and painted layers can be noted. On the outer wings, short curved lines can be seen along the contour of Saint Reinhold’s jaw and chin, suggesting that the saint was planned with a beard that was then omitted in paint. A brooch with round stones was also planned but not executed, and there are a few small alterations in Reinhold’s armour, in the sword and the form of the collar. Additional changes were found in other panels.As can be seen in the IRR assembly of the Carrying of the Cross (plate 4), the buildings in the background are much more detailed in the layout stage than in the paint stage where the forms are relatively simple structures. In the Baptism of Christ, two broken benches were planned in the underdrawing but were not executed in paint. Some changes occurred in the foreground of the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and in the architectural setting of the Presentation in the Temple, where the decorated pillar behind the three women was originally underdrawn as a thin column. The only substantial alteration is in Saint Peter in Christ in the Garden of 24

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Fig. 11. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the face of Saint John the Baptist (left exterior wing), Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

Gethsemane (figs. 12, 13, and 14). In the underdrawing, Peter’s facial features and the profile of the head are much more comparable to the woodcut of the same subject by Dürer than to the figure executed in paint.The almost complete absence of major change in the inner and outer wings suggests that the artist made preliminary drawings on paper, a practice that was probably followed in other paintings by Joos van Cleve and his workshop.75 THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

25

Fig. 12. Detail of the head of Saint Peter in Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Reinhold Altarpiece. Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

Fig. 13. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the head of Saint Peter, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

This type of extremely detailed underdrawing in the inner wings, with an elaborate system of shading and broad curly contour lines, calls to mind contemporary woodcuts, particularly those by Albrecht Dürer.Terms such as the ‘woodcut look’ and the ‘woodcut convention’ have been coined for this type of underdrawing.Whether Joos van Cleve himself was connected to printmaking is not known. Both Stogdon and Ainsworth noted that early works by Joos van Cleve seem to have borrowed motifs from prints signed with the FVB monogram.76 However, the connection between the paintings by Joos van Cleve and the prints by Master FVB cannot be substantiated, since no compositional borrowings can be found and the graphic vocabulary used by the printmaker is totally different from the woodcut convention underdrawing of the Reinhold Altarpiece.77 Van Cleve’s most important link to printmaking was his establishment in Antwerp, one of the leading centers of printmaking at the beginning of the sixteenth century.78 Joos van Cleve must have known the works of Albrecht Dürer. Many Antwerp art dealers, collectors and painters’ workshops presumably owned prints by Dürer.79 According to Schmid’s calculations, between approximately 70,000 and 175,000 woodcuts and between 20,000 and 50,000 engraving by Dürer were in circulation at the time, even excluding the copies made outside Dürer’s shop.80 In 1522 Ferdinand Columbus had more than 3000 prints in his collection: 174 from the hand of Dürer and 202 by Dürer’s school.81 Joris Vezeleer, who was the contact person between Joos van Cleve and King François I, owned Dürer prints and could have shown or given Van Cleve some.82 Most references to Dürer’s prints, however, date from after the period of the Reinhold Altarpiece. Dürer mentioned several times in the diary of his travels in 1520 that he gave, sold or exchanged prints of his Large Passion, the Small Passion, scenes of the Life of the Virgin and images of Saint Jerome in his Cell to friends and clients in Antwerp.83 The clear influence on the compositions and the underdrawing of the inner wings of the retable for the Reinhold Brotherhood 26

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

seems to prove that Dürer’s prints were circulating before 1516. Dürer’s influence, moreover, can be seen in other wings of early compound altarpieces from Antwerp, such as the Anne Altarpiece by Adriaen van Overbeke and his assistants from 1513. Van Cleve may also have had some of Dürer’s prints (and possibly drawings) as models in his studio. Schmid wrote, ‘It is quite obvious that Dürer’s products met the taste of his time and had a forming influence on many artists of his own generation and of many generations to come … Copies by other artists and Dürer’s own designs for other craftsman caused a further spread of his ideas and his style’.84 Furthermore, Koerner noted that: ‘[Dürer’s] subjects, techniques and style, even the shape he gave his career, were once avidly appropriFig. 14. Detail of the head of Saint Peter,Albrecht ated by other artists’.85 Indeed, Joos van Cleve Dürer, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (Large was not the only artist to adapt compositions Passion), 1511. by Dürer and make use of the woodcut convention for the layouts of his paintings; others, like Adriaen van Overbeke, the Master of 1518, the Master of the Antwerp Adoration, the Master of the von Groote Adoration, and Lucas van Leyden also used the prints by Dürer as an important source of inspiration.86 All the paintings, drawings and prints from the workshop of Dürer were signed with the AD monogram.87 This signature was recognizable to artists and collectors, and works by Dürer are mentioned by name in several inventories.88 This is significant, because at the time, most works of art were just described by title, as, for example, paneelke met Maagd Maria (‘small panel with the Virgin Mary’).89 The artist’s name was often not known or considered important enough to be written down in the inventories. Since artists as well as art collectors knew Dürer’s work, it is possible that commissioners asked for works in the style of the German artist.As the Reinhold Altarpiece shows, Joos van Cleve was indeed a painter who could easily adapt styles to his own compositional and stylistic vocabulary.90 The Function of Underdrawing in the Woodcut Convention The graphic style of the underdrawing of the Reinhold Altarpiece was probably easy to recognize and easy to read.This could apply to the commissioners of the altarpiece as well as to the members of the shop.The underdrawing might have served as a kind of ‘vidimus’ or presentation drawing for the patron’s approval.91 Contract drawings were usually done on paper, but the commissioner could also have requested very specific changes based on a viewing of the underdrawn layout. Examples have been mentioned in the literature, often regarding paintings by Jan van Eyck.92 Despite the fact that paint closely follows the underdrawing of the Reinhold Altarpiece, it is still possible that one of the commissioners or one of the Brotherhood’s envoys (Bernt Tullen?) had checked the elaborate layout in the ‘woodcut style’ before the paint layers were applied. If not done at the patrons’ request, another possible reason why the artist used a working method that shows so many similarities to woodcuts could be for workshop co-operation.The underTHE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

27

Fig. 15. Detail of Christ, Baptism of Christ, Reinhold Altarpiece. Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

drawing must have been developed as an efficient guide for those who applied the paint, perhaps workshop assistants. A detailed underdrawing was easier to follow in paint, and as a result, would save time. It is possible to assume that assistants, who were probably not allowed to make alterations, filled in the elaborate layout. Changes in the underdrawing, or changes between the underdrawing and the paint layers, are, after all, often interpreted as proof of the creative process of the master himself. The working method of the Reinhold Altarpiece with its very detailed underdrawing and thin paint layers is a sign of the quick and inexpensive execution typical of Antwerp altarpieces.93 Due to the transparency of the paint layers, the underdrawing is visible to the naked eye in many parts of the compositions, such as the flesh tones, the yellows, and the red draperies. It is possible that the paint layers have become more transparent over time, but it is more likely that the underdrawing was visible in some areas from the beginning.The paint layers appear to have been applied very thinly, and it seems that the underdrawing was intended to show through in some parts. If the altarpiece was viewed from a distance, it would not have been necessary to apply more paint to darken shadow areas, as underdrawing showing through paint can achieve the same effect. 28

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Fig. 16. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Christ, Baptism of Christ, Reinhold Altarpiece. Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

Making the underdrawing function as part of the painting could save time and money: fewer paint layers were needed, and the drying time was shorter, thus speeding up the working process. Realization of the Reinhold Altarpiece: the Role of Shop Assistants Joos van Cleve had only one apprentice in 1516, Claas van Brugge. His enrollment in the Liggeren, however, does not tell us if Claas had already been in the shop for some time, or if he was only beginning as a pupil at the time of his registration. It is therefore unknown if Claas was active in Van Cleve’s workshop during the execution of the Reinhold Altarpiece.94 Although there is no documentary evidence of any other pupil at this time, this does not mean that Van Cleve did not have other help. Gezellen or cnaepen, assistants who worked less than two weeks for the same master, were not required to make any payment to the guild.95 Despite this lack of documentary evidence, IRR research can provide us with new insights into the execution of the altarpiece and the amount of help Joos van Cleve might have had.

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

29

Fig. 17. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of background figures in the Adoration of the Magi. Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

The master himself probably executed some of the critical details in the inner wings, such as the head of Christ in the Baptism panel. Curiously, the underdrawing has been scratched away in the face (figs. 15-16).Though it is not entirely clear what happened here – perhaps either Joos van Cleve was not satisfied with the underdrawing and had it removed, or the blank space indicated that this area was to be left in reserve during the first application of paint – in either situation, the soft texturing of the face and detailing of the water droplets are typical of Joos himself. Furthermore, the crack pattern in this area is continuous, indicating that the change must be an original one made during the realization of the altarpiece. Joos van Cleve may also have been painted other faces in the inner wings, such as Saint Peter in both the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and Last Supper scenes. Furthermore Van Cleve could have executed some of the other figures of Christ, but they are too worn or damaged to be sure.

As Bial/ostocki already mentioned in 1955, it is likely that Joos van Cleve painted the outer wings because of his own appearance on the right wing in the guise of Saint Reinhold.96 It may be possible to use the underdrawing of Saints John and Reinhold to support this contention, since the underdrawing here is so visually different from that of the inner wings.The function and the working method of the underdrawn layout here must have been different. One can assume that if Van Cleve was painting these figures himself, it would have been unnecessary to reinforce the sketchy dry lines as a final guide for the paint.A comparison with other works painted by the master, such as the Virgin and Child with Joachim and Anna (Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België), and the triptych with the Enthroned Madonna and Child (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum), would seem to confirm this. Even the marble niche is painted in a way which is characteristic of Joos van Cleve himself and corresponds to the red marble columns which appear in many of his autograph works.Van Cleve’s subtle painting technique, with its attention to small details, is not present in most parts of the inner wing panels, often thought to have been executed by assistants. The identity of these collaborators is unknown, and there is no way to prove that Claas van Brugge could have been one of them. It is likely that Van Cleve hired gezellen to paint this part of the Reinhold Altarpiece.97

The style of the underdrawing of the inner wings is not unique; it appears again in works dated after the Reinhold Altarpiece, so that one can postulate that this woodcut look represents the development of a codified working procedure for the shop.The exacting underdrawing of the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece gradually becomes more simplified and less precise in later panels, such as the triptych with the Adoration of the Magi in Detroit98 and the so-called Large Adoration in Dresden.99 In the Adoration in Detroit, the underdrawing is also applied in a liquid medium and utilizes volumetric hatching, although the lines are shorter and the use of crosshatching is minimized.The hatching and details in the underdrawing of the Dresden Adoration (fig. 17) also illustrate the same woodcut convention.The left hand of the figure on the right is underdrawn with bent and angular contour lines similar to those of the man to the left of the 30

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Fig. 18. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of figures in the Presentation in the Temple, Reinhold Altarpiece. Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

priest in the Reinhold Presentation in the Temple (fig. 18).The turban is drawn with contour lines only, comparable to those in the headgear of Pilate in Christ before Pilate (fig. 19). Other similarities in the layout of the Dresden panel include the white line and contour lines ending in hooks, such as those in the hands of Saint Luke.100 The woodcut convention of the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece thus conceivably forms the basis of the working method used by both Joos van Cleve and his assistants. How, then, was the underdrawing made and by whom? As mentioned earlier, there are only a few changes between the underdrawing and the paint layers, and there are no changes of any significance in the underdrawing itself.Therefore, the compositions must have been fixed before the brush underdrawing was executed on the ground of the panels. Perhaps Van Cleve made a first sketch on the panel with a dry medium, such as chalk or charcoal.When satisfied with the result, he or an assistant drew over it in a liquid medium, brushing away the preliminary sketch.Another possibility is that the first sketchy underdrawing was made with a material that is not detectable by IRR.A third assumption is that Joos van Cleve first made a model drawing, smaller or actual size, which was then transferred to the ground and worked up in brush, in which case, the lines accomplishing the transfer would no longer be visible.101 Indeed, the use of model drawings and preliminary drawings on paper was common in the workshop of Joos van Cleve.102 THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

31

Fig. 19. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of figures in Christ before Pilate, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

The quality of the underdrawing of the inner wings is much higher than most parts of the paint layers. This difference is also visible in works by Adriaen van Overbeke, the Master of the Antwerp Adoration, and the Master of 1518. In 1998 Hoffmann suggested in his essay on Adriaen van Overbeke’s Saint Anne Altarpiece in Kempen that the master was responsible for the underdrawing and the assistants for the paint layers.103 According to Hoffman, this was common practice in Antwerp workshops. Recently, however, Hoffman revised his opinion, under the assumption that the execution of painted wings of compound altarpieces is much more complex.104 It is even possible to assume the presence of an artist who was specialized in the making of underdrawings in the woodcut convention. Such a specialist capable of executing the liquid, finalized underdrawing might even go from one shop to another, which would explain the use of the same graphic vocabulary in the underdrawing of painted wings of compound altarpieces attributed to the Antwerp Mannerists. Although Dürer’s prints must have been fairly new in Antwerp at this time, Adriaen van Overbeke’s Anne Altarpiece does prove that Dürer’s prints were known in Antwerp around 1513.

Still, it is likely that the decision to use Dürer’s prints for the compositions and the style of the underdrawing would be the choice of the master of the shop.Although it is possible that the artist of the underdrawing in the woodcut convention might be an assistant, it cannot be excluded that it could have been the master himself, who was capable of working in two modes: namely, to produce an exacting guide for assistants to fill in with color, and, to sketch out the design for the composition of the outer wings. The Woodcut Convention: a Well Known Working Procedure The Saint Anne Altarpiece by Adriaen van Overbeke and his workshop in the Propsteikirche in Kempen, is, in contrast to most early sixteenth-century Antwerp altarpieces, fully documented.105 The original documents, including a full contract, a receipt, and other correspondence, are in the city archives of Kempen and provide us with a wealth of information about the production of compound altarpieces.106 The contract drawn up on August 11, 1513, between Adriaen van Overbeke and the Brotherhood of Saint Anne in Kempen details the size of the altarpiece, the iconographic program (especially that of the sculpted interior), quality, deadlines, payments and installments. The iconography of the sculpted part of the altarpiece was described in detail in contrast to the painted wings, which were hardly mentioned at all.The commissioners told Adriaen van Overbeke to paint the Last Judgment on the outer wings and the history of Saint Anne on the inner wings, a rather uncommon legend. As a result,Van Overbeke could not base his compositions on known, standard models; he had to design most of the scenes himself.The scene of the Marriage of Joachim and Anne is an exception; its com32

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

position is based on Albrecht Dürer’s woodcut of the Betrothal of the Virgin from the Life of the Virgin, published in 1511.107 In the production of the large compound altarpiece in the Sankt Peterskirche in Dortmund of 1521,Van Overbeke relied on the same print no less than three times.108 The fact that Van Overbeke chose not to use well known models for most of the painted scenes in the Anne Altarpiece is all the more remarkable since he had not been given much time to deliver the altarpiece to the church in Kempen.The contract specified that the work had to be installed before July 26, 1514, giving the artist less than one year to produce the altarpiece, including both the sculpted interior and the painted wings.Although Van Overbeke did not meet the deadline, he was able to deliver the altarpiece less than a month later, on August 20, 1514. Including transport, the production of the sculpted interior and the painted wings took exactly one year and nine days. Both the Reinhold Altarpiece and Anne Altarpiece follow the same underdrawing convention. In 1997 three panels of the Kempen altarpiece, Anne Greets Christ, the Death of Anne, and the Last Judgment, were studied by IRR.109 Like the inner panels of the Reinhold Altarpiece, the underdrawing is extremely detailed and exhibits the same graphic vocabulary (fig. 20).The layout is applied with brush in a liquid medium. Both artists used contour lines and volumetric hatchings. Furthermore, the white line, that characteristic element in the woodcuts by Dürer, appears in Van Overbeke’s altarpiece even more frequently than in Joos van Cleve’s.The underdrawing of the Reinhold Altarpiece, however, seems to have been applied more quickly: the underdrawn parallel lines are longer and there are fewer short curved lines ending in hooks or loops. In comparison, the underdrawing of the altarpiece in Kempen seems to be even more precise than the layout of the Reinhold Altarpiece. As in Van Cleve’s altarpiece in Warsaw, the artist(s) responsible for the paint layers of the work in Kempen followed the underdrawing closely. Not one shift between the underdrawing and the paint layers could be discovered in the panels of the Anne Altarpiece that were examined. It is very plausible that underdrawing in the woodcut convention for both the Reinhold Altarpiece and the Anne Altarpiece functioned as an exacting guide for assistants. The wings by Adriaen van Overbeke and his assistants have been painted in extremely strong and clear colors.The altarpiece would have been seen from a distance, so that subtle colors or nuances were hardly relevant. Moreover, a simplified color scheme had, as van den Brink noticed, one big advantage: the execution could be carried out by almost anyone.110 Adriaen van Overbeke must have had the help of other painters (pupils or gezellen) during the execution of the painted wings. Of the four known pupils of Van Overbeke, two began their apprenticeship before the production of the Anne Altarpiece; they could therefore have helped their master with its execution.These apprentices, Peerken and Jacob Quintens, were enrolled in the Liggeren in 1510.These pupils would have been in the last year of their training when Van Overbeke received the commission for the Kempen altarpiece, assuming a four-year apprenticeship period.111 They may have been the ones filling in the detailed underdrawing, which might account for the lesser quality of the paint layers. In addition to his two apprentices, it is also plausible that Van Overbeke hired some fully trained gezellen as well.A document from August 21, 1522, which records Adriaen van Overbeke as paying 10 Rhenish guilders and 7 shillings to Martene de Hees for the delivery of a painting proves that he made use of the services of painters outside his own workshop.112 Furthermore,Van Overbeke, who had received the commission for the whole of the compound altarpiece, had to sub-contract a sculptor’s studio as well. To produce the altarpiece within one year, Adriaen van Overbeke needed an underdrawing that prepared the compositions in extreme detail. Filling in the layout with paint was then a simple routine matter.As in the Reinhold Altarpiece, the paint layers are limited to one or two layTHE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

33

Fig. 20. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the Death of Anne, Adriaen van Overbeke and Workshop, Saint Anne Altarpiece. Kempen, Propsteikirche. (IRR: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer/Stichting RKD; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

ers, which must have reduced the drying time.Van Overbeke must have been successful using this working method because he used it in other commissions he received, including the painted compound altarpieces with the Passion of Christ in the Sankt Petrikirche in Dortmund and the church of Saint Victor in Schwerte.113 As can be gathered from the altarpieces in Dortmund and Kempen, quality was not as essential as legibility and speed. Based on this evidence, it becomes possible to hypothesize that Van Overbeke operated more like a contractor who made use of a large number of painters and sculptors. Van den Brink has assumed that many altarpieces from other shops were produced in exactly the same way.114 Indeed, the same woodcut convention was employed in the altarpiece in the 34

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Fig. 21. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Joachim and Anna Giving Their Goods to the Needy, Master of 1518. Lübeck, Marienkirche. (IRR: Molly Faries/Stichting RKD; digital composite: Koen Wensveen).

Marienkirche in Lübeck, the key work in the oeuvre of the Master of 1518.115 Some differences can be noted: the Master of 1518 makes more use of the difference in the thickness of the underdrawn brush lines, endowing them with a greater sense of elegance (fig. 21). Contour lines indicating drapery folds are generally thicker, and the hatchings for shade and volume are thinner.The system of zones of parallel lines in the work of the Master of 1518 is even more elaborate than that in the Reinhold Altarpiece. Furthermore, the artist made more frequent use of cross-hatching. Even though the layout is usually followed meticulously in the paint layers, there are some alterations. Changes occur in the background elements (something also noted in the Reinhold Altarpiece) and the head of the Virgin in the Adoration of the Magi panel, which has been totally altered from a frontal to a downward-looking position.116 It may be that the master THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

35

intervened occasionally in the execution of the paint layers, as also occurred in the Reinhold Altarpiece. Assuming assistants were not permitted to make changes, the master himself would have painted the face of the Virgin in this panel. The woodcut convention has also been found in the underdrawing of two panels in the Bonnefantenmuseum in Maastricht attributed to the Master of the Antwerp Adoration.117 In what may be assumed to be a right wing panel, the underdrawing of the figure of the priest exhibits similarities and some differences from the Reinhold Altarpiece. Both artists use hatchings in all directions, and the left hand of the priest in the Bonnefantenmuseum panel, with pointed fingertips and fingers defined by contour lines, is underdrawn in exactly the same way as the hand of the man to the left of the priest in the Reinhold Altarpiece (compare figs.18 and 22).The noses of both priests are indicated with a wavy line next to the bone, which marks the beginning of the diagonally-hatched shadow. In contrast to the other works discussed so far, some fairly radical compositional changes have been detected in the two Bonnefanten museum panels: the landscape background has been simplified,and the positions of some heads and figures have also been altered.118 The simplification of the paint layers in contrast to the elaborate underdrawing might be explained, as van den Brink phrases it, by ‘different hands or a craftsman who draws well but paints lousy’.119

Fig. 22. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the high priest, Presentation in the Temple, Master of the Antwerp Adoration. Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Koen Wensveen).

36

Van den Brink’s IRR study of the Master of the Antwerp Adoration’s Adoration of the Magi in Brussels revealed an underdrawing in a liquid medium that, once again, appears to be even more exacting and elaborate than Van Cleve’s shop routine.120 Works from this master’s shop also exhibit very little compositional change. The underdrawings of the paintings attributed to the Master of the von Groote Adoration have also been shown to be comparable to the layout of the Reinhold Altarpiece.121

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Conclusions Joos van Cleve probably made model drawings and possibly made the first underdrawn sketches in the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece. However, it is possible that someone else, perhaps a specialist, worked up these sketches with brush in a liquid medium.Therefore, the underdrawing of the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece shows some generic similarities with those in later works but does not have all the characteristics of a typical Van Cleve underdrawing. The underdrawing made in the woodcut convention is a practice that was employed in the workshops of other Antwerp painters at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Apparently, this type of underdrawing with the woodcut look was an accepted working method for producing painted wings of compound altarpieces, especially those by the Antwerp Mannerists. Specific elements in these underdrawings still allow one to connect certain layouts to specific painters and/or their assistants. Underdrawings in the workshops of Joos van Cleve, Adriaen van Overbeke, the Master of 1518, the Master of the Antwerp Adoration, and the Master of the Von Groote Adoration all show the same woodcut convention, although differences in style can still be discerned. While the underdrawing in the woodcut convention of the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece could have functioned as a kind of ‘vidimus’ for the commissioners, it was also necessary for efficient workshop collaboration.The exacting and detailed underdrawing must have saved time and made the painting easier. An elaborate underdrawing in brush could obviate the need for changes in paint, which would add to drying time and reduce efficiency. Assistants could easily paint over an underdrawing in the woodcut convention; and, as van den Brink and Hoffmann assumed for the Anne Altarpiece by Van Overbeke, the detailed layout already had a certain ‘style’.122 By following such an underdrawing meticulously, any given assistant would be able to produce a composition in that master’s ‘style’. The color notations and the inscription, which occur in the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece, can also indicate workshop collaboration.Very thin and transparent application of paint, strong colors, and the mode of underdrawing imply the quick and cheap production of altarpieces for export; this applies not only to Van Cleve’s altarpiece, but also to Adriaen van Overbeke’s Anne Altarpiece in Kempen and his retable in Dortmund.The Reinhold Altarpiece differs in some ways from these works. In contrast to the simplified color schemes of painted wings in the Antwerp Mannerist style,Van Cleve and his assistants created sophisticated color effects and painted many small details in the surfaces of his panels. Likewise, the outer wings with Saint Reinhold and Saint John the Baptist are of a very high quality, as are some details in the inner wings. Joos van Cleve probably painted these parts himself. The commission may account for these features.The prominent Reinhold Brotherhood ordered the altarpiece, and the commissioners no doubt wanted an altarpiece that could compete with the other south Netherlandish works in the Sankt Marienkirche in Gda nsk. ´ 123 The more refined execution of the Reinhold Altarpiece, invisible at a distance, is likely to have been seen in the chapel in which the altarpiece was installed since it was not that large (4.5 x 4.17 m.). The ‘IvaB’ monogram and the self-portrait must signify the importance of the commission for Joos van Cleve.The artist must have wanted to be recognized as the one responsible for the altarpiece. It is not known, however, if Joos van Cleve was the contractor of the entire altarpiece, including the sculpted interior. Assistants (gezellen) must have been responsible for painting most of the inner wing panels, but their identities remain unknown. The archival documents concerning the commission of the Anne Altarpiece by Adriaen van Overbeke give us more insight into the amount of time it took to produce a compound altarTHE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

37

piece. In order to complete such a complex work in a relatively short period of time, artists often relied on known models, such as the compositions by Dürer. Besides the many compositional elements in the Reinhold Altarpiece, Dürer’s woodcuts inspired Joos van Cleve’s working method.With his elaborate underdrawing,Van Cleve might have been able to demonstrate to his commissioners that his skills equaled those of Dürer. Clearly, the incorporation of Dürer’s graphic method was a conscious decision undertaken by the artist as he established his workshop, as the underdrawing of later works confirm.The influence of prints by Dürer was widespread in Antwerp and the rest of the Netherlands, and Joos van Cleve was adapting it to Antwerp taste. He seems to have participated in and benefited from the growing influence of Albrecht Dürer.

38

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

NOTES

*This study would not have been possible without the financial support of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) and the University of Groningen as well as the help of my colleagues in the project,Antwerp Painting Before Iconoclasm: a Socio-Economic Approach (co-directors Molly Faries and Maximiliaan Martens, Ph.D. candidate, Linda Jansen, technical assistant, Daantje Meuwissen, and postdoc, Natasja Peeters). Furthermore I want to thank Peter van den Brink for discussing with me the Reinhold Altarpiece and its relation to the Antwerp Mannerists.

1.‘…eine genauere Beschreibung desselben nicht verdriessen lassen, da eine genügende photographische Wiedergabe des ganzen Altarwerks vorderhand nicht erreichbar ist und die an sich gute Schilderung in dem, leider Fragment gebliebenen Buche von Th. Hirsch über die Oberpfarrkirche von St. Marien zu Danzig nicht allgemein zugänglich sein dürfte, auch für unseren Zweck nicht ausreicht’; Kaemmerer 1890, 1. 2. Hirsch 1843 is available in the Bibliotheka Gdanska, Gdansk. ´ 3. Hand 2004, 31-35, cat. no. 8, 117; Hand 1978, 92-106 and Szmydki 1986b, 23-73. 4. M. Faries, P.B.R. van den Brink, L. Jansen, M. Leeflang and D. Meuwissen examined the Reinhold Altarpiece in Warsaw, on April 17-20, 2001, with Indiana University’s Grundig t.v. equipment: a Grundig 70 H television camera set at 875 lines and outfitted with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon, a TV Macromar 1:2.8/36 mm lens, and Kodak 87 A filter, with Grundig BG 12 monitor; documentation with a Canon A- 1 35 mm camera, a 50 mm Macrolens, and Kodak Plus X Film. M. Leeflang made the IRR digital composites with Vips 6.7 and Adobe Photoshop 5.0. I wish to thank M. Kluk and M. Monkiewics from the Muzeum Narodowe for all their help during our research. 5. N. Peeters, M. Martens and the author carried out archival research April 22-25, 2002. 6. Digital color slides are available at www.saskia.com. A color detail of the artist’s self-portrait has been published in Leeflang 2003a (180, fig. 5). Only black and white illustrations are available in earlier publications. [Editor’s note: I want to thank M. Monkiewics, Curator of Dutch Painting, Muzeum Narodowe, for his help in arranging for us to be able to use the museum’s transparencies for this publication.] 7. Joos van Cleve, Death of the Virgin,Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne, inv.WRM 430, 63 x 123-57 cm. 8. Joos van Cleve, Adoration of the Magi, Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edgar B. Whitcomb, inv. 45.420. 9. Kaemmerer 1890, 1-11; Firmenich-Richartz 1894, 187194. 10. Other self-portraits by Joos van Cleve are, first, in the high altar in the Sankt Nicolaikirche in Kalkar; Workshop of Joos van Cleve, Adoration of the Magi, Poznan, Muzeum Narodowe (presumed to be a self-portrait by, among others, Bial/ostocki 1955 and Scailliérez 1991); The Adoration of the Magi (Small Adoration), Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen; The Adoration of the Magi (Large Adoration), Dresden,

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen; Saint Reinhold (Reinhold Altarpiece), Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe; Self-portrait, Madrid, Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection; The Last Supper, Paris, Louvre; and the Self-portrait, which Friedländer dates 1540, in Hampton Court (Friedländer 1972, vol. 9, II, 18, pl. 128, nr. 120/ 120 B and Campbell 1985, 22-24.). I presume the Muzeum Narodowe’s Adoration of the Magi does not include a self-portrait since this is not an autograph work by Joos van Cleve, and it is probably not even a portrait of Joos van Cleve by one of his apprentices; I wish to thank P. Michal/owski for discussing this portrait, April 26, 2002. Although I have not seen the last panel in the list from Hampton Court, the man is portrayed with a beard and is older than the other known self-portraits by Joos van Cleve. It is therefore difficult to compare this figure with the other self-portraits. Besides, the painting was ‘severely damaged during an early, reckless and strenuous restoration’ (Campbell 1985, 23). At this moment, I am not convinced that this portrait is a selfportrait at all. I wish to thank John Hand for sharing his opinion with me about this panel, March 15, 2002 (see also Hand 1978, 15-16). Besides these eight paintings there is also a portrait of Joos van Cleve in The Legend of Saint Victor by Bartholomeus Bruyn, Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum (Leeflang 2003a). 11. Eisler 1989, 186-189, 270 (with color reproduction). 12. Friedländer 1972; Szmydki 1986b, 68-70; Hand 1978, Bial/ostocki 1955 mention some Dürer influences but did not note the influence of this artist on the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. 13.Wolff-Thomsen 1997, 115-340. 14. The IRR research of the Kalkar Altarpiece revealed a working method that is not taken over by Van Cleve.Technical examination does not prove a master-apprentice relationship between Joos van Cleve and Jan Joest.This point will be discussed more fully in my forthcoming dissertation for the University of Groningen. 15. See for the self-portraits by Joos van Cleve, Leeflang 2003a. 16. Hand 2004, 1; Hand 1978, 63. 17. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1961, 75. 18. Hand 2004, 31; Hand 1978, 92-106; Szmydki 1986b, 23-73. 19. ‘Ao.1516. Nach des H. Leichnams Woche (22 Mai), ward die grosse Tafel zu Dantzke auf das Hohe Altar gesatsz in unser Lieben Frauenkirche oder Pfarrkirche genant, welchen gleichen nie gesehen ist, der sie machte heiss Meister Michel. In demselbigen Jahre wurde auch die Tafel gesatzt in Reinholds-Capelle um Zeit Michaëlis.’ Georg Meelman, Chronica oder eigentliche Beschreibung dessen was sich merckwürdiges in Pohlen und Preussen absonderlich auch in Dantzig begeben und zugetragen, 1552; Georg Meelmann, Chronica des Landes Preussen Anno 1548, Ierzego Melmanna. Stads Archief Gdanks, Bibliotheca Archivi: 300, RL 1,2, microfilm E 33301, fol. 487, 300, RL 1,1, microfilm E 33300, fol. 734; double numbering: 805. 20. Friedländer 1974, vol. 11. 21. Hand 1978, 88.

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

39

22. Hoffmann 1998a, 117-285. Some IRR details have been published of the Anne Altarpiece by Adriaen van Overbeke in this article. 23. van den Brink 2002, 6-20, sees the influence of the Master of the Antwerp Adoration on the Presentation scene, while others relate this composition to a work by the Pseudo Blesius; see Szmydki 1986b, 65-66; Hand 1978, 103, Bial/ostocki 1955, 125.

47. Hirsch 1843, 435. 48. Brausewetter 1928, 11-12: ‘in one of the most beautiful chapels, the Reinhold-chapel, [is] a Dürer altarpiece from 1516 from Nuremberg, not by the master himself, but definitely by his school.’

24. Hand 1978, 100-102; Szmydki 1986b, 66-68; Bial/ostocki 1955, 125-126.

49. Firmenich-Richartz 1894, 187-94.

25. Bial/ostocki and Hand do not mention the similarities between this scene and the Dürer’s print. Szmydki 1986b, 69, only noticed the similarities between the two figures in the foreground with the print, and not the figure of Christ with the Apocalypse woodcut. Most of the woodcuts for the Large Passion were made about 1497 to1500, but the whole series of twelve cuts did not appear until 1511.

51. I wish to thank M. Monkiewics for this information.

26. Szmydki 1986b, 69-70; Hand 1978, 98; Bial/ostocki 1955, 128, note 22. 27. Szmydki 1986b, 70.The author also mentioned the similarity in the facial type of Christ in the Reinhold Altarpiece to that in the scene with Christ before Pilate in the Kalkar Altarpiece. 28. Hand only mentioned that ‘The influence of Dürer’s woodcut series is also observable to a lesser extent in the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.’ Hand 1978, 98. Other Antwerp masters were influenced by this print of Dürer as well, see for example, De Corte 1989, 147-51 (ill. 93-96b). 29. Perier D’Ieteren 1993, 64. 30. Ibid., and cat no. 16 in Nieuwdorp 1993; see also Jacobs 1998; Jacobs 1989, 206-29. 31. Szmydki 1986a, 56 and 61; Bial/ostocki as cited in Szmydki 1986a, 56. 32. Szmydki 1986a. 33. Ewing 1990, 571, 574 (note 109). 34. Szmydki 1986a, 27. 35. Heppner 1940, 174-75. 36. Heppner 1940, 174; Jacobs 1989, 212-13. 37. Ibid., and Prims, F., ‘Altaarstudiën (1): Antwerpsche altaarkunst der Xvde-XVIde eeuw,’ Anwerpiensia 13 (1939), 278-85. 38. Szmydki 1986a, 27. 39. Kaemmerer 1890, 4; Szmydki 1986b, 24. Both authors mentioned that the Reinhold Brotherhood was the owner of the chapel in 1488. 40. Hirsch 1843, 43; Hinz 1855, 18. 41. Simson 1900, 336; Szpakiewicz 1996, 7.The Artus Court is located in the Dl/uga Targ, the Market Square, and the Dl/uga Street. 42. Kaemmerer 1890, 4. 43. Simson 1900, 42; Hirsch 1843, 435. In the membership list of the Reinhold Bank (1527-1618) the names Jacob, Jurgen and Jochem are mentioned quite often (State Archive Gdansk, ´ 416. 57/ no. 1 to 6, 12 and 13).The years 1521 to 1526 were also registered in the year 1527. 44.The Vogtbuch of the brotherhood of Saint Reinhold was already destroyed by fire in 1857 (Simson 1900, 47, note 1 and 327). 45. Ibid., note 2; Rechnungsbuch der Vogte, Reinholdbrüderschaft, 1500-1516.

40

46. Schepen Register 1525 (KR), fol. 281, SR 1527 (KR), fol. 108. I wish to thank Max Martens for this information.

50. Bogdanowicz 1995, 13. 52.This would include the Antwerp altarpiece of St.Adrian, which was originally installed in the church circa 1520. 53. Unger 1983, 1 and table 1. 54. Ibid., 3. 55. See Klein 2003a and 2003b. 56. M. Martens and N. Peeters have found some references to the import of Antwerp paintings in Gdansk ´ State Archive. 57. North 1983, 73. 58. Baetens 1983, 61. 59.The triptychs with the Death of the Virgin will be discussed further in my forthcoming dissertation for the University of Groningen. 60. Jacobs mentioned the contract of October 23, 1517, between the abbey of Averbode and the sculptor Jan de Molder in which the quality of the wood is discussed (Jacobs 1989, 213).The document is published in Szmydki 1986a, 52 (document 3). 61. Hand 1978, 97. 62. Black and white photographs of the Reinhold Altarpiece are available at the RKD,The Hague. 63. See note 4 for details of the examination. 64.Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 32. 65.The panel with the Last Supper had the most color notations, namely ten. 66. Bial/ostocki 1955, 121. 67. Faries 2001, 88-89; van den Brink 1997, 30. 68. Kirby 2000, 19-42. 69. Ceninni 2002, 77-83; Faries 2001, 88 (on functions of color notations). 70. Jacobs 1998; Jacobs 1989; this was also mentioned by van den Brink in his lecture for the Historians of Netherlandish Art International Conference in Antwerp in 2002. 71. For other literature on inscriptions in the underdrawing, see Faries 1989, 145-46. [Editor’s note: see also the essay in this volume by Ron Spronk and Catherina van Daalen.] 72. Hand 1978, 93; for more on the iconographic program, see Jacobs 1998; Jacobs 1989. 73.The appearance and layout of this animal is quite comparable to the lamb in the much smaller left wing of the triptych with the Deposition in the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh.The author and others studied this work January 28, 2003, with University of Groningen’s Mitsubishi platinum silicide IR-M700 focal plane array camera. 74. M. Faries, L. Jansen, M. Leeflang, and D. Meuwissen carried out the IRR research of this panel in Brussels on March 19, 2001 with the same equipment mentioned in note 4.

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

75.Ainsworth 1983b, 163; Leeflang 2003b. 76.An inscription ‘francois à becke’ on the verso of a drawing with the Bear Hunt in the Lehman Collection in New York has been used as the starting point to postulate a connection between Joos van Cleve and a printmaker who was possibly identical to Master FVB (see Haverkamp-Begemann 1999, 123, note 28). Stogdon saw a similarity between the graphic vocabulary of the drawing in the Lehman Collection and prints by this master;Ainsworth 2001, 118. 77.The print with the Nativity shows some compositional similarities to the panel with the same composition in a private collection in Italy. The painting is in reverse and is therefore more comparable to the print by Schongauer, which was probably the print Master FVB copied (Hollstein 1955, 145). 78.Van der Stock 1998. 79. Goldstein mentioned that a book by Albrecht Dürer is recorded in Vezeleer’s inventory (C. Goldstein, Lecture at the UFSIA (University of Antwerp), January 2002). 80. Schmid 1996, 37.The approximately 350 woodcuts and 100 engravings are multiplied by 200 and 500. 81. Koerner 2002, 19. 82. Hand 2004, 61;Vermeylen 2003, 63-67 (who, however, on p. 67 also mentions that Vezeleer did not deal in paintings and prints). 83. Dürer wrote ‘Sebald Fischer bought of me at Antwerp sixteen Small Passions for 4 florins, thirty-two of the large books for 8 florins, also six engraved Passions for 3 florins, also twenty half-sheets of all kinds taken together at 1 florin to the value of 3 florins …’ (Dürer 1995, 40). He also gave Joachim Patinir a print (ibid., 41). 84. Schmid 1996, 32, 37. 85. Koerner 2002, 23. 86.Ainsworth and Faries 1986 (Master of 1518), 31-32.The early works by Lucas van Leyden, as for example Potiphar’s Wife Showing Joseph’s Robe (Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen), circa 1512, are underdrawn in a similar graphic style; see Filedt Kok 1979, 27, ill. 17. Filedt Kok wrote in his book on this artist that ‘Albrecht Dürer’s engravings appear to have been his great model both stylistically and technically’; Filedt Kok 1978, 38. On Dürer’s influence on Netherlandish artists, see Held 1931. 87. Koerner 2003, 26. 88. Lecture by C. Goldstein 2002 (see note 84). For more information on collection of Vezeleer, see Vermeylen 2003, 6367. 89. M.P.J. Martens and N. Peeters, Painters and their World, Painting in 16th-century Antwerp: a Socio-Economic Approach (unpublished manuscript). 90.This is akin to the development that occurred ca. 1530 in Joos van Cleve’s career: when the artist produced works in the Italian Renaissance style ahead of the taste for Italian goods on the Antwerp market. See Leeflang forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Groningen. 91. Faries 1991, 60. 92. Faries 2003; Faries 2001; van Asperen de Boer and Faries 1990, 37-49. 93. See Micha Leeflang forthcoming,‘Workshop practices in early sixteenth-century Antwerp studios.’ In Jaarboek van het Koninklijke Museum voor Schone Kunsten, ExtravagAnt! A Forgotten Age of Painting, ed. P. Vandenbroecke (forthcoming 2006).

94. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1961, 86. 95.Van der Stock 1993, 48. 96. Bial/ostocki 1955, 126. 97. For more on the role of the gezellen and assistants in the workshop of Joos van Cleve, see Leeflang forthcoming (see note 93). 98. M. Faries carried out the IRR research, November 1314, 1984, with the Indiana University equipment mentioned in note 4. 99. P. van den Brink, M. Faries, R. van der Meijde and U. Neidhardt carried out the IRR research in 1998 with the IRR camera of the RKD, The Hague: a Hamamatsu C 2400-07 camera with a N 2606 vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines). 100. Leeflang 2003b with the publication of an IRR digital composite of S.Luke’s hands, 27, ill. 15. 101. For stages in underdrawing, see, among others, Leeflang 2003b and Leeflang forthcoming (see note 93). 102. Probably a third of the attributed works were made with the use of a cartoon, see Micha Leeflang forthcoming in Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie/Musées Royaux des Beaux-arts de Belgique (papers of the Symposium Brueghel Enterprises, Brussels 20-21 June 2002).The drawing of the Adoration of the Magi (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum) functioned most likely as a preparatory drawing and vidimus for the central panel of the San Donato altarpiece in Genoa; see Leeflang 2003b and also Ainsworth 1983a and Ainsworth 1983b, 164. 103. Hoffmann 1998a, 117-285. 104. I wish to thank Godehard Hoffmann for discussing this issue with me (September 10, 2003). 105.This part of the text dealing with the Anne Altarpiece is based on the lecture at the international conference of the Historians of Netherlandish Art in Antwerp (March 13-16, 2002) by Peter van den Brink. I wish to thank him for giving me the possibility of including materials from his lecture in this article. For the complete publication on the Anne Altarpiece, see Hoffmann 1998a, 155-217 and Hoffmann forthcoming in ExtravagAnt! A Forgotten Age of Painting (see note 93). 106. Hoffmann 1998a, 160-166 (the documents are published as illustrations, 10-12); Hoffmann 1998b, 30, note 10; the original documents are in the Stadtarchiv Kempen, E. Kircheliche Stiftungen und Vikarien, vol. 1, 1430-1700, fol. 23. 107. Hoffmann 1998a, 184-185. 108. Ibid. 109. J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, P. van den Brink,T. Borchert, G. Hoffmann, A. Born, M.Wolters and D. Meuwissen examined the panels on April 7, 1995, with the equipment of van Asperen de Boer: a Grundig FA 70 camera, with a Hamamatsu N214 infrared vidicon and a Macro Zoomatar objective. 110. Lecture by van den Brink (see note 105). 111. Floerke 1905, 130;Van der Stock 1993, 48. 112.Van der Stock 1993, 51. 113. Lecture by van den Brink (see note 105); Hoffmann 1998a, 117-285. 114. Ibid.; see also Leeflang forthcoming (note 93). 115. M. Faries studied in the altarpiece in Lübeck in 1985 with the IRR camera of Indiana University (see note 4). She also researched two of the predella panels in the Sankt Annen-

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

41

museum in Lübeck.The original reflectogram negatives are now archived at the RKD, The Hague. Two other predella panels in the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart were studied by van Asperen de Boer and van den Brink November 30, 1993, with the equipment of van Asperen de Boer (see note 109). For more on the underdrawing of the Master of 1518: Brekka 2000; Born 1993, and Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 29-37. A. Born is working on a Ph.D. on the workshop practices by the Master of 1518 for the Université Libre de Bruxelles.

another way, because they ‘suggest one continuous creative working process [that] seems to contradict the familiar standard workshop practices of Antwerp workshops’; van den Brink 2002, 12, and lecture by van den Brink (note 105).

116. Born 1993, 191 and Leeflang forthcoming (see note 93).

122. Ibid., 193-203 and lecture by van den Brink (note 105).

117. van den Brink 2002. 118. Ibid. 119.As van den Brink notes, the changes between the underdrawing and the final paint stage could also be interpreted in

42

120. Hoffmann 1998a, ill. 37, 201. 121. For more examples of the underdrawing of the Master of the von Groote Adoration, see van den Brink 2001b, 4661.

123.The Last Judgment by Hans Memling was installed in the chapel of the Saint George Brotherhood (now in the Muzeum Narodowe, Gdansk) and the so-called Saint Adrian’s Retable (produced in Antwerp) was in the chapel of the Holy Cross (and is still in the church today).

THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP

Two Scenes from the Passion at the Harvard Art Museums: a Tale of Two Antwerp Workshops?* Ron Spronk and Catharina van Daalen Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies, Harvard University Art Museums

In 1952, Harvard curator and professor, Charles L. Kuhn, donated a small, oblong panel painting of the Arrest of Christ (fig. 1; plate 1) to the Busch-Reisinger Museum, one of the Harvard University Art Museums in Cambridge, Massachusetts.1 The painting, attributed to an anonymous sixteenth-century Antwerp painter, depicts the moment in the Passion when Herod’s soldiers capture Christ. A closely related panel with the Agony in the Garden (fig. 2, plate 2) was recently acquired by the Art Museums.This second panel, depicting Christ in the garden of Gethsemane, the moment in the Passion that occurs immediately before the Arrest, is virtually identical in size to the Arrest of Christ and fully comparable in style and technique of execution.2 The work was acquired by the Art Museums in 2001.3 Since the two panels are fully comparable in material, stylistic, and iconographic aspects, they doubtlessly formed part of the same ensemble, probably with additional scenes from the Passion.The present study will briefly address the narratives of the two panels. The findings from a campaign of technical examinations will be presented, and the pictorial sources for the compositions will be discussed. The findings from the technical study raise the possibility that the original ensemble might have been a collaborative production between the workshop of a painter and that of another craftsman, possibly a carpenter. A hypothesis about the ensemble’s possible original form and function is also offered. The gospels give varied and complimentary accounts of the Passion of Christ, and the two compositions discussed here depict elements from all four.4 The Agony in the Garden depicts Christ kneeling in prayer with raised arms in front of the opening of a cave.To his left, depicted within a cloud, is the angel that appeared to Christ to bring him strength. James, John and Peter, the three chosen disciples, are asleep in the foreground. John is young and blond, and is dressed in a red garment while his hands are folded over a book.The bearded and balding Peter has a sword across his lap. Judas, in the background, leads the soldiers through the garden’s gate to Christ. In the middle ground at the far right, more soldiers are making their way into the garden. In the Arrest of Christ, Herod’s soldiers capture Christ at the gate to the garden of Gethsemane. Judas betrays Christ with a kiss while holding his reward, a purse with silver pieces. Peter raises his sword to cut off the ear of Caiaphas’s servant holding the lantern. The city of Jerusalem is depicted in the background of both panels. Since the mid 1990s, the Arrest of Christ has been regularly documented with different methods of infrared examination.The small painting has a relatively distinctive and characteristic underdrawing that is partly visible with the unaided eye.The panel has been frequently used for teaching students about underdrawing and infrared examination, and for testing different infrared cameras at the Straus Center for Conservation.5 It was extensively used in Henry Lie’s 2003 publication on the use of digital imaging in technical examination.6 The arrival of the Agony in the Garden triggered a new series of technical studies of both panels.The two panels were analyzed with dendrochronology, and the paint surfaces examined with the binocular microscope, fluorescence under ultraviolet light, and with X-ray fluorescence (XRF).The paintings were X-radiographed and the detailed and characteristic underdrawings were documented with infrared TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

43

Fig. 1. Arrest of Christ. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, BR1952.15. Gift of Charles L. Kuhn.

Fig. 2. Agony in the Garden. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, 2001.193. Bequest of Grenville L.Winthrop, by exchange.

reflectography as well as with high-resolution infrared photography.A limited number of crosssections were taken and examined with microscopy and with a scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive microanalysis (SEM-EDS). The paintings are virtually identical in size.The Agony in the Garden measures 18 by 37.2 cm (13.5 x 33 cm within the frame); the Arrest of Christ is 18 by 37.8 cm (13.6 by 33.8 cm within the frame).The wood grain runs horizontally in both panels, each of which shows considerable warp.The reverses of the panels are thinly coated with a blackish paint that was applied directly on the wood, but which is probably not original (see further below). Peter Klein established that the support panels were produced from oak from the Baltic region, and that the two pan44

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

a.

b.

c.

Fig. 3. Details from figs. 1 and 2, construction of frames. 3a. Agony in the Garden, upper left corner. 3b. Agony in the Garden, upper right corner.

d.

3c. Arrest of Christ, upper left corner. 3d. Arrest of Christ, upper right corner.

els originated from the same tree. He determined that the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1492, resulting in a possible creation date of 1509 or later.7 The applied strip frames on both paintings are original. Each frame consists of four separate strips of wood with relatively simple profiles that were glued on the support panels. Since the wood underneath the members of the strip frames remains unpainted and traces of barbs are present, the strip frames must have been attached before the ground and paint layers were applied. The frames received a blackish coating after they were glued to the support panels but before the panels were painted.This black layer seems unrelated to the more thinly applied black paint on the reverse of the panels.The inner moldings of the frames of both panels were gilded over a layer of yellowish bole that in turn was applied over a calcium-containing ground layer.The gilding appears to be old and might well be original, but this is hard to determine with certainty since both bole and gilding were applied after the panel was painted, which is uncharacteristic for the period. As illustrated in the X-radiograph, the bole contains a relatively high degree of an X-ray opaque material.The instrumental analyses of a cross-section from the gilded area of the frame of the Agony in the Garden, however, did not determine the presence of lead white or lead-tin yellow.8 Interestingly, black paint was observed on the top of the gilding in some locations as well as below it. The construction of the strip frame is also rather unusual.The horizontal and the vertical members of the frames are attached to the support only, not to each other. In the Agony in the Garden, the frame members meet at the upper and lower left corner at an angle of circa 45 degrees (fig. 3a).The corners on the right hand are constructed differently. Here only the molded part of the frame meets at an angle of circa 45 degrees.The outermost upper and lower flat parts of the horizontal frame members, on the other hand, extend horizontally to the far right edge of the panel (fig. 3b). In the Arrest of Christ the same features are present, but their positions are mirrored: on the right side, the corners of the frame meet at an angle (fig. 3d) while the corners on the left hand side do so only partly (fig. 3c).The reasons for these features and their possible significance are not yet known.9 Both panels have a light-colored ground layer. A cross-section from the Agony in the Garden was used to determine that this is a calcium carbonate ground that contains fossilized marine microorganisms, indicating the use of a naturally formed chalk.10 The X-radiograph of the Agony in the Garden (fig. 4) shows a remarkable build-up of an X-ray opaque material at the right hand side of the panel, while a circa 2 cm-wide vertical strip at the far right of the panel is surprisingly X-ray transparent.The hard and linear interface between the X-ray opaque and transparent areas is also visible in the paint surface under specular or raking light.The crack pattern is more prominent in the X-ray opaque area than in the X-ray transparent strip to its right.Two cross-sections (plate 3a-b) determined the presence of an additional layer of calcium carbonate TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

45

Fig. 4. Agony in the Garden, X-radiograph. (X-radiography: Eugene Farrell and Ron Spronk).

Fig. 5. Arrest of Christ, X-radiograph. (X-radiography: Eugene Farrell and Ron Spronk).

ground in an X-ray opaque area, and that this layer is absent in the relatively X-ray transparent area.This extra ground layer was not evenly applied over the supports, since the X-radiograph shows that this layer appears to taper off at the outer edges of the panel.A similar build up of Xray opaque materials (presumably also an extra layer of calcium carbonate ground), bordered by narrow vertical areas that are relatively X-ray transparent can be observed in the X-radiograph of the Arrest of Christ (fig. 5), but here the interface between these areas is less crisp than in the Agony in the Garden.The locations of the most conspicuous X-ray opaque and transparent areas in the Arrest of Christ are the mirror opposites of that in the Agony in the Garden, since these areas are located at the far left edge of the panel. It is yet unclear if these features are in any way related to the unusual features in the construction of the strip frames discussed above, which were also mirrored, but these variations in opacity might indicate that the panels were initially prepared with broader frames.11 46

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

Fig. 6. Agony in the Garden, infrared reflectogram digital assembly. (IRR and digital assembly: Henry Lie,Amy Powell, and Ron Spronk).

Fig. 7. Arrest of Christ, infrared reflectogram digital assembly. (IRR and digital assembly: Henry Lie,Amy Powell, and Ron Spronk).

The painting technique appears to be in full accordance with the Netherlandish tradition of the early sixteenth century with regard to the materials used and the applied painting technique. The colors are applied in thin paint layers and glazes, and the X-radiographs of the panels show that both compositions were carefully planned since all major compositional elements were delimited from the background (or ‘left in reserve’).The X-radiographs also established that the panels are in relatively good condition, although a number of small losses can be observed. A larger loss, with some smaller islands of original paint in it, is present near the top center of the Agony in the Garden. Analyses of the paint surface with X-ray fluorescence determined the presence of elements that are consistent with the use of the following pigments: lead white, lead-tin yellow, vermilion, azurite, malachite or copper resinate green, and ochre.12 The relatively X-ray opaque darker blue areas, such as the robe of Peter, were probably painted in azurite over a lower layer of azurite mixed with lead white, but cross sections were not taken in this location. The background landscapes are both depicted with atmospheric perspective and painted in bluish tones. Compared to the other colors, the red areas, probably a red lake, are relatively thin and transparent, and the elaborate underdrawing is fully visible here to the unaided eye. TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

47

The examination of the panels with infrared reflectography and high-resolution infrared photography revealed underdrawings underneath both paint surfaces that are fully comparable in function, style, method, and material. Both compositions are fully worked out in the underdrawings (figs. 6 and 7). Strong contours outline elements in the composition, including the figures, the folds in their clothes and their features. Hatchings in the shadows are close together and follow the three-dimensional shape of the forms accurately. Facial features and hands are indicated with rapidly executed contour lines, while landscape elements are less detailed. The underdrawing medium appears to be dry: the lines are grainy and appear to ‘skip’ over striations in the ground layer (fig. 8). An interFig. 8. Agony in the Garden, detail, infrared digital phomediate layer was not observed, neither in the tomacrograph (circa 1000-1100 nanometer), magnificaX-radiographs nor the cross-sections. Some tion 11x. (Photomacrograph: Catharina van Daalen). lines, such as those in Christ’s hand and feet seem to end in liquid drops, but close comparison with the visual documentation shows that this is actually pooled dark paint in the surface, applied to stress contours (plate 4a-b). Only few changes can be observed between the underdrawn composition and the final paint surface. Some cursorily indicated elements in the underdrawing become more significant in the final paint layers, for example, the angel in the clouds in the Agony in the Garden, and the temple in the background in the Arrest of Christ. Both underdrawings provided detailed working drawings that required little creative invention from the painter in completing the composition. The examination with infrared reflectography revealed inscriptions in both panels. On the Agony in the Garden this inscription is located in the top center of the panel, but a large loss here makes the text hard to decipher (fig. 9).The inscription in the Arrest of Christ, at the top left, is also hard to read (fig. 10).The first letter is possibly a ‘G’, and the last part of the text might read ‘voort’ or ‘oort’.The inscriptions appear to have been applied at a different stage than the underdrawing.The letters have a denser and wider character than the lines of the underdrawing, although it is not possible to determine the medium with certainty.The beginning of the inscription is a pointed line, suggesting the use of a brush with a liquid medium, but other parts of the inscription are grainy and look like they are skipping over the ground layer. It is possible that the texts were inscribed with a dry material such as chalk that was dipped in oil to ease the flow of the medium.The large majority of inscriptions that have been revealed with IRR in early Netherlandish painting are color notations, but this was certainly not the function of the inscriptions in the Harvard panels. Although these inscriptions are not yet fully deciphered, their location at the very top of the panel indicates that they refer to the narratives of the scenes. Other examples of such texts indicating a painting’s subject have been found, and all these examples concern early sixteenth-century paintings from Antwerp.13 It has been emphasized in the sparse literature on the subject that such inscriptions probably functioned to lay out the overall iconographic program of a larger altarpiece.This would facilitate the production of composite altarpieces in multiple workshops, for instance, those of a painter and sculptor.14 According to Jacobs such collaborations were widespread in the production of carved altarpieces with painted wings in Antwerp, where retable producers frequently subcontracted work to multiple, small-sized shops.15 48

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

Fig. 9. Agony in the Garden, detail with inscription, infrared digital photograph (around 1000-1100 nanometer). (Photomacrograph: Catharina van Daalen).

Fig. 10. Arrest of Christ, detail with inscription, infrared digital photograph (around 1000-1100 nanometer). (Photomacrograph: Catharina van Daalen).

Prints by Albrecht Dürer served as compositional sources for both panels.The Agony in the Garden is based on Dürer’s engraving of Christ on the Mount of Olives, signed and dated 1508 (fig. 11).16 The Arrest of Christ closely follows Dürer’s woodcut of the Arrest of Christ from the Small Passion series (fig. 12), which was printed around 1510.17 In the Agony in the Garden, the relatively narrow, vertical format of the prints was adapted to fit the horizontal direction of the panel. In the Arrest of Christ, this was not done, and here the vertical composition of the print was merely migrated onto the oblong panel, resulting in a rather curious, densely packed figure group in a wide open landscape. Some details in the background, such as the view of Jerusalem and Judas’s entry through the gate of the garden of Gethsemane in the Agony in the Garden, are also present in Dürer’s engraving. For the foreshortened gate in the Arrest of Christ, one of the less compelling elements in the work, Dürer’s prints did not serve as example. The Dürer prints were followed more closely in the underdrawings than in the paint surfaces. In the Agony in the Garden, the underdrawn faces of both the kneeling Christ and John the Evangelist resemble Dürer’s engraving closely but less so in the paint surface, where the initial design was slightly

Fig. 11. Albrecht Dürer, Agony in the Garden, 1508, engraving. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, G7812. Gray Collection of Engravings Fund.

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

49

changed.This also holds true for Christ’s head, which is tilted further down in the print and the underdrawing, for John’s face which ended up resting on his right cheek rather than on his temple, and for some of the faces of the soldiers around Christ and Judas in the Arrest of Christ. Close comparison of the prints and the underdrawings through the superimposing of digitized images determined that none of the figures in the paintings exactly matches those in Dürer’s prints, which excludes the use of mechanical transfer methods.

Fig. 12.Albrecht Dürer, Betrayal of Christ, from the Small Passion, circa 1510, woodcut. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, G4425. Gray Collection of Engravings Fund.

The great popularity and artistic influence of prints by Albrecht Dürer in the Netherlands is well known, and his work was widely available there long before his journeys to the Netherlands of 1520 and 1521.18 Among many others, painters such as Adriaen Isenbrant, Jan Provoost, Quinten Massys, and Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen are all known to have drawn from his prints. For his own version of the Agony in the Garden, Bernard van Orley drew from Dürer’s Large Passion woodcut of 1500. Van Orley’s painting was part of a series of four Passion scenes, which are closely related to a set of tapestries.19 The larger, vertical format of Van Orley’s four paintings and their different iconographic program seem to exclude any close analogy with the Harvard panels.

The HUAM panels’ small size and their extreme oblong horizontal format make it highly unlikely that they were part of a series of autonomous Passion scenes such as the Van Orley panels mentioned above, which were stored separately, according to a 1535 inventory.20 It seems highly likely that HUAM’s Agony in the Garden and Arrest of Christ were part of a larger ensemble, probably together with other scenes from the Passion. Both the Agony in the Garden and the Arrest of Christ take place early in the Passion, and they are depicted less frequently than other scenes such as the Flagellation, the Carrying of the Cross, or the Crucifixion. Although the original form and function of such an ensemble remains unknown for now, the format of the panels and the findings from the technical studies provide important information in this regard. As discussed above, the presence of inscriptions in the underdrawings of both panels might well indicate that, in addition to the painter, another craftsman was involved in the production of the panels.This should be taken into account when hypothesizing about the original form of the ensemble. A possible original function of the panels within the lower register of a large retable with a carved central section cannot be excluded but seems rather unlikely. We know of no examples of painted sections of retables with such an extreme oblong format, neither in the wings nor in the predella of the carved central section.21 The format of the small horizontally-oriented panels that, in some German examples, were organized in columns and rows to form a composite altarpiece are also invariably less oblong than the Harvard panels.22 It seems more likely that the Agony in the Garden and Arrest of Christ originally functioned as part of a piece of furniture,as drawer fronts.Such an original function would account for both the extreme 50

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

oblong horizontal format of the works and for the likely production by two workshops.23 In both panels an old, forged nail with a relatively large head is located in the bottom center of the reverse.The function of these nails is not certain, but they might have been related to drawer knobs. Moreover, the shafts of two small, thin nails are present at the top center of the Agony Fig. 13. Agony in the Garden, detail of reverse. in the Garden, and three such objects can be observed on the reverse of the Arrest of Christ. The heads of these nails were snapped off, and the shafts are now covered with the blackish coating of the reverse (fig. 13). An X-radiograph of this detail, taken at an angle to reveal these objects, determined that these nails are old and forged. The fact that such nails are present in both paintings indicates that they must have been applied before the larger ensemble was dismantled.The size and placement of the nails seems to exclude a constructional function, but they might well have secured hardware for the drawers, such as a latch plate; the nail heads could have snapped off when this hardware was removed.Also, the presence of the blackish coating on the reverse indicates that this layer must have been applied after the heads of the nails were snapped off, since this coating lies on top of the headless shafts. We can for now only speculate on the type of furniture that might have been adorned with such drawer fronts.The stylistic and dendrochronological dating excludes a function in an Antwerp kunstkast, since the earliest known example of such a luxury cabinet with painted drawer fronts and inlaid tropical woods and tortoise shell was depicted in a painting from 1617.24 The iconographic program does not fit well with a secular kunstkast, but might instead point to furniture in a religious setting, such as a cabinet in a sacristy. If the Agony in the Garden and the Arrest of Christ were indeed the product of a collaboration between a carpenter’s workshop and that of a painter, the findings from the technical examinations allow for a hypothetical chronology of their production.The carpenter’s shop designed and produced the piece of furniture, and would have made the panel supports to match their drawers, which were not of exactly identical size.The carpenter also made and attached the strip frames, and attached the hardware.The carpenter also appears to have applied the first layer of black paint on the strip frames, perhaps to match the rest of the piece of furniture.We believe that the inscriptions were added in the carpenter’s shop, to instruct the painter what scene to paint on what support panel.This was necessary since the width of the drawers and their fronts are not fully identical, one is 6 mm wider than the other. Since the sequence of the narrative within the overall iconographic program had to be correct, it was necessary to indicate to the painter which scene had to be painted on each of the drawer fronts.This also implies that the overall iconographic program was not determined in the painter’s shop. Since the inscriptions were applied over the ground layer, this layer must also have been applied within the carpenter’s workshop.The drawer fronts would only then have been taken to the painter’s shop, where the scenes of the Agony in the Garden and the Arrest of Christ were first underdrawn following Dürer’s examples, and then painted. After that they would have been returned to the carpenter’s shop for assembly.The carpenter would then again probably have been responsible for the final details, such as the gilding of inner profiles of the frames, and a final black paint layer for the furniture, traces of which ended up on top of the gilding.When the furniture was disassembled at an unknown point in history, the panels were removed from the drawer fronts.The knobs and latch plates were removed, snapping the heads of the nails at the top of the reverses, and the reverses of the panels were covered with a blackish coating. It seems quite likely that, when more panels from this ensemble resurface in the future, we will need to amend this hypothetical sequence of events.

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

51

NOTES

* We would like to thank Francesca Bewer, Kate Olivier, and Karma Tomm for their comments on earlier versions of this text. We are also grateful for the help of Peter van den Brink, Bart Devolder, Kathy Eremin, Eugene Farrel, Ivan Gaskell,Teri Hensick, Narayan Khandekar, Henry Lie, Lucy Lie, Richard Newman, Peter Nisbet and Melvin Seiden. 1. Unidentified Artist, the Arrest of Christ. Oak panel, 18 x 37.8 cm. Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, inv. no. BR1952.15. Gift of Charles L. Kuhn. Kuhn was curator of the Busch-Reisinger Museum from 1930 to 1968. 2.The only marked difference between the two panels is the overall tonal appearance of the two paint surfaces, caused by the darkened varnish on the Agony in the Garden. 3. Unidentified Artist, the Agony in the Garden. Oak panel, 18 x 37.2 cm. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, inv. no. 2001.193. Bequest of Grenville L. Winthrop, by exchange. Sotheby’s Amsterdam offered the painting for auction on November 10, 1998 as ‘Circle of Herri met de Bles’. Peter van den Brink, who recognized the similarities between this panel and the Arrest of Christ in the Busch-Reisinger Museum, kindly alerted HUAM curators. The panel was acquired by Vermeer Associates, and placed in long-term loan at the Fogg Art Museum, after which it was acquired for the Fogg in 2001. 4. Luke 22:39-53; Mark 14:32-52; Matthew 26:36-56; John 18:1-12. 5. Over the years the panel has been examined and/or documented with the Straus Center’s vidicon camera (Hamamatsu lead-sulfide tube-based vidicon camera), the FLIR Inframetrics (InfraCAM-SWIR model A, PtSi 256 x 256 CCD FPA camera; a micron bandpass filter of width 1.5-1.8 and a 36” lens were used), a Sensors Unlimited camera, the Art Innovation’s Musis 2007 camera, and the Phase One (LightPhase CCD digital camera back, 3120x2060 pixels, mounted on a Hasselblad 500 C/M camera, with a 80 mm Planar 1:2.8 lens. For visible digital photography a Phase One TG1 filter was used; for infrared digital photography, a 87A SF-72M Tiffen filter was used); see further Hoffmann 1998c; Henry Lie, ‘A New Platinum Silicide Camera for Infrared Studies,’ paper presented at a symposium for IRR studies of underdrawings at Brauweiler, Rheinisches Amt für Denkmalpflege,April 23-24, 1998; and Lie 2003, 122 and 126-29. 6. Lie 2003. 7.The youngest heartwood ring from the Agony in the Garden was formed in 1488; in the Arrest of Christ the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1492.When accounting for the minimum of nine removed sapwood rings, the earliest possible felling date is 1492 + 9 = 1501. Assuming the median of fifteen sapwood rings and two years of seasoning, a creation date from 1509 onwards is statistically more likely. Dendrochronology reports of both paintings dated June 25, 1999, P. Klein, Ordinariat für Holzbiologie, Universität Hamburg. For a recent article on this methodology and the applied formulae, see Klein 2003a, 69. 8.The cross-sections were taken and mounted by Narayan Khandekar, senior conservation scientist at the Straus Center

52

for Conservation. SEM/EPMA analyses of the cross-section were performed by Richard Newman and Kathy Eremin, using the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ controlled pressure Scanning Electron Microscope, a GEOL GSN-6460 LV system with an Oxford instrument energy dispersive analytical system running Inca software. All analyses were done at 20 Kv, with a chamber pressure of 35 Pc.All samples were examined without coating. Samples were mounted in bioplastic (polyester resin), ground and polished to a 1 micron finish. 9. No other examples of such a construction of strip frames are known to the authors. A similarly differing and mirrored construction of the corners of a frame can be found in Gerard David’s Cambyses panels in the Groeningemuseum in Bruges, but these panels are housed in an engaged frame;Verougstraete-Marcq and Van Schoute 1989, 180-82. 10.This was confirmed through SEM-EDS analyses of crosssections. See further note 8 above. 11.The barbs of an initial broader frame would have resulted in an uneven painting surface after such frame members were replaced by the present, narrower frame.The application of an extra layer of ground might have been used to level the surface. We are grateful to Narayan Khandekar for this suggestion. 12. The analyses with XRF were performed by Kathy Eremin with the Straus Center’s energy dispersive ArtTAX XRF spectrometer, operated at 50 Kv, 600 mAh for all analyses.All analyses were in situ on unprepared surfaces. 13.Antwerp School, Annunciation and Visitation. Panel, 193 x 77 cm. Cologne,Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, inv. nos. 439 and 440, see Faries 1989a, note 1; Attributed to Cornelis Engebrechtsz, Holy Family. Panel, diameter 61.9 cm. Delft, Prinsenhof (on loan from ICN, Amsterdam), inv. no. NK 1412, see van den Brink 1997, note 1; Master of 1518, Woman Distributing Alms. Panel, 52 x 53 cm. Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, inv. no. 2600, see van den Brink 1997, note 20; Antwerp School, Scenes from the Lives of St. Anthony and St. Jacob. Panel, measurements unknown. Kempen, Propsteikirche, see Mulder 1997. 14. Faries 1989a and van den Brink 1997. 15. Jacobs 1998, 217. 16. Albrecht Dürer, Agony in the Garden, 1508. Engraving, 11.5 x 7 cm. B4. 17.Albrecht Dürer, Betrayal of Christ, c. 1510.Woodcut, 12.8 x 10 cm. B27. 18. Held 1931. 19. Bernard van Orley, Agony in the Garden. Panel, 66.5 x 82.5 cm. Paris, art market (Habolt & Co.); Crowning with Thorns. Panel, 65.5 x 82 cm. Hannover, Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum, inv. no. KA 50/1958; Christ Carrying the Cross. Panel, exact measurements unknown. Oxford, Chapel of Oriel College (Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, no. 97); Preparations for the Crucifixion. Panel, 67.3 x 85.7 cm. Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland, inv. no. NG 995 (Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, no. 111). See further Donald Garstang, exh. cat. Jean-Luc Baroni Ltd.,

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

Master Painting and Sculpture, New York (Adam Williams Fine Art Ltd.) 2003, no. 2 (no pagination), esp. note 10. 20.Van Orley’s paintings were commissioned by Mencía de Mendoza and her husband, Count Henry III of Nassau, whose coats of arms are depicted on the reverses.The panels were listed individually as being stored in separate cases in an inventory of Mendoza’s collection of 1535 which was published by Th. M. Roest van Limburg, Een Spaansche Gravin van Nassau. Mencia de Mendoza, Markies van Zenete, Gravin van Nassau (1508-1554), Leiden, 1908, 91-92. Lorne Campbell linked the 1535 inventory with the four Van Orley Passion paintings, see Donald Garstang (note 19 above), especially his note 3.We are grateful to Lorne Campbell for discussing this issue with us. 21. Jacobs listed only a single type of retable with scenes from the Passion in the lower register, which were combined with scenes from Christ’s Infancy in the main register. This

type of retable, from the Brussels shop of Jan Borman, exists in two versions, now in Jäder and in Skepptuna (Sweden). In both versions, the Agony in the Garden is executed in sculpture at the far right of the central register, while the Arrest of Christ is painted on the first panel of the inner right wing. Jacobs 1998, 219, fig. 60 and fig. 78. 22. South-German School, Apocalypse Altarpiece. Panel, 185 x 102 cm. Freising, Diözesanmuseum, inv. no. L9001.The scenes in this altarpiece are based on a series of woodcuts by Holbein the Younger from 1523.According to Hahn and Steiner 1997, these woodcuts drew from Cranach’s woodcuts from 1522, which in turn take their inspiration from Dürer’s Apocalypse woodcut series of 1498; Hahn and Steiner 1997, 133. 23. Compare the later examples listed by Fabri 1991, and her fig. 1. 24. Fabri 1991, 48.

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

53

A ‘Painter in Black and White’: The Symbiotic Relationship Between the Paintings and Woodcuts of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen* Daantje Meuwissen University of Utrecht

Introduction In 1995 the New York art dealer Otto Nauman offered for sale a previously unknown Crucifixion (plate 1).The work is dated 1507 and is attributed to the North Netherlandish painter Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen (ca. 1472 – 1533). The panel is an important addition to the early work of Jacob Cornelisz. since the Noli Me Tangere in Kassel, which is also dated 1507, had formerly been considered the artist’s earliest known work (plate 5).The Crucifixion and the Noli Me Tangere however, differ considerably in style. Because of its meticulous technique and excellent condition, the Noli Me Tangere is regarded as the ‘pearl’ in the oeuvre of Jacob Cornelisz.The attribution has never been in any real doubt. Only Friedländer expressed surprise at the difference in style compared with the series of woodcuts published in the same year, signed by Jacob Cornelisz., entitled the Life of the Virgin (figs. 1 and 2). As Friedländer put it:‘How pedantic, limited and laborious the Kassel painting of 1507 looks next to the casually limned woodcuts done at the same time!’1 The New York Crucifixion was not known to Friedländer. In the summer of 2000, the Crucifixion was examined by means of infrared reflectography (IRR) in the Sherman Fairchild Conservation Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.The outcome of this examination would have pleased Friedländer, as the underdrawing of the Crucifixion proved to be nearly identical to the woodcut series of the Life of the Virgin.This newly revealed infrared reflectography material is the starting point of the current study. A comparison of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin will demonstrate that, on the basis of distinctive stylistic similarities, the former painting must be from Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio.The Noli Me Tangere already had been examined by means of infrared reflectography in 1987, and this unpublished examination confirms its difference in style from the Crucifixion. Clearly, these results have consequences for the attribution of the Noli Me Tangere, a problem that will be addressed below. In 1507, Jacob Cornelisz. must have been about thirty-five, rather old for someone said to be at the beginning of his career.2 The painter had already been able to purchase a house on the Kalverstraat in Amsterdam on January 16, 1500. Interest on the house, which belonged to ‘...Jakob Corneliszoon the painter...,’ was paid in the amount of three Wilhelmus guilders.3 We cannot conclude from this that Jacob Cornelisz. produced only paintings at that time, since designers of prints also identified themselves as painters.4 It is safe, however, to assume that Jacob Cornelisz. was already active as an artist as early as 1500.5 The unanswered question that presents itself again in this context is the following: what paintings, if any, did Jacob Cornelisz. produce prior to 1507?6 Until now it has been assumed that he worked – and therefore had been trained – as a painter, and that he only occasionally proA ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

55

Fig. 1. Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Christ with Mary and Martha, woodcut from the Life of the Virgin series (signed).Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1927-303.

duced (designs for) woodcuts. Much of his painted oeuvre, by far the greater part of which has been attributed, has been regarded as technically proficient but not very innovative.7 If, however, Jacob Cornelisz. was primarily a painter, why did he only begin to sign his paintings from 1523 onward; and why was his first series of woodcuts, the Life of the Virgin, made sixteen years earlier, signed so prominently in two places?8 The material to be presented below will offer a different view of the master.The paintings attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. exhibit a graphic approach: an idiosyncratic, draftsman-like application of paint. On the basis of this feature, one might suppose that Jacob Cornelisz. was a printmaker first and a painter second.This was, in fact, Schretlen’s firm conviction.9 Friedländer also suspected something along these lines:‘Easy draftsmanship, reminiscent of script, corresponds to a way of seeing, we are inclined to dub ‘painterly’, and we wonder, then, that this master, stylus in hand, became a ‘painter’ in black and white, long before he was one with the brush.’10 Steinbart made a similar observation.11 The story does not end here, however.The relationship between the two media in the artist’s oeuvre is more complex than hitherto assumed and might be even termed ‘symbiotic’.12 Whereas the master’s paintings show unmistakable graphic characteristics, 56

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

Fig. 2. Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Lamentation, woodcut from the Life of the Virgin series (signed).Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, rp-p-bi-6268.

his woodcuts undeniably evoke a painter’s vision. In fact, a painterly quality defines the character of these woodcuts. This article will discuss in greater detail the relationship between Jacob Cornelisz.’s painting technique and his woodcuts in the period between 1507 and 1515. I will argue that any future research of Jacob’s oeuvre should focus first on his woodcuts.The reason for this lies not only in the close relationship between the two media, but also in the fact that the woodcuts, in contrast to the paintings, are almost always signed and dated.The prints, then, can form a firm skeleton around which the frequently attributed, but undated, paintings may be grouped. Moreover, the compositions of many of the paintings were partly based on the woodcuts, providing further evidence that the woodcuts were the primary focus of Jacob’s activities. The first part of this paper will place the 1507 Crucifixion in a context of at least eight related paintings attributed to Jacob Cornelisz.A discussion of the Life of the Virgin series, which appeared in the same year, will follow. By means of a table referred to as a pattern book (Table 1), a comA ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

57

parison will be made between the underdrawing of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin prints. It will then be argued that this type of graphic layout has to be by the hand of the master himself.This conclusion, however, does not imply that the paint stage would always be by Jacob Cornelisz., as a separation between design and execution was not unusual in sixteenthcentury studios. Jacob Cornelisz.’s painting technique in the period between 1512 and 1515 will also be analyzed, using Friedländer’s observations as a starting point and focusing on the Crucifixion, the Noli Me Tangere, and the attribution of the latter.The last section of the paper will return to the symbiotic relationship between Jacob Cornelisz.’s paintings and his woodcuts. An appendix to the article, dealing with the artist’s problematic name, will argue that his name was neither ‘Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen’ nor ‘Jacob van Amsterdam’, but actually Jacob Cornelisz.War or Warre.

Fig. 3. Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen (signed), Crucifixion, woodcut. Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, A 13394, 49.3 x 35.5 cm.

The New York Crucifixion

The New York Crucifixion (plate 1) is a large panel (99.1 x 78 cm) with a symmetrical composition.The painting belongs to a group of at least eight related compositions. 13 The works in question, while not signed, are all attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. on the basis of their similarities in style, composition, and size. In addition, these works are related to a signed, but undated, woodcut of the same subject by Jacob Cornelisz. (fig. 3).14 Since various details from this woodcut recur in all eight paintings, it is possible that the print served as a basis for the group as a whole. This, however, is not certain since the dating of the woodcut varies from 1504 to 1511/12.15 As mentioned earlier, the New York Crucifixion is the only panel of the group that is dated. The date ‘ANNO DNI MCCCCC et VII’ (1507) appears on the harness of the gray horse just to the right of the cross, and is in accordance with the dendrochronological dating.16 The dates of the other paintings in the group are based on comparative research and vary widely.The Calvary in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, is usually dated around 1510. Until now this panel has been regarded as the earliest of the group, and thus the prototype of other versions. One might question whether a date of 1510 can still be considered valid after the discovery of the Crucifixion of 1507.17 Nonetheless, the Calvary is undeniably one of the better pieces, which is one of the reasons why it assumed to be by the painter’s own hand.18 While there are no exact copies in the group described here, it does contain partial copies in which background scenes related to the Crucifixion reappear in varying sizes. From this it may be concluded that the studio had stock models which could be reused again and again.19 In some cases the models were Jacob Cornelisz.’s own woodcuts.20 The version closest in composition and size to the New York Crucifixion is the panel from the collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein in Vaduz (100 x 80 cm; fig. 4).21 This work differs only in minor details from the New York example: the faces of John the Evangelist, Mary Salome, 58

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

Fig. 4. Attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Crucifixion, not dated.Vaduz, Sammlungen des Fürsten von Liechtenstein, G 938, 99.5 x 80.8 cm.

and the other Mary vary, as does some of the clothing.The young soldier and his white horse are also repositioned, as are some of the background figures. In the Vaduz version, Longinus has a beard and is differently attired. Small variations are also found in the position of the angel at Christ’s feet, on the left in the Vaduz version, and on the right in the New York version. In addition, the Temple of Jerusalem is clearly visible in the background of the Vaduz version, while the setting in the New York version strikes the viewer as being more ‘local’ in character. A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

59

The main iconographic differences between these two works are the two additional scenes in the Vaduz version: an Entombment at right, and to the left, a Carrying of the Cross which also reappears in altered form in the Calvary in the Rijksmuseum.Traditionally, the Vaduz painting has been dated to around 1517.22 Its dating may have to be adjusted, however, now that its relation to the New York version of 1507 has become clear.23 Since there is no general agreement about the coherence, the dating, or the different attributions of the paintings in this group, additional research must be undertaken.The study of the New York Crucifixion with infrared reflectography can serve as a starting point, as it allows detailed comparison with the dated woodcuts. The Life of the Virgin (1507) The Life of the Virgin series of woodcuts (figs. 1 and 2) originally consisted of seven folios (37.8 x 27.8 cm in size), of which six have been preserved.They show scenes from the lives of the Virgin Mary and Christ set in gothic frames.The bottom niches represent events in the lives of Mary and Christ as adults, while the smaller roundels above show scenes from their youth.The dimensions indicate that the prints were not intended as Bible illustrations but rather, as Filedt Kok has proposed, as a decorative frieze, since the combined width of the woodcuts is nearly two meters (37.8 x 195 cm).24 The two layers that comprise the individual scenes can, in this way, be read horizontally as a continuous narrative.This led Filedt Kok to believe that the series related to a painted polyptych.25 Jacob Cornelisz. signed the series twice.The second folio, with Christ with Mary and Martha and Christ Taking Leave of His Mother, contains the initials ‘I [acob] [monogram] A [msterdam]’ and the date 1507. In the seventh folio, with the Entombment of Mary and the Assumption, the artist also added the letter ‘C’ at the bottom of the monogram, referring to ‘Cornelisz.’26 Although the Life of the Virgin is one of the earliest known signed and dated works by Jacob Cornelisz., the series does not show an unpracticed hand. On the contrary, designing such an extensive series of woodcuts put specific demands on the artist since the fixed format created boundaries, and the images had to be equal in character and style.The Life of the Virgin is iconographically and stylistically coherent.The compositions are drawn in a very personalized style, described by Stepanek as ‘gnarled, rough, [and] frequently disorganized.’27 A good example of this dynamic, almost chaotic draftsmanship is the Lamentation on folio four (see fig. 2). The abundant shading makes Christ’s body appear as if it were covered in hair, and gives the impression that the artist could not stop making hatch marks.This easily recognizable ‘disorganized’ drawing style can be found in all the woodcuts by Jacob Cornelisz.28 It is not known who commissioned the Life of the Virgin series.29 Moes has suggested that Jacob Cornelisz. designed, cut, printed, and distributed his earliest woodcuts himself.30 Judging by the size of the series this seems implausible.There is little information about the time it would have taken to design and cut such a series, but Parshall and Landau estimated that the carving of the series of miniature woodcuts, the Fall and Redemption of Man (ca. 1513) by Albrecht Altdorfer (ca. 1480 – 1538), must have taken the cutter at least two to three years.31 Altdorfer’s series consisted of forty blocks of 73 x 48 mm; the Life of the Virgin seven blocks of 37.8 x 27.8 cm. The extent of the overall surface area makes it unlikely that Jacob Cornelisz. undertook such an onerous task entirely on his own, without the certainty of a buyer. An estimate of the cutting time required for this series is formulated in note 32.The calculation shows that Jacob Cornelisz. must have designed the Life of the Virgin considerably before 1507.32 It is not known whether, as Moes supposed, Jacob Cornelisz. printed the series himself, but he would not have had to go far: a printing press was situated in or near the Heilig Stede chapel, which was practically next door to Jacob’s shop.The press in question was actively printing booklets with woodcut illustrations in 1506.33 60

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

Fig. 5. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the Crucifixion (plate 1), private collection, New York. (IRR: Metropolitan Museum of Art; digital composite: Daantje Meuwissen).

The Underdrawing of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin:The Hand of Jacob Cornelisz.? To compare the underdrawing of the Crucifixion with the woodcuts from the Life of the Virgin, I have set up a pattern book with an inventory of the graphic repertory present in both works of art (see Table1).The pattern book helps demonstrate that while there are many similarities between the two works of art, there are some divergences as well, primarily due to the differences in medium and function. Infrared reflectography revealed that the Crucifixion was extensively prepared (figs. 5, 6).34 The underdrawing has been applied in a dry material such as black chalk and was made visible everywhere except for areas where black or dark blue paint was used, as in the Virgin´s robe. The similarities between the underdrawing of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin will be discussed briefly, but for more detailed analysis, I refer to the pattern book in table 1. Obvious outlines are used in both works of art. Within those outlines, the folds of the garments are drawn by means of curved lines that follow the volume of the fabric. Protruding folds are indiA ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

61

Figs. 6a-b. Detail of fig. 5 and tracing showing the position of the underdrawing.

cated by means of ‘stitches’: straight lines that determine the direction of the fold, with short shadings at right angles across the contour. Such stitches can be seen, for example, on the sleeve of the Virgin Mary in the woodcut, Christ with Mary and Martha (see fig. 1), and on that of John the Evangelist in the New York Crucifixion (see fig. 6a-b). Depth is achieved by means of diagonal, parallel hatchings that form the mid-tones.The lighter areas are left blank.The darker the area, the narrower the space between the lines: note, for example, the section below John the Evangelist’s knee in the Crucifixion.The darkest passages were drawn by means of crosshatching. In the shadows below the chins of the figures, four or five short vertical strokes are visible.These lines look like beards, even on the women, as in the second Mary behind John in the Crucifixion and Mary Magdalene in the woodcut, Christ with Mary and Martha.The horizon is drawn by means of a number of gently curved lines that resemble large waves. It can be concluded that Jacob Cornelisz. applied too much, rather than too little hatching in these two works of art.This feature is characteristic of the underdrawing in Jacob’s early paintings as well. His later works show less extensive underdrawing.35 The underdrawing and the woodcuts differ in a number of ways.The first difference is that the woodcuts appear more detailed and less sketchy.The lines, contours, and hatchings that are 62

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

currently visible are the result, we may assume, of careful calculation. These lines were not loosely sketched, but designed by means of drawing on the woodblock itself or on separate sheets of paper that were transferred onto the block.The design was subsequently carved and printed. With the woodcut we are looking at the finished product, whereas the underdrawing is drawn in one quick action and shows only one stage in the overall painting process.The lines in the underdrawing functioned as basic layout. They were visible for a short time and only to the artist and his studio assistants.36 The fact that the underdrawing looks sketchier than the woodcuts can also be partly explained by the panel’s size.The painting is about five times larger than the individual scenes from the Life of the Virgin.37 Drawing on a panel nearly one meter high is bound to yield a less precise result than preparing a woodcut (design) with a height of only nineteen centimeters. The third difference concerns the contour lines. Narrow contour lines are visible in the underdrawing, whereas those visible in the woodcuts are much broader.This is probably due to the fact that woodcut outlines are the only means of rendering effects: they have to express – sometimes simultaneously – form, light, shadow, and texture. Broad contour lines are therefore required to maintain clarity in the composition and to differentiate the compositional elements.This particular characteristic does not apply to painting since the painter can work with a variety of different colors and tones.Whether or not the separation of colors is prepared for in the underdrawing stage depends on the individual artist’s working method.38 The need for heavy contours in the underdrawing is thus obviated, although, interestingly, such contours do often occur in the paint surfaces of Jacob Cornelisz.’s paintings, a point to be discussed later. The fourth difference concerns the appearance of coarse hatching in the underdrawing, consisting of widely separated lines superimposed on the lines drawn earlier.39 Such hatching does not appear in the woodcuts, suggesting that in the underdrawing, it must function as a kind of rough indication of the shadowed areas in the painting. The final difference lies in the crabbed, zigzag lines that are visible in the underdrawing, such as those in the headdress of the Virgin Mary, but are not found in the woodcuts. Presumably this has to do with technical limitations: small, wave-like lines are impossible to cut out of solid wood. An analysis of the similarities and differences between the underdrawing of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin leads to the conclusion that the two works must have been produced by the same artist, and that this artist must be Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen since he signed the woodcut series. However, it is known that designers of woodcuts were not always the carvers of the woodblocks.The time-consuming craft of carving was often contracted out to professional woodcutters.This fact prompts the following question: if we cannot be certain that the designer carved his own woodblocks, how can we be certain that the distinctive style of the Life of the Virgin shows the hand of Jacob Cornelisz. himself? The idea has been put forward more than once that Jacob Cornelisz. cut his own woodblocks,40 owing to his very personal, rather chaotic style.41 Real evidence for this hypothesis has never been offered. In my view, however, the question of who did the carving is irrelevant in this context. In the past, art historians often attributed mistakes in the prints or inexplicable stylistic characteristics to incompetent carvers.42 The more current view is that professional woodcarvers were capable of replicating practically any line.They took great pride in their ability to make themselves ‘invisible’, rendering the lines designed by the artist as accurately as possible in wood.43 This was done either with the aid of detailed designs on paper that were transferred to the wood, or on the basis of drawings made by the designers themselves directly onto the block. Jacobowitz and Stepanek suspect that Jacob Cornelisz. drew directly on the block, though that, too, is uncerA ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

63

Component/form Pattern book (description of hatching)

Present in the underdrawing of the Crucifixion (1507)

Present in the Life of the Virgin (1507) woodcuts

Present in the Noli Me Tangere (1507)

Present in the Naples Adoration (1512)

General characteristics, ‘distinctive style’

Enthusiastic, messy, dynamic, gnarly. Shadings in all directions, as if he could not stop.

Yes.

Yes.

No; tidier, less messy. Parallel shadings, many of which are vertical.

Yes.

Protruding folds

Straight line with short shadings on top at right angles, referred to as ‘stitches’.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Differences in depth and fabric

Diagonal, parallel hatching.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Mid-tones for dressed figures

Widely spaced, diagonal hatching, often from top right to bottom left.

Yes.

Yes.

Partly: shorter shadings.

Yes.

Large shadow areas

Widely spaced hatching, often from top right to bottom left on top of previous hatchings.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Darkest areas

Crosshatching, often hexagonal or diamondshaped.

Yes.

Yes.

A small amount of crosshatching.

Yes.

Shadows on bare bodies

Numerous curved, small lines (commas), as if figures are covered with hair.

Yes.

Yes.

No nudes present.

Yes.

Shadows on the face

Multiple curved, vertical commas across forehead like ‘pony' haircut, and along the temples.

Yes.

Yes.

Possibly some parallel lines along right side of face of Christ.

Yes.

Shadows under the chin

Four or five short, vertical lines, like a beard.

Yes.

Yes.

No; diagonal lines corresponding to the form.

Yes.

Indication of eyes, nose, mouth

Some lines, often only circles for the eyes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Zigzags

Unclear function, possibly softly folding fabric.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Horizon

Coarse, curved, undulating lines like water.

Yes.

Yes.

Not visible in examined part.

Yes.

Contours

Thick and broad.

No.

Yes.

No.

No.

Table 1: Pattern book of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen’s graphic repertory

64

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

tain.44 Separate design drawings for woodcuts are extremely rare, and none have survived in the case of Jacob Cornelisz.45 The cutting style seen in the Life of the Virgin therefore may accurately reflect the personal drawing style of the designer of the series.46 Because the drawing style in the Life of the Virgin is almost identical to the underdrawing of the attributed Crucifixion, an important conclusion can be drawn: we are as close as we are likely to get to the master’s personal drawing style.The underdrawing of the Crucifixion, like the design for the Life of the Virgin, must be by the hand of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen.47 Concluding that the underdrawing of the Crucifixion is by Jacob Cornelisz., does not necessarily mean that the panel was also painted by him. It is quite possible that the painted surface was executed by assistants, given the frequent separation of design and execution in sixteenthcentury workshops.To determine who painted the work, we must first characterize the artist’s painting technique, employing some of Friedländer’s observations. Jacob Cornelisz.’s Painting Technique As mentioned in the introduction, Friedländer wondered whether the term, ‘painterly,’ could really be applied to Jacob Cornelisz. He characterized Jacob’s painting technique as graphic and suggested that: ‘Contours [in the paintings of Jacob Cornelisz.] are not infrequently entered as black lines. One senses a hand inured to drawing on blocks of wood.’48 Friedländer did not indicate in which paintings he had observed these black contours, bringing us to the first problem in analyzing Jacob’s painting technique: there are only five signed paintings in the master’s entire oeuvre.This is in contrast to the more than two hundred woodcuts that he nearly always monogrammed.49 Moreover, the signed paintings are all from the last phase of his career (after 1523). Due to a radical change that Jacob Cornelisz.’s style underwent at this time, these paintings fall outside the parameters of research into his painting technique for the period around 1507.50 In describing Jacob Cornelisz’s technique, I will use two paintings with secure attributions which are generally acknowledged to be from the master’s own hand.The first work is the Naples Nativity, dated 1512 (plate 2), one of the major works in his oeuvre.The second painting is a version of the Virgin and Child with Musical Angels (plate 3), one of the most popular compositions from Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio from ca.1512 to1515. Both panels exemplify Friedländer’s characterizations. Another problem in examining Jacob Cornelisz’s painting technique is that the works regarded by art historians as being typical of Jacob Cornelisz. were made in the period in which workshop collaboration cannot be excluded. Large commissions such as the Naples altarpiece of 1512 and the large Vienna polyptych of 1511 confirm this hypothesis.51 Little research has been conducted into this matter, but it is likely that the two sons of the artist, the painters Cornelis Jacobsz. († ca. 1527/33) and Dirk Jacobsz. (born before 1497; † 1567), worked in the studio during the period under discussion. It is also possible that Jacob’s grandsons, Cornelis Anthonisz. († 1553) and Jacob Dircksz. († 1568), participated in the studio. Both grandsons were painters, while the former was also a designer of woodcuts. Jan van Scorel also was working in the studio in 1512. According to Van Mander, Scorel fell in love with Jacob Cornelisz.’s daughter, Anna. It is not known whether she also worked in the studio.52 Despite the problems of unsigned paintings and uncertainty about the contributions of the shop, it is possible to provide a description of Jacob Cornelisz.’s painting technique.This conclusion follows from Faries’s convincing demonstration in 1993 that, after working as an assistant for about seven years, Jan van Scorel had adopted his master’s underdrawing and painting A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

65

Fig. 7. Detail of the Nativity (plate 3), face of Andries Boelen. Naples, Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte.

techniques almost in their entirety. Scorel’s first independent painting, the Obervellach altarpiece (1519), is stylistically and technically so similar to the work of Jacob Cornelisz. that the triptych might be attributed to the latter were it not for the fact that Jan van Scorel himself clearly signed it.53 The same applies to the Adoration of the Magi in Chicago, a panel that had been attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. for years.54 Technical research, however, made it clear that the painting was made by Jan van Scorel, who absorbed his master’s style and technique, and in his first years as an independent artist continued to follow the practices he learned as a studio assistant.Although these practices, which will be described in detail, are typical for Jacob Cornelisz.’s workshop, I detect the hand of the master himself in the paintings under discussion – an impression prompted by the high quality of the works and the similarities between the painting technique and the woodcuts. The first painting to be used in the description of Jacob Cornelisz.’s technique is the Nativity, dated 1512, in the Museo Capodimonte in Naples.The panel is regarded as one of the highlights of the master’s early work.55 The attribution to Jacob Cornelisz. dates as far back as 1882 and has not been in dispute since the identification of the donors as members of the Amsterdam Catholic oligarchy.56 A late gothic composition filled with large as well as smaller figures, all represented in great detail, this work is regarded as typifying Jacob Cornelisz’s oeuvre. Friedländer aptly defines Jacob Cornelisz.’s focus on minute details as ‘a myopic interest in texture’.57 There are at least four other versions similar in composition and style to the Nativity, all attributed to Jacob Cornelisz.58 Although the Naples panel is one of the largest works from the oeuvre of Jacob Cornelisz. (128 x 177 cm), it looks as if it had been painted in miniature.This must be the graphic style to which Friedländer refers.The whole panel is ‘drawn in paint’ down to the smallest detail.The paint surface is built up with numerous hatchings, tiny stripes of paint, which in most cases are slightly curved and generally run from top right to bottom left.59 They appear to have been 66

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

Fig. 8. Detail of the Nativity (plate 3), face of Margriet Boelen. Naples, Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte.

applied by means of a small brush and thick, sticky paint. Such thick paint surfaces are found primarily in the earlier work of Jacob Cornelisz. Friedländer defined this application technique as heavy-handed ‘hatching and dotting’.60 In combination, these miniscule lines form light and shadow.The skin areas were all laid in as flesh-colored mid-tones, after which the lightest parts were ‘drawn’ in light beige, and the shadows were applied in a semi-transparent brown, as can best be seen under the chin of the female donor, Margriet Boelen (fig. 8), and, behind her, in the hand of St.Agnes.The face of the male donor,Andries Boelen, was painted in a similar manner (fig. 7), as was the whole of the panel, down to the minutest detail. The contours of the figures are enhanced with the dark outlines noted by Friedländer, as can be seen along the nose, eyes, and mouth of the face of Margriet.The same applies to Andries Boelen, and, for instance, the angel holding the missal (plate 4a). Practically every contour in the painting has been created by a dark line. A comparable manifestation of this ‘graphic style’ is seen in the Adoration of the Magi in the Art Institute, Chicago, which, along with the painting technique, also resembles the Naples altarpiece in composition and detail.61 A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

67

Fig. 9. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the figure of Joseph in the Nativity (plate 3). Naples, Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Catharina van Daalen).

A few brief remarks should be added about the underdrawing of the Naples painting, since the same graphic repertoire was used as for the works discussed earlier. The underdrawing is applied in a dry medium, probably chalk, and is extremely detailed.62 The lively and exuberant style of the 1507 Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin is instantly recognizable. Like the paint surface, the forms in the underdrawing have been meticulously prepared down to the smallest detail.The miniscule angels in the sky, for example, are sketched in with rapid, short circular lines.The foreground figures are drawn in greater detail. The preparation of the draperies of the main figures, in particular, shows a fine web of hatching that completely reflects the pattern book repertoire (fig. 9). In column four of the pattern book, the underdrawing of the Naples altarpiece is discussed in greater detail.

The second panel displaying the graphic style described by Friedländer is the Virgin and Child with Musical Angels (plate 3).This type of composition was obviously quite popular in the period between 1512 and 1519, as there are seven paintings with this theme, all of which are attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. and/or his studio.63 Around 1515, the humanist Pompeus Occo commissioned a triptych in which he and his spouse were painted on the wings, with the Virgin and Child surrounded by musical angels in the middle panel.64 The burgomaster of Alkmaar,Augustijn van Teylingen, commissioned a similar work in or around 1518.65 There are no identical replicas but, as in the case of the Crucifixion, the group does contain partial copies.The comparable sizes, as well as the compositional similarities and the discovery of a grid under one of the works from this group, suggest serial production of this theme in Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio.66 The previously unpublished painting to be discussed here, which was offered for sale by Sotheby’s in New York in 2000, is one of the best of these versions.67 Due to its high quality, it is possible that this painting was part of a commissioned triptych.68 The surface of this meticulously painted version of the Virgin and Child with Musical Angels consists almost entirely of linear strokes. A good example can be seen in the hand of the luteplaying angel at bottom left. It appears as if the hand is drawn in paint rather than painted.These ‘hatchings’, again applied with a small brush in sticky, thick paint, are slightly curved and in many cases run from top right to bottom left.The Virgin’s hand provides another example of this draftsman-like brushwork.69 In addition to the flesh areas, the hair, drapery, and gold ornaments were all created in this way. Nearly every part of the figures is outlined in dark brown, as can be seen, again, in the Virgin’s hand. Comparable contour lines can also be observed around all the angels, as for instance the angel with the flower basket (plate 4b). This panel was also examined by means of infrared reflectography.70 Although the extremely lively underdrawing can be detected with the naked eye, it showed up poorly in infrared reflectography, becoming only partly visible.The possibility cannot be excluded that the artist executed the preparatory drawing in a brownish ink, a material that is assumed to be present in approximately one-third of the examined paintings attributed to Jacob Cornelisz.71 68

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

The Paint Surface of the Crucifixion The Crucifixion of 1507 differs slightly from the paintings described above. Its paint surface cannot be characterized as either ‘drawn’ or ‘graphic’.Although the paint application does reveal some graphic features, they are much less pronounced than in the Naples Nativity or the Virgin and Child with Musical Angels. Only parts of the painting show the typical fine details executed in thick paint. It is striking that these are the most important details: the tearful eyes of Mary Magdalene, the faces of the Virgin and the second Mary (plate 4d), and the long curly hair of both John the Evangelist and Mary Magdalene. The brocade garment of Mary Magdalene is also painted with special attention to detail, as are the gold cuirass of the young soldier and the ornamental trappings on the white horse. The lower half of the panel displays convincingly painted details, such as the head of the blond soldier with the woolly hat and the shot-color headdress of the second Mary. In contrast, the upper half is somewhat inferior in execution. Little attention appears to have been paid to the left-leaning buildings or to the flat green hills where the artist might have easily inserted some additional scenes, as in the Vaduz panel.The background scenery shows habitual, rather uninspired brushwork. The faces of the figures were built up on a thin foundation layer of transparent pinkish brown that functions as the middle tone; highlights were then applied in light beige and shadows in transparent brown. Only the face of a young figure on the left (plate 4c) shows the tiny brushstrokes that remind us of drawing.The paint surface is also thinner than that of the other works discussed, and only the hands and face of Mary Magdalene are outlined in dark brown contour lines. Because the painting technique is less laborious than that of the Naples Nativity and the Virgin and Child with Musical Angels, and also because this particular panel was completed some years earlier, it could easily be concluded that it was painted by an artist who was still developing his technique. However, such a conclusion would be unwarranted, given the high quality of some areas and the striving after effect in the most important iconographic details.The technique in the New York Crucifixion seems to be a streamlined version of the technique that may be considered typical of Jacob Cornelisz.The lesser quality of the background leads to the conclusion that Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio must have been (partly) responsible for the background scenery. This is not implausible, given the popularity of the composition and the existence of a nearly identical version in Vaduz. Some form of serial production may have been possible by 1507, although this particular conclusion remains tentative since the Vaduz work is undated. The Noli Me Tangere Problem The Noli Me Tangere (plate 5) has generally been regarded as the jewel in the crown of Jacob Cornelisz.’s oeuvre, in part because of its excellent condition.72 In the absence of any paintings that can be dated earlier, the panel has become the linchpin for the beginnings of this master’s painting style.73 Its attribution is based on general stylistic similarities with other paintings given to Jacob Cornelisz., as well as on the compositional similarity with the woodcut Christ Taking Leave of His Mother from the 1507 Life of the Virgin. Christ’s pose is said to be similar in both works.74 The attribution to Jacob Cornelisz. has never been doubted. Only Friedländer wondered what the relationship was between this painting and the series of woodcuts dating from the same year. He could not reconcile the pedantic, meticulous character of the painting with the subtlety of the cutting in the prints from the Life of the Virgin.Adding to Friedländer’s remarks, it should A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

69

be noted that the Kassel work also differs in many other respects, not only from the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin, both dating from the same year, but also from the rest of the oeuvre attributed to Jacob Cornelisz.This constitutes what may be called ‘the Noli Me Tangere problem’. The paint surface of the panel in Kassel looks thick and sticky, a characteristic that does indeed seem to correspond to Jacob Cornelisz.’s typical painting technique.75 There is also a similarity with the row of trees in the left background of the New York Crucifixion. In both Kassel and New York, each tree was put down in a single stroke with a soft brush, so that the trees take on the shape of the brush.The use of a dark azure blue is also common to both works. Other than these few similarities, however, there are only differences to be noted between the Noli Me Tangere and the paintings that typify the early period of Jacob Cornelisz.The heads are notably dissimilar. Instead of the typical narrow, egg-shaped heads, seen in the New York Crucifixion, the Life of the Virgin, and the Naples altarpiece, the Kassel heads are broadly shaped.They have widely separated eyes that stare into the distance. This difference does not apply to the background figures, for which there are more similarities with other paintings by Jacob Cornelisz.76 In the Noli Me Tangere, we see a few large figures on a relatively small panel, whereas Jacob Cornelisz.’s early paintings are characterized by multitudes of smaller figures on larger panels, as is the case with the New York Crucifixion and other typical paintings, including the Naples Nativity.The subject of the Noli Me Tangere is also unique for Jacob Cornelisz’s oeuvre.Although one small woodcut (approximately 11 x 8 cm) from the Small Passion (1520-1) depicts the same subject, it differs completely from the Kassel panel in terms of composition.77 In contrast, the Crucifixion is one of the most popular subjects of the early and middle periods of Jacob Cornelisz.’s career. In 1987 the Noli Me Tangere was examined by Molly Faries by means of infrared reflectography.78 Since the figure of Christ was the only area documented, it is the only part of the painting that can be analyzed here (fig. 10). A list of the graphic conventions in the Christ figure is included in the pattern book (Table 1).The underdrawing, executed in a dry material, appears much less chaotic than that of the Crucifixion or the distinctive style of the Life of the Virgin.The drawing seems more deliberate, corresponding with the pedantic character of the paint surface that Friedländer described.Although there is relatively more hatching than in the works discussed earlier, the lines seem to show greater caution and deliberation in their application.The hatching is uniformly parallel, and often also vertical, a characteristic not found in the underdrawing of the paintings or the woodcuts discussed earlier. Moreover, although the hatched areas are more extensive, the lines are shorter, which may be a consequence of the panel’s smaller dimensions. ‘Stitches’ for protruding folds are absent, as is coarse, diagonal hatching indicating zones of shadow. Crosshatching is visible on the right, next to Christ’s knee, as well as on his right sleeve, but that seems to be coincidental, rather than part of the process of preparing shadow areas. Christ’s neck does not show any vertical ‘beard-like’ shadings, as in the works previously discussed; but contains, instead, six lines that follow the shape of the neck. In addition, the underdrawing of Noli Me Tangere contains a number of broken, almost stippled hatchings that are absent in the Crucifixion, the Life of the Virgin, and the Naples altarpiece. The most striking difference between the Crucifixion and the Noli Me Tangere lies in the much more detailed brushwork of the latter. Its surface is ‘drawn’ in thick paint, but the drawing always corresponds to the forms in the painting and thus does not constitute diagonal hatching for the most part.The garments on the figures, for example, are built up by means of a great many, often crossed, tiny licks of paint, creating a ‘woven’ effect. Furthermore, the figures look as if they have been ‘cut out’ in order to emphasize their shapes, but they have not been outlined with the characteristic lines in dark brown or black paint.79 Finally, the consistently detailed brushwork warrants the use of the term ‘decorative’, a characterization not applicable to other works by the master.80 70

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

Although the Kassel panel was not documented in its entirety, the IRR material published here still makes it clear that there are significant differences in style between the Noli Me Tangere and the Crucifixion from the same year.The Kassel work also differs from other paintings attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. As the Crucifixion must be from Jacob’s studio, it would seem more sensible in any future research to regard the New York work rather than Noli Me Tangere as the starting point for the oeuvre of Jacob Cornelisz. Moreover, the Crucifixion belongs to a group of at least ten compositional variants that are all attributed to Jacob on the basis of similarities in style and size, as well as to similarities in a signed woodcut with the same composition. It therefore provides a more solid foundation for Jacob Cornelisz.’s oeuvre than the Noli Me Tangere, which cannot be related to any other work. Jacob Cornelisz.: A ‘Painter in Black and White’ As discussed earlier, Friedländer wondered whether the term ‘painterly’ was really applicable to Jacob Cornelisz. He linked the elabo- Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram assembly of the figure of rately worked-up surface technique to Jacob Christ in the Kassel Noli me tangere (plate 2). (IRR and Cornelisz.’s main activity and possible training assembly: Molly Faries). in the graphic arts. Friedländer referred to Lucas van Leyden (ca. 1494 – 1533), whose paintings also exhibit a graphic style and were done after the artist had been producing engravings and woodcuts for a fairly long time.‘Having begun to engrave as a painter, [Lucas] seems to paint as an engraver…’,81 according to Friedländer, who further refers to Lucas’s work as ‘…reminiscent of engraving technique’.82 As a supplement to Friedländer’s observations, Filedt Kok suggested in 1979 that underdrawings in the earliest paintings of Lucas van Leyden often look like the graphic equivalents of the painted surfaces.83 The as yet undeveloped painting technique of the master led Filedt Kok to conclude that Lucas started devoting himself to painting only after he had fully mastered the skills of drawing and engraving.84 A comparable, close relationship between painting and printmaking has also been observed in the works of Hans Schäuffelein (ca. 1480-1540) and Hans Baldung Grien (ca. 1484 – 1545), artists also proficient both media.The underdrawings of the paintings they produced show graphic conventions that can also be found in their woodcuts or engravings.85 Furthermore, their paintings have linear, or graphic, details in the paint surfaces. In Schäuffelein’s work there is even a type of ‘overdrawing’ in which figures are modeled by means of parallel shadings and crosshatching placed over the colors. According to Ainsworth, this gives the works the appearance of woodcuts.86 In 1986, Judson came to a comparable conclusion.According to this art historian, a loose pen and ink drawing attributed to Jacob Cornelisz., Allegory on the Sacrifice of the Mass (ca. 1513), was similar in technique to the master’s woodcuts from the same period.87 A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

71

From the above observations, it may be concluded that Jacob Cornelisz. was not a painter who also happened to make designs for woodcuts, but, rather, that he was first and foremost a designer of woodcuts who also happened to produce paintings. If this conclusion is correct, it helps to explain why Jacob Cornelisz’s woodcuts, which were almost always signed, are so much more innovative than the paintings attributed to him.88 This can be seen in the Life of the Virgin series, and also in the Five Saints on Horseback series of 1510.The latter series of woodcuts (37.8 x 25.5 cm) shows five saints, seated on their horses with their personal attributes. Although the choice of subject was not new, the artist’s manner of representing the saints in lively, acrobatic poses is highly idiosyncratic.89 Innovative and dynamic work of this type is rarely found in his painting oeuvre. If Jacob Cornelisz. had been trained as a designer of woodcuts, this would partly explain the scarcity of earlier works. Single woodcuts were rarely produced before Jacob’s time. A tradition such as that in Germany, where painters often designed woodcuts, was almost non-existent in the northern Netherlands.90 However, in the province of North Holland there was a tradition of book illustration in which he could have received his training. Schretlen suggested that the illustrations in Olivier de la Marches’s Le Chevalier Délibéré, printed in Gouda in 1486; the anonymous Dutch Low Saxon Bible, printed in Lübeck in 1494; and the Life of Lydwina, printed in Schiedam in 1498, might be early works by Jacob Cornelisz.91 There is, however, a contradiction here: Jacob Cornelisz.’s woodcuts unmistakably show a painter’s vision in composition as well as in the treatment of space and lighting.This suggests that when he started to produce (designs for) woodcuts, Jacob Cornelisz. knew about anatomy, perspective, theories of composition, and so on, all elements that were part of a painter’s training. Many of his woodcuts are reminiscent of painted polyptychs, not only in terms of image layout but also in their relatively large size. Moreover, Jacob Cornelisz. employed typical painter’s ‘tricks’ such as architectural niches or ornamental borders that enhance the three-dimensionality of prints and remind the viewer of framed paintings. Examples can be seen in the Life of the Virgin and the Large Passion (1511-1514).92 Contrary to the suggestion made earlier, this painterly approach to prints might suggest that Jacob Cornelisz. received woodcut commissions because of his reputation as a painter.93 A print tradition hardly existed before Jacob’s time, but it is precisely during this period – that is, from the third quarter of the fifteenth century onward – that several painters in Europe started to experiment with metal plates, woodblocks, chisels, and burins.94 Painters learned to work in reverse of the final result and put their drawing skills to effect in woodcut design.The popularity of woodcuts in the sixteenth century may even be said to be largely due to this division of expertise between the artist and the artisan.As Parshall and Landau remark,‘After all, for a trained goldsmith the technical barrier to making an engraved print was inconsequential, but composing a passable figure or inventing a historia was something different.’95 Prints expressed the draftsman’s skill, they continue,‘If not technically, at least pictorially, the line between a drawing and a print was a fine one.’96 With only current information, the question of whether Jacob Cornelisz. was trained as a designer of woodcuts or as a painter remains unanswerable. However, research into his earliest works makes it clear that by 1507 there was already a symbiotic relationship between the two media: Jacob’s paintings show clear graphic characteristics and his woodcuts derive their quality from their painterliness. On the practical side, the simultaneous production of paintings and woodcuts must have increased the studio’s general productivity, given that woodcuts could be produced in between the commissions for paintings. Unlike oil paint, which is dependent on light and relatively warm temperatures, the material used was not restricted by the time of year and production could take 72

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

place by candlelight.97 Furthermore, due to the nature of the medium, Jacob Cornelisz.’s woodcuts could become widely known in a relatively short time and guarantee the artist a higher income. Jacob’s contemporary,Albrecht Dürer, was recorded as saying that he earned much more from his prints than from his paintings.98 Conclusion This article presents a previously unpublished painting attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen: the Crucifixion dated 1507. An examination of the painting by means of infrared reflectography shows that the underdrawing is virtually identical to the signed woodcut series, the Life of the Virgin, which Jacob Cornelisz. also produced in 1507.The Crucifixion proves to be an important addition to the largely unknown early work of Jacob Cornelisz. Apart from the Life of the Virgin series of woodcuts, only the Noli Me Tangere in Kassel, also dated 1507, is known to be from that period.The Life of the Virgin and the Noli Me Tangere are difficult to link stylistically, whereas the Crucifixion is easily related to the woodcut series. On the basis of the graphic conventions for the underdrawings and the woodcuts, it can be concluded that the latter two works must both be from the hand of Jacob Cornelisz. The Noli Me Tangere presents a problem. It was argued that this panel differs in many respects not only from the Crucifixion but also from the Life of the Virgin, as well as from other works that are reliably attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. In this light, it seems unlikely that one artist would produce two such completely different paintings in the same year. If the Noli Me Tangere was painted by Jacob Cornelisz., why are the remarkable faces and meticulous painting technique nowhere to be found in the rest of his oeuvre? While awaiting the results of further research into the early works of the master, the New York Crucifixion rather than the Noli Me Tangere should be regarded as the master’s earliest dated painting, as it is now certain that this panel is actually from Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio. Three questions were posed in the introduction: what paintings did Jacob Cornelisz. produce before 1507; was he a painter who also made woodcuts; or was he a designer of woodcuts who also produced paintings? These questions cannot, in fact, be answered satisfactorily without further research into Jacob Cornelisz.’s earliest work.99 What has become clear is that the production of both paintings and woodcuts was fundamental to the artist’s earliest activities, and that the two techniques influenced one another from the beginning.The paintings show a graphic paint application, a technique that might have resulted from Jacob’s most prevalent artistic activity: creating (designs for) woodcuts. In this connection, the typical form of paint application was described in some detail, and the idea was put forward that since this was the most common type of application in the studio, it might provide a basis for the study, as well as the dating, of the rest of the oeuvre.Whereas Jacob Cornelisz.'s paintings show graphic features, his woodcuts may be viewed as printed paintings, deriving their quality from their painterliness, and conveying the impression of having been made by ‘a painter in black-and-white’. Surprisingly, the Crucifixion is the first work to provide evidence for the frequently-heard suggestion that in 1507, at the age of about thirty-five, Jacob was no longer at the beginning of his career. His style of drawing in that year already shows such consistency that he was able to apply it to different media, including the designs for woodcuts as well as underdrawings for paintings, regardless of the size of the eventual work.The material presented here might also allow a further hypothesis: that Jacob Cornelisz. already ran a studio by 1507. More than anything else he was the studio’s inventor, creating designs and partly farming out the actual painting to his assistants.The fact that a Crucifixion nearly identical in size, composition, and style exits in Vaduz might indicate that serial production was customary during this phase of Jacob Cornelisz.’s shop activity. A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

73

Although Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio was clearly geared toward simultaneous production in different media, further research should, in my view, focus on the woodcuts: not only because the relationship between the media appears to have been so much closer than hitherto supposed, but also because the woodcuts provide us with the best view of the master’s ‘true identity’ in that they are, in contrast to the paintings, routinely signed and dated. The woodcuts form an armature around which the attributed, but undated, paintings can be grouped. An integrated approach of this kind may provide not only the most reliable method of investigation, but also comes closest to describing the daily practice of the studio of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen.

74

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

Appendix: Jacob Cornelisz. Wer or Warre, Born in Oostzaan Karel van Mander reported that Jacob Cornelisz.’s place of birth must have been Oostzaan, a village to the north of Amsterdam.Van Mander’s statement led to the name created by art historians, namely Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen.The artist himself signed his name with the initials ‘I’ and ‘A’, referring to his first name, I[acob], and to the city of Amsterdam where he worked.100 Besides Van Mander, there are two other sources that imply the painter’s possible place of origin as Oostzaan. The first source is a chronicle of the town of Hoorn from 1648, which states that the ceiling of the church there ‘was painted [...] by one Jacob Cornelisz., born in Oostzanen who dwelt in Amsterdam.’101 However, as Miedema rightly remarks, the author of this chronicle may have taken his information from Van Mander. The second source is a drawing in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris depicting the Resurrection of the Young Man from Naïn (Luke 7: 11-17), a rather unusual subject.102 The drawing was made in pen and brown ink and has been attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. on plausible stylistic grounds. A signature appears in the bottom right corner: ‘Waer van Ossanen’, or ‘Warr van Ossanen’. The text was written by an early sixteenth-century hand, but it is unknown whether this hand is that of the artist. Although there are connections between Jacob Cornelisz. and the village of Oostzaan, this investigation concentrates instead on the name Warr or Waer.The information published here is not completely new. Information on Jacob’s name being Warr or Waer was partly published in 1975 by van Regteren Altena, but this information has so far not received any attention in the art historical literature, with the exception of the previously-mentioned publication by Miedema.103 The name ‘Waer’ or ‘War van Ossanen’ is interesting because Jacob Cornelisz.’s grandson Jacob Dirckz. was also a painter (like his father Dirk Jacobsz. and his grandfather) and bore the surname War or Were.104 This name appears several times in the archival documents published by van Eeghen that contain the record of sale of a part of the house on the Kalverstraat in Amsterdam that had formerly belonged to Jacob Cornelisz. The spelling of the name, however, varies as War or Warre and Wer or Werre.105 There is, incidentally, no reference to ‘Ossanen’ in these documents.The similarity between the name War on the Paris drawing and that of Jacob’s grandson is striking, certainly when looking at the artist’s monogram, which consists of the letters V and a W, placed upside down.The W may refer to War(re) or Wer(re).106 In this context, the signature of the 1507 series of woodcuts, the Life of the Virgin, might be taken to read: I[acob] C[ornelisz] W[arre] V[an] A[msterdam]. Cornelis Buys, the brother of Jacob Cornelisz., was also a painter, working in Alkmaar.107 This painter’s son used the name Cornelis Cornelisz. Buys, but also used Jacob Cornelisz.’s monogram to sign his paintings. Cornelis Cornelisz. Buys, however, placed his own initials ‘C’ and ‘B’ to the left and right of the monogram ‘VW’.108 Van Regteren Altena published another document relating to this problem. It concerns a seventeenth-century incunabulum produced in Frankfurt in 1620 that later came into the possession of Louis XIII. On a loose leaf glued in near the end of the book, an early seventeenth-century hand wrote in the names and monograms of artists who, according to the author of the list, ‘...carved in wood as well as brass...’. The names include masters such as Bartelt Behem, brother of Sebalt, and Israël van Mentz, a predecessor of Albert Dürer.Although the function of the leaf is not clear, it does provide interesting information about sixteenthcentury printmakers, including ‘Netherlanders’ such as Swarte Jan van Groeningen and a certain Jan Warre.109 A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

75

According to van Regteren Altena, Jan Warre is the same person as Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, because the latter’s grandson called himself War or Werre, and ‘Jan’ could easily be substituted for ‘Jacob’.110 However, the last suggestion is incorrect since the name Jan derives from St. John, whereas Jacob derives from St. James. It follows that Jan and Jacob are different names. Nevertheless, the appearance of the name Jan Warre on a list containing sixteenthcentury north Netherlandish printmakers cannot be coincidental. It may be taken as yet another source implying a connection between the name War or Warre and Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen.

76

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

NOTES

* I am indebted to Dr. Maryan Ainsworth for her help in setting up this research during my internship at the Sherman Fairchild Paintings Conservation Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. I am very grateful to Ms. Hester Diamond not only for allowing me to examine the Crucifixion, but also, and in particular, for funding part of my research and the translation of this article. Many thanks go to Professor Molly Faries for her willingness to allow me to examine with her the Naples Nativity with infrared reflectography and for allowing me to examine her IRR material on Jacob Cornelisz. and to publish the IRR of the Kassel painting, as well as for her comments on the various versions of this text. The processing of the material was made possible by a grant from The University of Utrecht, for which I am indebted to Professor Peter Hecht. I am very grateful to Dr. Truus van Bueren of The Utrecht University for her comments on the various versions of this article. I also thank the Foundation Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, in particular Mr. and Mrs. van Wijk, for their help in acquiring the color plates.This article was translated from the Dutch by Dr. Paul Van Buren. 1. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 64. 2. For the estimate of Jacob’s date of birth, see Carroll 1987, 8. 3. van Eeghen 1986, 97. 4. Parshall and Landau 1994, 8. Moes reports that Jacob’s grandson, Cornelis Anthonisz., whom we know mainly as a designer of woodcuts, also identified himself as a painter; Moes 1900, 187-98. Regarding Cornelis Anthonisz., see Filedt Kok et al. 1986, 198. 5. van Eeghen established that Jacob Cornelisz. must have bought his house before the turn of the century; van Eeghen 1986, 97. 6. Friedländer (1975, vol. 12) published two paintings which he suspected to be from one of Jacob Cornelisz.’s earlier periods: Virgin and Child with St.Anne (Yale Art Gallery, 92.5 x 84 cm) and an Adoration of the Magi (Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent, inv. no. ABM 61, 112.5 x 109 cm). The former work is now attributed to the Haarlem School, and the underdrawing of this painting is different from those in works that are characteristic of Jacob Cornelisz.The IRR examination was conducted by Dr. Maryan Ainsworth and Daantje Meuwissen on September 8, 2000, with the equipment of the Yale University. The work in the Catharijneconvent is currently referred to as ‘anonymous North Netherlandish’. 7. Beets 1914, 86, Filedt Kok et al. 1986, 131; and Carroll 1987, 5. 8. Friedländer (1975, vol. 12, 56) suggests that the practice of signing paintings originated from the art of engraving, and that painters who were not engravers usually did not sign their paintings. However, this does not explain the sixteen year gap between Jacob’s first signed woodcut (1507) and the first signed painting (1523). 9. Schretlen suggested that Jacob Cornelisz. was, above all, a designer of woodcuts; Schretlen 1925, 143-49. For an overview of the literature on the early works of Jacob Cornelisz., see Carrol 1987, 8-14.

10. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 64. 11. Steinbart 1922, 47:‘Es ist immer wieder, als ob der Pinsel seine Hand beschwere und erst der Stift sie zu frischerem schaffen beflügele.’ (It always seems as if the brush makes Jacob’s hand heavier, whereas, with the drawing stylus, he creates fresh designs.) 12. Maryan Ainsworth, who published a list of desiderata for future research, suggested study of the ‘symbiotic relationship’ between engravings, underdrawings, and paintings; Ainsworth 2001, 117. 13. 1) Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, cat. no.A 1967; panel, 104 x 88 cm dated ca. 1510); 2) Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Johnson Collection, cat. no. 409, panel, 99 x 80.4 cm (dated ca. 1515); 3) Barnard Castle, Bowes Museum, cat. no.unknown,panel,106 x 91,7 cm (dated ca.1517);4) Utrecht, Centraal Museum, cat. no. 27855, panel, 76,5 x 80.8 cm (dated ca. 1520); 5) Amsterdam, Stichting P.& N. de Boer, panel, 87 x 77 cm (date unknown); 6) Location unknown, Sotheby Mak van Waay 1977, no. 101, 66.5 x 49.5 cm.; 7) Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent,cat.no.S 87,118 x 103 cm,(dated ca.1520), with six other scenes from the Passion of Christ;8)Vaduz,Prince of Liechtenstein collection, cat. no. 938, panel, 100 x 80 cm. 14.The woodcut is made up of two folios, 49.6 x 35.5 cm; Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, Graphische Sammlung, cat. no.A 13394, 49.6 x 35.5 cm. 15. Steinbart dates the woodcut to ca.1511/12; Steinbart 1937, 36 (no. 19). Schretlen dated it to ca. 1504; Schretlen 1938, 147. 16.The date is part of the original paint layer and thus cannot have been added later.This observation derives from the stereomicroscopic research by Justina Bascik, Sherman Fairchild Conservation Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (September 14, 2000). Dendrochronology was carried out by Dr. Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, on May 30, 1996. According to Klein, the earliest possible felling date of the tree used for the panel is 1499. However, with the addition of a statistical average of fifteen sapwood rings and a minimum of two years drying time, the painting could have been produced from 1506 onwards. 17.Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum (cat. no.A 1967), oil on panel, 104 x 88 cm. 18. Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3, 89. 19.This subject will be discussed in the forthcoming Centraal Museum catalogue by Molly Faries, Liesbeth Helmus, and Dorien Tamis. I thank Dorien Tamis for allowing me to read the first version of the catalogue entry for the Crucifixion attributed to Jacob Cornelisz., cat. no. 27855. 20. In this connection, also see Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3, 95100. Truus van Bueren and I are preparing a publication in which we discuss Jacob Cornelisz.’s use of woodcuts for his own paintings. 21. Steinbart 1922, 86. 22. Carroll 1987, 175. 23. Of course, a much later copy of the 1507 version might be the case here.

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

77

24. Rosier 1977, vol. 1, 131. 25. Filedt Kok 1988, 89. 26. Steinbart 1937, 11-23. For the monogram, see also Appendix 1. 27. Jacobowitz and Stepanek 1983, 266. 28. According to Schretlen the hatchings in the woodcuts continue to get busier, heavier, and rounder over the years, but here I disagree with the author (Schretlen 1958, 148). 29. Next to the Amsterdam coat of arms, the coat of arms of Rotterdam can also be seen (leaf no. 7), but neither gives any indication of the patron’s identity (see Steinbart 1937, 15). Above the Amsterdam coat of arms an emperor’s crown is displayed; see Dudok van Heel 1993, 1-21. 30. Moes 1900, 41. 31. Parshall and Landau 1994, 205. 32.To my knowledge Parshall and Landau never accounted for their estimate. I do not know, for example, whether the authors based their calculation on several cutters, or only on one. This clearly affects the calculation of the time that was spent on the carving of the Life of the Virgin. My estimates correspond to two possibilities: either a) the number of blocks is the determining factor, or b) the surface to be cut is the determining factor. Regarding a), the underlying assumption is that Jacob Cornelisz. spent as much time as Altdorfer on carving a block, assuming that Jacob Cornelisz.’s blocks may have been larger, resulting in more than average carving time, but that miniature woodcuts by Altdorfer must have taken longer because they were more detailed. Consequently, in this hypothesis surface and detail cancel each other out. If 40 blocks for Altdorfer = 2.5 years, then 7 blocks for Jacob Cornelisz. = 0.4375 year (in other words, about six months). Regarding b), the underlying assumption is that the surface is the determining factor.The degree of elaboration is irrelevant in this case and the size of the block is the sole determinant of carving time.The basis for the calculation would seem to be reliable, given that carving costs relating to the printing of Anton Koberger’s Weltchronik (ca. 1492) were based on woodblock size (Parshall and Landau 1994, 41). The hypothesis leads to the following calculation: surface one Altdorfer panel = 73 x 48 mm = 3.504 mm2, surface one Jacob Cornelisz. panel = 378 x 278 mm = 105.084 mm2, total surface Altdorfer’s= 40 x 3.504 mm2 = 140.160 mm2, total surface Jacob Cornelisz’s = 7 x 105.084 mm2 = 735.588 mm2. if Altdorfer’s carving time for 140,160 mm2 = 2.5 years, then Jacob Cornelisz’s carving time for 735,588 mm2 = 13.1 years. This calculation suggests that Jacob Cornelisz.’s designs for the Life of the Virgin were drawn at least six months before 1507 and at most slightly over thirteen years before that date. 33. A print by Hugo Jansz. van Woerden, Een wandelinghe der kerstenmenschen, contains the following text:‘Printed in Amsterdam near the Heiliger Stede in the year of Our Lord mcccc and vi on the xviii day of December’; Moes 1900,18.The publisher’s imprint on a book printed by Cornelis van Pepingen contains the following text:‘Printed in Amsterdam in the Calverstraat at Young Jacob’s alley’.There is no general agreement on the dating of this book (1500 or 1520); see Moes 1900, 91. 34. Research conducted by Maryan Ainsworth and Daantje Meuwissen on August 2, 2000, at the Sherman Fairchild Paintings Conservation Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Research was done with a Hamamatsu Infrared Vidicon 260606 with C2741 controller, 87 A wratten filter, a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55 mm lens.The assembly

78

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

was carried out by the author with the use of a Panavue Image Assembler 2.10, and edited with Adobe Photoshop 5.0. 35.Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 16. 36.There are cases known in which the underdrawing was used as a kind of vidimus, but the Crucifixion shows no indication of this. For more details, see Faries 2001, 86-88, and Faries 1993, 101. 37.The folios measure approximately 37.8 x 27.8 cm (the sizes of the various folios differ by a few millimeters), while the individual compositions in the bottom half measure approximately 19 cm. It is not known whether the compositions were carved as separate blocks. In any event, they were reprinted in 1513 (for a series with the Seven Sorrows of Mary) and placed in a frame designed by Jacob Cornelisz.; see Steinbart 1937, 19-20. Steinbart suspects that the printer, Doen Pietersz., carved the original blocks of the Seven Sorrows of Mary in 1513; Steinbart 1937, 63-64. 38. It is also possible that contour lines in the underdrawing might coincide with the painted contours in the surface, thus rendering them invisible for IRR. 39.This hatching can also be seen in the Naples altarpiece by Jacob Cornelisz.This will be discussed in greater detail in section four of this article. See also exh. cat. Ondertekend 2003 (entry by van Daalen, 31-36). 40.Veldman 1985, 261; Moes 1900, 41, also suggested this. 41. Jacobowitz and Stepanek, 1983, 266. 42. Ibid., 29. 43.The artist, in turn, tried to adapt his design to the technical requirements of the material. For more details, see Parshall and Landau 1994, 172-74, and Ivins 1929-30, 102-11. 44. On woodblock drawings, see for instance, Müller 1999, 121, including Dürer’s woodblock drawings for the series, The Comedies of Terence (ca. 1492), 119-23. 45.The Resurrection of the Young Man of Naïn (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, pen and brown ink on paper, 25 x 23 cm) could, in my view, be a preparatory sketch for a woodcut, given its relatively large size, the wide spaces between the lines and hatchings, the firmly executed lines, and the attention to detail. In this connection, see also appendix 1. 46. Strictly speaking, it cannot be excluded that an assistant might have been involved whose work faithfully followed the master’s style. On the contribution by Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio and its daily routine, see section four. 47. It cannot be excluded that in this case, too, there was somebody involved whose work closely followed the prevailing studio style. However, in view of the early dates of the works and their high quality, this would not seem plausible. 48. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 63. 49. 1: All Saints Triptych, Gemäldegalerie, Kassel, cat. no. 30, signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ on the banderole on the left panel, dated ‘1523’ on a banderole on the right panel. 2: Salome with the Head of John the Baptist, Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam (on loan from Mauritshuis,The Hague), cat. no. C 1349, signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ and dated ‘1524’ on the banderole in the middle of the sky top half. 3: Saul and the Witch of Endor, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, cat. no. A 668, signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ and dated ‘A[nn]o 1526 nove[m]ber 29’ on cartellino. 4: Virgin and Child with Two Donors, Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, cat. no. GVL 61 a,b,c, signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ and dated ‘1526’ on the middle panel, side panels dated ‘1530’, unsigned. In spite of the identifying mark on the middle panel, Friedländer attributes the painting to Jacob’s son, Dirk Jacobsz. (Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 56.) 5: Self Portrait, Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam, cat. no.A 1405, signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ and dated ‘1533’ on cartellino.Although there are no doubts about the signature, the dating of this work poses problems. In this connection, see Filedt Kok et al. 1986, 196-97 and van Eeghen 1986, 121. On two controversial, vanished paintings said to bear Jacob Cornelisz.’s identifying mark, see Van Mander/Miedema 1995, vol. 2, 287. 50.The panel from the Amsterdam Historisch Museum with the portraits of Korsgen Elbertsz, attributed to Jacob Cornelisz., is often dated to 1508, since this is the date that appears on the frame. However, the date in question marks the death of the female donor’s mother.The donor’s daughter, Griete Korsgen, had the panel installed in the Convent of St. Agnes in 1518. Friedländer (1975, vol. 12, 61) suspected that, in view of its style, the work could not have been painted much earlier than 1518, a view that was confirmed by infrared reflectography. 51. Polyptych with St Jerome and Donors,Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, cat. no. 646. Middle panel, 176 x 113 cm, side panels, 176 x 46 cm. Dated twice in the Mass of St. Gregory: ‘ANNO DOMINI MCCCCCXI/ ANNO DOMINI 1511’. 52. On Jacob Cornelisz.’s family relations, see van Eeghen, 1986, 95-132. Parshall and Landau observe that women and daughters often worked in printmakers’ family studios, for example, as carvers of woodblocks; Parshall and Landau 1994, 12. 53. Faries 1993, 101-11. 54. Adoration of the Magi, Chicago, Art Institute, cat. no. 1935.381, unsigned (the inscription on the back, Schoo[r]el, is not original), ca. 1519, panel. On the attribution to Scorel, see Faries and Wolff 1996, 728-30. 55. Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples, (cat. no.3), 128 x 177 cm, dated ‘1512’, unsigned. 56. For an overview of the various older attributions, see Carroll 1987, 107. For the identification of the donors, see Noach 1940, 227-31, and Scholtens 1958, 198-210.Andries Boelen (1455-1525) is also among the figures present, who, apart from having been mayor of Amsterdam fifteen times in succession, was also an intermediary between Emperor Maximilian II and his aunt, Margriet Dircksdr. Boelen.The other figures are identified as next of kin and relatives by marriage, including Claes Hillebransdtsz. den Otter (1496-1540), a priest of the Nieuwe Kerk parish in Amsterdam.The members of the Boelen/Den Otter family maintained close relations with the Carthusian monastery near Amsterdam, for which this large work was made. Jacob Cornelisz. probably also produced stained-glass windows for Andries Boelen en Claes Hillebrandtz. which were placed in the Nieuwe Zijds chapel. 57. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 63. 58. For the different versions, see Carroll 1987, 105-07. 59. One is inclined to associate this type of application with tempera paint, a type of paint which, because of its medium (egg), is difficult to mix and therefore is often applied in lines or dots. In contrast, oil paint is, because of its long drying time, readily mixed, and can thus produce smooth enamel-type surfaces. It is generally assumed that Jacob Cornelisz., like his contemporaries, painted in oil. This means that his manner of paint application goes against the specific properties of the medium. However, Jacob Cornelisz.’s use of paint is worthy of further study, seeing that he also probably used watercolor or glue for painting on canvas (Carroll 1987, 257), and probably also a different medium for his paintings on ceilings. (For this last remark I am indebted to Mr.W. Haakma Wagenaar, restorer of the ceiling paintings attributed to Jacob in the Grote Kerk of Alkmaar; personal communica-

tion, October, 12, 2003 and August 20, 2004. Mr. Haakma Wagenaar is convinced that the ceilings of the churches in Warmenhuizen and Alkmaar are painted by Jacob Cornelisz. and has expressed this opinion in various lectures and in personal communication with specialists). The signed triptych in Stuttgart is said to have been executed in a ‘mixed medium’ (tempera covered by oil paint), but the catalogue does not say whether the medium was tested in the laboratory (Alte Meister 1992, 90). Tempera was rarely used for panel paintings in the northern Netherlands in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and in cases where it does occur, it is restricted to the lowest layers of the painting surfaces, see Dunkerton 2000, 288. 60. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 63. 61.Art Institute, Chicago, cat. no. 1983.375. I thank Martha Wolff for giving me the opportunity on September 21, 2000, to examine the Chicago Adoration under the microscope, and Cynthia Berry for her assistance.According to Steinbart (1922, 72), this panel is from the hand of Jacob Cornelisz. himself. 62. Examined in Naples on October 21, 2002, by Professor Molly Faries, Linda Jansen, Micha Leeflang and Daantje Meuwissen with the use of equipment of the University of Groningen: Mitsubishi IR M700 E focal plane array camera, PtSi-FPA 801 x 512 pixel detector and RS 170 or CCIR 625 video output, Nikkor f 3.5, 55 mm lens; images captured with Arte software.The assembly was made by Tinke van Daalen in Panavue ImageAssembler 2.10 and edited in Adobe Photoshop 5.0. See also exh. cat. Ondertekend 2003 (entry by van Daalen, 31-36). 63. For tradition, iconography, and an overview of attributions, see Carroll 1987, 143-64.The different versions: 1) Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, cat. no. 3170, panel 66 x 57.5 cm., ca. 1512-1513 (part of triptych with donors, side panel interiors in Düsseldorf, Kunstmuseum, cat. no. M 1970 13a-b, each panel 65 x 23.5 cm, reverses in private possession; 2) Museum voor Religieuze Kunst, Aarle-Rixtel, 65 x 56 cm (middle panel with Mary), date on painting 1518, donors Joris Samson and his wife on panels; 3) Munich, Gemäldegalerie, size and catalog number unknown, (see Steinbart 1929, 14), might be identical to 4) Schleissheim, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, cat. no.WAF 159, 84 x 58 cm; 5) Berlin, Staatliche Gemäldegalerie, cat. no. 607, 42 x 32 cm. (middle panel with the Madonna), panels with donors, Augusteijn van Teijlingen and his wife, each 50 x 17 cm, ca. 1518; 6) Antwerp, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, cat. no. 523525, 107 x 72 cm (middle panel), 107 x 30 cm, panels with donors, Pompeus Occo and his wife, ca. 1515-1519; 7) Location unknown, copy of New York version (see section 4.2), presented in Steinbart 1929, 14 (fig.19).The Aarle-Rixtel triptych was examined on April 19, 2004, by Linda Jansen,Truus van Bueren, and Daantje Meuwissen, with Groningen’s infrared equipment (see note 62). Under the painted surface of the middle panel, there is another composition with the Virgin and Child surrounded by musical angels which seems to be the exact equivalent of the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen version. Dr.Truus van Bueren and I are preparing a publication in which we will discuss the memorial pieces painted by Jacob Cornelisz. and his studio.The examination of the Aarle-Rixtel work will be included in the discussion. 64. See note 63 for data on this painting, which is said to have been displayed in Occo’s house; see Carasso-Kok 2004, 307. 65. See note 63 for data on this painting. 66. Van Eyck tot Bruegel 1994, 302-05. 67. Virgin and Child with Musical Angels, unsigned and undated. Sotheby’s, New York, January 25, 2001, lot 39A (the painting is currently in the possession of the art dealer, Alexander

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

79

Acevedo, New York), 71.8 x 55.3 cm; oil painting on panel, two vertical planks. Although the gray ornament in the corners is very old, it is not original.The ornament does not match the manner in which the rest of the panel was painted, nor the style of Jacob Cornelisz. in general; furthermore, the crack pattern in the corners is different from that of the rest of the painting. Finally, the ornament is painted on a red layer that is missing in the rest of the painting. X-ray examination shows that the corners originally contained a thistle-type ornamentation (probably in lead-tin yellow), which matches the decoration in the version illustrated in Steinbart 1929, 14 (fig. 19); X-ray examination on September 14, 2000, by Justina Bascik, Sherman Fairchild Conservation Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 68. I have not been able to trace the provenance of the work. It was offered for sale in the autumn of 1999 at Christie’s, New York. 69.The hand of the Virgin has an area with hatched retouching. Obviously this area is not the ‘handwriting’ of Jacob Cornelisz. 70. Infrared reflectography was done on July 27, 2000, by Dr. Maryan Ainsworth, Kristi Dahm, and Daantje Meuwissen at the Sherman Fairchild Paintings Conservation Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.The equipment used was a Hamamatsu Infrared Vidicon 260606 with C2741 controller, 87 A wratten filter, and a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55 mm lens. 71. On this material see Faries 1993, 109, and exh. cat. Ondertekend 2003 (entry by Meuwissen, 23). For some parts of the painting it was easier to make the underdrawing visible, for example, in the Madonna’s chest, where several slightly curved lines can be discerned. The angels in the top left of the painting shows small circular lines that match those of the preparation of some of the angels in the Naples altarpiece. 72. Kassel, Gemäldegalerie, cat. no. GK 29, panel, 54.5 x 38.8 cm., with date on the ointment jar, MCCCCCVII (1507). For a description of the condition of the work, see Schnackenburg 1996, 210, and Carroll 1987, 200. 73. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 57; Carroll 1987, 200. 74. Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3, 82-85; Steinbart 1922, 43-47. See also De Kruijff, J.D., ‘Jacob´s ‘Noli Me Tangere’ en de invloed van Dürer’, Jacobsbode. Nieuwsbrief van de Stichting Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen 3 (2004), 1-4. 75. I have not had an opportunity to examine the painting under the microscope. My description is based on an inspection with the naked eye, a photographic magnification of the painting made by the Foundation Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, as well as Steinbart’s description, see Steinbart 1922, 4247. Beets reports that he could not detect any ‘flowing brushwork’ in the Noli Me Tangere, but at the same time suggests that he cannot detect ‘smooth brushwork’ in the other works of Jacob Cornelisz. either; Beets 1914, 86. 76.The somewhat childlike figures in the background correspond to the background figures in the Crucifixion in Barnard Castle (Bowes Museum, cat. no. unknown, panel, 106 x 91.7 cm, dated to ca. 1517). 77. Hollstein 1968, no. 60.The figures are mirror images of those in the Kassel painting: Christ is to the left, Mary Magdalene to the right. Christ makes a pointing gesture, in contrast to the painting where he touches Mary Magdalene (on this iconographic problem, see De Kruijff 2004, 1-4, cited in note 74 above.) In the woodcut, Christ’s upper torso and his legs are bare and he has a cloth on his head, while the Kassel painting shows nothing on the head and the cloak covers nearly all of Christ’s body. Behind Christ’s head a halo can be seen which is missing in the painting.

80

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

78. Infrared reflectography by Professor Molly Faries on August 17, 1987, using Indiana University’s Grundig equipment: a Grundig 70 H 875 television camera set at 875 lines, outfitted with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon,TV Macromar 1:2.8/36 mm lens and Kodak written 87 A filter with a Grundig BG 12 monitor. Documentation is done with a Canon A-1 35 mm camera with a 50 mm Macrolens and Kodak Plus X film. 79. Carroll sees black contour lines which I have not been able to discern. Such contour lines were held to be necessary to separate the foreground from the background figures; Carroll 1987, 201. Carroll’s statement may have been based on a similar suggestion made earlier by Steinbart to the effect that the figures are ‘…scharf in dem Umriß eingefangen…’; Steinbart 1922, 45. 80. Steinbart 1922, 45 and Carroll 1987, 201. 81. Friedländer 1973, vol. 10, 63. 82. Ibid., 51 and 63.A comparable graphic manner has also been suggested for the paintings of Hendrik Goltzius (15581617), which were made after the master had produced engravings for a long time; see Leeflang en Luijten 2003, 265-69. 83. Filedt Kok 1979, 36-41. 84. Ibid., 3. 85. In this connection, see also Faries 1983, 144-57, and Filedt Kok 1983, 163-70.Also see Micha Leeflang’s article on Joos van Cleve’s St. Reinhold Altarpiece by Joos van Cleve elsewhere in this volume. 86.Ainsworth 1987, 135-40. It should be pointed out that ‘overdrawing’ does not occur only in Schäuffelein but is a German tradition. 87. Judson 1986, 126-27.This observation holds as well for other drawings attributed to the master; they have not been included in the context of this article because of their uncertain dating. 88. On the same matter, see also Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3, 97. 89. For more details, see Steinbart 1937, 24 –28, and Jacobowitz and Stepanek 1983, 267. 90. Ibid., 30. 91. Schretlen 1925, 143-149. 92. For more details, see the section on ‘Prints as competitors of paintings’ in Parshall and Landau 1994, 81. 93. Filedt Kok 1988, 89, and Parshall and Landau 1994, 8. Ainsworth concluded that Gerard David, who worked in the southern Netherlands (ca. 1455-1523), occasionally acquired commissions for miniatures on the basis of his reputation as a pre-eminent panel painter in Bruges;Ainsworth 2002, 1. 94. Parshall and Landau 1994, 8. 95. Ibid. 96. Ibid. 97. Ibid., 31. 98. Schmid 1996, 34. 99. In my opinion, future research into the earliest activities of Jacob Cornelisz. should focus on the painting technique of the Master of the Figdor Deposition, active in Haarlem or Amsterdam, ca. 1500. This is the artist who has been said to lie between Geertgen tot Sint Jans (ca. 1460/14651488/1493) and Jacob Cornelisz. It has also been suggested that the Figdor Master was the young Jacob Cornelisz. (for

more details, see Defoer 1998, 265-74, and Filedt Kok ed. 2000), 76, a suggestion I find quite plausible for several reasons. First, there are clear stylistic similarities between the two masters: recently Dr. Paul Huys Jansen published an unknown panel with Scenes from the Life of St. Bartholomew and attributed it to the Master of the Figdor Deposition.The fact that this panel strongly resembles in style, composition, and size, the panel by Jacob Cornelisz., Scenes from the life of St. Hubert (Berlin, Gemäldegalerie) was not mentioned. Whether the two paintings were part of the same altarpiece is not known. What is clear is that the works were created in close proximity to each other, perhaps in the same studio. Further research into this matter will be conducted by the Foundation Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen.A second connection between the Figdor Master and Jacob Cornelisz. may be found in the drawing of the Deposition (Dresden, Kupferstichkabinett, cat. no. 799a, 28.6 x 24.4 cm), which has been attributed to Jacob Cornelisz on the basis of style. The attribution is correct in my view, since all the characteristics enumerated in the pattern book are present in the drawing. It is striking that the figure of Nicodemus is practically identical to the one in the painted Descent from the Cross (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, 131 x 102, lost in 1944/1945), a work attributed to the Figdor Master and the work that gave the master his name.This panel originally formed the exterior wing of an altarpiece with the Martyrdom of St. Lucy on the interior (also attributed to the Figdor Master,Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, cat. no. SK-A1688).

100. Brulliot was the first to link the anonymous monogram to Jacob Cornelisz. On the historiography concerning the monogram, see Carroll 1987, 1-2 101.Van Mander/Miedema 1995, vol. 2, 285. 102. My thanks go to Wouter Kloek of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, who drew my attention to the Paris drawing. 103. van Regteren Altena 1975, 274;Van Mander/Miedema 1995, vol. 2, 1995, 285. 104. van Eeghen 1986, 103. 105. Ibid., 103 and 122, note 18. 106. Friedländer read the monogram as two interconnected letters; Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 53. 107. More on this in Van Mander/Miedema 1995, vol. 2, 290. 108. Cornelis Cornelisz. Buys, Rebecca at the Well, panel, 106 x 73 cm., private collection; included in Filedt Kok et al. 1986, 244. Incidentally, the latter publication mentions that Dirck Jacobsz. signed with the same monogram (p. 199). 109. van Regteren Altena 1975, 268-76. 110.The author is referring here to Wagenaar’s description of Amsterdam (1760), which was said to contain a statement to the effect that War or Werre referred to the place Warmond in the present-day province of Noord-Holland; see van Regteren Altena 1975, 274.

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

81

Collaboration in Manuscripts: France and the Low Countries Anne H. van Buren Professor, Retired,Tufts University

Making one of the profusely decorated manuscripts that were brought to an apogee of refinement in the late fifteenth century always entailed a good deal of collaboration: collaboration between scribes, between the chief illuminator and the scribe, and among the several illuminators required to complete such a book in a reasonable length of time.1 Indeed, collaboration was promoted by both the physical structure of the volume and the sequential technique of painting.Although the artists’ procedure was not invariable – books differed in content, size, and degree of luxury; artists were individuals with habits of their own; and conditions of making and marketing changed with the explosion of the book industry – it is still possible to describe those commonly observed in the numerous unfinished manuscripts that have survived to the present. A medieval volume, like a fine modern book, was built up in quires, or gatherings.These were packages of superimposed sheets of parchment (or paper for a cheaper book), usually assembled in quantities of four, called quaternia, but they could be larger and scribes often used a ternion or a binion for a short text or the end of a longer one.The sheets, or bifolios, were not fixed in their gatherings until the binder stitched them in, as he took the thread gathering by gathering around leather toggles laid over their backs, thus creating the spine.While this construction created a strong binding, it also provided the craftsmen with a basic unit of work. Scribes were paid according to the number of gatherings written2 and illuminators, although paid by the piece,3 often worked on a gathering, or group of gatherings, at a time. Before the work could start, the director of the enterprise, the patron or his or her agent (a dealer, the author or translator, or the scribe) had to provide an exemplar for the text and decide on the layout.4 The exemplar was usually an earlier manuscript of the text or, for a new text, a rough copy provided by the author or translator, as Jean Wauquelin did for the first of the commissions through which Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy launched a revival of literature and manuscript painting in the Low Countries.5 This rough copy might be a complete mock-up, with spaces reserved for the decorated initials and miniatures. Judging from the several that have survived, Philip’s writers regularly made such a minute (as they were called in French) for a new text or format. Before its destruction in World War II the minute for Philip’s extraordinary sideturned chronicle of the kings of Jerusalem lay unnoticed in the municipal library of Tournai.6 Better known examples are five manuscripts from the shop of his secretary and translator of pious works, Jean Miélot. All contain rough ink and wash illustrations apparently by Miélot himself, many of them copied from printed engravings. In the minute for his Miroir de salvation humaine of 1449, Miélot traced figures in prints by the Master of the Gardens of Love, the Master of the Playing Cards, and the Master of the Banderoles.When no print was available, he copied the corresponding miniature in a manuscript of the original Latin Speculum Humanae Salvationis.7 With the increased specialization of crafts by this time, the scribe probably received the parchment, or paper for a cheaper book, from the parchment maker or paper mill already cut, ruled to his specifications, and put into gatherings.8 The surface had been smoothed by rubbing it with pumice and the ruling initiated by pricking through the sheets of a gathering with an awl or knife or running a spiked wheel along their edges. Lines for the columns and rows of text were COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

83

then ruled between the pricks with a stylus of plummet, an alloy of lead and tin.9 The ruling was fundamental to the appearance of the page, determining both the module of the script and the format of the miniatures and decorated initials, which were fitted between the columns and a number of lines. It could also structure the composition of the miniature when an artist drew the edges of furniture or architecture along the ruled lines.10 The scribe usually made his or her transcription page by page, on sheets folded in their gatherings.With foliation still a rare novelty, the scribe created a device to preserve the order of the gatherings, which today enables scholars to determine the manuscript’s structure. On completing the last line in a gathering, he or she copied the following word or two in a nearby margin, thus creating a catchword. Since these words were repeated in the first line of the next gathering, the book’s illuminators and, most importantly, the binder had only to match them to the preceding catchword.To keep the order within a gathering, someone, usually the binder, marked the lower right corner of each bifolio with a signature, a letter of the alphabet for each gathering followed by a Roman numeral in minuscule for each bifolio: aj aij aiij, and aiiij and bj-iiij and so forth.The signatures thus appear on only the first half of the gathering because all the leaves of the second half are conjoined with those of the first.11 Once the scribe had completed the transcription, he or she sent the gatherings to the illuminators or, more often, to the patron.12 The illuminators received their instructions in a variety of ways.They might be told to reproduce the miniatures of the scribe’s exemplar or some other manuscript, a procedure implied whenever the copy contains color notes in or near the spaces left for a miniature.When both the copy and the model exist today, much light is cast on the artists’ procedure. Sometimes, they copied the older miniatures exactly, not even following the usual practice of modernizing the way the figures are dressed, presumably to save time and the effort of invention.An example is found in a Roman de Thèbes made for a bookseller in Lille,13 and the Master of Guillebert de Mets did the same in the copy of Boccaccio’s Decameron which his eponymous scribe transcribed for Philip the Good from the early Parisian copy Philip had inherited from his father, John the Fearless.14 In fact the Guillebert Master copied the older miniatures so closely that he must have traced them,15 but he managed to paint only a third of the planned one hundred miniatures.The set was completed a few years later by the Campinesque Master of Jean Mansel.This artist had access to the first artist’s presumed tracings, but used them more freely, sometimes modifying a composition to make it adhere more closely to the text and regularly modernizing the settings and the dress. His style may explain why Philip kept both copies.The duke may have kept the older copy in fidelity to his father and preferred the one largely illustrated in the new realistic style, which had been developed by his own subjects, Jan van Eyck and Robert Campin. For traditional texts such as those of a Book of Hours, the subjects were often written next to the spaces for miniatures, by the scribe or someone else. Two French instances will be mentioned farther on. For an unfamiliar text, the miniaturist often received a list of subjects from a learned adviser such as the churchman, Jean Gerson, for the illustration of Honorat Bovet’s treatise on the schism of the Church,16 the early French humanist Jean Lebègue, for Sallust’s Roman histories,17 and the later humanist Robert Gaguin, who wrote a program for Maître François to follow in a luxurious copy of St. Augustine’s City of God.18 For a new text, the author usually devised the program for its illustration, as Olivier de la Marche did for his allegorical poem, Le chevalier delibéré.19 Some such list must have stood behind the letters and numbers that are sometimes found next to the miniatures, notably, in the first volume of the presentation copy of the Chroniques de Hainaut (the text of which Wauquelin sent the duke in 1447),20 in its second volume and other manuscripts illustrated by Willem Vrelant21 and in the Lille Roman de Thèbes.22 Simpler instructions might be given orally and noted by the artist in a few sketchy figures in a margin,23 and there is at least one instance of the artist writing his own instructions.The Guillebert Master wrote a description of the miniature in his native Flemish language below a sequence 84

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

of four in Philip’s new Decameron, the only ones that do not follow the model. It appears that the artist, having lost the four tracings, wrote down his recollections of the model, which had been returned to the ducal library.24 When miniaturists had to invent a design they could draw on the collection of patterns which was an essential part of an artist’s equipment. In a complaint filed with the Duke of Berry’s chief of works, a certain Jean de Hollande accused Jacquemart de Hesdin, Jacquemart’s apprentice, and his brother-in-law of breaking into his chest and stealing his colors and patterns.25 The drawings, usually of individual figures or groups but also whole compositions, were probably on loose sheets, although some may have been bound in a fascicule.26 While only a few such sheets survive from the Low Countries,27 the use of a pattern is implied in the numerous manuscripts that contain the same figure in more than one miniature. The Master of Guillebert de Mets, who probably worked in a Parisian illuminator’s shop around 1412, continued to reproduce compositions by those Parisian illuminators until his death around 1440.28 The Master named after Wauquelin’s Histoire d’Alexandre (whose eponymous book resulted, along with the Chroniques de Hainaut and a splendid Roman de Girart de Roussillon, from the writer’s first ducal commission) reproduced the same figures of soldiers and workmen in the Chroniques and in the Alexandre.29 Patterns used in all three books entered the possession of Dreux Jehan, Philip’s entitled illuminator who probably directed their illustration. He re-used them in 1456, in the above-mentioned Jerusalem Chronicle and a clumsy follower used them again around 1465 in a Grande chronique de Normandie made for one of Philip’s courtiers.30 Other artists were more eclectic.The rough painter of the misnamed Hours of Anne of Brittany assembled a veritable anthology of Netherlandish panels and miniatures visible in Bruges around 1460: groups and whole compositions from the Dutch-Parisian Limbourg brothers, the Eyckian painters of the Turin-Milan Hours,Van Eyck himself, Robert Campin, and Rogier van der Weyden.31 The Flemish panel painters were equally admired in Utrecht, where the Master of Catherine of Cleves reproduced works of Van Eyck and Campin in at least two manuscripts, while his followers repeated his own figures and groups, evidently copied in the shop’s collection of patterns.32 The Cleves Master also used the new medium of prints to populate his borders with animals and flowers copied from the suit-points in the earliest engraved playing cards. In Flanders the cards were used not only by Miélot, but also by professional illuminators in the first volume of the Chroniques de Hainaut, in the Girart de Roussillon, and in certain Books of Hours.33 The Guillebert Master even copied three of the cards’ deer in a miniature, the one that opens in Philip the Good’s copy of the Livre des deduits du roi Modus et de la reine Ratio, a hunting manual.34 Miélot’s use of engravings for his Miroir de salvation humaine has already been mentioned and the Master of Wauquelin’s Alexander copied Master E. S.’s print of the Man of Sorrows in the Hours of Paul van Overtvelt, a leading citizen of Bruges (figs. 1 and 2)35 Meanwhile, using drawn patterns,Vrelant reproduced figure groups from Parisian manuscripts and from Eyckian miniatures of the Turin-Milan Hours,while his assistants repeated his own motifs.36 By the end of the century such repetitions were a regular practice.The group known as the Ghent Associates copied figures and compositions invented by the Master of Mary of Burgundy and the related Master of the Houghton Miniatures, as well as, more remotely, Dirk Bouts and Hugo van der Goes, in the Berlin Hours of Duchess Mary of Burgundy and her husband Maximilian of Austria.37 The same patterns remained in use in the shop of the long-lived Master of Maximilian’s Older Prayer Book, a manuscript which also repeats compositions of Simon Marmion.The shop also copied several of Marmion’s miniatures in the Hours known as La Flora (which the Maximilian Master knew well, since he and his team had painted its final miniatures) in an uncommissioned, though lavish, Book of Hours now in Munich.38 The growing collection was then acquired or inherited by Simon Bening. By the late 1520s Bening was also copying prints of Martin SchonCOLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

85

gauer and Albrecht Dürer in the Prayer Book of Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg.39 He then discovered the art of the Italian Renaissance and, in the mid-1530s, copied engravings after Raphael and Michelangelo in his Hennesey Hours.40 One could say that a late Flemish illuminator rarely invented a motif unless he had to. Whereas scribes naturally copied the text on successive folios, the artists extracted a bi-folio from its gathering in order to work on the whole sheet.As a result, the decoration on conjoint leaves is almost always by the same hand, even in a gathering shared by two artists.The innumerable examples include a bifolio in Philip the Good’s Decameron,41 several bifolios in the enormous Golden Legend illustrated by Vrelant and his shop,42 and, from Utrecht, the Hours of Catherine of Cleves.43 The successive steps in the execution of the decoration are most clearly visible in manuscripts whose decoration was left unfinished, for one reason or another.The Parisian Master of the Duke of Bedford, decorating what was to be a truly extravagant Missal for the Dauphin Louis of Guyenne, was arrested in the midst of work- Fig. 1. Christ with Angels and the Instruments of the Passion, ing on the page that inaugurates the Mass for the Hours of Paul van Overtvelt. Brussels, Bibliothèque first Sunday in Advent (plate 1).44 Before the Royale de Belgique/Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, Master made the underdrawing (on parchment ms IV, 95, fol. 216. presumably cleaned by rubbing it with a wad of bread mixed with bits of parchment or powdered glass), the scribe or a specialized decorator flourished the small initials with intricate penwork in alternating red and blue ink.45 The Master, using a stylus of plummet or silver,46 began his work by drawing a populous celebration of the Mass in the miniature-space and acanthus inhabited by little angels in the margins, the three in the bottom margin supporting a shield containing the dauphin’s arms. Next, he or a specialized decorator started to paint the border (but not the initial, curiously enough), by putting ‘shell’ gold (powdered gold) in all the required spaces, doing this first so that no dust raised in burnishing would fall on colors that had not dried.47 He made no attempt to connect the gold dots and leaves, because he planned to draw this linework at the end in the same ink that would edge the areas of gold and of certain colors.The artist then laid down the base layers of a gouache of glair and a pigment whose composition can only be surmised, in the absence of a technical examination: lapis lazuli for the intensely pure blues (azurite was used in less expensive books); madder for the lighter reds; vermilion for the intense reds, malachite for the brilliant greens, ochre for the light browns, and lamp black for the background of the angels.48 When the work was arrested the painter had just started to model the colors, with dark red on the acanthus in the lower left corner and the pink gown of an angel at the right.49 While there is no way of knowing whether the painter of this border was the miniaturist himself,other manuscripts leave no doubt as to the presence of a specialized decorator.In Jean de Berry’s Très belles heures de Notre Dame and its detached section containing the Missal and many prayers which became the so-called Hours of Turin and Milan, the same type of late fourteenth-century 86

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

border surrounds all the miniatures, painted in several campaigns over the next sixty years.50 In fact, the participation of decorators is certain wherever a single type of decoration accompanies miniatures by more than one artist. The miniature was usually painted last.51 The technique was a slight elaboration of that used for the borders: a base layer of paint; possibly a second layer; more and varied modeling and, occasionally, a final redrawing in ink of outlines, drapery folds and facial features. Certain artists, especially in the Netherlands after ca. 1470, added gold striations to highlight the drapery of holy or royal personages. While most illuminators worked on a single miniature or gathering at a time, the Master of the Hours of Charles of France began his eponymous Hours by making the underdrawing for all the important miniatures and borders.52 Returning to the beginning, he 2. Master E. S., Christ with Angels and the Instruments of completed the miniatures and borders for the the Passion, engraving. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. first three Hours of the Virgin and the landscape in the fourth, the Massacre of the Innocents at Terce. Perhaps waiting for this paint to dry, he abandoned the figures and jumped to the Crucifixion in the Hours of the Cross.There he brought the landscape almost to completion (plate 2), adding blades of grass at the right of the Cross, but not at the left, evidently meaning to complete the background before starting to paint the figures.The Valenciennois Master of Antoine Rolin, on the other hand, began the first miniature in a copy of the Faits de Jacques de Lalaing by putting down the base layers of color all over the miniature, starting with a thin wash of grayish brown on the earth and the wall at the left and, with added black for a darker tone, on the wall at the right (plate 3).53 He then put red on the garments of the young Jacques, the boy’s mother, and the Duke of Cleves and a pure blue on the gown of Jacques’ father and the upper sky, diluting it the toward the horizon. Adding black, he put the resulting dark blue on Jacques’ hose, infringing on the red gown, and on the duke’s doublet.The next step would have been to put down the base layer on the remaining garments (green and black, to judge from the artist’s work in other manuscripts), followed by modeling each area in a darker shade of the base color.The last step would have added vegetation to the earth and paint to the heads and hands. This complex process could be accelerated by assigning the various steps to different artists or by having the artists work on different parts of the book.While the artists might take on different sections of the text,54 there are both written and visible indications that they usually exploited the gatherings structure.A note in the model of Jean de Berry’s Histoire ancienne jusqu’à César says that the second gathering has been given to Perrin Remiet to help him illuminate another gathering, meaning one in the copy,55 and many other manuscripts testify to this way of dividing the labor. In a Book of Hours from Avignon started by Barthélémy d’Eyck and a decorator around 1440 and taken up twenty years later by Enguerrand Quarton and his decorator,56 the gatherings have been left at different stages. In fact, two of the openings juxtapose the last page of a completed gathering, with its visible catchword, and the first of one whose decoration was only just begun (figs. 3a-b).A few gatherings contain bifolios abandoned at different stages, revealing that the miniaturist and his decorator divided up the gathering between them and painted the whole bifolio at one time. COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

87

Figs. 3a-b.Avignon Hours. New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, ms M. 357, fols. 43v and 44(detail).

Artists could also collaborate on a miniature.The easiest way was for one to make the underdrawing and another the painting.While this might be shown by infrared reflectography, so far applied to only a few Flemish manuscripts, it should be suspected whenever a composition deviates from the usual style of the artist who painted the surface. In Philip the Good’s Girart de Roussillon the interiors by the chief artist, Dreux Jehan, exhibit a spatial naturalism rare around 1450: they are like snapshots of a space larger than that delimited by the frame, which in his interiors intercepts a row of windows in the rear wall.At the same time, his chief associate, whom I have named ‘the Master of the Burial Scenes’, used the old space-creating device of a diaphragm arch before a box-like room, whose ceiling is at least partly visible (fig. 4).57 In the final miniatures, however, the second and third of three which tell of the hero’s contested burial58, showing the exhumation of the coffin from its initial site (fig. 5) and its reburial in the church of Poultières, the space is constructed like Jehan’s.The reason is probably not that the more conservative artist finally succumbed to the style of his chief, but that Jehan, who drew and painted the group’s first miniature, made the underdrawing for all three.This might be demonstrated by reflectography since Jehan’s exceptionally loose drawing is easily recognized. This type of collaboration could operate at long distance.The great family trees in the pictorial genealogy of the Kings of Portugal, commissioned by the Infante Fernando in the late 1520s, were drawn in Lisbon by Antonio da Hollanda, who, as one of the king’s pursuivants at arms as well as a member of the shop that produced documents for the royal archives, enjoyed the necessary access to genealogical records.59 The leaves were to be painted in Bruges by Simon Bening, whom the prince’s agent called ‘the principal master of this art in all of Europe’.60 They came so slowly, however, that, when the Infante died in 1534, Bening had painted only five of the surviving leaves. One still at the drawing stage (probably because it was never sent away) shows not 88

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

Fig. 4. The Reconciliation of Girart and King Charles the Bald, Roman de Girart de Roussillon.Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 2549, fol. 83v.

only the high quality of Antonio’s drawing but, in its empty margins, that he left to Bening’s invention the border scenes of historic events in the lives of the ancestors who sit in the trees. Nevertheless, in painting the ancestors Simon left their armorial shields untouched or covered only by a base of silver, undoubtedly because Antonio was to emblazon them when the leaves returned to Portugal.61 Parts of the text were likewise to be written after their return, a reversal of the usual sequence.62 Other manuscripts show a closer collaboration in painting the miniatures.Already around 1407 Christine de Pizan, who commissioned illustrated copies of her works for members of the French court, praised the illuminator Anastaise for her skill in painting borders and the backgrounds of miniatures.63 While this does not necessarily mean that Anastaise did not paint the figures as well, it anticipates a specialization current in the second half of the century, especially in the massive history books that were made in Bruges.64 In the copy of Jean Froissart's chronicle of the Hundred Years War in the British Library’s Harley collection most of the miniatures are by the eponymous master of the Harley Froissart and some by a second artist, the Master of the Chroniques d’Angleterre, whose figures are longer, stiffer, and less substantial. In a few other miniatures the second artist painted only the landscape and left the figures for the Harley Master, who was evidently acknowledged as more capable of this work.65 This type of specialization is also found in a large picture book containing an abbreviated history of Troy from the shop of Jean Colombe in Bourges, which was continued by his son Philibert.66 At some point realizing that he could not complete the task, Philibert called on the Master of Manuscript 6 of the New York Public Library’s Spencer collection to help in the last three of COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

89

Fig. 5.The Exhumation of Girart’s Corps, Roman de Girart de Roussillon.Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 2549, fol. 179v.

the eight gatherings, but even this effort failed to complete the book, which still contains four partly painted miniatures, three in the drawing stage, and four blank spaces. One of the partly painted miniatures is the famous view of Troy, painted by the Spencer Master, looming above Philibert’s fine drawing of the great wooden horse being pushed into a city gate.67 Which of the two artists was to paint this lower section is answered in the book’s last miniature (fig. 6), in which an armored cavalcade moves toward a distant city of Troy. Here again, the Spencer Master executed the loosely painted background, but the polished but lively faces of the soldiers and silken flesh of the horses could only have been painted by the younger Colombe. In a reversal of the usual order, the drapery still lacks its modeling and the golden armor the decoration seen in Colombe’s other miniatures.68 The miniature is nevertheless complete enough to show how the artists collaborated: Colombe made the underdrawing, the Spencer Master painted the background, and Colombe, the better artist, returned to paint the figures and the foreground, which means that Colombe was to paint the foreground of the Trojan Horse miniature. Miniaturists also collaborated in the painting of figures or parts of figures. Judging by his massive Golden Legend and his second volume of the Chroniques de Hainaut,Vrelant regularly painted the flesh areas of important persons in miniatures by his assistants.69 In the Chroniques' miniature of Vandals invading Gaul (fig. 7), six or seven faces in the foreground and the whole figure of a Madonna-like woman are more fully modeled than the other faces and figures.These touches served to homogenize the miniatures, making them look as if Vrelant had painted them all and giving the book a more uniform and elegant appearance. His role in another manuscript, the Llangetock Hours, is more problematic, because the book’s seven other illuminators are not found 90

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

in Vrelant’s other manuscripts. In fact, he merely painted the face and the hands of the Virgin in the first miniature, an Annunciation by the book’s eponymous Master of the Llangetock Hours.70 Had Vrelant received the commission and farmed it out to the Llangetock Master and his team? Or was he supervising the work on behalf of the patron? Most likely, he was brought in to give a touch of elegance to this important miniature. The practice of a Master touching up an assistant’s work is striking in the already-mentioned Roi Modus, which was completed in the early 1460s by the follower of Dreux Jehan known as the Master of Guillebert de Lannoy.71 In the book’s last miniature an assistant completed the illustration of a method of setting of a trap for birds, but left a bare space for the trap setter’s head (fig. 8). Evidently, the head was to be painted by the Master, who overlooked this little miniature on the verso of one of the very last folios. The additions were sometimes made by an artist known Fig. 6. Soldiers Approach the City of Troy, Histoire de la Destruction de Troyes. for his painting on panel. Many Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms n. a. fr. 24920, fol. 54. of the great panel painters contributed to a manuscript now and then: Robert Campin, Jan van Eyck, Simon Marmion, Gerard David, Simon Bening and, in France, Jean Fouquet. 72 Usually the painter contributed one special miniature: a frontispiece, as Van der Weyden did for the Chroniques de Hainaut, or an illustration of the patron’s favorite devotion such as Petrus Christus’s Trinity in the Hours of Paul van Overtfelt.73 Some embellished a few of the other miniatures. In one extremely luxurious Book of Hours, Gerard David painted two whole miniatures and the heads of principal figures in at least five of those by the book’s illuminator, the Master of Edward IV.74 He also painted the Virgin and Child and five of the virgin saints in a large miniature by an unidentified illuminator.75 Sometimes the panel painter personalized the book with a portrait of the owner, alone or among familiars.Van der Weyden’s frontispiece to the Chroniques de Hainaut contains the best portraits extant of Philip the Good, his young son, Charles, his administrators, and his closest noblemen,76 and COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

91

Fig. 7. Vandals Invade Gaul, Chroniques de Hainaiut, vol. II. Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique/Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, ms 9243, fol. 27.

Marmion portrayed some of the same men in Philip’s copy of the Grandes chroniques de France.77 In the sixteenth century this practice became available to lesser owners. Usually, the portrait was painted separately on a leaf which was then inserted before a favorite prayer or devotional text, but portraits were also added within a miniature. In a book of Hours for the use of Lyons, Jean Perréal painted the figures of the young female owner and the Virgin and Child in the miniature of her presentation by Saint John otherwise by Perréal’s regular associate Guillaume Lambert.78 Perréal also painted the portrait of the author inserted at the front of the lovely little book of the poems the humanist Pierre Sala addressed to his future wife, Marguerite Bullioud, but he was supposed to do more than this.79 The poems themselves were illustrated by the busy Parisian Master of the Chronique scandaleuse, but one of these displays an empty space for the head of a man picking a daisy, une marguerite. Since the facing poem is in the first person, this was surely to be another portrait of Sala. Its unfinished state may have been not accidental, but caused by Perréal’s inability to come from Lyons to Paris before the gatherings went to the binder. A generation later French patrons could employ an even greater portraitist, Jean Clouet. During the Lenten season of 1534, Antoine Macault, secretary to Francis I, read his translation of Diodorus Siculus’s Historical Library aloud before the king, who then gave permission to have it 92

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

printed.The reading is reported in the prologue and commemorated in the frontispiece of the luxurious manuscript copy Macault presented to the king. The frontispiece (plate 4) shows Macault reading his translation before Francis, the King’s three sons, and his highest officers, who include the Grand-master and later Constable of France, Anne de Montmorency, and the Chancellor, Cardinal Antoine Duprat.Their faces are perceptibly larger and more personalized than the others in this scene otherwise by a member of the so-called 1520s Workshop. A Louvre curator’s comparison of these heads with Clouet’s portraits in pastel has confirmed that they are indeed by the same painter.80 Clouet repeated this performance around the same time for the royal comptroller, Étienne Le Blanc, putting the same portraits in the frontispiece (also by a member of the 1520s Workshop) of the manuscript Le Blanc presented to Montmorency of his translation of Cicero’s orations.81 These glamorous insertions are hardly instances of collaboration in the sense of a cooperation among artists of equal status. Nor was every luxury book made in collaboration. Fig. 8. Setting a Trap for Birds, Livre du roi Modus et de la Nearly every major illuminator – Marmion; reine Ratio. Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Lievin van Lathem; the Master of Mary of Bur- Belgique/Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, ms 10218, gundy; the Masters of the Dresden Prayer Book, fol. 99. of James IV of Scotland, and of the Prayer Books of ca. 1500; and Simon Bening – painted a few manuscripts with the help of just a decorator.82 But most manuscripts were painted by a team of artists, who divided up the task, used a large stock of patterns, and painted with a routinized technique.This practice, refined by generations of artists transmitting their increasing skill in the imitation of nature to increasingly skilled pupils, raised the art of the painted manuscript to a level of extraordinary finesse.The result may seem cool and impersonal to a modern eye; but those practices brought substantial benefits in time saved, a consistent style, and high quality. Making books was a business, after all. In this case, a highly successful one. Books from France and Flanders, richly decorated with illusionistic borders and miniatures of an idealized natural world or a naturalized spiritual world, were found among the most treasured possessions of owners throughout western Europe.

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

93

ABBREVIATIONS

94

BL

British Library

BnF

Bibliothèque nationale de France

JPGM

J. Paul Getty Museum

KBR

Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique / Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België

n. a. fr.

nouvelles acquisitions françaises

n. a. lat.

nouvelles acquisitions latines

PML

Pierpont Morgan Library

ÖNb

Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

NOTES

1.All book painters were called ‘illuminators’ because they used gold. For a survey of manuscript making throughout the Middle Ages, see Alexander 1992 and De Hamel 1992. 2. Jaquemart Pilavaine, for example, was paid in 1453 for writing the 271/2 gatherings of one book and the 441/2 of another; Esch 2002, 642-43. 3. Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy’s payment to Loyset Liédet for the miniatures in a copy of the Chroniques abrégée des rois de France (Paris, BnF, ms fr. 6463) lists 7 miniatures, 49 four- and five-point initials (4 or 5 lines high), and 1750 onepoint initials; Legaré 1999.The same reckoning is used in payments for Liédet’s work on other manuscripts; De Schryver 1979. 4. On the documented activity of scribes and dealers in directing the production of a book, see Rouse and Rouse 2000. A model is provided by the patron in three of the French contracts reproduced in Alexander 1992,Appendix 1, nos. 3, 5, and 7. In 1398 Guillaume le Chamois, a citizen of Dijon, gave the scribe of a Book of Hours an exemplar for the text, as well as the parchment and specified the quantities of fine gold and fine azure. In 1448 a representative of Jean Rolin, Bishop of Autun, showed the illuminator of a Missal written for the bishop an example of the form and figures the artist was to draw with skill and paint in fine gold, lapis lazuli, and pink. In 1504 the Carmelite brother ordering an antiphonary for the prior and convent of Carmelites at Luc (in the diocese of Fréjus) showed the scribe two parchment leaves from a book of the required height and width; the convent was to pay for the parchment, the scribe to provide the azure and vermilion he would use to decorate the initials. 5. Wauquelin sent the duke a rough copy of his translation of the first volume of the Chroniques de Hainaut in February 1447 and part of his prose rendition of the Roman de Girart de Roussillon the following May, which Philip examined, or had examined, before giving Wauquelin permission to make the formal copies; Cockshaw 2000, 37. Shortly before April 1448 Wauquelin and his scribe were paid for the formal copies of the Chroniques (Brussels, KBR, ms. 9242; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 3), the prose version of the Alexander romance he composed some years earlier (Paris, BnF, ms. 9342; Delaissé 1959, no. 40,) and the Girart (Vienna, ÖNb, Cod. 2549; Pächt, Jenni and Thoss 1983, 34-60). 6. Les chroniques de Jerusalem abregées, formerly Tournai, Bibliothèque municipale, ms. 133, containing a colophon saying that it was minutée et achevée in Lille in December 1455; Faider and Van Sint Jan 1950, 149. The formal copy, illustrated by Dreux Jehan and associates, is Vienna, ÖNb, Cod. 2533; Pächt, Jenni and Thoss 1983, 61-77, who discovered Faider’s description of the minute.The ‘landscape’ format imitates the vertical rolls used for parallel histories and genealogies. 7. Brussels, KBR, mss 9249-50;Wilson and Wilson 1984, 49-59; Cardon 1996, 230-264.The text, but not the pictures, was copied in Paris, BnF, ms fr. 6275;Wilson and Wilson 1984, 60-65; Cardon 1996, 236, 418-20.Two minutes exist, both dated 1451, for Miélot’s translation of a work he called Le miroir de l’âme pechéresse:The Hague, KB, ms 76 E 9 (Korteweg 1980, no. 44) and Brussels KBR, ms 11123 (Masai and Wittek, 1978, no. 314). Miélot’s minutes for five short treatises are collected in Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek, ms Thott 1090/4 (Cardon 1996, 236-237). Paris, BnF, ms 17001 contains several of

his minutes for shorter texts, one of which is also found in Brussels, KBR ms II 239;Wilson and Wilson 1984, 66-72. 8. For detailed accounts of the preparation of parchment, see Thompson 1956, 24-28; Farquhar 1976, 61-72, and De Hamel 1992. 9. Petroski 1990, 31. Ink was also used for ruling, but rarely in luxury manuscripts. 10. For some early fifteenth-century Parisian examples see Byrne 1984, and for some from the shop of Willem Vrelant, Bousmanne 1997, 94-96. 11. Certain manuscripts, such as an Histoire de Troie in Brussels (KBR, ms. 9650-52), have an ‘X’ on the fifth leaf of a quaternion; Cockshaw and Johan 2002, 401-02. Although these authors are puzzled by this mark, my teacher, L. M. J. Delaissé, explained that it was made by the signer on the back of the fourth sheet as he turned it over onto the pile of preceding sheets. For a rare instance of signatures in the upper right corner of the page, in the Hours of St. Maur (Paris, BnF, ms n. a. lat. 3107), painted by the Boucicaut Master and assistants, see Andrews 2002, 38, n. 42. 12.The inventory taken of Philip the Good’s library after his death in 1467 lists several manuscripts as still without their miniatures, many of which contain a scribal explicit that dates the transcription in the early 1460s or before. Jean Wauquelin sent the undecorated gatherings of the two books written by his own scribe in 1447-48 (see note 5) – the Chroniques and the Histoire d’Alexandre – to the duke (that is, to the keeper of his library or to his entitled illuminator, Dreux Jehan, the probable overseer of the production of all three books), who in turn sent the gatherings to the illuminators; van Buren 2000, 61. In France, one of the contracts cited in note 4 above, the Missal written for Bishop Rolin, was already in the bishop’s possession when his agent hired the illuminator. 13. Cologny-Geneva, Fondation Bodmer, ms 160; whose miniatures were copied from those in a copy of a variant text of the Roman de Thèbes written in 1459 (Brussels, KBR, ms 9650-52); Cockshaw and Johan 2002. In this volume the Roman de Thèbes is followed by the same scribe’s, Jacotin de l’Espluc’s, copy of the Histoire de la destruction de Troie, which has an explicit saying he wrote it in 1469. 14.The model is Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ms Pal. lat. 1969 (made ca. 1417), and the copy is Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, ms 5070 (written and first illustrated ca. 1438 and completed ca.1447); Schwall-Hoummady 1999, 21154, 249-55, 281-90, with a too-early date. 15.The methods of tracing described by Cennino Cennini in the late fourteenth century and by Jean Lebègue in 1431 are discussed in Farquhar 1976, 61-69;Alexander 1992, 50-51, and Scheller 1995, 70-73. 16. Somnium Materia Schismatis (Paris, BnF, ms lat. 14643); Ouy 1960; Meiss 1967b, 13;Alexander 1992, fig. 78. 17. Lebègue’s instructions for the illustration of the Catiline and the Jugurtha are preserved in Oxford (Bodleian Library, ms D’Orville 141), unillustrated and on paper whose watermark dates from ca 1468, according to a letter from the late Keeper of Manuscripts, Albinia De la Mare.They are closely followed in three manuscripts illustrated by the shop of the

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

95

Bedford Master: Paris, BnF, mss lat. 5762 and 9684, and Geneva, Bibliothèque publique et universitaire, ms lat. 54; Porcher 1962; Byrne 1986.

29. For a reconstruction of a hypothetical pattern sheet for the soldiers in the Chroniques and the Alexander (Paris, BnF, ms 9342), see van Buren 2000, 74. For the Girart, see note 5.

18. Paris, BnF, mss fr. 18-19; Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 16. In a letter of August 19, 1473, Gaguin told the patron, Charles de Gaucourt, chamberlain to King Louis XI, that Maître François has executed his program better than Apelles would have done.

30. See note 6.The Chronique de Normandie (London, BL, ms Yates Thompson 33; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 57) was made for a Burgundian courier, Philippe de Crèvecoeur.

19. La Marche’s instructions, preserved in a late fifteenth century copy in Paris (BnF, ms fr. 1606) were published in Lippmann 1898, and followed exactly in the woodcuts in the Schiedam edition of ca. 1500; Cinquième centenaire 1973, nos. 238a and b. On the other hand, the Declaration des hystoires in a fifteenth-century French copy of Heinrich Suso’s Horloge de sapience (Brussels, KBR, ms IV 111), which has been read as instructions for artists, is in fact addressed to readers. It was, furthermore, not written by the same scribe as the text of the Horloge and some of its descriptions deviate from the miniatures; Monks 1990. 20. See note 5 and van Buren 1973. 21. Brussels, KBR, ms 9243; Bousmane 2000, 77.The miniatures are also numbered in the Golden Legend (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, ms M. 672, and Macon, Bibliothèque municipale, ms 3; Bousmanne, 1997, 228, 281); and in the Miroir historiale (Paris, BnF, mss fr. 308-11); Farquhar 1976, 155. 22. See note 13.The numbers cease after the sixteenth miniature, but, since they are in the outer margins, any following ones may have been on parchment trimmed off by a binder. 23.A list of known marginal drawings is provided in Alexander 1992,Appendix 2, 184-86.As observed in Andrews 2002, 32-33, those in Boucicaut Master manuscripts reproduced in Meiss 1967b, figs. 306-13, are pictorial notes rather than precise designs for the adjacent miniatures. 24. Schwall-Hoummady 1999, 146.The notes were in any case not written by the scribe, as some authors have said; Guillebert would not have made the famous error in the first note, which contradicts the text he had recently transcribed. 25. Meiss 1967b, 226; Scheller 1995, 78-79. 26. Scheller 1995.There are two French pattern collections of ca 1400: one attributed to Jacquemart de Hesdin (New York, PML, ms M. 346) and a set on boxwood panels signed by Jaques Daliwe (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Liber picturatus A. 74); Jenni 1987; Scheller 1995, nos. 19, 21. 27. Most of the surviving Flemish model drawings come from the circle of the Master of Mary of Burgundy. One is the Master’s fully realized little drawing of Pentecost (Paris, École nationale des Beaux-Arts, Masson coll. 664), another, probably by his hand and copied by illuminators for some forty years, is a model for a historiated border of scenes of Christmas Eve (London, British Museum), and a third is the little sheet of fourteen heads by the Master of the Houghton Miniatures in Berlin (Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett); Kren and McKendrick 2003, nos. 21, 26, 35. 28. Compositions taken by the Guillebert Master from works by the Boucicaut, Breviary, Egerton, and Cité des Dames workshops are discussed in Martens 2002, 921-25. The author’s uncertainty whether the Master was ever in Paris contradicts his earlier observation that the artist painted parts of the Breviary of John the Fearless or his wife Margaret of Bavaria; London, BL, Harley ms. 2897. In addition the Master reproduced the Breviary Master’s Birth of the Virgin (Harley 2897, fol. 385) as late as ca. 1440 in the Arsenal Decameron (Meiss 1967a, 58-60) and in the hardly published Golden Legend in the collection of the Duke of Norfolk at Arundel Castle.

96

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

31. Paris, BnF, ms lat. 10548; Cardon 2002, mentioning reproductions of panels in other manuscripts.The arms of Anne of Brittany are a later addition, painted over those of the unknown first owner. 32. Hours of Catherine of Cleves (New York, PML, mss M. 917 and 945; Defoer et al. 1989, 156, nos. 45-46), and the Hours of Katharina van Lochorst; Münster,Westfälisches Landesmuseum, ms 530; Lammers 1982, 42. 33. van Buren and Edmunds 1974, 25-28. 34. Brussels, KBR, mss 10218-19; ibid., fig. 2; Delaissé 1959, no. 222. 35. Brussels, KBR, ms IV 95; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 6. Having started as Isabella’s secretary and then receiver of her finances, Overtvelt had become one of Philip’s ambassadors and negotiators by the time he commissioned this book. 36. Farquhar 1976, 41-75; Bousmanne 1997, 93-103. 37. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, ms 78 B 12; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 38. 38. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, ms Clm. 28345 (without marks of ownership), and Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, ms. I. B. 51 (containing the arms of Charles VIII of France); Kren and McKendrick 2003, nos. 90 and 93. 39. Los Angeles, JPGM, ms Ludwig IX. 19; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 145 40. Brussels, KBR, ms II 158; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 150. 41. In a gathering containing miniatures by the Guillebert Master the two on the conjoint folios 25 and 32 are by his chief assistant. 42. New York, PML, mss M 672-675, and Mâcon, Bibliothèque municipale, ms 3; Caswell 1993, 43-44. 43. Calkins 1979, 31-32, appendix A. 44. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, ms 406;Taburet-Delahaye and Avril 2004, no. 70.The authors assume, probably correctly, that the work was arrested by the dauphin’s sudden death in December 1415.The book also contains several more unfinished pages and has lost seven others, presumably fully painted. 45.This pen flourishing of the initials was a specialty developed by Parisian decorators in the course of the fourteenth century;Avril 1971. 46.Thompson’s suggestion (1936, 88), followed by Alexander 1992, 38, that illuminators may have drawn with graphite, is belied by the discovery of graphite only in the early 1560s; Petroski 1990, 34-35. 47.The much more expensive gold leaf, regularly used in earlier centuries, is rare in fifteenth-century manuscripts. 48.The pigments and mordants are described in medieval treatises whose editions and modern publications are listed in Alexander 1992, 159, n. 43.To my knowledge, only two Flemish manuscripts have been subjected to micro-Raman spectroscopy and total X-ray fluorescence: the Mayer van den Bergh Breviary (Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh, inv. 946; Dekeyser et al. 1999;Vandenabeele and Moens 2002) and the Arsenal Decameron (see note 14), in which twelve miniatures were recorded by Mady Elias in the laboratory of the Louvre.

49. Another striking example of visible stages in the execution, which also shows the artists working on whole gatherings, is in the Bible moralisée (Paris, BnF, ms. fr. 166) originally commissioned by Philip the Bold of Burgundy from the Limbourg brothers in 1402.These last three gatherings represent a third attempt of ca. 1492 to complete the book’s over 5000 little miniatures; Lowden 2000, 250-84, 302-04, figs. 107-09. 50. Paris, BnF, ms n. a. lat. 3093; the destroyed Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale e Universitaria, ms K. IV. 29; and Turin, Museo Civico d’Arte Antica, Inv. No. 47; van Buren, Marrow and Pettenati 1996. 51.The practice was not invariable.The section of the Avignon Hours (see note 56) painted by Barthélémy d’Eyck contains both pages with a completed border and an empty miniature-space and pages with a completed miniature and empty margins. 52. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, ms 471; and New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cloisters collection; Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 81. Only the suffrages and two prayers have no drawing.The eponymous Master was responsible for all the miniatures except the first, an Arrest of Christ, by the king’s painter, Jean Fouquet. 53. Private collection; Legaré 2002. All of the more than 50 following spaces for miniatures are blank.The arms of Lalaing in the prologue initial are surrounded by the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece, to which Charles I de Lalaing was admitted in 1505, and the same scribe wrote the following heraldic text composed in 1507. Although, as Legaré points out, the same arms were borne by Charles’s brother, Jacques, the clothing portrayed was no longer fashionable when he joined the order in 1516. 54. In early fifteenth century Paris, the artists around the Boucicaut Master frequently collaborated with others, both separately on different text sections and together on a miniature; Andrews 2002, 32-37. In the 1420s, a division by texts among illustrators in Utrecht is implied in a note added to the History Bible in Brussels (KBR, mss 9018-19; Defoer et al. 1989, 136) saying that the illuminator Claes Brouwer has the 61/2 gatherings containing the books of Judith, Esther, and Job; the Parables of Solomon and the books of Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Wisdom, despite Alexander’s assertion (1992, 50) that the note shows the illuminators working by gatherings. In Bruges in the mid-1406s, the illustrators of Philip the Good’s second copy of Wauquelin’s Alexander romance (Paris, Musée du Petit Palais, Dutuit coll., ms 456; Bousmanne 1997, 200-204) also worked mainly on sections of the text. 55.The model and the copy are: London, British Library, Royal ms 20 D i, and Paris, BnF, ms 301;Avril 1969; Oltrogge 1987;Alexander 1992, figs. 231 and 230. 56. New York, PML, ms M. 358;Avril, 1977; Calkins, 1977, with a chart showing the stage of decoration in each gathering.Avril’s date for the whole manuscript, 1440-1450, repeated in Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 123, was corrected by Reynaud already in 1988, 37, pointing out that the dress supports such a date only in the section painted by Barthélémy d’Eyck; that shown on marginal figures in the Quarton’s section (fols. 129, 158v, 183v, and 186v) did not exist before ca. 1460. On the basis of my fund of datable images of dress to be published by the Morgan Library in 2008, she can correct the first date to ca. 1440, and see that the weaker hand Calkins observed in three calendar medallions (which include the traditional fashionable lovers in May) worked ca. 1490.

59. London, BL, Add. ms 12531; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 147, ills. 147a-d. 60. Góis 1556, quoted in ibid. 61.The leaves that never left Portugal include seven colored by Antonio, who was still unpaid five years after the patron’s death; Kren and McKendrick 2003, ill. 147d.The whole group remained in the family of Dom Fernando before their distribution among later owners in Lisbon and Madrid who sold the leaves to the British Museum. 62. Kren and McKendrick 2003, 463, n. 8.This is not the only example of decoration painted before the text was written. A Parisian Hours of ca. 1400 (The Hague, KB, ms 76 F 21) contains a full set of miniatures and borders and empty spaces for the text; the Rouennais Hours of Lady Margaret Beaufort (Cambridge, St. John’s College, ms N 24; Binski and Panayotova 2005, no. 89), painted by the Fastolf Master and an assistant has a small miniature of St. George on folio 168 without the suffrage meant to accompany it. Several pages of the Hours of Mary of Burgundy (ÖNb, Cod. 1857; Inglis 1995) have text that runs over the marginal decoration, while the verso of the leaf (fol. 53) whose recto contains the end of the hour of Lauds has marginal decoration alone. 63. La cité des dames, bk. 1, ch. 41; Meiss, 1967b, 3, n. 3. 64. All of the manuscripts containing collaborative miniatures listed by McKendrick (Kren and McKendrick 2003, 65) are histories, except the Hours of Charles the Bold (Los Angeles, JPGM, ms 37; ibid., no. 16). 65. London, British Library, Harley mss 4379 and 4380; Kren and McKendrick (2003, no. 68, n. 2) mention collaboration in volume 1, without specifying the folios, and on volume 2, fols. 149 and 151. For the Master of the Vienna Chroniques d’Angleterre (Vienna, ÖNb, Cod, 2534), see Pächt and Thoss 1990, 39-45. 66. Paris, BnF, ms n. a. fr. 24920;Thomas, 1973; Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 186. 67. Alexander 1992, 47, fig. 68, assigning the city to Jean Colombe and saying he meant to paint the foreground as well. In fact, as pointed out in Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 186, Colombe died in 1493, at least five years before the date indicated by the dress. 68.This reversal of the usual sequence also occurred on folio 39v, where the architectural setting, sky, and faces are complete; the hands of two men have been started, and their clothing and a small figure at the right are bare. 69. For example in the second volume of the Chroniques and in the Golden Legend (see note 21); Caswell 1993, 27-30; Bousmanne 1997, 58-61, 168-71, 281-83. Caswell’s St.Andrew Master is the artist recognized as Vrelant; her Saint Hadrian Master is his regular assistant, Bousmanne’s ‘Maître de la Vraie cronique d’escose’, whom I prefer to call ‘the Master of the Polemical Texts’ and think was probably Vrelant’s wife; van Buren 1999, 24-26. 70. Los Angeles, JPGM, ms Ludwig IX 7; Kren and McKendrick 2004, no. 2, distinguishing as many as eight hands and, in n. 2, reporting a conservator’s discovery that the clasps bearing the arms of Folpard van Amerongen were made for another volume.

57.This analysis was first made by Pächt, Jenni and Thoss, 1983, 61-62.

71. See note 34.The place and small size of the Lannoy Master’s Presentation scene, after the prologue, reveals that the normal space for such a scene at the head of a prologue was already occupied when Philip acquired the unfinished manuscript.The dress in the Presentation dates this second campaign to the early 1460s.

58. Fols. 177v, 179v, 181; Pächt, Jenni and Thoss 1983, 51; figs. 89, 99, 100.

72. Campin painted the canon miniatures in a lost Missal; Dumoulin and Pycke 1993. For panels by Simon Bening, see

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

97

Ainsworth 2000. For the work of the other painters, see Kren and Maryan W.Ainsworth in Kren and McKendrick 2003, 3741, and for Fouquet’s contribution to the Hours of Charles of France, see note 52 above. 73. Brussels, KBR, ms IV 95 (see note 35), fol. 155v; Kren and McKendrick 2003, 96-97. 74. El Escorial, Biblioteca del Monasterio di San Lorenzo, ms vitrinas 12; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 99. 75. New York, PML, ms M 659; ibid., no. 107, a single leaf from a lost Book of Hours. 76.Van Buren, 2000, 111-12. 77. St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ms Ermitage 88;Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 36. 78. Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, ms W. 447, fol. 128; Randall 1992, no. 186, color plate XXa. Burin 2002, no. 46, fig. 123, Burin calls the associate ‘the Master of Keble 7’. Perréal also painted the independent portrait of a young man of the Bellecombe family in Paris, BnF, ms lat. 1363, fol. 22v;Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 207; Burin 2001, no. 32, fig. 185.

98

COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS

79. London, BL, Stowe ms 954; Backhouse and Giraud ca. 1994. Sala’s use of an artist in Paris dates the book before his definitive return to Lyons in 1511. 80. Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms 1672 (721); Scailliérez 1996. I thank Nicole Reynaud for calling my attention to this article. 81. St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ms fr. F. v. XV, 3; ibid., 50, fig. 6, and nos. 21, 23, citing Crépin-Leblond 1991, no. 2. 82.Marmion’s Visions du chevalier Tondal (Los Angeles,JPGM, ms 30); the Burgundy Master’s Hours of Engelbert of Nassau (Oxford,Bodleian Library,ms Douce 219-20);van Lathem’s Histoire de Jason (Paris, BnF, ms fr. 331); a Breviary illustrated by the Master of James IV of Scotland (Manchester,John Rylands University Library, ms 39, and New York, PML, ms 1046); a Book of Hours by the Dresden Prayer Book Master (London, BL, Add. ms 17280); and the Roman de la rose by the Master of the Prayer Books of ca. 1500 (London, BL, Harley ms 4425); as well as Bening’s Franciscan Horae (New York, PML, ms M 451) and Hennessy Hours (Brussels, KBR, ms II 1 58); Kren and McKendrick 2003, nos. 14, 18, 59, 108, 117, 120, 148, 150.

Romanism as a Catalyst for Change in Bernard van Orley’s Workshop Practices Maryan W.Ainsworth Metropolitan Museum of Art

It has long been acknowledged that the delivery of Raphael’s cartoons for the Acts of the Apostles tapestry series to Brussels in 1516 had a profound role in introducing Romanism to sixteenthcentury Flanders, and particularly, to Bernard van Orley. His Job Altarpiece (Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts) monogrammed and dated 1521 is often identified as key evidence of the assimilation of this new mode.1 What has not been discussed, however, is the specific nature of the impact of Raphael’s cartoons beyond the mere appropriation of figure style and certain motifs.When exactly did Raphael’s influence take hold in Van Orley’s atelier? Can this influence be recognized in certain shifts in workshop practice as well as in matters of style? How did the transmission of ideas take place, and how critical a role was played by Raphael’s workshop assistants and emissaries to Brussels, especially Tommaso Vincidor? These questions can be more readily answered when Van Orley’s paintings, drawings, and designs for both tapestry and stained glass are all taken into account and studied from the point of view of the working procedures of the atelier. In addition, crucial information is provided by the underdrawings in the artist’s panel paintings.2 It is essential to resolve these issues in order to further clarify the pivotal role the Van Orley workshop played in the evolution of early sixteenth-century Flemish workshop practices, particularly the role of the painter-designer.3 Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles and Preliminary Stages of Influence Van Orley’s earliest known panel paintings from about 1512-18 share certain characteristics. This group includes the Marriage of the Virgin and Christ Among the Doctors (Washington, National Gallery of Art),4 the Virgin and Child with Singing Angels (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art), the Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum and Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, fig. 1), and the dispersed panels that comprise altarpieces devoted to Saints Martin and John the Baptist (Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Art Museum and New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Although there may have been preliminary compositional drawings on paper for each, none have survived.The preparatory drawings that may have existed, however, were probably not especially detailed, since a consistent feature of all of these paintings is that the brush underdrawings (preliminary designs made directly on the grounded panels) are quite sketchy and often show multiple changes. In the Virgin and Child with Singing Angels there are slight alterations in the draperies of the angels and substantial changes in the architecture. In the far more ambitious composition of the Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece, the artist made modifications both at the underdrawing stage and from the underdrawings to the final painted version of the works.The costume of King Gondophares of India (who threatens Saint Thomas in the scene on the left), for example, is significantly altered from the underdrawing stage to the final painted version (fig. 2).Van Orley also reconsidered the positions of the women standing behind Saint Thomas. Even incidental details, such as the elegant dog in the foreground, or the decorative finials at the roofline in the architecture, were added or changed in a late paint stage without benefit of an underdrawn guide.The final design exhibits a relatively easy flow between the figures and their architectural settings, even though in establishing this design,Van Orley made numerous adjustments to both.The ground of the panel served as Van Orley’s sketchpad for the ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

99

Fig. 1. Bernard van Orley, Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece, middle panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

evolving plan that apparently was carried out at that stage rather than in multiple independent preparatory drawings on paper. Raphael’s cartoons for the Acts of the Apostles tapestry series arrived in Brussels in 1516, at the same time as Van Orley’s early panel painting production. Félibien reported the seventeenth-century tradition that Van Orley supervised the weaving of Raphael’s designs, but this is an overstatement.5 Van Orley certainly had contact with Brussels’s weavers and cartonniers at the time; he was already designing his first known tapestry series, the Notre Dame du Sablon ca. 1516-17 (Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire), and participating in the design of The Honors of ca. 1517-20 (Patrimonio Nacional, Palacio Real de la Granja de San Ildefonso).6 He must have been well acquainted with the noted weaver Pieter van Aelst in whose workshop The Honors and Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles were woven;7 Van Orley likely saw first hand the impressive gouache cartoons for the latter there. There is no indication, however, that Raphael’s designs had any impact whatsoever on Van Orley’s earliest tapestry designs. Nor is there any Roman influence to be found in the artist’s subsequent 1518-20 series (now in Madrid, Palacio Real) called the ‘Square Passion’ until the two additions to that series, the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and Christ Carrying the Cross, were designed in ca. 1520.8 The assimilation of Raphael’s art, though, is piecemeal and limited in these two works.The Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane is more indebted in certain respects to Dürer’s art than to Raphael’s.Van Orley may have drawn inspiration from Dürer’s sheet of 1520 (Karl100

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

Fig. 2. Infrared reflectogram assembly of King Gondophares in fig. 1, showing changes in the costume. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).

sruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle) and from various prints from the Large Passion, the Small Engraved Passion, and the Small Woodcut Passion – especially their depiction of landscape details and the disciples in the foreground, slumped over in complete exhaustion, oblivious of Christ’s agony.9 Only Van Orley’s Christ with outstretched arms recalls Raphael’s figure of St. Stephen in the Stoning of St. Stephen.The Christ Carrying the Cross was inspired not by Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles cartoons, but instead by his so-called Lo Spasimo di Sicilia. This work may have come to Van Orley’s attention as a drawing after Raphael’s painting (dated about 1515-16), or through knowledge of the cartoon by Raphael’s workshop and Giovanni da Udine ca. 1516-19 that was probably woven in Brussels, possibly for Nicolo Balbi.10 Tommaso Vincidor’s Arrival in Brussels The initial impact of Raphael’s art, then, did not come from the Acts of the Apostles series, but from other Raphael workshop drawings arriving in Brussels around 1520-22. A number of ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

101

Fig. 3. Central panel of Bernard van Orley’s Job Triptych. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts.

these were rapidly assimilated into Van Orley’s own vocabulary for both his tapestry designs and his panel paintings.The arrival in Brussels of Raphael’s assistant,Tommaso Vincidor, fostered the second wave of Raphael’s influence.11 Sources locate Vincidor in Rome in 1517 when he witnessed Raphael’s signature on a document and where he worked on the Vatican Loggia frescoes.12 On May 21, 1520, Pope Leo X presented him with a letter of safe conduct to Flanders.13 There, as we know from Albrecht Dürer’s travel diaries,Vincidor met up with the German artist in Antwerp on at least five different occasions in 1520 and 1521; each made a portrait from life of the other.14 During that time, as Vincidor notes in a letter dated July 20, 1521, to his patron Pope Leo X,15 he was working on at least two separate series of tapestry cartoons, the Giochi di Putti (or Putti Playing) and the letto di paramento, a ceremonial bed for the Pope that included the Vision of Ezekiel, a cartoon now in Boughton House.16 In addition to Raphael’s written instructions for the Acts of the Apostles series,Vincidor probably took along a number of preliminary designs for tapestries and some completed modelli. He must also have brought with him drawings of various figures and compositions from Raphael’s workshop in Rome. 102

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

Fig. 4. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of female figure in fig. 3, showing painted stage unchanged from drawn stage. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite: Alison Gilchrest).

Fig. 5. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of female figure in fig. 3, showing painted stage unchanged from drawn stage. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite: Alison Gilchrest).

Changes in habitual workshop practice do not take place overnight; they should be described more accurately as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It is my hypothesis that the evolutionary changes that took place in Van Orley’s atelier were most significantly influenced by Vincidor.The individual figural motifs that Van Orley took from Raphael’s art have been frequently ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

103

Fig. 6. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of writhing naked man on outside right wing of the Job Altarpiece, showing brush underdrawing. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).

cited; I am not referring to this practice alone but to Van Orley’s workshop methods that were altered in successive stages as a result of his exposure to Italian studio practices. Understanding how and in what ways Van Orley assimilated the working methods of Italian artists better explains their significant implications for future generations of Flemish painterdesigners. Van Orley’s 1521 Job Altarpiece has long been assumed to be the primary example of Raphael’s influence on Van Orley’s art. In the Fig. 7. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of comparison between the outside left wing of deathbed scene on outside right wing of the Job Altarpiece, the Job Triptych and the inside left wing of Van showing fixed state of underdrawing. (IRR: Maryan Orley’s Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece, it Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest). is apparent that, in some ways,Van Orley had advanced only marginally beyond his established compositional formula.17 In both, the artist fits figures within stage-like settings that have an upper and lower register, or self-contained foreground and background scenes.What is startlingly new is the exaggerated expression and poses of some of the figures in the central panel 104

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

Fig. 8. Bernard van Orley, Kneeling Female Figure. Munich, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung.

of the Job Altarpiece. It is clear from the figures and the corresponding underdrawings that they have been individually studied (see figs. 3, 4, 5). I conclude this because in the central panel the figures are not as interrelated or interactive as they are on the interior wings.18 Instead, they appear to be disconnected and arranged in an additive way, one adjacent to or superimposed on top of another, as if conceived independently rather than as part of a whole. Arnout Balis succinctly observed the salient characteristics of the new mode.19 During the Renaissance, he noted,‘...new and more complex requirements were introduced for the structure [and] the syntax of a composition.’20 There were suddenly new compositional requirements and new ways that figures and figural groups functioned within them. Figures assumed more complex roles, and artists like Van Orley needed a better understanding of the structure of the human body, in particular an appreciation of anatomy. Poses and figures had to be individually worked out; in addition, designing a composition now needed more preparation than ever, and there was more recourse to drawing preparatory stages. New and different types of drawings must have entered into Van Orley's consciousness through Vincidor’s and Raphael’s workshop examples, that is, drawings that served diverse functions in the creative process. Little evidence of this remains, but it may be reconstructed from the underdrawings ofVan Orley’s paintings and from a few surviving drawings on paper.The clearest evidence that more preparatory drawings on paper were made for portions of the Job Altarpiece in 1520-21 than for Van Orley’s earlier works comes from the fact that the brush underdrawings are far more fixed at this initial stage than they are in his paintings of 1512-18.The fully worked up and carefully modeled figures of the fallen women on the central panel (see figs. 4, 5), or the writhing naked man in hell on the right exterior wing (fig. 6), are presented in their final form at this preliminary stage. The pose of the naked man in hell on the outside right wing is loosely derived from Raphael’s clothed Ananias in the Death of Ananias and from studies of the fallen soldier in the Resurrection in the Chigi Chapel in Santa Maria delle Pace.21 The full articulation of the musculature ofVan Orley’s nude figure, however, had to be newly studied and carefully rendered.The death scene, carried out in meticulous detail, is in a fixed form in the preliminary drawing on the panel (fig. 7). Compared ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

105

Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of fig. 10. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).

Fig. 9. Bernard van Orley, Soldier and a Crouching Man. Leipzig, Museum der Bildende Kunste.

toVan Orley’s early works, there is very little alteration or reworking of these portions in the underdrawing, or between the underdrawing and final painted stages. The evolving state of the composition and in particular the poses of certain figures must have been worked out beforehand in a series of independent studies on paper. One of the few remaining examples is the Study of a Kneeling Woman (Munich, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, fig. 8), derived from the figure of Saint Stephen in the Stoning of Saint Stephen, one of the lost cartoons for Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles series.Van Orley’s drawing was based on the preparatory drawing or cartoon stage of Raphael’s model and not on the tapestry, because the figure shows the same orientation as the now lost cartoon and is not reversed, which it would have been if Van Orley’s model had been the completed tapestry.Another example of individually studied figures is Van Orley’s crouching workman, part of a preparatory drawing in the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart for the Crucifixion tapestry in the National Gallery,Washington.22 The man in the foreground of Raphael’s tapestry design for the Stoning of Saint Stephen (in the Acts of the Apostles series) inspired this figure.23 Van Orley’s workshop employed these two models in other works.The Munich study was used for tapestry designs and paintings alike. It served as the basis for both male and female figures (with various levels of the outstretched arms), including Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, a Saint John in the Rotterdam Crucifixion, and Mary Magdalene in both his tapestry The Apparition of Christ to the Magdalen (Paris, Louvre) and a painting fragment in Hovingham Hall, the Mourners Beneath the Cross.24 Van Orley included an adaptation of the crouching workman figure for his Roman Soldier and Crouching Man (Leipzig, Museum der Bildenden Künste, fig. 9). The underdrawing of the Leipzig painting shows that Van Orley initially followed the model closely, even including the rope held by the man in the Crucifixion tapestry, changing it only in the painted layers (fig. 10). 106

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

Toward Streamlined Production During this period of evolving workshop procedures, there is further evidence of standardization of techniques toward efforts to streamline production in the Van Orley workshop.This began in the early 1520s, most likely also as a result of Van Orley’s new knowledge of Italian practices.A prime example of this streamlining of procedure is the cartoon that apparently served both for the centerpiece of Van Orley’s Haneton Triptych and his tapestry of the Lamentation.The composition of the Lamentation is based on works by both Dürer and Raphael, the latter perhaps brought by Vincidor from Rome.25 As well, the elaborate border for the Lamentation tapestry adapts figures from Vincidor’s Giochi di putti series that Van Orley had rendered first in a pen and ink drawing.26 The motif of the Virgin supporting and embracing the body of Christ, as well as the diagonal thrust of the figures of Christ, the Virgin, and St. John comes from Dürer’s woodcut of ca. 1495.27 Between the Haneton painting and the weaving of the composition,Van Orley probably saw Dürer’s drawing of an Old Man of Ninety-three (Vienna, Albertina) made in Antwerp during Dürer’s visit there in 1521, since he adapted it for the figure of Joseph of Arimathea in his tapestry design.28 Like Van Orley’s tapestry, Dürer’s black chalk drawing of the Lamentation of 1522 in the Bremen Kunsthalle shows an aged Joseph of Arimathea holding a pixus and a curly-headed Nicodemus facing him in the upper right corner, as well as a similarly displayed languorous body of Christ in the immediate foreground, showing his pierced hand in the center of the immediate foreground.29 In this case, it is likely that Van Orley influenced Dürer, as the latter’s drawing is monogrammed and dated 1522 after he had returned to Nuremberg from his trip to the Netherlands, and its horizontal format, although similar to Van Orley’s painting and tapestry, is uncommon for Dürer’s drawings of this date. It is Raphael’s 1506-07 compositional draft in pen and ink for the Borghese Entombment (London, British Museum) from Raphael’s Florentine period that appears to have provided a model for Van Orley’s similarly posed dead Christ, with his head drooping to the side and his torso slightly turned toward the viewer.The poignant motif of one of the Marys caressing Christ’s hand and the tightly-compressed heads of the mourners around the head of Christ in the foreground are also borrowed from this drawing by Raphael.30 What is even more indicative of the influence of Italian design procedures is the use of one design for two independent works in different media: a painting and a tapestry. In the case of Van Orley, it seems that even parts of the same cartoon were used for painting and tapestry alike. Although the cartoon for the composition of the Lamentation no longer exists, the equivalent measurements of five of the heads (for Christ, John, and three of the Marys) in both the tapestry and the painting suggest that the same template was used for both works.31 A well-known example of the use of the same concept drawing for painting (either fresco or panel painting) and for tapestry cartoons in the Raphael workshop is the Adoration of the Magi. The design for the Loggia fresco and the Ashmolean drawing after it were expanded for a version made in tapestry as part of the Life of Christ (Scuola nuova) in the Vatican.32 Van Orley followed this practice in his own rendition of Raphael’s Adoration of the Magi.The design is used for the Altman tapestry in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and various paintings, none of which is demonstrably by Van Orley’s own hand but from his workshop.33 Another characteristic of Italian design procedure that Van Orley assimilated from Vincidor is the ‘cut and paste’ procedure, the reuse of figures or combined parts of figures from one composition for another one.34 This is evident in Vincidor’s Giochi di Putti, a combination of sources from both Raphael and Penni, with additional influence from Dürer’s art.This practice was in effect in 1521 when Vincidor was working on the designs in Brussels, and when, as Dürer’s travel journals report, he met with Dürer and certainly with Van Orley.Van Orley no doubt learned of this technique then, and he employed his own ‘cut and paste’ method for the new designs for the Alba Passion tapestry series.Van Orley’s compositional drawing ca. 1524-26 for the CrucifixROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

107

Fig. 12. Infrared reflectogram assembly showing pouncing in underdrawing of Christ Child’s head in fig. 11. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).

Fig. 11.Workshop of Bernard van Orley, Holy Family. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts.

ion tapestry (Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, Graphische Sammlung), a conflation of models derived from Raphael (the foreground crouching giant) and Mantegna as seen through the eyes of Dürer (his Crucifixion engraving of 1508 with the Virgin collapsing in the arms of the other Marys and John in passionate entreaty),35 demonstrates this method. Compared to the scale of the other figures in the composition, the uneasy conflation of the oversized giant and two gesturing soldiers in the right foreground expresses Van Orley’s somewhat awkward combination of his models at this juncture – Dürer for northern emotional pathos, and Raphael for dramatic expression, even hyperbole, through the poses of his figures in order to help convey his message.The mismatched scale of the figures was amended in subsequent working drawings in order to achieve greater harmony in the related tapestry in the National Gallery of Art,Washington. The ‘cut and paste’ method that was incorporated by both Vincidor and Van Orley requires readymade workshop patterns that can be easily arranged and rearranged to suit the requirements of a new project. Methods of transfer are required that can be employed to move the desired figural motif from one support to another. If Van Orley used transfer methods before his introduction to them by Vincidor and Italian workshop methods, there is no evidence of it so far in his underdrawings for paintings. Certainly the early works already mentioned instead reveal many alterations as if Van Orley was using the grounded panel like a sketchpad for his evolving ideas. The first example so far detected in Van Orley’s works of the transfer of a design is the Holy Family (Madrid, Museo del Prado), an undisputed work by Van Orley that is signed and dated 1522 at the lower right corner. Evident in the underdrawing are the tell-tale signs of a design transfer: the underdrawing (uncharacteristically for Van Orley) is restricted to the contours of the forms (except for occasional minimal parallel hatching in the draperies of the Virgin).The rather stiff, mechanical nature of the line as can be seen in the head of the Christ Child is typical of a transfer from a cartoon.36 Often in the technical study of early Netherlandish paintings evidence of tracing or pouncing is interpreted as indicative of workshop production or of a copy after the master’s work.As there 108

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

is no question about the autograph status of the Prado painting, it is worth considering the influence of Italian practices here. Raphael often worked up his compositional drawings on paper in one-to-one scale cartoons, transferring them to panel through pouncing.37 However, as Carmen Bambach has noted, for Raphael’s work, the spolvero, or pouncing technique, offered an opportunity to create synthetic types of preliminary drawings and often served as an exploratory design technique.38 That is to say, Raphael often employed a transfer procedure for his primary or original version of the painting. It can very well be that new examples from Raphael’s workshop influenced Van Orley whose aim was similar in the Prado Holy Family. The transfer method, of course, may also have been used in order to insure the replication of the desired design to multiple panels.This common method was subsequently employed in Van Orley’s workshop to produce copies after the Prado painting, such as a version now in Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux Arts (figs. 11, 12).39 The contour of the Christ Child’s face in this copy shows clear evidence of transfer of the design from a cartoon, in this case by pouncing. The generation of multiple copies had much to do with the considerable impetus from the open art market and the possibility for increased sales in Brussels and, especially, Antwerp.This is the first appearance in Van Orley’s workshop of the production of replicas and standardized methods employed for making them.The artist must have been previously aware of these methods; they were already in practice in the Low Countries at an earlier time.The fact, however, that Van Orley took up this practice for a first or primary version at this point may well have been due to Vincidor’s tutelage about Italian practices,40 especially considering that Vincidor, not Raphael, stood directly behind Van Orley’s Prado Holy Family. Raphael’s Holy Family of Francis I (Paris, Louvre) has usually been identified as Van Orley’s source for the composition of his Prado Holy Family.Still,his design is not an exact copy of Raphael’s painting but a reduction of it in terms of the number of figures; there are also adjustments to the poses of the figures.A fresh look reveals that certain features are more closely derived from The Meeting of the Two Holy Families (Northants, Duke of Buccleuch Collection, Boughton House), a tapestry cartoon of ca. 1521 attributed to Vincidor by Tom Campbell, who suggests that it was part of the letto di paramento.41 Although Van Orley’s own composition is an adaptation and not an exact copy, certain details follow Vincidor’s cartoon closely.Van Orley’s crowning angel is airborne like the one in the cartoon, not standing on the ground as in Raphael’s painting. His Joseph looking on from the background at the right also comes from Vincidor’s example, which shares a common source for Van Orley’s Joseph, that of Albrecht Dürer and his drawing of an Old Man of Ninety-three (Vienna,Albertina).The Prado Holy Family angel, in sharp profile view at the left, who urgently presses onto the scene with a basket brimming with flowers, is probably inspired by another Vincidor figure, this time from a different tapestry cartoon, the Vision of Ezekiel that Campbell suggests joined the Meeting of the Two Holy Families as part of the designs for the Pope’s ceremonial bed.42 Further confirmation that Van Orley directly knew the Vision of Ezekiel is found in the figure of the triumphant Christ portrayed above in the central panel of the triptych of the Last Judgment (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), and two panels from an altarpiece devoted to St. Michael by a workshop assistant, the St. Michael Master (today in New York, Hester Diamond Collection).43 Certain figures in the vision of St. Michael in heaven, such as the gesturing putti and the angel in strong profile entering the scene from the right, are clearly modeled after the Vision of Ezekiel cartoon attributed to Vincidor. Van Orley’s Last Judgment Altarpiece Van Orley’s triptych of the Last Judgment and Seven Mercies (plate 1) was commissioned by the almoners of the Antwerp Cathedral in 1518-19 and completed in 1525; it covers this same period of seemingly intense interaction of Van Orley with Vincidor. Although a complete study of ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

109

Fig. 13. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of lower left of central panel in Bernard van Orley’s Last Judgment Triptych in Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and Margreet Wolters; digital composite: Molly Faries).

the altarpiece has yet to be carried out, an initial investigation reveals Van Orley’s continued assimilation of Raphael’s art, through Vincidor as an intermediary, not only in terms of composition and figure style, but also through lessons of execution and handling.44 It has often been remarked that the general composition of Van Orley’s Last Judgment Triptych (see plate 1) – with the heavenly and earthly realms spread across the upper portion in the three panels and the lower central panel – most likely took inspiration from Raphael’s Disputa. However, there is no reason to suppose that Van Orley ever saw the fresco that was completed in the winter of 1509. He likely encountered it through drawings or prints after it, or through studies for the figures that Vincidor had brought north. Proving himself worthy of the contemporary accolade,‘Netherlandish Raphael’,Van Orley absorbed the essence of the Italian’s art.As Friedländer noted, his ‘figures capture the rhythm of Raphael with astonishing fidelity…by mastering the 110

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

illusion of continuously flowing motion.’45 Clearly this was achieved in the central panel by the successful arrangement of individually studied figures taken from Raphael workshop drawings. Just as Raphael’s preparatory drawings reveal his efforts to avoid monotony in the poses of the figures and to compel urgency through their gestures and movements,46 so too does Van Orley aim for similar results in the Last Judgment. His ability to successfully arrange figures of diverse poses demonstrates considerable progress over the earlier Job Altarpiece. Van Orley has now overcome the somewhat awkward conflation of Raphaelesque figures with his own more conventional types. Infrared reflectography of the lower left portion of the central panel (fig. 13) of the Last Judgment shows Van Orley’s continued adjust- Fig. 14. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of angel ment at a mid-stage of the painting process of at right of central panel in Bernard van Orley’s Last the poses and placement of the figures in order Judgment Triptych (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and to achieve the desired balance of movement Margreet Wolters; digital assembly:Alison Gilchrest). and expression. Key figures that underscore the meaning of the painting, such as the angel at the lower right who gestures toward Christ the Savior, are given individual, detailed attention in the underdrawing (fig. 14); they are boldly drawn and carefully articulated for maximum effect. Others, intended to comprise the endless human masses, are only summarily indicated (fig. 15). What is remarkable here is the variety of underdrawing tools used and types of execution and handling evident, from a dry medium (possibly black chalk) to brush, and from simple compo-

Fig. 15. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of mass of figures in middle ground of central panel in Bernard van Orley’s Last Judgment Triptych (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and Margreet Wolters; digital composite: Alison Gilchrest).

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

111

Fig. 16. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of figures in lower half of inner left wing in Bernard van Orley’s Last Judgment Triptych (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and Margreet Wolters; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).

sitional sketches to carefully worked up modeling in parallel and cross hatching, and finally a wash application for broad zones of shadow.The lower left of the inside left wing with figures representing the feeding of the hungry exemplify a variety of bold and directly executed underdrawing (fig. 16 and cover illustration).The bent over man delivering the pitchers of wine or water (adapted from the figure at the lower right in Giulio Romano’s 1520-21 design for the Massacre of the Innocents in the Life of Christ series, known as the Scuola nuova)47 was underdrawn in a black chalk (?) sketch, enhanced with parallel hatching in brush, and finished with a wash drawing that models his face in bold chiaroscuro. 112

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

Fig. 17. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of John in the Crucifixion, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, showing black chalk (?) underdrawing. (IRR: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer; digital composite: Alison Gilchrest).

Following Raphael’s Drawing Technique and Execution The variety of styles encountered in Van Orley’s drawings and underdrawings of his mature period appear also to have been greatly influenced by Raphaelesque examples.Van Orley’s drawing of ca. 1520 for two playing putti (London, British Museum), adapted from figures in tapestry designs carrying Vincidor’s cipher for a series of the Playing Putti is one of the first notable examples where Vincidor influenced not only Van Orley’s design but also his choice of a colored paper.48 In a departure for Van Orley, or at least in the only extant example, he made the drawing in pen and ink on grey prepared paper.Vincidor’s modelli are on grey-brown and lighter brown prepared paper in pen with white heightening.Van Orley’s relationship with Vincidor, and with preparatory drawings from the Raphael workshop and tapestry cartoons produced from them, presented him with examples of different drawing styles and techniques that had an impact on his own work. In what is thought to be the final modello of 1507 for the Entombment (Florence, Uffizi),49 Raphael employs a distinctive cross-hatching technique in pen that perhaps proROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

113

Fig. 19. Raphael, drawing for St. Catherine. Paris, Département des Arts Graphiques du Musée du Louvre.

Fig. 18. Infrared reflectogram assembly of Bernard van Orley’s Virgin and Child, New York, Private Collection. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).

vided a model for the technique of Van Orley’s particularly Italianate Kneeling Woman (see fig. 8). Raphael’s drawings for the Borghese Entombment inspired the composition and figural motifs in Van Orley’s Lamentation (as part of both the Haneton Triptych and the Washington tapestry). Changes in drawing style and medium may also be recognized in Van Orley’s underdrawings. Whereas Van Orley’s underdrawings of paintings from his early and middle periods show bold brush underdrawing, in his later phase of production he began to change his habitual mode. He more often favored executing his preliminary sketches on the ground of the panel, for his small to middle-sized paintings, with a dry medium, probably black chalk, instead of brush underdrawing.This may be due to his increased awareness of Raphael’s workshop techniques where black chalk was routinely used for the preparatory drawings for his paintings.This shift of medium in Van Orley’s underdrawings is evident in the Rotterdam Crucifixion (fig. 17),50 a superb Raphaelesque Virgin and Child (European private collection, plates 2a-b),51 and many copies of popular compositions of the Virgin and Child that Van Orley apparently turned out in an accelerated production in the 1520s (New York, Private Collection; San Francisco, de Young Museum, fig. 18).A comparison between the underdrawing of the Virgin and Child (European private collection, plate 2b) with a study for Saint Catherine in black chalk by Raphael (Paris, Louvre, fig. 19) reveals Van Orley’s new style of drawing that appears to be influenced by Raphael. Here this example will stand for the technique of Raphael’s larger scale drawings of his early Florentine period and the underdrawings found in his Madonna and Child paintings of this time.The 114

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

Fig. 20. Bernard van Orley, The Circumcision.Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

Fig. 21. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of fig. 21. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).

same even parallel hatching in a dry medium is used to describe the volume of forms and the system of lighting appears in these works by both artists. Van Orley, however, did not always carry out the underdrawing of his later works solely in black chalk. In more complicated compositions, as well as a number of late paintings (particularly large works), such as the Last Judgment and the Vienna Circumcision and Ecce Homo (figs. 20, 21), he also used brush. In delicate parallel hatching the brush indicates zones of shadow across the forms; used in broad washes it boldly articulates three-dimensional and sculptural treatments of heads and draperies. For the latter, with its assertive chiaroscuro effect, the connection with Raphael workshop cartoons for tapestries is inescapable. In the Leipzig Soldier and Crouching Workman (see fig. 9), different types of underdrawing are used separately on different figures in the same composition. The crouching man shows even parallel hatching in brush to suggest the dark shadow across his face. A figure in the background is formed with a quick, broad application of wash in a summary fashion, in addition to even parallel hatching to indicate the features of the face and a more general modeling tone (compare figs. 22 and 23). ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

115

Fig. 23. Infrared reflectogram of crouching man’s face in fig. 9 (turned sideways). (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).

Fig. 22. Infrared reflectogram of a soldier’s face in fig. 9. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).

Conclusions A number of examples indicate Van Orley’s assimilation not only of the designs and motifs, but also of the very working techniques of Raphael’s workshop, especially as Vincidor introduced them. Many of these observations introduced here deserve further study. Here is a brief review of the points made. • Although Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles cartoons arrived in Brussels in 1516, it was not until Vincidor’s appearance in 1520 that Italian workshop practices become part of Van Orley’s working procedures. • These new working methods include but are not limited to the increased use of the same model drawings of figures, heads, and landscape features for different paintings and tapestry designs, and the ‘cut and paste technique’. Just as Vincidor conflated models from Raphael and Penni (with influence from Dürer as well), so Van Orley assimilated Dürer, Raphael, and Vincidor models in a similar manner for his own use. • Due to the knowledge of Raphaelesque examples, we see in Van Orley’s Prado Holy Family the first appearance of methods of transfer used for the production of the original painting as well as for replicas.This led to the inception of the more rapid production of copies (especially of paintings of the Virgin and Child) for the open art market. • The introduction of changes in Van Orley’s drawing and underdrawing technique, including details of execution and handling, are the result of his new familiarity with Raphael workshop drawings, modelli, and cartoons. At this later stage,Van Orley begins to use a dry medium, probably black chalk, for his underdrawings. In his more ambitious compositions and larger works, he employs both dry and liquid media for working up the underdrawing from the initial sketch to what must have appeared as a fully finished, chiaroscuro rendering. 116

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

NOTES

1. Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, 102, no. 85, plates 78-81; Farmer 1981, 123-48;Ainsworth 1982, 100-101, 117-122; Dacos 1987, 614-616;Ainsworth 1990, 292-297; Campbell 2002, 292-97. 2. I have studied approximately thirty separate panels with infrared reflectography that are attributed to Van Orley. In addition, the results of infrared reflectography of other paintings by Van Orley and his workshop have been published by Périer-d’Ieteren 1979,Van den Brink 1995, Hendrikman 1999, Silva Maroto 2001, and Dunbar (2005). 3. For other points of view on Van Orley’s workshop, see Farmer 1994 and the forthcoming dissertation of Lars Hendrikman:‘The Renaissance is to Blame – Bernard van Orley’s workshop in Brussels – Revision of a reputation’ (for the University of Groningen). 4. Lars Hendrikman (in Hendrikman 1999) believes that the Washington panels date closer to 1506. 5. Andre Félibien des Avaux, Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellens peintres anciens et modernes (1725 edition, vol. 2, 328); Shearman 1972, 138; Ainsworth 1982, 2526; Campbell 2002, 292. 6.Ainsworth 1982, 36-39.The most recent discussion of this series with color illustrations is in Campbell 2002, 168-85. 7.Ainsworth 1982, 33-34; Campbell 2002, 197. 8. Campbell 2002, 291-92, figs. 131-34. 9. See Ainsworth in Campbell 2002, 312, 316, 318, 320, figs. 133-34 (292). For the influence of Lucas Cranach the Elder’s print, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, see also Guy Delmarcel 1992, 127-60 10. Campbell 2002, cat. no. 25, 218-23. 11. On Tommaso Vincidor, see Standen 1971, 109-115; Dacos 1980, 61-99, esp. 86-87; Dacos 1997; Campbell 2002, 189, 191, 231, 240-2, 258, 260, 295, 296, 300, 306, 316, 341, 344, 393, and 395. 12.Vasari 1568 (1906 ed.), vol. 4, 363; Pinchart 1854, 538543; Dacos 1980, 63 and 93, appendice no. 1; Campbell 2002, 230. 13. Dacos 1980, 61 and 93-94,Appendice no. 2. 14. Conway 1889, 105-106, and 118. 15. For the letter to Pope Leo X, see Dacos 1980, 63 and 94-95,Appendice no. 4; Campbell 2002, 230-231, 233234. 16. Campbell 1996, 436-45; Campbell 2002, 230-36, 257, and figs. 94, 96, 104. 17. Illustrated in Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, plates 81 and 73. 18. For the underdrawing of the figures and minor adjustments Van Orley made to the preliminary design on the inner right wing, see van den Brink 1995, 178-79, and plates 78-79. 19. Balis 2000, 130-33. 20. Ibid., 130. 21. Illustrated in E, Knab, E. Mitsch, and K. Oberhuber, Raphael. Die Zeichnungen, Stuttgart, 1983, 124 and fig. 479.

22. Illustrated in Campbell 2002, cat. nos. 33-34, 314-15. 23.Ainsworth in Campbell 2002, 194, fig. 79. 24. Illustrations are found in Campbell 2002, 308; and in Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, plate 105, no. 113 and plate 106, no. 114; Louis Guimbaud, Les Arts Décoratifs La Tapisserie de Haute et Basse Lisse, Paris, 1928, 21, fig. 13. 25.Ainsworth 1990, 41-64. 26. Ibid., 46-48, figs. 7-11. 27. Illustrated in ibid., 45, fig. 3; Knappe 1965, no.129 and illustrated in Hütt 1965, no. 1732. 28.Ainsworth 1990, 46, fig. 5. 29. Ibid., 46, fig. 6. 30. Ibid., 45, fig. 4. 31. Ibid., 43, note 21 and Farmer 1994, 30-31. 32. Standen 1971, 109-15; and Campbell 2002, 237-41. I am very aware that the authorship of the late drawings by Raphael’s workshop is disputed, especially recently, and for the purposes of this article I will therefore use the generic designation of Raphael workshop for many of these. 33. Standen 1971, 109-15. See also Van Orley examples in Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, plates 102-03, nos. 105-06c. 34. Campbell 2002, 234; see also Lisa Pons, Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondi, Copying and the Italian Renaissance Print, New Haven and London, 2004, 113-18. 35. See Ainsworth in Campbell 2002, 320 and illustrated 314. 36. Here I differ from the interpretation of the results published by Silva Moroto 2001, 109-19, figs. 2a, 2b. 37. Examples include the Madonna del Granducca (Florence, Palazzo Pitti), the Small Cowper Madonna (Washington, National Gallery of Art), the Large Cowper Madonna (Washington, National Gallery of Art), and the Madonna of the Meadow (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum). I thank Carmen Bambach for discussing this matter with me and pointing out several examples. For further discussion, see Bambach 1999, especially 102-05. 38. Ibid., 14-15, 105. 39. Périer-d’Ieteren 1979, 47-48, pl. 5. 40. Other Flemish artists, such as Gerard David, who were likewise influenced by Italian art (in this case Leonardo da Vinci), also started to use a method of transfer for the primary version of what would become a series output. See Ainsworth 1998, 295-308. 41. Campbell 1996, 436-45; Campbell 2002, 233-36. 42. Ibid., fig. 96. 43. Bruijnen 2001/2002, fig. 1. 44. My sincere thanks to Margreet Wolters and Lars Hendrikman for carrying out this initial study with the IRR equipment of the RKD in November of 2004. [Editor’s note: the documentation was carried out Dec. 10, 2004, with a Hama-

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

117

matsu C 2400-07 camera with a N 2606 vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines). Digitized documentation is performed with a Meteor RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic). Margreet Wolters and Lars Hendrikman would like to thank Yolande Deckers and Liesbeth Schotsman of the Antwerp museum for their assistance.] 45. Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, 69. 46. John Pope-Hennessy, Raphael,The Wrightsman Lectures, New York, 1970, 59-69.

118

47.The tapestry is in the Vatican Museum,Vatican City; see Campbell 2002, 259. 48.Vincidor wrote to Pope Leo X about this series in a letter of 1521; ibid., 230-31. 49. Bambach 1999, fig. 114. 50. For other details of the underdrawing in the Rotterdam Crucifixion, see van den Brink 1995, plate 78 a,b. 51. The pose of the Christ Child derives from Raphael’s La Belle Jardinière (Paris, Louvre) and preparatory drawings in Washington, National Gallery, and elsewhere.

ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE

Shop Collaboration in the Painting of Background Landscapes in the Workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst* Linda Jansen University of Groningen

Introduction One of the new genres that developed in sixteenth-century Antwerp was landscape painting.1 The pioneer of Antwerp landscape painting was Joachim Patinir, whose ‘cosmic landscape’ was an extension of the Eyckian panorama of the fifteenth-century. Landscape became an independent subject matter, in which the figures and small religious scenes played a seemingly subordinate role.2 The conventions of Patinir, such as capricious rock formations and the deliberate organization of space into three planes became very influential in the Antwerp artistic environment.They can be seen not only in the works of later landscape painters, such as Herri Bles and Jan van Amstel, but also in the works of figure painters such as Quinten Massys, Joos van Cleve, and even the Bruges master,Adriaen Isenbrant. The development of the landscape specialist led to new forms of collaboration.Very little is known about this practice, especially for the first half of the sixteenth century.The most important source of information is Karel van Mander’s Schilder-boeck.This writer was the first to mention which landscape artists collaborated with figure painters and vice versa.3 Yet none of the paintings Van Mander mentions has survived nor do any archival records confirm the collaborations he cites. Nonetheless,Van Mander’s statements and the widespread influence of landscape painters in the work of figure painters have led several art historians to see all sorts of collaboration between well-known masters such as Joachim Patinir and Quinten Massys; Joos van Cleve and Lucas Gassel; and Pieter Coecke and Jan van Amstel.4 How the collaboration actually took place is the question that is usually overlooked. Other important sources of information on collaboration are archival records.The few documents that have survived reveal that many forms of collaboration must have existed – between master painters, masters and journeymen, and painters and sculptors. Information is scattered, though, and an overview or a thorough study on this subject is lacking.5 Collaboration in the painting of backgrounds can be divided roughly into two categories.The first can be typified as ‘prestige collaboration’, that is, collaboration between two artists of equal rank and status working together on one painting – one responsible for the landscape and the other for the figures. For the early sixteenth century, there are only a few examples of prestige collaboration, the most-well known being the Temptation of St. Anthony (Madrid, Prado) that is signed opus Joachim *at* nier.6 In a 1574 inventory from the Escorial, the figures were given to a maestre Coyntin and the landscape to maestre Joaquin.7 Both painters were celebrated artists with productive workshops in this period: Massys was active in Antwerp between 1491 and 1530 and Patinir between 1515 and 1524. Gibson has suggested that the painting might very well have been made on commission, judging by its considerable size and its early entrance into the collection of Philip II.8 The practice of prestige collaboration seems, however, to have been more common in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with examples between wellknown painters such as Jan Brueghel and Peter Paul Rubens, and Jan Brueghel and Joos de Momper.9 SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

119

Fig. 1. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triptych with the Crucifixion. Utrecht, Rijksmuseum Catharijneconvent,ABM s00107.

Another type of collaboration that originated in the first half of the sixteenth century is the employment of specialized journeymen in the workshops of figure painters.10 The growth of the art market and the subsequent increase in the demand for paintings forced artists to streamline their production methods in order to meet this demand.11 Standardized compositions and standardized production methods, along with a division of labor that involved the employment of specialized journeymen, were all strategies the workshops of the period could use to accomplish this goal. According to Franz, the employment of specialists – whether landscape-, figure-, or still life – was also related to a need for perfectionism. Although several specialists contributed their best work to a painting, the objective was still to make it one whole.The unity and perfection of the final product was more highly valued than the personal style of an individual artist.12 This seems to be in contrast to those paintings that were the result of prestige collaboration, where the individuality of the separate artists contributed to the uniqueness of the work. To further examine this highly problematic practice of collaboration in the painting of background landscapes, I would like to focus on the case of the Antwerp painter, Pieter Coecke van Aelst. Coecke was the head of a large and productive workshop from 1527 until his death in 1550. He took on three apprentices and trained his three sons, Pieter II, Michiel, and Paul. Along with the variable number of unregistered journeymen, his shop was one of the largest of his time.13 The oeuvre that is attributed to Coecke and his workshop of about four to five hundred paintings mainly consists of serial products for the free market and includes many repetitions of the Madonna and Child and the Adoration of the Magi. A great deal of variety in both quality 120

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

Fig. 2. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triptych with the Crucifixion. Bonn, Rheinlandisches Museum.

and style can be noticed within this oeuvre, which led both Friedländer and Marlier to the assumption that Coecke must have worked with a shop that employed many assistants, and, in a few instances, also landscape specialists.14 This last assumption seemed to be supported by Coecke’s close family ties with landscape painters such as Jan van Amstel, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and Gillis van Coninxloo. Although authors have frequently pointed out collaboration in the painting of landscape backgrounds in the workshop of Pieter Coecke, very few have supported their statements with solid arguments and examples. In this article I would like to discuss two questions: first, can a division of labor in the painting of background landscapes and the employment of landscape specialists indeed be determined? Two groups of paintings will serve as test cases, one group with Crucifixion scenes and the other with scenes from the Passion of Christ.The panels in these two groups have been examined with infrared reflectography (IRR) in order to obtain more information about the creative process. Second, is the widely-held assumption that Coecke collaborated with the landscape specialist, Jan van Amstel, who was related to him by marriage, still tenable? The City of Jerusalem in the Crucifixions in Warsaw, Bonn, and Utrecht A small group of four compositionally similar Crucifixions stands out in Coecke’s oeuvre. The interrelationships among these works provide a good example of the complex system of collaboration in Coecke’s workshop. Several hands can be distinguished: three in the underdrawings, at least two in the painting of the figures, one for the cityscape of Jerusalem in the works in both Warsaw and Bonn, and a different one for the background in the painting in Utrecht. SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

121

Fig. 3. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triptych with the Crucifixion. Leeuwarden, Fries Museum.

Three of the paintings in Utrecht, Bonn, and Leeuwarden, are triptychs with different sets of wings (plate 1 and figures 1, 2 and 3).15 The fourth one in Warsaw is a single panel only, in a broad horizontal format that was probably never part of a triptych (plate 2).16 In all of the paintings, the figures of the crucified Christ, Mary, and St. John the Evangelist are placed across the foreground of the composition in an orderly fashion.The figure of Christ on the cross dominates the composition as the central axis, and Mary and St. John stand off to each side. Mary Magdalene kneels under the cross, embracing it in her distress. In the versions in Bonn and Leeuwarden, these figures are accompanied by angels gathering Christ’s blood in chalices.The more static compositions in Utrecht and Warsaw recall earlier examples by Jan van Eyck and Gerard David, as well as more contemporary versions by Bernard van Orley and Joos van Cleve.17 This group of four stands out from other Crucifixion scenes attributed to Coecke, such as the Crucifixion for the chaplain Pauwels Robyns18 (whereabouts unknown) and the Crucifixion in Dublin.19 With their active, crowded compositions, they recall the earlier Antwerp tradition of the Master of 1518 and other Antwerp Mannerists. All four paintings under discussion obviously hark back to the same compositional scheme, although the poses of the figures are not identical. The Warsaw and Bonn versions contain the same general poses of Mary and John, but they differ in small details such as the position of hands and schemes of drapery folds.The pose of the Magdalene in the Bonn Crucifixion is quite similar to the Magdalene in Albrecht Dürer’s Crucifixion woodcut (B. 1001.259), although the figure is reversed.20 Furthermore, the Magdalene in the Utrecht triptych is identical to the Bonn Magdalene, except that she is seen from the back.The overall composition and the poses were most likely inspired by one, or possibly more, model drawings that circulated in the workshop.There need not have been just one basic pattern; the composition was a standard one, and the poses could be varied by referring to a large stock of patterns. An example 122

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

of such a model drawing may be the Berlin Crucifixion attributed to the circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst (fig. 4).21 The pose of St. John, stepping forward with his proper right leg and holding up his garment with his proper left hand, recalls John’s stance in the Warsaw and Bonn paintings. The drawing is attributed to the circle of Coecke and might have been executed by a pupil or an assistant in his workshop as a kind of copy drawing repeating a composition of the master. After all, one of the basic elements in the training of a pupil was making drawings after compositions by the master.22 Making this kind of copy drawing was no doubt also of benefit to the assistants, since it provided them with a stock of models they could rely on at a future date. Division of Labor Judging by the considerable differences in underdrawing style, painting technique, and Fig. 4. Attributed to the Circle of Pieter Coecke van quality, it can be concluded that the Crucifix- Aelst, Crucifixion. Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett. ions in question are the result of collaboration among various members of the workshop.The employment of assistants may be surmised from the different hands discernable in the underdrawing stage of the four paintings. Comparison of the layout drawing in the draperies (figs. 5 and 6) reveals that the same hand made the underdrawings in the Crucifixions in Utrecht and Warsaw.23 The underdrawing was made with brush and a liquid material.The thick lines are curving and continuous, often ending in loops or hooks. Typical s-shaped strokes and little ovals indicate indentations in the folds. In contrast to Warsaw, the Crucifixion in Utrecht exhibits a second preparatory stage: the shadows and volumes are laid in with wash-like hatchings.The assured lines and the lack of any major change during execution indicate that the composition must already have been established in another form, most likely a model drawing.The skilled hand responsible for the underdrawings needed only to take over the basic outlines from this presumed example.The style and routine of the underdrawings belong to the type that appears in other high quality paintings in the Coecke group, such as the wings with St. John Presenting Female Donors and St. James Presenting Male Donors in Madrid (fig. 7)24 and the Adoration of the Magi in Oldenzaal (fig. 8).25 This core group of paintings demonstrates a consistent workshop routine that sets the standard for the underdrawing method used in Coecke’s workshop. It is, however, not certain to what extent the underdrawing in this core group is by the hand of the master himself. The underdrawing in the Bonn Crucifixion was made in accordance with the same routine but is by a different hand.26 The underdrawing registered best in the figures of Christ and the angels.27 It was made with brush in a liquid medium and was restricted to only the basic contours and details in the drapery (fig. 9).The lines, however, are less elegantly curved than in the core group.The underdrawing of the figures, and possibly also their execution in paint, must have been left to an assistant in the shop who based his work on an available model, perhaps the same one that lay at the basis of the closely related Warsaw composition. In the Leeuwarden Crucifixion, the underdrawing was also made following the routine of the core group, but it deviates in SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

123

Fig. 5. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Mary Magdalene in fig. 1. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Linda Jansen).

Fig. 6. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Mary Magdalene’s red cloak in the Warsaw Crucifixion (plate 2). (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Linda Jansen).

style (fig. 10).28 The lines are rough and coarse and much less detailed. Since this work deviates the most from the other three compositions in both underdrawing and painting technique, this triptych might be considered a late pastiche in which various compositions and figure types were assembled that were common in the Coecke workshop.29 It is difficult in this case to make a distinction between another assistant working within the shop and a follower working outside the shop. The execution of the figures in the paint layers shows different hands as well.30 The style and painting technique of the Warsaw and Utrecht figures clearly stand out.The facial types in these 124

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

Fig. 7. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of St. James in St. James and Male Donors, Madrid, Museo del Prado. (IRR and digital composite: Linda Jansen).

works are identical to each other and comparable to those we find in the core group. For instance, John in Warsaw has the same straight eyebrows as the Virgin in the Utrecht Crucifixion, and both have the same characteristic dimple in the chin, along with pronounced nostrils and lips. In the Warsaw version, much attention is given to expressive details, such as the tears on the Magdalene’s cheeks – a detail lacking in any of the other versions.The figures in the Bonn and Leeuwarden Crucifixions are more simplified and less expressive, and details in the faces and the drapery folds are more angular. The painting technique of the Warsaw and Utrecht paintings is also much more refined than the technique used in the Bonn and Leeuwarden triptychs.The modelling of the flesh areas, such as the faces and the body of Christ, is strong, though with subtle transitions; it gives these areas more volume than similar areas in the Bonn and Leeuwarden paintings. The draperies in the latter paintings are more heavily modelled, and since the contrast between the dark and light areas is rather harsh, the overall look is more decorative. Individual brushstrokes are hardly discernible in the Warsaw and Utrecht paintings, but can be seen in the other two works.The differences in the paint layers correspond to the division of hands in the underdrawing: Utrecht and Warsaw were done by the same person, while the execution of the figures in the triptychs in Bonn and Leeuwarden were executed by other assistants in the workshop. In all four paintings, the background consists of a landscape dominated by a walled city. In the backgrounds in Warsaw, Bonn and Utrecht, a domed church resembling the Dome of the Rock makes the city identifiable as Jerusalem, although the city is otherwise not topographically correct.31 The backgrounds in Warsaw and Bonn are remarkable for their detailed rendering and their refined painterly quality (plates 3 and 4). Interestingly, the background was SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

125

Fig. 8. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the Virgin and Child in the Triptych with the Adoration of the Magi, Oldenzaal, Plechelmusbasiliek. (IRR: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer / Stichting RKD; digital composite: Linda Jansen).

not prepared in the underdrawing stage in either work. Still, it is not very likely that an artist would improvise every time a background was needed. Both cityscapes and architectural structures differ and cannot, therefore, rely on the same source. It is more likely that the artist had several models from which he could draw. Because of their close resemblance in style and technique, it can be assumed that the same hand painted the backgrounds in the Warsaw and Bonn versions, while different hands executed the figures in both paintings. Can we, then, speak of an assistant, a journeyman, who functioned as the landscape specialist in Coecke’s workshop? In my opinion we cannot, since this hand does not consistently reappear in other backgrounds.The division of labor does prove, however, that the background was handled as a separate stage in the painting process and could be delegated to an assistant who was solely responsible for the landscape setting. The background landscape with the city of Jerusalem in the Utrecht Crucifixion is quite different in character (plate 5).The city does not occupy the entire background, and is more sober126

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

Fig. 9. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Christ’s loincloth in fig. 2. (IRR and digital composite: Linda Jansen).

Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the angel on the left in fig. 3. (IRR and digital composite: Linda Jansen).

Fig. 11. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of John the Evangelist and background landscape in fig. 1. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Linda Jansen).

ly rendered.The architectural structures are again different, and more solid.The color palette that is used differs as well: instead of atmospheric blue tones, the city is painted in brownish and greenish colors.Also in contrast to the Warsaw and Bonn Crucifixions, the background in Utrecht was prepared in the underdrawing stage (fig. 11).The horizon and the hills are indicated with simple contours.The architecture in the city and the areas of foliage are drawn with loose, sketchy lines.The underdrawing in the city is quite schematic, functioning only as a generalized indication for the form that was supposed to be given shape in the later paint stages.This may also be the reason why only minor changes occurred: the bushes and the city wall were originally planned a little higher than their present position. In the Utrecht painting it is not certain that the background was prepared and executed by a hand other than the one responsible for the figures.The different approach in the underdrawing of the figures as opposed to that of the landscape may relate only to the organization of space.The background still stands out as a separate stage, but this is not obviously connected to a division in labor, as was the case in the Warsaw and Bonn versions. SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

127

The Use of Models for Figures and Backgrounds The Crucifixion group provides more evidence for the use of drawings and prints as models for background landscapes than for the employment of specialized landscape artists.32 Since so few drawings have survived that can be linked to specific paintings, the use of drawings in relation to paintings is difficult to prove definitively.33 Even then it is not always clear if such a drawing should be classified as a preparatory study for a painting or a copy drawing after a painting (which in turn could again be used as an inspiration for other paintings). Although active as a painter, Coecke was also a designer for stained glass and tapestries. Drawings must therefore have been an important medium for transferring compositions and ideas within the shop. It is likely that a large stock of drawings, including some with landscape elements, was at the workshop’s disposal.The sketches that Coecke made on his trip to Turkey in 1533 and the designs for the woodcuts made after these sketches illustrate this point.The woodcuts with the Mœurs et Fachons de faire de Turcz, published after Coecke’s death in 1553, show a clear interest in foreign landscape and sites.34 The archaeological accuracy of these sites must have been worked out in numerous sketches and drawings before they appeared in print.These drawings were probably the source for many of the exotic buildings that occur in Coecke’s paintings.35 An example of a drawing that might have been used in Coecke’s workshop is the Berlin Crucifixion mentioned earlier.The drawing is particularly interesting since the architectural structure in the background is also seen in works of at least two other Antwerp artists, one an artist in the workshop of Herri Bles and the other the miniature painter in the workshop of the Master of Cardinal Wolsey.The architecture is closely related to a drawing in the so-called Antwerp Sketchbook, attributed to the workshop of Herri Bles.36 The fortified city gate and wall sloping down the hill seen to the right of the cross are indeed very similar to folio 32 recto of the Antwerp Sketchbook.The rest of the city, including its rounded dome to the left of the cross, is a free interpretation of the city that is depicted on the adjacent folio, 31 recto. Bevers, however, states that the two leaves in the sketchbook – and another related drawing with the same architectural setting also preserved in Berlin – were not designs for paintings but rather ricordi, copy drawings made after paintings, in this case after the Princeton Road to Calvary from the Bles workshop.37 The same architectural structure can be seen in a miniature that antedates both the Bles paintings and drawings, and the drawing from Coecke’s workshop that dates 1536: a full-page miniature with the Crucifixion by an associate of the Master of Cardinal Wolsey in the Arenberg Missal dated ca. 1524.38 It basically has the same composition as the Crucifixion paintings by Coecke discussed in this article, and the pose of the Magdalene is even identical to that in Coecke’s Bonn triptych, although in reverse.The pose thus follows the original Dürer example more closely than Coecke’s Magdalene. The architectural motif was used in even a wider circle in Antwerp. It can be seen, with some variation, in Joos van Cleve’s Lamentation Altarpiece (Paris, Musée du Louvre), as Scailliérez already noted.39 The tower is ornamented with a typical spire, unlike the more flattened watchtowers in the Bles and Coecke circle.The artist repeated the landscape in all its detail in the Crucifixion Triptych with Donors (Tokyo, Museum of Western Art) and in the Crucifixion in a Portuguese private collection (Beja, collection of José Gomes Garcia Pulido). Precisely how the Berlin drawing from Coecke’s workshop relates to either the painting or the drawings from Bles’s workshop and the miniature in the Arenberg Missal is not clear. It should be noted that the architectural construction depicted in the drawing of the Crucifixion is not used in any of Coecke’s Crucifixion paintings.This is rather remarkable since the motif seems to be associated with the city of Jerusalem in many Passion scenes.The motif of the sloping city wall with towers can be traced – albeit with some variation – in other paintings by Coecke, such as the Last Supper (Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België; and other versions of this composition), St. Luke Painting the Virgin (Nîmes, Musée des Beaux-Arts), Abraham 128

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

Fig. 12. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Christ before Pilate. Berlin, Jagdschloss Grünewald.

and Mechisedeck (Malines, Groot Seminarie), and the Carrying of the Cross (Basel, Kunstmuseum).40 Nevertheless, the motif clearly has a long and varied history, not only in panel painting but also in manuscript illumination.The complex interrelationship of the drawings, paintings, and miniatures shows how widespread some background motifs were, sometimes even going beyond the workshop of a single painter. The Wings of the St.Truiden Passion Altarpiece Another striking example of collaboration in the execution of background landscape is found in a set of wings that originally belonged to a sculpted altarpiece. Five wing panels have survived and are dispersed over five different locations: the Entry into Jerusalem (Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum), Christ before Pilate, (Berlin, Jagdschloss Grünewald; fig. 12), the Entombment of Christ (Lisbon, private collection), the Ascension of Christ (Trier, Städisches Museum Simeonstift) and the Decent of the Holy Ghost (Cape Town, Michaëlis collection).41 Friedländer already knew two of the paintings, Christ before Pilate and Christ before Caïphas (formerly also in Berlin) and SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

129

Fig. 13. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Saint Libertus. Cape Town, Michaëlis Collection.

attributed the works to Pieter Coecke van Aelst.42 Marlier mentioned all the panels and noted their similarities in style, but he did not connect them as belonging to one work of art.43 Both authors attributed the paintings to Coecke’s workshop rather than to Coecke himself, due to the rather coarse and simplified execution of the figures, even though these are unmistakably Coecke inventions. Buijsen recently identified the five surviving panels as wings from a sculpted altarpiece.44 Like Friedländer and Marlier, he recognized the stylistic similarities and noticed that several figure types recurred in the five panels, such as the kneeling man with the pointed beard in the lower right corner of the Entry into Jerusalem who is repeated in the Decent of the Holy Ghost. Since the panels all depict episodes from the Passion of Christ, it is likely that they formed the wings of an altarpiece with a sculpted Crucifixion as the center piece.With the panels depicting scenes before Christ’s death placed on the left wing and those with scenes after Christ’s death on the right wing, it would have been possible to read the story chronologically from left to right.According to Buijsen each wing consisted of four panels.45 The larger panels, each measuring ca. 100 x 63 cm, were placed in the upper storey and the slightly smaller panels, measuring ca. 85 x 63 cm, in the lower storey. One small panel from the left wing, possibly depicting the Agony in the Garden, and one larger panel from the right wing, possibly a Resurrection of Christ, are still missing. The evidence proving that the panels belonged to one single altarpiece was the nearly identical depiction of saints standing under an architectural canopy seen on the reverse of the pan130

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

els (except for the panel with Christ before Pilate which is cradled on the back; see fig. 13).46 The identification of the saints, all connected with the St.Truiden Abbey, confirmed the relationship of the five panels, and more importantly, also shed light on the original location of the altarpiece, the Abbey of St.Truiden in St.Truiden, Belgium. Unfortunately, no contract or payments for such an altarpiece have survived.The chronicles of the abbey, however, mention that in 1534 Abbot George Sarens bought an altarpiece with scenes of the Life and Passion of Christ for the high altar and had it gilded after the purchase.47 Could this be the altarpiece for which the workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst made the wings? It is unlikely, though, that Coecke accepted the commission for the whole altarpiece, including the carved middle panel, because Sarens was already in the possession of the altarpiece when he had it gilded. Martens states that Sarens probably bought the altarpiece on the Antwerp open market.48 Altarpieces were indeed made on spec and offered for sale at the annual fairs and later permanently at the pand.49 The wings, however, with their specific iconography referring to the history of the abbey of St.Truiden, must have been made on commission. It is more likely that the abbot bought only the carved part of the altarpiece on the free market and later, when he had it gilded, commissioned the wings from Coecke. A stained glass window presently in Lichfield Cathedral, but deriving from the Abbey of Herkenrode, further confirms the dating of the wings to ca. 1534.50 The window depicts a Decent of the Holy Ghost with nearly the same composition as the panel in Cape Town, although in reverse. The window is dated 1534, which means that the wing with the Decent of the Holy Ghost was most likely painted around the same time. It is certainly reasonable to assume that Coecke would have been commissioned to paint such an important altarpiece. Coecke had already worked for the abbey sometime earlier.Around 1532 he painted an Annunciation with Abbot Willem van Brussel, with a Duplex Intercessio on its reverse.51 The Duplex Intercessio with Mary showing her breast and Christ showing his wound appearing as intercessors for mankind and kneeling before God the Father is not a frequently depicted subject in Netherlandish painting.52 The theme was, however, not uncommon in the religious community of St. Truiden. In the Begijnhof church, a fresco with the same subject dating from the late sixteenth century has been depicted on one of the pillars.53 It is not certain if Coecke painted the panel on commission for Willem van Brussel, who died in 1532, or as a memorial ordered by his successor, the same Abbot Sarens. In either situation, Pieter Coecke must have made his mark with this painting, as he was hired again to paint the wings of the Passion Altarpiece. Division of Labor Friedländer and Marlier thought the painterly execution of these works deviated from the style they assumed to be Coecke himself (which of course is also arbitrary since no signed works by the master exist), and, therefore, assigned the paintings to Coecke’s workshop.54 The painting technique used in the wings does indeed differ from other works in the core group and is more schematic and graphic. Drapery, for instance, is laid out as an evenly colored area which is then worked up with linear fold lines and rather coarse areas of shade and highlight. It is by now common knowledge that commissions for carved altarpieces were most often joint ventures in which several types of collaboration occurred: between sculptors and painters, and within painters’ workshops between the master and his assistants.55 As Périer-d’Ieteren has noticed, the less important parts of the wings, such as the small panels at the top or the predellas, were frequently left to assistants.56 Due to increased demand for sculpted altarpieces with painted wings, the entire execution of the wings was sometimes delegated to assistants who worked following the master’s routine.57 Other painted wings from sculpted altarpieces that are in some way associated with the workshop of Coecke are those of Opitter-Bree (St.Trudo’s Church), Pagny (Philadelphia, Museum of Art), and Oplinter (Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire).58 The latter is of SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

131

Fig. 14. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Christ and a soldier in fig. 12. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Linda Jansen).

special interest because it is probably the only one executed in Coecke’s workshop.59 Many of the compositions are similar to those in the wings of the St.Truiden altarpiece. The simpler painting technique of the St.Truiden wings cannot be due only to the employment of less gifted workshop assistants, as has been suggested in the literature.The execution of the wings of sculpted altarpieces may have been subject to different standards. Wings were meant to be seen from a distance, and a clear graphic style with bright colors seems to have been the standard for such works.60 As a comparison, I refer to Joos van Cleve’s Reinhold Altarpiece (see the article in this volume by Micha Leeflang) in which the scenes on the inner sides of the wings were done by assistants.These scenes are also more schematic than the painterly technique encountered in the outer wings and in other works by Van Cleve and his workshop. The examination by IRR of four of the paintings from the altarpiece shows a type of collaboration similar to that mentioned earlier, namely a division of labor in the underdrawing stage between the figures and background landscape.61 In all four paintings the underdrawing in the figures was made according to the same routine and style. Assured elongated lines depict fold lines in the drapery and the contours of figures (fig. 14); typical s-shaped strokes or little ovals indicate indentations in the folds.This underdrawing routine is typical for the core group and can also be found in the Crucifixions in Utrecht and Warsaw. Occasionally, parallel hatching is used in these wing panels to indicate a shadow area, as, for instance, in the cloak of Pilate and the 132

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

back of the soldier in Christ before Pilate (see fig. 14), and in the grey cloak of Christ in the Entry into Jerusalem.This hatching has obviously been carried out with a brush and a liquid medium, for drops of the medium can be detected at the end of the lines. Like the hatching in the Utrecht Crucifixion, it is more transparent than the other underdrawn lines and has the appearance of a wash. The underdrawing of these panels was closely followed in the paint stage.The assured character of the underdrawing and the lack of major changes were, according to van den Brink, an indication that cartoons were traced to establish the underdrawing.62 In my opinion, this statement cannot be put forward with certainty.The use of cartoons, either pricked or traced, is usually seen in the production of compositional replicas where the same composition was repeated over and over again, such as the Madonna with the Veil by a Gossaert follower.63 There is no indisputable proof that Coecke’s workshop used these methods in the production of copies. In the series of replicas studied so far, such as the Last Supper and the Adoration of the Magi, no clear signs of tracing could be detected.64 In addition, the size of the figure groups was not the same in the various versions. Only very occasionally do the underdrawing lines have a mechanical look that may indicate the use of a traced cartoon,as in the Adoration of the Magi (Madrid,Prado) and in the Holy Family (Kassel,Alte Gemäldegallerie).65 Although the compositions of the wings of St.Truiden Passion Altarpiece do not exist in a series and the lines do not look mechanical, tracing cannot be completely excluded as the method transferring the composition onto the panel. In Italy the use of a pricked or traced cartoon is not at all limited to the production of copies; it was a common way to transfer the final result of the composition onto the panel.66 Nor is the absence of lines that look mechanical decisive: the actual traced lines from the cartoon could be fragile, requiring fixing.This could be done by retracing the lines with brush and ink,resulting in a semi-freehand underdrawing.It is probably the re-traced lines that IRR makes visible, making it difficult to decide with certainty whether or not a cartoon was actually employed for transfer, as in the St.Truiden wings. On the other hand, models, such as drawn figure studies, were undoubtedly referenced for the figures. Such models could be varied and adapted, and inserted in the different Passion scenes. In the St.Truiden wings, the background landscape is prepared in the underdrawing stage. Here both the underdrawing material and method deviate from that used in the figures. In the Entry of Christ into Jerusalem and in the Ascension of Christ, the artist sketchily indicates the architecture, hills, and villages with chalk instead of brush.67 The same method of underdrawing can be seen in the views into the background on the reverse of the panels, as for instance in the Saint Libertus (fig. 15).The forms are indicated only schematically and were to be worked out in further detail in the paint stage.68 The artist went over the lines several times as if he was still looking for the right composition.Van den Brink has assumed that the background was not included in the cartoons and was filled in at a later stage, after the figures had been laid out.69 Whether or not cartoons were used for the figures, the addition of landscape at a later stage in the execution of the underdrawing seems to be the working sequence. The difference between the underdrawing used in the figures and in the background landscape cannot be explained unequivocally. It might be ascribed to the use of different working methods, such as the possible tracing of cartoons on the one hand and free sketching on the other. Using some other material to differentiate the fore- from the background could also be a way of indicating space in the underdrawing stage.70 This is not, however, a method that frequently appears in the Pieter Coecke group; it has only been found one other time.71 Another explanation would be that different hands executed different parts of the underdrawing.This last suggestion seems the most likely, since the artist who prepared the underdrawing of the background not only drew in a different style but used a different material as well.The use of chalk and a similar sketchy underdrawing is seen only one other time in the Pieter Coecke group, in the ‘quasi’ documented triptych with the Decent from the Cross in Lisbon.72 The artist who laid out the St.Truiden backgrounds need not be the master himself. SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

133

Fig. 15. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the background landscape on the left side of fig. 13. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Linda Jansen).

The execution of the background landscape is not only a different stage in the genesis of a painting but also translates into a division of labor, as we have seen in the Crucifixion group. However, for the same reason as in the Warsaw and Bonn Crucifixions, care must be taken when speaking of a journeyman who specialized in landscapes.The same hand does not recur consistently throughout the paintings produced in Coecke’s shop.The type of background architecture in the Entry into Jerusalem is rather common in the Coecke group as well as in works by Bles and other anonymous Antwerp painters.This again suggests that model drawings circulated in the shop and were used by the various assistants working there in the style of the workshop that hired them, rather than landscape specialists with their own styles. A Landscape Specialist Related by Marriage: Jan van Amstel Whenever Coecke’s collaboration with a landscape specialist is discussed, only one name is mentioned: Jan van Amstel. A critical look at the literature shows that this presumed collaboration is for the most part a literary invention of the twentieth century. Information from the archives combined with a disputed oeuvre has evolved over the years from hypothesis into fact. 134

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

The first archival record of Jan van Amstel dates from 1527, when he was mentioned as the husband of Adriana Martens van Dornicke, the sister of Pieter Coecke's first wife Anna.73 From the same document we learn that he was a painter. In 1528 he enrolled as a master in the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke where he was registered as Janne van Anstelle.74 He bought the required citizenship of the town of Antwerp only eight years later in 1536: Jan van Amstel,Aertssone, schildere van Amsterdam. Contemporary biographers such as Lampsonius and Van Mander specify that Jan van Amstel, whom they call Jan de Hollander, was an excellent painter of landscapes. However, according to Van Mander, quoting Lampsonius’s poem,Van Amstel was unable to paint figures: ‘… soo wouw desen Brabander/ Landtschappen maken eer, dan qualijck te verstaen/ Hooft, Godt, oft Menscherbeeldt, oft hem daer in misgaen’ (So this Brabanter/Would rather paint landscapes than, lacking sufficient insight/Paint heads, gods or human figures wrongly).75 Genaille remarks that in this case Van Mander misinterpreted the poem of Lampsonius, in which the art of landscape painting was opposed to the art of history painting.76 The ‘fact’ that landscape artists were not able to paint figures – that is, histories – is thus nothing more than a literary convention, further cultivated by the negative attitude of Italian literature towards landscape painting. The length of Jan’s career is a point of discussion.Van Mander states in his Schilder-boeck that Adriana van Dornicke was the mother of Gillis II van Coninxloo, who was born in 1544.77 Apparently she married a second time after the presumed death of Jan van Amstel, which must have been ca. 1542-43.78 Genaille, however, questions Van Mander’s information and states that there is a mix-up between two women named Adriana van Dornicke: one called Adriana Martens van Dornicke, who was married to Jan van Amstel, and one called Adriana Hermans van Dornicke, who in 1555 is described as the widow of Gillis I van Coninxloo.79 Since the Adriana’s are possibly not the same person, it cannot be taken for granted that Jan van Amstel died by 154243.With this information and the stylistic evidence from the attributed paintings, Genaille presumes that Jan van Amstel was active until ca. 1550-53. Many scholars identify Jan van Amstel as the Brunswick Monogrammist, although the definition of his oeuvre is still debated.The key work, the Feeding of the Five Thousand in Braunschweig, carries a monogram that can be deciphered as J v A M S (L?), and can thus be read as Jan van Amstel.80 A small group of paintings has been assembled around this work, forming the oeuvre of the Monogrammist.81 These paintings are either landscapes that serve as the setting for dense groups of small figures depicting biblical scenes or interiors with larger figures and mostly moralistic subjects.The panoramic landscapes are painted in muted tones of brown, green, and blue, and animated with bright color accents in the costumes of the figures, such as reds, orange-pinks, and whites.A threatening sky often dominates the scene.The landscape is populated by ‘gothic’ architectural structures and crowded figural groupings, which are united by their rounded forms and affected gestures.The figures are always painted with great detail and variation in their poses.The work of Jan van Amstel shows many similarities to the art of Pieter Coecke, especially in the affected and rhythmic poses of the figures that have been compared with the apostles in Coecke’s Last Supper.82 Genaille, however, stresses that this interrelationship does not necessarily prove Van Amstel’s dependence on Coecke’s work.83 Collaborators or Just Brothers-in-law? Since Van Amstel and Coecke were brothers-in-law and since their careers corresponded so closely in time, many scholars have assumed that they must have worked together.84 This presumed collaboration has taken on a life of its own and has led, in turn, to arguments for many new attributions to Jan van Amstel. It was primarily Marlier who cultivated this idea of collaboration between the two brothers-in-law, and this was further worked out by Schubert. Marlier was the first to recognize Van Amstel’s hand in three paintings by Coecke: in the Baptism of SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

135

Christ in Santarem, in the wing with St. James Presenting Male Donors in Madrid, and in the left wing of the Karlsruhe triptych with the Resurrection of Christ.85 The backgrounds of these three works show dense groups of tiny figures standing in a variety of poses. Marlier considers the small figures a new element in the work of Coecke, and reminiscent of the figures of the Brunswick Monogrammist, Coecke’s brother-in-law, Jan van Amstel. He then suggests that the latter might have executed the figures in these paintings:‘Nothing says they could not have been inserted by Jan van Amstel’ (Rien ne dit qu’elles n’y sont pas insérées par Jan van Amstel). 86 His arguments are weak: he focuses solely on the presence of small figures that appear in Jan van Amstel’s paintings, but are only a novelty in Coecke’s work. Background scenes with little figures, however, are quite common. Such scenes appear in other paintings by Coecke, such as the Crucifixions in Warsaw and Bonn, where a procession to mount Calvary populates the background. Marlier does not comment at all on the rest of the landscape, nor on the backgrounds with tiny figures depicted in the other wings (for example, those with St. John the Evangelist and Female Donors in Madrid or the Rescue of Jonah from the Karlsruhe triptych). Schubert supports these attributions to Jan van Amstel. He makes an even closer comparison between the background of the Santarem Baptism of Christ and Jan van Amstel’s Entry of Christ into Jerusalem in Stuttgart (although he admits to never having studied the Baptism at first hand).87 He does not mention the background landscape in the Prado wing with St. James and Male Donors, which, according to Marlier, is by the same hand. Schubert also supports Marlier’s attribution of the background landscape in the Nebuchadnezzar wing to Van Amstel, but he corrects Marlier by saying that the Karlsruhe triptych is a smaller copy after the original wings in Nuremburg that were actually painted by Van Amstel.88 Schubert adds one more example of collaboration of the two artists to the list, the Reading Virgin with the Christ Child (Munich).89 According to this author, the artistic relationship between Coecke and Van Amstel does not end here. He draws our attention to a few more paintings that are occasionally attributed to Coecke, but attributes them to Van Amstel: the Lamentation of Christ (Berlin, Bode Museum), the Crucifixion (Neuss), the Holy Family (Utrecht and Diest), and St. Jerome in a Landscape (Wiesbaden).90 These are examples of biblical scenes with large-scale figures that Van Amstel had supposedly taken over from Coecke. Here, according to Schubert, the artists did not collaborate; rather Van Amstel derived his examples from the Coecke workshop by means of intermediate drawings. To summarize, according to both authors, the actual collaboration between Coecke and Van Amstel apparently only occurred upon Coecke’s initiative: that is, Coecke hired Jan van Amstel as a landscape painter, and not the other way around.They both situate the collaboration in the period around 153540. In my opinion, the arguments of these authors are not convincing for both stylistic and practical reasons. Although Schubert provides better and more fully elaborated stylistic comparisons, the arguments for Van Amstel’s collaboration remain highly speculative. Do the similarities in landscape backgrounds between the two painters, which occurred on only three occasions, necessarily have to be the result of collaboration? Marlier and Schubert’s arguments in favor of collaboration state only that there is no reason to believe that it is not the result of collaboration.They overlook other possibilities for the similarities, such as the role of drawings or prints as a source of inspiration (as seen in the Crucifixion group). Schubert admits that this is a possibility in the case of Van Amstel’s use of Coecke-like figures. Until the oeuvre of Van Amstel is more thoroughly studied with methods of technical examination, and can be systematically compared with that of Coecke, this question of collaboration remains unresolved.91 Technical examination of the Prado wings, however, did not show any difference in painting technique and working routine between the left and right wing, nor a clear division between the execution of the foreground and background.Therefore the argument that the backgrounds in these paintings were done by different hands, as Marlier implies, is inconclusive.92 This considerably weakens Marlier’s arguments for the collaboration of Jan van Amstel in the painting of these wings. 136

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

A second critical note I would like to add is that none of the authors describe how this collaboration would have actually taken place. It is important to understand that both painters were masters in the Guild of St. Luke, and thus had the much-desired privilege of accepting commissions and selling paintings from their shops.93 If the two painters indeed had worked together, it must have been a type of subcontracting or a type of prestige collaboration. Either way, it must be asked what the reason was to collaborate and whether or not it was profitable? It is unlikely that a master was hired just to speed up the production process in Coecke’s workshop by filling in backgrounds in paintings produced as serial products. Hendrikman has noticed that the paintings by Patinir that were most likely painted in collaboration were all relatively large and highly prestigious, and some of them known commissions.94 Collaboration took place when the sale was secured (as also occurred in the retable industry). Thus, it is more likely that when collaboration occurred, a specific commission would have brought the two masters together, as was the case with Massys and Patinir in the Temptation of St. Anthony. So far nothing is known about such commissions; both archival documents and the earliest biographers, such as Van Mander, remain silent on the issue of collaboration between Coecke and Van Amstel. It seems that the family relationship between Coecke and Van Amstel has been critical to the hypothesis that a few background landscapes were the result of collaboration. Indeed, family and social networks were important to these artists.95 In other instances, however, family relations did not result in collaboration, as Dunbar has proven for Quinten Massys and his son the landscape painter, Cornelis Massys.96 Unless more solid information on collaboration between the two painters appears, this theory should be dismissed.The study of the workshop practices of Coecke has so far shown dependence on model drawings and general workshop assistants rather than on landscape specialists. Conclusion The aim of this article was to explore the possible employment of landscape specialists in the workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, and to discuss the complex matter of the division in labor in the painting of landscape backgrounds. Additionally, the article was intended as a review of the hypothetical collaboration between Jan van Amstel and Pieter Coecke. Only two examples in the oeuvre of Coecke demonstrate a clear division in labor between the execution of background landscape and the figures. In the Utrecht Crucifixion and in the wings of the St.Truiden Passion Altarpiece, the background was underdrawn in a different manner than the figures.The background was evidently handled as a separate stage in the execution of the painting. In the St.Truiden altarpiece, the underdrawing material used to prepare the background differed as well.This evidence can take the issue of collaboration a step further, because it may indicate a different hand in both the preparation and execution of the background. The same situation occurs in the paintings with the Crucifixion’s in Warsaw and Bonn. Here one hand painted the cityscape of Jerusalem, while different hands executed the figures in both paintings.Whether this hand can be identified as a landscape specialist is not clear, since it does not occur regularly in other paintings from Coecke’s workshop. It is more likely that Coecke used all-round assistants who drew upon model drawings for compositions, figures, and the landscape backgrounds. The Berlin drawing with the Crucifixion is an important example of an influential landscape motif that was used in more than one workshop. Collaboration in the painting of backgrounds does not seem to be a common routine in Coecke’s workshop. On the contrary, it can be said that landscapes do not occupy a dominant position in the majority of works from Coecke’s studio, and certainly not in the many serial prodSHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

137

ucts with the Madonna and Child.97 It is not possible to distinguish a recurring hand in the landscape, nor is it possible to specify a type of landscape that frequently repeats that could be given to a landscape specialist working for Coecke. In these serial products, Coecke seems to have played it safe by not undertaking prestigious collaborations with other masters or specialized journeymen. The collaboration with Jan van Amstel as a landscape specialist cannot be convincingly proven. This supposition primarily appears to have been based on family ties between the two brothersin-law.Although they must have known each other’s work, there is no proof from archival documents or from contemporary biographers that they ever collaborated. In the few paintings where Marlier recognized the hand of Van Amstel, the stylistic similarities are too general to merit a specific attribution. Furthermore, Marlier overlooked the possibility of other means for the transfer of motifs and ideas. As we have seen in the Jerusalem backgrounds in the Crucifixion’s by Coecke, the use of drawings was probably of critical importance to the functioning of Coecke’s workshop. It is evident that collaboration in the painting of background landscapes remains a very complex matter.The examination of Coecke’s work shows that the division of labor in the painting of backgrounds occurred only rarely and the collaboration with landscape specialists is difficult to prove.This finding, however, is important and shows that the stylistic similarities brought up as proof of collaboration, or the stylistic diversity interpreted as the employment of journeymen who specialized in landscapes, can be explained in other ways. Hopefully, the suggestions made here will encourage further study of this matter with an array of methods and not allow stylistic evidence – or a few references in Van Mander – to determine our view.

138

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

NOTES

* This study is part of my Ph.D. thesis on the workshop practices of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, which is part of the project,‘Antwerp Painting before Iconoclasm (ca. 1480 – 1566: a Socio-Economic Approach,’ at the University of Groningen, co-directed by Prof. Dr. Molly Faries and Dr. M.P.J. Martens (2000 – 2004) and sponsored by NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research).

1. For an overview of the development of sixteenth-century landscape painting, see Genaille 1987 and Gibson 1989. Several recent exhibitions have also focused on the development of the landscape genre in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Huys Janssen 2001; Ertz et al. 2003; Devisscher 2004.These catalogues also provide extensive bibliographies on the subject. 2. For the iconography of sixteenth-century landscape, see Falkenburg 1988 and Buijsen 2001. 3.Van Mander (Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, fol. 207v) cites Jan van Scorel as the background painter in a Deposition from the Cross by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, and Joachim Patinir as the background painter in a Virgin and Child by Joos van Cleve (fol. 227r). Unfortunately, both paintings are lost today. Other mentions of collaboration are: Hendrik van Cleef who frequently painted backgrounds for Frans Floris (fol. 230v) and his brother Marten van Cleef (fol. 230v). Marten for his part added figures in the landscapes of Gillis van Coninxloo (fols. 230v and 268r) and other landscape painters (ander fraey Landtschap-makers). Also Frans Mostaert used ‘other painters’ to populate his landscape with figures (fol. 261r). His brother Gillis Mostaert as well as Bartholomeus Spranger painted figures in the landscapes of Cornelis van Dalem (fol. 269r). Gielis Coignet used Cornelis Molenaer to fill in backgrounds (fol. 262r). In Italy apparently the same practice of collaboration occurred: Pieter de Vlerick painted the figures in Muziano’s landscapes (fol 250v). 4. Gibson 1989, 23, 61; Schubert 1970, 26, 153-58; Devisscher 2004, 17. Some scholars also suggested collaboration between Coecke and Bernard van Orley or Coecke and the illustrious Tons Brothers; see Marlier 1966, 266-71; Schneebalg-Perelman 1982. 5. Most informative being Campbell 1976, 193, n. 61; Campbell 1981, 43, 50-53;Van der Stock 1993, 49-51; Jacobs 1998, 210-19. 6. Temptation of St.Anthony, Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. no. 1615; panel 155 x 173 cm. Signed: opus Joachim *at* nier. See Silver 1984, 217-18; Genaille 1987, 151-52; Gibson 1989, 13. 7. Silver 1984, 218. 8. Gibson 1989, 5. 9.Tamis 2001/02; Franz 1982, 174-77. 10.A journeyman (gezel, knaap, compagnon) is a trained artist who had not acquired his master title and worked, possibly on a temporary basis, as an assistant in the workshop of a master painter. Because they did not need to register with the guild, the numbers and the exact activities of this group of journeymen remain highly speculative (Campbell 1981, 48-49;Van der

Stock 1993, 47-49).An interdisciplinary workshop was devoted to this subject at the University of Groningen (May 2324, 2003), ‘Working for Money. The role and status of journeymen in the artists’ and craftsmans’ workshops in the Low Countries ca. 1450-1650,’ (the papers, edited by N. Peeters, are forthcoming). 11. Thijs 1993, 106;Van der Stock 1993, 51-52; van den Brink 2001a. Specialization and standardization also occurred in the in the retable industry, see Jacobs 1998, 161, 209-37. 12. Franz 1982, 173-74. 13. Of the masters in the period 1500-1539, 57.3 % remained one-person businesses and never took on apprentices; only 3.7 % of the master painters took on three or more apprentices in this same period (see Martens and Peeters elsewhere in this volume). Sosson (1970, 99-100) already noticed a similar trend in Bruges for the period 1454-1530; only 38.7 % of all the masters took on apprentices. See also note 10. 14. Friedländer 1917, 91-94; Marlier 1966, 226, 269-72, 274, 277. 15. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifixion, Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent, inv. no. AMB s00107. Center panel 66.5 x 44 cm; wings 68 x 18.5 cm.Wings: left, Adam and Eve, and right, the Sacrifice of Isaac. Master of the Utrecht Adoration (according to the museum catalogue), triptych with the Crucifixion, Bonn, Rheinlandishes Museum, inv. no. 92.0639. Center panel: 87.5 x 57.3 cm; wings 89.3 x 24 cm. Wings: left, Flagellation of Christ and right, Entombment. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifixion, Leeuwarden, Fries Museum, inv. no. S6071. Center panel, 89 x 58 cm; wings, 89 x 25 cm.Wings: left, Carrying of the Cross, and right, the Resurrection. 16. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion,Warsaw, Museum Narodowe, inv. no. 232680. 92 x 138 cm. 17. For instance, Circle of Jan van Eyck, Crucifixion, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie; Gerard David, Crucifixion, Genoa, Palazzo Bianco; Bernard van Orley, Crucifixion, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen; Joos van Cleve, Crucifixion, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. 18. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifixion, auction at Fréderic Muller (collection Mensing), November 15, 1938, lot 21. Present location unknown. Center panel, 122 x 81.5 cm, wings, 126 x 36 cm; wings with saints and donors; at earlier auctions also attributed to Michiel Coxcie. 19. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifixion, Dublin, Dominican Convent. Center panel, 150 x 110 cm; wings with saints and donors. 20. The woodcut is from a series referred to as schlechtes Holzwerk, best translated as modest works, and are considered workshop products (New Bartsch, vol. 10, commentary, 326). A woodcut now attributed to the Nuremberg School repeats the pose of Mary Magdalene (B. appendix 6 [175]; New Bartsch, vol. 10, commentary, 443). 21. Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. no. KdZ 13280, dated 1536. Pen and grey and brown ink with grey washes, 278 x 190 mm. Bock and Rosenberg 1931, 38.

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

139

22. Campbell 1981, 53; Robinson and Wolff 1986, 26. 23.The triptych in Utrecht was examined several times by Molly Faries (in 1985 and 2001) and by Peter van den Brink (in 1992). Faries’ IRR examination was done with a Grundig 70 H television camera set at 875 lines and outfitted with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon, a TV Macromar 1:2.8/36 mm lens, and Kodak 87 A filter, with a Grundig BG 12 monitor. Any documentation was done with a Canon A1 35 mm camera, a 50 mm Macrolens, and Kodak Plus X film.The digitized negatives were assembled into composites by Jansen in Panavue and Photoshop; van den Brink (2000, 28) already published a detail, the figure of Mary Magdalene.The Crucifixion in Warsaw was studied by Faries and Jansen in April 2001, with the same equipment as above.The negatives were digitized and assembled by Jansen in Panavue and Photoshop. 24. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, St. John Presenting Female Donors, verso: St. Adrian and St. James Presenting Male Donors, verso: St. Sebastian, Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. nos. 1609 and 1610. The wings were examined with IRR by Linda Jansen, with the assistance of Daantje Meuwissen en Lars Hendrikman, in February 2003.The results will be published in my forthcoming thesis (see statement at beginning of notes). 25. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Adoration of the Magi, Oldenzaal, Plechelmusbasiliek.The work was examined with IRR in 1992 by P. van den Brink and J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, who kindly put their material at my disposal. 26.The triptych was studied in March 2003 by Linda Jansen and Lars Hendrikman with the IRR equipment of Groningen University: a Mitsubishi IR-M700 focal plane array camera with PtSi-FPA 801 x 512 pixel detector and RS 170 or CCIR625 video output, outfitted with a Nikor f 3.5, 55 mm lens. Reflectogram images, in a 640 x 480 array, are registered with the capture software Arte, and assembled with the mosaic software, Panavue. I would like to thank Mrs. I. Krueger for her permission and her assistance. 27.The underdrawing in the figures of the Magdalene, Mary, and St. John, looked even more schematic. However, this lower zone was heavily damaged and restored, which may have made the penetration with IRR more difficult. 28.The IRR examination was done by Jansen, Meuwissen and Hendrikman in July 2002, with a Sensors Unlimited Camera with an indium gallium arsenide detector, outfitted with a Nikon 55 mm macrolens.The reflectogram images were captured with Arte and assembled in the mosaic software Panavue. I would like to thank Erik Bouma of the Fries Museum for drawing my attention to this still little-known triptych, and to Dr. Elzinga for his permission to examine it with IRR. 29.Two exact copies exist of the center panel, both in Spain, one in the Iglesia del Salvador in Ubeda and the other in Museo de Bellas Artes y Bilbao in Seville (see Bermejo 1981, fig. 12 and 13). It is possible that a workshop in the periphery of Coecke focused on making pastiches for export, especially to the Iberian Peninsula. 30.The four paintings were studied with a magnifying glass. It must be noted that the paint surface in all the paintings was rather damaged. It was clear, though, which areas were original or restored. 31. I would like to thank Molly Faries for drawing my attention to another Crucifixion, loosely attributed to Coecke (at Feigen & Co. in New York in 1996, 34.9 x 22.5 cm), which depicts some of the buildings and details of Jerusalem that appear in a topographical drawing of the city by an anonymous sixteenth-century master (for the drawing, see Jan van Scorel, exh. cat., Utrecht, Centraal Museum, 1955, cat. no. 98). These examples were alluded to in Faries 1998a, 125 and note 70. It should be noted, however, that although Coecke went

140

to Constantinople in 1533, there is no documentary evidence that he traveled on to Jerusalem. 32. Use of prints might be from a later date, such as the second half of the sixteenth century, when prints after Pieter Bruegel became available and inspired many artists. In chapter eight on landscapes in the famous Den Grondt der Edel vry Schilder-const,Van Mander even advised painters to take the prints of Bruegel as an example for their own landscapes (Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, 210). 33. Robinson and Wolff 1986, 26-29. 34. Marlier 1966, 69-72. 35. Faries 1998a, 128. Scorel also used the drawings he made on his travels to recreate new, historicized backgrounds. 36. Held 1933, 282-83; Koch 1998, 18; Bevers 1998, 45-46. 37. Bevers 1998, 46-48. 38. Associate of the Master of Cardinal Wolsey, Arenberg Missal, shortly after 1524. Full page miniature, fol. 68v, 439 x 312 mm; see Kren and McKendrick 2003, cat. nos. 170-72. 39. Scailliérez 1991, 68-69. For this particular motif, she refers to similarities with the drawings from Antwerp Sketchbook from the Bles workshop. She also discusses the similarities in landscape views between Metsys and Van Cleve and the much discussed collaboration between Joachim Patinir and Van Cleve (70-72 and 29-32). Jan de Beer was also inpired by the architectural motif of the city tower with the sloping wall. The artist include the motif – based, however, on the famous Errara Sketchbook – in the background of a Crucifixion scene (Cologne, Erzbischöfliches Diözesanmuseum).There are also remarkable similarities between De Beer’s Cologne Crucifixion and Coecke’s Bonn Crucifixion: the postures of the figure of Magdalene and the three angels are identical.According to Ewing, the composition of De Beer’s Cologne Crucifixion was widely copied. Ewing cited the Crucifixion drawing from Coecke’s circle and noticed the similarities between the crossed arms and shrouded hand of Mary. Coecke depended on De Beer’s painting again in his Bonn Crucifixion. He must have had a model of De Beer’s painting, probably a copy drawing, from which he was able to derive figures. See Dan Ewing in Extravagant! A Forgotten Chapter of Antwerp Painting, 1500-1530, ed. by P. van den Brink, exh. cat. Koninklijke Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, and Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht, 2005, 73-76 (cat. no. 24) and 77-81 (cat. no. 25). 40. Kren and McKendrick 2003, cat. no. 172, mention two paintings by Coecke in which this architectural motif is used: in The Carrying of the Cross in Basel and the Nîmes St. Luke Painting the Virgin. In the Carrying of the Cross, the architecture is larger and placed more in the middle ground; an exquisite rendering of the city of Jerusalem is painted in the background that is reminiscent of the Bonn and Warsaw cityscapes. 41.Another panel that clearly belongs to this same ensemble is the Christ before Caïphas that was destroyed during World War II (previously in Berlin, Staatliche Museen). 42. Friedländer 1917, 92-93; Friedländer 1935, vol. 12, 66 and 181. See also note 37. 43. Marlier 1966, 202-04, 208-10, 213. 44. Buijsen 2000, 10-12; 14-18. 45. Ibid.; for an illustration of the reconstruction, see 16-17. 46.The reverse of The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem in Maastricht was for a long time overpainted with a green layer. It was not until 2000 that the original paint layer was made visible again during the cleaning and restoration of the painting; see Schreuder 2000, 8-9. 47. Lavigne 1988, 269.

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

48. Martens 2000, 24.

67. van den Brink 2000, 26-27; figures 43, 46, 47 and 52.

49. Jacobs 1998, 101.

68. A similar manner of setting up the background landscape was found in the Crucifixion in Utrecht.

50. Fransen 1997, 94. 51. The Annunciation with Duplex Intercessio (on the reverse), Diocese Hasselt, now on display in the former Benedictine Abbey of St.Truiden. Panel, 130 x 93 cm. Faries and Jansen studied the painting with IRR April 9, 2001. The results will be presented in my forthcoming thesis for the University of Groningen on the workshop practices of the workshop of Pieter Coecke (see statement at the beginning of the notes). 52. Réau 1956-57, vol. 2, 46-47; Schiller 1968, 238-39.The theme is often misidentified as a Trinity. 53. De Dijn 1974, 92-93; Marlier 1966, 208, 210. 54. Friedländer 1917, 92-93; Marlier 1966, 208, 210. 55.Van der Stock 1993, 47-52; Jacobs 1998, 96-102, 21019. 56. Périer d’Ieteren 1993, 64. 57. Périer d’Ieteren 1990, 629. 58. Périer d’Ieteren 1993, 86-88. 59. Ibid., 88. For a complete study of the Oplinter altarpiece, see De Boodt and Serck-Dewaide 1999. 60. Jacobs 1998, 102-14. 61. The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum) and The Ascension of Christ (Trier, Städisches Museum Simeonstift) were examined by Peter van den Brink, Margreet Wolters and Kees Schreuder in 1999, using the camera of Stichting Restauratie Atelier Limburg and equipment of the RKD: Hamamatsu C2400 03d outfitted with a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55 mm lens and a Kodak Wratten 87C filter. Images were displayed on a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor and captured with a Metero RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, and colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic). Digital composites were made by Wolters using Panavue and Photoshop; van den Brink (2000, 25-29) published the results of this IRR examination. Linda Jansen and Margreet Wolters studied the other panels, The Ascension of the Holy Ghost and Christ before Pilate, in Maastricht in September 2000, using the same equipment as above. Jansen made the digital composites using Panavue and Photoshop. 62. van den Brink 2000, 25. 63. For the Madonna with the Veil, see Jansen forthcoming in Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie/Musées Royaux des Beaux-arts de Belgique (papers of the Symposium Brueghel Enterprises in Brussels, June 20-21, 2002); see other contributions in this volume for more discussion of this topic and van den Brink 2001a. 64. See Jansen 2003 and Linda Jansen forthcoming, ‘The place of serial products in the workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst: a working hypothesis,’ Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XV: Copies, répliques et pastiches, Bruges, September 11-13, 2003, to be published in 2006. 65.Triptych with the Adoration of the Magi, Madrid, Prado, inv. no. 2223; panel, 87 x 55 cm and 87 x 23 cm.The painting was studied by Jansen, Meuwissen and Hendrikman in March 2003 with the IRR equipment of the University of Groningen (see note 26).Triptych with The Holy Family, Kassel, Alte Gemäldegallerie, inv. no. GK 31; panel, 87 x 55 and 87 x 23 cm. Studied by Jansen and Hendrikman in April 2003 with the IRR equipment of the University of Groningen (see note 26). 66. Bambach 1999, 14-15, and chapters 7 and 8 for the use of traced cartoons as a designing tool.

69. In the two triptychs mentioned earlier in Madrid and Kassel (see note 65), the background was included in the cartoon as well. 70. Faries 1991, 52. 71. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Christ on His Way to Emmaus (Amsterdam, sale Sotheby’s November 4, 2003, lot no. 48).The painting was studied with IRR by Jansen, Leeflang, and Hendrikman with the equipment of the University of Groningen (see note 26).The results will be discussed further in my Ph.D. thesis on the workshop practices of Pieter Coecke (see statement at the beginning of the notes). 72.The triptych was documented with IRR by Jose Pessoã, head of the Photographic Department of the Institute for Portuguese Museums in March 2003, at my request.The results of this highly problematic painting, which is attributed to Coecke in a document from 1585, will be discussed further in my Ph.D. thesis for the University of Groningen. 73. City Archive, Antwerp (S.A.A.), Schepenregisters, sub Keyser en Ballinck, 1527, fol. 279 recto en verso: ‘Adriane martens alias van doernicke Jans dochtere met Janne van Amstel/ schildere eius marito et tutore …’ 74. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 110. Six years earlier, in 1522, a supposedly different person called Jan de Hollander enrolled as a master as well, and later took on an apprentice, Berthel van der Borch, in 1539. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 100 and 132.According to Miedema, this Jan de Hollander was not the same as the Jan the Hollander mentioned in Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 3, 32. 75. Ibid., vol. 1, 118-119, fol. 215. 76. Genaille 1974-80, 68. 77. Gillis II is also referred to as Gillis III, but now it has been proven that Gillis II and III are one and the same; see Van Mander/Miedema 1994-9, vol. 5, 74. 78.Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, 330 (fol. 268). Marlier, Schubert, Gibson, and Miedema all hold to Van Mander’s information and deduce from his data that Jan van Amstel died somewhere around 1542-3. Gibson bases his conclusions on the archival research of Monballieu, who discovered that Adriana van Coninxloo was the same person as the wife of Jan van Amstel (Gibson 1989, 23 note 50). The archival research of Monballieu has never been published and thus, unfortunately, cannot be verified. 79. Genaille 1974-80, 71-74. 80.The identification of the Brunswick Monogrammist with Jan van Amstel is not entirely undisputed:Van Puyvelde (1962) identified him as Jan Sanders van Hemessen, based on a different reading of the monogram and correspondences between the works of the two artists. Bergmans (1955) gave the core group of fifteen paintings to various painters and identified the Monogrammist as Coecke’s second wife Marie Verhulst. Only The Deluge (Brussels) and the triptych with the Crucifixion (Veurne) were supposed to be by Van Amstel. For an extensive review of the many opinions, see Sander 1993, 356-61. 81. Schubert 1970 attributed about thirty paintings to Jan van Amstel; Genaille (1974-80) sticks to only eleven. 82. Genaille 1974-80, 82. 83. Ibid., 89.

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

141

84. Marlier 1966, 49; Schubert 1970, 16-17, 156-57, 19698, 205; Gibson 1989, 4, 23, 61. 85. Marlier 1966, 272-74, and 277-78. 86. Ibid., 274. 87. Schubert 1970, 156 and cat. no. 19. 88. Ibid., 156 and cat. no. 20. 89. Ibid., 138, 148-50; cat. no. 30.The better known version of this painting in Liège, Museum Curtius, is, according to the author, completely by Van Amstel’s hand. 90. Ibid., 121-23, 124-26, 138, 145-47; and cat. nos. 22, 23, and 32. 91.A start has been made: the Brothel Scene (Städel, Frankfurt) has been studied by IRR, X-radiography, and dendrochronology; see Sander 1993. 92. Both wings were studied in February 2003 (see note 24). 93. Campbell 1976, 191. 94. Hendrikman 1995, 10 – 11.

142

95. This topic will be fully worked out in my thesis (see statement at the beginning of the notes). The workshop of Coecke was a family business, with his second wife Mary Verhulst as a driving force. For her role in another important family business, the Brueghel workshop, see N. Peeters forthcoming, ‘Family Matters. An integrated biography of Pieter Brueghel II,’ in Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie/Musées Royaux des Beaux-arts de Belgique (papers of the Symposium Brueghel Enterprises, Brussels, June 20-21, 2002). 96. Dunbar 1979, 126, 135, 140-41. He also dismisses the presumed collaboration between Cornelis and his brother Jan Massys. [Editor’s note: for a similar opinion about this presumed collaboration, see the essay in this volume by Maria Clelia Galassi.] 97.There are of course some exceptions.The Holy Family in Essen (Gallinat Bank) contains a landscape background of very high quality; see Linda Jansen forthcoming,‘The place of serial products in the workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst: a working hypothesis,’Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XV: Copies, répliques et pastiches, Bruges, September 1113, 2003, to be published in 2006.An exact replica exists in the collection of Dr. Simon at Brussels; see Marlier 1966, 228.

SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

Copies, Pastiches, and Forgeries After Bosch Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute Catholic University of Louvain Introduction This article revisits a topic we have discussed previously.1 A number of ‘Boschian’ compositions are, we believe, mere pastiches while others may be outright old forgeries. Some of the compositions that derive from the Prado Epiphany and the London Christ Mocked (the Crowning with Thorns) are works we consider pastiches.These paintings have come down to us as compositional variants executed by a variety of hands, suggesting that they were produced in a busy workshop employing several artists.When dealing with a topic of this complexity, it is essential to pose several basic questions. First, did the authors of these pastiches intend to mislead about the true authorship of their works? There are reasons to believe that, in at least some cases, they did. If so, the paintings may then be considered forgeries. A pastiche, regardless of whether or not it might be a forgery, can draw its inspiration from more than one painting and from works by more than one master.This is hardly surprising. Models in the workshops were probably collected according to their subject matter rather than style. Secondly, did Bosch repeat his own patterns himself? This question must be posed regarding two paintings of Christ Carrying the Cross, one in the Escorial, and the other in Vienna.Although different in many respects, both paintings have three figures in common, suggesting the use of shared models. Given these possibilities, the distinction between a copy made in or outside the original artist’s shop, a pastiche, and a forgery is not always easy to draw. Some of Bosch’s major compositions, such as the Temptation of Saint Anthony, the Garden of Earthly Delights, and the Haywain, have been copied faithfully down to the smallest details.These exacting copies were probably made during the artist’s lifetime in his own workshop. A tribute to Bosch’s success, these replicas must have stimulated a demand for more.The demand was met not only by more copies, but also by pastiches which may also have been executed during the master’s lifetime as well as in the decades after his death. 2 Dendrochronological datings by Peter Klein have revealed, in fact, that many copies are quite old.3 Very soon, then, confusion must have reigned about the authorship of many compositions in a Boschian style. We are of the opinion that some well-known compositions are pastiches in which the astutenesses of the pasticheur is easy to recognize.4 In the literature, these works are usually called ‘copies after lost originals’,‘early works’, and also ‘works left unfinished by the painter and completed by a follower.’ Some of the best of these paintings have been attributed to Bosch himself.This article will stress the similarities between works by Bosch and the pasticheurs. One cannot conclude solely on the basis of these similarities that the former were necessarily the direct models for the latter.The likenesses among the works do not allow for such facile conclusions. Links are missing; and, moreover, some of the so-called ‘lost compositions’ may never have existed. Copies and Pastiches After the Prado Epiphany In his famous Prado Epiphany, Bosch depicted both the Magi and the shepherds together in the same scene. For the most part, the Epiphany inspired scenes with the Adoration of the Magi, but it also spawned several Adorations of the Shepherds (fig. 1). COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

143

144

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

Fig. 1. (on left page) Pastiches after Bosch’s Epiphany (Madrid, Prado)

a b

c

d

e

g h i j

k

f

a. Hieronymus Bosch, Epiphany Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2048. b.Anonymous, The Adoration of the Magi, Philadelphia, John G. Johnson Collection. c.Anonymous, The Adoration of the Magi,Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. d.Anonymous, The Adoration of the Magi, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. e.Anonymous, Nativity, Cologne,Wallraf-Richartz Museum. f.Anonymous, Nativity, Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. g.Anonymous, The Adoration of the Magi, Banbury, Upton House,Viscount Bearsted Collection (National Trust). h.Anonymous, The Adoration of the Magi,Anderlecht (Brussels), Maison d’Erasme. i.Anonymous, The Adoration of the Magi,Vught, Moonen Collection. j.Two shutters from an Adoration of the Magi, Philadelphia, John G. Johnson Collection. k. Detail of a Nativity by the Master of the Legend of Saint Catherine (lower part of a left wing of a dismembered Altarpiece of the Virgin, Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 10513. The triptych of the Epiphany by Bosch was frequently copied, including three copies of the central panel and three triptychs, all of which are rather faithful to the central panel.The painters were forced to innovate in the wings, where they did not repeat the donors and their patron saints. In two triptychs, part of the central scene is inverted left to right.This puts Mary in a better position to receive the Magi and their escort, who are painted on the right wing. One formula for the right wing includes the escort on horseback (i, j), taken from the little group of horsemen in the background of the central panel of Bosch’s Epiphany. Saint Joseph in the left Prado wing was sometimes utilized by the copyists for the entire subject of their left wings (g, h) or replaced by shepherds (i, j).

Three Adorations of the Magi (Philadelphia, John G. Johnson Collection;Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum; and Berlin, Staatliche Museen, figs. 1b, c, d) are reasonably faithful copies of the central panel in the Prado, but they have abandoned the format of the original as well as the bird’s-eye view of the landscape.Two of them have opted for a flattened rather than an ogee arch for the upper portion of the painting. None of the three copies has wings.The wings were either lost or were never executed, assuming that the painter was not interested or was not required to include donors and their patron saints. Three other copies do exist in triptych form, and they show more variation in motif (Banbury, Upton House,Viscount Bearsted Collection;Anderlecht, Maison d’Erasme;Vught, Moonen Collection, figs. 1g, h, i).A pair of shutters in Philadelphia is a version of the wings in Vught (fig. 1j). The addition of wings required innovation on the part of the painters, and one can reconstruct the working process of the copyists in these paintings.They sought inspiration in the background of the original painting where they found a Saint Joseph figure in Bosch’s left wing that could be used as the main subject of their own left wing (as seen in the Banbury and Anderlecht versions). Above the figure of Saint Joseph in Anderlecht, the painter depictCOPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

145

ed two shepherds with a dog peering through a gate at the top of a short flight of stairs.When another copyist decided instead to include Saint Joseph in the background of the central panel, he then made the shepherds along with the dog and the stairs the main subject of the wing (as in the Vught and Philadelphia versions).These shepherds do not derive from any of Bosch’s compositions. There is little to provide a copyist with a new subject in the landscape behind the female donor in the Prado Epiphany, The right wing of the Banbury triptych shows the Magi’s retinue on horseback (fig. 1g), but it appears that the copyist had problems in transposing this motif. Since the kings are arriving from the left, their retinue ought to be coming from the same direction. However, since this subject has been placed on the right wing, the horses now have their backs turned towards the main subject.The resulting effect is unfortunate. In an attempt to remedy the situation, the artist twisted the bodies of the horsemen completely around so that they could glance towards the central scene.The composition has been reversed from left to right in the central panels of the Anderlecht and Vught triptychs, thus resolving this particular problem (figs. 1h, i). Now that Mary has been shifted to the left side of the composition, she is in a better position to receive the Magi as they arrive from the right, correctly followed by their retinue. In the Vught right wing (and in the similar Philadelphia wing), the three horses are very close to those represented in the background of the Prado Epiphany’s central panel.They are easy to recognize: first, the white horse, heading off to the left, the brown horse with his head bent downwards, and the grey horse turning back to the right. Once again, a small detail in the model has been enlarged by the copyist into a full-sized subject. In the Anderlecht right wing, the copyist chose another retinue, not equestrian this time, but in kneeling positions, offering presents (fig. 1h). Neither the subject nor the style is reminiscent of Bosch. Generally speaking, the copyists followed the center panel of the Prado triptych quite faithfully, but they were forced to innovate in the wings.Their adaptations were rather uninspired, since they found their subjects either in the small details in the backgrounds of the Prado Epiphany or elsewhere. In these examples, one does not get the impression that the copyists’ main goal was to deceive and produce Bosch-like imitations. According to various authors, the Cologne and Brussels examples of the Adoration of the Shepherds are the best surviving versions in the series of works depicting this subject (figs. 1e, f and 2).5 The Cologne panel (Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) has sometimes been ascribed to Bosch or to a follower, although it more often is said to be ‘after a lost composition’ by Bosch. In contrast, however, to the copies of the Adoration of the Magi, we are dealing here with a true pastiche, a sort of ‘montage’ of elements borrowed from Bosch.The face of Saint Joseph has the features of the shepherd in the Prado Epiphany who peers through a hole in the wall behind Mary. Mary and the Christ Child are also taken from the same painting.These long-recognized borrowings apparently provided the motivation for scholars at the beginning of the twentieth century to attribute the composition to Bosch. The shepherd holding a crook in the Cologne painting does not resemble Bosch’s shepherd, although his standing position is similar. He gazes towards the main figures from behind a curtain (whereas in the Prado painting, he looks on from behind the wall of the stable).A fire in the left background allows people to warm themselves – in Cologne, the shepherds, and in the Prado Epiphany, Saint Joseph.The ox and ass bending their heads over the edge of the manger differ markedly from the Prado composition. In the right background of the Cologne painting, an angel announces Christ’s birth to a shepherd watching over a flock of sheep.The stone manger with the ox and the ass and the distant shepherd are similar to those in a Nativity by the Master of the Legend of Saint Catherine (in the lower part of a left wing of a dismembered Altarpiece of 146

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

Fig. 2. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Epiphany, Madrid, Prado; and far right: Anonymous, Nativity, Cologne,WallrafRichartz Museum.The composite in the middle shows how motifs from the Madrid painting have been re-used in a pastiche with shepherds. Some details were copied faithfully while others were more freely adapted.

the Virgin in Brussels, see fig. 1k).6 This combination of motifs in both works perhaps derives from a common model, such as the type of pattern that was typically kept in many workshops.The origin of the model may have been forgotten. Copies, Pastiches, and Forgeries After the London Crowning with Thorns Two series of pastiches derive from Bosch’s Crowning with Thorns in London (National Gallery, fig. 3).7 The first series is illustrated as figs. 3b, f, g, and the second as figs. 3c, d, e, and figs. 4 and 5).8 There is little or no invention in either series. Both represent half-length figures, with an executioner’s knee occupying an illogical position at the very center of the composition.This feature is common to both series and so distinctive that one may surmise that the two series derive from the same workshop. The skill of the pasticheur is revealed in many details: such as the lowering or raising of heads, shifting them from right to left or vice-versa, rotating them on their axis, or tilting them in different directions.The gazes are redirected according to the new context.There is a tendency towards caricaturization: noses get sharper, and lower lips are made to either protrude or recede. Details are transposed: a hat moves from one head to another, and the arrow is shifted from one hat to another. One person’s arm can be moved to another body; an iron gauntlet can be placed on someone else’s hand; hair styles can be changed; and a face can be repeated to create the sense of a crowd.These are all easy procedures for painters who have been trained in the handling of patterns or models. The first pastiche, as seen in the Escorial, Madrid, and Valencia versions (figs. 3b, f, g), contains a figure on the left who does not belong to the London Crowning with Thorns. Seen frontally, this figure bears a remarkable resemblance to Bosch’s portrait in the Recueil d’Arras (Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale). For this reason, this individual is generally seen as a portrait of Bosch.We believe this face was included in the pastiche to deceive, to certify the (usurped) authorship of the painting. Moreover, two versions in this series have a prestigious pedigree, or a signature (as in the Valencia version).The Valencia triptych once was in the collection of Mencia de Mendoza (†1554),9 while the Escorial version was owned by Philip II, later to be given by him to the monastery of San Lorenzo at the Escorial in 1593.The inventory of the paintings given by Philip II mentions that the painting ‘was sent from Flanders to his Majesty’.10 If the self-portrait of COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

147

148

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

Fig. 3 (on left page) Pastiches after Bosch’s Christ Crowned with Thorns (London, National Gallery).

a b f

c

g i

d

e

h j

a. Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Crowned with Thorns, London, National Gallery, 4744 (73.7 x 57.8 cm). b.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo (165 x 195 cm). c.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Bern, Kunstmuseum, inv. no. 64 (82 x 59.5 cm). d.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Philadelphia, Museum of Art, cat no. 353 (68 x 51.5 cm). e.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns,Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 840 (83 x 68 cm). f.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Madrid, Museo Lazaro Galdiano (138 x 164 cm). g.Anonymous,Triptych with Christ Crowned with Thorns,Valencia, Museo de Bellas Artes (163 x 191 cm). h. Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo, (150 x 103 cm). i.Anonymous, The Taking of Christ, formerly Fiévez Collection (whereabouts unknown). j.Anonymous, The Taking of Christ, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Two series of pastiches derive from the London Christ Crowned with Thorns. In the first, the composition is inscribed in a full circle, completed with little grisailles in the corners (b, f, g). Bosch’s ‘self-portrait’ was added, probably to emphasize the (usurped) authorship of the composition.The work in Valencia (g) has wings.The physiognomies of the right wing resemble some in the Escorial Christ Carrying the Cross (h).The left wing was copied in separate works (i, j) that are pastiches without direct links to Bosch.A second series of pastiches (c, d, e) more faithfully reproduces the general disposition of the model.

Fig. 4. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Crowned with Thorns, London, National Gallery; and far right: Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo.The composite in the middle shows how motifs from the London painting have been re-used in the pastiche.The presumed Bosch self-portrait in the pastiche is not borrowed from the London painting.

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

149

Fig. 5. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Crowned with Thorns, London, National Gallery; and far right :Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Philadelphia, Museum of Art.The composite in the middle shows how motifs from the London painting have been re-used in the pastiche.

Fig, 6. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo ; and right: right wing of the triptych with Christ Crowned with Thorns,Valencia, Museo de Bellas Artes.The Valencia wing borrows motifs from Bosch’s Escorial Christ Carrying the Cross (see also fig. 7).

150

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

Fig, 7. A comparison of the faces in the Escorial Christ Carrying the Cross and the right wing of the Valencia triptych (see fig.6).

Bosch and the signature indicate that there was an intent to deceive, these paintings should be considered old forgeries. The pastiche in Valencia is a triptych with wings. Curiously, the right wing takes its figures from Bosch’s Christ Carrying the Cross today in the Escorial (figs. 3g, h and 6). (Comparisons of the physiognomies in both compositions are illustrated in fig. 7.) The cut-off figure near the bottom edge of the Valencia wing is similar to the figure on the right side of the Escorial painting; both men are pulling on a rope. In the Escorial panel, the figure seems to be a portrait, looking out at the spectator. In both cases, this figure’s costume is blue, probably implying that the pasCOPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

151

Fig. 8. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, Escorial; and right: Hieronymus Bosch, left wing of a triptych with Christ Carrying the Cross,Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.The compositions have three figures in common, suggesting Bosch may have repeated his own patterns.

ticheur had seen Bosch’s actual Christ Carrying the Cross (or an accurate copy of it).The other physiognomies in the Valencia work also recall their Boschian counterparts, even though they are more freely interpreted.The sources for the left wing of the Valencia triptych are less clear. In one author’s opinion (H.V.), the left wing could be a far-removed pastiche of the central panel of the triptych itself.Two paintings in oblong format repeat the figures of the left wing but distribute them across the width of the composition (in the former Fiévez collection and in Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, figs. 3i and j). Needless to say, these last compositions are quite remote from Bosch himself. Two paintings with Christ Carrying the Cross are both attributed to Bosch: one in the Escorial which measures 150 x 103 cm and one in Vienna, measuring 59.5 x 31.7 cm (fig. 8).Three figures repeat in both paintings, although the other figures differ.The technique of the two works is quite different, but this is probably due to size.The smaller painting in Vienna is executed with numerous short brushstrokes and a heavily-loaded brush, while in the larger Escorial panel, broad surfaces are covered in thin layers. It is remarkable that the same three figures are used in both compositions. In such cases one wonders if Bosch was re-using patterns or models that were available in his own workshop. Conclusion The examples discussed show that there was an active production of pastiches both during and after Bosch’s lifetime.The variety in hands points to the activity of a number of workshop 152

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

collaborators.The pastiches share a common feature: limited inventiveness.The figures in these works are not numerous and are represented half-length, in contrast to the borrowings by more gifted artists such as Pieter Bruegel, Pieter Huys, or Jan Mandijn, who worked on a larger scale and filled the space of their paintings with numerous little monsters and other Boschian-inspired motifs.This opens up another intriguing area for study.

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

153

NOTES

1.Van Schoute,Verougstraete and Garrido 2001. 2. On Bosch’s followers at the beginning of the sixteenth century, see Unverfehrt 1980. 3. Klein 2001. 4. See the critical catalogue in Van Schoute and Verboomen 2003, 184-223. 5. For the history of attributions and a list of the extant compositions, see Stroo et al. 2001, 123-29. 6. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 10513.According to the authors of the Brussels catalogue, this detail originates with Rogier van der Weyden (Bladelin Triptych, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, cat. no. 535; Columba

154

Altarpiece, Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv.WAF 1189-1191). The same authors mention also a similar detail in a composition after Hugo van der Goes, see Stroo et al. 2001, 127. 7. This attribution is generally undisputed; see Campbell 1999. 8.Van Schoute,Verougstraete and Garrido 2001. 9. Steppe 1967. For the history of the painting, see also Gimenez-Frechina 1998. 10. Marijnissen with the collaboration of Ruyffelaere 1987, 360.The Escorial Crowning with Thorns is thought to have been commissioned by the goldsmith’s guild of ‘s-Hertogenbosch for the altarpiece of a new altar installed at the collegiate church of Saint John around 1510; see Koldeweij 1995.

COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH

Creativity and Efficiency: Aspects of Joachim Beuckelaer’s Use of Patterns and Models Margreet Wolters Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD)

Introduction In Den Grondt der Edel vrij Schilder-const, Karel van Mander describes the varied methods painters could follow in preparing their paintings.There are those artists, he mentions, who drew what was conceived in their minds directly onto their panels freehand and others who compiled their works with great difficulty and effort from numerous sketches and drawings, transferring the resulting design with great precision and care onto the support.Van Mander preferred the first way of working and saw it as the sign of a true master.1 Although the author described this as an ideal, in practice, painters generally utilized sketches, model drawings, patterns and/or cartoons in creating their compositions.These preparatory works were highly valued and formed an important part of the equipment of painters’ workshops.2 Where models or patterns have survived, comparing them to the painted surface can elucidate how they relate to the final image.3 Research with IRR (infrared reflectography) gives important additional information about the way the models were actually transferred and put to use during the process of execution. If the models no longer survive, which very often is the case,4 their use can only be deduced from study of the paintings themselves. In this article, comparisons of a number of paintings by Joachim Beuckelaer (Antwerp ca. 15331575) dealing with the same subject will offer insight into the ways the artist employed models in his workshop around the middle of the 1560s. Some of these models can only be reconstructed by means of technical study since they are no longer extant; but others, such as the prints the artist used as source material, are still known to us today.The paintings to be discussed depict one of Beuckelaer’s favorite themes: a market scene with the Ecce Homo in the background.This subject appears for the first time in 1561,5 a year after Beuckelaer became freemaster in the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke,6 and the earliest year from which pictures by this Antwerp master are known.Another painting, dated 1564 and now in the Schottenstift in Vienna (plate 1), shows a number of deviations from the first work, but is closely related to three other examples dating 1565 (Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, plate 2) and 1566 (formerly in Nuremberg, fig. 1; and Florence, Uffizi, plate 3).7 In all four works, similar motifs in the fore- and middle ground indicate the use of a stock of models that must have been available in the workshop.8 For the impressive cityscapes in the backgrounds, Beuckelaer borrowed extensively from the five books on architecture by Sebastiano Serlio. Comparisons of the paintings to each other as well as to the Serlio prints, will show Beuckelaer’s creative, but also very efficient way of working.This can be further illuminated by the results of the IRR examination of the three surviving works.9 Beuckelaer is generally seen as a painter specializing in compositions that were to a large extent invented by his uncle and master, Pieter Aertsen (Amsterdam ca. 1508-1575).10 Although Beuckelaer painted religious scenes as well, he is better known for his numerous market and kitchen pieces. This article will demonstrate that within this specialization, which is already a way of streamlining production,11 Beuckelaer used other timesaving strategies and cost-cutting devices to produce his works. CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

155

Fig. 1. Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, formerly Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, destroyed in World War II.

Beuckelaer’s Market Scene with Ecce Homo: Four Variations on a Theme The relatively small, oblong Ecce Homo from 1564, now in Vienna (plate 1), has less pictorial depth in the market scene in the fore- and middleground than the slightly later Stockholm panel of an almost square format from 1565 (plate 2). Comparison of the fore- and middle ground of both works shows that the artist used a simple trick to create the new composition. The artist transferred a vegetable seller with her wares on a horse-drawn sled in the Vienna work to the middle ground of the Stockholm painting, creating a strong diagonal that leads directly to the obelisk in the right background.The pictorial elements to the left and right of the sled in Vienna were then merely pulled together to form the new foreground of the Stockholm painting. These elements, however, were not repeated literally, indicating the artist’s flexible handling of his models. On the left of the Stockholm painting, the man and woman 156

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

selling poultry and dairy products have switched the positions of their upper bodies. More variation is achieved by reversing motifs, as can be seen, for instance, in the large cage with a goose on top with its head resting on a round cheese and with one foot stretched upwards. Combining different elements is another way the artist re-used existing models and disguised their repetition.The fruit seller with his wheelbarrow is a combination of his standing counterpart in the Vienna panel and the upper body of the horseman pointing towards Christ in the same painting. By adding elements, existing models can also be given a new look (see figs. 2a-b). Near the meat stall on the right of the Stockholm painting, a young boy, seen from behind, accompanies two women (in altered positions). In showing this boy a large piece of meat, the saleswoman – who has changed positions with the butcher – takes on a new function.12 Despite the butcher’s less prominent position at the back of the stall, he is still a mirror image of the figure in the Vienna painting. Similar strategies can be observed in the figures in the middle ground near the well.The well, almost in the same place, has been changed by removing the man on top, and the rider next to the well holding a rooster – probably an allusion to Saint Peter13– is again represented in reverse. For the creation of the painting formerly in Nuremberg that was destroyed in the Second World War, dated 1566 (fig. 1), motifs, figures, and groups are taken from the same stock of patterns, but not without changing and adjusting them again, following the same methods.14 Because this panel is almost identical in size to the Stockholm version (see plate 2), the changes in the foreground could be limited to a mere rearrangement of the compositional elements (see figs. 2b-c).The meat stall, for instance, has been shifted to the left side. In the process, the two female buyers have been reversed, while the boy and the two meat sellers have been transposed from right to left.As in the Vienna painting (see fig. 2a), the butcher is placed again in a more prominent position with respect to the viewer, but now he holds half of a slaughtered animal.This rearrangement of the group and shifting of the figures sometimes occurs at the expense of the compositional unity.The relationship between the saleswoman and the boy is lost, and the presentation of the – now reversed – piece of meat lacks an obvious purpose. Furthermore, the fruit seller, while in an almost identical position as in the Stockholm painting, has had his wheelbarrow turned around for variation’s sake.The woman from the pair of poultry and dairy sellers is represented in profile, closer to the model used for her precursor in the Vienna panel. The artist changes this figure by letting her hold the foot of the goose, while a dead duck now lies in the gooses’s place on the cage to her right. It is interesting to see how, in this new situation, the basic pattern for the goose could remain unchanged. In the middle ground, the artist also repositions the obelisk and the well.As in the Vienna panel, onlookers are depicted on top of the well, but their numbers in the formerly Nuremberg work have been increased.The horses can still be seen in front of the well, but the one furthest in the background is turned towards the center of the composition.The strong diagonal created by the woman on her sled in the Stockholm painting has been replaced here by a horse-drawn cart filled with people.This weakens the sense of depth, as does the more frieze-like representation of the group with the bending woman, here reversed and placed further to the right in the composition. Though quick and efficient, this shifting of models to create new compositions can cause other problems, such as pictorial elements that are out of scale. The standing women on the left in the Nuremberg work, though placed only slightly further towards the back, are too small in relation to the seated sellers on the right.This disproportion is even more pronounced in the panel now in Florence, dated 1566 (plate 3). Given the greater width of this work, the foreground required a more radical reshaping than did the painting in Nuremberg. Stock motifs are employed again, and some of them are quite close to the ones used in the Vienna panel. The left and right sides are filled with the well-known motifs of the poultry and dairy vendors with their large cage and meat stall (fig. 2d). Once again these are modified: the goose is in its usual position on top of the cage, but the positions of the man and woman have been changed, and a completely new element has been added, the hare in the hand of the woman. CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

157

b a

c d Figs. 2a-d, details of the butcher’s stall in four Market Scenes: a) Vienna, b) Stockholm, c) formerly Nuremberg, and d) Florence.

The two meat stall vendors have returned to their Stockholm positions, but not without some errors. The saleswoman still has her arms spread out, as if the joint of meat should be placed in her hands, but since the meat has been painted in another position, the gesture becomes superfluous. Between these two Stockholm-type groups on the left and right is a male fruit seller with a cart very similar to the one in the Vienna painting along with a group of women on the left that seems to be compiled of elements from the middle ground of the Nuremberg 158

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

painting.The seated woman with a large hat has been reversed and seated on the opposite side. The woman who bends down to a basket has been transformed into a young boy, leaning over a large basket with cherries that was taken from the woman standing near the center of the Nuremberg painting.The well has been omitted from the middle ground and the obelisk moved to the right, in this case switching places with the large building in the background where Christ is presented to the people. The middle ground forms even less of a transition between fore- and background than in the Nuremberg painting, nor does it contribute to a sense of depth, as did the diagonal in the panel in Stockholm. Many of the patterns used to create the four Market Scenes with Ecce Homo, such as the butcher stall, were reserved exclusively for this type of work. Some, however, also appear in other works by the master. For example, the man carrying the barrel on his head on the left edge in the Vienna panel and the fruit seller with the sled in the Vienna and Stockholm paintings also occur in the Carrying of the Cross, now in Älvkarleby, Sweden.15 In his use of patterns, Beuckelaer followed certain strategies to disguise his extensive recycling of stock models, including variation of motifs, combination of patterns, the addition of new pictorial elements, and the reversed representation of models. IRR examination of the three surviving panels reveals other strategies for variation that can be added to Beuckelaer’s working method.16 Some models can be hidden and/or changed during the application of the paint layers. For example, a large piece of meat hangs from the beam of the meat stall in the Vienna painting. Underneath this motif, IRR has revealed the painted hind legs of a whole slaughtered animal attached to a curved rod (fig. 3).17 For this first design, a motif was used that had already appeared before in a completely different context: Beuckelaer’s impressive Slaughtered Pig, now in Cologne, that was executed a year earlier in 1563 (fig. 4).18 The head of the fruit seller with his wheelbarrow in the painting in Florence is another example of a motif changed during the painting process. In the underdrawing, most likely executed in a dry medium such as black chalk,19 the head was bent forward more sharply; and the eye and chin were placed lower (fig. 5).The upper contour line of the head was also lower, and the underdrawing for the wheel of the cart was positioned according to this first design. In this form, the model for the fruit seller seems to derive directly from the same figure in the Vienna painting. In some cases, IRR showed that underdrawn models were eventually omitted. The lower right corner of the Vienna panel appears somewhat empty, but IRR reveals a dog in this area (fig. 6). Sketchy chalk lines define an animal that has its head turned towards the ground, as if sniffling some imaginary meat fallen from the stall. A similar dog is depicted in the foreground of the Flight into Egypt in Brussels, dated 1563.20 On that panel the dog raises his head in the direction of Mary with the Christ child in her arms.This illustrates that, in contrast to the loss of function pointed out earlier in the woman selling meat, models like the dog could easily be adapted in a way that suited their new function. Why the dog was omitted in the painting in Vienna is not clear. Perhaps its placement in the foreground would have been too prominent and distracting; on the other hand, leaving it out creates a rather noticeable gap. This may have led the artist to devise a new solution for this area in the next painting in the sequence: the addition of the motif of the young boy standing at the meat stall in the Stockholm painting (see fig. 2b). It is very likely that most of the patterns Beuckelaer used were well worked up in their details. However, the way the artist underdrew the boy in the Stockholm painting suggests that this motif was not designed in advance and only received its final shape during work on the panel (fig. 7). This offers us direct insight into the way Beuckelaer created the motif, and hence deserves a more detailed analysis. The artist’s underdrawings are often very loose and sketchy, as in the small Vienna panel, where only few chalk lines are used to define the forms (see fig. 22). Hardly any underdrawing could be detected in the Stockholm painting in the pair of poultry sellers on the CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

159

Fig. 3. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a slaughtered animal in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo,Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

left (see fig. 23): the forms are worked up primarily as a system of painted contour lines similar to those that occur in the middle and background of Beuckelaer’s paintings. However, in the right foreground of the Stockholm panel, the objects and figures are underdrawn in some detail, and with clothes.The little boy, on the other hand, is represented in a very cursory way, with a circle for the head and an undressed body, and with arms and legs that are rounded shapes without indications of hands or feet.21 It was therefore only during the painting process that the boy received his final shape.The painted boy must then have been added to the stock of motifs, since he appears in almost the same form in the painting formerly in Nuremberg, and is repeated facing front in the Florentine work. The underdrawing of the boy in the latter painting is very sketchy as well (fig. 8), but from the beginning the boy is conceived as a clothed figure, thus implying the use of a more worked-up model. Beuckelaer’s uncle and former master, Pieter Aertsen, also created or finalized motifs during the working process, and then repeated them in other works. In Aertsen’s Kitchen Maid from 1559, now in Brussels,22 three parsnips sit on a stool, behind which is a basket with two heads of lettuce (fig. 9).These motifs, among others, also reappear in a number of later paintings by Aertsen. 160

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Fig. 4. Joachim Beuckelaer, Slaughtered Pig. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum.

We can observe them in the harvest scenes from the Hallwyl Museum, Stockholm, and the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam; in the Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery now in the National Museum in Stockholm, and in the Berlin Vegetable Seller.23 By using tracings on transparent sheets and IRR study of the Boijmans painting,Yvette Bruijnen was able to demonstrate that Aertsen used partial cartoons for these motifs.24 Examination with IRR of the two Aertsen paintings in Stockholm confirmed the use of a mechanical method of transfer, but the results from the research of the Brussels panel point in another direction.25 The infrared image of the parsnips shows that their underdrawn shapes differ considerably from the forms on the painted surface (fig. 10).The tip of the upper parsnip, for instance, pointed downward instead of upward.The difference in the shape of the leaves is also striking. Rounded forms were underdrawn in chalk; in paint, long stalks with smaller leaves are visible. Apparently, finalizing the form of these parsnips did not occur until the last stages of the painting process. In the lettuces, still another working method becomes evident. Here, no underdrawing could be detected at all. Since black chalk was used in other parts of the underdrawing, it may be surmised that these lettuces were created entirely in paint.26 Given the fact that the tracings of the lettuces in the Rotterdam painting correspond closely with those in the Brussels Kitchen Maid, the cartoon that was used in Aertsen’s workshop was undoubtedly created by copying the lettuces directly from the surface of the Brussels painting.The forms, most likely traced onto transparent paper, were then used either as the cartoon itself or as the basis for the definitive cartoon.27 Deviation between the Rotterdam tracing and the Brussels parsnips probably originated during the copying process rather than the process of transferring this motif to the Rotterdam painting, as had been assumed earlier.28 CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

161

Fig. 6. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a dog in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters). Fig. 5. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a fruitseller’s head in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

Unlike Aertsen, Beuckelaer did not use cartoons to transfer his patterns to his Market Scenes with Ecce Homo.29 The differences in size and the sketchiness of the underdrawings in the three examined paintings indicate that the models were transferred freehand.30 This is clearly illustrated by the way the ever-reappearing goose was underdrawn in the painting in Florence (fig. 11). Its head, depicted as a simple rounded form without any definition for the bill or eyes, was given more shape in the subsequent work on the panel. Often, Beuckelaer’s models functioned merely as a starting point for compositional elements that could be altered and adjusted during any phase of the working process. Adjustment of models did serve to disguise and vary them; but, as mentioned above, the scale relationships among the groups of figures become more and more inaccurate. In the Stockholm painting, the modification of the group on the right compensates for the size differences between the figures on the left and right sides.The IRR assembly shows that these figures were enlarged considerably (see fig. 7): the head of the man in the foreground is placed much higher in paint, his right arm is thicker and the right hand has not only been enlarged but also now points towards Christ.The head of the woman next to him has also been enlarged, and her shoulder line has been raised. In contrast, in the paintings formerly in Nuremberg and Florence, it was apparently no longer considered necessary to correct such size differences. Other issues relating to the presumed models for this group need mentioning. IRR detected color notations in the clothing of the figures in front of the meat stall and in the fruit seller with the wheelbarrow in the painting now in Florence (fig. 12a-f).31 As they only occur in this part of the painting, one might postulate that they refer to the use of a fixed color scheme for the group. Information about colors might have been included in the stock of models (perhaps in the form of drawings on paper). In case a buyer wanted to vary the established color scheme, indicating the new choices directly on the panel might have been a way to remind the artist of the agreed upon changes.32 Color notations were not the only marks to be found on the ground of the panels. Numbers have also been discovered (fig. 13a-b).The numbers, written in a col162

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Fig. 7. Infrared reflectogram digital composite with an underdrawn boy and other figures in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

Fig. 8. Infrared reflectogram digital composite with an underdrawn boy and other figures in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

163

Fig. 9. Pieter Aertsen, Kitchen Maid. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique.

umn, could have been meant as sums to be added.The panel could apparently function as a kind of scratch pad.33 One can only guess about the meaning of these enigmatic markings that are totally unrelated to the underdrawing. Perhaps they were calculations made to inform a buyer about the costs of the painting, or they may have been meant solely for the artist, as for instance, in estimating the amounts necessary of the (most costly) pigments. But then again, they might be totally unrelated to the painting process. Beuckelaer’s Use of Sebastiano Serlio’s Woodcuts as Models A different situation exits for the backgrounds of Beuckelaer’s Market Scenes with Ecce Homo, in that they are based on still-surviving models.This provides us with an opportunity of relating the creative process in the backgrounds to the observations that have already been made about the arrangement and variation of foreground motifs. For the architectural structures in the background, the artist borrowed frequently from the Five Books on Architecture by Sebastiano Serlio (Bologna 1475 - Fontainebleau 1554).34 These books 164

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of parsnips in Pieter Aertsen, Kitchen Maid, Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters). Fig. 11. Infrared photograph of a goose in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Florence, Uffizi.

were translated from the Italian by Pieter Coecke van Aelst and were published from 1539 to 1553 in the same order as they appeared in Italy.35 Lunsingh Scheurleer was the first to describe how Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer borrowed from this source. Since he used only Serlio’s Book IV about the rules for masonry, however, Scheurleer’s observations were mainly limited to the use of fireplaces in kitchen scenes with the background episode of Christ in the House of Mary and Martha.This led him to the somewhat premature conclusion that Beuckelaer merely followed in the footsteps of his master.36 It was Moxey who demonstrated that Beuckelaer CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

165

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f. Fig. 12. Infrared reflectograms of color notations in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi: a) ‘ro’ (red) in the proper left arm of the fruit seller with the wheel barrow; b) ‘bl’ (blue) in the blue underskirt of the woman at the meat stall on the right; c) ‘gro’ (green) in the skirt of the woman in profile at the meat stall; d) ‘gel’ (yellow) in the lining of the upper skirt of the woman at the meat stall on the right; e) ‘p’ and ‘r’ (purple and red) in the cloak and dress of the young boy at the meat stall; and f) ‘ro’ in the underskirt of the woman in profile at the meat stall. (IRR: RKD)

166

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Fig. 13. Infrared reflectograms showing numbers in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Florence, Uffizi: a) figures in the neck and chest of the man selling poultry and dairy on the left, and b) figures in the veil of the headdress of the woman at the meat stall on the left. (IRR: RKD).

Fig. 14. Sebastiano Serlio, Comic Scene. The Hague, Royal Library.

did not confine himself to Book IV.37 Instead of following Aertsen, Beuckelaer seems to have influenced his master, who did not start using the other Serlian volumes until 1575, the last year of his career. In the foreword to the translation of Book IV, Pieter Coecke addressed painters and other craftsmen as the primary audience for this luxurious new book.38 Despite this, Aertsen, and to even to a greater extent, Beuckelaer, were the only sixteenth-century northern painters who used Serlio’s books so extensively.39 Perhaps Aertsen’s supposed brother, Jan van Amstel, played a role in the relationship between Aertsen and Pieter Coecke van Aelst.40 Beuckelaer undoubtedly owned Serlio’s books, and they must have been an indispensable source CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

167

Fig. 15. Sebastiano Serlio, Tragic Scene.The Hague, Royal Library.

Fig. 16. Sebastiano Serlio, Column and Obelisks.The Hague, Royal Library.

168

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Fig. 17. Sebastiano Serlio, Ionic Palace.The Hague, Royal Library.

in his workshop.41 For the four Market Scenes with Ecce Homo, Book II on perspective was of great importance, and Beuckelaer often quoted from the stage designs for the Comic and Tragic Scenes at the end of the book.42 Perspective was a special interest in this period: it was, for instance, in 1560 that Vredeman de Vries’s first series of perspective prints was published by Hieronymus Cock in Antwerp. 43 This interest might have played a role in Beuckelaer’s use of Serlio’s stage designs. By using these already worked-out motifs as a source for the architectural backgrounds, the artist of course saved himself time. Still, Beuckelaer did more than simply enlarge the prints. A discussion of the manner in which he handled his patterns and prepared them on the ground of the panels will demonstrate his working method with regard to this stock of background motifs. Moxey is most informative in giving an overview of the borrowings from Serlio’s prints that can be observed in the four market scenes.44 In this article, I will confine myself to those examples that correspond to the strategies used in the foreground motifs.The artist sometimes copied Serlio’s architectural elements almost literally. In the Vienna painting (see plate 1), the buildings in the foreshortened street are generally inspired by Serlio’s designs of the Comic and Tragic Scenes (figs. 14 and 15).45 The small temple near the middle of the street, though, is represented exactly as we see it in the Tragic Scene. Beuckelaer combined motifs in the Stockholm painting (plate 2): the street is composed of buildings or parts of buildings deriving from the prints. This also applies to the obelisk in Stockholm: the obelisk is taken from a print in Book III that depicts a number of different columns and obelisks (fig. 16).46 In the painting it is placed on top of the base of Trajan’s column, which in Serlio, is illustrated on the previous folio.47 In this instance, CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

169

we once again observe the artist’s casual handling of the model.The column and obelisks in the print depict known antique monuments that are represented in a proper proportional relationship to each other. Apparently the obelisk labelled ‘P’ (which stands today in Rome near St. Peter’s 48) was too tall for the folio size and thus the globed top, which according to Serlio contained the ashes of the Emperor Gaius Caesar, was placed next to it.49 Beuckelaer did not notice this – or did not bother to join the two parts – and painted the obelisk without its proper top, making it appear uncharacteristically flat.50 In other cases, Beuckelaer approached his model with greater care. The large Ionic palace from Book IV that is used as the setting for the Ecce Homo in Stockholm is seen as a flat facade in the print (fig. 17).51 The palace’s partial ground plan on the adjacent folio shows a portico of one bay depth,52 and this is the way Beuckelaer depicts the palazzo in the painting. Repositioning models from left to right occurs in the painting in Florence, where the palazzo is depicted on the left instead of on the right. Reversing models, Fig. 18. Sebastiano Serlio, Theatre of Marcellus.The Hague, on the other hand, is a strategy not often Royal Library. encountered in Beuckelaer’s use of Serlian motifs. Technically, the Theatre of Marcellus in the Vienna painting is a mirror image of the print (see plate 1, fig. 18), but since the theatre is depicted almost frontally, the reversal is not very significant.53 Perhaps the lack of reversal can be related to the fact that the models were prints in a book. A mirror image of an existing model on relatively thin paper can be obtained by turning it around and holding it up to a light source to see the image in reverse.This would of course hardly be possible with folios printed on both sides and bound in a book.54 The IRR study of the architecture in these paintings shows that background models have also been disguised or altered during the working process. One example concerns the Theatre of Marcellus mentioned above. Doric metopes and triglyphs are visible above the colonnade in the print. These were present in the first paint stage of the theatre, but they were abandoned in the final paint layers in favor of two long cartouches (fig. 19).The underdrawing in the upper part of the palazzo in Florence shows a volute and what appears to be a kind of finial on the left and right (see plate 3, fig. 20), making the drawn palazzo resemble the building at the end of the street of the Tragic Scene. It was then altered in the subsequent paint stage. The analysis of the way Beuckelaer handled his models illustrates that the artist did not simply enlarge the pertinent motifs. This implies that the use of a grid pattern, drawn over the print, was not a technique the artist employed to rescale motifs and transfer them to the ground. The further development of these models during the underdrawing and painting process gives additional insight into Beuckelaer’s working methods regarding his usage of Serlian motifs.This process shows both similarities and differences from his preparation of the foregrounds. Beuckelaer combined and adapted architectural motifs, especially the two theatre scenes, instead of relying on the perspective vistas of the Serlio prints, so that he had to construct his own perspective on the actual panel. IRR makes it possible to see how Beuckelaer did this.At the position of the 170

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Fig. 19. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of architecture in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo,Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

vanishing point, a small cross can be made out in the Vienna and Stockholm Market Scenes (plates 4a-b).55 This could not be discerned in the panel now in Florence.56 Measurements taken on the photographs indicate that in the Vienna and Stockholm paintings, the artist used the Golden Section to locate the vanishing point on the height and width of the panel.57 This was not the case in the Nuremberg painting, and applies perhaps only to the height of the panel in Florence.58 Small holes visible in the crosses in the Market Scenes in Vienna and Stockholm, more or less in the center (as well as at the vanishing point in the Florence panel), are undoubtedly the result of a method known to have been used to create an accurate central-point perspective. At the vanishing point, a pin was fixed into the panel, to which a string was attached.The string could have been either smeared with chalk and snapped to produce an orthogonal on the ground of the painting or could have been used as a guide for drawing a line alongside.The string may also have been combined with the use of a ruler.59 In the three Market Scenes examined with IRR, orthogonals were revealed that stop a little outside the painted forms – they never reach the vanishing point.This method was not used with absolute precision, since, as in the Stockholm painting, some of these lines converge at a considerable distance from the marked vanishing point. Like the very cursory underdrawing in the foreground figures, the architecture in the Vienna Market Scene is laid out with only a few lines. Besides the orthogonals and horizontal and vertical lines obviously drawn with a ruler, there are also lines underdrawn freehand that undulate slightly.The buildings are not drawn in an exact sense; instead, the artist constructs a framework that functions as the basis for the application of the paint. Given this summary method of underdrawing, it seems likely that Beuckelaer used the Serlian architectural motifs as a basis for independent sketches or drawings before starting work on the panel. The larger and more sophisticated structure of the Stockholm painting, with uncropped buildings that cover more of the panel’s surface, required a more complex approach. A number of placement lines were used here to mark out the positions of the building (fig. 21).The upper horizontal line in the sky was probably set down first to establish the height of the obelisk. Next, with the aid of a square, the artist positioned the vertical that determined the central axis for the palazzo.60 Parallel to this, other verticals were drawn to create a framework for the palazzo’s columns and pilasters, and horizontals were added for the further construction of the facade. A second horizontal placement line in the sky most likely functioned to connect the upper story of the repoussoir building on the right, the windows in the aedicula, and perhaps the lantern of the domed building in the background.61 Still, this careful preparation did not prevent the CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

171

Fig. 20. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a building in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

palazzo from tilting slightly; this is an idiosyncrasy that can be observed in the architectural backgrounds of other works by Beuckelaer.Whether this might be related to the artist’s quick manner of working is not certain, but other features seem to point in this direction: the lines, for instance, that are corrected by being drawn twice and the aforementioned orthogonals that sometimes converge nowhere near the vanishing point.The way in which the architectural framework’s actual depiction is left to the paint stage is comparable to the sketchy and often shorthand layout of the forms in the foreground. Both areas of the paintings were executed in a swift manner of working. In the painting in Florence, horizontal, vertical, and diagonal construction lines can be observed as well in the upper portion of the building where Christ is being shown to the people (see fig. 20). No placement lines are visible in the sky, probably because the building is cut off at the top in this painting, as in the work from Vienna.The building, nonetheless, tilts slightly, in this case to the right. In contrast to the careful way the two almost tower-like chimneys in Stockholm are constructed, only a few quick lines outline the one in Florence.The slightly careless delineation of the architecture thus corresponds to the foreground, where the underdrawing is also done in a more rapid manner than in the Stockholm painting. Given the similarities in approach in foreground and background, there is no clear reason to assume that an independent specialist was responsible for painting the architecture.62 The similar way the architecture and small figures that populate the buildings are planned and painted further supports the theory of a single hand in these works.The lines for the architecture are partially visible underneath the figures, showing that they were drawn before the figures were laid in. Next, the figures were underdrawn in a very concise manner, although not all of them were worked out in chalk.While painting the architecture, some of the figures were left in reserve more or less according to the underdrawing. These were then painted, sometimes changed or enlarged, here and there overlapping the forms of the architecture.When adding the details of the architecture, such as the flutes on the columns, the painted figures were sometimes taken into account.Then, still more figures were applied on top of the completely finished architecture.This back and forth in the working method does not give the impression of a division of labor between two painters. Despite the fact that in so-called ‘prestige’ collab172

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Fig. 21. Infrared photograph of a building in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.

oration a certain back and forth can also be observed,63 there is no reason to assume in this case that anyone other than Beuckelaer was responsible for the architectural backgrounds of the Market Scenes. Conclusion With the aid of his own stock of patterns and additional models from Serlio’s books, four paintings were created, highly alike in their appearance, but rather different in their execution.The relatively small panel from Vienna, with its sketchy and summary underdrawing (fig. 22), is painted in quick, transparent brushstrokes that make it almost appear like an oil sketch.64 The composition has been conceived as a unified whole, and there are no apparent proportional discrepancies among the foreground motifs. A number of motifs were borrowed from Serlio for the buildings, and they were painted with only minimum help from an underdrawn system of perspective. In the larger and almost square panel from Stockholm, a more elaborated underdrawing is found in the foreground.The group on the left is an exception, laid out more like figures in the middle- and background – that is, based only on a few chalk lines, and worked up primarily by means of painted contours (fig. 23).The figures on the right show that an effort was made during the painting process to correct for size discrepancies. For the impressive combination of Serlian buildings, the artist used a sophisticated but somewhat hastily-executed linear construction. In paint, the architecture is rendered with refined brushwork, using subtle blue and pink tones, and with the addition of numerous small decorative motifs taken from Serlio’s books. In the painting formerly in Nuremberg, no serious effort was made to compensate for the differences in size among the foreground figures.The depth between fore- and background has decreased, and the strong diagonal leading to the background in Stockholm is no longer present.The artist applied less creative energy in integrating the buildings taken from different prints, and judging from the photograph, the decoration is less refined than in the Stockholm work. The application of the Golden Section is no longer evident. CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

173

Fig. 22. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of figures in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Vienna, Museum in Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

Fig. 23. Infrared reflectogram digital composite showing working up with paint contours in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).

The painting in Florence represents a further step in the gradual degradation in this type of picture. Rectangular rather than square, the panel has also been reduced in size. Scale anomalies occur in the foreground, and IRR reveals that no attempt was made to correct them. The underdrawing is almost careless in some areas, with strange hook-like shapes that are not related to underdrawn forms. Interestingly, calculations on the ground of the panel suggest that it might also have functioned as the artist’s scratch pad. Color notations in the group on the right may indicate the wishes of a client. In the background, Serlian architecture no longer occupies the full width of the panel.The town of Jerusalem on the right is rendered in a form seen in both earlier and later works without Serlian influence.The buildings in the street are variations on a theme, rather than motifs taken directly from Serlio’s books on architecture. Furthermore, the architecture is painted in a quick, stippling manner using for the most part (less expensive) ochre-colored pigments, a far cry from the refined painting style observed in Stockholm. 174

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

Given these differences in quality, one might speculate about workshop collaboration, certainly a valid approach when dealing with a series of closely related compositions.65 Yet, the paintings all display a creative use of models, and a working method that seems dictated by personal preference.The underdrawing is not used as a strict guideline for the application of paint, as would be expected in workshop production; and there are many changes and shifts that occur during the painting process.The fact that no mechanical methods of transfer were employed seems to contradict the involvement of assistants as well. An advantage of using models, such as sketches on paper, instead of actual-size cartoons is the greater flexibility one has in enlarging or reducing the selected motifs.An artist who was a skilled draughtsman could quickly sketch them onto the panel at the desired size.66 Idiosyncrasies, such as painting the nose in profile rather than in a more correct en face presentation, also appear in all four works.These compositions thus seem to be created by the same hand, rather than with extensive workshop assistance. The differences in size and quality of the paintings may indicate marketing strategies in which quality and speed of production are aspects that determine the price the buyer has to pay, along with complexity of the composition, and the selected pigments.An alternate explanation would evaluate the development of these paintings on stylistic grounds. In that case, the relatively small and sketchily painted panel from Vienna might be seen as a first, coherent version, followed by the bold and more sophisticated rendition of the Stockholm painting.After this apex, the gradual decrease in quality in the formerly Nuremberg and Florence works might be interpreted as a sign of artistic fatigue. Since this type of composition was no longer produced after the Florence painting, the artist may have been searching for a new artistic impetus. A similar market scene was produced in 1566, but with a different narrative in the background.67 The Ecce Homo reappears in 1570, although in accordance with Beuckelaer’s later work, it shows a fish market with large figures in the foreground.68 According to Van Mander, Beuckelaer’s method of working should not be classified in the category of the true master. Nonetheless, his inventive and efficient re-use and rearrangement of a large stock of patterns produces paintings that display far more creativity than the mere repetition of exactly the same composition.

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

175

NOTES

1.Van Mander/Miedema 1973, part 1, fol. 46v-47r:‘Ick en derf u niet prijsen noch versmaden // Dat eenighe wel gheoeffent expeerdich // En vast in handelinghe cloeck beraden // (Niet licht’lijck verdolend’in cromme paden // Maer om hun Const zijn Meesters name weerdich) // Gaen toe en uyt der handt teyckenen veerdich // Op hun penneelen t’ghene nae behooren // In hun Ide’is gheschildert te vooren // … Ander zijnder die met veel moeyten swaerlijck // Wt schetsen oft teyckeninghen met hoopen // Hun dinghen te saemen rapen eenpaerlijck // En teyckenen daer nae suyver en claerlijck // Volcoomlijck wat sy in den sin beknoopen // Op t’primuersel met een verwe die loopen // Can dunne ghetempert oft treckent netlijck // Met Potlooten vaghent reyn onbesmetlijck // Jae alle dinghen seer vast en ghewislijck // Soo wel binnewerck als omtreck by maten // Sonder een trecksken te salen vergislijck // Dit en gaet niet niet qualijck noch vry niet mislijck // Maer comt in’t schilderen grootelijck te baten.’ 2. Often quoted in this respect is the famous lawsuit between Ambrosius Benson and Gerard David, see for instance, Martens 1998, 58-59. 3.An interesting example is Pieter Pourbus’s Van Belle Triptych in Bruges, see Martens ed. 1998, cat. nos. 99-101. 4.The models no longer exist, probably because they were heavily used, and may not always have been desired by collectors; see Dijkstra 1990, 52. 5. Dated 1561; panel, 123 x 165 cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (inv. no. NM 321). 6. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, vol. 1, 220. 7. 1) The Vienna panel: monogrammed and dated:‘1564 6. Dece’; panel, 60 x 117 cm;Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift (inv. no. 201); 2) the Stockholm panel: monogrammed; dated 1565; panel, 146.7 x 145.3 cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (inv. no. NM 322); 3) the formerly Nuremberg panel: monogrammed; dated 1566; panel, 149 x 148 cm; destroyed in World War II, formerly Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum (inv. no. GM 97); and 4) the Florence panel: monogrammed; dated 1566 (twice: on the meat stall and in the cartouche on the palace); panel, 110 x 140 cm; Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi (inv. no. 2215). 8. For brief references to the re-use of models in these paintings; see, for example,Verbraeken 1986-1987, cat. no. 3; Honig 1998, 78-81. The composition from 1561 now in Stockholm (see note 5) shows similarities but also differs to such an extent from the four paintings to be discussed, that it will not be included in the comparisons. There is confusion regarding another work; Sievers mentions a Market Scene with Ecce Homo dated 1561 from the Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Schleißheim, measuring 121 x 169 cm (Sievers 1911,114, 200). In the literature it was often assumed that the work formerly in Nuremberg and destroyed in World War II, dated 1566 (see note 7,WAF 130), was a replica of the 1561 painting, but the size of this almost square panel (148 x 149 cm) differs considerably.The work from 1561 (WAF 129) was in the collection of Herzog Ludwig Wilhelm von Bayern, but according to the Wittelsbacher Ausgleichfonds its present location is unknown. Since no photograph is available, this painting cannot be included in the discussion here.

176

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

9. No information about the underdrawing or other aspects of the working process in the painting formerly in Nuremberg is available. 10. Moxey 1976, 180. 11. See, for instance, the remarks on specialization in Montias 1987. 12. See Honig 1998, 79. 13. See Honig 1998, 255, note 96. 14. Drawings by Beuckelaer have survived, but any that were used for the fore- and middle grounds of the paintings discussed in this article no longer exist. For Beuckelaer’s works on paper, see Kloek 1989. As Honig mentions, Beuckelaer divides his farmers according to the way goods were sold on the market; Honig 1998, 66-67. It is not inconceivable that Beuckelaer drew some of these motifs from life.Van Mander states that Beuckelaer was, at first, not very skilled using colors and painting, until his uncle Pieter Aertsen made him paint objects from life:‘In zijn aenvanghen con hy qualijck tot het wel verwen oft coloreren ghecomen / tot dat hem Pier zijn Oom gewennen liet alle dinghen nae t’leven te schilderen / als vruchten / fruyten / vleys / Voghelen / Visschen / en dergelijcke dinghen: door welcke veel te doen / hy is gheworden soo vast in zijn temperingen / dat hy des halven van d’uytnemenste Meesters is gheworden.’Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, fol. 238 v. 15. Monogrammed; dated 1563; panel, 142 x 138 cm; Älvkarleby, church.This motif also figured prominently in a Market Scene by Pieter Aertsen (marked with the trident; dated 1561; panel, 170 x 82.8 cm, Budapest, Szépmüvészti Múzeum, inv. no. 1337. 16.The paintings were studied within the context of a fouryear research project on the workshop practices of Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer, as well as some masters from their circle, such as Jan van Hemessen, Jan van Amstel and Pieter Pietersz. A cooperation between the University of Groningen and the RKD in The Hague, the project was supported by NWO/VNC (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research / Flemish-Dutch Committee for Dutch Language and Culture). Also participating were Reindert Falkenburg, J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Max Martens and Peter van den Brink. I am very grateful to them, especially to Peter van den Brink, for the good teamwork during the research of the paintings. My participation in this project will result in a dissertation on Joachim Beuckelaer for the University of Groningen. Examination of the market scenes fromVienna and Florence was carried out with the equipment of the RKD: a Hamamatsu C2400 camera equipped with an N2606-06 select infrared vidicon,a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens,Kodak Wratten 87C filter, with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines).Documentation was done with a Meteor RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic). For the examination of the panel in Stockholm, the camera from the Rubenianum in Antwerp (with a C-2400 infrared vidicon) was used, and the reflectograms were documented with a Nikon camera and Ilford film FP 4,ASA 125.The films were scanned on an Agfa Horizon Plus at 1200 ppi. All reflectograms were assembled in Photoshop 3.0, 4.0 and/or 5.5. For the loan of the Rubenianum camera, I kindly thank Arnout Balis and Nico van Hout, our Belgian colleagues, working on Rubens within

the NWO/VNC project. I am also very grateful to the staffs of the museums,not only for their permission to examine the works but also for their kindness in facilitating the IRR of the paintings discussed in this article. I thankYvette Bruijnen and Edwin Buijsen for suggestions concerning this article. 17.This first phase is to some extent visible to the unaided eye, probably due to the increased transparency of the paint layers over time. On the other hand, it can also be observed that in the figure climbing on the obelisk, the artist made no attempt to cover up this first paint layer. 18. Monogrammed; dated 1563; panel, 114 x 83 cm; Cologne,Wallraf-Richartz-Museum (inv. no. 2324). 19.The exact determination of the material used for underdrawings is problematic; for a discussion, see an essay from a recent exhibition catalogue in the Art in the Making series; Kirby, Roy and Spring 2002-2003. Still, analysis of the underdrawing material from Beuckelaer’s The Four Elements discussed in that essay points towards the use of black chalk, ibid. 34. 20. Monogrammed, dated 1563; panel; 112.5 x 153.5 cm; Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België, inv. no. 3888. 21.This type of very simple underdrawing can also be found in the background figures of Beuckelaer’s works. 22. Marked with the trident; monogrammed PA; dated: ‘1559.16°Cal.Aug’; panel, 127.5 x 82 cm; Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België, inv. no. 3744. 23. Respectively: dated 1569; panel, 83.5 x 169.5 cm; Stockholm, Hallwyl Museum (inv. no. B 20). Panel transferred to linen backing, 102.5 x 134 cm; Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen (inv. no. 2436). Monogrammed PA; marked with the trident; dated: ‘1567-16aug’; panel, 111 x 110 cm; Berlin, Staatliche Museen (inv. no.3/61). Panel 122 x 180 cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (inv. no. NM 2106). 24. Bruijnen 1994. 25.These paintings were also examined in the context of the Aertsen/Beuckelaer project. For the works in Stockholm the combination of the RKD equipment and the Rubenianum camera was used (see note 16); the Brussels panel was examined with the equipment of J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer: a Grundig FA 70 television camera equipped with a Hamamatsu N 214 IR vidicon (1975);a Kodak wratten 87A filter cutting-on at 0.9 micron and a Zoomar 1:2 8/4 cm Macro Zoomatar lens.The monitor was a Grundig BG 12 with 875 television lines. Documentation was done with a Nikon camera,a 50 mm macrolens, and Ilford film FP 4,ASA 125.The reflectograms were scanned and assembled as mentioned in note 16. For the results of the examination of the Brussels panel also see Gilda De Kiviet,‘Pieter Aertsen, de Keukenmeid natuurwetenschappelijk onderzocht,’ unpublished minor thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, 1996. 26. It is not inconceivable that a combination of black chalk with another material that does not register in IRR was used in this case; the combination of black and red chalk occurs for instance in Beuckelaer’s Saint Anne with her Family (monogrammed; dated 1567; panel, 154.5 x 153.5 cm; Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst, inv. no. 4411). Still, in this case, the chalk was visible to the unaided eye. No trace of another material could be seen in the Brussels painting. 27. A method used to create transparent paper was to rub it with oil. Other methods for reproducing motifs and compositions existed as well; see Dijkstra 1990, 69-77. 28. Bruijnen 1994, 124. 29. In other paintings by Beuckelaer, motifs appear in sizes that are more comparable, but differences in shape and the cur-

sory underdrawing do not point towards the use of a transferred cartoon; see also Campbell 2002, 44.The application of methods of mechanical reproduction could only be proven with more certainty in two closely related Vegetable Sellers, see M.Wolters, ‘Two Vegetable Sellers by Joachim Bueckelaer: a symbiotic relationship,’ in Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture, Colloque XV: Copies, repliques, pastiches, Bruges, 11-13 September 2003, forthcoming in 2006. 30. For establishing approximate sizes, measurements of a number of motifs were taken from the photographs of the paintings. Measuring from photographs is never precise, but does give a good indication of differences in size. 31.Notwithstanding the fact that color indications were found in a painting as late as 1567, they occur mainly in Beuckelaer’s works from the first half of the 1560s. Indications are frequently found in clothes and hats in the foreground of compositions with multiple,smaller figures,but they sometimes appear in the clothing of large-figured scenes as well. Usually they are neatly spread over the foreground of the composition;sometimes only the reds are indicated, suggesting they were mainly used to establish the color scheme,rather than being meant for assistants.In this painting, as well as in the other works, there is no consistent spelling in the notations. For indications in other works by Beuckelaer see Dik,Wallert and Szafran 1996 and Wolters 1996. 32. See also Spronk 1999, 47. 33. Comparable numbers were also discovered in Beuckelaer’s the Element Water from the series of The Four Elements in London (signed; monogrammed; dated 1569; canvas, 158.5 x 215 cm; London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG 6586) and in the Kitchen Maid with Christ in the House of Mary and Martha in Vienna (Signed, monogrammed, dated 1574; panel, 112 x 81 cm; Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. no. 6049). In these works, addition is obviously implied, since the resulting sum is legible. For the London painting, I would like to thank Rachel Billinge and Lorne Campbell for sharing this information and kindly providing me with IRR documentation. According to my knowledge, the presence of numbers and sums in an underdrawing is unique, but they appear more often on (the backs of) independent drawings. 34. Serlio’s volumes VI-VIII were not published during his lifetime. For Serlio’s treatise, see Serlio 1996 en Serlio 2001. 35. Book IV was first published in 1539 (second edition in 1549); Book III in 1546; Books I, II and V were translated by Coecke, but published after his death by his widow Mayken Verhulst in 1553; see Moxey 1976, 113-123. 36. Lunsingh Scheurleer 1947. 37. Moxey 1976, 113. 38. ‘Scilders, Beeldensnijders, Architecten vroet, // Ende oock ghy Steenhouwers, ghy Smeden sterck // Liefhebbers der Symmetrien conste soet, // Comt hier, compt besiet dit constelijk nieuwe werck,…’ quoted from the first edition dated 1539, see reprint, Rolf 1978, fol.A verso. 39.Vredeman studied them as well, as Van Mander informs us (see Borggrefe et al. 2002, 15 and no. 7), but his literal borrowings from Serlio’s prints are not as specific and frequent as those by Aertsen and especially Beuckelaer. 40. Jan van Amstel and Pieter Coecke van Aelst were both married to daughters of the painter, Jan van Dornicke; see Bergmans 1957, 27.The addition ‘Aertsson’ to Van Amstel’s name has led authors to assume he was a brother of Pieter Aertsen; see, for instance, Hoogewerff 1936-1947, vol. 4, 488-90. 41. Depictions of painters’ workshops show that painters used books in their studios. In Frans Floris’s Saint Luke Painting the Virgin from 1556 (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. no. 114), books are present on a shelf

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

177

behind the saint at his easel. See also Hermens’s entry on An Allegory of the Art of Painting by Jan Brueghel the Younger (private collection), in Komanecky 1999, cat. no. 9, 158-61. 42. Serlio Book II, fol. xxvi recto and verso; see Moxey 1976, 113-115, fig. 6, 7. For the comparison of the Serlian motifs, I studied the Royal Library’s copy in The Hague (1705 A 10), consisting of Coecke’s Dutch translation of Book IV, 1539 edition; Book I, II,V, edition of 1553; Book III translation in French, 1550 edition. For practical reasons, I used a modern reprint of the English translation published in 1616 as well (see Serlio 1982); the folio numbers in this article refer to the Book I-V in the Royal Library. Illustrations were taken from photocopies of Serlio’s treatise from the Royal Library. 43. See Borggrefe et al. 2002, 17, and nos. 29-30. 44.Moxey 1976,113-123 (the quotations are also mentioned in Moxey 1977, 72-77; in the following I will refer to the article from 1976). In my forthcoming dissertation on Beuckelaer, some additional borrowings will be discussed as well. 45. See note 42. 46. Serlio Book III, fol. xxx recto, see Moxey 1976, 122-23, fig. 17. On the obelisks in Beuckelaer’s works hieroglyphs are present, they were borrowed mainly from Francesco Colonna’s Hypnerotomachia Poliphili; see Emmens 1973, 97; Moxey 1976, 124-37. 47. Serlio Book III, fol. xxix recto, see Moxey 1976, 123, fig. 123.The base of Trajan’s Column is used in the paintings formerly in Nuremberg and Florence as well, and it also appears in other paintings by Beuckelaer, such as the Market Scene with Ecce Homo, dated 1561, in Stockholm (see note 5) and the Adoration of the Shepherds (dated 1565, panel, 107 x 141 cm; Cologne, Ursulakirche); see Ehmke 1967, 249. 48.The obelisk was re-erected in the center of St. Peter’s Square by Pope Sixtus V in 1586. 49. Serlio Book III, fol. xxix verso. 50.The same type of flattened obelisk appears on the painting formerly in Nuremberg, but in the Florence panel, a properly pointed one is depicted. 51. Serlio Book IV, fol. xlii recto; see Moxey 1976, 116, fig. 10. 52. Serlio Book IV, fol. xli verso. 53. Serlio Book III, fol. xxiii recto; see Moxey 1976, 119, fig. 14. 54.An easy way of achieving a reversed image was observed in Adriaen Isenbrant’s Seven Sorrows of the Virgin in the Church of our Lady in Bruges,where a pounced cartoon was simply turned and used again for the architectural features;see Martens ed.1998, cat. no. 40. Beuckelaer did not use cartoons for his architecture. 55. These crosses have been found in a number of other paintings by Beuckelaer: for instance, in Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Mary and Martha (monogrammed; dated 1565; panel 113 x 163 cm; Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België in Brussels, inv. no. 3934); Isaac Blessing Jacob in Utrecht (monogrammed; dated 1568; panel, 113 x 170 cm, Museum Catharijneconvent, inv. no. BMH 76); and the Element Water (see note 33). 56. Such crosses have not been found in all of Beuckelaer’s paintings with central perspective. In the painting in Florence, rather dark paint has been applied in the area where the vanishing point is located, perhaps obscuring the mark. In the Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Mary and Martha (monogrammed; dated 1565; panel, 130.5 x 202.5 cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. no. NM 323), the area becomes transparent to IRR, but no cross was found.The use of this mark might depend on specific demands in creating the perspective.

178

CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

57. I am indebted to Bernard Vermet for pointing this out to me.Vermet mentions that the Golden Section is frequently found in paintings from the sixteenth and seventeenth century and is often clearly evident, frequently at the vanishing point, in architectural compositions; see Vermet 1996, 39. The Golden Section is used to divide a line – in the case of a painting, its height and/or width – as follows: the shortest part (minor) is to the longest part (major) as the longest part is to the complete line. In mathematic terms, the Golden Section – also Sectio Divina or Proportio Divina – is 1:1.618; see Snijders 1969, 10 and 18. By dividing the length of a line by 2.618, its minor and major can be calculated.Another way of establishing the Golden Section ratio is by using a pair of compasses; see Snijders 1969, 14-18, and 19 and Poortenaar [1941], 18-19. Beuckelaer divided the height and width of the panel according to the Golden Section and positioned the vanishing point where the lines intersect.The Golden Section in Beuckelaer’s paintings is not applied with absolute precision though: there are often discrepancies of a few centimeters. Huvenne mentions that Pieter Pourbus was acquainted with the Golden Section; see Huvenne 1984, 120, and cat. no. 3, also Huvenne 1981, 111. 58. In Beuckelaer’s later works, the artist becomes more and more indifferent to Serlian language (see Moxey 1976, 123); he places the vanishing point further to the left or right in the painting, thus no longer applying the Golden Section. 59. For an explanation of this method, see Giltaij 1991 and Wadum 1995b.The hole in Joachim Beuckelaer’s Christ in the House of Mary and Martha in Brussels (see note 55) was examined with the stereomicroscope by J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer and myself.The hole’s edges were somewhat rounded, probably as the result of traction on the pin while pulling the string. 60.The artist may have applied the Golden Section for the placement of this line since the distance from the right edge of the panel corresponds with the minor. 61. Similar placement lines have been found in other paintings by Beuckelaer, including those where the artist no longer applied Serlian motifs.They were used to place the capitals of arches at the same height in, for example, the Stockholm Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Mary and Martha (see note 56), the Element Water, from London (see note 33), and the Fish Market with Ecce Homo (signed; dated 1570; panel, 151 x 202 cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. no. NM 324), where other placement lines are visible as well. 62.Wilenski suggested without further argument that an architectural specialist might have helped with the background of Beuckelaer’s Fish Market with Ecce Homo in Stockholm (see note 61),Wilenski 1960, vol. 1, 171; see also Ehmke 1967, 249, n. 14. 63. See Tamis 2001/2002, 120-22. 64. It cannot be regarded as an actual oil sketch, but Beuckelaer did produce oil sketches on panel as well as on paper.A very small panel (31.5 x 57 cm), only known through an illustration in an auction catalogue, shows a Market Scene with Ecce Homo that resembles the compositions discussed here; auction Luzern (Fischer), 19-07-1927, no. 1 (ill.); see Kloek 1990, 135, cat. nos. B.9a-10b, and n. 14. 65. See for instance, Ainsworth 1998, 257-312, and Faries and Helmus 2000. 66. See also Campbell 2002, 44. 67. Monogrammed; dated 1566; canvas, 136.5 x 165.3 cm; Napels, Museo di Capodimonte, inv. no.Q 162.A weaker market composition without a religious scene in the background is in San Francisco (monogrammed;dated 1565;panel,87.5 x 113.6 cm;San Francisco,TheYoung Memorial Museum,inv.no.54.21). 68. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (see note 61).

Jan Massys and Artistic Relationships Between Antwerp and Genoa During the Sixteenth Century Maria Clelia Galassi University of Genoa

Antwerp Paintings in Genoa in the Sixteenth Century Genoese patrons and collectors began to buy paintings and order portraits and altarpieces in Bruges as early as Jan van Eyck’s period of activity during the second quarter of the fifteenth century.1 The massive and continuous presence of Genoese merchants in Bruges2 shaped the artistic taste of the Genoese aristocracy. In turn, the presence of Flemish paintings in Genoa (in the region of Liguria) significantly affected the development of local art production.3 The Genoese interest in Flemish art continued into the sixteenth century when Antwerp replaced Bruges as the undisputed commercial and artistic center north of the Alps. Genoese merchants began to move to Antwerp during the second decade of the sixteenth century.4 In 1536 the Genoese Senate approved the statute of the Natione or Masseria that, as documented ten years later, was the largest among the foreign communities in Antwerp.5 In addition to merchants, new categories of businessmen, such as shipbrokers, bankers, and moneylenders, established their activities in the city at the service of Charles V, and then of Philip II and Philip III. Spanish loans facilitated the charter of ships and the funds that guaranteed a cash flow to the southern Netherlands (anticipating huge amounts of money coming to Spain from the exploitation of American gold and silver mines).6 As soon as the Genoese community began moving to Antwerp, they commissioned large altarpieces from local painters and sent the works to Ligurian churches.7 The modes of communication to relay instruction between Genoese clients and Flemish painters are uncertain. It is possible that donors discussed the commissions during their business stays in Antwerp, or that members of the Genoese community in Antwerp served as mediators for relatives and friends at home. Joos van Cleve was one of the most sought after painters among the Antwerp masters, From circa 1515 to 1525 he executed four altarpieces that were delivered to Genoa: the Triptych of the Adoration of the Kings documented in the church of San Luca d’Albaro in 1518 (now in Dresden, Gemäldegalerie); the Triptych of the Adoration of the Kings datable on stylistic grounds to around 1520 (still in Genoa in the church of San Donato; plate 1); the altarpiece of the Deposition for the church of Santa Maria della Pace datable to around 1525 (Paris, Musée du Louvre); and a fourth triptych with the Crucifixion originally in the church of the Santissima Annunziata della Costa of Sestri Ponente near Genoa around 1520 and still in Genoa in the Del Vecchio Collection in 1889 (New York,The Metropolitan Museum of New York).8 Except for the still unidentified bearded man represented in the Crucifixion in New York,9 the portraits in all of the altarpieces depict well known donors: Oberto de Lazzari, donor of the Dresden triptych; Nicolò Bellogio (represented with his wife Francischetta De Marco), donor of the Louvre altarpiece; and Stefano Raggio, donor of the San Donato triptych (fig. 1).This remarkable activity for Genoese patrons prompted some scholars to presume that Joos van Cleve executed parts of these commissions while in Genoa during one or two undocumented stays.10 Nevertheless, our increasing knowledge about long-distance commissions such as large altarJAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

179

pieces exported from Antwerp, as well as the results of the recent in-depth technical study of the San Donato altarpiece (including dendrochronological evaluations, the examination of underdrawing and paint sample analyses11) tend to exclude the possibility that Van Cleve was active in Genoa.Van Cleve’s patrons, all merchants dealing with the Flemish market, most likely met the artist in Antwerp to agree upon the commission and to sit for him. A Portrait of Stefano Raggio by Joos Van Cleve, recently acquired by the Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola,12 demonstrates that the Genoese merchant was more than an occaFig. 1. Detail of plate 1, the donor of Joos van Cleve’s sional client of the painter. Stefano’s appearSan Donato altarpiece, Stefano Raggio. ance is younger in the portrait than in the San Donato triptych. It is possible to conclude that the painter did not use the portrait as a model for the altarpiece and that the two men probably kept in touch for some time – at least between 1515 and 1520.Though none of Stefano’s stays in Antwerp are documented, he likely traveled to Antwerp because of family connections: the Raggio family had close commerical ties to the southern Netherlands and his uncle Lorenzo (a merchant himself) was active in Antwerp during the first two decades of the century.13 Other altarpieces attributed to Antwerp painters from the first decades of the sixteenth century are present to this day in Genoa and surroundings.Among them, only the Triptych of the Adoration of the Kings, attributed to the Master of Hoogstraeten, is documented: the merchant Giuseppe Sacco commissioned the work for his private chapel in the Commenda di San Giovanni Battista of Savona, close to Genoa, (now in the Museum of Savona Cathedral) before 1519.14 For others, such as the Triptych of the Adoration of the Kings by Pieter Coecke van Aelst from the Cervara Abbey (now Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), and the two panels with the Nativity and Rest on the Flight into Egypt in the church of San Michele di Pagana provisionally attributed to the ‘Antwerp school’, we can only assume a longstanding presence in Liguria.15 Long-distance commissions for large wooden altarpieces wane after the arrival of two works by Frans Floris de Vriendt, an artist the Genoese community in Antwerp greatly admired, and who oversaw the execution of the huge triumphal arch erected by Genoese people for the entrance of the prince Philip II.16 Old sources document two altarpieces in the parish of Santa Margherita, which disappeared after the renovation of the church at the end of the eighteenth century.The first has been lost; the second, the Triptych of Saint Margaret, appeared on the market in 1986 and is now in a private collection in Rome.A 1760 chronicle of the church transcribes the two inscriptions on the central panel (now only fragmentary), and refers to the donor, Battista Del Bene, the place of execution (‘Andorpia’), the painter (‘Franciscus Floris’), and the year, not perfectly legible but probably ‘1547’ – immediately after Floris’s trip to Italy (1541/42 to 1545/46).17 The decline of long-distance commissions coincided significantly with the expansion of the Antwerp art market.When Antwerp became the art center of the southern Netherlands during the first decades of the sixteenth century, the works produced on spec were destined primarily for an international clientele.18 It is impossible to calculate the true dimensions of the art trade to Genoa based on current understanding; numerous works of art coming from Antwerp – particularly panels, canvases, prints and tapestries – were imported and distributed through Genoa during the second half of the century.19 180

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

In 1590, during the debate over the Genoese guild’s new regulations of the Ars Pictoriae et Scutariae, local painters presented a proposal concerning the import of ‘quadri di Fiandra’ (Flemish paintings).The guild’s goal was to prevent local and foreign dealers from selling Flemish paintings, be it in private or public settings, without the guild’s permission and its share of the profit.20 The proposal, ultimately omitted from the regulations approved in 1591, shows a clear attempt of local artists to inhibit art trade specifically from southern Netherlands. Although not easy to assess because of the dearth of supporting documents and the almost complete loss of the old private collections, the guild’s effort to protect against competition from the Flemish art market is clear, indirect evidence that the trade of Flemish paintings in Genoa was fast becoming a large and profitable business. In the years 1543 and 1544 the register of the one-percent tax levied on exports states that 130 shipments of paintings were sent from Antwerp abroad, eleven of these to Italy.21 Information about the ships’ routes or itineraries is lacking, but it is highly probable that the port of Genoa played an important role in this traffic either as a final destination or as a clearinghouse for further distribution to Italian markets. According to Edoardo Grendi, in 1530, foreign ships, primarily from Mediterranean harbors, represented one-quarter of all traffic in the port of Genoa. The presence of Flemish ships from Antwerp increased after 1570 and became pre-eminent in the activities of the Genoese port after 1591 when, during a terrible famine, the Republic began to supply provisions from Northern Europe thanks to the mediation of the Genoese Nation in Antwerp.22 After this date and during the entire seventeenth century, numerous Flemish and German shipments of wheat and other foodstuffs arrived in Genoa, supplying the needs of the whole Italian peninsula. According to a source at the time, on January 17, 1591 no fewer than two hundred northern ships were present in the port.23 It is highly probable that the opening of this new grain route also encouraged an increase in the shipment of pieces of art. Numerous Genoese ships enlivened the port of Antwerp as well. Since the second half of the fifteenth century, after the loss of Constantinople and the consequent closure of eastern routes, Genoa had progressively increased its traffic with northern European ports.The Genoese fleet was completely renovated: new ships, larger and more suitable for long distances, were built to transport great quantities of goods by sea and rivers.The trade of rock alum, a mineral indispensable to Flemish and English textile manufacturers for the fixing of colors in dyed fabrics, became the most important export from Genoa to Bruges and then to Antwerp.The establishment of the alum trade to the port of Antwerp in 1515 was the first step in the ascent of the city as the most important emporium of the southern Netherlands.24 After 1529, the unification of Spain and the Netherlands proclaimed by Charles V and the contemporary alliance with the Genoese Republic nurtured the development of economic and financial relationships between Antwerp and Genoa and stimulated the growth of the Natione Genovese. In 1531 Genoese merchants obtained a monopoly on the trade to Antwerp of rock alum coming from the the only mines available in the West: Mazarrón in Spain and Tolfa in the Papal States. In addition to alum, Genoese ships transported to Antwerp silk and velvet (in part destined for England), Spanish wool, sugar from the Genoese plantations in the Canary Islands, and American silver arriving via Seville. Genoese ships brought to Italy English wool, English and Flemish textiles, Portuguese pepper, and a myriad of other commodities including foodstuffs, furniture, metal and glass objects, paper, tapestries, and paintings.25 Although rarely known by name, aristocratic Genoese businessmen probably played a significant role as dealers and agents in the trade of Flemish paintings in Genoa.As Giorgio Doria pointed out, the Genoese upper class preferred long stays abroad over short business trips. In 1536, according to Doria, thirty percent of the Genoese nobility resided abroad, and rose to thirty-seven percent in 1575. In 1544, fifty-five Genoese owners of banks and commercial houses lived in Antwerp; in 1550, fifty-seven; in 1555, thirty-six. From 1522 to 1563, 25.8 percent of these businessmen had remained in the Flemish city for a period of eleven to twenty years, and 12.9 JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

181

percent for a period of six to ten years.26 These numbers suggest that the Genoese Nation included mostly permanent residents who, rather than being mere occasional clients at the panden, likely maintained stable ties with the local artistic and cultural milieu. As Laura Tagliaferro has shown in her research on the Brignole family archive, Genoese residents in Antwerp bought paintings not only to stock their personal collections, but also to trade with relatives, commercial partners and dealers at home.27 The Brignole family’s activity in Antwerp begins with Giovanni, a manufacturer of velvet and a merchant of silk, northern textiles, spices and corals. In 1527 and in 1533, he bought three paintings, including a Deposition and a Saint Jerome, in Antwerp for his Genoese home. His son Teramo, resident in Antwerp in 1557 to 1559 and during the 1560s, sold precious pieces of furniture and clothing, tapestries and linen cloths, works of silver, books, and paintings to a group of Genoese aristocratic friends (for a considerable amount of Dutch guilders). In 1564 and 1565, he sold a Deposition and ‘doze quadri delle doze stagioni dell’anno’ (a series of the twelve Seasons) to Benedetto Imperiale, resident at that time in Palermo; in 1569, five paintings to Benedetto Pallavicino and three to his brother-in-law Agostino Invrea; and in 1568 to 1569, four landscapes to Giovanni Lomellini. In 1567 his brother Francesco came back from Antwerp with four paintings which he intended to sell to an unknown ‘pintore’ (probably a painter who was also a dealer).The third brother,Antonio, resident in Genoa, bought eleven landscapes in Antwerp in 1573 through the mediation of Nicolò Pallavicino (son of Benedetto), who at that time was working in the southern Netherlands. In 1594 Antonio received a new stock of twelve landscapes from his agent in Antwerp, Domenico Bernardi.28 This aristocratic art trade, closely linked with other mercantile enterprises and perfectly consistent with the business strategy of Genoese merchants, most likely introduced innumerable paintings on the Genoese market (as well as countless tapestries, another artistic genre appreciated by the rich families of the city).29 The 1567 inventory of nobleman Stefano Squarciafico’s palace lists a concentration of artistic objects more befitting a pand than a private collection: mirrors from Venice, coffers and cabinets, small tables, carpets, embossed leathers, Flemish tapestries (sixteen pieces with figures, others ‘a verdure’), eighteen Flemish paintings, and a entire roll of landscape paintings from Flanders.30 Unfortunately, other sixteenth-century inventories are not as detailed as Squarciafico’s. Inventories from the seventeenth century,31 as well as the first local artistic guides from the eighteenth century32 list a remarkable number – but not when and how they were collected – of now mostly lost Flemish paintings in Genoese private collections.Among the several ‘alla maniera fiamminga’ paintings, documents and old sources cite panels by Luca d’Olanda (Lucas van Leyden), Maestro Quintino (Quinten Massys),Alberto Duro (Albrecht Dürer), and Breughel (probably Jan), all names that Genoese writers used out of convenience to assign northern Renaissance paintings of uncertain authorship.33 The Balbi collection, extraordinarily rich in Flemish paintings, represents an exception to this general uncertainty of provenance.Two inventories drawn up in Genoa in 1649, one related to the collection of Gerolamo Balbi († 1627) and the other to his nephew Giovanni Agostino († 1621), list, often with precise attributions and descriptions of subjects, nearly sixty Antwerp paintings from the sixteenth century: ten paintings by Frans Floris (a series of the Seven Liberal Arts, two stories of Adam and Eve, a Hercules and Antaeus); a Raising of Lazarus by ‘Luca di Leida’; a Kitchen by ‘Pietro Long’ (Pieter Aertsen), now in Genoa in the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco (fig. 2); four landscapes by ‘Brughel’; six landscapes by ‘Monstrat’ (Gillis Mostaert); eighteen paintings with different subjects ‘alla maniera fiamminga’; four paintings ‘di Anversa’, including a version of Christ and John the Baptist as Children, Kissing; and fourteen ‘battles and landscapes’ by an unspecified ‘pittore fiammingo’.34 As Elena Parma and Piero Boccardo demonstrate, the Balbi collection (now dispersed) was moved to Genoa only after being amassed in Antwerp following the vicissitudes of its owners.35 Gerolamo Balbi lived in Antwerp from at least 1585, when he was elected consul of the Genoese Nation. He was again consul in 1591 and came back definitive182

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

ly to Genoa in 1595, bringing with him his orphaned nephew Giovanni Agostino, son of his brother Bartolomeo. Documents record Bartolomeo, who died in Antwerp in 1592, as being in the Flemish city from 1565; marrying a Flemish woman Lucretia van Santvoort, in 1572, and as consul of the Genoese Nation in 1573 and in 1592. His son Giovanni Agostino lived again in Antwerp from 1608 to 1617 and died in 1621, six years before his uncle Gerolamo.36 The endogamous marriage between Giovanni Agostino’s daughter Ottavia with Gerolamo’s son brought together the two collections formed in Antwerp between 1565 and 1617. Parts of these collections arrived in Genoa first in 1595 (following the move of Gerolamo himself) and later in 1617 (with Giovanni Agostino).The identification of Floris’s works (the seven Liberal Arts and the Hercules and Antaeus) with some of those executed by the painter around 1555 for Nicolaas Jongelinck,37 is evidence that part of the Balbi collection came from the splendid Jongelinck collection, which was pawned to the city of Antwerp because of the owner’s financial collapse in 1566 and auctioned off after the owner’s death in 1570.38 Antwerp Artists in Genoa During the Sixteenth Century Before 1591, when new and liberal regulations of the guild of Ars Pictoriae et Scutariae were approved, Genoese art guild regulations had strongly discouraged foreign artists from work- Fig. 2. Pieter Aertsen, The Kitchen. Genoa, Galleria di ing in Genoa.39 Documents about the Genoese Palazzo Bianco. activity of artists coming from Antwerp are rare, as they are for other foreign artists. In fact, previous guild regulations established in 1481 allowed foreign painters to work in the city only after residing with a family there for five years and paying a trade-license tax.40 Foreign artists were forced to come up with elaborate loopholes in order to sidestep the guild’s control and work in Genoa. Only a handful of Flemish tapestry-makers were able to open workshops, which, thanks to the lack of local artists, held a monopoly that the Republic officially authorized.41 Antwerp silversmiths who worked in Genoa for public commissions such as the huge Corpus Domini Shrine (Genoa, Museo del Tesoro del Duomo di San Lorenzo), but who officially were employed as soldiers of the Militiae Germanicae (the guards in service at the Palazzo Ducale), designed a ruse to escape the guild’s control.According to the registers of the Palace during the 1550s and 1560s,Thomas Opluten (or Opreiten or Utpluxen), Reinhard Fox, Petrus Costen, David Scaglia and Balthasar Martines – the most renowned silversmiths of the moment in Genoa – were ‘argentieri et milites Platae Palatii Genuae’. Moreover, as Franco Boggero argues,Adrian van Sittinghausen, chief of the guards, probably played a significant role in offering Flemish artists the ways and means to elude the guild’s control. Sittinghausen, brother-in-law of Jacob Schrenk JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

183

(secretary to the Archduke of Tyrol), was an art lover, collector of antiquities and naturalia, and art consultant to Ferdinand.42 Minimal information exists about the activity of northern painters in Genoa. Only a few recorded names can be attached to surviving works; one example is Johanni Marie Ridor ‘teutonicus’ who in 1527 had a workshop in Genoa and accepted a local painter, Michele de Simone, as an apprentice for three years.43 No convincing evidence shows that well-known Flemish painters such as Joos van Cleve worked in Genoa. Still, some could have passed through Genoa during their travels to Italy, a journey considered a must for northern artists from the pontificate of the Dutch pope Adrian VI (1522 to 1523) onward.44 Teresa Caracciolo argues that Genoa, not only a natural port-of-call during the trip by sea, was often a stopover for land travelers who reached Italy via Mont-Cenis or Marseilles.45 Stays in Genoa have been speculated for Jan Massys and for Frans Floris based on visual evidence.The undeniable influence that Perino del Vaga’s frescoes in the Genoese palace of Andrea Doria had on Floris’s paintings after his return to Antwerp makes Floris’s stopover in Genoa on his trip to Rome highly plausible.46 Floris’s activity on behalf of the Genoese Nation during the celebrations for Prince Philip II’s triumphal entry into Antwerp in 1549 is evidence of a privileged relationship between the painter and the city. In addition, a document published by F.Alizeri in the nineteenth century (that strangely eluded scholarly attention until now) places Frans Floris the Younger, the painter’s son, in Genoa in 1603 creating paintings on copper (which are now lost or have yet to be recognized).47 Thanks to the 1591 regulations, foreign masters had the possibility of working freely in Genoa without the prerequisite of a previous five-year residency in the city. New rules offered foreign painters three different options: they could open a personal workshop after paying a trade-license tax of 30 liras, an amount ten times higher than a young Genoese painter had to pay at the beginning of his career; work as an apprentice under a local master without a fee; or finally, work as private painters without an open workshop, which for practical purposes placed them beyond the control of the guild.48 This revolutionary third option paved the way for the complete liberalization of painting in Genoa,49 setting the stage for Peter Paul Rubens and Anthony van Dyck and encouraging the permanent presence of several Flemish painters who constituted an important artistic community in Genoa during the first half of the seventeenth century.50 Paintings by Jan Massys in Genoa Three paintings attributed to Jan Massys are in Genoa in the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco: a Madonna and Child (plate 2), a Charity (plate 3), and the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria (see fig. 9).51 Records indicate a fourth painting of the Three Fates (unknown location) in Genoa in the Gamba collection in 1921.52 Signed and dated ‘IOANNES MASSIIS 1552’, the Madonna is, along with a Nativity (in 1994 in the Galerie Sepia at Paris), signed and dated in the same year ‘IOANNES MASSIIS ALIAS QUINTENS 1552’, from the period of Massys’s exile from Antwerp following his condemnation for heresy (1544 to 1555).53 The painting’s support, a panel of walnut54 rather than Baltic oak,55 confirms that Massys executed it during his stay abroad – but not necessarily in Italy – using a wood that could have been local. On the basis of presumed stylistic analogies, Leontine Buijnsters-Smet dates a group of seven paintings, including the Genoese Charity and the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria, to the same period.56 Massys’s activity during his eleven-year exile still remains quite obscure.The only documentary evidence states that the painter returned to Antwerp in 1555 and that in around 1549 he 184

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Figs. 3a-b. a) The Virgin’s face in plate 2, Jan Massys’s Madonna and Child; and b) infrared reflectogram digital composite corresponding to fig. 3a, showing a linear free-hand underdrawing in a dry material. (IRR: Maria Clelia Galassi; digital composite: Chiara Masi).

was ‘in Italien ende andere verscheydene plaetsen ende provintien’.57 Given the strong influence of Fontainebleau on his paintings, scholars assume a stay in France.Three different arguments have been advanced to justify his activity in Genoa: first, the surprising concentration of works in Genoa which are believed to have been painted during his exile; second, the assumption that the old man in the Portrait in Palazzo Bianco is the Genoese nobleman Andrea Doria; and third, the accurate depiction of the city of Genoa which appears in the background of the Venus Cythereia now in the National Museum of Stockholm.58 The first two arguments cannot be used as proof of Massys’ activity in Genoa.The third point supports the hypothesis that Massys worked for the Genoese citizen Ambrogio Di Negro between 1559 and 1561, after his exile.

Fig. 4. Infrared digital photograph of the child’s face in plate 2, Jan Massys’s Madonna and Child, showing a change in the face. (Digital infrared photography: Carla Oberto).

Massys’s paintings in the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco have different origins.The collector Luigi Frugone donated the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria, previously documented in Perugia in the old collection of the noble family Connestabile della Staffa as a work of Domenico Alfani, in 1948; only its recent acquisition places it in Genoa.59 The Madonna and the Charity can be identified as the Nostra Signora con Christo in braccio maniera fiamenga and the ‘Carità con 4 figure, maniera fiamminga’ listed in the inventory of Gerolamo Balbi’s collection.60 Gerolamo or his brother Bartolomeo probably acquired the paintings in Antwerp in a period likely dating from 1565 when Bartolomeo at first arrived in Antwerp, to 1595 when Gerolamo left Antwerp with his nephew Giovanni Agostino.61 The assumption that the two works belonged to the Balbi collection and therefore were likely bought in Antwerp carries with it reasonable doubt that Jan JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

185

Fig. 5. Detail of plate 3, Jan Massys’s Charity.

Massys could have painted them on a supposed stay in Genoa during his exile. In addition, contrary to speculation by Leontine Buijnsters-Smet, Massys’s technique used for the Madonna (dated 1552, during the exile) compared with that used for the Charity suggests that Massys painted the latter many years later, after his return to Antwerp.62 The two paintings, as well as the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria, were examined in June 2002 using infrared reflectography (IRR)63 and close-up photography. 186

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Fig. 6. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of fig. 5, showing an underdrawing in brush with washed shadows. (IRR: Maria Clelia Galassi; digital composite: Chiara Masi).

The Madonna and Child (plate 2) exhibits a thin, smooth paint surface in which the flesh areas have been delineated by fine brown contours.The shading, now clearly visible thanks to a recent restoration which removed a thick, yellow varnish,64 is rather simple, with the minimal addition of yellowish glazes to create the volumes and to distinguish the deepest planes of the composition. Where visible, as in the Virgin’s face, the underdrawing is linear, without any elaboration of shade, and probably executed freehand, using a dry material (figs.3a-b). Rather sketchy lines delineate the contours of the face, the eyes, nose, and lips, suggesting slight changes and shifts of position. Some occasional hatching is visible in the left eyelid and in the Virgin’s cheek.The position of the Child face also shifted up during the paint stage.This change was too faint to record with the infrared vidicon; however, it became clearer with the use of a CCD camera (fig. 4).65 The red pigment used in the draperies is not transparent to IRR. No underdrawing could be detected in the landscape. By contrast, the Charity, an allegorical subject inspired by Italian models,66 is a more complex composition and displays a great formal elegance, rich with a subtle sensuality.The flesh tones are achieved by a vibrant modulation of dark glazes and a veil of transparent white to emphasize incident light, as, for instance, on Charity’s chin and lips (see fig. 5).The frontal lighting against the dark background emphasizes the bright solidity of the volumes; the draperies have the luminescence of silk.The palette is harmonized with opalescent colors.The underdrawing is done freehand, by means of brushstrokes of different sizes that are sometimes quite wide. Similar to what is observed in Aersten’s and Beuckelaer’s works, these thick contours can be regarded as a kind of painterly lay-in, either preliminary to or actually part of the paint stage.The underdrawing only suggests the forms without following the entire contour (see, for example, the hands of the sleeping child); it frequently deviates from the painted forms and is at times reinforced by washed shadows (figs. 6-7). In the landscape, a fine underdrawing lays out the architecture.67 A comparison shows a clear evolution in technique from the fine and dry underdrawing detected in the Madonna to the use of brushes and the application of broad strokes in the form of liquid washes in the Charity.The radical change in painting and underdrawing technique in the Charity suggests a date of execution in the 1560s.The same modeling of forms, finesse in the use of a sophisticated palette, pictorial and summary underdrawing executed using large brushes and washes, and a combination of long and loose placement lines along with painterly contours (see figs.14 and 15) have also been detected by infrared in the Venus Cythereia (Stockholm, Nationalmuseum) dated 1561. The Holy Family (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), dated 1563, and the Judith (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), dated about 1560 to 1565, also exhibit similarities in their layout stages to the Charity and Venus Cythereia (see fig. 8).68 Although the Madonna was certainly painted by Massys during his exile, JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

187

Fig. 7. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the child in fig. 5, showing a summary free-hand underdrawing in brush with washed shadows. (IRR: Maria Clelia Galassi; digital composite: Chiara Masi).

Fig. 8. Infrared digital photograph of Judith’s breast in Jan Massys’s Judith, Antwerp, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, showing a summary free-hand underdrawing in brush. (Digital infrared photography:Adri Verburg).

the work’s provenance from the Antwerp collection of the Balbi family is inconclusive in proving Massys’s possible activity in Genoa.The Charity, on the other hand, was most likely painted in Antwerp during the 1560s and bought by a member of the Balbi family residing there. If Massys’s depiction of Andrea Doria, who died in Genoa in 1560 at the age of 94, exists, it would provide a convincing argument to support the notion that the artist was active in Genoa in or around 1550. However, the painting (fig. 9) only recently came to Genoa from Perugia. No real evidence proves that the old man in the portrait is Andrea Doria or, for that matter, that work is a Jan Massys. 188

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Fig. 9. Unknown (Flemish ?) Painter, Sixteenth Century (formerly attributed to Jan Massys), so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco.

The illustration of the bearded old man, wearing a black robe and a black beret, in the Piazzo Bianco portrait does show some vague similarities to the physiognomy of other accepted images of Andrea Doria painted during his old age. It bears resemblance to a portrait by an unknown painter (Genoa, Palazzo del Principe),69 a fresco of about 1550 recently attributed to Ottavio Semino in the Gallery of the Villa Centurione-Doria in Genova-Pegli, 70 and two engravings in the double frontispiece of the Vita del Principe Andrea Doria discritta da M. Lorenzo Capelloni published in Venice in 1565. However, the Palazzo Bianco portrait lacks an important feature which always appears in Andrea Doria iconography: the decoration of the Order of the Golden Fleece which he received from Charles V in 1531.71 The beret depicted in the Palazzo Bianco portrait also differs in shape from those worn by Andrea Doria in the other portraits and looks very much like a headpiece popular in Florentine portraits of the mid-Cinquecento.72 Caterina Marcenaro attributed the presumed Andrea Doria to Jan Massys when the painting became part of the Palazzo Bianco collection.73 Although eminent scholars such as Umberto Gnoli and Roberto Longhi refuted this attribution,74 Buijnsters-Smet’s recent monograph reaffirms the attribution to Massys and dates the portrait’s execution to around 1554 to 1555. Other art historians generally accept the portrait, even if with some misgivings.75 Only recently have E. Parma and C. Di Fabio rejected it outright.76 JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

189

Fig. 10. Detail of a hand in fig. 9.

Figs. 11a-b. a) Detail of a hand in fig. 9, and b) infrared reflectogram digital composite corresponding to fig. 11a, showing no underdrawing and dark undermodeling. (IRR: Maria Clelia Galassi; digital composite: Chiara Masi).

Technical examination of the portrait, which reveals significant differences in working method from the Madonna and Charity, suggests that the painting has to be excluded from the Massys oeuvre altogether.The panel, on poplar and not on beech as affirmed by Di Fabio,77 presents an impasto paint surface with a great deal of thick and highly visible strokes in different colors, which are only partially blended using a free, wet-in-wet technique (plate 4).The hands are modeled by heavy touches rich in lead white superimposed on the flesh tone (figs. 10-11a).The IRR examination revealed no underdrawing in the face and only a linear paint contour, partially coinciding with the visible forms, around the fingers.The black robe and the curtains in the background are not transparent to infrared. IRR revealed some interesting details regarding the painting technique, particularly the way the hands were delimited in a slightly different position using a dark underpainting (fig.11b). Stylistic and technical comparison to Massys’s known techniques to depict figures of old men provides irrefutable evidence that the author of the presumed Andrea Doria used a different working method in order to render the particular features of very aged faces and hands. Massys’s figure of Lot in the painting in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna aptly reveals his trademark method of overlapping very thin layers to achieve the dark tones of aged flesh, which 190

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Fig.12. Jan Massys, Venus Cythereia. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.

are so transparent that we can almost make out some dark lines of the underdrawing in the face (plate 5).The paint surface shows no traces of brushwork; it is lightly modulated by fine brown hatching executed directly on the surface in order to render the wrinkles and veins of the old skin. Likewise, infrared examination of Saint Joseph’s face in the Holy Family of the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerp shows the distinctive Massys method of underdrawing, using some curving contours to summarily mark out the hair and anatomical features.78 Since the Palazzo Bianco portrait’s authorship is questionable on stylistic, technical, and chronological grounds, the portrait provides no clear-cut proof of Massys’s presence in Genoa. Future research should seek to learn whether the author of this portrait could be among the Flemish painters working in Perugia during the second half of the sixteenth century. In particular, the fresco in the refectory of the Palazzo dei Priori, executed by Francesco Scheper in 1579, shows similarities in compositional solutions, physiognomies, and draperies.79 The Venus Cythereia of Stockholm: New Findings about Painting Technique and the Genoese Patron In 1561 Jan Massys signed and dated the Venus Cythereia (fig.12, plate 6) ‘IOANNES MASSIIS ALIAS QUINTIIN PINGEBAT 1561’.The work, now in Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

191

Fig.13. Detail of the city of Genoa in fig. 12.

belonged formerly to Rudolf II of Prague, and reached the collection of Christina of Sweden in the mid-seventeenth century after the sack of Rudolf ’s treasures in Prague.80 Given the accurate and recognizable view behind Venus of Genoa and its skyline (fig.13), the painting constitutes the only uncontested link between Massys and Genoa. Further analysis of the landscape presents new findings about the identity of the Genoese patron who commissioned the work before the painting found its way into Rudolf II’s collection and sheds light on Massys’s possible physical presence in Genoa. Three different planes are distinguishable in the landscape surrounding the goddess of love: the foreground with the marble terrace, balustrades, and nymphaeum with a monumental fountain where Venus reclines with composed sensuality on a silken drape and holds some carnations (the symbol of the promise of love); the middle ground with a series of villas and gardens extending to the city walls; and the background with the view of Genoa including the hills with fortifications, the city around the port, the Lanterna lighthouse closing the far edge of the port, and, in the far distance, the Portofino promontory.The Palazzo del Principe, residence of Andrea Doria (plate 7a) is perfectly recognizable among the villas. Scholars have always singled out this depiction as the only visual document of the original building and north garden as they appeared at Andrea Doria’s time, before the renovations carried out by his nephew Giovanni Andrea Doria during the last decades of the sixteenth century.81 (Leontine Buijnsters-Smet hypothesizes that the patron of the painting might have been Giovan192

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Fig. 14. Infrared digital photograph of Venus’s foot in fig. 12, showing a change in composition. (Digital infrared photography: John Rothlind).

ni Andrea Doria himself, who after the death of Andrea in 1560 inherited the villa with all his uncle’s property. 82) A careful analysis of the painting shows that the closest connections exist between the foreground with Venus and another villa featuring a lateral porch which, in the general expanse of the landscape, occupies the most prominant position immediately below the marble terrace (plate 7b). At the villa we see a couple in a continuing narrative, first at the door or large window opening onto the terraced roof, then in the garden through the door of the villa, and finally in a courting pose on the steps of the terrace. The painter, through the couple’s movements, provides a guided tour that begins inside the villa, proceeds through the garden, and ultimately arrives at Venus’s terrace. The painter, therefore, intentionally placed Venus in the garden of a real, identifiable villa, whose owner could have commissioned the painting from Massys.83 The garden’s exact location on the hill is hard to place due to present-day urbanization. At the time and for centuries thereafter the Di Negro family owned virtually the entire hill (today called the Di Negro quarter). Despite some transformations, we can easily distinguish what is now known as the Villa Durazzo (fig.16)84 which, at the time of the painting, belonged to Ambrogio De Negro (1519-1601),85 who also owned the Villa Lo Scoglietto (at the right in the landscape, near the sea; plate 7c). From 1560 to 1567 Ambrogio began restoring the Scoglietto, eventually re-landscaping the hill dominating the two villas to mimic a ‘garden of delights’. Ambrogio’s illegitimate son Orazio (legitimized in 1584) continued to enhance the garden, lavishly adorning it, according to Furttenbach (who visited in 1627), with trees, pavilions, fountains, sculptures and a famous grotto. From the top of the hill the visitor was afforded a beautiful view of the whole city of Genoa, the port, and the coast, up to a distance of thirty miles.86 The similarities between the Furttenbach discription and the Venus landscape are too close to be coincidental. JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

193

Fig. 15. Infrared digital photograph of the vase in fig. 12, showing loose placement lines in the underdrawing. (Digital infrared photography: John Rothlind).

Ambrogio seems to have had all the qualities befitting the patron of a painting such as Massys’s Venus. Coming from one of the oldest aristocratic families of the city and destined for a brilliant political career (which culminated in 1585 when he became doge),Ambrogio devoted himself equally to his banking profession and his poetry.From 1543 to 1546 he lived in Burgundy in the court of the noblewoman Laura Riario, to whom he addressed forty amorous sonnets in Petrarchesque style;in 1588 Gerolamo Ampeglio collected these sonnets into a manuscript and dedicated them to Orazio.87 The subject of one of Ambrogio’s sonnets is so close to Massys’s depiction that its text plausibly inspired the painting or vice versa. In the Fig. 16. Genoa,Villa Durazzo (formerly Di Negro). poem’s description,the coasts and gardens of the Genoese landscape are so beautiful in the morning light that they induceVenus to leave her own country and to move to Genoa.88 The possibility that Ambrogio and Jan Massys could have met, if not discussed the sonnet’s subject, in Antwerp is likely.89 Several of Ambrogio’s close relatives had frequent and prolonged contacts with Antwerp: Negrone Di Negro, banker to Charles I and Philip II, with whom the latter signed an agreement in 1559 for the transport of alum from the mines of Mazarrón to Antwerp;90 Francesco Di Negro, a financier and merchant of silk, spices, sugar, wine and corals in Antwerp from 1563 to 1591;91 and Giacomo Di Negro, ambassador of the Genoese Republic to Brussels and Antwerp from 1553 to 1559.92 Ambrogio himself was active as a banker and diplomat in Brussels and Antwerp from 1558 to September 1559.93 In that period Massys executed the Flora with the View of Antwerp (Hamburg, Kunsthalle) (fig. 17), which is the prototype for 194

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Fig. 17. Jan Massys, Flora. Hamburg, Kunsthalle.

the Venus Cythereia94 as well as for the Venus with Cupid in a Sea Landscape (now in Kracow, Jagellonian University Museum).95 It is not unlikely that Ambrogio had the chance to admire the Flora, discuss its subject with Massys, and ultimately enjoin the artist’s services for the Venus.The Di Negro family had shown a predilection for Flemish painters in the past: in 1518 a Bruges painter, perhaps Adriaen Isenbrant, had been commissioned to paint the Portrait of Paolo Di Negro (Bruges, Groeningemuseum), merchant in Bruges and Antwerp, and Ambrogio’s uncle.96 Ambrogio Di Negro’s potential role as patron of the Venus could explain how the painting arrived in the collection of Rudolf II of Prague. He amassed great wealth as a banker and moneylender to the Ausburg dynasty from 1549 to 1565. From 1575 to 1584 he was one of the most important financiers of Rudolf father’s, Maximilian II, as well as of Charles V and Philip II.97 Encounters between Ambrogio and Rudolf no doubt took place; in 1571 the young prince visited Genoa for the first time with Don Juan of Austria; in 1581 Rudolf came to Genoa with his mother, Maria of Austria.98 It is possible that during this second visit the prince, who often obtained his art works from other collectors by means of diplomatic pressure, coerced Ambrogio into offering the painting. JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

195

Still left to discuss is the possibility that Massys actually set foot in Genoa. In 1561, the date of the Venus Cythereia, Massys was unquestionably working in Antwerp.The use of a Baltic oak panel as well as the results of dendrochronology – according to which the earliest possible creation of the painting is from 1556 on99 – refute the idea that Massys could have begun the painting some years before, during his supposed sojourn in Genoa. According to accepted opinion, the detailed and accurate view of the Genoese port and surroundings in the Venus Cythereia proves that he visited the city. Assuming that Massys stayed in Genoa around 1552 when he was exiled from Antwerp, scholars generally agree with the hypothesis that the painter executed the landscape of the Venus based on a study drawn in situ about ten year earlier.100 Contrary to this generally accepted notion, I will argue that the view of Genoa undeniably dates to between 1560 and 1561 – immediately before the execution of the painting – and that this landscape should be attributed to a cityscape specialist who collaborated with Massys. The date of the view can be deduced by careful analysis of the architecture depicted, all of which is perfectly identifiable.Among the many churches, immediately below the San Lorenzo Cathedral, and on the hill of Carignano is the basilica of Santa Maria Assunta, recognizable by its central plan and the presence of a dome (plate 7d). Although the central dome of the basilica was erected in 1602, documents indicate that in Fig. 18. Infrared digital photograph of Venus’s left shoulFebruary 1560 one of the four smaller lateral der in fig. 12, showing two shifts in the outlines. (Digital domes had just been erected, and in May 1561, infrared photography: John Rothlind) the choir vault was nearly finished.The church’s imposing structure, albeit with one dome only, was easily visible in the Genoese skyline – exactly as it is in the painted view.101 Therefore, the landscape is derived from a contemporary view, and was probably executed intentionally. Elena Parma, considering the differences between the draftsmanship of the figures and the more pictorial execution of the background, speculated that a landscape specialist – perhaps Jan Massys brother, Cornelis – might have collaborated in the execution of the Venus.102 The same issue of authorship has been debated regarding the Hamburg Flora, the landscape of which shows a view of Antwerp. In the past, scholars attributed the landscape to Pieter Brueghel the Elder and to Cornelis Massys.103 More recently, after the restoration, it has been re-attributed to Jan.104 The infrared investigation of the Stockholm Venus provided some interesting findings relating to Parma’s discussion.The infrared details of the area around Venus’s left shoulder and arm show, in fact, that the painter shifted the figure’s contours three times before positioning them definitively further to the left (fig.18).The painted portion extending between the first, outer contour and the final one was clearly executed in order to connect the already painted landscape with the figure.The working process entailed three different stages: the underdrawing of figure’s external contours with the 196

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Fig. 19.Anton van den Wyngaerde, View of Genoa (1553), etching, detail. Kungliga Biblioteket, Stockholm.

division between figure and landscape areas, the execution of the landscape, and the painting of the figure.The shifting of the figure during the third stage required an additional step to complete the small portion of the landscape which still remained unpainted. On the other hand, most of the landscape, including the marble terrace, was executed prior to the figures.This is clearly visible to the naked eye through the minute chivalaresque scene on the terrace steps (see fig.13); the two figures,having become transparent with time,allow the already painted architecture to show through. In addition, the painting technique in the view of Genoa differs from the background landscapes in other Massys paintings such as that seen in the Genoa Charity. The view of Genoa has a precise handling of the details, a very compact texturing of strokes, and a large number of white touches that throw every element of the view into relief (see plates 7a-d). A collaboration between masters and specialist painters reflects the workshop practice commonplace in Antwerp at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Although the collaboration between Quinten Massys and Joachim Patinir is documented in the Temptation of St.Anthony of the Museo del Prado,105 the possibility that both Quinten and Jan would have been usually or occasionally assisted by landscape painters still appears vague and conjectural. In particular, the question of if Cornelis Massys could have completed the landscape backgrounds in paintings by his father and brother still remains without any definitive answers, espcially since his artistic personality as a landscape painter has only recently begun to be better defined.106 Additional findings about Jan Massys’s technique and working method need to be discovered in order to corroborate his routine collaboration with landscape painters like his brother Cornelis.To emphasize, the still unknown artist who depicted the view of Genoa in the Venus landscape did so with such a deft and skillful hand that he was probably not merely a landscape painter, as Cornelis was, but a specialist in depicting topographical vistas.With the information currently available, we cannot give a name to this cityscape artist, nor can we say if this vista painter worked from some very detailed drawings of Genoa or from an etching similar (but taken from a different point of view) to that executed and printed in Genoa by Anton van den Wyngaerde in 1553 (Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket) (fig. 19).107 If zealously dedicated to his work, the artist might have travelled to Genoa to undertake the drawing of the city from the top of Ambrogio Di Negro’s garden. If Jan Massys did not execute the Venus landscape himself, this work, executed in Antwerp, disproves his presence in Genoa. In other words, the ‘case’ of Jan Massys seems to duplicate the ‘case’ of Joos van Cleve, whose relations with Genoese clients evolved thanks to the presence of wealthy Genoese businessmen in Antwerp rather than to his activity in Genoa itself. JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

197

NOTES

1.Algeri 1997; Di Fabio 1997c, 83-92; Parma 1999; Parma 2002. 2. Heers 1961; Petti Balbi 1996; Petti Balbi 2003. 3.Algeri 1991. 4. Among the Italian communities, the Genoese one was the last to officially leave Bruges in 1521; see Parma 1999, 81.

Groeningemuseum) see, Scailliérez 1997, 124.The Portrait of Paolo Di Negro will be discussed later in this paper. 10. Hoogewerff 1934, 103-10; Hoogewerff 1961, 176-94; exh.cat. Restauri in Liguria 1978, entry nos. 16, 251-57 (by G. Rotondi Terminiello). Friedländer (1972, 26) only faintly considers the supposition of a Genoese trip. See also Cavelli Traverso 2003, 25 and entry no.4 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso). 11. See Klein 2003b; Leeflang 2003b; Silvestri 2003.

5. Beck 1983. 6. See Braudel 1949, 509-46; Doria 1986, 64-75. 7. It is useful to briefly list the paintings coming to Genoa from Bruges between the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century, immediately before the irreversible decline of the Flemish city: the Polyptych of Saint John the Evangelist, executed by the so-called Master of Saint John the Evangelist for an unknown donor and from the church of the Santissima Annunziata di Portoria (now Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco and Novi Ligure, Collezione Coulant Peloso); the Triptych of Saint Andrew still in loco in the Church of San Lorenzo della Costa near Genoa and executed by an anonymous master in Bruges in 1499 for Andrea della Costa, a Genoese merchant residing there; Gerard David’s Cervara Altarpiece commissioned by Vincenzo Sauli in 1506 for the Abbey of San Gerolamo della Cervara near Genoa (now Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco; Paris, Musée du Louvre; New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art); and the San Pancrazio Altarpiece, probably executed around 1520 in Adriaen Isenbrant’s workshop, still in loco in the church of San Pancrazio. At present, it is not possible to determine the patrons or the arrival of Jan Provoost’s works in Genoa: the two wings with Saint Peter and Saint Elizabeth, coming to the Ospedale di San Martino in 1922 from the Ospedale di Pammatone (now Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), and the panel of the Annunciation, documented in the seventeenth century in the church of San Colombano (now in the Palazzo Bianco as well). Also, the two panels with the Martyrdom of Saint Agnes and Saint Catherine (Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Reale), probably part of the same complex to which the Adoration of the Kings belonged (now Turin, Galleria Sabauda) and attributed to the Master of the Turin Adoration around 1480-1490, are documented for the first time in the mid-seventeenth century in the collection of Giovanni Battista Balbi. On this issue, in addition to the bibliography in note 1, see: Pittarello-Leoncini 1996;Ainsworth, 1998, 179-201; Martens ed. 1998, entry no. 26 (by R. Spronk); Fontana Amoretti-Plomp 1998, entries no.51-53, 222-27, 28081; Borchert 2001, 75; Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry nos. 14 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 15 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 16 (by M. C. Galassi), 21 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 25 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 28 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 29 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 31 (by L. Leoncini), 52 (by L. Leonicini), 53 (by C. Cavelli Traverso). 8. See Hand 1978, 104-05; Hand 2004, esp. ch. 5 and 7578; Scailliérez 1991; Parma 1997; Scailliérez 1997; Ainsworth and Christiansen 1998, entry no. 95 (by M.W.Ainsworth); Parma 1999, 13-25; Zanelli 2003. Hand 2004, esp. ch. 5 and 7578. 9. For the hypothetical identification of the donor with Paolo Di Negro, based on the presence of Saint Paul and thanks to some (not entirely convincing) similarities with the 1518 portrait of Di Negro attributed to Isenbrant (Bruges,

198

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

12. Simonetti-Zanelli 2003, entry no.1 (by G. Zanelli); Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry no. 3 (by Gianluca Zanelli). 13. Doehaerd 1962-1963, vol. 2, 279. 14. Cavelli Traverso 1997, 93-98; Sciolla 2001. Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry no. 27 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso). 15. See Cavelli Traverso 1997, 98-103. Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry nos.12 and 33 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso). 16. On the creation of this triumphal arch, the most expensive of the ephemeral structures erected for the entrance of the prince, with allegorical figures and painted scenes dedicated to Charles V and Philip II, see Parma 1997, 49-53. 17. For this topic, only briefly summarized here, see Parma 1997, with bibliography; Parma 1999, 20-21, 25. 18.Vermeylen 2001. 19. See Parma 2003. Curiously, no documents or records exist about the importation of carved altarpieces from Antwerp. The only fifteenth-century Flemish carved altarpiece still extant in Liguria (bearing in mind the widespread dissemination of such wooden complexes during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) is the Passion Altarpiece now in the church of Testana, near Genoa; it has been attributed to a Master close to Jan Borman the Elder; exh. cat. Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola, Interventi di restauro 1980, entry no.6 (by G. Rotondi Terminiello). On this issue, see also Lagomarsino 2000-2003. 20. Rosso del Brenna 1976b, 15. 21.Vermeylen 2001, 51. 22. Grendi 1987, 339-43. See also Costantini 1978, 167-69. 23. See Giustiniani, Agostino, Giornale dei Suoi Tempi, seventeenth-century ms., Genoa, Biblioteca Berio, ad annum. 24. See Beck 1983. 25. See Goris 1925, 210-15, 644-50;Van Houtte 1984, 96; Doria 1986; Beck 1983. 26. See Doria 1986, 78-105. 27. See Tagliaferro 1995. 28. Ibid. 152. 29. See ibid. 164-65, 174, for the Brignole family’s trade of tapestries from Antwerp and Brussels to Genoa and Palermo. On the presence of Flemish tapestries in Genoese collections, see Parma 2003, 35-38. 30.Archivio di Stato di Genova, notary Leonardi Chiavari, October 11, 1567, fol.14; the inventory has been published by Poleggi 1977, 122.

31. Inventories from the seventeenth century have been located and published, above all, by V. Belloni; see in particular Belloni 1973 and Belloni 1988. 32. See, for instance, Ratti 1780. 33. On this issue see Fontana Amoretti 1991-1994; Fontana Amoretti 1997. 34. See Boccardo and Magnani, 1987, 78-80; Boccardo 2004, 166-67.The inventories also list several paintings by Flemish painters from the first half of seventeenth century, such as Van Dyck, Jan Roos, Cornelis de Wael, and Frans Francken the Elder. For the identification of several paintings cited in the inventory with works by Jan Massys (the Charity and the Madonna and Child, both Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), Frans Floris (the two stories of Adam and Eve now in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten of Antwerp and six of the Seven Liberal Arts, all in private collections), Pieter Aertsen (a Market Scene, Budapest, Szépmuvészeti Museum; a Kitchen Scene, Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), Joachim Beucklaer (a Market Scene, Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), Joos van Cleve’s workshop (Christ and Saint John the Baptist as Children, Kissing, Private collection), Aelbert van Ouwater (the Raising of Lazarus, Berlin, Gemäldegalerie), Jan Verbeeck (an Allegory of the Innocence, Private collection), see Boccardo 1997; Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry nos.45 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso), 1 and 2 (by Paola Martini); Boccardo 2004, entries no. 16 (by Anna Orlando), 17 (by Anna Orlando), 18 (by Piero Boccardo and C.Van De Velde), 20-21 (by Clario Di Fabio), 22 (by Gianluca Zanelli), 23 (by Paul Vandenbroeck), 35. Boccardo 1997, 151-58; Parma 1997, 54-56; Elena Parma forthcoming,‘La nazione genovese ad Anversa nel Cinquecento e il suo ruolo nella committenza artistica’, in Italie en de Nederlanden-Artistieke Wisselwekingen, Symposium in the Museum Het Catharijneconvent. Utrecht, April 13, 1992; Boccardo 2004, 163-65. 36. For the activity of the Balbi family in Antwerp, see Grendi 1997. 37. Boccardo 1997, 161-62; Parma 1997, 53-54. 38. See Van de Velde 1965. 39. See Parma 1999, 14. 40. See Rosso del Brenna 1976a, 19. 41. As attested to by archival documents published in the nineteenth century by Federigo Alizeri; in 1551 Vincent van den Daele and Petrus from Brussels obtained the government’s permission to open a workshop; in 1553 the same privilege was accorded to Dionys Martenz, whose activity is recorded until 1563;Alizeri 1873, 489-501. Nevertheless, the large commissions for tapestries, such as for the salon of the Maggior Consiglio in the Palazzo Ducale, continued to be addressed to the factories of Flanders; Boccardo 1983-1985; Boccardo 1989, 77-87; Boccardo-Di Fabio 1994, entries no. 8-11 (by P. Boccardo). 42. See Boggero 1991, 48-59; Parma 2003, 33-35. 43.The document has been published by Alizeri 1874, 31516. 44. See Dacos 1995a. 45. Caracciolo 1997. 46. See Van de Velde 1975a, vol. 1, 153-54; Dacos 1995a, 24; Parma 1997, 47-49. 47.Alizeri 1874, 201-05. 48. See Rosso del Brenna 1977, 14. 49.After a long discussion,a group of Genoese painters under the guidance of Giovanni Battista Paggi managed to introduce

this regulation, which gave local and foreign painters the possibility of escaping guild control. According to the new regulation, painters were allowed to work privately, without following corporate rules. On this issue, see Pesenti 1986, 9-13. 50. See Orlando 1996; Di Fabio 1997a; Di Fabio 1997b. 51. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco, inv. nos. PB525, PB285, and PB897 respectively. 52. For the catalogue of Jan Massys’s works, see BuijnstersSmet 1995, 171, 178-79, 181-84. 53. Ibid. 46, 179-80. 54.Tagliaferro 1991, 15.The wood was identified by Peter Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität Hamburg, in a letter to the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco, February 17, 2006. I am grateful to Prof. Klein for communicating his results to me regarding Jan Massys. 55. According to the traditional habit of Flemish painters, Jan Massys, after his return to Antwerp, used Baltic oak, as the analyses executed on the Massys paintings in the Nationalmuseum of Stockholm by Prof. Peter Klein, Ordinariat für Holzbiologie, Universität Hamburg, demonstrated. 56. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 44-55. 57.The quotation came from a declaration by the painter Hendrik Schyt and Hubrecht Massys, Jan’s brother, dated 1589; Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 23. The document was unknown to Friedländer, who did not believe in the Italian trip. 58. Hoogewerff 1961, 192-94; Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 45, 55-59; Cavelli Traverso 1997, 103-04; Cavelli Traverso 2003, 25-26. 59. Gnoli 1929; Di Fabio 2000, 104, 106. 60. Boccardo 1997, 151-59; Boccardo and Di Fabio 1966, 177 and entry no.17; Cavelli Traverso 2003, entries no. 44 (by Clario Di Fabio), 45 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso); Boccardo 2004, entries no. 20-21 (by Clario Di Fabio).At the beginning of the nineteenth century,Agostino Zoagli inherited the Charity; in the 1860s he passed it on to the collection of Odone, prince of Savoia. It was finally donated to the city of Genoa along with the vast collections of the young prince, who died before his time in 1866.The Madonna has a less detailed history: the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco acquired the painting in 1950 from the dealer-collector Emilio Barabino. 61.According to Piero Boccardo, Massys’s Three Fates, now in an unknown location (Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 171) might be identified with a painting which in the nineteenth century passed from the Balbi collection to the Genoese Peirano collection; see Boccardo 1997, 159, 174. 62. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 182. Carla Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry no.45 also agrees with a date around 1552, during the period of Massys’s exile. 63. IRR by M.C.Galassi (with the help of Chiara Masi), using equipment of the Università di Genova (Hamamatsu C 2400-07 Camera with Hamamatsu N 2606-26 infrared vidicon; USB Video Capture Device:Toshiba Satellite 2540 CDS). Mosaics by Chiara Masi with Adobe Photoshop. I am grateful to Dr. Clario Di Fabio, curator of the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco, for allowing me to study the paintings. 64.I am grateful to Dr.Clario Di Fabio for giving me the permission to follow the restoration of the painting at the Studio Martino Oberto of Genova. I am grateful to Mrs.Carla Oberto, as well, for discussing with me the results of the restoration. 65. I thank Carla Oberto for providing me with the reflectogram that is published here. 66. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 182.

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

199

67. I am grateful to Prof. Molly Faries for discussing with me the results of the IRR published here.When this article was in press, Peter Klein analyzed the oak support of the painting by dendrochronology, establishing 1549 as the earliest possible felling date.With a minimum of two years for seasoning, the earliest possible creation of the painting is from 1551 on. Assuming a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasening, an execution is plausible from 1557 on. (Letter from Prof. Peter Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität Hamburg, February 10, 2006) 68. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 193-94, 198-99, 205-06. John Rothlind studied the Venus Cythereia using digital infrared photography in November 2002;Adri Verburg studied the paintings in Antwerp using a CCD camera in April 2003. I am grateful to John Rothlind, former Chief Conservator of the Nationalmuseum of Stockholm, and Lizet Klaassen, Head of Conservation of the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten of Antwerp, for giving me permission to study the results. The same kind of underdrawing, with only a few, pictorial contour lines and rich in changes, has been detected in Jan Massys’s Flora (Hamburg, Kunsthalle), dated 1559: Kränz 2003, 45. Unfortunately the author did not publish any IRR details of the painting.

87. For Ambrogio’s biography, see Levati 1930, 189-202; Savelli 1991. For his activity as poet,Verdino 1992.The manuscript with the Rime composte dall’Illustrissimo Signor Ambrogio Di Negro is in the Biblioteca Berio, Genoa. 88.‘Il nuovo sol che te felice inraggia, / e che fa Cintho sì d’invidia piena, / rende Liguria mia gioconda e amena, / qual parte è in te più strana e più selvaggia / rende si cara la tua vaga spiaggia, / che con disdegno dei suoi regni e pena, / Venere bella desiosa mena, / di cangiar propria stanza per selvaggia’ in Rime composte dall’Illustrissimo Signor Ambrogio Di Negro’, 12 (see note 87). 89.The knowledge about Massys’s exile is so unclear that the possibility that Ambrogio could also have met the painter in Burgundy during his stay in 1544, will not be discussed. 90.Van Houtte 1984, 96. 91. Doria 1986, 110. 92. Cavanna Ciappina 1991.

69. Boccardo 1989, 111, fig.135.

93. Doria 1991, 9; Savelli 1991.

70. Pesenti 2002, 14.

94. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 191-93; Kränz 2003.

71. Pauwels 1962, 39. 72. On the issue of Florentine berets that show similarities with that depicted in the Palazzo Bianco portrait, see exh. cat. L’officina della maniera 1996, entry 130 (by C. Falciani). 73. See Marcenaro 1949. 74. Gnoli 1929; Longhi 1952. 75. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 53-54, 183-84 (with bibliography); Cavelli Traverso 1997, 103-04; Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry no.46 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso). 76. Parma 1997, 57; Di Fabio 2000, 106. Fontana Amoretti and Plomp did not include the painting in their Repertory of Dutch and Flemish Paintings in Italian Public Collections (Fontana Amoretti-Plomp 1998). 77. Di Fabio 2000, 106.The identification of a sample by Prof. Dr. Peter Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität Hamburg, in a letter dated December 19, 2002, to the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco established that the panel is poplar and not beech. 78. See note 66. 79. See Sapori 1997, 87, fig.14. 80. Inv. no. 507; Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 193-94. 81. Parma 1970, 16; Gorse 1980, 94-96; Poleggi and Cevini 1981, 6-7, 111; Magnani 1987, 42-43; Boccardo 1989, 34. 82. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 194. 83. Grosso 1937, 20, already noted he presence of the two ‘mysterious lovers’, probably the owners of the villa. 84.The second owner, the cardinal Stefano Durazzo, who donated the building to the Order of Saint Vincenzo de Paoli, radically transformed the villa (now the site of the Collegio Brignole Sale Negroni dei Signori delle Missioni) in the midseventeenth century; De Negri et al. 1967, 72-73 (entry by Emmina De Negri). I am grateful to Mr. Paolo Arduino, Biblioteca di Storia dell’arte, Palazzo Rosso, Genoa, for his assistance in identifying the Villa Durazzo. 85. Documents show that Stefano Durazzo bought the villa from Lelia Di Negro, grand-daughter of Ambrogio;Alfonso 1972, 134.

200

86. For the oldest description of the garden and the beautiful view, see Furttenbach, Josephum, Newes Itinerarium Italiae, Ulm, 1627, 217-18; on the Villa Lo Scoglietto, see Magnani 1978.

JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS

95. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 190-91; the Jan Massys attribution of the painting, dated by dendrochronology to after 1559, became more plausible after its restoration; Niedzielska 1992. 96. The portrait is in the Groeningemuseum of Bruges: Martens ed. 1998, 62-63, entry 36 (by Till H. Borchert). As noted above, Scailliérez 1997, 124 hypothesized that Paolo Di Negro might have been the donor of the Van Cleve Crucifixion of New York, as well. For the genealogy of the Di Negro family, see Buonarroti, Angelo M, Alberi Genealogici di Diverse Famiglie Nobili (Genoa, Bibioteca Berio) ms. 1750, 506-07. 97. Doria 1991. 98. Stagno 2002, 82-83 99.The earliest felling date of the tree from which the panel is made (three boards from the same tree) is 1554, with a more plausible felling date between 1558…1560…1564 + x. With a minimum of two years seasoning and storage time, a creation date from 1556 on would be possible. Assuming a median of 15 added sapwood rings and 2 years seasoning, a creation date from 1562 on is possible (letter from Prof. Peter Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität Hamburg, December 18, 1998). 100. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 191-93; Cavelli Traverso 1997, 103. 101.Varni 1877, 12-17, documents VI,VII and VIII. 102. Parma 1997, 57. 103. De Tolnay 1957 (with the attribution to Brueghel the Elder); De Callatay 1965 (with the attribution to Cornelis). 104. Kränz 2003, 42, note 31. 105. Justi 1886: Bakker 2004, 122-23, 145. 106. On this issue, see Franz 1969, vol. 1, 92-97; Dunbar 1974-1980; Israels 1995; Egorova 1998: 107.The only known impression of the impressive and huge etching of the view of Genova (on five sheets of paper, 444 x 1663 mm), is in the Royal Library of Stockholm, see Haverkamp-Begemann 1969, 375-76, 393-94; Hollstein 2000, 124-30.

Journeymen and Servants: SixteenthCentury Employment Contracts with Painters from the Netherlands* Liesbeth M. Helmus Centraal Museum, Utrecht

On November 15, 1538, Michiel Gast appeared before a notary in Rome with a Rotterdammer named Laurentius to confirm the contents of an agreement.The document in question was an employment contract that laid down the rights and duties of both parties. Gast was going to work for a year in Laurentius’s workshop.The latter ‘wanted to have paintings made of all that he had in the way of works of art’ (al wat hy van consten heeft dat sal hij hem laeten contrefayten).1 This statement is important, for it indicates the type of work that Gast was being hired to do. He was not a pupil or an assistant, but he still seems to be expected to produce full-fledged paintings. Making works of art available probably meant providing models to be painted; these could be drawings or paintings to be copied for the free market.The contract stipulated that Gast had to work two full days a week until three o’clock in the morning, while on Sundays and religious holidays he was free to use the studio for his own purposes. Laurentius would compensate Gast’s services in kind, promising to keep him in ‘stockings and shoes’ (van cousen ende schoen) – that is, giving him room and board. Should either party breach the contract, a fine of thirty-five kronen would be imposed.The contract was retroactively effective as of November 1. It was signed by both parties and by Claudius de Valle, the notary on duty at the court of Rota.2 The text of this contract has been preserved in the form of a transcript by A. Bertolotti, an archivist who regularly published excerpts of documents in the Roman state archive.The art historian G. J. Hoogewerff (1884-1963), who earned his doctorate in 1912 with his study entitled Nederlandsche schilders in Italië in de XVIe eeuw (de geschiedenis van het Romanisme), re-examined in situ the material that Bertolotti published. However, he could not recover this contract of 1538, the earliest document that Bertolotti had disclosed with an additional translation in Italian.3 Without further explanation of Gast’s working hours, Hoogewerff erroneously noted that he had to work until six o’clock in the evening.4 He probably assumed that he was dealing with a slip of the pen, or an incorrect transcription of the original text. Working until three o’clock in the morning is, indeed, odd, given that one generally was active only in daylight. Whether Gast stayed on with Laurentius at the end of his one-year contract is not known. He was accepted as a free master in the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke in 1558,5 and thus must have returned home from Rome before this time. Gast’s age when he left for Rome is unknown, as is the date of his death.Van Mander did not include any biographical information in the few lines he devoted in 1604 to the life of the painter, but did note that Gast painted numerous ruins and vistas in Rome, combining these compositions with his own inventions.6 The only known monogrammed work by Michiel Gast is just such a painting (fig. 1),7 showing a city bordering on a bay set in a sweeping, mountainous landscape. In the foreground is a partially ruined gateway giving access to an equally dilapidated Roman circus. At the lower right corner of the panel is an inconspicuous depiction of Christ on his way to Emmaus, where Christ (in the middle with a nimbus) joins his two disciples (recognizable by their haloes).The entire scene is bathed in a ruddy evening glow. The Christ on the Way to Emmaus is signed ‘MG’ (in ligature) and dated 1577. This year functions as a terminus post quem for Gast’s date of death.8 Nothing is known with certainty about the Rotterdam painter Laurentius. He may be identical to a certain Laurens, JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

201

Fig. 1. Michael Gast, Landscape with the Journey to Emmaus, 1577. Utrecht, Centraal Museum, 11725, 21.3 x 28.4 cm.

who appears in a Roman document in the spring of 1550 concerning a quarrel with the Utrecht painter Anthonie Mor.9 While no other contracts with painters from the Netherlands who were employed by a colleague abroad are known, it must have been common practice to work in the studio of a colleague and fellow countryman. People sought each other out, helped one another and worked together. In his Schilder-boeck of 1604, Karel van Mander mentions several such instances. For example, after spending a year in Venice, Hendrick Cornelisz.Vroom ended up working for Valerius in Milan, who, according to Van Mander, was ‘a mediocre Netherlandish painter,’ (een slecht Nederlandtsch schilder).10 Not only abroad, but also at home in the Netherlands, the magnitude of workshops was expanding, which necessitated a division of labor.A well-run workshop with a large number of pupils and assistants generated a higher rate of production.11 There is one known contract from the Southern Netherlands comparable to Michiel Gast’s, namely an agreement dated November 13, 1498. It states that Hannekin van den Dijke was to serve the painter-illuminator Gerard Horenbout for four years,‘to work on the [manuscript] illuminations that Gerard sees fit to give him’ (omme te werkene van verlichte alzulc als hem Gheeraert te wercke gheven sal).12 Van den Dijke would receive room and board. Unlike Gast,Van den Dijke could only sell his own work and keep the proceeds with Horenbout’s permission. At least half of the total text is devoted to penalty clauses in the event that Van den Dijke would marry.Were he to marry within two years, he would be fined six pounds. In the third or fourth years, the amount was set at four pounds. 202

JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

Employment Contract or Apprenticeship Contract? Although neither agreement contains any specific reference to instruction, both are considered as apprenticeship contracts in the art-historical literature.For example,G.J.Hoogewerff interpreted the statement in the contract with Michiel Gast,‘…wanted to have paintings made of all that he had in the way of works of art’, as Laurentius making his expertise available to Gast.13 Similarly, on the basis of his contract, Hannekin van den Dijke is also almost always incorrectly called a pupil in the literature.14 However,an article on seventeenth-century apprenticeship contracts with easel painters, gold- and silversmiths, has revealed that – without exception – the contracts always mentioned the instruction the pupil was to receive.15This is also the case in the only extant Netherlandish apprenticeship contract from the sixteenth century. Dated September 21, 1502, it was concluded between the above-mentioned Gerard Horenbout and Heinric Heinricxsone. In unambiguous wording it is stipulated that Horenbout ‘has promised to teach what he knows about the art of illumination to the best of his ability’ (belooft heeft te leerne zulc als hij userende es, de conste van der verlichterien, ten besten dat hij Gheeraert zal connen).16 Horenbout gave the boy room and board and was paid an apprenticeship fee.A penalty clause prevented the pupil from leaving his master prematurely,in this instance within the set period of four years.Seventeenth-century apprenticeship contracts also contained articles regarding a pupil’s untimely departure.After all, it was anticipated that in the course of time the youngster would increasingly be able to contribute to the workshop’s production.With respect to Van den Dijke, the contract term and the penalty clauses relating to his possible marriage and the ensuing termination of the contract indicate that his productivity in Horenbout’s workshop was expected to increase. Perhaps he was not active as a pupil who still enjoyed the benefits of instruction, but as a more or less experienced journeyman (gezel).The word gezel generally meant nothing more than a person who associates with or accompanies someone else. However, within the context of craftsmen’s guilds the term more specifically designated an individual who, while no longer an apprentice or servant, had yet to reach the level of master or chief.17In the sixteenth century the term ‘servant’ (knecht) was used as a synonym for lad or young man.18 Other Employment Contracts with Painters The position of Gast and Van den Dijke can best be compared with that of painters who entered into the service of a cloister.19 However, written agreements between cloisters and painters are equally scarce. Only two examples are known, both dating from the sixteenth century. One is a contract that the Abbey of Egmond closed, and the other an agreement between the cloister of Averbode and a painter from Louvain. After working for the Abbey of Egmond for three years, Jan Joosten from Hillegom received an employment contract.20 He officially began on August 6, 1512, and was paid two Flemish pounds a year.21 This sum was intended for clothing and the like; the abbey would see to his room and board.The painter took his meals along with the lay brothers in the refectory. He also waited on tables, which apparently, as is literally described in the contract, was customary at the time.22 Although he would receive no remuneration if he fell ill, the abbey would take care of him. Evidently, the agreement was satisfactory to both parties because fourteen years later (Joosten was by then fifty-one years old), he was still living and working in the same abbey.23 In the books his name appears under the expense entry pro familia, the heading covering the amounts relating to live-in staff.24 In Averbode, the Louvain painter Anthonis van Huldenberge had to work for a trial period of six weeks.25 According to the contract dated June 25, 1521, in which the articles of his trial period were laid down, he would receive lodging, food and drink, and one stoter (two and onehalf stuivers) a day in pay.26 He acquitted himself well, and was given a year contract on October 1, 1521. During his service he was permitted to accept work outside of the cloister, but only JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

203

if he made up for the lost working time.The same applied to periods of illness. Regardless of its nature,Van Huldenberge had to compensate for every delay with additional working days. In contrast to Joosten who was allowed to dine with the brothers,Van Huldenberge had to eat in his own room, although he was expected to serve at table in the refectory when necessary. His annual wages were fifteen Rhenish guilders plus a tabbard, or if he so chose, five Rhenish guilders on top of his honorarium.27 Comparable information on the annual wage of a painter is lacking. It is possible, however, to convert an annual wage into a daily wage and subsequently compare that amount to the daily wages of painters and other craftsmen. Contracts at times made a distinction between the daily wages in the summer and winter. Because the days in the summer are longer than those in the winter, the pay in the summer was higher. In general, the winter period lasted three and onehalf months and the summer period eight and one-half.28 Sometimes a distinction was made between autumn and spring wages, which were set somewhere between the summer and winter rates.29 The daily wages of the sixteenth-century painters mentioned byVan Mander are those of the great masters,and as such are hardly comparable to those of Joosten andVan Huldenberge.Joachim Beuckelaer, for example, painted for a daily rate of one guilder, or one daalder, for his colleague Anthonie Mor, and Frans Floris occasionally worked for his pupils, receiving eighteen or twenty guilders a day.Floris's working day was short for the time.He began at nine o’clock rather than five and stopped around seven.30 According to Van Mander, however, he could accomplish a great deal in a minimum amount of time. Cornelis Molenaer worked for a daily wage of one daalder.31 From the following chronologically organized survey it would appear that the wages of the minor masters were substantially lower. In 1440 Arnold van Vorspoele in Louvain received a daily wage of four stuivers. In 1468 eight painters in the same city earned ten stuivers a day for the preparations of the wedding celebration of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York; yet three others (including an illuminator) received seven stuivers.32 Daniel de Rijke received twenty-three schellingen per day and his three compagnons (journeymen) or cnapen (servants) a daily wage of eight, six, and four schellingen, respectively, for the preparations of the abovementioned wedding. Jean Gygart van Doornik, a compagnon who worked for himself, received ten schellingen a day in Bruges in 1468.33 Around 1550-51 Maertyn, the painter at a building site in Delft, earned six stuivers a day.34 Govert van Schyck was paid seven stuivers daily for the seventy-eight days that he painted for the Carmelite Cloister in Schoonhoven in 1569 or 1570.35 Two master painters, Cornelis Claesz. and his son David Cornelisz., insisted on a daily wage of thirty-two stuivers in the year 1571. With the assistance of two apprentices (jongers), they painted in ninety-three days the six so-called summer months (April-September) on a wall in the gallery of a large orchard in The Hague.36 The information is scarce and spread over a long period of time, but it is clear that the daily wages in the examples mentioned above were always more than four stuivers, and in the mid-sixteenth century even around six stuivers. Comparison of the daily wages of Van Huldenberge and Joosten, the two painters with an employment contract, allows the following conclusions. During his trial period,Van Huldenberge agreed to work for one stoter, or approximately two and one-half stuivers, a day.37 In accordance with the annual contract he subsequently concluded, his annual wages were twenty Rhenish guilders, including five guilders for a tabbard.Around 1550, the year counted roughly 250 effective working days.Accordingly, assuming there were no unproductive days due to illness, his average daily wages came to two and one-quarter stuivers.38 He could increase his income by working outside of the cloister.That he did just that emerges from a payment dated April 25, 1522, for polychroming a statue of St. Brigitta in the chapel of Sterksel.39 Joosten, on the other hand, was not permitted to take on other work and earned less: 1.3 stuivers a day.40 204

JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

Clearly, the daily wages of painters without an annual contract were far higher.The same applied to other craftsmen as well.Around 1490 a carpenter affiliated with the Utrecht cathedral works earned four stuivers a day in the summer and three in the winter.41 The daily wages of a sawer who worked for the Haarlem church wardens in the summer of 1500 amounted to five stuivers, and in 1504 a mason working for the city of Leiden earned five stuivers a day.42 The city accounts of Amsterdam mention a wood carver who worked for three days for a daily wage of two Flemish schellingen in 1542.43 While the daily wages of Joosten and Van Huldenberge were the lowest of all, one wonders whether the remuneration was, in fact, as terrible as it seems at first sight.They were paid not just for a number of days, but hired for an entire year; and their annual wages were amplified with room and board. In the sixteenth-century, this remuneration in kind over and above annual wages amounted to roughly seventy-five to eighty percent of the total wages.44 If we increase the daily wages of the two painters in keeping with this percentage, then their income position turns out to be far more favorable than that of the above-mentioned fellow painters, as well as wood carvers, sawers, masons and carpenters.As a resident personnel member or provenier, each painter was given an amount only sufficient to acquire clothing and other items.This is more or less how it was formulated by Joosten’s patrons. He received an annual wage with which ‘he would provide himself with clothing and anything else he should need’ (hij hem selven besorgen sal van clederen ende van andere dat hem van noot sal wesen).45 The prove, in the oldest sense of a daily portion of food and drink, was supplied by the cloister.46 Working for a Fellow Painter or for a Cloister While there are clear similarities between the employment contracts of painters who worked for cloisters and those of Michiel Gast and Hannekin van den Dijke who worked for colleagues, there are also some significant differences. In the latter two contracts there is no mention whatsoever of daily or annual wages. Both painters working for colleagues, however, could work for themselves, but Joosten and Van Huldenberge could not. Gast was not required to turn over the proceeds from the paintings he made on Sundays and holidays; and if Horenbout gave his permission,Van den Dijke could also sell his own works.All received room and board, a distinct advantage that, in a financial sense, would have represented three-quarters of their wages. Requirement for Autograph Work When a painter no longer executed all of his paintings entirely on his own, but worked with journeymen, servants, pupils and assistants, it would seem reasonable for patrons to insist that important commissions be autograph works by the master. However, an investigation of Northern and Southern Netherlandish contracts for altarpieces dating between 1430 and 1576 reveals that contracts virtually never stipulated this. There are forty-three extant contracts containing commissions for the painting of an altarpiece.47 Sometimes, if the central section consisted of a carved sculptural group, the work involved not only the painting of the wings, but also polychroming the carved figures. Of the contracts with painters, only one includes an article concerning autography.This is the contract that the Bruges fish sellers closed on March 28, 1576, with Pieter Pourbus to paint an altarpiece for their chapel in the Sint Christoffelkerk in Bruges (figs. 2 and 3).48 The triptych was to be embellished with representations relating to fishing. In the contract, the scenes were indicated by means of the relevant biblical passages from the New Testament. Depicted on the central panel at the right was the calling of the disciples Simon (Peter),Andrew, James, and John (Matthew 4:18-22), who were fishing in the Sea of Galilee.To the left of this JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

205

Fig. 2. Pieter and Frans Pourbus, Triptych of the Bruges Fish Merchants,The Calling of Four Apostles and the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (middle panel); Jesus at the Sea of Tiberias (left wing); Finding the Fish with the Tribute Money (right wing), 1576. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 7416, 117 x 175 cm.

scene the patrons wanted a depiction of the miraculous draught of fishes (Luke 5:1-12). On the left and right wings were Christ appearing at the Lake of Tiberias (John 21:1-15) and Peter paying the silver coin to the receiver of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-26). This is the story in which Christ commands Peter to cast a hook in the sea and to use the silver coin found in the mouth of the first fish he catches to pay the temple tax. Finally, Saints John the Evangelist and Andrew were to be painted in grisaille on the exteriors of the wings. From the contract it emerges that Pourbus had presented a modello of the altarpiece to his patrons, which was approved by a theologian from Bruges. For his work, Pourbus would receive twenty Flemish pounds (120 Rhenish guilders) in three instalments.The delivery date was set for December 25, 1576. Should he be late, Pourbus was to refund the money he had received, but had to continue working. Within the context of this investigation it is important to note that the contract stipulated that Pourbus had to produce the painting himself, and could only be assisted by his son Frans Pourbus, a painter in Antwerp.49 In so far as is known, Frans was the only child of Pieter Pourbus and Anna Blondeel. By the time he went to study with the celebrated Frans Floris in Antwerp in 1564/65, he had probably already worked with his father for several years. Karel van Mander lavishes praise on the quality of Frans’s work and calls him the best painter ever to have come from the studio of Frans Floris.50When the contract was closed in 1576, Frans was in Antwerp. Four years earlier he had also registered as a citizen in Bruges.As his domicile he chose his parents’ house, and his father Pieter stood surety for him.51 Frans was probably responsible for the exterior of the triptych’s wings, which deviate stylistically from the rest of the altarpiece.52 A second commission stipulating autography may be reconstructed from another legal document, although the original text of the contract is lost. On January 27, 1520, a bailiff and aldermen heard a suit concerning a dispute between the Bruges Saint Francis Guild (guild of the fullers and cloth shearers) and the painter Albert Cornelis.53 According to the contract dated November 9, 1517, the altarpiece he was to paint was intended for the guild’s altar in the Sint Jacobskerk in Bruges. Cornelis had promised ‘to paint all of the nudes and the principal work himself, ably and artfully’ (zelve, metter handt, wel ende constich wercken alle de naecten ende 't principaele werc).The guild summoned Cornelis before the bailiff and aldermen because he had passed on part of the work to a subcontractor for eight Flemish pounds.The guild expected quality for the sum (thirty pounds groot) they were prepared to pay and therefore insisted on an autograph work. Moreover, the two-year delivery period had expired. Cornelis countered the charges as follows: first, the patron had not provided the agreed-upon payments, and moreover, the artist could not be reproached in any way with respect to the subcontracting,‘as he was not required 206

JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

Fig. 3. Pieter and Frans Pourbus, Triptych of the Bruges Fish Merchants, Saints John the Evangelist and Andrew (exterior wings), 1576. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 7416, 117 x 81 cm.

to paint anything other than the faces himself, which demanded the greatest skill and which he proposed making within a reasonable period of time’ (mids dat hy niet anders ghehouden en es zelve metter handt te makene dan de aenzichten, daer de meeste const an licht ende de welcke hy presenteerde te makene bynnen zekeren behoorlicken tyde). Evidently, the patron’s demand applied solely to the fleshcolored passages, and then just the most important ones. Only the faces of the figures, which indeed required the greatest mastery, are specified in the text. Nothing is stated regarding the other areas of flesh, such as the hands. The Bruges aldermen set a new delivery date, Easter of 1521. If this was not met, Cornelis forfeited six Flemish pounds, which he had to pay to the guild. On April 15, 1522, both parties again appeared before the aldermen, this time with Cornelis as the plaintiff. Even though the altarpiece had been ready for some time, it had yet to be collected by the guild. Moreover, Cornelis demanded payment of the twelve Flemish pounds the guild still owed him.The guild replied that according to the agreement, Cornelis was to have delivered the altarpiece to the church. Due to the expiration of the delivery date of Easter 1521, the guild was also exacting a fine of six Flemish pounds.The bailiff and aldermen finally decided that the guild had to collect the altarpiece and that, if the altarpiece was not done entirely in accordance with its wishes, they could indeed deduct six Flemish pounds from the money still owed the artist. Nothing more was said about the faces, or whether they were autograph or not. Written sources on the position and working circumstances of journeymen and servants in sixteenth-century painters’ workshops are exceptionally rare. From the two employment contracts that have come down to us – that of Michiel Gast and Hannekin van den Dijke, both painters in the service of a colleague – it appears that producing their own work outside of the contractually required activities within the workshop was an issue. Gast and Van den Dijke, in JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

207

contrast to painters who closed an employment contract with a cloister, received no daily or annual wages. Otherwise, their positions are comparable. Our notion that painters with an employer-employee relationship were working under poor conditions, because their wages were lower compared to that of other craftsmen, must be revised.54After all, these employment contracts included room and board, which meant that their total wages were significantly higher than that of their independently operating colleagues.

ABBREVIATIONS WNT

208

Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal,The Hague and Leiden, 1882-1998, 29 vols.

JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

NOTES

* This investigation of employment contracts with painters is part of my doctoral dissertation, Schilderen in opdracht. NoordNederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1450-1570, for the University of Amsterdam. See Helmus 1990, among others.This article was translated from the Dutch by Jennifer Kilian and Katy Kist,Amsterdam. 1. See Bertolotti 1880, 44; Hoogewerff 1932, 161. Haverkorn van Rijsewijk included the text of the contract in Obreen 1880/1881 (vol. 3). 2.According to Hoogewerff, Claudius de Valle was a native of the county of Vermandois, diocese of Cambrai. He is documented in Rome as of 1541 as ‘clericus coniugatus’ and was a member of Santa Maria dell’Anima; see Hoogewerff 1932, 161. 3. See note 1. 4. Hoogewerff 1932, 161 (note 3). 5. For admittance to the Antwerp guild, see Rombouts and Van Lerius 1961, vol. 1, 209. Dacos (Fiamminghi a Roma 1995, 195) asserts incorrectly that Gast became a master in that year. 6.Van Mander 1604, fol. 205, 40-44. 7. On the basis of stylistic comparison, N. Dacos attributed a second painting to Michiel Gast.This is the King David in a Landscape with Ruins; on panel, diameter 20.2 cm (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten). There is one known engraving by Gast with the Porta Latina, 128 x 225 mm. Inscribed in the upper border is: ‘Di M[aest]ro Michil Gast fiandroso’; see Dacos in Fiamminghi a Roma 1995, cat. no. 94, 195-196. For the attribution of Roman frescoes to Gast, see Dacos 1995b, 43-51. 8. Gast is mentioned by his brother Mathias in a letter dated November 9, 1575, written in Salamanca and, addressed to Juan Moreno (an assistant of the Duke of Alva). In it, Mathias notes that Michiel had almost completed the painting ‘del sitio de Roma en 1556’.Thieme and Becker 1907-50, vol. 13 (1920), 240. 9. This concerns a separately kept note written in Latin, which Bertolotti also recorded; see Hoogewerff 1932, 162. 10.Van Mander 1604, fol. 287v, 5-11. 11. Jan van Scorel was one of the first artists in the Northern Netherlands to run a complex, highly productive workshop. On Scorel’s workshop in Haarlem (1527-1530), see Faries 1998b and Faries and Helmus 2000, 8-11. On the organization of workshops in the Southern Netherlands between 1400 and 1530, see Campbell 1981, among others. 12.Van der Haeghen 1914, 29. 13. See Hoogewerff 1932, 161, and Dacos in Fiamminghi a Roma 1995, 195. 14. See Van der Haeghen 1914, 27; Calkins 1998, 52. Campbell 1981, 48, does interpret the contract as an agreement between a master and an assistant. 15. See De Jager 1990.

16. See Van der Haeghen 1914, 30; De Jager 1990. 17. See WNT 1882-1998, vol. 4 (1889), cols. 2178 (sub 1) and 2179 (sub 2). 18. See WNT 1882-1998, vol. 7 ii (1937), col. 4520; Campbell 1981. 19. One example is known of a painter who closed an employment contract with a king.The Utrecht painter Nicolaus (Clausz) Johansen, according to a contract dated May 20, 1598, was to work for six months in the service of Christian IV of Denmark (1577-1648). He received per month five daalders for food, thirty daalders for lodging, and a halb gewonlich Hoftkleid (which is probably clothing that one could wear daily at court). One daalder equalled thirty stuivers or one and one-half guilders.The artist would be separately reimbursed for the requisite pigments; see Schmidt 1917.As this is a contract with a king, it is left out of further consideration here. 20. On December 15, 1526, Joosten testified that he had lived and worked in the cloister for about seventeen years.This means that he had worked for the abbey since 1509; see Hof 1958, 120. 21. Hof (1958, 119-20) first published the text of the contract. 22.The text literally reads as follows:‘Ende sal dair mededienen als dat gewoenlichen is by hem luyden’; see Hof 1958, 120. 23. This emerges from a report by the committee of the governess dated December 15, 1526, about the election of Brother Willem van der Goes as abbot of Egmond; see ibid. 24. Ibid., 118, 121. 25. Gerits and Praem 1967, 212-14. 26. A stoter is the appellation of various coins worth two and one-half stuivers; see Van Gelder 1980, 270. 27.When he entered the service of Christian IV of Denmark, Nicolaus (Clausz) Johansen received an item of clothing; see note 19. 28. Scholliers 1960, 84. 29. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 20-22. 30. On the length of the working day, see Scholliers 1960, 91-92. 31.Van Mander 1604, fol. 238v, 21-22 (Joachim Beuckelaer), fol. 241v, 33-36 (Frans Floris), fol. 256v, 34-35 (Cornelis Molenaer). 32. Dirk Bouts 1975, 24. 33. Campbell 1981, 49. 34. Montias 1982, 20. 35. Lugard 1946, 107. 36. Moes 1896, 62. For jonger, see WNT (jonger in the fourth sense). 37. See note 26. 38. Periods of illness or unemployment are not taken into account. At the end of the sixteenth century the number of

JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

209

working days increased as a result of the marked decrease in the number of religious holidays; see Dirk Bouts 1975, 22 and 47; Noordegraaf 1980, 33-34; Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 21-22. In his investigation of the standard of living in Antwerp in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Scholliers arrived at a maximum of 264 possible working days, forty-nine free days and fifty-two Sundays a year. These numbers are applied to laborers working for a daily wage. For resident personnel, which had board and lodging, the number of working days will have been higher; Scholliers estimated three hundred; Scholliers 1960, 84-87, 95-96.The Rhenish guilder was the standard coinage in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Its value was greater than its derivative, the Carolus guilder. This was worth twenty stuivers. In the sixteenth century, the Rhenish guilder was used as a monetary unit of twenty-eight stuivers; see Van Gelder 1980, 268. Huldenberge thus earned (20 x 28) about 560 stuivers a year, assuming a total of 250 working days 2.24 stuivers a day. 39. Gerits and Praem 1967, 211 and 215. 40.The annual wages of Joosten amounted to two Flemish pounds or twelve Carolus guilders x 20 (= 240 stuivers). His daily wage, in that case, and based on 250 working days, would have been 0.96 stuiver. If the Flemish pound is equated to twelve Rhenish guilders x 28 (= 336 stuivers a year), his daily wage based on 250 working days would have come to 1.34 stuivers a day. See note 38. 41. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 27;Vroom 1969, 30. 42. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 82. 43.Van Biema 1905, 156. 44. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 13.When living in residence, the worker also had to be fed on Sundays and holidays, and in the winter period when there was less work. For the percentage, see Scholliers 1960, 95-96.

210

JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

45. Hof 1958, 119-20. 46. See WNT for the meaning of prove and prebende. 47. My forthcoming doctoral dissertation, Schilderen in opdracht. Noord-Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 14501570 (University of Amsterdam) will include a complete list of the contracts. 48.The original contract has been lost. For a complete transcription of the text, see Philippot 1973, 77. For the altarpiece, see also Van Puyvelde 1963 (as attributed to Jan van Elburch) and Huvenne 1984, 58-59 and 331 (document 107). 49.‘and, moreover, the same P. Pourbus is beholden to complete this and all that this involves with his own hand, promising to take only his son Frans Pourbus, now living in Antwerp, as his assistant and no one else, lest he commit fraud,’ en noch bovendien is den zelven P. Pourbusse ghehoudene dit met zyn handt en te vulmaeckene van al zulks als daer toebehoort, ten ware dat hy voor zyne mede hulpe naeme zyn zoone Franciscus Pourbusse die ’t Antwerpen als nu woont en niemant anders, al zonder fraude; Philippot 1973, 77. 50.Van Mander 1604, fol. 257v, 14-31. 51.Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 4, 170. 52. Philippot 1973, 83. 53.The documents were published by Weale 1863.Tamis investigated the extant central panel (still in the church), with infrared reflectography and distinguished three hands in the underdrawing. They clarify the case documents and afford insight into the genesis of the altarpiece; see Tamis 2000, with, on 673, an incorrect reference to the date of the legal proceeding: February 27, 1520, should be January 27, 1520. 54. Montias 1993, 1545.

Artists by Numbers: Quantifying Artists’ Trades in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp* Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters University of Ghent and Royal Museum of the Army and Military History, Brussels

Introduction When Karel van Mander wrote that Quinten Metsijs had not been apprenticed, he probably did not realize that the Liggeren, the famous membership lists of the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke, support his statement.1 Since then, everyone who has studied Antwerp art has turned to these lists, mostly in their published form, edited by Philippe-Felix Rombouts and Théodoor Van Lerius between 1864 and 1876.2 The original Liggeren, preserved in the Royal Academy in Antwerp,3 are unique documents for Antwerp's corporate history and corporate history in general, as most matriculation records have not been preserved.Traditionally, these records, which begin in 1453, have been used as a biographical source for Antwerp artists between the middle of the fifteenth century and the end of the Ancien Régime. More recently, some scholars have tried to quantify the enrollment of masters, suggesting that it is correlated to Antwerp's changing economic climate.4 No systematic quantitative analysis has been made of this archival source, however, which by its heuristic format lends itself very well to this type of research.5 As social historians have demonstrated, enrollment lists are primary sources in prosopographical research, which uses extensive quantitative analysis to create a collective biography describing the external characteristics of a population with common traits.6 This type of research has recently experienced a break-through due to the availability of powerful PCs, relational databases and statistical software.7 Statistical analysis of the lists of free masters and apprentices can give insight into the fluctuation in the number of workshops, their size and structure, and the differentiation of professions within the corporation.The corporate system in which art was created offered a structural framework for social mobility to its members. Statistical analysis of mastership admittance has recently provided additional important insights into the social mobility of other socio-professional groups.8 In the sixteenth century,Antwerp witnessed a demographic explosion.At the time, demography was one of the most important driving forces behind any development that can be traced, be it social, economic, or cultural.9 This paper will concentrate on two fundamental events in the lives of artists: the acquisition of the status of free master (establishing the workshop), and the acceptance of a first pupil (expanding the workshop). It focuses on the evolving accessibility of master’s status in the corporation, and on the changing possibilities of employing personnel in the organisation of the production process. Our working hypothesis is that both events are correlated to, if not strongly determined by, the demographic and micro-economic climate of the commercial metropolis,Antwerp. Method We propose here a suitable method for investigating the Liggeren statistically, and draw tentative conclusions. Restricting investigations to the period 1500-1579 enabled us to cope with an ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

211

overwhelming amount of data.10 First, we checked sample entries from the 1961 anastatic reprint of Rombouts and Van Lerius's edition of the Liggeren against the original register, and concluded that the edition is reliable.The editors’ annotations (such as the addition of professions), often based on other references in the same register, usually turned out to be correct.The printed edition was therefore suitable for our purposes. Optical character recognition software (OCR) scanned and converted to machine readable text the names in the annual lists of deans, newly-accepted free masters, apprentices, and (from 1543 on) masters’ sons who were accepted as free masters.11 Reading errors from the scans had to be corrected manually, observing the original orthography. Next, a macro was written to encode the texts, which were then imported into a relational database with records of archival references to sixteenth-century Antwerp artists, collectors and art objects.12 Each of the 2,638 entries was treated as a separate record. As in every prosopographical database, the next steps in processing the data were the most difficult. Each name had to be standardized and each record linked to a list of standardized names. A recurring problem with pre-Napoleonic names is inconsistent spelling.The links had to be made manually, checking each name with similar names.13 We also recorded professions (painter, glazier, wood sculptor, etc.) as well as the specific function in which the individuals were mentioned in a particular document (apprentice, free master, master’s son, teacher, etc.).All first names, including diminutives, were converted to the most common variant in present-day Flanders, (for example, we changed Coppen, Jacop, Jacques, and Jaket to Jacob; Broesken to Ambrosius and Melsen to Melchior).Toponyms were converted to the present-day orthography of the place to which they refer (van Bruessele to van Brussel). Patronyms were usually treated as middle names, unless the last name was missing, in which case they were converted to present-day forms (e.g. Janssone as Janssens). Nicknames or aliases were recorded as they appear in the documents. Unless we were able to fill in a missing name, missing names were substituted by ‘X’ followed by a unique number in order to ensure they would be counted like any other individuals.The names of well-known artists were often left in their original idiosyncratic form; variations were standardized to the variant which appears most often in the literature (for example, Hendrik van Wueluwe instead of Woluwe and Jan van Dornicke instead of Doornik). Unavoidably, the standardization of names created many homonyms.We checked these against doubles (standardized names originating from different spellings of an individual’s name) or real homonyms (different people with the same name), using Rombouts and Van Lerius’s index,14 and, in some instances, the names in the database of the Groningen Antwerp project.15 These references also allowed us to correct or add data. Lastly, we wrote queries to trace chronological inconsistencies in our database and individuals mistakenly linked to the same name, which in one case resulted in a date for apprenticeship following the date of obtaining mastership.These doubles have been corrected in the dataset. Other inconsistencies were still possible. Some people were recorded both as apprentice and free master in the same year (for example, the glazier Hubert Braeckman in 1544).16 Others were recorded as an apprentice more than once, although this seems to have been exceptional.17 The professions of apprentices were filled in according to that of the masters. In a few cases, women were recorded as ‘widow of ’ (weduwe van). Eventually, queries were written to question our dataset and to construct the tables and graphs presented here. Enrollment We have recorded the annual enrollment of all free masters and apprentices in the Liggeren for the years 1501 to 1579 (plate 1). Both nominal curves for enrollment are very erratic mainly 212

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

due to heuristic problems: the inscriptions were not always faithfully recorded.18 Evolving trends in enrollment are therefore better studied using running averages (over 5 years), which flatten out the erratic zigzag movement of the curves.The same remark regarding the graph in plate 1 can be made for the enrollment of master painters and their apprentices (plate 2). In the second graph, we concentrated on the figurative painters – those mentioned as painters, canvas painters, figure painters, model painters, watercolor painters – who constituted, numerically, the most prominent profession. The comparison between the running average of the enrollment of masters in general with that of apprentices in general shows the following trends (plate 3): during two periods (1505-12 and 1520-24) there was a surplus of apprentices; between 1521 and 1527 the enrollment of apprentices declines dramatically; and from 1525 onwards, their curve remains parallel to and beneath that of the masters. In the graph in plate 1, the number of masters also declines during the 1520s (albeit less sharply).There is a peak in 1535 (although it may not be significant).The increasing number of masters between 1546 and 1558 caused the most prominent peak of the century for all free masters.There is a sharp dip from 1558 to between 1564 and 1567, going below the levels of 1546 to the lowest levels ever recorded in the period under consideration. The lists do not have masters’enrollments for 1562, 1563, 1565 and 1566, a heuristic problem that results in a distortion. It is difficult to say whether the lack of inscriptions might be due to economic circumstances or to simple omission because of sloppiness (with names then recorded in the following years). The curves showing the running average enrollments of all masters and all master painters follow more or less the same pattern, even if the tops of the master painters’ running averages are less sharp.The master painters enrollment curve does not echo the peak reached by the curves of all masters in 1535.There is a boom in the enrollment of master painters in the second half of the 1540s until the 1550s, but again, it does not show the same intensity as the general enrollment.Although the general curve picks up considerably after the crisis of the 1560s, the painters curve does not. Like apprentices in general, painters' apprentices outnumbered the masters for two short periods: between 1504 and 1515, and in the second half of the 1530s.The running average enrollment of painters' apprentices is similar to the curve of all apprentices, but the peaks are flatter. In absolute terms, there are far fewer apprentices in the second half of the period. It is also interesting to note that the enrollment curve of apprentices describes a cyclical movement over twenty to twenty-five years.An apparent crash in enrollment in the 1560s might be due to a heuristic problem. Between 1543 (when first systematically recorded) and 1579, the enrollment of masters’ sons represents 23.7 percent of the total number of masters, and 29.7 percent of the painters.This is a good marker for the enrollment of local people.The curves for masters’ sons in general and that of the painters’ sons follow one another.The enrollment of masters’ sons in general increases from 1543 to 1551. After that year, it decreases; while masters in general continue to increase until 1558.The curve of painters’ sons corresponds much better to the trend set by master painters. Issues which demand further investigation include why the enrollment of apprentices in general declines dramatically in the 1520s, never again to reach the levels of the first two decades, as well as what the cyclical trend in the apprentices’ enrollment means. For the master painters, the absence of a peak parallel to the huge one of the late 1540s and 1550s for all masters is surprising, especially since painters constitute about one third of all the masters in the guild. If they are not responsible for the surge in enrollment, who is? One hint to the solution of this problem lies in the fact that neither the enrollment of painters nor that of ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

213

masters’ sons follows the upward trend of the enrollment of all masters; the latter even continues to rise for another seven years after the first two start to decline in 1551-52.This means that as a socio-professional group, painters are inclined to follow the behavior of the local Antwerp artisans. Consequently, the huge surge in the enrollment of masters in general must be atttributed mainly to immigrants. Figure 1.Table showing demographic development of Antwerp (after Kint) Year 1496 1526 1542-43 1568 1582-85

Inhabitants 47,000 55,000 84,000 105,000 84,000

It is difficult to quantify immigration, but some indications of the evolving size of the city are available (fig. 1).19 Antwerp skyrocketed in population from about 47,000 inhabitants at the end of the fifteenth century to 105,000 in 1568, making it the second largest city north of the Alps after Paris.The drastic increase started around 1526, when it rose with more than two thousand inhabitants per year until 1542, reaching about 84,000 inhabitants. After the crisis of the late 1560s, and mainly during that of the early 1580s, the population decreased due to emigration and expulsion. The numbers in fig. 1 demonstrate that our curves are primarily the result of the demographic evolution, which can also serve as an index for the economic climate.The curves show that a local pool of laborers was formed in the beginning of the century. In order to respond to the demand on the market, more apprentices were enrolled than new masters. However, the ‘small crisis’ of the 1520s resulted in a decline of inscriptions at all levels.When the city started to attract a constant influx of immigrants, new strategies had to be developed. Masters started to accept apprentices in more moderate numbers, as immigrants fulfilled the growing need for labor.The cyclical movement in the enrollment of apprentices suggests that their numbers were considerably controlled, probably by the board of the guild.The reason why the enrollment of painters corresponds better to that of the local masters’ sons than to the general trend may be because they were able to control their trade and market relatively better than other professions.Another, but not necessarily alternative explanation might be that the market for paintings had become saturated before the apex of immigration was reached. Other possible explanations are: that the immigration of painters was less drastic because their trade involved more skill and the potential of immigrants reached a maximum sooner than for most other trades in the guild; and that it was more expensive to set up business for painters than for other professions within the guild. As a result, the missing peak in the enrollment would hide a larger part of unregistered immigrant painters who were employed as journeymen. All these possible reasons are not mutually exclusive; they could all have contributed to the situation. A new systematic reconsideration of all the archival documentation on the corporation and immigration records is needed to support these assumptions.This perception of the development also raises questions about the quantity and the quality of the production of paintings and the ways the painters responded to the ever changing size of the markets. Professional Differentiation Our determination of professional differentiation is based not only on what is explicitly mentioned in the Liggeren, but also on what we know about individuals from other archival sources 214

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

collected in our database.20 We grouped ninety-three different professions 21 into fourteen categories, including a category for others, and one for unknowns (plate 4). Even though the amount of professional differentiation is large, many professions have a small number of members.The main categories are: figurative painters (thirty-five percent), printing and book related professions (thirteen percent), glass manufacturers (ten percent), and sculptors (eight percent).With the exception of the unknowns, the other professional categories that feature in the sample constitute six percent or less. Some of the trades were affiliated with other guilds, for example, the woodworkers with the joiners, the shopkeepers with the traders (meerseniers), and the blacksmiths with their guilds. Such people most likely obtained master’s status in the guild of Saint Luke in order to share privileges with other members. The professional categorization of the apprentices is less diversified (plate 5).The larger groups are the same as for the masters; however, their proportions are different: forty-two percent of the apprentices are figurative painters, fifteen percent work in the glass-related trades, nine percent as sculptors, and only six percent in printing; the other professional categories constitute four percent or less. Nineteen percent have an unknown profession. Figure 2.Table showing the top fifteen professions, 1547-64 (source: Liggeren)22 Profession Painters Unknown Glaziers Book binders Sculptors Book sellers Panel makers Clavichord makers Trunk makers Silversmiths Potters Canvas painters Gilders Antique sculptors Engravers

Individuals 149 69 34 18 16 15 14 12 11 10 10 10 10 9 8

Figure 3.Table showing the number of different professions (source: Liggeren) Years 1501-25 1525-35 1535-46 1546-58 1558-64 1564-79

Number of professions 19 21 31 48 49 46

During the cycle of increase and subsequent dramatic collapse in enrollment between 1547 and 1564, the most prominently represented professions were painters and glaziers; other professions were far less well represented (fig. 2).There is a remarkable trend in the evolution of the differentiation of professions for masters (fig. 3): in the years 1535 to 1546, when the number of masters dropped slightly in comparison to previous years, the number of different trades represented among these masters increased by about fifty percent to thiry-one. From 1546 to 1558 ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

215

this increased to forty-eight trades, a level that was maintained afterwards.The enormous increase in the enrollment of masters from 1546 to 1558 thus coincides with a remarkable increase in professional differentiation.23 As amply shown by the demographic evolution, during these years more immigrants than ever with a large number of different professions tried to enter Antwerp’s workforce. Evidently, the majority of masters were men. However, thirteen women were inscribed in the Liggeren for the period under consideration. Five of them were painters (Isabella Coffermans, Elisabeth Wouters, widow X, widow of Gillis van Everen, widow of Jan de Coninck), one a doll maker (wife of Jacob, the doll maker), one a playing card maker (widow Langanie), and lastly, one was an engraver (widow of Willem Lansman). Five women had unknown professions (Catharina van Keulen, Clara Cocks, wife of De Leeuw, Johanna Cuelle and Elisabeth Jansdr. Laureysen). Needless to say, many wives and widows continued the trade of their husbands even though their names were not inscribed in the Liggeren. Size of Workshops: Cumulative Distribution of Apprentices The size of the workshops can be studied by calculating the cumulative distribution of apprentices. Jean-Pierre Sosson introduced this method in 1970 in a groundbreaking article on the Bruges corporation of image-makers.24 First, the number of apprentices employed throughout the career of each master is counted and grouped by frequency, thus arriving at a list of masters who had no apprentice, and those who had one, two, and so forth.Although this number is thought to reflect the size of the workshop,it actually refers to the number of people employed in a workshop throughout its existence. Nonetheless, the number of apprentices is a reliable indication of size if we assume that most apprentices stayed in the workshop as journeymen for many years after their apprenticeship.The accessibility of mastership (discussed later) supports this assumption. Calculations to determine the cumulative distribution of apprentices involve calculating percentages, and then accumulating them in order to determine the mean. Next the number of masters is multiplied by the number of apprentices they employed, arriving thus at the number of apprentices grouped by the size of workshop they were trained in. Once again, percentages and cumulative percentages are calculated.These calculations were made for all free masters of the guild of Saint Luke and for painters only between 1500 and 1579 (figs. 5 and 7) and for the first half of the period (1500 to 1539) (figs. 4 and 6).Trends can be observed by comparing the latter data with those for the whole period.We did not divide the period 1500 to1579 into two equal periods to avoid the risk of counting a person twice whose career overlaps the two periods. Finally, the workshops were regrouped according to size, in order to facilitate the analysis (fig. 8). Figure 4.Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices, 1500-1539 (source: Liggeren)

216

Apprentice per master

Masters

%

cum %

Apprentices

%

cum %

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total

465 172 71 35 16 6 3 1 769

60.47 22.37 9.23 4.55 2.08 0.78 0.39 0.13

60.47 82.84 92.07 96.62 98.70 99.48 99.87 100

0 172 142 105 64 30 18 7 538

0 31.97 26.39 19.52 11.9 5.58 3.35 1.3

0 31.97 58.36 77.88 89.78 95.36 98.71 100

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

Figure 5:Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices, 1500-1579 (source: Liggeren) Apprentices per master 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total

Masters 1283 292 102 45 18 10 2 2 1754

% 73.15 16.65 5.82 2.57 1.03 0.57 0.11 0.11

cum % 73.15 89.79 95.61 98.18 99.20 99.77 99.89 100

Apprentices 0 292 204 135 72 50 12 14 779

% 0 37.48 26.19 17.33 9.24 6.42 1.54 1.80

cum % 0 37.48 63.67 81.00 90.24 96.66 98.20 100

Figure 6:Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices for painters, 1500-1539 (source: Liggeren) Apprentices per master Masters % cum % Apprentices % cum % 0 168 57.34 57.34 0 0 0 1 63 21.5 78.84 63 27.16 27.16 2 32 10.92 89.76 64 27.59 54.75 3 19 6.48 96.24 57 24.57 79.32 4 8 2.73 98.97 32 13.79 93.11 5 2 0.68 99.65 10 4.31 97.42 6 1 0.34 100 6 2.59 100 total 293 232

Figure 7.Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices for painters, 1500-1579 (source: Liggeren) Apprentices per master Masters % cum % Apprentices % cum % 0 425 67.68 67.68 0 0 0 1 118 18.79 86.47 118 33.62 33.62 2 47 7.48 93.95 94 26.78 60.40 3 23 3.66 97.61 69 19.66 80.06 4 8 1.27 98.88 32 9.12 89.18 5 5 0.8 99.68 25 7.12 96.30 6 1 0.16 99.84 6 1.71 98.01 7 1 0.16 100 7 1.99 100 total 628 351

Figure 8.Table showing development in the size of workshops (source: Liggeren) Apprentices per master General Painters 1500-1539 (%) 1500-1579 (%) 1500-1539 (%)

1500-1579 (%)

0 1 2-3 >3

67.6 18.8 11.1 2.4

60.5 22.4 13.8 3.4

73.1 16.6 8.4 1.8

57.3 21.5 17.4 3.7

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

217

From 1500 to 1539 more than sixty percent of the masters had no apprentice. Over the period as a whole, this statistic increases to seventy-three percent, and the workshops with one apprentice decrease from 22.4 percent to 16.6 percent.The same trend is visible in the workshops with two to three apprentices (decreasing from 13.8 percent to 8.4 percent) and with more than three apprentices (from 3.4 percent to 1.8 percent). For the painters, the same trends are found: there is an increase of painters without apprentices between the first period and the overall period (57.3 percent to 67.6). During this time, workshops with one apprentice decrease, albeit less drastically (from 21.5 percent to 18.8 percent), and painters’ workshops with two to three apprentices decrease as well (from 17.4 percent to 11.1 percent). What can be said about the large workshops that are usually associated with sixteenth-century Antwerp? Workshops with more than three apprentices were rare.The reduction in the size of workshops in general is less drastic than that of the painters’workshops. To give absolute numbers: between 1500 and 1579, only eleven masters in the guild of Saint Luke had a workshop that exceeded four apprentices.25 For the painters during the same period, only three had more than four apprentices. Between 1500 and 1539 and among all masters, six had a workshop with five apprentices, one with six, and only two with seven. For this same period, only one painter had five apprentices.26 Figure 9.Table showing development in the distribution of apprentices (source: Liggeren) Apprentices 1 2-3 >3

General 1500-1539 (%) 32 46 22.1

1500-1579 (%) 37.5 43.5 19

Painters 1500-1539 (%) 27.2 52.2 20.7

1500-1579 (%) 33.6 46.4 19.9

For apprentices, it is important to note that their number decreased in workshops of all sizes between the first and the whole period. For the table in fig. 9 the workshops are also regrouped according to relevant size: those with a single apprentice, those in workshop of two to three, and those in shops with more than three apprentices. During the entire period, eighty-one percent of all apprentices and eighty percent of painters’ apprentices worked in a workshop of one to three people.These numbers barely altered during the course of the century; however, their distribution did. Shops with single apprentices increased by 5.5 percent over those workshops with two and more. Painters’ shops with one pupil even increased by 6.4 percent at the expense of all the others.The very few workshops with more than three apprentices stayed more or less stable. Very large workshops were exceptional, and workshops with four or more apprentices scarcely existed. As has been demonstrated for Bruges in the late fifteenth century, one-person businesses increased due to economic crisis. Are we dealing here with a conscious strategy of artists-craftsmen against crisis? Does a similar trend in Antwerp half a century later have the same reason? In any case, this trend has to be taken seriously when studying specialization and the collaboration within and between workshops.The observations made here also make a strong case against what has erroneously been coined ‘mass production’. Professional Mobility: Intervals When we take the number of apprentices who never became free masters and correct this number with those who nevertheless are mentioned as teachers, we can calculate the number of people that remained journeymen – although some of them may have dropped out, died, or emigrated. As much as 80.7 percent of apprentices did not make it to the status of free master. For 218

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

observation (n=152)

Fig. 10. Graph showing the interval between beginning apprenticeship and beginning free mastership.

observation (n=94)

Fig. 11. Graph showing the interval between obtaining mastership and accepting an apprentice for painters, 15001579.

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

219

observation (n=252)

Fig. 12. Graph showing the interval between obtaining mastership and accepting a first apprentice.

observation (n=126)

Fig. 13. Graph showing the interval between beginning apprenticeship and beginning free mastership for painters.

220

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

painters, this number is lower (72.7 percent), a percentage that is slightly higher than those calculated for Tournai and Bruges in the fifteenth century.27 For the apprentices who did become free masters, we can determine the interval between the beginning of their apprenticeship and the time they obtained the status of free master (fig. 10). Determining the average interval throughout the century can reveal whether the accessibility of mastership in the guild of Saint Luke changed. For most of the 152 masters used for this assessment, it took between five and fifteen years to become a master – that is, the time of their apprenticeship together with an indeterminate number of years spent as journeymen. (The actual duration of an apprenticeship cannot be determined precisely.28) After setting out the intervals on a scatter diagram, the trend line shows a slight increase of about nine to eleven years.The same calculation can be made for ninety-four painters (fig. 11). For them, the accessibility of master’s status increased slightly as well: from about eight to ten years. The same calculations can be made for the interval between obtaining mastership and accepting a first apprentice for 252 masters (fig. 12).The latter marks the moment when a master has enough confidence in his professional future that he starts to invest in manpower in order to increase or at least rationalize his productivity.The scatter diagram shows that accepting a first apprentice occurred within the first ten years of the workshop's existence. It became significantly more difficult to do this as the century progressed, the interval evolving from an average of three to about thirteen years.The trends indicating that an increasing number of masters chose to work alone, and that the number of pupils decreased as the century progressed, are all symptoms of the same phenomenon. The trend in the case of the painters is similar, even though the regression line runs somewhat steeper: the interval evolved from about two to fifteen years (fig. 13).These calculations also make it clear that, in the beginning of the century, it was more difficult to become a master than to expand one’s workshop. As the century progressed, the accessibility of mastership became only slightly more difficult; expanding the shop, on the other hand, became increasingly hard to realize, hence the increase of one-person businesses. The social and economic pressure of immigrants on the organization and structure of Antwerp workshops was an important factor in the phenomena we have observed here.To determine the number of immigrants working as free masters, we first add the teachers who were not enrolled as free masters to masters explicitly mentioned as free masters. From this sum, we substract both the masters’ sons and those masters who were apprenticed in Antwerp.This adds up to the number of individuals who immigrated in Antwerp to become masters. No less than seventy-eight percent of the people working as free masters and 69.7 percent of the painters in the guild of Saint Luke were immigrants. Conclusions Guicciardini’s statement that Antwerp counted about 300 painters in 1568 is still difficult to verify.29 The main obstacle to verifying this count is that the analytical methods used here study data from a period in which three generations succeeded one another. Nowhere is it possible to make a cross-section for one particular year, or for a number of particular years that could be compared.Therefore, the challenge is to complete the biographical data for as many individuals as possible, and to convert our dataset in such a fashion that it becomes suited for event history analysis.

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

221

NOTES

* The research for this paper was conducted as part of the NWO-sponsored project, Antwerp Painting Before Iconoclasm: a Socio-Economic Approach (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), supervised by Molly Faries and Maximiliaan P.J. Martens. 1.Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, fols. 215-215v. 2. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76. 3. Antwerp, Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten, Oud Archief, Liggeren van de Sint-Lucasgilde, 1453-1616, no. 70 (3).

19. See note 10.

4. See, for instance, the attempts by Kervyn de Meerendre 1973, 147-55; van Miegroet and de Marchi 1999, 83.

20.We also have assumed that apprentices take on the profession of their masters.

5. See codicological analysis by Van de Velde 1973, 252-77.

21. People with more than one profession are counted for each of their professions separately. Thus, eighty individuals were counted at least twice, sometimes even three times. Most combinations of professions are closely related, such as glazierglass painter or printer-engraver.

6. Definition based on De Ridder-Symoens 1991, 95-117 (esp. 96). 7. Goudriaan et al. 1995. 8. Dambruyne 1996, 73-120. 9. Boumans and Craeybeckx 1947, 394-405; Boumans 1948, 1-11;Van Roey 1975, 5-108; Soly 1986, 84-92;Van der Wee and Materné 1993, 19-31; Kint 1996, 23-46; Limberger 2001, 39-62. 10. In our forthcoming book, we will expand the sample with the periods 1453-1499 and 1580-1600.We consciously avoided choosing historically significant cut-off dates, in order to avoid bias in our sample. 11.The integrated OCR option of HP PrecisionScan LTX software was used for this purpose. 12.This database, called Antwerp Painting before Iconoclasm, was set up by the authors using Microsoft Access 97 in July, 2000, as a source-oriented system. On July 4, 2003, it contained 7068 records. 13.The authors wish to thank Myriam Carlier (University of Ghent, Dept. of Medieval History) for discussing these issues and providing us with a copy of unpublished materials for her course,‘Methodologie van de geschiedenis, module Prosopografie’. 14. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 707-92 15. For this database, see note 12. 16. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 149-50. 17. Between 1500 and 1579, we recorded six cases: Jan Bouwens in 1504 and 1507, Cornelis Geerts in 1508 and 1516, Nicolaas van Brugge in 1516 and 1522,Adriaan Pieters in 1521 and 1523, Gillis Cornelis in 1532 and 1535, and Hans Schrivers in 1551 and 1558. See Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 60, 67, 69, 86, 87, 98, 100, 103, 118, 125, 177 and 210.

222

18. Carl Van de Velde demonstrated that the entries for the first eighty years cannot possibly be authentic; see note 6 above and Van de Velde 1975b, 420-21. He showed that the watermark of the paper used in the entire volume dates from about 1520-30; that the introduction to the register (starting on fol. 1) was written by a clerk whose activity is still recorded as late as 1561, and that folios 8v to 88v (i.e. the entries of 1453 up to 1531) were written by the same hand with the same ink. In other words, all those entries were copied from an older, now lost list, and consequently, as copies, they have to be treated cautiously.

ARTISTS BY NUMBERS

22. In these years, 507 masters enrolled, representing seventy-five different professions. 23. Some thought must also be given to the fact that heuristically, the professions may have been inscribed in greater detail in certain periods than others. Similar calculations have not been made for the apprentices, as there is no such peak in their enrollment. 24. Sosson 1970, 91-100. Some of his conclusions have been questioned by Montias 1990, 358-73, esp. 368. Both Max Martens and Wim Blockmans have attempted to refine this method; see Martens 1992, 45-49; Blockmans 1995, 14-15. 25. Ateliers with seven apprentices include the the wood and antique carver,Wouter van Elsmaer, and the glass maker, Pieter van Ollem.Ateliers with six apprentices include the glass painter and maker, Aart Ortkens van Nijmegen; ateliers with five apprentices include the painters Christiaan van de Queeckborne II, Hendrik Thonis and Maarten van Cleve, the wood carver Wouter van Dale, the glass painter Dirk JacobssoneVellert, and the glass maker Simon van Dale I, the mirror maker Victor Tant, and the goldsmith Gerard Bufken. 26. It should be clear that these calculations are made as of 1500 only; apprentices enrolled before that date are not counted. 27. Campbell 1976, 188-98; Martens 1992, 45-46. 28. According to the 1442 statutes of the Antwerp Saint Luke’s Guild, the duration of the apprenticeship was set at four years; see Van der Straelen 1855, 7, art. 1. However, whether this was a minimum time, and whether this duration was strictly adhered to, is highly questionable. 29. Guicciardini 1625, 113.

Bibliography

Abramowski, Paul. Gotische Altäre der Danziger Marien-kirche. Berlin, 1927. Ainsworth, Maryan W. Bernart van Orley as a Designer of Tapestry. Ph.D. dissertation.Yale University, 1982. _____.‘New Insights into Joos van Cleve as a Draughtsman’. In Essays in Northern European Art presented to Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann on his sixtieth birthday. Doornspijk, 1983. [Ainsworth 1983a] _____. ‘Underdrawings in Paintings by Joos van Cleve at The Metropolitan Museum of Art’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IV. L’attribution en peinture apport du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and Dominique Hollanders-Favart, 161-67. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983. [Ainsworth 1983b] _____. ‘Schäufelein as Painter and Graphic Artist in the Visitation’. In Metropolitan Museum Journal 22 (1987), 135-40. _____.‘Bernart van Orley: Peintre-inventeur’. In Studies in the History of Art 24 (1990), 4164. _____. Gerard David: Purity of Vision in an Age of Transition. New York, 1998. _____.‘Commentary:An Integrated Approach’. In Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads:A Critical Look at Methodologies. Edited by Maryan Ainsworth, 106-21. New York, 2001. _____.‘Was Simon Bening a Panel Painter?’ In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols, 1-26. Leuven, 2002. _____.‘Diverse patterns pertaining to the crafts of painters or illuminators: Gerard David and the Bening Workshop’. In Master Drawings 41(2003), 240-65. Ainsworth, Maryan W. and Molly A. Faries. Northern Renaissance Paintings:The Discovery of Invention.The Saint Louis Art Museum Bulletin 18 (1986). Ainsworth, Maryan W. and Keith Christiansen, eds. From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of

Art. Exh. cat., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. New York, 1998. Alexander, Jonathan J. G. Medieval Illuminators and their Methods of Work. New Haven and London, 1992. Alfonso, Luigi.‘La fondazione della Casa delle Missioni di Fassolo in Genova’. In Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria 12 (1972), 13154. Algeri, Giuliana.‘1440-1460: la Liguria, il mondo fiammingo e la ‘cultura Mediterranea’’. In La pittura in Liguria: Il Quattrocento. Edited by Giuliana Algeri and Anna De Floriani, 161-224. Genoa, 1991. _____. ‘Testimonianze e presenze fiammighe nella pittura del Quattrocento’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 3958. Genoa, 1997. Alizeri, Federigo. Notizie dei professori del disegno in Liguria dalle origini al secolo XVI.Vol. 2. Genoa, 1873. _____. Notizie dei professori del disegno in Liguria dalle origini al secolo XVI.Vol. 3. Genoa, 1874. Alte Meister. Catalogue, Staatsgalerie Stuttgart. Stuttgart, 1992. Andrews, Christine Geisler. ‘The Boucicaut Masters’. In Gesta 41 (2002), 29-38. Avril, François.‘Trois manuscrits napolitains des collections de Charles V et de Jean de Berry’. In Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 127 (1969), 291-328. _____.‘Un enlumineur ornemantiste parisien de la première moitié du XIVe siècle: Jacobus Mathey (Jaquet Maci?)’. In Bulletin Monumental 129 (1971), 249-64. _____.‘Pour l’enluminure provençale: Enguerrand Quarton, peintre de manuscrits’. In Revue de l’Art 35 (1997), 9-40. Avril, François, and Nicole Reynaud, eds. Les manuscrits à peintures en France 1440-1520. Exh. cat., Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Paris, 1993. Backhouse, Janet, and Yves Giraud. Pierre Sala. Petit livre d’amour: Stowe MS 955, British BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Library, London. Facsimile: Commentary Volume. Lucerne, ca. 1994. Baetens, Roland.‘De Zuidelijke Nederlanden en de handel op de Baltische ruimte (17e eeuw)’. In The Interactions of Amsterdam and Antwerp with the Baltic Region 1400-1800. Edited by Johanna Maria van Winter, 59-71. Leiden, 1983. Bakker, Boudewijn. Landschap en wereldbeeld van Van Eyck tot Rembrandt. Bussum, 2004. Balis, Arnout. ‘Working it out: Design, Tools and Procedures in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Flemish Art’. In Concept, Design, and Execution in Flemish Painting (1550-1700). Edited by Hans Vlieghe,Arnout Balis, and Carl Van de Velde, 129-51.Turnhout, 2000. Bambach, Carmen C. Drawing and Painting in the Italian Renaissance Workshop:Theory and Practice, 1300-1600. Cambridge, UK, 1999. Beck, Colette.‘La Nation Genoise à Anvers dans la première moitié du 16e siècle’. In Atti del congresso internazionale di studi storici: Rapporti Genova-Mediterraneo-Atlantico nell’età moderna. Edited by Raffaele Belvederi, 213-23. Genoa, 1983. Beets, Nicolaas.‘De tentoonstelling van NoordNederlandsche schilder- en beeldhouwkunst vóór 1575’. In Onze Kunst 25 (1914), 85-88. Belloni,Venanzio. Penne, pennelli e quadrerie. Genoa, 1973. _____. Scritti e cose d’arte genovese. Genoa, 1988. Bergmans, Simone. ‘Jan van Amstel, dit Jean de Hollande’. In Revue d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art 26 (1957), 25-36. _____.‘Le problème Jan van Hemessen, monogrammiste de Brunswick. Le collaborateur de Jan van Hemessen. L’identité du monogrammiste’. In Revue Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art 24 (1955), 133-57. Bermejo, Elisa. ‘Pinturas inéditas de Pieter Coecke, conservadas en España’. In Archivo Espagnol de Arte 54 (1981), 113-41. Bertolotti,A. Artisti belgi ed olandesi a Roma nei secoli XVI e XVII: notizie e documenti raccolti negli archivi Romani. Florence, 1880. Bevers, Holm. ‘The Antwerp Sketchbook of the Bles Workshop in the Berlin Kupferstichkabinett’. In Herri met de Bles: Studies and Explorations of the World Landscape Tradition. Edited by Norman E. Muller, Betsy J. Rosas224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

co, and James H. Marrow, 39-50. Princeton, NJ, and Turnhout, 1998. Bial/ostocki, Jan.‘New observations on Joos van Cleve’. Oud Holland 70 (1955), 121-29. Binski, Paul and Stella Panayotova, eds. The Cambridge Illuminations. 10 Centuries of Book Production in the Medieval West. Exh. cat., Fitzwilliam Museum and University Library, Cambridge. London, 2005. Blockmans,Willem Pieter.‘The Creative Environment: Incentives to and Functions of Bruges Art Production’. In Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges:An Interdisciplinary Approach. Edited by Maryan Wynn Ainsworth, 4-15. New York and Turnhout, 1995. Boccardo, Piero.‘Fonti d’archivio per una storia degli arazzi a Genova’. In Studi di storia delle arti 5 (1983-85), 113-31. _____. Andrea Doria e le arti: committenza e mecenatismo a Genova. Rome, 1989. _____. ‘Dipinti fiamminghi del secondo Cinquecento a Genova: il ruolo di una collezione Balbi’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 159-75. Genoa, 1997. Boccardo, Piero and Clario Di Fabio.‘Mercato, collezionismo e connoisseurship a Genova fra Restaurazione e Unità d’Italia, e la raccolta d’arte di Odone’. In Odone di Savoia 1846-1866: Le collezioni di un principe per Genova. Edited by Laura Tagliaferro, 171-80. Exh. cat., Palazzo Ducale, Genoa. Milan, 1996. Boccardo, Piero and Lauro Magnani.‘La Committenza’. In Il palazzo dell’Università di Genova: Il collegio dei Gesuti nella Strada dei Balbi. Edited by Roberto Masiero et al., 47-88. Genoa, 1987. Boccardo, Piero, ed. L’Età di Rubens: dimore, committenti e collezionisti Genovesi. Exh. cat., Palazzo Ducale, Genoa. Genoa, 2004. Boccardo, Piero and Clario Di Fabio, eds. Ritorno a palazzo, dipinti e arazzi nell’Appartamento del Doge. Exh. cat., Palazzo Ducale, Genoa. Genoa, 1994. Bock, E., and J. Rosenberg. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Die Zeichnungen der alten Meister im Kupferstichkabinett: Die Niederländischen Meister. 2 vols. Berlin, 1930-31. Bogdanowicz, Stanislaw. St. Mary’s Church in Gdansk. Dülmen, 1995.

Boggero, Franco.‘Argento americano e argentieri alemanni’. In Argenti genovesi da parata tra Cinque e Seicento. Edited by Franco Boggero and Farida Simonetti, 48-59. Turin, 1991. Borchert,Till H.‘Some Remarks on the Workshop Practice in Paintings of the IsenbrantGroup’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La Peinture et le laboratoire: Procédé, Méthodologie,Applications. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 65-76. Leuven, 2001. Borggrefe, Heiner,Thomas Fusenig, and Barbara Uppenkamp, eds. Tussen stadspaleizen en luchtkastelen: Hans Vredeman de Vries en de Renaissance. Exh. cat., WeserrenaissanceMuseum Schloß Brake, Lemgo, and Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp.Antwerp, 2002. Born,Annick,‘Apport à l’étude du dessin sousjacent et pratiques d’atelier du Maître de 1518’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’atelier. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 189-97. Louvain-laNeuve, 1993. Boumans, René. ‘L’évolution démographique d’Anvers (XVe -XVIIIe siècles)’. In Bulletin de Statistique 34 (1948), 1-11. Boumans, René and Jan Craeybeckx. ‘Het bevolkingscijfer van Antwerpen in het derde kwart der XVIe eeuw’. In Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 60 (1947), 394-405. Bousmanne, Bernard. Item a Guillaume Wyelant aussi enlumineur.Turnhout, 1997. _____.‘Le deuxième volume des Chroniques de Hainaut (Bruxelles, KBR ms. 9243), manuscrit ‘non Parfait’ ou commande de prestige?’ In Les Chroniques de Hainaut. Edited by Christiane Van den Bergen-Pantens, 75-82.Turnhout, 2000. Braudel, Ferdinand. La Mediterranée et le Monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II.Paris,1949. Brausewetter, Artur. St. Marien in Danzig. Danzig, 1928. Brekka,Pamela Merrill.‘An Early Netherlandish Adoration of the Magi’. In Record of the Art Museum Princeton University 59 (2000), 56-61. Bruijnen,Yvette. ‘Fruit and Vegetables: New Information on the Workshop Practice of Pieter Aertsen’. In Oud Holland 108 (1994), 120-26.

_____.‘The Master of Saint Michael:A Newly Established Group of Paintings by an Artist in the Orbit of Bernard van Orley’. In Oud Holland 115 (2001/2), 79-110. Buijnsters-Smet, Leontine. Jan Massys: een Antwerps schilder uit de zestiende eeuw. Zwolle, 1995. Buijsen, Edwin. ‘De Intocht in Jeruzalem als onderdeel van een Antwerps Passieretabel: een poging tot reconstructie’. In Uitgelicht 5. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, de Intocht in Jeruzalem, retabelfragmenten in diaspora, tijdelijk weer bijeen. Edited by H. van Wegen, 10-20. Maastricht, 2000. _____.‘De zoektocht naar de betekenis van het geschilderde landschap’. In Panorama op de wereld: het landschap van Bosch tot Rubens. Edited by P. Huys Janssen, 43-63. Exh. cat., Noord Brabantsmuseum,‘s-Hertogenbosch.‘s-Hertogenbosch and Zwolle, 2001. Burin, Elisabeth. Manuscript Illumination in Lyons 1473-1530.Turnhout, 2001. Butler, Marigene H., and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. ‘The Examination of the MilanTurin Hours with Infrared Reflectography: A Preliminary Report’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 71-76. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989. Byrne, Donal.‘Manuscript Ruling and Pictorial Design in the Work of the Limbourgs, the Bedford Master, and the Boucicaut Master’. In Art Bulletin 66 (1984), 118-36. _____.‘An Early French Humanist and Sallust: Jean Lebègue and the Iconographic Programme for the Catiline and Jugurtha’. In Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 49 (1986), 41-65. Calkins, Robert G.‘Stages of Execution, Procedures of Illumination as Revealed in an Unfinished Book of Hours’. In Gesta 17 (1978), 61-70. _____. Distribution of Labor:The Illuminators of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves and their Workshop. Philadelphia, 1979. _____.‘Gerard Horenbout and his Associates: Illuminating Activities in Ghent, 1480-1521’. In In Detail: New Studies of Northern Renaissance Art in Honor of Walter S. Gibson. Edited by Laurinda S. Dixon, 49-67.Turnhout,1998. BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Campbell, Lorne. ‘The Art Market in the Southern Netherlands in the Fifteenth Century’. In Burlington Magazine 118 (1976), 18898. _____.‘The Early Netherlandish Painters and their Workshops’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque III. Le problème Maître de Flémalle-van der Weyden. Edited by Dominique Hollanders-Favart and Roger Van Schoute, 43-60. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981. _____. The Early Flemish Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen. Cambridge, 1985. _____. ‘Bosch. Christ Mocked (The Crowning with Thorns), NG 4744’. In Le dessin sousjacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation. Edited by Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, 2936. Leuven, 1999. _____. ‘Beuckelaer’s The Four Elements: Four Masterpieces by a Neglected Genius’. In Apollo (February 2002), 40-46. Campbell,Thomas P.‘Pope Leo X’s Consistorial ‘letto de paramento’ and the Boughton House Cartoons’. In Burlington Magazine 138 (1996), 436-45. _____, with contributions by Maryan W. Ainsworth et al. Tapestry in the Renaissance: Art and Magnificence. Exh. cat., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. New York, 2002. Caracciolo, Maria Teresa. ‘Le voyage à Rome du temps des ‘Fiamminghi’: la route française et l’étape à Lyon’. In Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608. Edited by Nicole Dacos, 23-40. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Bruxelles, February 24-25, 1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento (1997). Cardon, Bert. Manuscripts of the Speculum Humanae Salvationis in the Southern Netherlands, ca. 1410 - ca.1470. Leuven, 1996. _____.‘The Portfolio of a Bruges Miniaturist in the Mid-Fifteenth Century’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 317-55. Leuven, 2002. Carroll, Jane. The Paintings of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen. Ph.D. dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1987. Carasso-Kok, Marijke, ed. Geschiedenis van Amsterdam: een stad uit het niets.Amsterdam, 2004. 226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Caswell, Jean. ‘Two Manuscripts from the Chroniques II Workshop: Chroniques de HainautVolume II and the Morgan-Mâcon Golden Legend’. In Revue Belge d’archéologie et de l’Histoire de l’Art 62 (1993), 17-45. Cavanna Ciappina, Maristella.‘Di Negro, Giacomo’. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Vol. 40, 138-39. Rome, 1991. Cavelli Traverso, Carla. ‘Da Provost a Massys’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 83-110. Genoa, 1997. Cavelli Traverso, Carla, ed. Primitivi Fiamminghi in Liguria. Genoa, 2003. Cecci,Allessandro and Antonio Natali, eds. L’officina della maniera: varieta e fierezza nell’arte fiorentina del Cinquecento fra le due repubbliche, 1494-1530. Exh. cat., Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.Venice, 1996. Ceninni, Ceninno. Het handboek van de kunstenaar: ll Libro dell’Arte. Translated by H. van der Bossche and H.Theuns.Amsterdam and Antwerp, 2002. Cennini, Cennino. Il Libro dell’Arte:The Craftsman’s Handbook.Translated by D.V.Thompson. New York, 1954. Cinquième centenaire de l’imprimerie dans les anciens Pays-Bas 1e. Exh. cat., Bibliothèque royale Albert Ier, Brussels. Brussels, 1973. Cockshaw, Pierre.‘Jean Wauquelin: documents d’archives’. In Les Chroniques de Hainaut ou les Ambitions d’un Prince Bourguignon. Edited by Christiane van den Bergen-Pantens, 3749.Turnhout, 2000. Cockshaw, Pierre, and Frédérique Johan.‘Modèle et copie: l’exemple des manuscrits Bruxelles, ms 9650-52 et Cologne, cod. Bodmer 160’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 401-34. Leuven, 2002. Conway, William Martin. Literary Remains of Albrecht Dürer. Cambridge, 1889. Costantini, Claudio. La Repubblica di Genova nell’età moderna.Turin, 1978. Crépin-Leblond,Thierry. Livres du connétable: La Bibliothéque d’Anne de Montmorency. Exh. cat., Écouen, Musée national de la Renaissance and Musée Condé, château de Chantilly. Paris, 1991. Dacos, Nicole.‘Tommaso Vincidor: un élève de Raphaël aux Pays-Bas’. In Relations artistiques

entre les Pays-Bas et l’Italie à la Renaissance: Études dédiées à Suzanne Sulzberge. Études d’histoire de l’art 4 (1980), 61-99. _____. ‘Raphaël et les Pays-Bas: l’École de Bruxelles’. In Studi su Raffaello. Edited by Micaela Sambucco Hamoud and Maria Letizia Strocchi, 611-23.Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi, Urbino and Florence, April 6-14, 1984. Urbino, 1987. _____.‘Per vedere, per imparare’. In Fiamminghi a Roma 1508/1608. Under the direction of Nicole Dacos and B.W. Meijer, 17-34. Exh. cat., Palais des Beaux Arts, Brussels, and Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Rome. Brussels and Rome, 1995. [Dacos 1995a] _____. Roma quanta fuit: tre pittori fiamminghi nella Domus Aurea. Rome, 1995. [Dacos 1995b] _____. ‘Cartons et dessins raphaélesques à Bruxelles: l’action de Rome aux Pays-Bas’. In Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608. Edited by Nicole Dacos, 1-22.Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Bruxelles, February 24-25, 1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento (1997). Dambruyne, Johan. ‘Sociale mobiliteit en status in het zestiende-eeuwse Gentse ambachtswezen’. In Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent 50 (1996), 73-120. De Boodt, Ria, Myriam Serck-Dewaide et al. Le retable d’Oplinter/ Het retabel van Oplinter. Scientia Artis.Vol. 1. Brussels, 1999. De Callatay, Édouard.‘Cornelis Massys, paysagiste, collaborateur de son père et son frère et auteur de l’album Errera’. In Bulletin des Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts 14 (1965), 5658. De Corte, Érik.‘Triptyque Anversois de la passion d’après Dürer: la part d’influence des gravures sur le dessin sous-jacent’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 147-51. Louvain-laNeuve, 1989. De Dijn, C. G.‘Het Begijnhof Sint Truiden en de oude muurschilderingen in de kerk’. In Kunst en Oudheden in Limburg 4. Sint Truiden, 1974. De Góis, Damião. Crónica do felicissimo rei D. Manuel. 4 vols. Lisbon, 1566. Reprint, Coïmbra, 1955.

De Hamel, Christopher. Medieval Craftsmen: Scribes and Illuminators. London, 1992. De Jager, R.‘Meester, leerjongen, leertijd: een analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse NoordNederlandse leerlingcontracten van kunstschilders, goud- en zilversmeden’. In Oud Holland 104 (1990), 69-111. De Negri, Emmina et al., eds. Le Ville Genovesi. Genoa, 1981. De Ridder-Symoens, Hilde.‘Prosopografie en Middeleeuwse geschiedenis: een onmogelijke mogelijkheid?’. In Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent, n.s. 45 (1991), 95-117. De Schryver,Antoine,‘Prix de l’enluminure et codicologie: le point comme unité de calcul dans Le Songe du vieil pélérin et Les faictz et gestes d’Alexandre (Paris, B. N. fr. 9200-9201 et fr. 22547)’. In Miscellanea codicologica F. Masai dedicata. Edited by Pierre Cockshaw, Monique-Cécile Garand, and Pierre Jodogne, Vol. 2, 470-73. Ghent, 1979. De Smedt, H. J.,‘De verspreiding der Brabantse retabels in oostelijke richting’. In Mededelingen van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring voor Leuven en omgeving. De Brabantse Stad 28 (1965), note 20. De Tolnay, Charles.‘Une vue d’Anvers de Pierre Brueghel l’Ancien?’ In Gazette des Beaux-Arts 49 (1957), 73-80. De Vos, Dirk. Hans Memling, het volledige œuvre. Antwerpen, 1994. Defoer, Henri.‘De marteldood van de H. Lucia door de Meester van de Kruisafneming uit de Verzameling Figdor’. In Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 46 (1998), 265-74. Defoer, Henri L. M., Anne S. Korteweg, and Wilhelmina C. M.Wüstefeld, eds. The Golden Age of Dutch Manuscript Painting. Stuttgart and Zurich, 1989. Dekeyzer, Brigitte, Peter Vandenabeele, Luc Moens, and Bert Cardon. ‘The Mayer van den Bergh breviary (Ghent-Bruges, early sixteenth century). Hands and Pigments’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 303-16. Leuven, 1999. Delaissé, L. M. J., ed. Le Siècle d’or de la miniature flamande: Le mécénat de Philippe le Bon. Exh. cat. Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels, BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam, and Bibiliothèque Nationale, Paris. Brussels, 1959. Delmarcel, Guy. ‘De Passietapijten van Margareta van Oostenrijk (ca. 1518-1524): nieuwe gegevens en documenten’. In Revue Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art 61 (1992), 127-60. Devisscher, H. ed. De uitvinding van het landschap: van Patinir tot Rubens 1520-1650. Exh. cat., Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,Antwerp.Antwerp, 2004. Di Fabio, Clario.‘Dai Van Deynen ai De Wael: i fiamminghi a Genova nella prima metà del Seicento’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 203-28. Genoa, 1997. [Di Fabio 1997a] _____.‘Due generazioni di pittori fiamminghi a Genova (1602-1657) e la bottega di Cornelis de Wael’. In Van Dyck: Grande pittura e collezionismo a Genova. Edited by Susan Barnes, Piero Boccardo et al., 82-104. Exh. cat., Palazzo Ducale, Genoa. Milan, 1997. [Di Fabio 1997b] _____.‘Gerard David e il polittico di San Gerolamo della Cervara’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 59-82. Genoa, 1997. [Di Fabio 1997c] _____.‘Una protagonista della scena culturale Genovse tra 1950 e 1970: Caterina Marcenaro fra casa e musei’. In Genova e il collezionismo del Novecento: studi nel centenario di Angelo Costa. Edited by Anna Orlando, 92-106. Turin, 2000. Dijkstra, Jeltje. Origineel en kopie: een onderzoek naar de navolging van de Meester van Flémalle en Rogier van der Weyden. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Amsterdam, 1990. Dik, Joris, Arie Wallert, and Yvonne Szafran. ‘The Technical Examination of Joachim Beuckelaer’s The Miraculous Draught of Fishes’. In Preprints of the Eleventh Triennial Meeting Edinburgh, Scotland, ICOM Committee for Conservation. Edited by Janet Bridgland, 34854. Edinburgh, 1996.

228

Doria, Giorgio.‘Conoscenza del mercato e sistema informativo: il know-how dei mercanti finanzieri genovesi nei secoli XVI e XVII’. In La repubblica internazionale del denaro tra XV e XVII secolo. Edited by Aldo De Maddalena and Hermann Kellenbenz, 57-121. Bologna, 1986. _____.‘Un doge banchiere e la costruzione di un palazzo’. In Palazzo Di Negro in Banchi. Edited by Giorgio Doria, Ezia Gavazza, and Giovanni Pellegrino, 7-22. Genoa, 1991. Drost, Willem. Das Jüngste Gericht des Hans Memling in der Marienkirche zu Danzig.Vienna, 1941. Dudok van Heel, S. A. C.‘De blauwe keizerskroon op het wapen van Amsterdam’. In Amstelodamum 80 (1993), 1-21. Dürer, Albrecht. Dürer’s Record of Journeys to Venice and the Low Countries.Translated and edited by Roger Fry. New York, 1995. Dumoulin, Jean, and Jacques Pycke.‘Comptes de la paroissse sainte Marguerite de Tournai au quinzième siècle: documents inédits relatifs à Roger de la Pasture, Robert Campin, et d’autres artisans tournaisiens’. In Les grands siècles de Tournai (12e-15e siècles). Edited by Albert Châtelet, Jean Dumoulin, Jean-Claude Ghislain et al., 279-320. Tournai and Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993. Dunbar, Burton. ‘The Landscape Paintings of Cornelis Massys’. In Bulletin des Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 13-14 (1-3) (1974-1980), 97-124. _____.‘The Question of Cornelis Massys’ landscape collaboration with Quinten and Jan Massys’. In Jaarboek van het Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1979), 125-41. _____, with contributions by Molly Faries, Anne Lowenthal, Peter Klein, and Roger Ward. The Collections of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art: German and Netherlandish Paintings 1450-1600. Kansas City and Seattle, 2005.

Dirk Bouts en zijn tijd. Realization and presentation by J. Crab. Exh. cat., Sint Pieterskerk, Leuven. Leuven, 1975.

Dunkerton, J. ‘Observations on the handling properties of binding media identified in European painting from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries’. In Bulletin du Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique 27 (2000), 28792.

Doehaerd, Renée. Études anversoises: documents sur le commerce international à Anvers, 14881514. 3 vols. Paris, 1962-63.

Egorova, Xenia.‘A Painting by Cornelis Massys in Moscow’. In Jaarboek van het Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1988), 179-91.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ehmke, Ruth.‘Ein Tafelbild der Geburt Christi in der Ursulakirche zu Köln’. In Jahrbuch der Rheinischen Denkmalpflege 27 (1967), 223-51. Eikema Hommes, Margriet. Discoloration in Renaissance and Baroque Oil Paintings. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Amsterdam, 2002. Eisler, Colin. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Early Netherlandish Painting. London, 1989. Emmens, Jan Ameling.‘ ‘Eins Aber ist Nötig’ Zu Inhalt und Bedeutung von Markt- und Küchenstücken des 16. Jahrhunderts’. In Album Amicorum J. G. van Gelder. Edited by J. Bruyn et al., 93-110.The Hague, 1973. Ertz, K.,A.Wied, K. Schütz et al. Die Flämische Landschaft 1520-1700. Exh. cat.,Villa Hügel, Kulturstiftung Ruhr Essen, and Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna. Lingen, 2003. Esch,Anke.‘La production de livres de Jacquemart Pilavine à Mons: Nouvelles perspectives’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 641-68. Leuven, 2002. Ewing, Dan C. ‘Marketing Art in Antwerp, 1460-1560: Our Lady’s pand’. In Art Bulletin 72 (1990), 558-84. Fabri, Ria. De 17de-eeuwse Antwerpse Kunstkast: Typologische en Historische Aspecten. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 53(53). Brussels, 1991. _____. De 17de-eeuwse Antwerpse Kunstkast: Kunsthistorische Aspecten.Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 55(57). Brussels, 1993. Faider, Paul, and Pierre van sint Jan. Catalogue des manuscrits conservés à Tournai: Bibliothèques de la ville et du Séminaire. Gembloux, 1950. Falkenburg, R. L. Joachim Patinir: the landscape as an image of the pilgrimage of life.Amsterdam, 1998. Faries, Molly.‘Underdrawings in the Workshop Production of Jan van Scorel: A Study with Infrared Reflectography’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 26 (1975), 89-228. _____. ‘Some remarks on the inter-relationships of underdrawings, drawings, and prints’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque V. Dessin sous-jacent et autres techniques graphiques. Edited by Roger van Schoute and

Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 144-57. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983. _____.‘The First Examples of Titles in Underdrawing’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 145-46. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989. [Faries 1989a] _____. ‘The Underdrawing of Jan Provoost’s Last Judgment and Related Paintings’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 137-44. Louvain-laNeuve, 1989. [Faries, 1989b] _____. Studying Underdrawings: Notes for the Cologne Workshop. Unpublished Reader. Bloomington, IN 1991. _____.‘Master and Pupil: a North-Netherlandish example’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’atelier. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 101-11. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993. _____.‘Jan van Scorel’s Jerusalem Landscapes’. In In Detail: Studies of Northern Renaissance Art in Honor of Walter S. Gibson. Edited by Laurinda S. Dixon, 113-34. Turnhout, 1998. [Faries 1998a] _____.‘Die Werkstatt Jan van Scorels in Haarlem’. In Künstlerwerkstätten der Renaissance. Edited by Roberto Cassanelli, 297-309. Milan, 1998. [Faries 1998b] _____. ‘Reshaping the Field: The Contribution of Technical Studies’. In Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads. Edited by Maryan W. Ainworth, 70-105. New York, 2001. _____.‘Technical Studies of Early Netherlandish Painting:A Critical Overview of Recent Developments’. In Recent Developments in the Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Painting: Methodology, Limitations, and Perspectives. Edited by Molly Faries and Ron Spronk, 1-37.Turnhout and Cambridge, MA, 2003. Faries, Molly and Martha Wolff.‘Landscape in the early paintings of Jan van Scorel’. In Burlington Magazine 138 (1996), 733-94. Faries, Molly, and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. ‘Covering-Over or Covering-Up: Some Instances of Re-Use of Panels in Paintings after Hieronymus Bosch’. In Le dessin sousBIBLIOGRAPHY

229

jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XI. Perspectives. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete with Anne Dubois, 7-17. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997. Faries, Molly and Liesbeth Helmus. The Madonnas of Jan van Scorel (1495-1562). Exh. cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht. Utrecht, 2000. Faries, Molly and Ron Spronk, eds. Recent Developments in the Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Panel Painting: Methodology, Limitations, and Perspectives. Turnhout and Cambridge, MA, 2003. Farmer, John David. Bernard van Orley of Brussels. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation. Princeton University, 1981. _____.‘How One Workshop Worked: Bernard van Orley’s Atelier in Early Sixteenth-Century Brussels’. In A Tribute to Robert A. Koch: Studies in the Northern Renaissance. Edited by Barbara T. Ross and John O. Hand, 21-42. Princeton, 1994. Farquhar, James Douglas. Creation and Imitation: The Work of a Fifteenth-Century Manuscript Illuminator. Fort Lauderdale, 1976. _____. ‘The Manuscript as a Book’. In Pen to Press: Illustrated Manuscripts and Printed Books in the First Century of Printing. Edited by Sandra Hindman and James Douglas Farquhar, 11-99. College Park, MD, 1977. Fiamminghi a Roma 1508/1608. Under the direction of Nicole Dacos and B.W. Meijer. Exh. cat., Palais des Beaux Arts, Brussels, and Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Rome. Brussels and Rome, 1995. Filedt Kok, Jan Piet.‘Underdrawing and other technical aspects in the paintings of Lucas van Leyden’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 29 (1978), 1-184. _____. ‘The development of graphic style in 15th century Northern printmaking and the graphic style of the master of the Amsterdam cabinet in his drypoints, drawings, miniatures, glass-paintings and the underdrawing of his paintings’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque V. Dessin sou-jacent et autres techniques graphiques. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 163-70. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983. _____. ‘Een Biblia pauperum met houtsneden van Jacob Cornelisz. en Lucas van Leyden gereconstrueerd’. In Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 36 (1988), 83-116. 230

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_____.‘Over de Calvarieberg:Albrecht Dürer in Leiden, omstreeks 1520’. In Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 44 (1996), 335-59. Filedt Kok, J. P., ed. Netherlandish Art in the Rijksmuseum. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam. Zwolle, 2000. Filedt Kok, J. P. et al., eds. Kunst voor de Beeldenstorm. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. The Hague, 1986. Firmenich-Richartz, Eduard. ‘Der Meister des Todes Mariae:sein Name und seine Herkunft’. In Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 5 (1894), 18794. Floerke, Hanns. Studien zur niederländischen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte, die Formen des Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in die Niederlanden vom 15.-18. Jahrhundert. Munich, 1905. Fontana Amoretti, Maria.‘Fonti per una storia della fortuna critica e collezionistica dei primitivi fiamminghi in Liguria’. In Studi di storia delle arti 7 (1991-94), 11-29. _____. ‘La fortuna critica dei primitivi fiamminghi a Genova’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 299-313. Genoa, 1997. Fontana Amoretti, Maria, and Michiel Plomp, eds. Repertory of Dutch and Flemish Paintings in Italian Public Collections.Vol. 1. Florence, 1998. Fransen, H., ed. Michaelis Collection, the Old Town House, Cape Town. Catalogue of the Collection of Paintings and Drawings. Zwolle, 1997. Franz, Heinrich Gerhard. Niederländische Landschaftsmalerei im Zeitalter des Manierismus. 2 vols. Graz, 1969. _____. ‘Landschaftsbilder als kollektive Werkstattschopfungen in der flamischen Malerei des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts’. In Kunsthistorisches Jahrbuch Graz 18 (1982), 165-81. Friedländer, Max J. Early Netherlandish Painting. 14 vols. Leiden and Brussels, 1967-76. Original edition Die altniederländische Malerei. 14 vols. Berlin and Leiden, 1924-37. _____. ‘Pieter Coecke van Alost’. In Jahrbuch der Königlich Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 38 (1917) 73-94. Funck-Hellet, Charles. Composition et nombre d’or dans les oeuvres peintes de la Renaissance: proportion-symétrie-symbolisme. Paris, 1950.

Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola: interventi di restauro, 2. Exh. cat., Galleria di Palazzo Spinola, Genoa. Genoa, 1980. Genaille, Robert. ‘Au temps d’Erasme et de Luther. L’oeuvre de Jan van Amstel, Monogrammiste de Brunswick’. In Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België 23/29 (1974-80), 65-96. _____.‘Le paysage dans la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas de Patinier à Bruegel’. In Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1987), 143-83. Gerits,T.J. and O. Praem.‘Aantekeningen over de Leuvense schilder Anthonis van Huldenberge en zijn werken voor de Abdij van Averbode in de XVIe eeuw’. In Mededelingen van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige kring van Leuven en omgeving 7 (1967), 209-15. Gibson, W. S. ‘Mirror of the Earth’:The World Landscape in Sixteenth-Century Flemish Painting. Princeton, 1989. Gilissen, Léon. Prolégomènes à la codicologie: recherches sur la construction des cahiers et de la mise en page des manuscrits médiévaux. Ghent, 1977. Giltaij, Jeroen.‘Perspectiven: Saenredam en de architectuurschilders van de 17e eeuw’. In Perspectiven: Saenredam en de architectuurschilders van de 17e eeuw. Organized by Jeroen Giltaij and Guido Jansen, 8-18. Exh. cat., Museum Boijmans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam. Rotterdam, 1991. Gimenez-Frechina, J. Triptico de la Pasion del Museo de Bellas Artes de Valencia: obra recuperada del trimestre agosto 1998. Valencia, 1998. Gnoli, Umberto.‘Domenico Alfani’. In Enciclopedia Italiana. Edited by Giovanni Gentile and Calogero Tumminelli,vol.2,383.Rome,1929. Góis, Damião de. Crónica do felicissimo rei D. Manuel. 4 vols. Lisbon, 1566. Reprint, Coïmbra, 1955. Goris, J.A. Études sur les colonies marchandes méridionales à Anvers de 1488 à 1567. Louvain, 1925. Gorse, George L. The Villa Doria in Fassolo, Genoa. Ph.D. dissertation. Brown University, 1980. Goudriaan, Koen, K. Mandemakers, J. Reitsma and P. Stabel, eds. Prosopography and Computer: Contributions of Mediaevalists and Modernists on the Use of Computer in Historical Research: Studies in Urban Social, Economic and Political

History of the Medieval and Modern Low Countries. Louvain and Apeldoorn, 1995. Grendi, Edoardo. La repubblica aristocratica dei genovesi. Bologna, 1987. _____. I Balbi: una famiglia genovese tra Spagna e Impero.Turin, 1997. Grosso, Orlando.‘La Genova del Cinquecento in un dipinto di Giovanni Massys’. In Genova 17 (1937), 17-21. Guicciardini, Lodovico. Description de touts les Pays-Bas. Amsterdam, 1625. Hahn, S. and P. B. Steiner. Gottesbild-bilder des Unsichtbaren. Exh. cat., Diözesanmuseum für Christliche Kunst des Erzbistums, München und Freising. Regensburg, 1997. Hand, John O. Joos van Cleve: The Early and Mature Paintings. Ph.D. dissertation. Princeton University, 1978. _____. Joos van Cleve:The Complete Paintings. New Haven, CT, and London, 2004. Haverkamp-Begemann, Egbert. ‘The Spanish Views of AntonVan Den Wyngaerde’. In Master Drawings 7 (1969), 375-99. _____. The Robert Lehman Collection: Fifteenthto Eighteenth-Century European Drawings. Princeton, 1999. Haverkorn van Rijsewijk, P. ‘Nederlandsche kunstenaars te Rome’. In F. D. O. Obreen, Archief Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis.Vol. 3, 207-17. Rotterdam, 1880/1. Heers, Jacques. Gênes au XV siècle. Paris, 1961. Held, Julius. Dürers Wirkung auf die Niederländische Kunst seiner Zeit.The Hague, 1931. _____. ‘Notizen zu einem niederländischen Skizzenbuch in Berlin’. In Oud Holland 50 (1933), 273-88. Helmus, Liesbeth M.‘Drie contracten met zilversmeden’. In Buscoducis: Kunst uit de Bourgondische tijd te ‘s-Hertogenbosch. De cultuur van late middeleeuwen en renaissance. Bijdragen. Edited by A. M. Koldeweij, 473-81, 609-11. Maarssen and The Hague, 1990. Hendrikman, Lars.‘Joachim Patinir: heilige of handelaar?’ In Akt 67 (1995), 4-13. _____.‘Bernard van Orley’s Washington Diptych - Art Historical and Technical Observations’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La Peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e Siècle. Practiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres methods d’investigation. EditBIBLIOGRAPHY

231

ed by H.Verougstraete and R.Van Schoute, 63-72. Leuven, 1999. Heppner,A.‘Ingebrande Merkteekens (‘Brandmerken’) en hun waarde voor de kennis van schilderijen’. In Oud-Holland 57 (1940), 17280. Heydenreich, Gunnar. ‘Artistic Exchange and Experimental Variation: Studies in the Workshop Practice of Lucas Cranach the Elder’. In Painting Techniques, History, Materials, and Studio Practice. Contributions to the Dublin I.I.C. Congress, September 7-11, 1998. Edited by Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, 106-11. London, 1998. Hillar, Imgard, Horst Vey, and Tilman Falk. Katalog der deutschen und niederländischen Gemälde bis 1550,Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Cologne, 1969. Hindman, Sandra and James Douglas Farquhar, eds. Pen to Press: Illustrated Manuscripts and Printed Books in the First Century of Printing. College Park, MD, 1977. Hinz, A. Gedrängte Beschreibung der Ober-Pfarrkirche zu St. Marien in Danzig. Danzig, 1855. Hirsch,Theodor. Ober-Pfarrkirche von St. Marien in Danzig in ihrer Denkmälern und in ihnen Beziehungen zum kirchlichen Leben Danzigs überhaupt.Vol. 1. Gdansk, 1843. Hof, J. ‘De abdij van Egmond en de schilderen beeldhouwkunst in het begin der XVIde eeuw’. In Oud Holland 73 (1958), 117-27. Hoffmann, Godehard. ‘Der Annenaltar des Adrian van Overbeck in der Propsteikirche zu Kempen.’ In Spätgotik am Niederrhein: rheinische und flämische Flügelaltäre im Licht neuer Forschung, 117-285. Cologne, 1998. [Hoffman 1998a] _____. ‘Das Antwerpener Retabel in St. Petri in Dortmund’. In Westfalen 76 (1998), 26-51. [Hoffmann 1998b] _____.‘Infrarotuntersuchung von Tafelmalerei – Aufnahmesysteme vor Originalwerken im Vergleich’. In Denkmalpflege im Rheinland: Rheinisches Amt für Denkmalpflege 15 (1998), 151-57. [Hoffmann 1998c] Hollstein, F.W.H. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700.Vol. 12. Amsterdam, 1955. _____. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700.Vol. 5. Amsterdam, 1968. 232

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_____. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700.Vol. 55. Rotterdam, 2000. Honig, Elizabeth A. Painting and the Market in Early Modern Antwerp. New Haven, CT, 1998. Hoogewerff, Godefridus J. ‘Documenten betreffende Nederlandsche schilders te Rome omstreeks het midden der XVIe eeuw’. In Mededeelingen van het Nederlandsch Instituut te Rome 2 (2nd series).The Hague, 1932. _____. De Noord-Nederlandsche Schilderkunst. 5 vols.The Hague, 1936-47. _____.‘Pittori fiamminghi in Liguria nel secolo XVI’. In Commentari 12 (1961), 176-94. Hoogewerff, Godefridus J., ed. Vlaamsche Kunst en Italiaansche Renaissance.Antwerp and Amsterdam, 1934. Hütt,Wolfgang. Albrecht Dürer 1471 bis 1528: das gesamte graphische Werk. Herrsching and Munich, 1971. Huvenne, Paul. ‘Pieter Pourbus en de nagedachtenis aan Margareta van Oostenrijk’. In Feestbundel bij de opening van het Kolveniershof en het Rubenianum, 107-16.Antwerp, 1981. _____. Pieter Pourbus Meester-Schilder 15241584. Exh. cat., Memlingmuseum, Bruges. Bruges, 1984. Huys Janssen, P. Panorama op de wereld: het landschap van Bosch tot Rubens. Exh. cat., Noord Brabants museum, ’s-Hertogenbosch. ’s-Hertogenbosch and Zwolle, 2001. Inglis, Erik. Commentary on The Hours of Mary of Burgundy: Codex Vindobonensis 1857,Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. London, 1995. Israëls, Machtelt.‘Von Job en een muzicant naar De Terugkeer van de Verloren Zoon van Cornelis Matsys: een transformatie natuurwetenschappelijk onderzocht’. In Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 43 (1995), 113-34. Ivins,W.‘Notes on Three Dürer Woodblocks’. In Metropolitan Museum Studies 2 (1929-30), 102-11. Jacobowitz, E. and S. Stepanek. The Prints of Lucas van Leyden and his Contemporaries. Exh. cat., National Gallery of Art,Washington, DC. New Haven, 1983. Jacobs, Lynn F.,‘The Marketing and Standardization of South Netherlandish Carved Altarpieces: Limits on the Role of the Patron’. In Art Bulletin 71 (1989), 208-29.

_____. Early Netherlandish Carved Altarpieces, 1380-1550: Medieval Tastes and Mass Marketing. New York, 1998. Jansen, Linda. ‘The Last Supper as a Starting Point for the Study of the Workshop Practices in the Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et autres études. Edited by Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, 16574. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA, 2003. Jenni, Ulrike, and Ursula Winter. Das Skizzenbuch des Jaques Daliwe: Kommentar zur Faksimileausgabe des Liber Picturatus der Deutschen Staatsbibliothek. Berlin, 1987. Joannides, Paul. Michel-Ange Élèves et Copistes: Inventaire Général des Dessins Italiens.Vol. 6. Paris, 2003. Judson, J. Richard.‘Jan Gossaert and the New Aesthetic’. In The Age of Bruegel: Netherlandish Drawings in the Sixteenth Century. Edited by J. O. Hand, J. R. Judson,W.W. Robinson, and Martha Wolff, 13-24. Exh.cat., National Gallery of Art,Washington, DC.Washington, DC, 1986. Justi, Carl.‘Altflandrische Bilder in Spanien und Portugal: Joachim Patinier und Quentin Metsys’. In Zeitschrift für Bildenden Kunst 21(1886), 93-95. Kaemmerer, L. ‘Ein bezeichnetes Werk des Meister vom Tode der Maria’. In Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 11(1890), 150-60. Kervyn de Meerendre, M. ‘L’évolution de la corporation des peintres, vitriers et batteurs d’or de Bruxelles au XVIIe siècle’. In Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain 6 (1973), 147-55. Kint,A. The Community of Commerce: Social Relations in Sixteenth Century Antwerp. Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, 1996. Kirby, Jo. ‘The price of quality: factors influencing the cost of pigments during the Renaissance’. In Revealing Renaissance Art. Edited by Gabriele Nehers and Rupert Shepherd, 19-42. Hampshire (Hants), UK, 2000. Kirby, Jo,Ashok Roy, and Marika Spring.‘The Materials of Underdrawing’. In Art in the Making: Underdrawings in Renaissance Painting. Edited by David Bomford, 26-37. Exh. cat., National Gallery, London. London, 2002-03. Klein, Peter.‘Dendrochronological Analysis of Works by Hieronymus Bosch and his Fol-

lowers’. In Hieronymus Bosch: New Insights Into his Life and Work. Edited by J. Koldeweij, B.Vermet, and B.Kooij, 121-31. Ghent, 2001. _____. ‘Dendrochronological Analyses of Netherlandish Paintings’. In Recent Developments in the Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Panel Painting: Methodology, Limitations, and Perspectives. Edited by Molly Faries and Ron Spronk, 65-81.Turnhout and Cambridge, MA, 2003. [Klein 2003a] _____.‘Dendrochronological Analyses of Panel Paintings of Joos van Cleve and his Workshop’. In Indagini tecniche sulle opere genovesi di Joos van Cleve. Edited by Farida Simonetti et al., 39-45. Florence, 2003. [Klein 2003b] Kloek,Wouter.‘De tekeningen van Pieter Aertsen en Joachim Beuckelaer’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 40 (1989), 129-66. Knappe, Karl-Adolf. Dürer:The Complete Engravings, Etchings, and Woodcuts. New York, 1965. Koch, Robert A.‘A Rediscovered Painting:The Road to Calvary by Herri met de Bles’. In Herri met de Bles: Studies and Explorations of the World Landscape Tradition. Edited by Norman E. Muller, Betsy J. Rosasco, and James H. Marrow, 9-21. Princeton, NJ, and Turnhout, 1998. Koerner, Joseph.‘Albrecht Dürer:A SixteenthCentury Influenza’. In Albrecht Dürer and his Legacy:The Graphic Work of a Renaissance Artist. Edited by Giulia Bartrum, 18-38. London, 2002. Koldeweij, A. M. ‘Hieronymus Bosch’. In Van de Hoed en de Hand, Betekenis en Functie van de Middeleeuwse Kunst, 29-35. Utrecht, 1995. Komanecky, Michael. Copper as Canvas:Two Centuries of Masterpiece Paintings on Copper 1575-1775. Exh. cat., Phoenix Art Museum, Phoenix, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, and the Mauritshuis,The Hague. The Hague, Phoenix, and Oxford, 1999. Korteweg,Anne S., ed. Schatten van de Koniklijke Biblotheek. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum Meermanno-Westreenianum and Koninklijke Bibliotheek,The Hague.The Hague, 1980. Kränz, Regine. ‘Zur Restaurierung der Flora von Jan Massys’. In Verführungskunst, im Blickfeld: Jan Massys ‘Flora’. Edited by Karsten Müller, 45-49. Exh. cat., Kunsthalle, Hamburg. Hamburg, 2003. Krekel, Christoph and Andreas Burmester.‘Das Münchner Taxenprojekt’. In Restauro, BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Zeitschrift für Kunsttechniken, Restaurierung und Museums Fragen 6 (2001), 450-55. Kren,Thomas and Scot McKendrick, eds. Illuminating the Renaissance:The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Illumination in Europe. Exh. cat., J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, and Royal Academy of Arts, London. Los Angeles and London, 2003. Kuhlemann, Ute.‘The Celebration of Dürer in Germany During Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’. In Albrecht Dürer and his Legacy: The Graphic Work of a Renaissance Artist. Edited by Guilia Bartrum, 39-60. London, 2002. Kurth,Willi. The Complete Woodcuts of Albrecht Dürer. New York, 1963. Lagomarsino, Laura. ‘Un gruppo quattrocentesco nordico dellaVergine in Passione a Genova’. In Studi di storia delle arti 10 (2000-03), 29-41. Lammers, Joseph. Buchmalerei aus Handschriften vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert: Bildhefte des Westfälischen Landesmuseums für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Münster 18. Münster, 1982. Lavigne, E. Kroniek van de Abdij van St.Truiden. Vol. 2 (1138-1558). Leeuwarden and Maastricht, 1988. Leeflang, H., and G. Luijten, eds. Hendrick Goltzius: tekeningen, prenten en schilderijen. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and Toledo Museum of Art,Toledo, Ohio. Zwolle, 2003. Leeflang, Micha. ‘Self-portraits by Joos van Cleve: New Insights’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérome Bosch et son entourage et autre études. Edited by Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, 175-82. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA, 2003. [Leeflang 2003a] ____.‘The San Donato-Altarpiece by Joos van Cleve and His Workshop’. In Indagini tecniche sulle opere genovesi di Joos Van Cleve. Edited by Farida Simonetti and Gianluca Zanelli, 2538. Firenze, 2003. [Leeflang 2003b] Legaré, Anne-Marie. ‘Les faits de Jacques de Lalaing enluminés par le Maître d’Antoine Rolin’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 773-93. Leuven, 2002. _____. ‘Loyset Liédet: un nouveau manuscrit enluminé’. In Revue de l’art 126 (1999), 3649. 234

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Levati, Luigi. Dogi biennali di Genova dal 1528 al 1699. Genoa, 1930. Lie, Henry. ‘Digital Imaging for the Study of Paintings: Experiences at the Straus Center for Conservation’. In Recent Developments in the Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Panel Painting: Methodology, Limitations, and Perspectives. Edited by Molly Faries and Ron Spronk, 117-34.Turnhout and Cambridge, MA, 2003. Limberger, Michael. ‘ ‘No Town in the World Provides More Advantages’: Economies of Agglomeration and the Golden Age of Antwerp’. In Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp,Amsterdam, and London. Edited by Patrick O’Brien et al., 39-62. Cambridge, UK, 2001. Lippmann, Friedrich. Le Chevalier Deliberé by Olivier de la Marche:The Illustrations of the Edition of Schiedam Reproduced. Preface. London, 1898. L’officina della maniera. Exh. cat., Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.Venice, 1996. Longhi, Roberto. ‘I Fiamminghi e l’Italia’. In Paragone 3(25) (1952), 47-50. Lowden, John. The Making of the Bibles Moralisées. 2 vols. University Park, PA, 2000. Lugard, G. J. ‘Een schilderscontract met den Antwerpschen meester Crispiaen van den Broecke anno 1570’. In Oud Holland 61 (1946), 106-10. Lunsingh Scheurleer,Theodoor Herman.‘Pieter Aertsen en Joachim Beuckelaer en hun ontleeningen aan Serlio’s architectuurprenten’. In Oud-Holland 62 (1947), 123-34. Magnani, Lauro. Villa Rosazza (Lo Scoglietto). Guide di Genova, no. 69. Genoa, 1978. _____. Il tempio di Venere: giardino e villa nella cultura genovese. Genoa, 1987. Marcenaro, Caterina.‘Uno sconosciuto ritratto di Andrea Doria nel Palazzo Bianco di Genova’. In Emporium 55 (1949), 243-50. Marijnissen, Roger H., with the collaboration of Peter Ruyffelaere. J. Bosch, tout l’œuvre peint et dessiné. Antwerp, 1987. Marlier, George. La Renaissance flamande: Pierre Coeck d’Alost. Brussels, 1966. Maroto, P. Silva. ‘Le dessin sous-jacent de la Sainte Famille de Bernard van Orley et de la Vierge de Louvain’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La Peinture et la laboratoire: Procédés, Méthodologie,Appli-

cations. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete, 109-19. Leuven, 2001. Marrow, James. Passion Iconography in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance:A Study of the Transformation of Sacred Metaphor into Descriptive Narrative. Kortrijk, 1979. Martens, Didier.‘De achterzijden van de luiken en de herkomst van het retabel’. In Uitgelicht 5. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, de Intocht in Jeruzalem, retabelfragmenten in diaspora, tijdelijk weer bijeen. Edited by H. van Wegen, 21-24. Maastricht, 2000. Martens, Maximiliaan P. J. Artistic Patronage in Bruges Institutions, ca. 1440-1482. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara, 1992. _____.‘The Dialogue Between Artistic Tradition and Renewal’. In Bruges and the Renaissance: Memling to Pourbus. Edited by M. P. J.Martens, 43-63. Exh. cat., Memlingmuseum, Bruges. Ghent, 1998. _____.‘The Master of Guillebert de Mets: an illuminator between Paris and Ghent?’ In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols, 921-39. Leuven, 2002. Martens, Maximiliaan P. J., ed. Bruges and the Renaissance: Memling to Pourbus. 2 vols. Exh. cat., Memlingmuseum, Bruges. Ghent, 1998. Masai, François, Martin Wittek et al., eds. Manuscrits datés conservés en Belgique, 6 vols. Brussels/Ghent, 1967-87. Meiss, Millard. ‘The First Fully Illustrated Decameron’. In Essays in the History of Art Presented to Rudolf Wittkower. Edited by Douglas Fraser, Howard Hibbard, and Milton J. Lewine, 56-61. London, 1967. [Meiss 1967a] _____. French Painting in the Time of the Duke of Berry:The Late Fourteenth Century and the Patronage of the Duke. London and New York, 1967. [Meiss 1967b] _____. French Painting in the Time of the Duke of Berry:The Limbourgs and their Contemporaries. New York, 1974. Miedema, Hessel. ‘Over vakonderwijs aan kunstschilders in de Nederlanden tot de zeventiende eeuw’. In Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 5-6 (1986-87), 268-82. Miner, Dorothy. Anastaise and her Sisters:Women Artists of the Middle Ages. Baltimore, 1974.

Moes, E.W. ‘Cornelis Claesz. Scheveninck en zijn zoon David Cornelisz’. In Oud Holland 14 (1896), 61-64. Moes, E.W. and C. P. Burger. Amsterdamse boekdrukkers en uitgevers in de zestiende eeuw.Amsterdam, 1900. Reprint, Utrecht, 1988. Monks, Peter Rolfe. The Brussels ‘Horloge de Sapience’: Iconography and Text of Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale Ms IV.111. Leiden, 1990. Montias, John Michael. Artists and Artisans in Delft:A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, 1982. _____.‘Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art’. In Art History 10 (1987), 45566. _____. ‘Socio-Economic Aspects of Netherlandish Art from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century:A Survey’. In Art Bulletin 72 (1990), 358-73. _____. ‘Le marché de l’art aux Pays-Bas XVe et XVI siècles’. In Annales Économies Sociétés Civilisations 6 (1993), 1541-63. Moxey, Keith P. F. ‘The ‘Humanist’ Market Scenes of Joachim Beuckelaer: Moralizing Exempla or ‘Slices of Life’ ‘. In Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1976), 109-87. _____. Pieter Aertsen, Joachim Beuckelaer, and the Rise of Secular Painting in the Context of the Reformation. New York, 1977. Müller, Christian, ed. From Schongauer to Holbein: Master Drawings from Basel and Berlin. Exh. cat., National Gallery of Art,Washington DC.Washington, DC, 1999. Mulder, R.‘Infrarood reflectografish onderzoek van het Jacobus- en Antoniusretabel in de Propsteikirche te Kempen’. In Album discipulorum J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. Edited by P. van den Brink and L. M. Helmus, 137-45. Zwolle, 1997. Niedzielska, Maria.‘Obraz Jana Massysa Venus z Amorkiem i Jego Komserwacja’. In Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellolskiego (1992), 55-66. Noach, A.‘Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen en het Geslacht Boelens’. In Historia 6 (1940), 227-31. Noordegraaf, L. Daglonen in Alkmaar 15001850.The Hague, 1980. Noordegraaf, L. and J.T. Schoenmakers. Daglonen in Holland, 1450-1600.Amsterdam, 1984. BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

North, H.‘Waldwarenhandel und- Produktion’. In The Interactions of Amsterdam and Antwerp with the Baltic Region 1400-1800. Edited by Johanna Maria van Winter, 73-83. Leiden, 1983. Oltrogge, Doris. Die Illustrationszyklen zur ‘Histoire ancienne jusqu’à César’ 1250-1400. Frankfurt am Main, 1987. Ondertekend: onderzoek naar de ondertekening in de schilderijen van Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen. Supervised by M. Leeflang and D. Meuwissen. Exh. cat., Harmoniecomplex, Groningen, and Grote Kerk, Oostzaan. Oostzaan, 2003. Orlando, Anna. ‘Il ruolo di Jan Roos: un fiammingo nella Genova del primo Seicento’. In Nuovi Studi 2 (1996), 35-57. Ouy, Gibert. ‘Une maquette de manuscrit à peintures’. In Mélanges d’histoire du livre et des bibliothèques offerts à Monsieur Frantz Calot. Introduced by Julien Caen, 43-51. Paris, 1960. Pächt, Otto, Ulrike Jenni and Dagmar Thoss. Flämische Schule I: die illuminierten Handschriften und Inkunablen der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek.Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Schrift- und Buchwesen des Mittelalters 6.Vienna, 1983. Pächt, Otto and Dagmar Thoss. Flämische Schule II: die illuminierten Handschriften und Inkunablen der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Schriftund Buchwesen des Mittelalters 7.Vienna, 1990. Panofsky, Erwin. The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer. Princeton, 1955. Parma, Elena. ‘Il palazzo del principe Andrea Doria e Fassolo’. In L’Arte 10 (1970), 1263. _____.‘Rapporti artistici tra Genova e le Fiandre nella prima metà del Cinquecento’. In Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608. Edited by Nicole Dacos, 41-62. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Bruxelles, February 24-25, 1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento (1997). _____. ‘Genoa-Bruges: The Art Market and Cultural Exchange in the Fifteenth Century’. In Italy and the Low Countries:Artistic Relations, the Fifteenth Century. Proceedings of the Symposium held at Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht, 14 March 1994. Edited by Victor M. Schmidt et al., 79-96. Florence, 1999. _____.‘Genoa: Gateway to the South’. In The Age of Van Eyck:The Mediterranean World and 236

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Early Netherlandish Painting 1430-1530. Edited by Till Borchert, 94-107. Bruges, 2002. _____.‘Genova e le Fiandre: le Arti’. In Primitivi Fiamminghi in Liguria. Edited by Carla Cavelli Traverso, 32-40. Genoa, 2003. Parma, Elena, ed. La pittura in Liguria: Il Cinquecento. Genoa, 1999. Parshall, P. and D. Landau. The Renaissance Print. New Haven, CT, and London, 1994. Pauwels, M. H., ed. La Toison d’Or: Cinq siècles d’Art et d’Histoire. Exh. Cat., Groeningemuseum, Bruges.Tielt, 1962. Périer-d’Ieteren, Catheline. ‘Usage du poncif dans la peinture flamande des XVe et XVIe siècles’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloques I and II. Edited by Dominique Hollanders-Favart and Roger Van Schoute, 4648. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1979. _____.‘Le marché d’exportation et l’organisation du travail dans les ateliers brabançons aux XVe et XVIe siècles.’ In Artistes,Artisans et Production Artistique au Moyen Age. Edited by Barral I.Altet, 629-45. Paris, 1990. _____.‘Les volet peints des retables anvoirs: état de la question’. In Antwerpse retabels 15de16de eeuw. Under the direction of Hans Nieuwdorp, 60-88. Exh. cat., Kathedraal van Antwerpen, Antwerp, and Museum voor Religieuze Kunst,Antwerp.Antwerp, 1993. Pesenti, Franco Renzo. La pittura in Liguria: artisti del primo Seicento. Genoa, 1986. _____.‘Ottavio Semino e Nicolosio Granello nella Villa Centurione-Doria a Pegli’. In Trasparenze 16 (2002), 3-19. Peters, Heinz. Studien über die Altartypen in der niederländischen Malerei des 15. Jahrhunderts. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cologne, 1949. Petroski, Henry. The Pencil:A History of Design and Circumstance. London, 1990. Petti Balbi, Giovanna. Mercanti e Nationes nelle Fiandre: i Genovesi in Età Bassomedievale. Pisa, 1996. _____. ‘I rapporti tra Genova e il mondo fiammingo’. In Primitivi Fiamminghi in Liguria. Edited by Carla Cavelli Traverso, 9-18. Genoa, 2003. Philippot, P. ‘Le Retable des Poissonniers des Musées royaux, oeuvre de Pierre Pourbus’. In Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten 22 (1973), 73-84.

Pinchart, Alphonse. ‘Thomas Vincidor de Bologne: peintre et architecte du XVIe siècle’. In Bulletin de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 21 (1854), 538-43. Pittarello, Liliana and Luca Leoncini, eds. I misteri delle tavole fiamminghe. Exh. cat., Palazzo Reale, Genoa. Genoa, 1996. Poleggi, Ennio.‘Un documento di cultura abitativa’. In Rubens e Genova. Edited by Giuliana Biavati et al., 85-146. Exh. cat., Palazzo Ducale, Genoa. Genoa, 1977. Poleggi, Ennio and Paolo Cevini. Genova. Roma, 1981. Poortenaar, Jan. De Gulden Snede en Goddelijke Verhouding. Naarden, n.d.[1941]. Porcher, Jean. Jean Lebègue: les histoires que l’on peut raisonablement faire sur les livres de Salluste. Introduction. Paris, 1962. Randall, Lilian M. C. Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery,Vol. 2: France 1420-1540. Baltimore, 1992. Ratti, Carlo Giuseppe. Instruzione di quanto può vedersi di oiù bello in Genova in pittura, scultura ed architettura. Genoa, 1780. Réau, L. L’iconografie de l’art chrétien, vol. 2: Iconographie de la Bible, part 2: Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1956-57. Reinhard, Wolfgang, ed. Augsburger Eliten des 16. Jahrhunderts: Prosopographie wirtschaftlicher und politischer Führungsgruppen 1500-1620. Berlin, 1996. Restauri in Liguria. Exh. cat., Palazzo Reale, Genoa. Genoa, 1978. Reynaud, Nicole. ‘Barthélémy d’Eyck avant 1450’. In Revue de l’Art 84 (1988), 22-43. Robinson, W. W. and Martha Wolff. ‘The Function of Drawings in the Netherlands in the Sixteenth Century’. In The Age of Bruegel: Netherlandish Drawings in the Sixteenth Century. Edited by J. Hand, J. R. Judson, W. W. Robinson, and Martha Wolff, 25-40. Exh. cat., The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, and National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. Washington, DC, 1986. Rolf, Rudi. Pieter Coecke van Aelst en zijn architektuuruitgaves van 1539:‘Die Inventie der Colommen’ en ‘Generale Reglen der Architectvren’. Reprint,Amsterdam, 1978. Rombouts, Philippe and Théodore Van Lerius, eds. De Liggeren en andere historische archieven

der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde. 2 vols. Antwerp, 1864-76. Rombouts, Philippe and Théodore Van Lerius, eds. De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde. Photographic reprint,Amsterdam, 1961. Rosier, B. The Bible in Print: Netherlandish Bible Illustration in the Sixteenth Century. 2 vols. Leiden, 1997. Rosso del Brenna, Giovanna.‘Arte della pittura nella città di Genova’. In La Berio 16(1) (1976), 5-29. [Rosso del Brenna 1976a] _____.‘Arte della pittura nella città di Genova’. In La Berio 16(2) (1976), 5-23. [Rosso del Brenna 1976b] _____.‘Arte della pittura nella città di Genova’. In La Berio 17 (1977), 5-25. Rouse, Richard H. and Mary A. Manuscripts and their Makers. Commercial Book Production in Medieval Paris, 1200-1500. London, 2000. Sander, Jochen. Niederländische Gemälde im Städel, 1400-1550. Mainz am Rhein, 1993. Sapori, Giovanna.‘Pittori fiamminghi da Roma in Umbria’. In Fiamminghi a Roma 15081608. Edited by Nicole Dacos, 77-92. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Bruxelles, February 24-25, 1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento (1997). Savelli, Rodolfo. ‘Di Negro, Ambrogio’. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Edited by Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, under the direction of Vincenzo Cappelletti, vol. 40, 123-26. Rome, 1991. Scailliérez, Cecille.‘Joos van Cleve e Genova’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 110-25. Genoa, 1997. _____. ‘Un portrait méconnu de François Ier peint par Jean Clouet: le frontispiece des Histories de Diodore de Sicile au musée Condé de Chantilly’. In Revue du Louvre 4 (1996), 47-52. Scailliérez, Cecille, ed. Joos van Cleve au Louvre. Exh. cat., Musée du Louvre, Paris. Paris, 1991. Scheller, Robert W. Exempla: Model-Book Drawings and the Practice of Artistic Transmission in the Middle Ages (ca. 900-ca.1470).Amsterdam, 1995. Schiller, Gertrude. Der Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst.Vol. 2: Die Passion Jesu Christi. Gütersloh, 1968. BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Schmid, W. ‘Dürer’s Enterprise: Market Area, Market Potential, Product Range’. In Economic History and the Arts. Edited by Michael North, 27-47. Cologne, 1996. Schmidt, H. ‘Der Maler Nicolaus (Clausz) Johansen [Claes Janssen?] von Utrecht’. In Oud Holland 35 (1917), 53-55. Schnackenburg, B., ed. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Catalog. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Kassel. Mainz, 1996. Schneebalg-Perelman, S. Les Chasses de Maximilien: les Énigmes d’un chef d’oeuvre de la tapisserie. Brussel, 1982. Scholliers, E. Loonarbeid en honger: de levensstandaard in de XVe en XVIe eeuw te Antwerpen. Antwerp, 1960. Scholtens, H. J. J.‘Het te Napels bewaarde Kersttafereel van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen’. In Oud Holland 73 (1958), 198-210. Schretlen, M. J. ‘Het vroege werk van Jacob Cornelis’. In Oudheidkundig Jaarboek 5 (1925), 143-49. _____. ‘Vroeg werk van Jacob Cornelisz’. In Oud Holland 55 (1958), 145-54. Schreuder, K. ‘De werkwijze en materiële geschiedenis van een paneel van Pieter Coecke van Aelst’. In Uitgelicht 5. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, de Intocht in Jeruzalem, retabelfragmenten in diaspora, tijdelijk weer bijeen. Edited by H. van Wegen, 7-9. Maastricht, 2000. Schubert, Dietrich. Die Gemälde des Braunschweiger Monogrammisten: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Niederländischen Malerei des 16. Jahrhunderts. Cologne, 1970. Schwall-Hoummady, Christine. Bilderzählung im 15. Jahrhundert: Boccaccios Decamerone in Frankreich. Frankfurt am Main, 1999. Sciolla, Gianni Carlo. ‘Il trittico del Maestro di Hoogstraeten’. In Un’isola di devozione a Savona: il complesso monumentale della cattedrale dell’Assunta. Edited by Giovanna Rotondi Terminiello, 253-54. Savona, 2001. Serck-Dewaide, Myriam. ‘Les retables anversois sous le regard des restaurateurs’. In Antwerpse retabels, 15de-16de eeuw. Under the direction of Hans Nieuwdorp, 114-28. Exh. cat., Kathedraal van Antwerpen,Antwerp, and Museum voor Religieuze Kunst, Antwerp. Antwerp, 1993. Serlio, Sebastiano. Den eersten [-den vijfsten] boeck van architecturen: ouergesedt wten Italiaenschen in nederlandts duer Peeter Coeke van Aelst doen 238

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ter tijt Schildere der K. Maiesteyt. Antwerp, 1549-53. _____. The Five Books of Architecture: An Unabridged Reprint of the English Edition of 1611. New York, 1982. _____. Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture,Volume One: Books I-V of ‘Tutte l’Opere d’Architettura et Prospettiva’. Translated and with an introduction and commentary by Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks. New Haven, CT, 1996. _____. Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture,Volume Two: Books VI and VII of ‘Tutte l’Opere d’Architettura et Prospettiva’ with ‘Castrametation of the Romans’ and ‘The Extraordinary Book of Doors’.Translated by Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks. New Haven, CT, 2001. Shearman, John. Raphael’s Cartoons in the Collection of her Majesty the Queen, and the Tapestries for the Sistine Chapel. London, 1972. Sievers, Johannes. ‘Joachim Bueckeleer’. In Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 32 (1911), 185-212. Silva Maroto, P. ‘Le dessin sous-jacent de la Sainte Famille de Bernard van Orley et de la Vierge de Louvain.’ In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La Peinture et la Laboratoire: Procédés, Méthodologie,Applications. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete, 109-19. Leuven, 2001. Silver, Larry. The Paintings of Quinten Massys with Catalogue Raisonné. Oxford, 1984. Silvestri, Nino.‘Indagini stratigrafiche sul trittico di San Donato di Joos van Cleve’. In Indagini tecniche sulle opere genovesi di Joos van Cleve. Edited by Farida Simonetti et al., 7174. Florence, 2003. Simonetti, Farida and Gianluca Zanelli, eds. Joos van Cleve a Genova: intorno al ritratto di Stefano Raggio. Exh. cat., Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola, Genoa. Florence, 2003. Simson, Paul. Geschichte der Stadt Danzig. Danzig, 1900. Six, J.‘Adriaan van Conflans’. In Oud Holland 29 (1911), 198-200. _____.‘Dirk Jacobsz.: twee Amsterdamse schutterstukken te St Petersburg’. In Oud Holland 13 (1895), 91-111. Smekens, F.‘De beeldhouwkunst (1500-1550)’. In Antwerpen in de 16e eeuw. Edited by W. Couvreur et al., 398-99.Antwerp, 1975. Snijders, C. J. De Gulden Snede. Amsterdam, 1969.

Soly, Hugo. ‘De groei van een metropool’. In Antwerpen, twaalf eeuwen cultuur en geschiedenis. Edited by Karel van Isacker and Raymond van Uyten, 84-92.Antwerp, 1986. Sosson, Jean Pierre. ‘Une approche des structures économiques d’un métier d’art: la corporation des Peintres et Selliers de Bruges (XVe-XVIe siècles)’. In Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 3 (1970), 91-100. Spronk, Ron. ‘The Underdrawing of Jan Provoost’s Crucifxion’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation. Edited by Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, 37-48. Leuven, 1999. Stagno, Laura. ‘Sovrani spagnoli a Genova: entrate trionfali e hospitaggi in casa Doria’. In Genova e la Spagna: Opere, artisti, committenti, collezionisti. Edited by Piero Boccardo, José Luis Colomer and Clario Di Fabio, 7387. Milan, 2002. Standen, Edith. ‘Some Sixteenth-Century Tapestries Related to Raphael’s Workshop’. In Metropolitan Museum Journal 4 (1971), 10921. Steinbart, K. Die Tafelgemälde des Jakob Cornelisz von Amsterdam. Strassbourg, 1922. _____.‘Nachlese im Werk des Jakob Cornelisz’. In Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft (1929), 213-60. _____. Das Holzschnittwerk des Jakob Cornelisz von Amsterdam. Magdeburg, 1937. Steppe, Jan K.‘Jheronimus Bosch. Bijdragen tot de historische en de chronografische studie van zijn werk’. In Jheronimus Bosch. Bijdragen bij gelegenheid van de herdenkingstentoonstelling te ‘s-Hertogenbosch 1967, 5-41. ‘s-Hertogenbosch, 1967. Stroo, Cyriel et al. The Flemish Primitives: Hieronymus Bosch,Albrecht Bouts, Colijn de Coter, Goossen van der Weyden.Vol. 3.Turnhout, 2001. Szmydki, Ryszard. ‘Jan de Molder, peintre et sculpteur d’Anvers du XVIe siecle’. In Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1986), 31-58. [Szmydki 1986a] _____.‘Retable Anversois situé anciennement dans la Chapelle de Saint-Reinhold en l’Église Notre-Dame de Gdansk (15151516)’. In Retables anversois en Pologne. Contribution à l’étude des rapports artistiques entre

anciens Pays-Bas Méridionaux et la région de Gdansk au début du XVIe siècle. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Vol. 48, no. 40 (1986), 23-125. [Szmydki 1986b] Szpakiewicz,A. The Artus Court. Gdansk, 1996. Taburet-Delahaye, Elisabeth, François Avril et al., eds. Paris 1400: Les Arts Sous Charles VI. Exh. cat., Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris. Paris, 2004. Tagliaferro, Laura. Il dipinto e il suo rovescio: Proposta di lettura per dipinto a supporto ligneo della Galleria di Palazzo Bianco. Genova, 1991. _____. La magnificenza privata. Genoa, 1995. Tamis, Dorien.‘The genesis of Albert Cornelis’s Coronation of the Virgin in Bruges’. In Burlington Magazine 142 (2000), 672-80. _____. ‘ ‘In kompagnie geordonneert en geschildert’, een onderzoek naar de ontstaansgeschiedenis van het Aardse Paradijs van Peter Paul Rubens en Jan Brueghel d.O.’. In Oud Holland 115 (2001-02), 111-30. Thieme, U., and F. Becker. Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. 37 vols. Leipzig, 1907-50. Thomas, Marcel. Histoire de la destruction de Troye la Grant: reproduction du manuscrit Bibliothèque nationale nouvelles acquisitions françaises 24920. Paris, 1973. Thompson, Daniel V. The Materials and Technique of Medieval Paintings. New York, 1956. Thoss, Dagmar. Das Epos des Burgunderreiches, Girart de Roussillon. Graz, 1989. Thijs, A. K. L. ‘De Antwerpse luxenijverheid: winstbejag en kunstzin’. In Antwerpen, verhaal van een metropool. Edited by J.Van der Stock, 105-14. Exh. cat., Hessenhuis, Antwerp. Ghent, 1993. Toussaint, Jacques, ed. Autour de Henri Bles. Monographies du Musée des Arts Anciens du Namurois 20. Namur, 2000. Unger, Richard W. ‘Integration of Baltic and Low Countries Grain Markets,1400-1800’.In The Interactions of Amsterdam and Antwerp with the Baltic Region 1400-1800. Edited by Johanna Maria van Winter, 1-10. Leiden, 1983. Unverfehrt, Gerd. Hieronymus Bosch: die Rezeption seiner Kunst im Frühen 16. Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1980. Urbach, Susan. ‘Research Report on Underdrawings of Netherlandish and German Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Budapest: Part IV’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La peinture et le laboratoire: Procédés, Méthodologie, Applications. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete, 93-108. Leuven, 2001. van Asperen de Boer, J. R. J. and Molly Faries. ‘La Vierge au chancelier Rolin de Van Eyck: examen au moyen de réflectographie à infrarouge’. In La revue du Louvre 40 (1990), 37-49. van Asperen de Boer, J. R. J., J. Dijkstra, and R.Van Schoute.‘Underdrawing in Paintings of the Rogier van der Weyden and Master of Flémalle Groups’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 41 (1992). van Biema, E.‘Nalezing van de stadsrekeningen van Amsterdam van af het jaar 1531’. In Oud Holland 23 (1905), 150-62. van Bueren,Truus, with contributions by W. C. M.Wüstefeld. Leven na de dood: gedenken in de late middeleeuwen. Exh. cat., Catharijneconvent, Utrecht.Turnhout, 1999. van Bueren, Truus and M. Faries. ‘The ‘Portraits’ in Geertgen tot St. Jans’Vienna Panels’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstaete Marcq, 141-50. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1991. van Buren, Anne H. ‘New Evidence for the Activity of Jean Wauquelin in the Chroniques de Hainaut’. In Scriptorium 26 (1972), 249-68, and 27(1973), 318. _____.‘Willem Vrelant: Questions and Issues’. In Revue Belge d’Archéologie et de l’Histoire de l’Art 68 (1999), 3-30. _____. ‘The Date of the Miniatures’, ‘The Artists of Volume I’, and ‘Dress and Costume’. In Les Chroniques de Hainaut ou les Ambitions d’un Prince Bourguignon. Edited by Christiane Van den Bergen-Pantens, 61-74, 111-17. Turnhout, 2000. _____.‘Dreux Jehan and the Grandes Heures of Philip the Bold’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: In Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 1377-1414. Leuven, 2002. van Buren,Anne H. and Sheila Edmunds.‘Playing Cards and Manuscripts: Some Widely Disseminated Fifteenth-Century Model Sheets’. In Art Bulletin 56 (1974), 12-30. 240

BIBLIOGRAPHY

van Buren,Anne H., James H. Marrow, and Silvana Pettenati. Heures de Turin-Milan. Lucerne, 1996. Van de Velde, Carl. ‘The Labours of Hercules: A Lost Series of Paintings by Frans Floris’. In Burlington Magazine 107 (1965), 114-23. _____.‘The Grotesque Initials in the First Ligger and in the Busboek of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke’. In Bulletin van de Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis 45 (1973), 252-77. _____. Frans Floris (1519/20-1570): Leven en Werken. Verhandelingen van Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenshappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Schone Kunsten 30. Brussels, 1975. [Van de Velde 1975a] _____. ‘De Schilderkunst’. In Antwerpen in de XVIe Eeuw, 419-45.Antwerp, 1975. [Van de Velde 1975b] van den Brink, Peter. ‘Underdrawing in the Workshop Production of Bernart van Orley: A First Impression’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque X. Le dessin sous-jacent dans le processus de creation. Edited by H.Verougstraete and R.Van Schoute, 177-85. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1995. _____. ‘Da Josef Timmert: Een Antwerps paneeltje in Delft’. In Album Discipulorum: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer. Edited by Peter van den Brink and Liesbeth M. Helmus, 27-35. Zwolle, 1997. _____. ‘De ondertekening van de Intocht in Jeruzalem en de Hemelvaart van Christus’. In Uitgelicht 5. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, de Intocht in Jeruzalem, retabelfragmenten in diaspora, tijdelijk weer bijeen. Edited by H. van Wegen, 25-31. Maastricht, 2000. _____.‘De kunst van het kopiëren: het waarom en hoe van het vervaardigen van kopieën en schilderijen in oplage in de Nederlanden in de zestiende eeuw en zeventiende eeuw’. In De Firma Brueghel. Edited by P. van den Brink, 12-42. Exh. cat., Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht, and Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België, Brussels. Ghent, 2001. [van den Brink 2001a] _____.‘Das von Grootesche Triptychon: Einblicke in den Schaffensprozess’. In Kabinettstücke, Gold,Weihrauch und Myrrhe: Die von Grootesche Anbetung der Heiligen Drei Könige - ein wiederentdecktes Meisterwerk der Renaissance in Antwerpen. Edited by Jochen Sander, 47-61. Frankfurt am Main, 2001. [van den Brink 2001b]

_____.‘Two Unknown Wings from a Triptych by the Master of the Antwerp Adoration’. In Art Matters: Netherlands Technical Studies in Art 1 (2002), 6-20. _____.‘Hieronymus Bosch as Model Provider for a Copyright Free Market’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et autres études. Edited by Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, 84-101. Leuven, 2003. van den Brink, P. and L. M. Helmus, eds. Album discipulorum J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer. Zwolle, 1997. Van der Haeghen, V. ‘Notes sur l’atelier de Gérard Horenbault’. In Bulletijn der Maatschappij van Geschied- en Oudheidkunde te Gent 22 (1914), 26-30. Van der Stock, Jan. ‘De organisatie van het beeldensnijders- en schildersatelier te Antwerpen. Documenten 1480-1530’. In Antwerpse Retabels 15de-16de eeuw. Under the direction of Hans Nieuwdorp, 47-53. Exh. cat., Kathedraal van Antwerpen,Antwerp, and Museum voor Religieuze Kunst, Antwerp. Antwerp, 1993. _____. Printing Images in Antwerp:The Introduction of Printmaking in a City, Fifteenth Century to 1585. Rotterdam, 1998. Van der Stock, J., ed. Antwerpen, verhaal van een metropool. Exh. cat., Hessenhuis, Antwerp. Ghent, 1993. Van der Straelen, J. B. Jaerboek der eermaerde en kunstrijke gilde van Sint-Lucas binnen de stad Antwerpen.Antwerp, 1855. Van der Wee, Herman.‘Money and economic interdependence between the Northern and Southern Netherlands and the Baltic (Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries)’. In The Interactions of Amsterdam and Antwerp with the Baltic Region 1400-1800. Edited by Johanna Maria van Winter, 11-18. Leiden, 1983. Van der Wee, Herman and Jan Materné. ‘Antwerp as a World Market in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’. In Antwerp: Story of a Metropolis, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century. Edited by Jan Van der Stock, 19-31. Exh. cat., Hessenhuis, Antwerp. Ghent, 1993. van Eeghen, I. H. ‘Jacob Cornelisz., Cornelisz.Anthonisz., en hun familierelaties’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (1986), 95-132.

Van Eyck to Bruegel, 1400 to 1550: Dutch and Flemish painting in the Collection of the Museum Boymans-van Beuningen. Museum Boijmansvan Beuningen, Rotterdam. Rotterdam, 1994. van Gelder, E.H.E. De Nederlandse munten. Utrecht and Antwerp, 1980. Van Houtte, Jan.V. ‘Mercanti, imprenditori e banchieri italiani nelle Fiandre’. In Aspetti della vita economica medieval.Atti del Convegno di Studi nel X Anniversario della morte di F. Melis (Florence, Pisa, Prato, 1984), 123-26. Florence, 1985. Van Mander, Karel. Het Schilder-boeck. Haarlem, 1604. _____. Den Grondt der edel vry Schilder-Const. Translated and edited by Hessel Miedema, 2 vols. Utrecht, 1973. _____. The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, from the first edition of the Schilder-boeck (1603-1604).Translated and edited by Hessel Miedema, 6 vols. Doornspijk, 1994-99. Van Miegroet, H., and N. de Marchi.‘Exploring markets for Netherlandish paintings in Spain and Nueva España’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 80-111. Van Puyvelde, L. ‘Het altaarstuk van het ambacht van de visverkopers te Antwerpen’. In Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten 12 (1963), 35-50. van Regteren Altena, J. Q.‘Un incunable de la connaissance des graveurs’. In De gulden passer 53 (1975), 269-76. Van Roey, J.‘De bevolking’. In Antwerpen in de XVIe eeuw, 95-108.Antwerp, 1975. Van Schoute, Roger, HélèneVerougstraete and Carmen Garrido. ‘Bosch and his Sphere: Technique’. In Hieronymus Bosch: New Insights into his Life and Work. Edited by Jos Koldeweij, BernardVermet, and Barbara van Kooij, 103-19. Ghent, 2001. Van Schoute, Roger and M.Verboomen. Jérôme Bosch. Paris, 2003. Vandamme, E. ‘Een 16de-eeuws Zuidnederlands receptenboek’. In Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1974), 101-37. Vandenabeele, Peter, and Luc Moens.‘Spectroscopic Pigment Investigations in the Mayer van den Bergh Breviary’. In ‘Als Ich Can’. Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. MauBIBLIOGRAPHY

241

rits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 1443-55. Leuven, 2002. Varni, Santo. Spigolature artistiche nell’archivio della Biblioteca della Basilica di Carignano. Genoa, 1877. Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori et architettori. Florence, 1568. New edition Le opere de Giorgio Vasari. Edited by Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols. Florence, 1981. Veldman, I.‘De boekillustratie als inspiratiebron voor de Nederlandse prentkunst van de zestiende eeuw’. In Eer is het lof des deuchts: opstellen over renaissance en classicisme aangeboden aan dr. Fokke Veenstra, 261-77.Amsterdam, 1985. Verbraeken, Paul, ed. Joachim Beuckelaer: het markt- en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 15501650. Exh. cat., Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent. Ghent, 1986. Verdino, Stefano. ‘Cultura e Letteratura nel Cinquecento’. In La Letteratura Ligure: La Repubblica Aristocratica (1528-1797).Vol 1, 83132. Genoa, 1992. Vermet, Bernard. ‘Architectuurschilders in Dantzig. Hendrick Aerts en Hans en Paul Vredeman de Vries’. In Gentse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedenis en Oudheidkunde 31 (1996), 27-57. Vermeylen, Filip. ‘The Commercialization of Art: Painting and Sculpture in SixteenthCentury Antwerp’. In Early Netherlandish Painting at the Crossroads: A Critical Look at Current Methodologies. Edited by Maryan W. Ainsworth, 46-61. New York, 2001. _____. Painting for the Market: Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age. Studies in European Urban History 2. Turnhout, 2003. Verougstraete-Marcq, Hélène and Roger Van Schoute. Cadres et supports dans la peinture flamande aux 15e et 16e siècles. Heure-leRomain, 1989. Vroom,W.H.‘Een retabelcontract uit 1493’. In Miscellanea I. Q. van Regteren Altena. Edited by H. Miedema, R.W. Scheller, and P. J. J. van Thiel, 27-31.Amsterdam, 1969. Wadum, Jørgen.‘Historical Overview of PanelMaking Techniques in the Northern Countries’. In The Structural Conservation of Panel

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Paintings:Proceedings of a Symposium at the J.Paul Getty Museum, 24-28 April 1995. Edited by Kathleen Dardes and Andrea Rothe, 149-77. Los Angeles, 1995. [Wadum 1995a] _____.‘Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) and his Use of Perspective’. In Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice: Preprints of a Symposium, University of Leiden, the Netherlands, 26-29 June 1995. Edited by Arie Wallert, Erma Hermens, and Marja Peek, 148-54. Marina Del Rey, CA, 1995. [Wadum 1995b] Weale, J.‘Albert Cornelis: Hiérarchie des anges’. In Le Beffroi,Arts, Héraldique,Archéologie, Brugge 1 (1863), 1-22. Wilenski, R. H. Flemish Painters 1430-1830. 2 vols. London, 1960. Wilson, Adrien, and Joyce Lancaster Wilson. A Medieval Mirror: Speculum humanae salvationis, 1324-1500. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1984. Wolff-Thomsen, U. Jan Joest von Kalkar: ein niederländische Maler um 1500. Bielefeld, 1997. Wolters, Margreet. ‘Twee Kruisdragingen toegeschreven aan Joachim Beuckelaer: infraroodreflectografisch onderzoek van de schilderijen te Älvkarleby en Hamburg’. In Onverwacht bijeengebracht: opstellen voor Ed Taverne en Lyckle de Vries ter gelegenheid van hun 25-jarig jubileum in dienst van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Edited by J. L. de Jong and E.A. Koster, 149-57. Groningen, 1996. _____.‘De Monogrammist HB geïdentificeerd: Huybrecht Beuckeleer’. In Album Discipulorum J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer. Edited by Peter van den Brink and Liesbeth Helmus, 23137. Zwolle, 1997. Wood, Kim W.‘Molder, Jan de’. In The Dictionary of Art. Edited by Jane Turner, vol. 21, 809. New York, 1996. Zanelli, Gianluca.‘Pittura fiamminga a Genova all’inizio del XVI secolo: il ‘caso’ Joos van Cleve’. In Joos van Cleve a Genova: intorno al ritratto di Stefano Raggio. Edited by Farida Simonetti and Gianluca Zanelli, 11-81. Exh. cat., Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola, Genoa. Florence, 2003.

Color plates

Leeflang – Plate 1. Joos van Cleve and Workshop, Reinhold Altarpiece, exterior wings and predella.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

244

COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES

245

Leeflang – Plate 2. Joos van Cleve and Workshop, Reinhold Altarpiece, interior painted wings with scenes from the Passion of Christ.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.

Leeflang – Plate 3. Joos van Cleve and workshop, Carrying of the Cross, detail of plate 2.

246

COLOR PLATES

Leeflang – Plate 4. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of plate 3, detail. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).

COLOR PLATES

247

Spronk/Van Daalen – Plate 1. Arrest of Christ. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, BR1952.15. Gift of Charles L. Kuhn.

Spronk/Van Daalen – Plate 2. Agony in the Garden. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, 2001.193. Bequest of Grenville L.Winthrop, by exchange.

248

COLOR PLATES

Spronk/Van Daalen – Plate 3. Agony in the Garden, cross-sections, photographed at 25x. (Photomicrographs: Catharina van Daalen).

3a. X-ray transparent area 1. Blue surface layer, azurite and lead white 2. Single layer of calcium carbonate ground 3.Wood of support

3b. X-ray opaque area 1.Varnish 2. Blue surface layer, azurite and lead white 3. Multiple layers of calcium carbonate ground

Spronk/Van Daalen – Plate 4a-b. Agony in the Garden, detail, photographed at 22x. (Photomacrograph: Catharina van Daalen).

4a. photomacrograph.

4b. infrared digital photomacrograph (circa 1000-1100 nanometer). COLOR PLATES

249

Meuwissen – Plate 1.Attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Crucifixion, dated 1507. New York, private collection, 99.1 x 78 cm.

250

COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES

251

Meuwissen – Plate 2. Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Nativity, dated 1512. Naples, Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, 3,128 x 177 cm.

Meuwissen – Plate 3. Attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Virgin and Child with Musical Angels. Sold at Sotheby´s, New York, January 2001, lot 39 A, 71.8 x 55.3 cm.

252

COLOR PLATES

a.

b.

c. Meuwissen – Plates 4a-d. a) Detail of angel holding music in plate 2. b) Detail of angel in plate 3. c) Detail of plate 1. d) Detail of plate 1.

d.

COLOR PLATES

253

Meuwissen – Plate 5. Attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Noli me tangere, dated 1507. Kassel, Staatliche Museen, GK 29, 54.5 x 38.8 cm.

254

COLOR PLATES

Van Buren – Plate 1. The Dauphin attends a Celebration of Mass, Missal of Louis de Guyenne. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, ms 406, fol. 7.

COLOR PLATES

255

Van Buren – Plate 2. The Crucifixion, Hours of Charles of France. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, ms 473, fol. 122.

256

COLOR PLATES

Van Buren – Plate 3. The Duke of Cleves asks Permission to take Jacques to the Court of Philip the Good, Livre des faits de Jacques de Lalaing. Private collection, fol. 5v.

COLOR PLATES

257

Van Buren – Plate 4. Macault reads his Translation before the King, Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library. Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms 1672 (721), fol.1v.

258

COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES

259

Ainsworth – Plate 1. Bernard van Orley, Last Judgment Triptych (interior).Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten.

260

COLOR PLATES

Ainsworth – Plate 2a. Bernard van Orley, Virgin and Child. European Private Collection.

Ainsworth – Plate 2b. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of plate 2a. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).

COLOR PLATES

261

Jansen – Plate 1. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triptych with the Crucifixion. Utrecht, Rijksmuseum Catherijneconvent,ABM s00107.

262

COLOR PLATES

Jansen – Plate 2. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion.Warsaw, Museum Narodowe.

Jansen – Plate 3. Detail of the city of Jerusalem in the Warsaw Crucifixion (plate 2).

COLOR PLATES

263

Jansen – Plate 4. Detail of the city of Jerusalem in the Bonn Crucifixion (fig. 2).

Jansen – Plate 5. Detail of the city of Jerusalem in the Utrecht Crucifixion (plate 1).

264

COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES

265

Wolters – Plate 1. Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo.Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift.

Wolters – Plate 2. Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.

266

COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES

267

Wolters – Plate 3. Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi.

Wolters – Plates 4a-b. Infrared reflectogram and detail of vanishing point in plate 2.

268

COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES

269

Galassi – Plate 1. Joos van Cleve, The Adoration of the Kings Altarpiece. Genoa, Church of San Donato.

Galassi – Plate 2. Jan Massys, Madonna and Child. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco.

270

COLOR PLATES

Galassi – Plate 3. Jan Massys, Charity. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco.

COLOR PLATES

271

272

COLOR PLATES

Galassi – Plate 4. Detail of fig. 9, the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco.

Galassi – Plate 5. Jan Massys, Lot and his Daughters, detail. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

COLOR PLATES

273

Galassi – Plate 6. Jan Massys, Venus Cythereia. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.

a.

b.

c.

Galassi – Plates 7a-d. a) Detail of plate 6, Palazzo del Principe. b) Detail of plate 6, the Villa Durazzo. c) Detail of plate 6, the Villa dello Scoglietto. d) Detail of plate 6, Basilica di Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano.

274

COLOR PLATES

d.

Martens/Peeters – Plate 1. Graph showing masters and apprentices enrolled in the Liggeren, 1501-1579 (nominal and running average by 5 years).

Martens/Peeters – Plate 2. Graph showing master painters and apprentices enrolled in the Liggeren, 1501-1579 (nominal and running average by 5 years).

Martens/Peeters – Plate 3. Graph showing masters and apprentices (in total and painters only) enrolled in the Liggeren, 1501-1579 (running average by 5 years).

’

COLOR PLATES

275

Martens/Peeters – Plate 4. Graph showing the professional distribution of masters, 1500-1579.

Martens/Peeters – Plate 5. Graph showing the professional distribution of apprentices, 1500-1579.

276

COLOR PLATES

Illustration Credits Cover design: © Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,Antwerp Faries Figs. 1, 2, 3 © Molly Faries/Stichting RKD Fig. 4 from Sotheby’s Arts of the Renaissance, Jan. 25, 2001 Fig. 5 © Molly Faries Leeflang Figs. 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 15 courtesy Micha Leeflang Figs. 2, 9-11, 13, 16, 18-19, 21; plate 4 © Molly Faries/Stichting RKD Figs. 4-5, 14 from Kurth 1963 Fig. 17, 22 © Stichting RKD Fig. 20 © J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer/Stichting RKD plates 1-3 © Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie,Warsaw Spronk/van Daalen Figs. 1-3, 8, 11, 13; plates 1-4 Catharina van Daalen © President and Fellows of Harvard College Figs. 4-5 Eugene Farrell and Ron Spronk © President and Fellows of Harvard College Figs. 6-7 Henry Lie,Amy Powell and Ron Spronk © President and Fellows of Harvard College Figs. 9-10 Henry Lie © President and Fellows of Harvard College Fig. 12 Allan Macintyre, Digital Imaging and Visual Resources, Harvard University Art Museums © President and Fellows of Harvard College Meuwissen Figs. 1-2 © Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam Fig. 3 © Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart Fig. 4 © Sammlungen des Fürsten von Liechtenstein,Vaduz Figs. 5-6a © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Figs. 6b, 7-8 courtesy of Daantje Meuwissen Figs. 9-10 © Molly Faries/Stichting RKD Plate 1 courtesy Greg Kitchen Plate 2 © Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples Plates 3, 4a-d courtesy Daantje Meuwissen Plate 5 © Staatliche Museen, Kassel van Buren Figs. 1, 7-8 © Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique/Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, Brussels Fig. 2 © Museum of Fine Arts Boston Fig. 3a-b © Pierpont Morgan Library, New York. Figs. 4, 5 © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,Vienna Fig. 6 © Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris. Plates 1-2 © Bibliothèque Mazarine, Paris Plate 3 © Anne Marie Legaré Plate 4 © Réunion des Musées Nationaux Ainsworth Fig. 1, 20 © Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna Figs. 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 18, 21-23; plate 2b © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

277

Figs. 3, 11 © IRPA-KIK, Brussels Fig. 9 courtesy Maryan Ainsworth Fig. 8 © Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, Munich Figs. 13-16 © Stichting RKD Fig. 17 © J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer/Stichting RKD Fig. 19 © Musée du Louvre, Paris Plate 1 © Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,Antwerp Plate 2a © Speltdoorn, Brussels Jansen Fig. 1; plate 1 © Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht. Fig. 2 © Rheinlandisches Museum, Bonn. Fig. 3 © Fries Museum, Leeuwarden. Fig. 4 © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, 2004. Figs. 5, 6, 7, 9-11 © Molly Faries/Stichting RKD Fig. 8 © J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer/Stichting RKD Figs. 12-13 © Bonnefanten Museum, Maastricht Figs. 14-15 © Stichting RKD Plate 1 © Museum Catharijneconvent, Utrecht Plates 2-3 courtesy Linda Jansen. Plate 4 courtesy Linda Jansen and Rheinlandisches Landesmuseum, Bonn. Plate 5 © Molly Faries. Verougstraeten/Van Schoute Figs. 1-8 © Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute Wolters Figs. 1, 2c © Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg Fig. 2a; plate 1 courtesy of the Museum im Schottenstift,Vienna Fig. 2b; plates 2, 4b courtesy of the Nationalmuseum, Stockholm Fig. 2d; plate 3 courtesy of the Ministero dei Beni e le Attività Culturali, Florence Figs. 3, 6, 19, 22 courtesy of the Museum im Schottenstift,Vienna © Stichting RKD Fig. 4 © Rheinisches Bildarchiv, Cologne Figs. 5, 8, 11-13, 20 courtesy of the Ministero dei Beni e le Attività Culturali, Florence © Stichting RKD Figs. 7, 21, 23; plate 4a courtesy of Nationalmuseum, Stockholm © Stichting RKD Fig. 9 © IRPA-KIK, Brussels Fig. 10 courtesy of Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium © Stichting RKD Figs. 14-18 © Royal Library,The Hague Galassi Fig. 1 © Micha Leeflang Figs. 2, 5, 9; plates 2, 3 © Archivio Fotografico del Comune di Genova Figs. 3a-b, 6-7, 10, 11a-b, 19 Maria Clelia Galassi © Università di Genova Fig. 4 Carla Oberto © Studio Martino Oberto-Genova Fig. 8 Adri Verburg © Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,Antwerp Figs. 12-13; plate 6 © Nationalmuseum, Stockholm Figs. 14-15, 18; plates 7a-d John Rothlind © Nationalmuseum, Stockholm Fig. 16: from Le ville genovesi 1967, 72 Fig. 17 © Kunsthalle, Hamburg Fig. 19 © Kungliga Biblioteket, Stockholm Plate 1© Soprintendenza per i Beni Artistici, Storici e Demoantropologici della Liguria Plate 4 © Maria Clelia Galassi 278

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

Plate 5 © Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna Helmus Fig. 1 © Centraal Museum, Utrecht Figs. 2-3 © IRPA-KIK, Brussels Martens/Peeters Fig. 1 from Kint 1996 Figs. 2-13 © Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters Plates 1-5 © Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

279