Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasure: Jan Gossart's Renaissance: Jan Gossart's Renaissance: The Complete Works (Metropolitan Museum of Art Series) 0300166575, 9780300166576, 9781588393982

Citation preview

_.

-

ay

BE

*

-

a

Sensu@ and h,

-*

oF

=

-

on

9

LEE A

4

Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE The Complete Works Edited by Maryan W. Ainsworth

Maryan W. Ainsworth, Stijn Alsteens, and Nadine M. Orenstein With contributions by Lorne Campbell, Ethan Matt Kavaler, Peter Klein, and Stephanie Schrader

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, NEW YORK YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW HAVEN AND

LONDON

This catalogue 1s published in conjunction with the exhibition on view as “Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart's Renaissance” at The Metropolitan Museum

of Art, New York,

from October

5,

2010, through January

17,

2011, and as “Jan Gossaert’s

Separations by Die Keure, Bruges

Printed and bound by Die Keure, Bruges Printung coordinated by Mercatorfonds, Brussels, and Tyjdsbeeld & Piece Montée, Ghent

Renaissance” at The National Gallery, London, from February 23 through May 30, 2011. (Note:

The Metropolitan Museum 1s using the original spelling

of

the

artist's

name, whereas the National Gallery continues to use the form that was introduced in modern times.)

Jacket front: Jan Gossart, Hercules and Deianira (detail), 1517. The Trustees of the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham (cat. 31); back, Jan Gossart, Adam and Eve, ca. 1520. The Duke of Devonshire and the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement, Chatsworth (cat. 64) Frontispiece: Jan Gossart, Danae (detail), 1527. Bayerische Staatsgemildesammlungen,

The catalogue

made possible by the Mary C. and James W. Fosburgh Publications Fund and the Roswell L. Gilpatric Publications Fund, 1s

Alte Pinakothek, Munich (cat. 35)

Copyright © 2010 by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Additional support

is

provided by the Doris Duke Fund for Publications.

The exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum is made possible by the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, the Gail and Parker Gilbert Fund, Flanders House New York, and the Society of Friends of Belgium in America.

Dd ira]

FITS vou

aN

(A

4

Additional support 1s provided by The Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation, Hester Diamond, David Kowitz, the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, and Joyce P. and

No part

this

publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in All rights reserved.

of

writing from the publisher. Library

of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ainsworth, Maryan Wynn. Man, myth, and sensual pleasures : Jan Gossart’s Renaissance : the complete works / Maryan W. Ainsworth, Stijn Alsteens, and Nadine M. Orenstein ; edited by Maryan W.

Diego R.Viscegha.

Ainsworth ; with contributions by Lorne Campbell ... [et al]. p. cm. Issued in connection with an exhibition held Oct. §, 2010-Jan.

The exhibition was organized by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in association with The National Gallery, London.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and Feb. 23—May 30, 2011, National Gallery, London (selected paintings only). Includes bibliographical references and index.

supported by an indemmty from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities.

It

1s

Gwen Roginsky, General Manager of Publications Margaret Rennolds Chace and Harriet Whelchel, Managing Editors Peter Antony, Chief Production Manager Margaret Donovan, Editor Bruce Campbell, Designer Christopher Zichello, Production Manager Robert Weisberg, Assistant Managing Editor Jayne Kuchna and PennyJones, Bibliographic Editors

2011,

ISBN 978-1-58839-398-2 (the metropolitan museum of art [hc]) — ISBN 978-0-300-16657-6 (yale university press [he]) 1. Gossaert, Jan, ca.

1478—

ca. 1532—Exhibitions. 2. Gossaert, Jan, ca. 1478~ca. 1532—Catalogues raisonnés. I.

Published by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

17,

Gossaert, Jan, ca. 1478—ca. 1532.

IL.

Alsteens, Suyn. III. Orenstein, Nadine. IV. Campbell,

Lorne. V. Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y). VI. National Gallery (Great Britain). VIL. Title, VIIL. Tide: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance. N6973.G68A4 2010 759.9493 —dc22 2010028976

as Contents

Directors’ Foreword

Thomas P. Campbell and Nicholas Penny

vii

Acknowledgments

viii

Maryan W. Ainsworth

Mythological Themes

217

Possible Disguised Portraits

236

Portraits

243

Paintings Previously Attributed to Gossart

303

DRAWINGS

Stijn Alsteens

Introduction: Jan Gossart, the “Apelles of Our Age” Maryan

W. Ainsworth

3

Draftsman Gossart Tibi

Baier

Comat:

in.

Elia Antic

Virgin and Child

Mili

The Life of Christ

Maryan W, Ainsworth

9

Other Religious Subjects

Secular Subjects

Ethan Matt Kavaler

Drawing for Diplomacy: Gossart’s Sojourn Stephanie Schrader

a

Studies Related to Antique Art and Architecture

21

|

in Rome

Ornament Drawings

401

45

Drawings Attributed to Followers of Gossart

Gossart’s Mythological Nudes and the Shaping of Philip of Burgundy’s Erotic Identity Stephanie Schrader

PRINTS

57

Nadine M. Orenstein

Observations concerning Gossart’s Working Methods Maryan W. Ainsworth Stijn Alsteens

Gossart and Printmaking Nadine M. Orenstein

405

Prints by Gossart

69

Prints after Gossart

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth- Century Prints

89

Said to Be after Gossart

105

Appendix: Dendrochronology of Selected Paintings

in the Gossart Group

CATALOGUE

i

daryan W. Ainsworth with Lorne Campbell

.

1

E

i il TE

Bibliography

Adam and Eve

114

Virgin and Child

122

Index

The Passion of Christ

189

Photograph Credits

Copyrighted material

Copyrighted material

Directors’ Foreword

Jan Gossart (ca. 14781532) was one of the most innovative and versatile artists working in the sixteenth century. Taking an interest in classical antiquity, in recent developments in Renaissance Italy, and in the novel inventions of the Germans Albrecht Diirer and Conrad Meit, he was able both to emulate the intricate splendor of Jan van Eyck and to create pictures of an intense originality that deserve wider recognition. The first and only monographic exhibition of Gossart’s paintings, drawings, and prints took place in Rotterdam and Bruges forty-five years ago. There has never been an exhibition in the United States devoted to him, even though a number of his most important works are housed in American collections. Renewed interest in the artist and original scholarship concerning various aspects of his oeuvre have pointed to the need for a reappraisal of his accomplishments. Maryan Ainsworth, Curator in the Department of European Paintings at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, took up the challenge, conceiving this exhibition and editing the catalogue. She dealt primarily with the paintings, studying the majority of them for the first time through technical examination, and reexamining the others. She recruited a number of colleagues to work with her, among them Stijn Alsteens and Nadine Orenstein, Associate Curator and Curator, respectively, in the Department of Drawings and Prints at the Metropolitan; Stephanie Schrader, Associate Curator in the Department of Drawings at The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles; and Ethan Matt Kavaler, Associate Professor in the Department of Art at the University of Toronto. Early on, Susan Foister, Director of Collections at the National Gallery in London, expressed keen interest in organizing a slightly different version of the exhibition for the National Gallery, which is, of course, the perfect partner, not only because nine of Gossart’s paintings are housed there (including one on loan from H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth II and another from a private collection) but also because of the

warranted that would update Sadja Herzog’s 1968 monograph. Although it is highly unusual for the Metropolitan Museum embark on a project of this sort, the importance of Gossart’s contribution to early Netherlandish painting and the realization that there was so much more to be learned about him convinced us of the necessity to carry out a thorough study of his works. These efforts required considerable cooperation from many colleagues at other museums, who are thanked in the Acknowledgments. Such an in-depth reappraisal of Gossart could not even have been imagined without the extraordinary generosity of our colleagues at numerous institutions and of private collectors who agreed to lend their treasures to the two venues of our exhibition. This remarkable expression of support has resulted in a highly representative view of Gossart’s accomplishments in panel paintings, drawings, and prints, all reconsidered in the context of his artistic milieu. The generous funding of the exhibition has allowed us to bring Gossart’s oeuvre to our viewing public in the best way possible. In New York, we are especially grateful to the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, the Gail and Parker Gilbert Fund, the Flemish Government through Flanders House New York, the Society of Friends of Belgium in America, The Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation, Hester Diamond, David Kowitz, the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, Joyce P. and Diego R.Visceglia, and the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. In London, we wish to thank the Flemish Government for their support. For sponsoring the publication of this catalogue, the Mary C. and James W. Fosburgh Publications Fund, the Roswell L. Gilpatric Publications Fund, and the Doris Duke Fund for Publications at the Metropolitan Museum all deserve recognition and our sincere gratitude.

in-house expertise of Lorne Campbell, George Beaumont Senior Research Curator, who generously shared his knowledge of the National Gallery's paintings, including his important unpublished research, and agreed to write a number of the

Thomas

catalogue entries. It had been clear from the start that, in addition to an exhibition, a new catalogue raisonné of the artist's oeuvre was

to

P.

Campbell

Director The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Nicholas Penny Director The National Gallery, London

Directors’ Foreword

v1

Acknowledgments The idea of an exhibition on Jan Gossart was first proposed to Philippe de Montebello, Director Emeritus, in 2007. It is to Philippe that I owe enormous gratitude, not only for approving an exhibition about an artist not well known in America but also for agreeing from the outset that there was a need for catalogue raisonné on Gossart and that we should do it. Encouraging support for this plan came early on from Everett Fahy, John Pope-Hennessy Chairman of the Department of European Paintings; Mahrukh Tarapor, Associate Director for Exhibitions; and John P. O'Neill, Publisher and Editor in Chief, all of whom retired in 2009. As a different administrative team took over, newly appointed Director Thomas P. Campbell enthusiastically embraced the plans for a Gossart exhibition and monograph, even at a time of considerable economic challenge for the Museum, and for this I am extremely thankful. Keith Christiansen, John Pope-Hennessy Chairman of the Department of European Paintings, and Jennifer Russell, Associate Director for Exhibitions, provided sage advice and continued encouragement when it was most needed. From July 2008 throughout the transitional period, Martha Deese, Senior Administrator for Exhibitions and Internal Affairs, expertly facilitated loan requests. George Goldner, Drue Heinz Chairman of the Department of Drawings and Prints, lent us two of his curators for the project, Stijn Alsteens and Nadine Orenstein, to research Gossart’s drawings and prints, respectively, and to contribute the essays and catalogue entries on these aspects of Gossart’s oeuvre. a

When we began this project, valuable new studies on Gossart were under way or had just been completed. Among the scholars involved in this innovative research were Stephanie Schrader

and Ethan Matt Kavaler, whom we invited to provide essays on their most recent work, namely, on the impact of Philip of Burgundy's patronage on Gossart’s artistic development and on a fresh understanding of Gossart’s depiction of parallel architectural styles—Late High Gothic and antique—in his paintings. This has been an exceptional team, and to each one of them I offer sincere thanks for stimulating conversations and fine contributions to this volume. In the early planning stages of the project, Susan Foister, Director of Collections at the National Gallery in London, expressed interest in providing a second venue for the exhibition, and we are most grateful that Nicholas Penny, Director, endorsed the proposal. The National Gallery holds a vill

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

significant concentration of Gossart paintings, and Lorne Campbell, George Beaumont Senior Research Curator, graciously agreed to contribute to the catalogue. We are enormously appreciative of the National Gallery’s cooperation on both the exhibition and the catalogue, and especially for the many fruitful exchanges with their excellent staff. To the extraordinary team of collaborators who facilitated the technical study of Gossart’s paintings at the National Gallery—especially to Susan Foister, Lorne Campbell, and Rachel Billinge—I offer my heartfelt thanks. We had planned from the beginning to include the documents related to Gossart’s life and works as an appendix to the catalogue. However, as the book grew in size, we made the practical decision to produce a second companion volume, Jan Gossart: The Documentary Evidence, which Johan van der Beke of Brepols Publishers in Turnout, Belgium, enthusiastically agreed to publish. My sincere thanks go to Sytske Weidema, who compiled the existing documents, made new transcriptions of many and added to the already published ones, and prepared the manuscripts for publication. The volume will also contain two essays by Anna Koopstra on the documentary evidence for the so-called Salamanca Triptych and Gossart’s lost Middelburg Altarpiece. The preparations for this catalogue raisonné involved the new technical investigation of as many of Gossart’s paintings as possible, as well as a firsthand study of the drawings and prints. Museums with a particular concentration of paintings by the artist were especially generous with their time, expertise, and facilities in working with me during my repeated visits to their paintings conservation departments. That I was able to carry out this research is a result of the Metropolitan Museum's long and deep relationships with the staff at these institutions. In addition to those at the National Gallery in London, I particularly want to single out colleagues at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; the Gemaldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels; the Musée du Louvre, Paris; and the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, for extraordinary access to the many Gossart paintings in their care. The technical examinations they facilitated enabled us to reach new conclusions about thorny questions of attribution and dating in Gossart’s oeuvre. These highly valued colleagues, and others who subsequently provided additional technical

documentation, are gratefully acknowledged here: Clare Barry, Rachel Billinge, Igor Borodin, Tom Branchick, Meta Chavannes, Sue Ann Chui, Héléne Desplechin, Tiarna Doherty, Kate Duffy, Jill Dunkerton, Michael Eder, Myriam Eveno, Andras Fay, Catherine Fondaire, Pascal Fraiture, José de la Fuente, Carmen Garrido Pérez, Joseph Godla, Maria Jess Gomez Garcia, Ana Gonzalez Mozo, Martina Greisser, Suzanne Hargrove, Anne Harmssen, Jefferson Harrison, Babette Hartwieg, Scott Heffley, Ingrid Hopfner, Larry Keith, S. Kelberlau, Lizet Klaassen, Elsa Lambert, Eric Laval, Mark Leonard, Rhona MacBeth, Freya Maes, José Luis Merino Gorospe, Bruno Mottin, C. Namowicz, Britta New, Petria Noble, Elke Oberthaler, Adam Pokorny, Enrique Quintana, Lars Raffelt, William Real, Andrés Sanchez Ledesma, Christoph Schmidt, Jan Schmidt, Marika Spring, Griet Steyaert, Yvonne Szafran, Carol Tomkiewicz, Elizabeth Walmsley, Sandy Webber, Franke Wenzel, Raymond White, Margret Woulters, Martin Wyld, and Frank Zuccari. My sincere apologies for any inadvertent omissions to this list. We also owe special thanks to Peter Klein, who agreed to contribute his findings on the dendrochronology of Gossart’s panels, which he has studied over the years and more recently supplemented. Enormously beneficial discussions that led to new conclusions about Gossart’s working methods were also conducted with our own Metropolitan Museum of Art staff members in the Departments of Paintings Conservation, Paper Conservation, Objects Conservation, and Scientific Research, namely, Michael Gallagher, Karen Thomas, George Bisacca, Michael Alan Miller, Sarah Kleiner, Cynthia Moyer, Marjorie Shelley, Jack Soultanian, Silvia Centeno, and Mark Wypyski. George Bisacca helped at every stage of the planning for this exhibition, advising about the treatment, packing, and safe transport of the many panel paintings coming to New York. He was also a constant source of information concerning Gossart’s panel and frame construction. Special thanks go to Michael Gallagher and Karen Thomas, each of whom restored at the Museum Gossart paintings from the Szépmivészeti Mizeum in Budapest and the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerp. We are most grateful that these institutions allowed us to carry out the cleaning and restoration of these extraordinary paintings. Likewise, we are particularly pleased to acknowledge Jill Dunkerton and Britta New at the National Gallery, London; Catherine Metzger at the National Gallery of Art, Washington,

D.C.; Petria Noble at the Mauritshuis, The Hague; and Paolo Pastorello, working for the Palazzo Abatellis at the Galleria Regionale della Sicilia in Palermo, all of whom restored Gossart paintings for the exhibitions in New York and London and so generously discussed their technical findings with me. This new research led to a refinement of Gossart’s oeuvre and to a more precise evaluation of what would constitute our exhibition loan list. We sincerely thank all our colleagues at the many museums who agreed to lend the rare treasures in their collections, as well as other colleagues who provided key information about works both by Gossart and by other artists that illustrate points of comparison, thus providing the context for Gossart’s achievements. With enormous gratitude, we recognize Cristina Acidini, Sébastien Allard, Denise Allen, Hope Alswang, Heinrich Schulze Altcappenberg, Irina Antonova, Christopher Apostle, Hermann Arnhold, Laszl6 Baan, Ronni Baer, Emanuel von Baeyer, Marisa Bass, David Becker, Damien Berné, Kees Berserik, Giulia Bertram, Holm Bevers, Nancy Bialler, Michele Bimbenet-Privat, Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Rhea Blok, Peter Blom, David Bomford, Till-Holger Borchert, Annik Born, Mar Borobia, Antonia Bostrom, Peter van den Brink, Emmanuelle Brugerolles, Veronique Biicken, Hans Buijs, Duncan Bull, Helena Bussers, Quentin Buvelot, An Van Camp, Linda Catano, Michel Ceuterick, Hugo Chapman, Gregory Clark, Michael Clarke, Herman Colenbrander, Fernand Collier, Michael Conforti, Luigi Costato, HenriClaude Cousseau, James Cuno, Frank Dabell, Mariam Dandamayeva, Giulia Davi, John B. Davidson, André de Halleux, Krista De Jonge, Andrea G. De Marchi, Jean-Pierre De Rycke, Taco Dibbits, Ann Diels, Judith Dolkart, Gesine Doria Floridi, Jonathan Doria Pamphilj, Michel Draguet, Charles Dumas, Burton Dunbar, Henrik Dupont, Nancy Edwards, Ildiko Ember, Dan Ewing, Sjarel Ex, Marzia Faietti, Reinert Falkenburg, Molly Faries, An Jo Fermon, Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Gabriele Finaldi, Roberto Fontanari, Peter Fuhring, Alexandre Galand, Ana Garcia Sanz, Jeroen Giltay), Bruno Girveau, Daniel Benito Goerlich, Emilie Gordenker, George Gordon, Deborah A. Gribbon, Antony Griffiths, William Griswold, Emma Guest, Sabine Haag, Tom Haartsen, Bob Haboldt, John Oliver Hand, Inger Marie Kromann Hansen, Jefferson Harrison, Cordéha Hattori, Allis Helleland, Lee Hendrix, William Hennessey, Antonio Hernandez-Gil, Katie Heyning, Max Hollein, Alice Hoppe-Harnoncourt, Manfred Acknowledgments

1X

Hoss, Paul Huvenne, Linda Jansen, Michael Jenkins, Jeffrey

Jennings, Mark Jones, Norbert Jopek, David Burmeister Kaaring, Danny Katz, Stephan Kemperdick, Brian P. Kennedy, [an Kennedy, Thomas Ketelsen, Friedrich Kisters, Wouter Kloek, Jos Kodeweij, Rhoda Koenig, Ellen Konowitz, Fritz Koreny, Olga Kotkovia, Thomas Kren, David Krol, Armin Kunz, Andrea Kust, Clifford La Fontaine, Friso Lammertse, Eric Lee, Huigen Leeflang, Micha Leeflang, Arnold L. Lehman, Leonard Leibowitz, John Leighton, I. Th. Leijerzapt, Bernd Lindemann, Charles Little, Hilde Lobelle-Caluwé, Renilde Loeckx-Drozdiak, Tom Loeffler, Eric Loffler, Majbritt Leland, Angelika Lorenz, Henri Loyrette, Alison Luxner, Bernhard Maaz, Annette Manick, C. Griffith Mann, Giorgio Marini, Maximiliaan P.J. Martens, Rodolfo Martini, Mark McDonough, Neil McGregor, J. William Middendorf, Elizabeth Morrison, Tim Motz, Héléene Mund, Patrick Murphy, Lawrence Nichols, Erland Kolding Nielsen, Hans Nieuwdorp, Charles Noble, Karsten Ohrt, Peter Parshall, Annalisa Perissa Torrini, Emily Peters, Magali Philippe, Wim Pijjbes, Mikhail Piotrovsky, Vincent Pomaréde, Hanne Kolind Poulsen, Earl A. Powell III, Maxime Préaud, Wolfgang Prohaska, Enrique Quintana Calamita, Richard Rand, Brigitte Raskin, J. E van Regteren Altena, Louise Rice, Achim Rieter, Hugh Roberts, William B. Robinson, Andrew Robison, Malcolm Rogers, Antonio Romagnolo, Martin Roth, Martin Royalton-Kisch, Timothy Rub, Vidor Sadkov, Thierry Saemant, Nanette Salomon, Ana Sanchez-Lassa, Jochen Sander, Cécile Scailliérez, Scott Schaefer, Jef Schaeps, Maryn Schapelhouman, Martin Schawe, Frits Scholten, Klaus Albrecht Schroder, Karl Schiitz, Giovanna Nepi Scire, David Scrase, Christian Tico Seifert, Cordula Severit, Jon Seydl, Desmond Shawe-Taylor, Pilar Silva Maroto, Veronique Sintobin, Guillermo Solana, John Somerville, Martin Sonnabend, Paul Spencer-Longhurst, Ron Spronk, Annemarie Stefes, Ad Stijnman, Richard Stone, Susan Strickler, Ann Sumner, Kurt Sundstrom, Naoko Takahatake, Stanton Thomas, David Tunick, Carel van Tuyll, Neil D. Tyson, Suzanne Urbach, Maria Van Berge-Gerbaud, Frederica Van Dam, Peter van der Coelen, Joris van Grieken, Nico van Hout, Alessia Vedova, Alejandro Vergara, Javier Viar, Angela Voelker, Christian von Heusinger, Malcolm Warner, Joshua Waterman, Gregor Weber, Lucy Whitaker, Roger Wieck, Paul Williamson, Marc E Wilson, Martha Wolff, Diane Wolfthal, Ann Wollett, Moritz Wullen, Christina Zenz, Nikolay Zikov, and Miguel Zugaza Miranda, as well as those generous private collectors who wish to remain anonymous. A number of colleagues at the Metropolitan Museum kindly offered advice and helped with various loans. We gratefully acknowledge Dita Amory, Andrea Bayer, Barbara Boehm, Dirk Breiding, James Draper, Sein Hemingway, Melanie

X

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Holcomb, Timothy Husband, Catherine Jenkins, Wolfram Koeppe, Chris Lightfoot, Joan Mertens, Elizabeth Milleker, Carlos Picon, Teresa Russo, Jack Soultanian, Freyda Spira, Ian Wardropper, and Linda Wolk-Simon. Carmen Bambach must be singled out for her unfailing efforts in helping to achieve one of our most important loans and for discussing the working methods of Italian Renaissance artists with me. Anna Koopstra, our Slifka Foundation Interdisciplinary Research Scholar, worked tirelessly with me over the last two years on so many aspects of the Gossart research and exhibition preparation that it is difficult to thank her properly for all that she has contributed. Without her collaboration, the catalogue and the exhibition certainly would not be as rich as they are. Meredith Nelson and Peggy Ebner helped with a variety of administrative duties for the exhibition and catalogue. Jennifer Meagher and Gretchen Wold ably prepared the United States Government Indemnity, and Ellen Leszynski handled our Immunity from Seizure application. Carol Lekarew and Ling

Hu oversaw the organization of all of our Gossart images on the MediaBin database. Without the steady assistance of Dorothy Kellett, Patrice Mattia, and Andrew Caputo in the Department of European Paintings and Elizabeth Zanis in Drawings and Prints, we surely would have veered off course. In addition, we express our sincere appreciation for the tireless efforts of the staffs of the Thomas J. Watson Library at the Metropolitan Museum and the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie in The Hague for their willingness to further our research in every way, and particu-

larly to provide easy access to so many sources and documents, old and new. A catalogue of this complexity cannot be realized without

the contributions of our esteemed colleagues in the Editorial Department. Gwen Roginsky, Acting Publisher and Editor in

Chief, expertly oversaw the catalogue through its many stages to publication, and we owe her our profound gratitude. We were especially blessed to have as our editor Margaret Donovan, who was ably assisted by Nancy Grubb, Dale Tucker, and Ellyn Allison. Together, they polished our prose and saved us from countless errors. Jayne Kuchna expertly handled the Herculean task of bibliographer and was helped in this task by Penny Jones. Bruce Campbell provided another of his classic, exquisite book designs; he never fails and he never disappoints. Without Chris Zichello and Robert Weisberg, the images and texts would not have proceeded through the design and production phases in such a timely fashion. Juan Trujillo and Mark Morosse photographed, respectively, the newly restored paintings and the works on paper for the catalogue. We were especially pleased when Jan Martens, publisher of Mercatorfonds, Belgium, offered to

publish the catalogue in Flemish and French translations and are delighted that it will now reach a larger audience abroad. With the book in hand, we turned our attention to the accompanying exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum. Kirstie Howard in the Office of the Senior Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel, expertly guided us through all legal matters to achieve signed contracts. Museum Registrar Aileen Chuk gave invaluable advice at key points concerning specific loan issues, and Nina Maruca, our ever able and completely unflappable registrar for the exhibition, ensured that the objects would arrive on time. Caitlin Corrigan and Lisa Cain assisted with arrangements for incoming and outgoing works for the exhibition. Linda Sylling masterfully oversaw the budgetary matters, design, and installation. To all of them we are enormously grateful. We could not have been more pleased to work with Dan Kershaw and Sue Koch, our exhibition designers. Special thanks are owed to George Bisacca and Michael Alan Miller for their expert advice and handling of the installation of the many panel paintings. The works in the show were skillfully mounted by collections managers, technicians, and installers from several different departments, including Fred Caruso, Matthew Cumbie, David del Gaizo, Bill Gagen, Theresa KingDickinson, Gary Kopp, John McKanna, Fred Sager, Denny Stone, and Jenna Wainwright. Clint Ross Collier and Richard Lichte provided the lighting design. Pam Barr expertly edited the exhibition labels, and John Muldowney, Joseph Smith, and Andrey Kostiw produced them for the installation.

Financial help was, of course, vital to such an ambitious project. Nina McN. Diefenbach, Christine S. Begley, Andrea Kann, Allison Sawczyn, and Thomas Reynolds of the Development Office provided expert guidance and assistance in this regard. Peggy Fogelmann, Joseph Loh, Stella Paul, Nancy Thompson, Chris Noey, and Kathryn Galitz helped to plan and coordinate our multifaceted educational programs. Sofie Andersen and Vivian Gordon expertly produced our inspired Antenna Audio guide for the exhibition. Elyse Topalian and Mary Flanagan of the Communications Department handled our publicity and press inquiries with great aplomb. In this time of economic challenge, we are grateful to the community of Belgians in New York, especially to Ambassador Herman Portocarero, Consul General of Belgium, for their great interest and support of this exhibition in so many ways from the beginning. To Thomas Leysen, Frangois M. de Visscher, Beatrice Vornle von Haagenfels, and Linda Edwards, we owe our special thanks. We could not have gone forward without the generous contributions of the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, the Gail and Parker Gilbert Fund, the Flemish Government through Flanders House New York, the Society of Friends of Belgium in America, The Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation, and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. In addition, other foundations and individuals have generously helped us to achieve our initial vision of an exceptional exhibition and catalogue. To Hester Diamond, David Kowitz, and Diego R. and Joyce P.Visceglia, we are deeply indebted. Maryan W. Ainsworth Curator Department of European Paintings The Metropolitan Museum ofArt

Acknowledgments

Xi

Lenders to the Exhibition

AUSTRIA

RUSSIA

Vienna, Albertina

Moscow, Pushkin State Museum

Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum

Saint Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum

BELGIUM Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Brussels, Cathédrale des Saints-Michel-et-Gudule Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique

Tournai, Musées des Beaux-Arts

of Fine Arts

SPAIN Bilbao, Museo de Bellas Artes de Bilbao

Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado Madrid, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza Valencia, Museo del Patriarca, Real Colegio—Seminario del Corpus Christi

DENMARK Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek Copenhagen, Statens Museum for Kunst FRANCE

KINGDOM

Birmingham, The Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum

Paris, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts

Chatsworth, The Devonshire Collection

Paris, Institut Néerlandais, Collection Frits Lugt

Edinburgh, National Galleries of Scotland London, The British Museum

Paris, Museé du Louvre

GERMANY Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kunstbibliothek Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Frankfurt, Stadel Museum Miinster, Landesmuseum fiir Kunst und Kulturgeschichte HUNGARY Budapest, Szépmiivészeti Mitzeum ITALY

London, The National Gallery London, Victoria and Albert Museum Windsor, The Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,

Windsor Castle

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Fine Arts Boston, Museum

of

Chicago, The Art Institute

of Chicago Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum Kansas City, The Nelson-Atkins Museum ofArt Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum Manchester, Currier Museum of Art

Florence, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampedegli Uffizi

New York, Brooklyn Museum

Palermo, Galleria Regionale della Sicilia, Palazzo Abatellis

New York, The Metropolitan Museum

Rovigo, Pinacoteca dell’ Accademia dei Concordi

New York, The Morgan Library and Museum

Venice, Gallerie dell’ Accademia

Norfolk, Chrysler Museum of Art Providence, Museum ofArt, Rhode Island School of Design Toledo, Toledo Museum ofArt

NETHERLANDS Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Prentenkabinet Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen The Hague, Mauritshuis

X11

UnNiTeED

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

ofArt

Washington, D.C., National Gallery ofArt Williamstown, Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute Various private collections

Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

a

— ma

d

one

A

TU

a

IOANNI MABVSIO, PICTORI.

-

Tuque adeo noftrisfeclum diceres, cMabuf, Verfibus adgraphicen erudufe tunm_. alter litids ad afpettum pigmenta quis Nam p Florida eApelless illineret bila? eArte alijs, eftv, tua tempora cedefecutisPeniculs ductor par tib,ravus erit.

Introduction: Jan Gossart, the “Apelles of Our Age” Maryan W. Ainsworth

n a comparison with the greatest painter of antiquity, Jan Gossart was repeatedly acknowledged as “nostrae aetatis Apellem” (the Apelles of our age). This praise first appeared in two separate texts of 1516 and 1529 by Philip of Burgundy’s court poet and humanist, Gerard Geldenhouwer.' Dominicus Lampsonius’ encomium 1572 (fig. 1) identified the artist as the one who taught his century how to paint with a meticulously fine finish reminiscent of Apelles and who displayed a mastery unequaled in his own time.” Lodovico Guicciardini (1567), Giorgio Vasari (1568), and Karel van Mander

of

of Gossarts art and credited him with being the first to bring from Italy to the North the art of depicting historie and poesiec with nude figures.” The (1604) all described the themes

Flemish historians Marcus vanVaernewijck (1568) and Johannes Molanus (1582) likewise acknowledged his extraordinary fame as a

painter.”

Chief among the scanty remains of comments by contem-

porary artists concerning Gossart’s reputation is Albrecht Diirer’s critique. In December 1520, while on his trip to the Netherlands, Diirer recorded in his journal that he had stopped to see the Middelburg Altarpiece, which Van Mander was later to acknowledge as “his most important and famous [work].”” According to a local chronicler, Diirer was duly impressed and remarked that he had seen nothing comparable in the Low Countries,” but he candidly noted that it was “not as good in design as in painting.” Van Mander provided a rough sketch of Gossart’s life, reported the location of some of his most important works, boasted of his remarkable skills at illusionistic effects in his paintings, and admitted that although Gossart was most disorderly and irregular in his life, the reverse was true when he took brush to panel.” This admiration for Gossart and the intriguing notices of his works from Diirer and Van Mander make it all the more frustrating that there are so few remaining documents of specific commissions that can be linked to extant paintings.” However, a number of signed drawings and prints as well as signed and dated paintings (see my essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume) provide the linchpins for reconstructing the attributions and the chronology of Gossart’s oeuvre. The incomplete record of his career and what remains Johannes Wierix, Mabuse, from Dominicus Lampsonius, Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germaniae inferioris effigies, 1572. Engraving, H. 12% 1n. (32 cm). Ryksmuseum, Amsterdam (RP-P-0B-67.049) Opposite: Fig.

of the paintings, drawings, and prints suggest that he depended upon the pensions he received through his attachment to various court patrons and that he augmented this fixed income with outside commissions. Gossart worked most of his professional career as a court artist, first for Philip of Burgundy, subsequently for Philips great-nephew Adolf of Burgundy (who was Admiral of Zeeland and later Marquis, or Lord, of Veere), and finally for Mencia de Mendoza, the wife of Henry III, Count of Nassau-Breda. He also fulfilled requests

on occasion for Emperor Charles V, Archduchess Margaret of Austria, and King Christian II of Denmark. These close connections to the court were responsible for the fact that he produced designs for works in other media and for special events as well as paintings (see Stijn Alsteens’ essay in this volume). Gossart, perhaps inspired by Diirer’s visit to the Netherlands, also dabbled in printmaking (see Nadine Orenstein’s essay in this volume). The scarcity of accounts relating to Gossart’s personal life has led to much speculation about the artist's appearance and particularly about whether any of his paintings and drawings

1.

Fig. 2. Hans Schwarz(?), Medallion with portrait Sforzesco, Gabinetto Numismatico, Milan (1226)

of Gossart,

1520s. Castello

simply

a reference to his self-identification with the patron saint

of painters; Lukes head does not bear any resemblance to the other proposed portraits of the artist. Heinrich Schwarz sug-

gested that the Currier Museum Portrait of a Man (cat. 46) and Adam in Gossart’s paintings and drawings of Adam and Eve also represent the artist.”> Schwarz saw Gossart’s identification with his erotically charged Adam figures as a reflection of his own dissolute life, as recounted in Van Mander’ short biography." H. van Halls 1963 publication provided a list of eleven selfportraits in Gossart’s works, a compilation based more on fantasy than reality."

A few examples of possible self-portraits may be taken more seriously, however. Herzog suggested the Moscow Portrait of a Man as a candidate (fig. 3, cat. 41),"" and the sitter in that work is closer in appearance to Gossart in the Wierix print and the

to his unusually long, flat nose with large nostrils. Friedlinder proposed another possible sighting of the painter in Lucas van Leyden’s 1525 engraving The Poet Virgil Suspended in a Basket (fig. 4), which shows the very same fellow at its center and may well be an homage to Gossart by Lucas, who traveled with him in 1526—27."" One of Lucas’s most elaborate prints, this work certainly shows the influence of Gossart’s types in the foreground.” Van Mander published the first biography of Gossart in his a consider1604 Het Schilder-Boeck.” While probably based able degree on hearsay, it does have the advantage of having been written closer to the time ofthe artists life than any other account. Subsequent discussions of Gossart, such as those by Joachim von Sandrart, Isaac Bullart,and Jean-Baptiste Descamps, were largely based on Van Mander and added little new.” The nineteenth century saw a flurry of activity in the archives that resulted in the discovery of new biographical details about Gossart.” But it was the 1902 Bruges exhibition “Les Primitifs flamands et d’art ancien,” which introduced early Netherlandish painting to the public for the first time, that provided the impetus for new monographs, such as the one by Maurice Gossart published in 1903 about his namesake.** This slim volume brought up to date all the known documents, and it was followed by Ernst Weisz’ 1913 book and Achille Segard’s 1923 mini-monograph that offered initial conclusions concerning Gossart’s works.” In the ensuing decades German scholars took the lead in publishing further insights into Gossart’s oeuvre, and thus emerged Friedlinder’s exemplary short essays on the artist’s life and works, accompanied bythe first important catalogue of the paintings and drawings.” In the scholarly literature ofthe late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the e shipped into the spelling of Gossart’s name and has stayed there stubbornly since, even though the artist never used the spelling Gossaert in any of his signed works. In this volume the originally appeared in Gossart’s name 1s restored to the way own time, medal, especially

Fig. 3. Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Man (detail of cat. 41)

contain portrait belongs painters

self-portraits.’ Attributed to Johannes Wierix

is a

inscribed IOANNI MABVSIO, PICTORI that to a series of twenty-three engravings portraying published in 1572 in Dominicus Lampsonius’ Effigies (fig. 1)."" Here Gossart is extravagantly dressed and has short, curly hair, a beard and mustache, and a long, flat nose ending in wide nostrils. This likeness was probably based on the only known portrait of the artist in his lifetime, an early sixteenthcentury medal (fig. 2) inscribed IO MALBODIVS PICTOR

ABIONIGRO GERMANOAD VIVVMEXPRESSVS

Mabuse Painter by I German Schwarz represented from life)." But despite the identification of Hans Schwarz as the maker, recent scholarship questions the attribution of such medals from the late 1520s to the German, since he was by then deceased.” The only known version of the Gossart medal that exists todayis in the Castello Sforzesco, Gabinetto Numismatico, Milan." The Wierix portrait and the medal have both been used by modern scholars as the basis for the identification of selfportraits in Gossart’s paintings, drawings, and prints, but few of these can be maintained. The supposed self-portrait in the guise of Saint John the Baptist in the Toledo panel (cat. 244) relies on a misreading of Antonius Sanderus and, in any event, represents a typical John the Baptist type, not an individualized portrait. Although Gossart inscribed his name on the belt of Saint Luke in the Vienna Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (cat. 12), this 1s (I

4

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

as

to

it

Cm — :

R

4s Ey Ta

-

Ee

a

po

A Sa

:

{

SE

Fig. 4. Lucas van Leyden, The Poet Virgil Suspended in a Basket, 1525. Engraving, 9' Vie x 776 in. (24.5 x 18.9 cm). The Metropolitan Museum Gaft of Felix M. Warburg and his family, 1941 (41.1.23)

1

4

|

——

of Art, New York,

Introduction

$

The 1960s brought the most significant advance in Gossart scholarship: Jacqueline Folie published a critical catalogue of the drawings; Gert von der Osten considered the chronology of the known works in the context of Gossart’s artistic

milieu; the Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, and the Groeningemuseum, Bruges, shared the first major exhibition on the artist; Sadja Herzog completed his excellent PhD dissertation—the first comprehensive monograph on Gossart—at Bryn Mawr College; and additional scholarly articles, discussing issues raised by the 1965 exhibition, were published as volume 19 of the 1968 Bulletin Boymans— Van Beuningen.”” The latter included studies of Gossart’s artistic debt to Jan Van Eyck, his early years in Antwerp, traditional and innovative approaches to some of his key paintings (such as the Neptune and Amphitrite, Danae, and Prague Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin), and further information about Gossart’s relatives, namely, one of his sons-in-law, the painter Hendrik van der Heyden. The importance of the 1965 exhibition and the scholarly activities surrounding it cannot be overestimated, since these events laid the foundation for all subsequent work on the artist. Since the major contributions of the 1960s, Gossart scholarship has taken various twists and turns and been devoted to a smattering of diverse issues. The 1980s, in particular, saw a spate of articles on various matters such as the “Gothic Gossart,” his erotic nudes, and his innovative aesthetic approach, including incipient stages of Northern Mannerism.” Jos Sterk’s major 1980 study on Philip of Burgundy placed Gossart’s art for the first ime in the context of his principal patrons humanist courts at Souburg and Wijk bij Duurstede.”” Responding in part to Sterk’s study, scholars from the 1990s to the present have continued to debate the question of the meaning of Gossart’s erotic nudes—whether they were painted as moralistic warnas reflections of the carnal pleaings against sensual love™ sures advocated at court.”’ Two recent PhD dissertations, one by Ariane Mensger (subsequently published in 2002) and another by Stephanie Schrader in 2006, further probed a variety of issues relating to Gossart’s court art, mythological themes, and Eyckian archaism, among others.” Recognizing that stylistic preferences were often a deliberate political statement, Ethan Matt Kavaler, Krista de Jonge, and Mensger have delved into the coexistence of Late High Gothic and antique architectural styles, both in the Netherlands and specifically in

or

Gossart’s works.”

The aim of the current monograph

a

is a

reappraisal

of Jan

Gossart based on fresh, firsthand study of his works, including technical investigations of as many of the paintings as possible.* This endeavor has resulted in numerous discoveries about Gossart’s paintings, drawings, and prints, including how they were made, why they were made, and in some cases for whom

6 Jan GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

they were made. The recent technical examination of the paintings, facilitated by the collaboration of many museum conservators and conservation scientists, has provided new information for the first broad overview of Gossart’s working methods (see my essay on the subject in this volume). Questions of attribution and dating have been reconsidered, and as a result the oeuvre has been redefined, not only in terms of the number of accepted works but also in terms of their function. By accepting a larger number of drawings, Stijn Alsteens has broadened the view of Gossart as a draftsman, and Nadine Orenstein has offered the first serious consideration of Gossart as a printmaker. The opportunity for three scholars, specializing in different media, to collaborate on the study of Gossart’s oeuvre has raised new questions and culminated in new proposals. Gossart has been revealed to have mostly worked alone but to have collaborated with other artists, including Gerard David and various landscape painters, when the commission called for it. New emphasis 1s placed on the importance of Gossart’s sculptural approach, initiated certainly with his trip to Rome but powerfully sustained and more fully developed through his connection with another court artist, the sculptor Conrad Meit. Our revised view of Gossart has led to a deeper understanding ofhis simultaneous work 1n parallel styles (the “modern’ Late High Gothic and antique architectural modes) and of the fact that this was based on specific commissions rather than on a sequential chronological development from what had been perceived to be the earlier style to the newer, more advanced one. In this process, we have also come to terms with Gossart’s so-called Eyckian phase and recognized that it has been much overstated in the past. Only one of the Eyckian copies generally attributed to Gossart is by him, namely, the Deesis (cat. 29), and it comes much later in the artists career than has been supposed. In an effort to better understand Gossart’s works in their own time, we have presented discussions of several key issues that previously have not received due attention. Essays covering the Habsburg-Burgundian court milieu—specifically the role that Gossart’s dual modes of architecture played in various representations, the nature of his work for his main patron, Philip of Burgundy, and the deeper meaning of the mythological themes that he painted for humanist courts—aim to open new avenues for inquiry. Sensuality runs through Gossart’s paintings, drawings, and prints as a leitmotif. It is not restricted to mythological subjects, where it is a thinly veiled justification for a heightened eroticism, but pervades Gossart’s representations of Adam and Eve and the Virgin and Child as well. The

ttle of our monograph, Man, Myth, and

Sensual

Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, thus represents our focus on be the important facets of Gossart’s art in a what we deem

humanist era.

to

.

.

.

In a pamphlet printed on April 3, 1516, by Dirk Martens in Leuven, Geldenhouwer lauded Gossart's work on the pageant car of King Ferdinand of Aragon’s funeral

XXVT EB); the two were cast back-to-back at an unknown date. My sincere thanks to Jeffrey Jennings, independent scholar, Milan, and Dr. Rodolfo Martini,

procession: “nostri saccuh Apelhs” (Geldenhouwer 1516/1901, p. 210; see also Sterk 1980, p. 112; and Schrader 2006, pp. 47-48). Geldenhouwer’s later biography of Philip, Vita clarissimi principis Philippi a Burgundia (Life of the Celebrated Ruler Philip

Conservator and Curator of Comns and Medallions at the Castello Sforzesco, Milan, for a thorough examination of the medal and a report of the findings in October 2008 (email correspondence of September 17, 23, and October 20, 2008, curatorial

of Burgundy), Strasbourg, 1529, praised Philip for his patronage of highly accomplished painters and architects, including Jacopo de’ Barbari and Gossart: “nostrac actatis Zewsm et Apellem” (Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 235; see also Herzog 1968a, p. 77; and Schrader 2006, pp. 48. 157-58). These comments appeared in one of the inscriptions that Lampsonius provided for Volexken Diercx, the widow of Hieronymus Cock, to accompany her husband’s twenty-three engraved portraits of Netherlandish painters in Pictorum ali-

files, Department

of European Paintings, Metropolitan Museum).

Schwarz 1953, pp. 165-68. 16. See note 8 above. 15.

17.

Van Hall 1963, pp. 115-16. See also Wescher 19653, pp. 159, 161-62.

18.

Herzog 1968a, p. 296.

19.

Friedlander first suggested that this might be a portrait of Gossart (Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 10 [1932], p. 97; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 10 [1973], p. 55).

quot celebrium Germaniae inferioris effigies (Portraits of Some Celebrated Artists of the Low Countries, Antwerp, 1572). See Mclion 1991, p. 143; see also Schrader 2006,

20. Ellen S. Jacobowitz in Washington, Boston 1983, pp. 222-23, no. 88. 21. Van Mander 1604/1994-99, vol. (1994), pp. 158-63, fol. 2251, line 31-fol. 226v,

PP: 44-47.

hne 21, and vol. 3 (1996), pp. 141-54 (commentary by Miedema). 22. Von Sandrart 1675/1925; Bullart 1695, vol. 2, pp. 407-8; Descamps 1753—64, vol.

Guicciardim 1567, p. 98; Vasa: 1568/ 1878-85, vol. 7, p. 584; Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. 1 (1994), pp. 160, 161, fol. 225v, lines 3-7.

4. Van Vaernewijck 1568/1829, p. 119; Molanus 1582/1861, vol. 1, p. 611. . Van Mander 1604/1994—99, vol. 1 (1994), pp. 160, 161, fol. 225v, ines 7-8, and vol. 3 (1996), pp. 147-48 (commentary by Hessel Miedema). See Koopstra forth-

1

pp. 838s. 23. See Van Mander 1604/1884—85, vol. 1, pp. 232-40; and Van Even 1870, pp. 414—22. See also the mentions in Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, vol. 1, pp. 8, 63, 66; Rooses 1879, vol. 1, pp. 97-101, 102, 106-11, 137, 138; and Van den Branden 1883,

coming B for a discussion of the documentary sources for Gossart’s large altarpiece for the Premonstratensian Abbey in Middelburg. “Albert Durer German, who was very impressed by this painting, said that he had not seen such [works| in the Netherlands” (Albert Durer Hoochduytsch/ die dese Schilderije seer gherecommandeert heeft/segghende/dat hy sulckx in dese Nederlanden niet ghesien en hadde); Reygersbergh and Van Boxhorn 1644, vol. 2, p. 445, quoted in Campbell, Foster, and Roy 1997a, p. 96, n. §. “Nat so gut im hauptstreichen als in gemiahl” Rupprich 1956-69, vol. 1, p. 162. Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. (1994), pp. 158-63, fol. 2251, line 31—fol. 226v,

26. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 9—77, 150—64, vol. 14 (1937), pp. 111-12; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 11-50, 90-101, 112. 27. Folie 1951/1960; von der Osten 1961; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965; Herzog 1968a;

line 21, and vol.

(1996), pp. 141-54 (commentary by Miedema). . For the documents relaung to commissioned drawings, see Styn Alsteens’ essay in this volume and cat. 108. 10. For Stephanie Schrader’s evaluation of the various proposed Gossart self-portraits,

30. See Silver 1986a; Veldman 1990—91a; and Mensger 2002, pp. 187-90.

see Schrader 2006, pp. 219-31. 11. See Van Ruyven-Zeman 2004, pp. 166-67, no. 2023. 12. The earliest discussion of the medal was in Bernhart 1924. 13. J. C. Smith 1994, pp. 399—400; see also Schrader 2006, p. 224, n. 599. The most recent discussion of Schwarz and this medal is by Kastenholz 2006, p. 238, who erroneously lists the only known surviving medal in Milan as one-sided.

32. Mensger 2002; Schrader 2006.

.

.

.

14.

1

3

However, this 1s a recast copy of about 1700 or later that 1s joined to a separate unrelated prece (a portrait of a man with a French inscription, C'EST MON TOVR MD

1,

pp- 87, 88, 95-98, 24. Bruges 1902; Gossart 1903. 25. Weisz 1913b; Segard 1923.

Bulletin Boymans—Van Beuningen 1968. 28. See Judson 19853; Judson 1986; Silver 1086a; Judson 1987; and Silver 1987. 29. Sterk 1980. 31.

See Sluyter 1991-92; Slunter 1999a; Slayer 1999b; Lehmann 2004, pp. 6-13; Schrader 2006, chap. 3,“ Eroticism at Court”; and Schrader’ essay on Gossart’s mythological nudes in this volume.

Kavaler 1994; Kavaler 2000; De Jonge 2008; Mensger 2008b. 34. Technical investigations of Gossart’s works, both in general and of specific paintings, have appeared only sporadically in the last few decades. Among the important publications are Van Asperen de Boer, Faries, and Filedt Kok 1986; 33.

Campbell and Dunkerton 1996; Folie 1996, esp. pp. 27-28; Campbell, Foister, and Roy 19972; Garrido 1999; Hopfner 2005; Ana Gonzalez Mozo in Madrid 2006, pp- 102-13, no. 4; and Kotkova and Pokorny 2008-9.

Introduction

7

The Painter Gossart in His Artistic Milieu Maryan W. Ainsworth

an Gossart’s fame in his own time was due not only to his

innovative images—Guicciardini, Vasari, and Van Mander all credited him with being the first to bring from Italy to the North the art of depicting historic and poesie with nude figures—but also to the fact that he advertised his achievements by signing so many of his works from the outset of his career.’ The significant number of signed drawings and prints and signed and dated paintings by Gossart also helps to reconstruct the artist's stylistic development from his earliest days in Antwerp to his final years of production. The inscriptions on his works evolved over time (fig. 6A—1), the pivotal point being his shift to the Latinized form Johannes Malbodius for the 1516 Neptune and Amphitrite. Most of Gossarts paintings are single panels, and nearly half are portraits, a genre in which he particularly excelled. It is clear that Jan was sought after for his extraordinary abilities to represent the lifelike appearance of individuals. Curiously, among the portraits that have survived, only a few depict women, the overwhelming number representing men of the courtly realm and upper levels of society. Despite the fragmentary remains of Gossart’s triptychs and diptychs (cats. 6, 7, 22—24A,B, 40, 55), these can be somewhat reconstructed by drawings of certain of the lost ones (see Stijn Alsteens’ essay in this volume and cats. 79, 90). Jan did not produce paintings of extended narratives, but instead devoted his attention to a limited variety of biblical and devotional themes, mostly those of Adam and Eve, the Virgin and Child, and episodes from the Passion of Christ. What is new to Northern art of the time is Gossart’s introduction of mythological themes with nude figures portrayed with heightened eroticism. These subjects and this approach allowed the artist to indulge his interest in the human body, to explore myriad possibilities for the interaction of figures, and to pursue an increasingly sculptural approach to them. These aspects of Gossart’s art were not limited to mythological themes, but played an important role in his paintings and drawings of Adam and Eve and the Virgin and Child. Although the more than sixty surviving Gossart paintings are all on panel, nearly a dozen references exist to works on canvas by the artist.” As none of these has survived, is impossible to imagine what they looked like, but some were clearly

it

Opposite: Fig.

5. Jan

Gossart, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (detail

of

cat.

12)

in grisaille, as the descriptions for a Beheading of John the Baptist and an Adoration of the Magi indicate. The main center for canvas paintings during the period was Bruges, but they were also produced elsewhere, especially in Mechelen. By Gossart’s time, the noble class was collecting such works, and Margaret of Austria’s inventories of 1516 and 1524 list nearly

two dozen examples.’ When the number of drawings by Gossart or closely connected to his style (see the Alsteens essay) 1s added to this group of paintings, the total is significant for a Netherlandish artist of the early sixteenth century. The drawings vary considerably in type from preparatory compositional drawings, to figural sketches, to drawings after Roman sculpture and monuments, to ricordi of Gossart paintings, to vidimi (presentation drawings), and so forth. Quite a number seem to have been made as independent works for discerning collectors, a new development the time. Oddly enough, not a single surviving drawing by Gossart can be associated directly with an extant painting by him. Yet evidence gained from the study of underdrawings in Gossart’s paintings clearly shows that there must have been preparatory sketches on paper that worked out the details of the compositions as well as cartoons used to transfer figural motifs to the prepared panels (see my essay on Gossart’s working methods in this volume).

at

Beginning Stages and Collaborative Endeavors

Both the manner in which Gossart signed his paintings and drawings and the early documents referring to him indicate that he came from Maubeuge, from which the Dutch name Mabuse is derived. Originally in the medieval county of

Hainaut, this small town was later ceded to France at the Peace of Nijmegen in 1678. Gossart was probably born about 1478,° all certain where he was trained. Both Weisz and but it 1s not

at

Winkler proposed Bruges—most likely with Gerard David.’

of the Guild of Saint Luke in Antwerp state that Gossart, under the name ofJennyn van Hennegouwe (Jan of Hainaut), became a master in the guild in 1503, Jozef Since the records

Duverger suggested that he had trained in that city.” The same records also show that Gossart registered two apprentices, Hennen Mertens (perhaps Jan Mertens [Van Dornicke]) in 1505 and Machiel in’t Swaenken in 1507, but he is not mentioned

7

Lad ed” \

Fig. 6A—1. Selection of signatures in works by Jan Gossart. The early signatures (A through D, from cats. 91, 84, 8, 69) are all variations of “Antwerp Jenni” or “Jenni Gossart.” The post-1516 signatures (F through I, from cats. 24, 44, 30, 35) appear in the Latin form “Joannes Malbodius Pingebat.” The prints (E, from cat. 112) show the letters IMS for “Johannes Malbodius Sculpsit.”

10

JaN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

thereafter in Antwerp, except when certain patterns that belonged to Gossart were sold there in 1536, four years after his death.” This has led to speculation that Gossart died in Antwerp, a matter that cannot be confirmed by any other documentary evidence. Wherever Gossart trained, his earliest works express the Antwerp Mannerist style, of which he was a pioneer and key proponent in the first decade of the sixteenth century. This style is characterized by cluttered compositions, fantastic architecture, elegant, exaggerated poses of attenuated figures, swirling draperies, and excessive embellishments of all kinds." Several drawings, two of which are signed (see cats. 69, 91, and the Alsteens essay) date from this time, but curiously hardly any paintings can be proposed as coming from this period.” With such a conventional start to his career as a guild member in Antwerp, it is not easy to explain just how Gossart came to the attention of Philip of Burgundy, Admiral of Zeeland and the illegitimate son of Philip the Good. However this happened, the artist joined the delegation headed by Philip that traveled, at the request of Margaret of Austria, regent and governess of the Netherlands, to Pope Julius II in Rome. Philip and his entourage set out on October 26, 1508, and arrived in the Eternal City on January 14, 1509. Thus began Gossart’s rise to fame as possibly the first Northern artist who visited Rome to make drawings after antique sculpture and monuments, brought this new knowledge and style back to the North, and thus helped change the course of art in the Burgundian Netherlands. As Philips humanist court poet and historiographer Gerard Geldenhouwer so aptly put it in his 1529 biography of Philip: “Nothing pleased him [Philip] more when he was in Rome than those sacred monuments of antiquity which he commissioned the distinguished artist Jan Gossart of Maubeuge to depict for him." The essay “Drawing for Diplomacy” by Stephanie Schrader in this volume describes in detail the nature of the diplomatic mission to Rome and Gossart’s approach to recording the antique statues and monuments that he encountered there, and the entries by Stijn Alsteens on these drawings (cats. 99—102) further elucidate the impact of the Roman environment on Jan's stylistic development as a draftsman. What has not been considered previously 1s how the art that Gossart saw en route to Rome influenced his work. The diary of Marino Sanudo relates that the official delegation visited Trent, Verona, Mantua, and Florence, among other towns, and that they were sometimes entertained by high officials on those stops, as in Florence by the mayor, Piero Soderini.'’ The view of modern Italian painting and sculpture that Gossart was thus offered would have a long-lasting effect that can be seen in the works he produced after his return to the North. Perhaps he kept a sketchbook to record the poses of the little music-making angels in Mantegna’s San Zeno Altarpiece in Verona, which are echoed

in his Virgin and Child with Musical Angels (cats. s, 6, fig. 125). Certainly, Florentine sculpture such as Verrocchios lifesize Doubting of Thomas of 1465-83 (see fig. 184), a revolutionary piece installed in an exterior niche of Orsanmichele, Florence, was still in his mind when he conceived the extraordinarily sculptural Saints John the Baptist and Peter, with their deeply cut draperies, stepping out of their Italian Renaissance niches in the Toledo wings (cat. 24A,8). Even smaller relief sculptures, such as Benedetto da Maiano’s Virgin and Child (see fig. 161),

were of a type that influenced Gossart’s increasingly sculptural approach to his many Virgin and Child compositions. Souvenirs from the trip, including Italian prints, small Renaissance bronzes, plaquettes, and even antique sculpture—such as the Roman busts of Caesar and Hadrian that Julius gave Philip'*—all provided him with visual material for his later works. The importance of Gossart’s encounter on this trip with sculpture, both antique and modern Italian, cannot be overestimated. Upon Gossart’s return from Rome in 1509, a Janin de Waele (Johnny the Walloon) was admitted to the Brotherhood of Our Lady in Middelburg,” the main city of the Island of Walcheren in Zeeland. Details of Gossarts biography support the claim that this individual was indeed Gossart himself. His brother Nicasius, an architect and engineer, also lived in the town," and Gossart married Margriet s Molders and raised three children (Gertruyd, Pieter, and an unnamed daughter) there.” Gossart must have decided to live in Middelburg because of its proximity to Souburg, where a castle of Philip of Burgundy, his most important patron, was located. Until undertaking his regular employment with Philip at Souburg in 1515-16," Gossart produced several paintings that were commissioned by individuals with close connections at court. These included Antonio Siciliano, chamberlain and secretary to Massimiliano Sforza, the Duke of Milan, who was sent in 1513 by the duke on a diplomatic mission to Margaret of Austria in Mechelen” and who commissioned the Doria Pamphil) Diptych and perhaps the Malvagna Triptych (cats. 6, 7A,B). Another was Daniel van Boechout, Lord of Boelare and Philip of Burgundy’ close friend and associate, who most likely commissioned The Adoration of the Kings for the chapel of Our Lady in the Sint-Adriaansabdij at Geraardsbergen, west of Brussels (cat. 8)." Steppe mentions two other works of unknown date by Gossart for the same church, a Last Judgment for the chapel of Saint Natalia and a Crucifixion for the chapel of the Holy Trinity, of which no trace remains." During the same period, Gossart also painted the Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin for the chapel of the painters’ guild in SintRomboutskerk, Mechelen (cat. 9). In 1516, upon the death of Ferdinand of Aragon, Gossart was asked to provide designs for a triumphal chariot for the memorial procession in Brussels, and he subsequently accompanied Philip of Burgundy to the Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

Fig. 7. Jan Gossart and Gerard David, The Adoration of the Kings (detail of cat. 8)

Ee

i A

RP a) A LE

-

re

ceremonies.” While there, the artist made two now-lost portraits of Eleanor of Austria and performed other unspecified work at the request of the future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.*' Another commission came from Jean Carondelet, a member ofthe privy council in Mechelen, archdeacon the cathedral at Besan¢on, and later bishop of Palermo, as well as a colleague of Philip of Burgundy (who owned a terracotta portrait bust of him).” The Carondelet Diptych was painted by Gossart in 1517, the year that Carondelet set out with Charles on a trip to Spain (cat. 40). Although he must have had an atelier in Middelburg, there is no record that during this time Gossart ever established a

of

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

a)LI AS po

.

3

3

-

-

.

workshop in the traditional sense with multiple assistants. He apparently used this location as his home base for what otherwise seems to have been a fairly peripatetic existence. Without the support ofa large workshop, it is not surprising that Gossart collaborated with other artists on various projects. For the Premonstratensian Abbey in Middelburg, Gossart painted his most important altarpiece, which sadly was destroyed byfire in 1568.7 Perhaps was through Gossart’s association with Philip that he received the commission from Abbot Maximilian of Burgundy, Philips nephew, for what Van Mander and Van Vaernewijck describe as a huge altarpiece with double wings.* A document, formerly in the archives of Reimerswaele, dated

it

Fig. 8. Jan Gossart, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (detail of cat. 9)

aa

CoAT

rE

.

January 24-25, 1568, states that Gossart had spent fifteen years “2 a period of time that suggests he working on the altarpiece,” did in fact work alone. It is more likely, however, that the work took place between 1518 and 1520, that 1s, after Maximilian became abbot of the Premonstratensian Abbey in 1518 and before Diirer saw the altarpiece in 1520-21 on his trip to the Netherlands. This 1s when Diirer famously described as “not as good in design as in painting.’** In his biography of Jan Mostaert,Van Mander writes that the painter was asked to collaborate with Gossart on the Middelburg altarpiece, but declined.”” Just what role Gossart had in mind for Mostaert, who was then working in the circle of Margaret of Austria's

it

=

7

court in Mechelen, is not known. Although little more than hearsay, Van Manders statement of collaboration on a very large altarpiece is the only written mention of a working prac-

tice that can be supported through new technical examination of other Gossart paintings made about the same time. Middelburg is not far from Bruges, and it has often been observed that Gossart’s paintings and drawings from about 1509—15 reflect the influence of Gerard David, the leading master of Bruges at that time, who was about a decade older. As discussed in detail in the texts on the individual paintings (cats. 5-8), recent technical investigation now demonstrates that it was not so much a matter of influence as of collaboration Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

[3

between two artists of equal stature. For example, Gossart’s authorship of the Doria Pamphilj Diptych has not been universally accepted, but it is usually the right panel and not the left that comes into question (see cat. 7A,B). It has now become clear that the left panel, the Virgin and Child in the Church, was actually painted by David, and the right panel was executed by Gossart, who provided the figures, and a landscape specialist. David also collaborated with Gossart on the Malvagna Triptych and The Adoration of the Kings (see cats. 6, 8). This explains why the Virgin and Child figures in the Adoration and in the Prague Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, which were painted about the same time, appear so different stylistically as well as in terms of painting technique (compare figs. 7 and 8). In every one of these collaborations, David contributed the portions for which he had earned his fame and specific artistic identity: the beautiful, refined Virgin and Child figures and the comely faces of female saints, which by the 1510s had become the staple of his production for open market sale in Bruges and Antwerp. In 1515 David joined the painters’ guild in Antwerp in order to have the privilege of selling pictures—mostly of the Virgin and Child—in this highly developed, competitive market, which by then had surpassed that of Bruges.” David's other specialization, intimate landscape scenes, was called upon for the Malvagna Triptych, especially for the Garden of Eden on the outside wings.” Whether the contracts for these works stipulated David’s participation for the figures of the Virgin and Child and the female saints as well as the landscapes 1s not known, as there are no surviving documents. That Gossart signed both the Malvagna Triptych and The Adoration of the Kings perhaps indicates that he was the artist who had received the commission and subcontracted David to do his part. Such collaborations are not always well documented, but they certainly existed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the Netherlands. Hubert and Jan van Eyck’ collaboration on the Ghent Altarpiece is perhaps the earliest and most famous example, although questions remain about the exact contribution of each painter. During Gossart’s time, among the bestknown collaborations was that between the landscape painter Joachim Patinir and the figure painter Quinten Metsys on the Prado Temptation of Saint Anthony, which Patinir alone signed. Such arrangements, while still understudied,” have received more attention of late owing to increased investigations both of early Netherlandish painting techniques and of the organization of workshops in various towns. “Prestige collaboration,” the term coined for this type of cooperation between painters of equal stature on the same painting,” is much better known in paintings of the later sixteenth and the seventeenth century. The association of Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens, among others, has been acknowledged for some time but has been reevaluated only recently in light of new technical examination.™ In this case, it was not Rubens—the painter 14

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

whom most consider today as the more renowned—but Brueghel who signed three of the Five Senses, the collaborative series for which the two are best known.* A precedent for collaboration in Bruges developed earlier on in the fifteenth century in the field of manuscript illumination, which depended on the contribution of illuminators from different workshops on the same book.* Gerard David himself was often called upon to add individual figures or heads and hands to the most important books of the day. The practice of one artist adding the heads and hands of figures to the work of another has also been recognized recently in early sixteenthcentury panel paintings, for example, one by the Master of the Embroidered Foliage.>® Additionally, there is the infamous case of the Bruges painter Albert Cornelis. He was charged with violating the terms of his agreement to paint all the “naked parts” (the flesh of heads, hands, and perhaps feet) when he subcontracted work on the large Coronation of the Virgin of 1517-22 (Sint-Jacobskerk, Bruges).*” Collaboration and subcontracting were standard workshop practices in Bruges that took many different forms. Regarding “prestige collaboration,” how would the respective contributions of David and Gossart have been viewed? David, the older of the two, had by then secured his reputation as the painter par excellence of exquisite Virgin and Child paintings and serene, meditative landscapes for both local markets and export.” As the artist chosen to accompany Philip of Burgundy on a diplomatic mission to Rome in 1508-9, Gossart had certainly achieved a new status and fame. No doubt certain commissions came easily to him thereafter because of his prestigious connections at court. What seems to have gained him additional notice is that he knew well and could ably render architecture of both the “modern” Late High Gothic and antique styles in order to meet the stipulations of given commissions (see Matt Kavaler’s essay in this volume). Since his brother Nicasius was apparently an architect and engineer, and his wife, Margriet, came from a family of retable carvers, Gossart’s familiarity with architecture in various styles was perhaps gained through family connections. That he was simultaneously producing credible representations of architectural canopies in the “modern” Gothic style for the Malvagna Triptych and grand halls in the antique, or Italian Renaissance, style for the Prague Saint Luke—the latter on a monumental scale—testifies to his remarkable expertise in this area (cats. 6,9). Gossart’s adaptability in this regard was key to his success in garnering commissions and catering to the specific tastes

of his patrons.

An homage to Gossart’s acknowledged abilities to render architecture in his paintings of the 1510s 1s found in the most

important illuminated book of the

the Grimani Breviary (Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice). Even though Gossart did not paint any of the illuminations in the book himself, his name—COSAR[T|—is emblazoned on the entabulature of day,

Malvagna Triptych are seen in the borders of illuminations

throughout the Grimani Breviary." This connection with the Breviary places Gossart in direct association with the other painters and illuminators who were completing the then-unfinished book for the diplomat Antonio Siciliano in the 1510s, among them Gerard David and Simon Bening. David's participation was sought for key miniatures as well as for the addition of specific figures, heads, and hands to certain folios." Siciliano, whose coat of arms appears on folio 81, probably paid for the completion of the book in order to take it back to Venice and, according to Michiel, sell it to Cardinal Domenico Grimani.* If Siciliano also commissioned the Malvagna Triptych, as well as the Doria Pamphilj Diptych, then he could have been the one who, knowing David's specific contribution to the Grimani Breviary, asked for his provision of the Virgin and Child figures and heads of the female saints in the triptych (see cat. 6). There are two major reasons for the fact that the prestige collaboration between Gossart and David has remained undetected until now. Gossart’s signature on two of the three works in question—namely, the Malvagna Triptych and The Adoration of the Kings—effectively eliminated consideration that another artist participated. However, as indicated by the example of Patinir and Metsys, and even later of Brueghel and Rubens, was probably the artist who received the commission who signed the completed work. The second reason that this collaboration has been previously ignored is the relative inaccessibility for close technical study of both the Malvagna Triptych (in a regional museum in Palermo, Sicily) and the Doria Pamphilj Diptych (in the private apartments of the Doria family in Rome).” Once undertaken, such examinations led to new insights on the authorship of The Adoration of the Kings (see under cat. 8).* One may ask where is the documentary evidence of Gossart’s presence in Bruges in collaboration with David. As Peter Stabel recently discussed, the regulations of the Guild of Saint Luke in late medieval Bruges are ambiguous about the hiring of nonguild members from other cities or countries for work.** Artists who did not belong to the guild could be active under particular circumstances or with certain strict limitations, particularly in regard to selling on the open market. Considerable leeway was given when the artist was affiliated with the court of the duke or with his entourage of nobles and state officials. Gossart qualified on all these accounts, and for his work on a handful of paintings, he was apparently viewed as exempt from the guild rules. This is particularly noteworthy in the case of the

it

Figs. 9, 10. Master of James IV of Scotland, Alexander Bening, Master of the David Scenes in the Grimani Breviary, Simon Bening, and Gerard David, Saint Catherine Disputing with the Philosophers (full image and detail), fol. 824v from

the Breviary of Cardinal Domenico Grimani, ca. 1515-20. lllumination on parchment, 11% x 7'%6 1n. (28 x 19.5 cm). Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice (Ms. Lat. 1,99 [2138])

monumental Saint Luke Drawing the

the building at the right in the miniature Saint Catherine Disputing with the Philosophers (figs. 9, 10). As Gian Lorenzo Mellini convincingly suggested, this was a tribute to Gossart’s architectural designs, not an indication of authorship.” The architectural canopy and tracery motifs that Gossart used in the

which Gossart produced for the Guild of Saint Luke in Mechelen (cat. 9). The guild must have made a rather extraordinary exception in Gossart’s case in order to commission such a large and complex Virgin,

work, so closely identified with its own local métier, from a

painter who was not

a

member

of

its group.

Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

Is

Gossart at Souburg and Wijk bij Duurstede and the Influence of Conrad Meit

About the time that Gossart completed these works in Bruges and for locations in Geraardsbergen and Mechelen, Philip of Burgundy solidified his plans to create a humanist court at his residence at Souburg. Geldenhouwer records that Philip hired both Jacopo de’ Barbari, a court painter to Margaret of Austria in Mechelen, and Gossart to decorate his castle there with scenes depicting mythological nudes.* This likely occurred in 1515, for Gossart’s Neptune and Amphitrite, an obvious homage to Philip as admiral of the Burgundian fleet, is dated 1516 and signed for the first time in the Latinized form of the artists name, [OANNES MALBODIVS PINGEBAT (see cat. 30 and Stephanie Schrader’s essay on Gossart’s mythological nudes in this volume). The paintings de’ Barbari produced for this setting have not been identified, but it is possible that Gossart’s acquaintance with the Venetian not only offered a chance for discussions on the ideal construction of figures and on Albertian perspective, but also provided Gossart with additional source material for his own works by way of the Italians drawings and engravings. The opportunity must have been short-lived, however, for the old and feeble de’ Barbari died in 1516. After his election as bishop of Utrecht in May 1517, Philip moved to the episcopal chateau at Wijk bij Duurstede, some twenty-five kilometers outside of that town. Gossart apparently went with him and continued to paint mythological nudes for Philip and his humanist friends (see the Schrader essay previously mentioned and also cats. 30-34). Classical themes and nudes, per se, were not new to Northern art, having been represented in the previous century in tapestry, decorative arts, and manuscript illumination. According to Bartolomeo Fazio’s report in De viris illustribus (1456), women bathing—even secretly being ogled by young men—appeared in paintings by Jan van Eyck and Rogier van der Weyden in Italian collections.*” Some secular works including “figures of great immodesty” made by “foreign” (most likely Flemish) artists and painted on cloth constituted the entire first tier of Savonarola’s famous Bonfire of the Vanities in Florence.” Although such themes may not necessarily have been new, Gossart’s treatment of them both in terms of a heightened eroticism and in the sometimes lifesize scale of the nudes was innovative in panel paintings. A mention of “Little Jan's room” in Philip of Burgundy’ inventory of the Duurstede castle®” suggests that Gossart had accommodations there, but whether he was in permanent residence or simply traveled back and forth to his family in Middelburg is not known. Philip apparently allowed the artist to accept commissions from other clients, and it is in this period that his erotic images of Adam and Eve, a series of Virgin and 16

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Conrad Meit, Lucretia, 1500-1515. Boxwood, 8% x 3 x 2% mn. (21.3 x 7.6 6.4 cm). The Metropolitan Museum Art, New York, Gift ofJ. Pierpont Morgan, Fig.

11.

Xx

of

Fig. 12. Jan Gossart, Venus and Cupid (detail ofcat. 33)

1917 (17.190.582)

Child paintings, the extraordinary wings of a triptych in Toledo, and the Hermitage Deposition were also produced. Gossart occasionally worked as a consultant. In 1522 he was brought in by Philip to moderate a dispute between the Mechelen brasscaster Jan van den Eynde and the Antwerp wood-carver Gregorius Wellemans over the design for the rood screen for Utrecht Cathedral. The debate concerned the preferred style for the design, whether it should be in the antique or the “modern” Gothic mode. Gossart’s leaning in this matter is not known, and although the craftsmen were compensated, the rood screen was never built.* Gossart must also have spent time in Mechelen, where he was summoned in 1523 by Margaret of Austria to restore certain pictures in her collection and carry out other unspecified tasks.” When Gossart went to Mechelen on that occasion, he stayed with Conrad Meit, whom he must have met previously either through Philip or at Margarets court.” As early as 1512, Margaret wrote a letter making inquiries to an unnamed “cousin” about borrowing the services of his “good German master sculptor” to provide a stone portrait of her deceased second husband, Philibert II of Savoy.” Margaret furthermore mentions that this sculptor had been in the service of “my

cousin the admiral,” who can most likely be identified with Philip of Burgundy, at that time admiral of the Burgundian naval fleet.™

The relationship between Meit and Gossart, which was extremely important for the evolution of Gossart’s sculptural approach to his paintings, has previously only been touched upon.” Meit became Margarets court sculptor sometime before 1514 and remained in that position until her death in 1530. He was principally responsible for important works for

Fig. 13. Jan Gossart, Virgin and Child (cat. 16)

Fig. 14. Conrad Meat, Virgin and Child, 1531-34. Marble, 24% x 23% x 117% 1n. (62 x $9 x 30 cm). Cathédrale des Saints-Michel-et-Gudule,

Brussels (75.103)

Margaret's residence at Mechelen and for the church of SaintNicolas-de-Tolentino at the royal monastery at Brou by Bourgen-Bresse, which was the burial site of Margaret, Philibert, and his mother, Margaret of Bourbon. In connection with the latter commission, Meit went to Brou in 1524 and, along with assistants, executed the tomb sculptures there between 1526 and 1531.>° For her residence at Mechelen in particular, Meit made sculptures of mythological themes and a series of busts, both small, in boxwood, and large-scale, in marble and alabaster. Margaret displayed these in her library along with painted portraits, medallions, and even Philibert’ suit of armor, in order to allow for their mutual “interaction” and to enhance the sense ofthe lifelike presence of those represented.” Owing in part to their appointments at two humanist courts—those of Philip of Burgundy and Margaret of Austria—Gossart and Meit shared a common interest in mythological themes. Through his acquaintance with Meit, Gossart also came to share the German's sculptural approach toward these themes. It cannot be a coincidence that the figure, and especially the twist of the body, of Venus in Gossart’s 1521 Venus and Cupid (cat. 33) appears so similar to Meit’s boxwood Lucretia (compare figs. 11 and 12).>® Gossart may even have had such a sculpture in his studio, turning it around to find the desired angle of view, while preparing drawings for his painting. Meit and Gossart were also both intrigued by the textures offabrics, the heightened three-dimensionality of features such as braided or thick, curled locks of hair or draperies, and the smooth porcelain-like finish to flesh, especially that of the face. Such comparisons as Gossart’s Prado Virgin and Child with Meit’s Virgin and Child clearly demonstrate their affinity in this respect (see figs. 13,14). Meit’s busts, of large and small scale, were highly regarded. As Jens Ludwig Burk so aptly put it, “Regardless of size, both possess the same monumentality in conception and are characterized by the naturalistic and deceptively life-like quality of his depictions of the human body and face, and his meticulous rendition of the very different textures of skin.” During the same time that Meit was making sculpted portraits of Margaret, her beloved husband, Philibert, and other courtiers, Gossart was increasingly engaged with painting portraits of various sitters of social prominence. When viewed side by side, Meit’s sculptures and Gossart’s paintings express the same aesthetic Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

17

the chapter of Pliny’s Natural History devoted to “Luxury Displayed in the Use of Various Kinds of Marble” (36.1.1) or of the colored marble slabs in Italian Renaissance tombs that he had seen in Rome, Gossart sometimes enhanced the precious nature ofthe portrait by placing trompe-l'oeil stone panels behind the sitters. In every way, but especially in his conception of them as figures in the round, Gossart’s painted portraits owe a debt to his artistic dialogue with Meit. The lifesize marble busts of Margaret of Austria and Philibert have not survived, but accounts of them have. Margaret kept them in her library, where they were shown visiting dignitaries such as Antonio de Beatis, Erasmus, and Diirer.”" What has survived, namely, the Getty Head of a Man in the Antique Manner of about 1515—20, serves equally well as a comparison with Gossart’s Manchester and Antwerp portraits (figs. 16, 17, cats. 46, 47). The modeling of the heads of Gossart’s portraits—the particular juxtaposition of the flat planes and rounded forms ofthe face, the full, sensuous lips with pouches offlesh at the corners, the bold articulation ofthe nose and the deeply recessed, large eyes reflects the same aesthetic approach as that in Meit’s Head of a Man. Furthermore, the pose and expression of the Antwerp portrait, especially the twist ofthe torso so that the head and the body do not share the same axis, must be seen in comparison with Meit’s sculpture, particularly the portrait busts of Philibert II and Margaret (fig. 18A,8) and the Head of a Man in the Antique Manner, in which the heads twist in a opposing direction to the body in a new, expressive way. Meit and Gossart not only shared the same visual approach to their portraiture but also conceived ofthese works as having the same official function. The inventories of Margaret's belongings indicate that while Meit’s lifesize marble sculptures were displayed as official portraits in her library, the smaller boxwood portraits were kept in her private petit cabinet, which perhaps resembled an Italian Renaissance studiolo. The nature of the larger works 1s underscored by their description in official documents as representacions, while the smaller ones are discussed as portraicture.”® This classification helps to clarify the function of Gossart’s portraits as the official representations of his sitters. Although the original frames on many of his portraits are lost, one that remains, namely, that surrounding the Carondelet Diptych (cat. 40), states in its original inscription that this is the REPRESENTACION DE MESSIRE

to

Hans Memling, Maria Maddalena Baroncelli, 1470. Oil on panel, 17% X 13% in. (44.1 X 34 cm). The Metropolitan Museum Art, New York, Bequest of Benjamin Altman, 1913 (14.40.627) Fig.

15.

of

goal: a heightened sense ofthe three-dimensionality ofthe figure conceived in the round. The painted and the sculpted portraits further achieve a sense of verisimilitude, owing in Meit’s case to the choice of smooth white alabaster and marble (often

a

polychromed)® and in Gossart’s to the painted simulation of polished marble surface for the heads of his sitters. Meit thus could be considered as a “painterly sculptor,” Gossart as a “sculptural painter.” At the outset of his career, Gossart’s portraiture was influenced by the works of two great Bruges artists, Jan van Eyck and Hans Memling. That his earliest portraits are indebted to Memling is clear from the London Mary Magdalen and the Toledo painting of Jean Carondelet (cats. 36, 39), in which the poses ofthe figures and the placement ofthe hands at the lower left corner of the composition are based on Memling’s formula (figs. 15, 216). Perhaps Gossart was most intrigued by his predecessors clever innovation of placing the trompe-I'oeil frame not around but behind the sitter, which caused the figure to be projected into the viewer's space, as in the Metropolitan Museum's portrait of Maria Baroncelli (fig. 15). He began to use this device, particularly for his portraits of members of the court and its circle. Almost invariably he placed the figures at a slight angle to the picture plane and before a framed, colored background (for example, cats. 48, 51, 57). Perhaps aware of 18

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

IEHAN CARONDELET HAVLT DOYEN DE BESANCONEN SONEAGE DE 48 A (Representation of Messire Jean Carondelet Archdeacon of Besancon at the age of 48), thus denoting that the diptych, like Meit’s full-scale sculptures, served an official function. The acquaintance or even friendship between the two artists could have led to Gossart’s being commissioned to paint the Deesis for Margaret’s mausoleum at Brou (as is proposed in

Fig.

16.

Conrad Meit,

Head of a Man in the Antique Manner (Possibly a Portrait of Cicero, 106—43 B.C.), ca. 1515-20. Marble, 13 x 10% x 9 In (33 X 27.3 X 22.8 cm). The J. Paul Getty

Museum, Los Angeles (96.5A.2)

Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Man (detail

Fig.

17.

of cat. 47)

Fig. 18A,8. Conrad Meit, Philibert of Savoy and Margaret of Austria, 1515-25. Boxwood, H. Philibert, 4% in. (11.8 cm), Margaret, 3% The British Museum, London, The Waddesdon Bequest (Wad 261)

this volume, cat. 29), for Meit was working on the tomb sculptures there from 1526 to 1531. There 1s no doubt that the two interacted and had a mutually beneficial relationship in terms ofartistic understanding. Above all, it 1s thanks to Meit’s superior talents in his craft that Gossart continued to develop his sculptural approach, one that he first embraced on his trip to

Rome in 1508-9.

in. (9.2 cm).

Life and Work after Philip of Burgundy

The death in

1524

of Gossart’s long-standing patron, Philip of

Burgundy, ended the source of his regular pension. He was not at a loss for work, however, as his well-established connections at court continued to yield commissions. Gossart went to work for Philips great-nephew Adolf of Burgundy, Admiral of Zeeland and later Marquis of Veere. In Veere, according to Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

19

of Adolf’s wife, Anna

Yet Gossart most likely did not have a thriving workshop at this

van Bergen, and her son, probably Hendrik, as the Virgin and Child (cats. 37, 52). It may also have been in Veere, where the deposed King Christian II of Denmark had taken refuge, that Gossart received a commission to record the likenesses of Christian and his wife, Isabella of Austria; the print of Christian

time, as the extant works show a strong output of originals and a significantly low number of copies. Furthermore, most of these originals are of fairly modest size, not the type that would have required workshop assistance. Rather, from his return from Rome until well into the 1520s, Gossart seems to have worked with other artists only when the occasion called for it. As previously discussed, Van Mander stated that he tried to enlist the help of Jan Mostaert for the

Van Mander, he painted the likenesses

and the Lugt collection drawing of him for another print must have been made about the same time (cats. 111, 119, 120). Isabella died in 1526 after a long illness, leaving her husband and three children behind. Shortly thereafter, Gossart portrayed the children, perhaps at the request of Margaret ofAustria, who assumed the care of them in Mechelen (cat. 51). He also designed the tomb and epitaph for Isabella, is

dated

1525

who was buried in Ghent (cat. 108). In 1524, the year of Philips death, Henry III, Count of Nassau-Breda, married for the third time. His new wife, Mencia de Mendoza, Marchioness of Zenete, was the richest woman in Spain. Henry was chamberlain to Charles V and an extremely powerful individual in the Habsburg empire. The couple lived in Spain until 1530 and then sojourned in the Netherlands for three years at their castle in Breda, which they later totally revamped in the Italian Renaissance style under the guidance of Tommaso Vincidor.”” Even before his marriage, Henry had had an impressive art collection, which included such treasures of Earthly Delights (Museo del Prado, Madrid). It was Mencia, however, who became an insatiable collector of paintings, tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, metalwork, antique coins and gems, and sculpture. The couple probably met Gossart on their stay in the Netherlands, and he began to receive a regular stipend from Mencia, which was paid out four times a year from 1530 until his death in 1532.°* One painting listed in her 1533 and 1548 inventories as by “Joanyn de Marburg” is possibly the Cleveland Virgin and Child in a Landscape (cat. 20), and the Valencia Christ on the Cold Stone may also have been in her collection (cat. 28). The couple sat to Gossart for their portraits, but only copies remain, among which are miniatures by Simon Bening that are inscribed with their names and must present a close approximation of Gossart’s originals (cat. 61). as Bosch’s Garden

The Question of a Workshop Although Gossart started out in Antwerp in 1503 as a master who trained two assistants, no evidence exists that he had an established workshop there at any point afterward. After he was admitted to the Brotherhood of Our Lady in Middelburg upon his return from Rome in 1509,” he appears to have worked in a number of different locations outside of that city, including Bruges. From about 1515 to 1524, while employed at Philip of Burgundy’s court in Souburg or Wijk bij Duurstede, he was not obliged to register in a guild or take account of any apprentices. 20 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Middelburg Altarpiece. He collaborated with Gerard David, whose signature fair Virgins and comely female saints were a prestigious addition to Gossart’s compositions in the early 1510s (cats. §, 6, 7A,B, 8). Landscape 1s not a common feature of Gossart’s paintings, but when it was important to include for the theme of a given work, he collaborated with other artists to provide this portion. The landscapes in Gossart’s Thyssen-Bornemisza and Berlin Adam and Eve paintings, the Malvagna Triptych, the Doria Pamphilj Diptych, and the Cleveland Virgin and Child are all by specialists who contributed this piecemeal work at various points in Gossart’s career (cats.

1,

3, 6, 7A,B,

20). Finally, another feature

of Gossart’s out-

put suggests that he collaborated with other workshops. He

apparently was sought after as a designer of sculpture, stained glass, furniture, and perhaps even tapestry (see the Alsteens essay). Gossart may thus have had an ongoing relationship with various workshops devoted to different media rather than having a thriving one of his own. Certain examples indicate that there were requests for copies of particular Gossart paintings. In these instances he may have temporarily hired on journeymen or artists from other workshops to provide the copies, or he could have lent out, rented, or sold the cartoons for these works to established workshops for production. In the case of Gossart’s Adam and Eve in the Royal Collection, tracing apparently was made of the figures from the finished painting, and this was used to produce at least two copies (see cat. 2). When a tracing on Mylar of the Adam and Eve figures was placed over the two other versions of the painting in Brussels (Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, no. 3383) and Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, no. 642), the outlines closely matched.* In addition, the underdrawing of the Brussels version also shows evidence that the figures were transferred from a cartoon by tracing. The dendrochronological dates of the Brussels and Berlin copies are early enough for them to have been created around the time of Gossart’s prototype, that is, about 1520. Yet both the Brussels and the Berlin paintings are clearly different in technique and handling from the prototype, and it 1s debatable whether they were created under Gossart’s direct supervision or in a different workshop at a later time. One other example for which there seems to have been considerable demand for contemporary copies, as well as for

a

versions produced long after Gossart’s lifetime, is the Virgin and in The MetropolChild of which the best remaining version itan Museum of Art (cat. 37). This is the composition that is usually identified as proof of a Gossart workshop.” It is linked to Van Mander’ famous statement that the figures are modeled after Anna van Bergen and her son Hendrik.” Some twenty copies and versions survive, ranging widely from works made in

is

the 1520s to those produced long after, even into the early seventeenth century (such as the version in the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art).”” Of the copies that have been studied, several not surprisingly show evidence of transfer from a cartoon by tracing.”’ There 1s also a distinct variation in quality as well as in technique and handling within the group. While the Metropolitan Museum version is fairly close to Gossart in style and execution, many of the others are far too distant in these regards to have been produced under the artist's watchful eye and may very well have been made from a pattern that was circulated outside of any possible Gossart workshop. If Van Mander 1s right that the original was created after the models of Anna van Bergen and her son, perhaps this occurred at Adolf of Burgundy’s residence in Veere or Gossart’s atelier in nearby Middelburg. The copies of this extremely popular composition could have been outsourced, and the pattern shared for serial production. Could this have been in Antwerp, where the market was able to support such a serial production? The Antwerp-hand brand on the reverse of one of the copies indicates that at least some of the production of this popular composition took place there.” It has often been assumed that Gossart opened up a studio this point in with assistants after Philip's death in 1524. Only

at

his career did there start to be a substantial number of versions and copies produced after his compositions, such as the Hague Virgin and Child with the Veil, the Virgin and Child paintings in

Madrid,Vienna, and Washington, and the Budapest Christ on the Cold Stone (cats. 10, 16, 174A, 21, 27). These copies, made after only a very limited number of Gossart’s paintings, are not evidence of a well-established workshop involved in serial production, such as those of Joos van Cleve, Jan de Beer, Quinten Metsys, or Pieter Coecke van Aelst.”” The large number ofdifferent hands involved in making these versions indicates the participation of many painters, not a select few within one workshop. Furthermore, most of the paintings of these themes made after Gossart’s originals are not exact copies, but in some way altered. For example, the numerous paintings after Gossart’s Christ on the Cold Stone (cat. 27) all reduce the group of menacing soldiers and Jews from five to three figures. For the copies and versions of the paintings mentioned above, there are differences in the sizes of the panels within a single group, of background settings, and so forth. In addition, most of the paintings within these groups are of distinctly inferior quality compared to Gossart’s originals, so much so that it is difficult to imagine that he would have approved their issue from any workshop under his control. Finally, recent technical examination, and in particular dendrochronology, has established that a number of the copies made after Gossart’s paintings are from a considerably later time, even as late as about 1600.” What all these copies have in common—and what is remarkable—is that while none of Gossart’s originals of these particular compositions carries his signature and/or a date,

a

Fig. 19A,B. Jan van Scorel, Virgin and Child, 1525-30. O1l on panel, 26 x 17% in. (66 x 44 cm). Tambovskaja Oblastnaja

Kartinnaja Galereja, Tambov (13); Jan van Scorel, Portrait of a Man, 1525-30. Oil on panel, 26 x 17% 1n. (66.1 x 45.2 ¢m). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemiildegalerie, Berlin (644 8B), Property ofthe Kaiser Friedrich-Museums-Verein Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

several

of the copies do. These signatures and accompanying

dates usually appear in the same location, on a stone step at the lower edge of the painting, that is, in a location where Gossart’s original signatures are often to be found in his paintings. The dates on the copies all fall at the end of Gossart’s life: 1527 for the group associated with the Budapest Christ on the Cold Stone; 1527 for the group after the Vienna Virgin and Child; 1531 (or 1551) for the copy derived from the Hague Virgin and Child with the Veil and 1532 for the Washington Virgin and Child.

Except for the Hague painting, which is demonstrably earlier (from about 1520), these dates may all refer to the date of Gossart’s original. Many in the group associated with the Virgin and Child with the Veil are so close in style to Pieter Coecke

van Aelst that they must have been mass-produced in his

Antwerp workshop for sale on the open art market.” Noteworthy in this regard are Van Manders remarks about Pauwels van Aelst, Coecke’s son, that he was excellent in copying works by “Joan Mabuse.”” The preliminary results of this research into the copies and versions after Gossart’s paintings seem to indicate that most of

the examples were made beyond the artist’s control and not in a carefully supervised workshop situation. It was more likely that the Gossart style or “brand” had become extremely popular, and in the period after his death in 1532, copies and versions were mass-produced—irrespective of quality—that took advantage of his fame.” The signature that appears on some of the copies, Joannes Malbodius Invenit,”” indicates the author of the composition but not of the painting itself. The thriving market in Antwerp would appear to offer the most likely place for the production and sale of these examples. It was perhaps by this means that Gossart’s style was more widely disseminated in the Netherlands. This recognition of Gossart’s fame may explain why he was thought to have been buried in Antwerp Cathedral rather than in Middelburg, where he lived most of his life.” When Gossart died, there were “various quantities of paintings” in his estate, and his son-in-law Jan Eyen or Yden, a secondhand dealer, inherited several of the pictures.” The estate also included patterns, among them the highly valued “patroen”™ for the Middelburg Altarpiece.”™ There is no mention of an ongoing workshop or of patterns being passed on to Gossart’s other son-in-law, Hendrik van der Heyden, who was a painter in Leuven.”

Gossart’s Legacy

After training the two pupils in Antwerp early in his career, did Gossart ever have any other apprentices? What exactly was his relationship with the artists sometimes mentioned as having studied with him, such as Jan van Scorel, Jan Cornelisz. 22 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Vermeyen, and Lambert Lombard? Van Scorel apparently went to visit or pay homage to Gossart in 1517, when he was at Wijk bij Duurstede, but to say that he apprenticed with Gossart is unjustified. Gossarts most important contribution to Van Scorel’s career may have been encouraging him to travel to Italy to see firsthand the treasures of the antique world and modern Italian art. Van Scorel left Utrecht in 1518 and until 1524 traveled through Germany and Austria, made a pilgrimage to the Holy Lands, and sojourned in Rome, where he became the curator of the collection of antiquities in the Belvedere under the Dutch Pope Adrian VI. Stylistically, his diptych Virgin and Child and Portrait of a Man (Tambovskaja Oblastnaja Kartinnaja Galereja, Russia, and Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; fig. 19A,8)—though perhaps inspired by the animated poses of Gossart’s Virgin and Child paintings and the lifelike gestures and stances of his figures—is equally indebted to Van Scorel’s experience in Rome. There are no records of where Vermeyen was trained as an artist. Opinions vary as to whether it was with Van Scorel, Bernard van Orley, or Gossart.” Like Van Scorel, Vermeyen could have come to know Gossart and his works in Wijk bij Duurstede from 1517 to 1524. As of 1525, he was employed by Margaret of Austria at her court in Mechelen, where he must have encountered Gossart, who sometimes fulfilled requests for the regent of the Netherlands. A newly discovered early work by Vermeyen establishes a link with Gossart all the more strongly. Judith with the Head of Holofernes 1s inscribed with the painter’ initials (the interlocking letters IC), familiar from his prints, on the hilt of the sword, and the sword blade bears remnants of the word Bevenvijk, the town where he was born about 1500 (figs. 20, 21).** Vermeyen's Judith recalls Gossart’s Magdalen in Boston (cat. 38); she similarly fills the picture space, defiantly grasping her sword, just as the Magdalen embraces her unguent jar. The two women are comparably dressed, with decorative accents of jeweled necklaces, ornate, braided hairstyles, and elaborate headpieces; Judith’s fluttering veil parallels the Magdalen’s trailing hair. Above all, both exude an unsettling sense of eroticism. A Portrait of a Man with Gloves in Williamstown, Massachusetts (fig. 22), with the date 1533 and an image of Lucretia on its verso, is stylistically closely related to the Judith and may also be linked to Vermeyen. Vermeyens Holy Family in the Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem (until now thought to be the artist's earliest signed painting), is certainly indebted to Gossart’s Prado Virgin and Child, particularly in the poses of the figures and the articulation of their bodies (compare figs. 13 and 23). Finally, the Kansas City Jean Carondelet of about 1525 precedes Vermeyen’s later portrait of the same sitter (Brooklyn Museum), but shares with it the same technique (see my essay on Gossart’s working methods and figs. 87, 89) and may well be Vermeyen’s first painted likeness of the man instead of a

Fig. 20. Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen, Judith with the Head of Holofernes, ca. 1525. O1l on panel, 25% x 18% 1n. (65 x 47 cm).

Fig. 21. Jan Cornelisz. Vermevyen, Judith with the Head of Holofernes (detail of fig. 20)

Private collection

Fig. 22. Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen(?), Portrait of a Man with Gloves, 1533. Onl on panel, 24% x 19% in. (63 x so cm). Sterling and Francine Clark Art

Fig. 23. Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen, The Holy Family, ca. 1528. Oil on panel, 25% x 21% 1n. (64.3 X 54.5 cm). Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem, on loan from the

Insutute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (1968.298)

Instituut Collectie Nederland, Ryswijk/ Amsterdam

(NK

2596)

Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

23

Fig. 24. Dirk Jacobsz.Vellert, Saint Bernard Adoring the Christ Child, 1524. Engraving, 6% x 4% 1n. (17.1 X 12.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Gift of Felix M. Warburg and his family, 1941 (41.1.212)

Fig. 25. Dirk Jacobsz Vellert, Saint Luke Painting the Virgin, 1526. Engraving, 6'%e x 47 in. (17 x 12.4 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Elisha Whittelsey Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1986 (1986.1000)

work by Gossart,

viewer appears to be a portrait of Gossart (see fig. 4)." The new massive figure type, the pudgy child in the foreground, and the increased attention to the textures of costumes signal Lucas’s debt to Gossart. From the time of their meeting and traveling together, Lucas showed increasing interest in classical themes and in nude figures placed in erotically charged, animated poses, such as in his engravings Cain and Abel of 1529 and Lot and His Daughters of 1530. He also shared Gossart’s preoccupation with the theme of Adam and Eve, himself creating eight engravings of the subject between 1529 and 1530." Vellert was most influenced by Gossart early on in his career, when he began to fill his prints with Italian Renaissance ornament and classically inspired architectural settings in carefully measured spaces, as in the Saint Bernard Adoring the Christ Child of 1524 and Saint Luke Painting the Virgin of 1526 (figs. 24, 25). The latter expressed in prints some of Gossart’s achievements in his paintings of the same theme in Prague and Vienna (cats. 9, 12). Later on, in the 1530s—when there was a general infusion in the North of Italian Renaissance style from many sources, especially Italian prints—Vellert seems to have had Diirer in mind more than Gossart.

has always been supposed. Although a stronger case may be made for Gossart’s training Vermeyen than for his training Van Scorel, the similarities between the works of the two artists probably are more a question of strong as

influence than direct apprenticeship. Lambert Lombard, born in Liege in 1505 or 1506, early on came under the patronage of Prince-Bishop Erard de la Marck, who also favored Vermeyen. Lombard is thought to have worked in Middelburg with Gossart about 1525* and subsequently in Antwerp with De Beer before 1535, when he returned to Liege. But as with Van Scorel, Lombard’ visit to Gossart must have been made out of homage to the great painter, or even curiosity, for Gossart’s works had no apparent long-lasting influence on Lombards. It is hard to say whether Gossart specifically influenced artists such as Lucas van Leyden and Dirk Vellert in their embrace of the antique style. Lucas came to see Gossart in Middelburg about 1526-27, and they traveled together to Ghent, Mechelen, and Antwerp.” Shortly before that time, Lucas made an engraving inspired by Gossart, The Poet Virgil Suspended in a Basket, dated 1525, in which the central figure looking out at the 24 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 26.

(41.3

%

Master of the Lille Adoration(?), The Holy Family with 76.2 cm). Saint Louis Art Museum, Museum Purchase

the Coats of Arms of Charles V and Isabella of Portugal, 1526-30.

Oil on panel,

16% x 30 in

(904.1947)

Formerly, a group of paintings was also thought to be by Vellert, but Ellen Konowitz convincingly dismissed this notion in a 1995 article.” At that time Konowitz named the painter of these works the Master of the Lille Adoration and added two more paintings to the oeuvre. Paul Wescher had previously

considered some ofthese paintings as early works by Gossart, a proposal that was rightly rejected by Walter Gibson.™ As the artistic production ofthe Master ofthe Lille Adoration continues to be more clearly defined and studied from the technical point of view,” it has become evident that three additional works in the Gossart oeuvre most likely belong to this group as well: The Holy Family in Saint Louis, the Lucretia in a private collection in Switzerland, and The Portrait of a Man in Hamilton, Ontario, (figs. 26, 27, 79). Whether this artist worked mainly in Antwerp or elsewhere, he was influenced in part by Gossart’s works of the 1520s but never entirely abandoned his attachment to Antwerp Mannerism. The “Romanist” style was introduced to the North, of course, not only by Gossart, whose experience with Rome was firsthand, but also by Bernard van Orley, whose adoption of the new style came secondhand through Raphael's designs for the Acts of the Apostles tapestry series (1515—16) and other Fig. 27. Master ofthe Lille Adoration(?), Lucretia, ca. 1520-25. Oil on panel, 18% x 14%51n.(46 x 36.5 cm). Private collection

Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

25

sionally were influenced by the same sources—take, for example, Gossart’s assimilation ofthe pose of the crouching man in The Stoning of Saint Stephen from the Acts of the Apostles for the figure at the lower right in the Hermitage Deposition (cat. 25), and Van Orley’ adoption of the same figure for his own tapestry of the Crucifixion. Gossart was even influenced by Van Orley’ design of his Deposition tapestry from the “Square” Passion series (ca. 1518—20), which hung in Margaret's chambers in her Mechelen residence. Van Orley was the head of a thriving Brussels workshop that gradually changed its focus from painting to tapestry design, a medium that Gossart never embraced.

Their working methods were also quite different.” What the two shared, then, was an interest in the art of Rome, but not the specific manner ofassimilating it in their own works.

Fig. 28. Bernard van Orley, Virgin and Child, ca. 1520-25. Oil on panel, 23% x 18%2 1n. (59.7 X 47 cm). Private collection

drawings brought by Vincidor from Rome to Brussels in 1520.” Although both Gossart and Van Orley readily adopted the new style for their works, they did so in completely different ways. Because Gossart had traveled to Rome and made drawings after antique sculpture and architecture, his assimilation of the newstyle took on a distinctly sculptural approach, in which light modeled form. For him, understanding the figure in the round and projecting three-dimensionality were of the essence. Van Orley, on the other hand, receiving his understanding of the ancient world primarily through Raphael's tapestry designs, emphasized dramatic storytelling.” For Van Orley figural pose aimed to serve and implement the narrative, and the sense of sculpture hardly came into the equation. Compare, for example, two Virgin and Child paintings of Gossart and Van Orley (see figs. 13, 28).Van Orley borrows the pose of his figures from Raphael, but they remain fairly planar in approach. Gossart takes the sculptural approach, imagines his figures in the round, and projects them against an architecturally constructed niche. The two could not be more different in what they absorbed from Italian art and the lessons ofthe ancient world. Van Orley and Gossart appear to have had little direct contact. Even though Gossart frequented the court of Margaret of Austria in Mechelen, Van Orley, who was her court painter, lived in Brussels rather than Mechelen. The two artists occa26

JAN GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

This difference between the Romanism of Van Orley and that of Gossart helps to explain the progression of Gossart’s art itself and its aftermath. Quite a number of his mature and late works—including the many drawings and paintings of Adam and Eve, the erotic mythological compositions, the Bilbao Holy Family, the Washington, Madrid, and Vienna Virgin and Child paintings—begin to move his art into a progressively more Mannerist direction. The prevailing stylistic features here are twisted, oddly foreshortened figures as well as juxtapositions of figures in contrasting poses in curiously compressed, architecturally confused spaces. That this all started with Gossart’s trip to Rome, as Judson suggested, is perhaps debatable, but that it set a new course for Northern art is not.” Some of the most curious aberrations of Gossart’s art were made by nowanonymous artists directly following him who worked in an even more exaggerated style. Examples include the Cybele Beseeching Saturn to Spare Her Child (Wawel Castle, Cracow; Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, Durham), the Adam and Eve (Jagdschloss Grunewald, Berlin), and a variety of other paintings with mythological themes that derived from Gossart’s paintings (figs. 29, 30, 247, 248).” The more lasting effect was carried forward not only by Vermeyen, Van Scorel, Lombard, and Coecke but also by Maarten van Heemskerck and Jan Sanders van Hemessen. The Rennes Saint Luke Painting the Virgin by Van Heemskerck harks back to Gossart’s Prague painting, but now the background reflects the artist's own trip to Rome and his visits to courtyards that were full of recently unearthed antiquities (fig. 31). More a rival than a student of Van Scorel, with whom he collaborated in Haarlem in 1527,Van Heemskerck also felt the pull of Rome and traveled there in 1532. He filled his sketchbooks, two of which survive, with studies of antique ruins and statuary (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin) that provided ample material for the mythological and allegorical paintings that he produced in subsequent years. His stay in Rome, at a later period than Gossart’s, lasted until 1536—37 and exposed him to the influence of Michelangelo and Giulio Romano.

Fig. 29. Follower ofJan Gossart, Cybele Beseeching Saturn to Spare Her Child(?), ca. 1530. Oil on panel, 51% x 43% in. (131.2 X 110.4 cm). The

Fig. 30. Follower ofJan Gossart, Adam and Eve, ca. 1530. Oil on panel, 30% x 25% in. (78 64.5 cm). Staatliche Schlosser und Garten,

Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, County Durham, England (8.m.621)

Jagdschloss Grunewald, Berlin

xX

(GK

1

30084)

Van Hemessen'’s acrobatic and aggressively active Christ

number of Virgin and Child paintings as well as his emphasis on three-dimensionality are clearly traits that descended from Gossart’s more mannered productions at the end ofhis life, such as the Washington Virgin and Child Child in

a

(cat. 21). Residing in Antwerp between 1519 and 1550, Van Hemessen was well entrenched in that city at a time when

style phenomenon began to be spread more widely through the established workshops. In this reconsideration of Gossart and his artistic milieu, it is clear that the artists long-standing attachment to the Gossart as

a

Burgundian-Habsburg courts provided him with privileged access to sophisticated, discerning, and wealthy collectors. His

trip to Rome in the entourage ofPhilip of Burgundy changed the course ofhis career and also the direction of Netherlandish painting. Although Gossart probably never had a thriving workshop in the sense of many of his Antwerp and Brussels contemporaries, the revolutionary nature ofhis art caused him to be sought out by a number ofartists who adopted and disseminated his style. It is these artists of the next generation who carried forward the incipient Mannerist trends of Gossart’s Fig. 31. Maarten van Heemskerck, Saint Luke Painting the Virgin, 1545. Oil on panel, 807 x §6% in. (205.5 x 143.5 cm). Musées des Beaux-Arts, Rennes

(801.1.6)

Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

2

=

art—Dbased on an assimilation

of antique and Italian Renaissance

modes—that dominated painting, drawing, and printmaking during the sixteenth century. .

See Dan Ewing concerming similar thoughts on Patinar’s signatures on his works (Ewing 2007, p. 94). For further on artists’ signatures at this time, see Jufen 1974

and Burg 2007. .

Several references to such works on canvas exist: a Mars and Venus in the estate of Margareta Boge of 1574 (Denucé 1932, pp. §-7): a Descent from the Cross, in the

testament of Johan van Renesse, at the Utrechts Archief (no. 1379; thanks to Sytske Weidema); a Beheading of Saint James in grisaille named by Van Mander 1n 1604 (Hert Schilder-Boeck, fol. 225v, lines 19-21); an Adoration of the Magi in the 1613 inventory of Charles de Croy (Pinchart 1855, p. 398); a Hercules Wrestling with Antacus in the 1659 inventory of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (Berger 1883, p. ci1x, no. 415). The alleged patroen for the Middelburg Altarpiece in the Tongerlo Abbey 15 also referred to as being on canvas (Van Dijck 1986, p. 253). Other references exist that do not explicitly name the support as canvas but describe the techmque of the work as either grisaille (corresponding to the Beheading of Saint James in state that one grisatlle that Van Mander menuons and of which he goes on could crush and fold the canvas) or waterverf, possibly suggesting such a support: a painting in the 1624 ventory of Hans Rombouts, document at the Stadsarchief Amsterdam (no. 747; thanks to Sytske Weidema); a Christ, in an inventory of the Forchoudt firm from about 1680 (Denucé 1931, pp. 294-97); a Christ in an inventory of Marie Jenne Blancaert in Ghent of about 1690 (Denucé 1932, p. 346); a Philips Fruijuers (E. Duverger Crowning of the Virgin in a 1666 mventory 1984—2004, vol. 8 [1995], p. 488); and a Christ after Mabuse of about 1653

to

of

(Denucé .

.

1931, p. 291).

Wolfthal 1989; De Marchi and Van Miegroet 2006. For Margaret mventories, see Wolfthal 1989, pp. 6-18.

of Austria's

According to Arnoldus Buchelius, a portrait drawing (now lost) of the physician Reinier Snoy of Gouda was dated 1528, and the inscription stated that “Malbodius™ was fifty years old when he made it. (Ms., Historia Hollandiae, Zelandiae, Frisiae et Episcoporum Trajectensium; see L. G. Visser in Kronijk van het Historisch sezelschap te Utrecht 2 [1846], p. 175:and Hessel Miedema in Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. 3 [1996], p. 142, n. 10).

.

.

7.

.

.

Weisz 1913b; Winkler 19212. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864—76, vol.

1,

p. 53;]. Duverger 1968.

Published by Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, vol. Roobaert 2004, p. 43, n. 82.

1,

pp. 62-63, 66. See also

See Stijn Alsteens’ essay and cats. 61, 70, 72, 91 in this volume. See also Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6; and the articles devoted to various issues of Antwerp

Mannerism in the Jaarboek of the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, for 2004-35, esp.Vandenbroeck 2004-5. The Rotterdam, Bruges catalogue (1965, pp. 47-54, no. 1) included the Lisbon Triptych of the Holy Family with Saints Catherine and Barbara (see fig. 264), which Friedlander (1924-37, vol. 8 [1930]. pp. 29-30, 150, no. 1, pl. 1) had proposed as Gossart's earhest Antwerp-period painting. However, Gibson convineingly dismissed the idea, daung the work to the second decade of the sixteenth century (W. S. Gibson 1987). Gibson's assumption was supported more recently by the dendrochronology of Peter Klein, which confirms a date not earlier than 1516 and more likely after 1522. See Lars Hendrikman in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, Pp.

48-50, no.

14.

For the entire quotation by Geldenhouwer about the trip to Rome, see Stephane Schrader’s essay on Gossart’s Roman drawings in this volume. II. Sanudo ca. 1490-94/ 1879-1903, vol. 7 (1882), esp. cols. 684, 689, 694, 716, 746,

748, 756, and vol. 8 (1882), cols. 14-15. 12. Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, pp. 232-33. 13. Gossart 1903, p. 31.0. 2. Ibid, p. 57. 15. See ibid. p. $8; and Smeyers 1968. For further explanation, see note 16. Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 235; see also |. Duverger 1931.

14.

81

below.

J. Duverger 1938, p. 28. 18. For the commission of The Adoration of the Magi, see, most recently, Campbell 2010. 17.

19.

28 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

original portraits of Eleanor have apparently not survived. The following have been proposed as Gossart’s portrait of Eleanor: Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p- 100, no. 77, pl. 61 (Sotheby's, London, July 9, 2008, no. 4; not idenufied as Eleanor in Herzog 1968a, p. 304, no. 48); a portrait in the Hemas Heens-Vander Waarden collection, La Hulpe, that was shown in the following exhibitions: London 1927, no. 192; Bruges 1953, no. ssa: Ghent 1955, no. 48; Mechelen 1958; Mechelen 1987, no. 208 (my thanks to Frederica Van Dam for this information); and a third example 1n a private collection in Mexico. 22. “Een gebacken hoeft nae de figuer van Carondolet ende in gesonden myjnen heere van Parlermen tot zijnder instantie”’; quoted in Sterk 1980, p. 234, on the verso of fol.

xu.

23. For the complete documentation on the Middelburg Altarpiece. see Koopstra forthcoming B. (1994), pp. 160-61, fol. 225v. 24. Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. 25. Herzog reported that the undated account was recorded not long after the altar had perished in 1568 (Herzog 1968a, p. 99). The same document was later reproduced by Dhanens, who gives it as being dated January 24-25, 1568. Dhanens 1

Appendix p. 133. 26. “Von dannen fuhr ich gen Mitelburg, do hat in der abtey Johann de Abus [Mabuse| eme grosse taffel gemacht, nit so gut 1m hauptstreichen als in gemahl” (From there | went on to Middelburg, where they have a large panting in the abbey made by Mabuse, not as good in design as in painting). See Rupprich 1985,

1956—69,

Vv,

vol.

1,

p. 162.

Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. (1994), pp. 176-77, fol. 229v, lines 39—43. vol. 3 (1996), p. 147 (commentary by Miedema). 28. For a discussion of David's savvy market practices, see Ainsworth 1998, pp. 276-308. 29. On David's landscape sketches and paintings, see ibid, pp. 31-33, 207-55. 30. See, most recently, Maria Pilar Silva Maroto in Madrid 2007, pp. 242-55, no. 14. 31. The most helpful earlier literature on this subject 1s Campbell 1976, p. 193, n. 61; Campbell 19812, pp. 43, 50—53;Van der Stock 1993, pp. 49-51; Campbell 1998, PP. 23-24; Jacobs 1998, pp. 210-19; Jansen 2006b, pp. 119-21, 139, nn. 3, 4; Hand, Metzger, and Spronk 2006, pp. 22-24; and Vergara 2007, pp. 28-33. 32. On prestige collaboration as well as employment of specialized journeymen, see 27. Van

1

Jansen 2006b, pp. 119-20. 33. Los Angeles, The Hague 2006-7. 34. Doherty, Leonard, and Wadum 2006, p. 217. 35. Alexander 1992, pp. 49, 62-63. On David's participation in illuminated books, see

Ainsworth and Kren 2003, pp. 39-41; Los Angeles, London 2003-4, pp. 344-65; and cat. 6, note 16, in this volume. 36. Ainsworth 2007, esp. pp. 15538. 37- Tamis 2000. Micha Leeflang has recently called attention to the intervention of Joos van Cleve in the painung of specific heads for the Saint Reinhold Altarpiece. See M. Leeflang 2006, esp. p. 30. 38. See Ainsworth 1998, chaps. 4-6, pp. 155-312. 39. Gian Lorenzo Melhini in Grimam Breviary 1974 (ed.), p. 40. Kavaler 2000, pp. 230-31. 41. For Davids participation in the Grimani Breviary and

106,

fol.

824v.

other noted books, see

Brinkmann 2003; and Los Angeles, London 2003—4, pp. 345—47. no. 99 (entry by Maryan W. Ainsworth and Thomas Kren), and esp. pp. 422-23, under no. 126 (entry by Ainsworth, Kren, and Elizabeth Morrison). For an overview of Gerard David and manuscript illumination, see Ainsworth 2003a; Ainsworth and Kren 2003, pp. 39—41; and Ainsworth and Kren in Los Angeles, London 2003-4, 344-65, nos. 99-107. For more on the question of the ownership of the Grimam Breviary, see Kavaler 2000, esp. p. 248, n. 26; and Ainsworth, Kren, and Morrison in Los Angeles, London 2003-4, p. 423, under no. 126. 43 Catherine Metzger and | studied the Doria Pamphily Diptych at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C, at the close of the exhibition “Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych™ in February 2007. My thanks to Andrea G. De Marchi for the permission study the Doria Pamphily panels. The Malvagna Triptych was studied by Molly Faries and her team on October 30, 2002, but under restricted circumstances and not out of its protective vitrine; was later studied by me in May 2009. 44. Thanks to Susan Foister, Lorne Campbell, and Rachel Billinge for the opportumty for close study of The Adoration of the Kings in the paintings conservation department of the Nautonal Gallery, London, in April 2009. PP-

10,

Steppe 1965b, pp. 41, 43; Campbell 2010, pp. 86-87, n. 9. 20. Geldenhouwer 1516/1901, pp. 200-10; Henne 1858-60, vol, 2, p.

21. Gossart 1903, p. 35. Although several candidates have been suggested, Gossart's

159.

.

to

it

45. Stabel 2006 (with bibliography).

74. See Jansen 2002 (thanks to Linda Jansen for sharing this unpublished material).

46. Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 235. See also J. Duverger 1931; and Sterk 1980, pp. 111-12. Gliick (1943, p. 129) doubted that de’ Barbar1 and Gossart ever met,

75. Van Mander 1604/1994-99, vol.

and Herzog (19684, p. 27) suggested that de’ Barbari’s work for Philip took place over a period of years and before he entered Margaret's service in 1510. See also Levenson 1978, pp. 31—34. 47. Baxandall 1971, p. 107. 48. La Vita del beato Ieronimo Savonarola 1937 (ed.), p. 130; Nuttall 1995, pp. 139-43; Nuttall 2004, pp. 115, 118. 49. “Pett Jans camer.” Sterk 1980, p. 245, verso of fol. xm, p. 307, n. 7. 50. See Coster 1909, p. 217, doc. no. xxi; Schrader 2006, pp. 13—17 (with bibliography); and Matt Kavaler’s essay in this volume. 51. See Gossart 1903, p. 39. 52. For the relationship between Met and Gossart, see von der Osten 1961, pp. 466-68; Burk 2005, pp. 278-79; and Burk 2006, p. 26. 53. “bon mastre talleur alleman.” |. Duverger 1934, p. 68. See also Burk 2003, p. 279. 54. J. Duverger 1934, p. 68. See also Burk 2005, p. 279. 55. Von der Osten (1961, pp. 466—68) remarked more on the shared interest of the

two artists in mythological themes than in aesthetic approach. See also Burk 2006, p. 26. 56. Burk 2006, pp. 40-50. 57.

Welzel 2005, p. 109. Philip of Burgundy also installed pamtings with sculpture at

Wijk by Duurstede to the praise of Henry of Nassau-Breda and others, who traveled from Bruges and Nijmegen to see it (IJsewin and Tournoy 1992, pp. 17-20, doc. no. s). $8.

The Metropolitan Museum's

59.

been given to Damel Mauch; see Jens Ludwig Burk in Ulm 2009, pp. 302-5, no. 45. However, within the context of the Ulm exhibition, the Lucretia appears of far higher quality and conceived more in the round than any of the other sculptures attributed to Mauch. The attribution question of the Lucretia, therefore, 1s not resolved, and for the time its being attributed to Meit is sull appropriate. Burk 2005, p. 278. The mimature busts still retain remnants of coloring on the eyes, lips, and clothing, which render them all the more hifehke. Meit’s Brussels Virgin and Child was also polychromed. See Van Ypersele de Strihou 2000, pp. 110-14, esp. p. 113. Eichberger 2002b, p. 124; Burk 2005, p. 282. Burk 200s, pp. 282-83.

60.

61.

62.

Lucretia, formerly attributed to Meit, has recently

63. Van Wezel 1999.

64. Steppe 1965a. 65. Gossart 1903, p. 31,n. 2, 66. My thanks to Rachel Billinge

67.

68. 69. 70. 71.

of the National

Gallery, London, for making the

Mylar tracing of the Royal Collection picture, and to Veronique Biicken, Alexandre Galand, Freya Maes, and Babette Hartwieg for examining the correspondence between the tracing and the Brussels and Berlin paintings. See, for example, Van den Brink 2001, pp. 26-28, Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. 1 (1994), pp. 160-61, fol. 225v; Van den Brink 2001, pp. 26-28. Our thanks to Stanton Thomas, Associate Curator at the Brooks Museum, for the opportunity to study this paintung at the Metropolitan Museum 1n January 2008. Among those traced are ones in the Courtauld Institute of Art, London, and the Bob Haboldt collection, New York. The Antwerp brand appears on the back of one version in a currently unknown location (for the photograph, see curatorial files, Department of European

Paintings, Metropolitan Museum). serial output ofJoos, De Beer, and Metsys, see Ewing 2007, pp. 90-91. On 72. On Pieter Coecke van Aelst, see Jansen 2002; Jansen 2003; Jansen 2006a; and Jansen

the

2006b. 73.

The copies of Gossart's Boston Mary

Magdalen (Museum Mayer van den Bergh,

Antwerp), the Washington Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (Philadelphia Museum of Art), and the Toledo wings Saint John the Baptist and Saint Peter (Landesmuseum fiir Kunst and Kulturgeschichte, Minster) are all from about 1600, that is, painted long after Gossart’s death. For the dendrochronology of the Antwerp copy, whose earliest felling date 1s 1612, see the report by Pascale Fraiture (Institut Royal du Patrimome Artistique, Brussels, February 2, 2009). For the dendrochronology of the Philadelphia copy, see Peter Klein's dendrochronology in the Appendix. The Munster copies of the Toledo wings are dated 1600 or 1609 on the lower right corner of the Saint Peter panel.

1

(1994), pp. 132-33, fol. 218v; E. Duverger 1979,

p. 211.

76. Although Gossart never attained the fame of Leonardo da Vine, a discussion by Luke Syson of the nature of Leonardo's connection to the Sforza court and associated arusts who spread his distinctive style shows interesung parallels with Gossart’s situation in regard to the Burgundian court and courtiers

of

his day. See

Syson 2004. 77: Several of the copies of Christ on the Cold Stone (in Antwerp, Ghent, Philadelphia, Cracow, and various unknown locations) are signed in this way. 78. The supposition that Gossart was buried in Antwerp Cathedral is based on an inscription on the engraved portrait of Gossart by Wierix (1572; see fig. 1). The lines declaring that Gossart died in Antwerp and was buried in the cathedral there et in cathedrali aede sepultus) were added on the upper part of the sheet by Theodore Gall after 1600; see Herzog 1968a, p. 172, n. 69. As

(Obijt Antwerpiae

1° octob. 1532

Herzog noted (1968a, p. 12), the date of Gossart’s death 1s correct (see discussions of documents published by March in Steppe 19652), but there is no indication in the cathedral archives that Gossart is buried there. Van Mander apparently did not know where Gossart was buried, as he did not mention this matter. 79. See Campbell, Foister, and Roy 1997a, pp. 87,96, n. 10. Gemeentearchief, Veere, Archief van de vierschaar van de stad Veere, Stukken ingekomen van de Hoge Raad (no. 488%), a petition addressed by Yden to Charles V mentuomng pictures by Gossart that the petitioner does not wish to have to sell. Thanks to Peter Blom, archivist of the Gemeentearchief, Middelburg and Veere, for discussions with Sytske Weidema about this document (March 2010). fo. “dwerssche pler|cecle[n] van tafereele[n] besondre tpatroen vander tafel vand[en) abdye te muddelbfurg|” (some lots of paintings especially the patroen for the painting of the abbey at Middelburg); Gemeentearchief, Veere, Archief van de weeskamer van de stad Veere, Weesboek E, 1531-1544, fols. 107-8. Published 1n Campbell, Foister, and Roy 1997a, p. 96, n. 9, from copy of the original document provided by archivist Peter Blom to Lorne Campbell. See also Van Even 1870, PP. 420-22; and the French translation in Gossart 1903, pp. 143-45. 81. Smeyers 1968. I am grateful to Sytske Weidema, Peter Blom, and Katie Heyning (art historian, Middelburg) for discussions relating to the question of Gossart’s two sons-in-law (emails of March 16, 18, 19, 2010, from Weidema to Maryan Ainsworth; curatorial files, Department of European Paintings, Metropolitan Museum). It 1s already known that Gossart had one daughter (Gertruyd), who was married to Hendrik van der Heyden, and one son (Pieter). However, he must also have had another daughter, to whom Jan Yden was married. Her existence 1s indicated by the fact that when Gossart and his wife died, their goods were divided among three rather than two children. For the documents, see Weidema and Koopstra forthcoming, 82. Horn 1989, pp. 5-7. 83. Maryan W. Ainsworth, Judith with the Head of Holofernes, a Newly Discovered Early Work by Jan Vermeyen™ (article in preparation). 84. Hubaux and Puraye 1949, p. 65. 85. Accordimg to Van Mander’s biography of Lucas; see Hessel Miedema in Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. 3 (1996), p. 28, for a discussion of the dating of *

this trip. 86. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 10 (1932), p. 97; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 10 (1973), p.

5s; Filedt Kok 1996, p. 130, no. 136.

Washington, Boston 1983, pp. 287-88, and pp. 222-23, no. 88, pp. 237-43, nos. 97-100 (entries by Ellen S. Jacobowitz). 88. Konowitz 199s. 89. Wescher 1970, W.S. Gibson 1974, p. 297, n. 14. Among those most recently added are The Trinity and Saint Jerome, a diptych shown in the exhibition “Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych,” in Washington, D. C., in 2006-7; see Washington, Antwerp 2006-7, 87.

.

pp. 150-55, no. 22. 91. Thomas P. Campbell in New York 2002, pp. 187-203, 225-45, and see also

pp. 204-23, nos. 18-25, pp. 246-61 (entries by Campbell and Lorraine Karafel). 92. See Ainsworth 1982; and Campbell in New York 2002, pp. 287-303, and see also PP. 304-39, nos. 30-40 (entries by Ainsworth, [ain Buchanan, and Guy Delmarcel). 93. Amsworth 2006; and my essay on Gossart’s working methods in this volume. 94. Judson 1981; Judson 1985a; Judson 1987. See also Anne W. Lowenthal in London 1990, pp- 9-31, 38—47, nos. 2, 3. 95. Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 97, nos. 46, 49, pl. 40.

Gossart in His Artistic Milieu

29

Gossart as Architect Ethan Matt Kavaler

I:

the early sixteenth century, architecture was not left solely in the hands of architects. Many of the more distinguished designs, both of native Gothic structures and of the newly modish antique or Renaissance forms, were conceived by painters. Indeed, some of the most interesting architecture of the Netherlandish Renaissance was never constructed at all. In the Netherlands, as elsewhere, there were two principal architectural discourses: one built and one theoretical. The early theoretical discussions, however, have left fewtraces. They can be found in library inventories, in the fewrecords of building controversies that have been preserved, and, perhaps most tellingly of all, in the paintings of sixteenth-century artists. Here, as backgrounds or settings for historical subjects, architecture could be presented in its ideal form, without practical or political complications. In Italy, the prime examples of ideal architecture are the pictures of Raphael that place their actors before buildings that have been understood by scholars as more completely realized examples of Renaissance architecture than Bramante, or Raphael himself, ever constructed. Raphael's Marriage of the Virgin of 1504 (fig. 33) situates its figures as a screen in front of a perspectival grid culminating in a sixteen-sided, centrally planned church, its surrounding arcade topped by volutes that brace the polygonal drum of its dome, which is exactly twice the height of the arcade.’ The painting is a manifesto of architectural theory, an embodiment of notions of symmetry and commensurability, and a summation of architectural ideas developed during the late quattrocento. It is not really architecture but, rather, an idea of architecture, expressed chiefly in terms of ornament. When came designing in the antique manner—adapting the architectural vocabulary of ancient Rome, often through the mediation of Renaissance Italy—painters were generally ahead of trained masons. Henry III of Nassau-Breda, for instance, relied on Tommaso Vincidor, a painter schooled in Raphael’s workshop in Italy, to plan his palace at Breda in the new mode.” It is also worth noting that both Bramante and Michelangelo were trained as painters; the latter was active for decades as a painter and figural sculptor before he accepted any architectural commissions. Nevertheless, for most painters

it

architecture amounted to ornament, the systematic enrichment of wall surfaces and putative structural members. Long considered the supplement or accessory to beauty, in the words of Leon Battista Alberti,” ornament is unusually central to the early sixteenth-century painterly discourse, which 1s dominated by notions of complexity and abundance. Those expert in Gothic forms specialized in the design of intricate filigree tracery; those adept at the newer antique manner liberally applied grotesque and arabesque motifs to their rudimentary pilasters and entablatures. The court historiographer Remy

to

Opposite: Fig. 32. Jan Gossart, Saint Luke Drawing the

Virgin (detail

of

cat.

9)

Fig. 33. Raphael, The Marriage of the Virgin, 1504. O1l on panel, (r70 x 118 cm). Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan (472)

667 x 46%

mn.

31

Dupuys, describing the Joyous Entry of Charles V into Bruges in 1515, referred to the intricately inventive decorations in both Gothic and antique manners as “very artfully composed.”* In the work of Jan Gossart, perhaps the most eminent Netherlandish painter of the period, architectural ornament likewise assumes a primary role. For Gossart, is a statement of both the theoretical and the social underpinnings of art.” His pictures offer a visual corollary to the discussions of Vitruvius and ancient architecture that must have taken place at the courts of the Low Countries, as evidenced by the writings of Gerard Geldenhouwer, court humanist and historian to Gossart’s major patron, Philip of Burgundy, and Cornelius Grapheus, secretary of Antwerp. Gossart’s pictures prefigure the role of architect as designer, as master of geometry and the liberal arts. The word architecture does not occur in Dutch until 1539, when it suddenly appears in Pieter Coecke van Aelst’s Vitruvian treatise.” As 1s clear from a Utrecht court case four years later, it was used to refer to the liberal art of the geometrician, not to skills of the mason in charge of the mere cutting of the stones. In fact, trained masons were traditionally prevented from designing buildings, this prestigious task being ceded to figural sculptors and painters. The Utrecht court case, by according masons the privilege of designing edifices, overturned earlier practice and redefined the mason as an intellectual and a master of the liberal arts.” Support for this stance came from citations from Alberti and Vitruvius. Yet Gossart, some three decades earlier, had already exploited this distinction. As a designer of both Gothic and newer antique forms, Gossart anticipated by more than a decade their appearance in actual buildings.” Rich architectural ornament in particular was traditional marker of status, and antique decoration quickly came to signify political power and propinquity to the monarch. The love of antiquity itself, a cult in which Philip of Burgundy participated, provided other satisfactions. For those educated in the new humanist program of the universities, antique architectural forms offered a link to the culture of Vitruvius and Ovid.” Furthermore, a fetishistic attitude toward the remains of antiquity often endowed this architecture with an erotic charge, which made it a fitting environment for the loves of the gods that Gossart portrayed. Like several of the leading designers of his age, Gossart was well versed in both the latest Gothic and antique manners. In addition, he was the author of synthetic or hybrid architectural compositions that attempted to bridge the cultural divide between the two established modes. Gossart himself actually designed some small architectural structures. In 1520 he was commissioned to devise the choir stalls for Utrecht Cathedral in the antique manner, which, unfortunately, were never built." He also designed a suspended ceiling for the choir of a chapel, a project known from surviving drawing (cat. 109)."" But it was Gossart’s activity as a painter that stimulated his most developed and intriguing architectural thought.

it

a

a

32

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Certainly, the antique architecture in Gossart’s paintings contributed to the local discourse on power. His major interlocutor as painter was Bernard van Orley of Brussels, a court artist as well, named court painter to the regent Margaret of Austria in 1518." Gossart and Van Orley were active during the short interval when the notion of the antique was just coming into being. Significantly, their architectural constructs fall mostly in the period from the late 1510s through the 1520s, a period between the unchallenged authority of an international Late Gothic manner and the introduction of antique forms into built architecture. From about 1530 onward, masons, sculptors, and carpenters began to create three-dimensional antique structures to satisfy their noble and municipal patrons. Conversely, painters were most effective in planning works of microarchitecture—tombs, portals, fountains, and the like— that by their small size depended least on the trained mason’s practical knowledge. Indeed, microarchitecture led the way, followed by renovations to the palaces of the aristocracy. Highly ornate forms were prized at the time for their delicacy and intricacy, even if their heavily laden appearance may defy a modernist taste for pure forms and surfaces. Richly crafted details were the mark of princely magnificence; simpler forms became popular only at midcentury.” Van Orley’ Job Triptych, painted for Margaret of Austria in 1521, typifies this visually abundant manner."* The pavilion housing the children ofJob, in the central panel, is supported by rich piers formed of quadruple joined colonnettes and decorated with medallions, rams’ heads, and garlands (figs. 34, 35). Both Gossart and Van Orley show a far more subtle sense of antique ornament than the designer of the contemporary jubé in the Cologne church of Sankt Maria im Kapitol (figs. 36, 37)."° This choir screen was commissioned about 1517 from Mechelen craftsmen by Georg and Nicasius Hackeney, wealthy Cologne citizens with close ties to the Habsburgs. Likely completed in 1523, it was intended to be the last word in church furnishing. Although it may well have been designed by a painter, the jubé shows little familiarity with antique ornamentation. The entablature displays dogtooth molding beneath an arabesque pattern, two new touches, and the compartments for the statues and reliefs are sheltered with what appear to be classical volutes, again new elements, yet these are suspended from the top, as old-fashioned Gothic drop tracery was, to form a sort of baldachin. This early attempt to translate notions of the antique into microarchitecture lags far behind the efforts of Gossart and Van Orley both in sophistication and in reference to Roman antiquity. Antique architecture and ornament in paintings were important indices of power and authority. The Habsburgs, like the monarchs of France, were quick to adopt the trappings of Julius Caesar and his contemporaries as a visual corollary to their military and diplomatic ventures. The troops of the French king

Fig. 34. Bernard van Orley, Central panel, I'he Job Triptych, 1521. O1l on panel, 69% x 72% 1n. (176 x 184 cm). Musées Royaux des

Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels (1822)

Fig. 35. Bernard van Orley, Central panel, Triptych, 1521 (detail of fig. 34)

The Job

Charles VIII had invaded Italy in 1494, reaching as far south as Naples and reserving for themselves the province of Lombardy. They readily imported both Italian artists and works of art into French territory. For the French, reflections of ancient Roman art signified the assimilation of Roman power, the translation of empire.'® Netherlandish nobles such as Guillaume de Croy had accompanied the French monarchs on their Italian campaigns and observed their adoption of imperial imagery.” It was not long before Charles V similarly styled himself in the imperial manner of Rome, trimming his beard to mimic those of ancient Roman portrait busts and having himself referred to as Caesar.” In 1526 Charles began his palace in the center of the Alhambra in Granada; its severe circular courtyard of Doric and Ionic orders recalls an inverted Colosseum (fig. 38)." Gossart’s interest in ancient architecture was enthusiastically nurtured by Philip of Burgundy. In 1508-9 Gossart accompanied Philip on an ambassadorial trip to Rome, where the artist sketched numerous ancient buildings and sculptural remains. Philips retinue is known to have stopped in Verona, Mantua, and Florence on the way to Rome—a route that offered Gossart a wide array of the latest Italian architecture in addition to the ancient ruins, such as the Colosseum, that he saw once in Rome.” Geldenhouwer wrote at some length about his patron’s knowledge of these matters: “If the conversation was about architecture, [Philip] knew about the dimensions, Gossart as Architect

33

Fig. 36. Jubé (choir screen), completed 1523. Sankt

pp NN

Maria im Kapitol, Cologne

Wr Fy

[BEY

Fig. 37. Jubé, completed 1523. Sankt

Maria im Kapitol, Cologne (detail of fig. 36)

proportions, and symmetries of this art. He spoke so precisely about pedestals, columns, architraves, cornices and other such things that one would think he had quoted from Vitruvius.”*' In his study of ancient artifacts, Philip made good use of his court artist. “Nothing pleased him more when he was in Rome,” Geldenhouwer relates further, “than those sacred monuments of antiquity which he commissioned the distinguished artist Jan Gossart of Maubeuge to depict for him.”"* Gossart’s antiquarian interests are most clearly expressed in his monumental Neptune and Amphitrite, which he painted for Philip in 1516 (cat. 30).” Gossart placed nearly lifesize figures of the sea god and his consort within an antique cella, or sanctuary. Massive classicizing columns around the figures are surmounted by an entablature featuring a frieze of triglyphs and bucrania, or ox skulls. The capitals of the columns are carefully detailed: a short drum topped by an echinus, or lip, that sports egg-and-dart molding. The columns sit on squat pedestals in the Roman, as opposed to the Greek, manner. While in Rome, Gossart had had recourse to the ruins of ancient monuments, including the Basilica Amelia, which would have offered one model for the Doric order and entablature. Nevertheless, the Neptune and Amphitrite was executed seven years after Gossart’s return to the Netherlands, and it 1s likely that the artist refreshed his memory with plates from illustrated editions of Vitruvius’ treatise.”* In particular, the woodcuts in Fra Giocondo’s edition of1511 showing the derivation of a Doric column, capital, and frieze depict elements such as bucrania and an echinus covered with egg and dart. The Neptune and Amphitrite 1s Gossart’s most archaeologically correct picture, though that is perhaps not the best way to think of since it is a decidedly original creation. The painter has taken significant liberties in his portrayal of the architec-

is

it,

34

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

tural surrounds ofthe two deities. First, no surviving ancient or [talian building looked anything like the double-colonnaded compartment shown in the Berlin picture. In addition, Gossart has placed the bucrania below the triglyphs instead of alternat-

ing the two, as ancient architects did.” The resulting area is not much of a frieze, more of a decorated wall. Beaded molding appears on the ceiling in an equally unprecedented way. And, most obviously ofall, the bucrania seem to be real ox skulls afhixed to the wall, not carved representations. There 1s a certain symmetry in having the ox skulls resemble real flesh and bone while representing the two mythological figures as stony

tains, and the like, some in service and others in ruins. The reader follows Poliphilo on his course as he witnesses triumphal

entries, sacrifices, and other celebrations, all marked by lavish ornamentation. There 1s much talk of bucrania, of pedestals with rams’ heads, and other such appointments, most of which are illustrated in the artful woodcuts. The book 1s replete with passages that are in some sense erotic. Yet the beauty of the architectural wonders of antiquity seems to fire Poliphilo with desire in the same way as his sightings of Polia do. The almost fetishistic detail ofthe architectural descriptions helps to lend a kind of “polymorphous eroticism™ to the text, as Joscelyn Godwin describes it.** This 1s the perfect setting for a woodcut depicting a satyr about to ravish a sleeping nymph (fig. 39); the archaeological description and the mythological subject lead to a joint state of arousal.” The Hypnerotomachia Poliphili was known to manuscript illustrators at the French royal court and would have been extremely popular at the court of Philip of Burgundy and the Netherlandish high nobility, though it is not mentioned in the few of their library inventories that survive.””2 Yet whether the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili was itself known to the painter less important than the fact that it is evidence and his patron of an erotically charged fascination with antiquity and its artifacts, which Gossart shared. Gossart’s assimilation of the varied uses and satisfactions of architecture is clearer in his later Danae, painted in 1527 (cat. 35).”” As Zeus visits her in a shower of gold, the eponymous heroine sits in a chamber, surrounded by engaged Corinthian columns perched on high pedestals. Danae, with her gown slipping off her shoulder and her breast exposed, 1s sexually enticing, and her accessibility is augmented by the classical architectural setting. While there is some resemblance between Danae’s chamber and the Temple of Vesta in the Forum Romanum Rome,” Gossart has again departed significantly from his sources. If nothing else, in the Munich painting the Corinthian order appears on the inside of the circular enclosure rather than on the outside. There are other deviations as well. Gossart’s capitals, gilded with leatherlike striated volutes, are extraordinary. The frieze of the entablature contains only bucrania, and while this time these are gilded and obviously sculpted, they are placed directly above the columns, a situation unknown 1n antiquity. Gossart has once again fashioned a unique antique chamber, magnificently appointed, that serves as a delight to the senses and an appropriate setting for Danae’s rapture by Zeus. Far more fantastical are the three buildings seen in the background, beyond the openings to the chamber, each one different from the next (fig. 40). The building at the left, appears to be some sort of town hall or palace. Its style is definitely Italianate, exemplified byits porch with a round arch and pediment. The edifice directly behind Danae’s head is more unusual. Its

is

Fig. 38. Circular courtyard, Palace

of Charles

V,

Granada, third quarter

of

16th

century

statuary. Gossart had learned the basis of Roman architecture, but he decided to varyits elements in an unorthodox manner. He carefully designed his Doric cella in accordance with his patron’s taste and expertise, yet he seems not to share the goal

of his contemporaries who sought to present archaeologically

accurate edifices. Using an established vocabulary of forms, he takes advantage ofthe opportunity that the antique offered for free invention, a prerogative of the educated painter. The ancient architecture in the Neptune and Amphitrite was also useful in setting the mood for the depiction of amorous deities. Roman architecture served as a marker for antiquity, the temporal site of mythological love stories, and had thus acquired a potentially erotic force. This aspect was most directly exploited in one ofthe best sellers of the time, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili Poliphilo), published in Venice in (The Strife of Love in a Dream 1499. Francesco Colonna’s beautifully illustrated book tells of Poliphilo’s search for his love, Polia, as recounted in the hero’ dream. The nostalgic allegory includes lengthy and detailed descriptions of ancient architecture, of temples, tombs, foun-

of

in

Gossart as Architect

fer se and Loys van Boghem devised a highly ornamented Gothic manner for the court of Margaret of Austria and for rich cities that aped this mode," in which distinctive arch forms and tracery motifs gave character to the designs. Probably the most distinguished of these edifices was the sepulchral church of Margaret of Austria, built from 1512 onward in Brou (see figs. 43, 197). This city, about sixty kilometers (thirty-six miles) northeast of Lyon, was one of the principal sites in Savoy, which the widowed Margaret had inherited from her second husband, Philibert the Fair. Eventually Van Boghem of Brussels was employed as architect,” and the painter Jan van Roome, also from Brussels, provided drawings for the exuberant Gothic tombs of Margaret and her family. Jans work was just one demonstration that painters of the period could design stateof-the-art Gothic forms as well as antique creations. Indeed, Margaret first considered building her church in something of an antique style—"in the manner of antique things that I have seen in Italy,” to quote her initial choice as designer, the French court painter Jean Perréal.” Margaret abandoned the idea, however, in favor of the latest courtly Gothic. Especially during the first two decades of the sixteenth century, this lavishly decorated very Late Gothic was frequently the choice of Europe’ rulers, including those in Spain and France. When Margaret spent time in Castile as wife to the first of her two ill-fated husbands, the Infante Juan, she no doubt noticed how the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, had developed a profusely ornamented Late Gothic style into a sort of royal mode. Buildings such as San Juan de los Reyes in Toledo, at first planned as a royal funerary church, display the magnificence of this Spanish courtly style.* The two royal galleries in the transept (fig. 41), richly carved with elaborate openwork balustrades and consoles crafted to resemble fine metalwork, were feasts for the eye, key moments in the experience of the interior of the church. France was an equally prominent participant in the evolution of this courtly Late Gothic. At the chateau of Amboise, where Margaret spent several of her childhood years, Charles VIII and Louis XII built a chapel adorned with elaborate ranges of blind tracery; indeed, some of the same tracery patterns would appear on Margarets church at Brou.” This careful crafting of the interior in a manner that resembled gold work presented church and chapel as an outsize reliquary. Such a comparison with metalwork could be seen to carry both courtly and religious connotations. On the one hand, the references to fine gold work pointed to this most precious medium, fit for royal treasure and diplomatic gift. On the other, the insubstantial, skeletal structure of this microarchitecture in particular suggested a kind of divine plan, impossibly delicate and in defiance of earthly engineering. The Gothic might therefore signify a religious or holy realm. Skeletal towers and traceried windows could denote sacred ground, especially in

tanta aquicole n

pe

Po AR Chie lial ad htsNel Perliquale cofaionon

aa

scve

1definire, fladivturna& me peovocalle, oueroil belliff mo

alereappretiaze mennua.

afl

herbe odorofo Calamo

fla

&

Apio & nobili

for,

seater di hydrolapato

Exal

"

&

canalicelo polcia ¢

Fig. 39. Attributed to Benedetto Bordone, Scene with Satyr and Sleeping Nymph, from Francesco Colonna, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, 1499. Woodcut, bound volume 1176 x 87% (29 x 21.5 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1923 (23.73.1)

1.

circular projection suggests a North Italian church tower and lantern, though it conforms to no known model. The structure at the far right is radically different in design from the other two. It is drafted in the most flamboyant of Late Gothic manners, its tower a filigree confection of arches, buttresses, and tracery bars. Below the tower is an openwork balustrade as light and skeletal as the upper form. These three buildings, all imaginary and hyperbolic extensions of architectural thought, span the scope of architectural aspirations at the time. Gossart has positioned Danae’s chamber in an urban fabric of disparate structures that represent different but equally valid ideals. The Gothic was as fashionable as the antique during the early sixteenth century, and Gossart includes state-of-the-art Gothic designs in several of his paintings and drawings, most notably in the Malvagna Triptych (cat. 6). This was not the High Gothic of Chartres and Amiens or even the established Late Gothic of the turn of the fifteenth century of Van Eyck’ time. The early sixteenth century saw the development of a new Late Gothic mode in the Netherlands, as in other regions of northern Europe. Architects such as Rombout II Keldermans

36

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 40. Jan Gossart, Danae (detail

of

cat.

35)

Fig. 41. Juan Guas, Royal Gallery, completed 1504. Monasterio de San Juan de los Reyes,

Toledo

contrast to a worldly palatial setting. This spindly, highly ornate Gothic was often chosen for representations of the gates of heaven and the palace of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Gold work was frequently associated with the forms of Gothic architecture during the late medieval and early modern periods. Alain de Lille, in a text written in the twelfth century but still popular in the early sixteenth, viewed God as a “choice architect of the universe,” a smith fashioning works of gold.* A century later, Burchard von Halls chronicle of Sankt Peter at Wimpfen-im-Tal praised the small church for embracing the latest Gothic manner. Burchard described the building as in the “French style” (opere Francigeno) by an architect “who had recently come from the city of Paris.” The church was apparently such a brilliant curiosity that crowds flocked to see its “columns and windows, fashioned in the manner of precious metalwork.”*” About 1465 Filarete would stress a similar connection in his Trattato di architettura between gold work and the Gothic manner while also disparaging it: “The goldsmiths make tabernacles and censers, and modern [Gothic] forms seem beautiful for these. Such forms were then carried over to architecture. And this application and fashion were derived, as has been said, from the people who dwell north of the Alps (transmontani), that is, the Germans and the French.” Gossart as Architect

37

The associations between delicate gold work, Flamboyant design, and celestial architecture are expressed in several paintings of the early sixteenth century. The Last Judgment Triptych

by Jean Bellegambe, of about 1525-30, is one such example (fig. 42). Bellegambe worked in the vicinity of Valenciennes, in the northern French region that then belonged within the political and artistic orbit of the Low Countries. The upper left corner of his triptych shows the ascent of the blessed into heaven. This passage is organized around two remarkable build-

ings: on the earth, a substantial spiral edifice surrounded by stairs and turrets; at the end of the journey, a heavenly palace

designed as the epitome of Flamboyant architecture. This circular, insubstantial palace is formed of tall, slender arcades with elaborate tracery and delicately articulated buttresses and pinnacles. Bellegambes fictive edifice is an ideal structure—like gold work, too delicate to withstand the stresses ofearthly existence. It is a celestial crown, an example of divine orfévrerie.” Both secular and sacred aspects are evident in Margaret of Austria’s tomb at Brou (fig. 43). Every inch of the alabaster monument has been intricately carved with rich, multiple moldings. The heavy canopy carries an ornate and idiosyncratic tracery

motif, while its weight 1s disguised by four elaborately worked tabernacles that cover the corner piers. These tabernacles ascend along various paths toward the central pinnacle, the clarity of their form partly obscured by simulated vegetal incrustation. This delicate manner of ornamental carving recalls the term used by the Netherlandish nobleman Antoine de Lalaing to describe a slightly earlier Gothic tomb he had seen in Spain. Lalaing referred to the carving of this royal alabaster monument as entretaillée (cut through or excavated).*” This unusual term aptly describes the scintillating effects that expert craftsmanship produced here. Contemporary with this courtly Late Gothic is Jan Gossart’s small portable altarpiece known as the Malvagna Triptych (cat. 6)."" In the center panel sit the Virgin and Child, surrounded by angels. They are accompanied in the left and right panels by Saints Catherine and Dorothy. Although these four figures, drafted in a manner that looks back to earlier painting in Bruges, are appealing, they are overshadowed by the intricate, weighty baldachin that towers above them and extends across all three panels. Its nature is not immediately obvious. It seems to be composed of three finely detailed tabernacles that shelter the various figures, yet it also acts as a barrier to the paradisial landscape beyond, in the same way that a choir screen marks the boundary between the nave and the holier ground of the choir. Gossart’s remarkable Malvagna baldachin is structured around a number of distinctive tracery motifs. It 1s a suspended labyrinth with geometric themes that allows the eye to chart a passage through its multiple channeled elements. Richly articulated pendants indicate the bays and mark the regular subdivisions, as staves do in present-day musical notation. Significantly, the baldachins in all three panels are different. At the center, 38

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 42. Jean Bellegambe, Left panel, The Last Judgment Triptych (detail), ca. 1525-30. Oil on panel, central panel 87% x 70% in. (222 x 178 cm), each wing 87% x 32% mn. (222 x 82 cm). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Gemaldegalerie (641)

above the Virgin's head, is a striking motif in openwork tracery that resembles a butterfly. It is unique in the painting, but it may recall the simpler intersections of ogival arches found along the pinnacles. The side piers carry a variation of this figure, a single ogival arch enclosed in a teardrop. The butterflylike shape at the center can be seen as the fullest elaboration of these intersecting figures in tracery, figures that vary in their degree of intricacy and therefore establish a hierarchy of ornamental devices. The strategic placement of kindred forms helps

lend a sense of unity to the marvelous structure. It seems that Gossarts brother Nicasius was trained and employed as an architect, though it is not clear what importance this may have had for Gossart’s work." Nicasius, documented in Middelburg in 1529, must have been trained in the Late Gothic manner prevalent among Netherlandish architects of the time, and his experience may have aided his brother Jan in his architectural endeavors. Yet the majority of Gossart’s pictures, especially his drawings with architectural motifs, tend toward a fascination with hybrid Gothic and antique forms and do not seem particularly wedded to actual architectural practice.

Ad ag Sn

-

—

od

o

+cnD

wd Lag

P—

ee

—

=

EE

—

w~

83 EHYES j

2

——

"a

ey,

= &&§LYso ES

FP 0°

85e§

8

2A E53-

Tz

m—

==

—

®

TT

cs =

Qa

Bw

o® This disposition is unlike the arrangement in Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin in Prague, where Gothic structures—or largely Gothic forms—appear in the background, setting out a holier, inner ground. It does not seem justified, however, to conclude that the antique forms on the Toledo wings are deemed more sacred, as certain writers have supposed.” Rather, it appears that the values of the two modes were in flux. Two additional factors are at play. First, the outer wings are painted in grisaille. Since the early fifteenth century, artists had typically simulated familiar architecture and sculpture on the external sides ofthe shutters—Gothic architecture and sculpture, as might be encountered in experience. Gossart was thus according with tradition in the Toledo wings, for placing antique forms on the outside would have countered the expected familiarity of such scenes. Furthermore, the grisaille treatment would have unacceptably muted the brilliant color accents of the antique furnishing, which add appreciably to its splendor. A closer look at the Toledo wings discloses idiosyncrasies. The outer wings picture not the typical Gothic niche, known from paintings by Van Eyck and Rogier, but rather an up-todate Flamboyant tracery arch with intersecting geometrical shapes that frame the figures of the Angel Gabriel and the Virgin Annunciate. The resulting pattern resembles the corbeled bell arches so in vogue with the architect Keldermans. It is a diaphanous addition to the niche proper, which incidentally ends in a round-headed arch rather than a pointed one, another indication of changing times. The Gothic 1s not simply a traditional and antiquated surround for Gossart but rather a living artistic mode from which he fashions a complex virtuoso study. Only the grisaille treatment renders it inferior to its companions on the inside of the wings. There the painter situates the two saints, John the Baptist and Peter, before barrel-vaulted choirs ending in apses adorned with shells in the manner of Bramante’s termination of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. The decoration fronting these enclosures is far removed, however, from Bramantes sober manner. The extended niches are bordered by thick porphyry columns, segmented in the middle and encased in lacelike gold banding. Their bases are apparently carved to contain putti and rams’ heads. The podiums beneath the saints are likewise exquisitely crafted: two more putti sit between meticulously detailed antique lamps that uphold the stages. And all these details are delicately rendered in gold. Although antiquarian taste has clearly been taken into account, Gossart has here created 42 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 45. Gabriel van den Bruyne, Tabernacle, 1536-38.

Sint-Jacobskerk, Leuven

another fantasy realm, constructed principally in terms of ornament. Gold work and fine sculptural craftsmanship are the arts imitated on the inner wings, and these register as fully as the antique cast of the adornments. This richness of material and wealth of detail mark the panels as superior to the grisaille wings, quite apart from their architectural mode. One may surmise that the patron—whether Pedro de Salamanca, a wealthy Spanish merchant in Bruges, as has been suggested, or someone else—admired the antique manner cultivated by Gossart’s noble patrons but that he above all desired a display of ornamental magnificence. Gossart’s architectural creations do far more than provide a credible space for his figures. They form a type of treatise on local and foreign architecture as it was then understood. They concretize notions of the antique that were only just beginning to be explored, a decade before they would be realized in actual buildings. In this they engage in a discourse on political power that was being conducted by the high nobility and their administrators and associates. And they also create an evocative environment for the depiction of the loves of the gods. Yet

Gossart was also devoted to Gothic design. The Malvagna Triptych and the fountain in his Prague Saint Luke are equally virtuoso set pieces establishing the mark for later sculptors and masons. Gossart, however, did not always maintain the division between Gothic and antique that some desired. In the Prague

Ray 1974, pp. 284-92. 2. Van Wezel 1999, p. 12. I.

3 Alberti 1485/1988,

Godwin 1999, p. viii. 27. Colonna 1499/1999, pp. 72-73. 28. Lecoq 1987, pp. 88-95, 224-25. For the assumption that Gossart and Philip of Burgundy were famhar with the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, see Herzog 1968b, p- 39; and Sterk 1980, pp. 108—9, 116-32, 136, 142, 144, 146, 150.

206.

(bk. 6, chap. 2): "In this case, unless I am mistaken, had ornament been apphed by painting and masking anything ugly, or by grooming and polishing the attractive, it would have had the effect of making the displeasing p. 156

less offensive and the pleasing more delightful.

painting, he, like the poet Lemaire, strove toward a concord or assimilation of the two modes, a pictorial statement that transcended cultural and political divisions. For all these reasons, Gossart’s architecture offers a telling index of his goals and those of the leading artists of his privileged society.

If this

conceded, ornament may be defined as a form of auxihary light and complement to beauty” For the Laun text, see Alberti 1485/1966, vol. 2, p. 449: “Ils, m fallor, adhibita ornamenta hoc contubissent, fucando operiendoque siqua extabant deformia, aut comendo expoliendoque venustiora, ut ingrata minus offenderent et amoena mags delectarent. Id s1 ita persuadetur, erit quidem ornamentum quas subsidiaria quaedam lux pulchritudinis atque velut complementum.” 4. “moult artificiellement composez.” Quoted in De Jonge 2008, p. 273. The seminal essay on Gossart’s use of ancient architectural sources is Herzog 1968b. De Jonge 2007, pp. 41-44. Coecke also published an edition of Sebastiano Serlio’s architectural treatise in the same year. is

29. Herzog 1968b, pp. 35—41; Mensger 2002, pp. 179-85. 30. Herzog 1968b, pp. 38-39.

Kavaler 2000. 32. Kavaler 2004. 33 “Sy me suis mis apres |. ay revyré mes pourtraitures au moien des choses antiques que J'ay veu es parties d’ltalie pour faire de touttes belles fleurs ung troussé bouquet don't jay monstré le jet audit Le Maire, et maintenant fait les 31.

et

.

and reworked my designs in the patrons que )'espere aréz en bref” (I made manner of antique things that I had seen in Italy in order to fashion a bundled bouquet of all beautiful lowers, which I showed Lemaire, and I now make the patterns, which I hope will soon be fimshed). The text of Jean Perréal’s letter to Margaret of Austria, November 15, 1500, 1s given in Bruchet 1927, p. 192, no. 11.

.

.

Ibid, pp. 48-49.

.

.

10.

11.

Gossart was not the only artist to design in both a Gothic and Renaissance or antique mode. The same can be said ofJan van Roome and Bernard van Orley in the Netherlands, Pierre Chambiges in northern France, Benedikt Ried in Prague,

34. Proske 1951, pp. 135—46.

Bernard Nonnenmacher in Alsace, and Erhard Heydenreich in Bavaria. See Kavaler 2006, pp. 1-2. On the issue of multiple styles or modes, see also Mensger 2008b. Renaissance notions of historicity and historical authenticity of artifacts are discussed in C. S. Wood 2008; and Nagel and C. S. Wood 2009. Mensger 2002, p. 87. Gossart’s new antique formal vocabulary was apparently too advanced for the wood-carver. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 265-68, no. 51. Jos Sterk suggests that the ceiling was for the recently built chapel in Philips castle at Wijk bi Duurstede; see Sterk 1980, p. 129. For Renaissance wooden ceilings in Netherlandish palaces, see De Jonge

37.

2003, pp. 37-38. .

13.

14.

Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 51—54. See also Ainsworth 2006. There were actually occasional objections to excessive architectural ornament in the first half of the century. See De Jonge 2008, pp. 275-76. Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 102, no. 8s, pls. 78, 79.

Steppe 1952, pp. 199-214. 16. Scheller 1985, pp. 20-36. 17. R. Born 1981, p. 85. 18. Nader 1979, p. 198. 19. For Charles’ palace, see Rosenthal 198s. 20. Gossart’s drawing of the Colosseum 1s in the Kupfersuchkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berhn (cat. 102). 21. “De architectura erat sermo, noverat hic eius artis dimensiones, proportiones, symmetrias. De basibus, columns, epistilits, coronamenus atque 1d genus reliquis adeo exacte disserebat, ut ex ipso Vitruvio eum singula legere putares.” Geldenhouwer 15.

3s. Prinz and Kecks 198s, pp. 173-75. 36. Alain de Lille ca. 1160—-65/ 1980, p. 144.

Quoted in Crossley

1997, p. 263; see also Michler 1969, esp. p. 125. I thank Miranda

Pildes for this last reference. 38.

Quoted in Frankl

1960, p. 256.

39. Bucher 1976, p. 72; Gemilldegalerie, Berlin 1996, pp. 16, 592, no. 641,1ll. p. 223, fig. 599.

40. Gachard 1874-82, vol. 1 (1876), p. 153. 41. Kavaler 2000, pp. 228-32; Mcensger 2002, pp. 23-30; Ainsworth and Faries 2006. 42. Gossart 1903, p. §7. 43. Several

of these are documented in Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen

47.

Ibid. p.

106,

fol.

824v.

48. For example, in the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, the Prayer Book of Charles V (cod. 1859), the Prayer Book of the Family de Croy (cod. 1858), and

the Rothschild Prayer Book (cod. Ser. n. 2844); in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, the Da Costa Hours (Ms. 299); in a private collection, the CroyArenberg Book of Hours; and in the British Library, London, the Prayer Book of Joanna the Mad (Add. 18852). 49. Gabriels 1938, p. 565; Ozinga 1962, p. 14; Kavaler 1994, p. 356. On this point, see also De Jonge 2008, p. 267. 50. Van Miegroet 2001, pp. 162-63. SI. Lemaire de Belges 1512/1947; see also De Jongh 1968, pp. 59-61. 52. Frappier 1947, pp. XXVII—XXIX, XLVIII—L.

and Heringuez 2008,

Baum 1920, p. 212. 56. Kavaler 2000, pp. 232-33, fig. 7. 57. Mensger 2002, pp. 201-7. 58. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 111—18, nos.

17;

p. 107. 23. Herzog 1968b; Mensger 2002.

24. Herzog 1968b, pp. 30-31; Ghisetti Giavarina 1983; Mensger 2002, pp. 82-83; Heringuez 2008, pp. 9-10. 28. On the use of bucrama in the Renaissance, see Lemerle 1996; and Heninguez 2008, p. 10.

1994,

pp. 187-88, 284—87. See Kavaler 2000, pp. 247-48, n. 18. +4. Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 11 (1974), p. 81, no. 134, pl. 112. 45. Grimani Breviary 1974 (ed.), p. 39, fol. 192r. 46. Ibid., p. 47, fol. 289r.

1529/1901, p. 232; see also Sterk 1980, p. 21. 22. “Nihil magis cum Romac delectabat, quam sacra illa vetustatis monumenta, quae per clarissmum pictorem Joannem Gossardum Malbodium depingenda sibi curavat.”

Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 233. See also Dacos 1964, p.

.

53 Mensger 2002, pp. 62-70. 54. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 249-52, no. 47; Mensger 2002, p. 64. 55.

91,93, nos. 7, 18, this volume,

PP.

Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pls. 15-17. See also discussions under cats. 24A,8 and 25 in 13, 14;

59. Silver 1987, p. 66; Mensger 2008b, pp. 196-99

Gossart as Architect

43

.

fe

r ca

—-

~ oc

~

— -

A

Ja 38

W000

5a tL

1

|: 1S

|:

Yr

—-—

.

J

’

eal

»

“Sea

:

[a

-

a

-

/ !

L

J)

r YA

A

I~ /

: :

. 1) gi3

Cry

Zan

72> 1

neo

|

-

uss

IRETSV

ME

|

:

TREE

EJ

qj or

SY

ETT

VAS

= iT

ro

5! r\

:

LorFAY

t

CUT, NC;

.

a»

7 :

3

nor

IIE

asf

4" |

1)

Lit

EE

Jil

LAER

ait

.

Jeaizaid

(es TE

Fo

" :

i :

|

ATRA

a

'

Drawing for Diplomacy: Gossart’s Sojourn in Rome Stephanie Schrader

an Gossart’s sojourn in Rome (1508—9) and his firsthand study of ancient monuments and sculpture have been widely noted since the sixteenth century.' Before Gossart, Netherlandish painters exported portraits and devotional panels in their native style for an Italian clientele. Thus, a new pattern of cultural exchange began when Gossart traveled to Rome on a diplomatic mission with Philip of Burgundy—a bastard son of

Duke Philip the Good, the most important early ruler of the LowCountries—in order to make drawings after the antique.’ As an analysis of the four surviving Roman sheets shows, Gossart was the first Netherlandish artist to bring Italy closer to home. Until now, most of the discussion of Gossart’s response to the antique has centered on the artist’s apparent inability to understand the classical tenets. One art historian characterized his Roman sheets as “animated and temperamental,” while another described them as “exaggerated,” “ornamental,” “distorted,” and “decorative.” Almost all scholars categorize his drawings after ancient sculpture as either medieval or Mannerist and antithetical to ancient ideals. On the whole, Gossart is considered a Netherlandish artist who was not yet capable of assimilating the greatness of the ancient past. What has been missing in the stylistic analysis of Gossart’s Roman drawings 1s a nuanced understanding of how they were tied to both the diplomatic needs and the humanist interests of his Netherlandish patron.” A close examination of these meticulously drawn sheets reveals a considered effort to insert the art of antiquity into the Netherlandish canon. Tracing the interrelationships between Gossart’s drawings and the diplomatic mission sheds new light on what purpose this artistic appropriation served. It will become clear that Philip employed Gossart’s drawings to establish a common ground with Pope Julius IT and to assert the Burgundian claim for greater independence.

Jennin Mabusen

.

.

.

Contrafetet in Roma

In the drawing Sheet with a Study after the “Spinario” and Other Sculptures, Gossart gathered together a collection of antique

sculpture on paper (cat. 101). At the center of the composition is a seated youth easily recognizable as a study after the Opposite: Fig. 46. Jan Gossart, cat. 102)

View

of the

Colosseum Seen from the West (detail

of

Hellenistic bronze sculpture known

the Spinario (Boy with Thorn) (figs. 47, 48).° Surrounding the nude youth in a circular arrangement are studies of two lions’ heads, two helmets, and two sandaled feet. The ornamentation on the helmets, which includes acanthus vegetation and rams’ heads, was possibly derived from Nero’s Domus Aurea, whereas the small sandaled foot on the left, with its laced buskins, recalls the ancient footwear of an untraceable statue. The source for the large sandaled foot to the right of the boy is identifiable by its elaborate footgear, consisting of laced sandals and buskins decorated with a lion's mask on the front and an acanthus leaf curving around the heel. Gossart’s highly detailed rendering makes it possible to link the sandal to the Genius Populi Romani, a statue of ancient Rome now in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples.” Similarly, the lions, with their open, ferocious mouths, wild manes, and broad noses, bear a close resemblance to the lion depicted in the fragment of a colossal Hellenistic group, A Lion Attacking a Horse (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome).* Divorcing the disparate ancient sculptures from their sethis liking. His artful reorgatings, Gossart juxtaposed them nization is particularly evident in the way he created a clear mise-en-page. The open space around each depiction of ancient sculpture separates one from the other, while the attentive placement of the individual studies provides balanced interrelationships. Gossart framed the seated youth by the sandaled feet at left and right and the two helmets directly above and below. To complete this circular frame, he placed his depiction of lions” heads on either side of the helmet above the Spinario. The alternation of lion, helmet, lion, sandal, helmet, sandal creates an orderly pattern of diverse and unrelated elements. Gossart’s detailed studies, with their stockpiling of various subjects isolated from their original settings, have stylistic similarities to drawings found in fifteenth-century Netherlandish model books. Typically, these collections of individual forms and motifs functioned as a stock of exemplars that could be reused by an artist.” Drawn on prepared paper in metalpoint, a medium that produced a delicate, exacting line, the images in model books were highly finished, as seen in the Study with John the Baptist made by an unknown Netherlandish draftsman after Rogier van der Weyden about 1455 (fig. 49)." By placing the studies on the page without any overlap and faithfully reproducing the original models, the artist could later quickly integrate a motif or figure into a painting. as

to

45

Fig. 47. Jan Gossart, Sheet with a Study after the “Spinario” and Other Sculptures (detail

Because of their frequent use, only a small number of model book drawings survive, but aspects of this practice are known to have persisted in early sixteenth-century Netherlandish workshops. Gerard David, Gossart’s contemporary, continued to make studies in metalpoint on prepared paper."’ Sometime about 1500 David copied four heads from an important early Netherlandish monument—]Jan and Hubert van Eyck’s Ghent Altarpiece, completed in 1432." In his metalpoint drawing, based on the popes and bishops shown among the Holy Martyrs on the altarpiece, David carefully positioned the heads

not to overlap (fig. 50)." Despite the similarities to model book drawings in its technique and in the meticulous arrangement of the heads on the 50 as

46

of

cat.

101)

page, Davids drawing departs from earlier conventions in several regards. Even though the heads are drawn in the laborious metalpoint technique, the lines are much more fluid and appear

less highly finished—especially when compared with those

found in a typical model book drawing, such as the one after Rogier." In addition, instead of faithfully recording the popes and bishops as the Van Eyck brothers had painted them, David omitted the miters that would make them more identifiable as religious figures. Furthermore, there is no surviving work in which the artist reused the heads. Thus, David's drawing appears to be less a direct copy and more an homage to the various forms of facial expression portrayed by his famous Netherlandish forefathers."

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted material

Ea

Fig. 48. Spinario, Late Hellenistic, 1st century B.c. Bronze, H. 28% in. (73 cm). Musei Capitolini, Rome

Whereas David employed a fifteenth-century medium, metalpoint, to sketch, Gossart used a flexible pen to make studies in a polished, slightly pedantic manner. Gossart’s antiquated style in these works is most apparent when his Sheet with a Study after the “Spinario” is compared with his pen-and-ink drawing of a standing warrior (fig. 51, cat. 103). The loose handling of the pen detected in the hatching of the warrior is nowhere to be found in the figure of the Spinario. Gossart instead drew in an exacting manner to create a dense pattern of careful hatching entirely in keeping with that found in fifteenth-century Netherlandish metalpoint drawings. Like earlier artists who thoughtfully wielded the metal stylus—with its inerasable lines—Gossart drew after the antique with convic-

tion. He did not use black chalk to sketch out his composition or quickly outline his forms, but instead confidently copied the ancient sculptures using only dark ink. In these careful replicas, therefore, Gossart not only paid homage to the art of the ancient past but also showcased his own Netherlandish talent. Gossart’s drawing of the Colosseum asserts an even bolder claim on the antique by the Netherlandish artist (fig. 46, cat. 102). A sixteenth-century inscription at the top right of the sheet, though not written by the artist himself, emphasizes this declaration." It states Jennin Mabusen eghenen /handt Contrafetet in Roma /Coloseus (Jan Mabuse, with his own hand, portrayed in Rome [the| Colosseum). The inscription relates who made the drawing (Gossart was also known as “Mabuse,” from Drawing for Diplomacy

47

Fig. 49. Copy after Rogier van der Weyden, Study with John the Baptist, ca. 1455. Metalpoint on gray prepared paper, 4%6 x 7% m. (11.6 x 18.4 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Robert Lehman Collection, 1975 (1975.1.847)

Fig. so. Gerard David, Study of Four Heads (after Details from the Ghent Altarpiece), ca. 1500. Metalpoint on prepared cream laid paper, 2'%s x 276 in. (7.2 X 6.3 cm). National

Gallery of Canada, Ottawa (6986)

Maubeuge, the Walloon town where he was born), what it depicts, and where it was made. But, with the use of the word contrafetet, 1t also lays claim to the authenticity of Gossart’s image."” Following portrait conventions, that term was used to announce the image to be an authentic replica of its model. Contrafetet, which literally translates as “made against,” testified that an image was based on an eyewitness account and that possessed an implicit or explicit degree of truthfulness in rela-

beneath. In the midst of the broken lumps of concrete and sheared travertine, Gossart showed the vaulted interior tunnels, which had allowed spectators to pour into and out of the Colosseum. Farther to the right, he indicated yet another layer removed by depicting delicate brickwork—the core ofthe structure and the foundation on which the rest of the decoration was built. The juxtaposition of architectural solid and void effectively

tion to the original. By using the clause Jennin Mabusen Contrafetet in conjunction with the name and location of the monument, the inscription proclaims that the image resulted from a direct encounter with the subject and was authentic. Evidence of Gossart’s firsthand observation of the ancient monument can be seen in the drawing itself. With careful attention to each individual brick, stone, plant, and dentl molding, Gossart provided a detailed portrait of the Colosseum. By showing the structure's monumental entirety, he also offered an all-encompassing, distant view. Gossart brought these opposite viewpoints together by depicting the architectural details in miniature. As an eyewitness trying to capture the complete essence of a structure, Gossart presented his viewer with a composite truth. The multiple viewpoints served as visual reinforcement that he had made his drawing after the original."

the deterioration in its various stages provides clues as to how the Colosseum was originally constructed. By presenting a more complete building at the left, the artist enabled the viewer to reconstruct the more ruinous part at the right. By showing

it

Following what he saw before him, Gossart portrayed the Colosseum in the process of decay. At the left side of the drawing, the ancient four-tiered structure is shown almost intact, but Gossart contrasted that completeness with a large degree of erosion at the center. Only two levels remain there, and the outer, more decorative layers of those are removed to expose what lies

conveys a generic sense

of loss. Furthermore, the mapping of

what lies beneath the Colosseum’s decorative facade, he allowed

the viewer to contemplate the complexity of the structure. By carefully delineating the Colosseum’ erosion from inside out, Gossart gave the viewer access to the methods of construction. Gossart evoked the complexity of the Colosseum’ construction in two dimensions by a painstaking application of two different colors of ink. Typically, his drawings employ only grayish brown ink, but here he used an additional lighter, reddish brown color throughout. Gossart contrasted the dark grayish brown with the lighter layer in several areas of crosshatching. Using this careful layering of inks, he built up his form with a dense network of lines. This time-consuming application of different inks draws attention to the artist’s act of creation. In his display of the Colosseum’s intricate construction, Gossart also highlighted his own skills of fabrication. As the inscription asserts, Jennin Mabusen crafted this authentic portrait of the Colosseum with his own skillful hand.

48 Jan GOsSART'S RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted material

Fig.

51.

Jan Gossart, A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor (detail

of cat.

Like the drawing, the inscription itself acknowledges Gossart’s sophisticated response to the antique. Written in both

Dutch and Latin, the text demarcates two different artistic traditions. Jennin Mabusen eghenen handt 1s contrasted with Contrafetet in Roma Coloseus, making Mabuse, the sixteenth-

century Netherlandish artist, appear distinct from the Colosseum of ancient Rome. The two languages of the inscription assign Gossart and the Colosseum their individual places in history. By emphasizing the artist's own hand and boldly pronouncing the image's authenticity, the inscription also declares the prowess of Mabuse. This latter-day Netherlander did not play second fiddle to his venerable Roman predecessors. Instead, his active hand inserted their ancient artifact into a different artistic tradition, giving the decaying monument new life.

103)

As the early sixteenth-century inscription on the Colosseum

implies, someone valued the drawing as a virtuosic demonstration of Gossart’s hand shortly after it was executed. The fact that Philip of Burgundy officially employed the artist to execute drawings after the antique makes it tempting to assume that the patron himself wrote the inscription. Even if Philip did

not inscribe the Colosseum sheet, he certainly was shown the drawing by the artist. Executed in a highly finished manner on a

large sheet almost exactly the same size as Gossart’s Sheet with

a Study after the “Spinario,” the Colosseum has the appearance of being one of several presentation drawings made for public display. A close examination

of Philip's mission to Rome offers

new insights concerning how the Burgundian diplomat may have viewed Gossart’s emulative copies of the antique. Drawing for Diplomacy

49

Fig. 52. Jan Gossart, The Apollo Citharoedus of the Casa Sassi (detail of cat. 99)

The Art of Diplomacy

Philips mission was necessitated by the ongoing struggle between the papacy and Burgundian dukes over church offices in the Low Countries.” Burgundian rulers had previously controlled these benefices, frequently using them to place their bastard children into positions of power. In 1473 Pope Sixtus IV began appointing members of his own family to ecclesiastical positions in the Burgundian territories, thus gaining access to the large sums of money these posts generated. Since the young Prince Charles—the future Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders, Duke of Brabant, Prince of Spain, Sicily, and Jerusalem, and Archduke of Austria—was not yet of age to rule, Margaret of Austria, his aunt, was named regent of the Netherlands in 1506. It became her duty to rework the balance of power between the papacy and Charles. SO

Margarets ultimate objective was to make the nomination of bishops, abbots, and other monastic dignitaries in the Low Countries independent of papal approval and to bring the positions they held back under the control of the future Burgundian duke. However, from her dealings with the formidable Pope Julius II on other matters, Margaret was well aware that there was little hope that he would completely capitulate.” Thus, rather than trying to persuade the pope of the Burgundian right to control these ecclesiastical posts, she aimed to remind him of the Burgundian point of view and to maintain friendly relations. For this delicate diplomatic mission, Margaret needed someone who could model himself after Julius and use common interests to reintroduce the notion of Burgundian independence. She found her ideal diplomat in

JAN GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted material

Pope Julius granted Philip more honors than people could remember had been granted to any ambassador for a hundred years. He honored him for his title of Burgundy, which was extremely well known throughout the entire world; he admired the fact that in one man there was such skill in almost every field. For whether he was discussing with him matters of peace or of war, in which the white-haired Julius was also lucky, he found in Philip the greatest knowledge of both subjects, although Philip was always more a lover of peace. Julius was fond of painting and considered Philip to be at once a critic of this art and a practitioner, for he had learned painting and the goldsmith’s art as a young man. If the conversation was about architecture, Philip knew about the dimensions, proportions, and symmetries ofthis art. He used to talk so expertly about bases, columns, epistyles, architectural moldings, and other things ofthis sort that you would think he was reading specific passages from Vitruvius himself. If the talk turned to fountains, aqueducts, or baths, it appeared that none ofthese matters were unknown to him. And it so happened that Julius loved him in the highest degree and voluntarily gave him many things that other people usually solicit. But Philip was ofsuch lofty character that he accepted nothing from Julius except two marble busts, one of which was of Julius Caesar and the other of Aelius Hadrian. Nothing pleased him [Philip] more when he was in Rome than those sacred monuments of antiquity which he commissioned the distinguished artist Jan Gossart of Maubeuge to depict for him.”

Fig. 53. Apollo Citharoedus, Late Hellenistic, 2nd century B.¢. Green basalt,

H.

91

in. (231 cm). Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples (6262)

Philip. Leading an entourage of sixty men, including Gossart, he left Mechelen on October 26, 1508, and arrived in Rome on

January

14, 1509.%'

In 1529 Gerard Geldenhouwer, Philips secretary and chaplain, gave an account of the diplomatic mission in his Vita clarissimi principis Philippi a Burgundia (Life of the Celebrated Ruler Philip of Burgundy). In the following passage, Geldenhouwer reported that,

beyond Philip's honorable titles, humanist education, military accomplishments, and religious credentials, his theoretical and practical knowledge of ancient architecture appears to have been the most important interest he shared with the pope.

Geldenhouwer’s biography of Philip establishes that the common language of the Italian pope and the Burgundian diplomat was classical antiquity. In order for this ancient language to be viable, however, Philip relied on Gossart to refashion it. This synthesizing ofthe classical past with the vernacular can be better understood through the concept of historical decorum.” Developed in the sixteenth century by humanists such as Desiderius Erasmus, historical decorum took into account the fundamental changes to the structures, institutions, and habits of human existence from the ancient world to the contemporary epoch. Humanists argued, for instance, that it was the ancient orator’s example that must be followed, not his words. Just as Cicero spoke and wrote as he did because it best fitted the subjects he discussed and the audiences he addressed, so must an ideal present-day orator.”* He must accommodate his style to the standards of the times and the expectations of his audience. From his study of ancient rhetoric at the University of Leuven, Philip of Burgundy might very well have employedthe lens of historical decorum in viewing Gossart’s adjustments of the antique to fit within the Netherlandish aesthetic.” The artists pen-and-ink drawing of the Apollo Citharoedus clearly depicts the ancient statue in a Netherlandish style (fig. 52, cat. 99). A comparison of Gossarts drawing with the statue Drawing for Diplomacy

$1

reveals substantial changes from the original (fig. 53).° The

statue shows Apollo holding a lyre in one hand, with the other resting on top of his head. The absence of the lyre in Gossart’s drawing makes the figure less specifically identifiable as Apollo. Gossart’s Apollo is also leaner and more sinewy than the original

statue. Rather than submitting his nude to the idealized canon of proportions devised by the ancient architect Vitruvius, he elongated the body, which is much taller and more slender than that of the classical model. With his delicate hatching, Gossart produced subtle variations in light and shade that allowed him to convey the individual muscles of the chest and abdomen. Together with the elongated proportions, this fine pattern of

modeling creates a wiry rather than classical musculature. By completely changing the ancient sculpture’s stance and fashioning an elegant, artificial pose, Gossart called attention to his own artful hand. He raised Apollos arm above his head and positioned the other arm to the side at a forty-five-degree angle. These active gestures energize the figure in a dancelike pose. Gossart further activated the pose by making Apollo a pronounced study of contrapposto. Both the original statue and the drawn copy depict a protruding hip, slightly raised nipple, and subtle shift of the abdomen and navel to the right, but Gossart’s more animated pose results in a greater balancing act. He counterposed the projecting hip of the straight leg with the extended, straight arm and balanced the raised, slightly bent arm by the bent leg and raised heel. With these adjustments, Gossart’s drawn study becomes less about the classical canon and more about his own ingenuity. The emphasis on artifice 1s further seen in Gossart’s depiction of Apollos drapery. In the statue, the figure stands nude except for the classical drapery that falls in neat, thick folds below his waist. In Gossart’s drawing, the drapery is as important as the nude figure; it gracefully encircles the body, lowing over one knee, above the other, and through the legs, before falling over the classical parapet with dramatic flair. The drapery is held up for display by Apollo's hand, which 1s firmly Instead of lying flat on the edge of the paraplaced on top of pet, it is tilted up so that all the folds can be seen. Gossart’s complex pattern of hatching creates fragmented, angular folds of various lengths and depth that are nothing like the heavy classical folds of the statue. Instead, they are reminiscent of the fluttering draperies seen in the artist's earlier drawings, such as The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine of 1503-8 (cat. 69). As he did with the pose and musculature of the Apollo Citharoedus, Gossart amended the classical drapery here to make it more familiar, more Netherlandish. By filtering the ancient sculpture through the lens of his own artistic conventions, Gossart brought the antique up-todate and allowed his Burgundian patron to put his humanist knowledge on display. Although Philip’s early training in painting and goldsmithery most likely gave him the artistic back-

it.

52 JAN

GoOsSSART'S

RENAISSANCE

Fig 54. Jan Gossart, The Hercules of the Forum Boarium Seen from the Back (cat. 100)

ground to discern the quality of ancient craftsmanship, having Gossart draw after ancient statues made the diplomat’s knowledge of classical forms all the more effective. Philip's ability to critique the “dimensions, proportions, and symmetry” of ancient art and architecture was put into practice by his artist's active study.

Asserting the Burgundian Court’s Cultural Independence According to Geldenhouwer, Philip's knowledge of the antique was so impressive that the pope voluntarily showered the Burgundian with gifts. Geldenhouwer described these gifts as ones that “people usually solicit,” implying their high value, and credited Philip with a “lofty character” in tactfully declining many of them. By accepting only two marble busts of Julius Caesar and Emperor Hadrian, Philip impressed the pope as a patron of discriminating taste. Philip's declining the pope's gifts could have also had important significance to the diplomatic mission. By returning such valuable items, he disallowed any significant debt to Julius. To be indebted to the pope for his generosity would openly acknowledge Philips inferior status in a diplomatic context; Philip could not afford to be too dependent on Julius if he wished to sustain his ability to negotiate. Philips acceptance of only two gifts suggests that he honorably acknowledged Julius’ status while diplomatically challenging it. By having Gossart, his own artist, make copies of ancient sculpture, Philip made his cultural status known at the papal

court. Drawings such

of the Forum Boarium Seen from the Back even allowed Philip to associate his patronage with that of ancient rulers (fig. 54, cat. 100). Gossart based his drawing on the gilded-bronze Hercules in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (fig. 55).”” The two works are alike in that both highlight the brute strength of the mythological hero. Gossart portrayed Hercules from a three-quarter view, with his back toward the viewer and his face completely hidden. Such a depiction not only allows for the most comprehensive view of the highly developed musculature, but also evokes Pliny the Elder's description of the Hercules with Face Averted by the

v

pe SERS LNG Fig. 55. Hercules, Hellenistic, 2nd century 8. ¢. Gilded bronze, H. (241 cm). Muse Capitolini, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome

947%

in.

.-

&

yy

as Gossart’s Hercules

ancient Greek painter Apelles.”® According to Pliny, the Hercules was “a picture in which, one of the greatest difficulties in the art, the face, though hidden, may be said to be seen rather than left to the imagination.””” Like Apelles, Gossart entices the viewer to imagine the face—and thereby to complete the rotation around the statue. Geldenhouwer later explicitly mentioned the association of Philip's patronage with that of ancient rulers, made possible by Gossart’s drawing of Hercules. After Philip returned from Rome, Geldenhouwer wrote a Latin poem that praised him for employing artists to depict ancient subjects, including Venus and Mars and Neptune at the Court of Tethys. The poem ends, Long ago Parrhasios, Zeuxis, splendid Apelles, [all of them] painters earned tokens of true fame, adored by princes, praised by the song of poets. However, because you, noble Philip, offer painters worthy tasks, we have written for you in a few lines, art. Accept it with pleasure.” For Geldenan encomium houwer, Philip emulated ancient rulers by commissioning artists to depict subjects from mythology. Just as Alexander the

on

Drawing for Diplomacy

$3

a

Great supported Apelles, Philip was the patron of sixteenthcentury counterpart— "Jan Gossart, celebrated painter; the Apelles of our age” In turn, the skills of this new Apelles shaped the patron's own identity by putting his knowledge of the ancient world on display. Gossart’s skillful revival of the antique as a means to associate Philip with ancient rulers would not have been lost on Pope Julius II. One function of the papal propaganda machine was to use the collection and display of ancient sculpture as a means to portray Julius as the restorer of ancient Rome and its modern protector. No better example of this fabrication of Julius’ identity can be seen than in the building of the Belvedere Courtyard. In an effort to portray the pope as a Christian Julius Caesar who was renewing Rome's ancient glory, the overall design of the Belvedere, which housed the papal collection of antiquities, imitated the architectural layout of imperial palaces.” While in Rome, Philip was surely aware of how Julius employed his patronage to associate himself with ancient rulers, and the Burgundian diplomat responded in kind with drawings such as Gossart’s Hercules. As Julius employed the architect Bramante to design the Belvedere, Philip engaged Gossart to bring the fragments of antiquity to his domain. Gossart’s drawings after the antique established Philip as a humanist patron cognizant of the latest trends in art—a patron who conformed to international standards. More important, the drawings celebrate the cultural production ofJan Gossart, a Burgundian court artist. Although we cannot be certain, it is tempting to think that Philip showed Gossart’s drawings to

$4

JAN GOsSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Julius. Who would be better than he to present the large, meticulously drawn sheets to the pope he was trying to impress? By being in a position to appropriate the classical past through the activities of his own artist, Philip could demonstrate an independence from Julius on cultural matters. These drawings featuring Netherlandish artistic conventions even allowed a tactful assertion of Burgundian self-sufficiency. Official correspondence confirms that Gossart’s appropriation of the antique was central to the diplomatic mission to

Rome. On June 28, 1509, Philip wrote from The Hague to Margaret of Austria, giving details of his embassy. He reiterated the various requests that he had conveyed to the pope and reported Julius’ response to each. He relayed the pope’s unwillingness to make any immediate accords regarding the nomination of the bishops or abbots in the Low Countries, requests that were considered an overextension of Burgundian power. Yet Philip asked Margaret not to give up hope, as one of his fellow ambassadors was to stay in Rome to broach the subject of Burgundian independence once more.” Elsewhere, Philip mentioned that Gossart was remaining in Rome to finish the last of his copies.” This reference to the drawings in official correspondence specifically links Gossart’s appropriation of the antique to Philip's diplomatic strategies at the papal court. Ultimately, the Burgundian call for independence was heard. In 1515, when Charles came of age, Pope Leo X confirmed that he would not appoint any abbot without the prince's approval.” The repeated claim to Burgundian autonomy, along with the assertion of their cultural authority, eventually made a difference.

1.

As carly as 1567, Lodovico Guicciardini, a Florentine merchant, scholar, and histo-

riographer who had been living in Antwerp since 1542, claimed that “Jean of Mabuse was the first who took from Italy into these lands the art of depicting historie and poesie with nude figures” (Giovanm di Mabuge, 1l quale fu il primo che porto d’ltalia in questi paesy, I'arte del dipingere Historiae, & poesie con figure nude). See Guicciardini 1567, p. 98. 2. For the most detailed discussion of Gossart's drawings after the antique, see Van Gelder 1942; Folie 1951/1960; Dacos 1964, pp. 15-21; Herzog 1968a, pp. 40-53, 387-94. nos. 4-p. 7; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 13, 43; Sterk 1980, pp. 99-101; Sterk 1986; and Schrader 2006, pp. 92-154. 3. Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 40; Judson 1986, p. 17. 4. Judson viewed the musculature in Gossart’s drawings as awkward, lumpy, unharmonious, and deformed. He acknowledged that the artist's changes from the orignals were deliberate and claimed that Gossart did not understand the spirit of the

.

5.

great classical monuments. See Judson 1981, p. 337; Judson 1985a, p. 17; Judson 1985b; and Judson 1986, p. 16. The historian Jos Sterk addressed this issue to some extent, but his account is very abbreviated and without an understanding of Gossart as an arust. See Sterk 1980, Pp. 99-101.

6.

The

Spinario, which dates to the first century B.c., has been documented since 1165. It was in the Palazzo der Conservator: on the Capitoline Hill, its current

previous location was reported to have been outside the Lateran Palace. See H. S. Jones 1926, pp. 43—47; Borchardt 1936; Haskell and Penny 1981, pp. 7-13, 308-10, no. 78, fig. 163; and Bober and Rubinstein 1986, pp. 235-36,

location, by 1471;

1ts

no. 203, 1ll. 7.

A drawing made by Maarten van Heemskerck establishes that the Genius statue

was in a niche

history

of

the

the garden of the Villa Madama, Rome, by 1532. For more on the statue, see Ruesch 1911, p. 14, no. 37; and Bober and Rubinstein mn

1986, pp. 221-22, no. 188,1ll. 8. Like the Spinario, this marble statue from

the third

century s.c. was located in the Palazzo det Conservatori at the time of Gossart's visit. See H. S. Jones 1926, PP. 249-50; and Bober and Rubinstein 1986, p. 219, no. 185, 1ll. 9. For the most recent discussion and bibliography of this practice in the southern Netherlands, see Ainsworth 1989; Dijkstra 1990; Scheller 1995; Ainsworth 1998; J. C. Wilson 1998, pp. 87-187; and Antwerp 2002. 10. See Szabd 1978, no. 2; and Antwerp 2002, p. 69. 11. Ainsworth 1998, pp. 7-55. 12. The oil-on-panel painting 1s in Saint Bavo’s Cathedral, Ghent. The Holy Martyrs the left of the Adoration of the Lamb panel, which measures appear

to

134.3 x 237.5 cm, 13.

This drawing was most likely part of a sketchbook of studies. See Popham 1926b, pp. 27-29; Winkler 1929; Popham and Fenwick 1965, pp. 87-88; John Oliver Hand in Washington, New York 1986-87, pp. 130-31, no. 44, ill.; Ainsworth 1998, pp. 26-28; and Joaneath Spicer in Ottawa, Cambridge, Fredericton 2004-35,

See Wauters 1904, esp. pp. 291-93. 20. Margaret had firsthand experience of how Julius used his weapons of excommunication and interdiction to get what he wanted at the League of Cambrai (1508). 19.

See Shaw 1993, pp. 2090-43, esp. p. 222. 21. See Sanudo ca. 1490—94/ 1879-1903, vol. 7 (1882), cols. 684-716; Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 232; Prinsen 1898; and Sterk 1980, p. 20. 22. "Pontifex Julius plus e1 honoris exhibuit, quam ulli intra centum annos legato

exhibitum memoriae proditum est. Honorabat in co Burgundicum nomen, ubique terrarum celebratissimum; mirabatur in uno homine tantam fere rerum ommum peritiam. Sive enim cum illo pacis, sive belli negotia (quae etiam Juho Cano arridebant) tractaret, summam utrorumque in Philippo scientiam experiebatur, licet hic pacis semper fuerit amantior. Delectabatur ille picturis, habebat hunc eius artis indicem simul et artificem, pictoriam enim auri fabrilem adolescens didicerat. De architectura erat sermo, noverat hic cius artis dimensiones, proportiones, symmetrias. De basibus, columns, epistiliis, coronamentis atque 1d genus reliquis adeo exacte disserebat, ut ex ipso Vitruvio eum singula legere putares. Si de fontibus, aquaeductibus, terms sermo incidisset, nihil harum rerum hunc latere adparebat. ltaque factum est, ut Julius eum summopere amaret, multaque utro offerret, quae alii ambire solent. At ea animi celsitudine erat, ut nihil a Julio acceperit practer statuas marmoreas duas, quarum una Juhi Caesaris, altera Haeln Hadriam erat. Nihil magis eum Romae delectabat, quam sacra illa vetustatis monumenta, quae per clarissimum pictorem Joannem Gossardum Malbodium depingenda sibi curavit.” Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, pp. 232-33. Translation by Waldo E. Sweet, slightly altered, from Herzog 1968a, PP. 41, 177-78, n. 12 (italics in translation mine). 23. For the discussions of historical decorum that informed my understanding of the concept, see I. Scott 1910/1972; Pigman 1979, p. 160; Pigman 1980; Meadow 1996; and Payne, Kuttner, and Smick 2000. 24. Meadow 1996, p. 198. . Philip matriculated at the University of Leuven on December 7, 1484. His studia humanitatis was a well-defined cycle of studies that included classical Latin grammar, rhetoric, poetics, history, and moral philosophy. See Campana 1946; and Sterk

et

1980, p. 14. 26.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Ainsworth 1998, p. 9; and Hand in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 131. Ainsworth 1998, p. 26. A comparison with Gossart’s handwriting in a document of 1532 in the Archivo del Palau in Barcelona (leg. reg. 142) suggests that the inscription was not written by the artist himself. It is, however, in keeping with sixteenth-century script. Holm Bevers, Curator of Dutch and Netherlandish Drawings at the Kupferstichkabinett, Staathche Museen zu Berlin, dates the inscription to about 15710. According to Peter Parshall, this verb, in its various conjugations, was most often employed in relation to “genres of portraiture and topography, for images reporting specific events, and for portrayals of both natural and preternatural phenomena” in the early modern period. See Parshall 1993, p. 556. For related discussions of Hendrick Goltzius’ conflation of distance and close proximity in drawings after the antique, see Miedema 1969; and Mehon 1991, pp. 63-64.

now in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples, but it was housed in the Casa Sassi during Gossart’s visit to Rome. It 1s a Roman copy of a Hellenisuc type. See Ruesch 1911, p. 183; and Bober and Rubinstein 1986, 1s

pp. 77-78, no. 36, ill. 2% Excavated under the auspices

Sixtus

the statue was found relatively intact and was celebrated for its high degree of preservation, See H. S. Jones 1926, pp. 282-84; and Haskell and Penny 1981, pp. 227-29, no. 45, fig. 117. 28. Hans van Miegroet also supported this interpretation in an unpublished arucle. See Van Miegroet 1998, p. 7. Pliny the Elder 1855-57 (ed.), vol. 6, p. 262 (bk. 35, chap. 36). of

IV,

.

30.

“Ohm Parrhasius, Zeusis, pracclarus Apelles, / Pictores, verae meruere insignia laudis, / Grati principibus, laudati carmine vatum, / Temporis at nostri pictores, clare Philippe, / Digmis muneribus quia donas, artis honorem/Paucis versiculis tibia

pp. 20-21, no. 1,ill. 14.

The basalt statue

scripsimus. Accipe laetus” On June 1, 1515, the Leuven printer Dirk Martens published Geldenhouwer’s poem. See Geldenhouwer 1515/1901, p. 176; and Sterk 1980, pp. 111, 183, n. 75. 31.

When praising Gossart’s designs for a 1516 funeral procession, Geldenhouwer extolled the “wondrous inventiveness and art of Jan Gossart, celebrated painter; the Apelles of our age” (inventione et arte munifica Joanms Malbodn, pictons clarissim: ac nostri saeculi Apellis); Geldenhouwer 1516/1901, p. 210. See also Sterk 1980, p. 112.

32. Ackerman 1951/1991, pp. 343—47.

Gossart 1903, pp- 139-42. 34. Weisz 1913, p. 4. Weisz noted that this was stated in a letter in the Lille Archive but 33.

35.

did not give specifics. Blockmans and Prevenier 1999,

p.

224.

Drawing for Diplomacy

$$

Gossart’s Mythological Nudes and the Shaping

Philip of Burgundy’s Erotic Identity

of

Stephanie Schrader

an Gossart’s most compelling paintings were made for Philip Burgundy during the time the patron was shaping his political identity as admiral of the Burgundian fleet (1502—17)

IE

and bishop of Utrecht (1517-24). From about 1516 to 1521, Gossart worked as Philips court artist, depicting mythological nudes that can be understood as a celebration of sensual pleasures. In reviving classical eroticism for Philip, the artist used his painterly skills to assimilate the loves of the ancient gods into the life of a sixteenth-century Burgundian ruler. Whereas previous scholars have invariably seen moralizing undertones in Gossart’s nudes, the principal focus of this discussion is how he adapted the eroticism of the ancient past to fit Philips needs both as a virile admiral and as a sensually inclined bishop." A careful visual analysis of the mythological paintings by Gossart that decorated Philip's residences—in conjunction with a close reading of Philips biography, the 1529 inventory of his Wijk bij Duurstede castle, and a humanist text written by a member of his court—demonstrates how these paintings gave Philip the opportunity to display his political and sexual prowess. Virile Bodies admiral of the Burgundian fleet, Philip became associated with his ancient counterpart, the powerful sea god, Neptune. A published letter of 1514 by Philip’ biographer Gerard Geldenhouwer shows the extent to which this identity was crafted. In the letter, Geldenhouwer credited

During his successful tenure

as

(Ruler Philip of Burgundy, governor of the sea) for his discovery in the province of Zeeland of an ancient marble inscribed with Hercules’ name.” The identification of Philip as praefectus was appropriate to his position as admiral. In fact, the term praefectus had appeared as early as 1493 in an inscription around the edge of seal of the Burgundian admiralty.” Yet Geldenhouwer’s naming of Philip as oceani praefectus did more than refer to his official position: fifteenth-century humanists also used the term oceani praefectus when referring to Neptune in triumphal processions.” Thus, by sharing a title and maritime authority with the god, Philip was understood to be Neptune's sixteenth-century counterpart. Princeps Philippus Burgundus, oceani praefectus

a

Opposite: Fig. 56. Jan Gossart, Neptune and Amphitrite (detail

of

cat.

30)

To commemorate himself as a virile admiral capable of negonating for local and imperial authorities, Philip commissioned Gossart to decorate his castle in Souburg with a monumental painting of Neptune and Amphitrite. Executed in 1516, 1t depicts the mythological seafaring couple as almost lifesize nudes (fig. s6, cat. 30). Standing on a shallow plinth with their heads

reaching the capitals of the classicizing columns, the figures appear monumental. By giving Neptune Vitruvian proportions and exaggerated, idealized musculature, Gossart further enhanced his size and called attention to the god's physical prowess. Amphitrite’s robust hips, thighs, and calves visually echo Neptune's musculature and make her his perfect consort. Gossart used trompe-I'oeil techniques to push the monumental Neptune and Amphitrite into the viewer’ space. For example, by placing Neptune's trident in front of the plinth and cropping it at the bottom, he appears to extend it into the space beyond the picture plane. The artist linked this space with the viewer's by depicting cast shadows at the figures’ feet. Falling at a raking angle to the right, the shadows implied natural light pouring in from outside the left edge of the picture plane to rest upon actual volumetric forms. By conflating the space of the mythological figures with that of the viewer, Gossart made his powerful nudes tangibly present. Gossart’s colossal nudes are made all the more arresting by other naturalistic details that enliven their idealized forms. These classical gods have bushy heads of golden hair, with every individual strand articulated and highlighted. In addition, Neptune has bits of curly facial hair resembling that of an adolescent boy as well as dark, curly pubic and armpit hair (see figs. 58, 59). Furthermore, both figures’ individualized nipples appear erect. Finally, the artist animated the figures by giving them flushed, pink cheeks and, in the case of Amphitrite, a slightly open mouth showing teeth and tongue. Through these details Gossart imbued Neptune and Amphitrite’s monumental forms with a distinctly human sort of life. By having the nude Amphitrite and the sea god stand with arms entwined, Gossart characterized Neptune's virility in amorous terms. Neptune lovingly supports Amphitrite’s hand, while she leans her head tenderly toward him. This intimate embrace creates more than a portrait of conjugal bliss.” Much like his contemporary Conrad Meit, Gossart excelled at the evocation

57

Fig. 57. Conrad Meit, Mars and Venus, ca. 1515-20. Bronze, including base, Mars, 13% x 117 x Yan. (23.6 x 30.3 X 1.4 cm). Germamisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg (pL.0. 2886)

$8

JAN GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

2

1n.

(34-3 x 30.3

xX

1.4 cm); Venus, 9% x 12 x

At the time

early youth

his appearance was above average in desirability, eyes dark and piercing in a sort of Cupid-like fashion, lips rosy, chin blooming with its first down, body slender and of becoming height, indeed his character and conversation were formed in such a way that it would have been better to call him Parthenias than Philip. For this reason he loved less than was loved; indeed certain rather licentious ladies, with all sense of shame departed, were desperately in love with him, to such an extent that because of these women he would have fallen into mortal danger, if he who was of

thought to be the one aiming at his death had not beenslain.”

Geldenhouwer created an image of an effeminate Philip with slender body and pretty face, likening him to Parthenias, a rare Latin term used to describe a young maiden.” Yet along with his graceful beauty, Philip had the power to seduce. According to Geldenhouwer, his piercing dark eyes were like Cupid's arrows, which enflame his targets with lust. Philip, like Cupid, made women fall desperately in love. Thus even as a youth, he embodied eroticized power, stirring desire in licentious women. Along with this passage from Philips biography, the inscription on Neptune and Amphitrite further conveys that amorous tales from mythology were central to his understanding of his own virility. On the upper right-hand corner of the architrave, a tall,

Fig. $8. Jan Gossart, Neptune and Amphitrite (detail

of sensual touch.” In

his Mars and Venus

of

cat.

30)

of about 1515-20, Meit

an inscription reading A/PLVS/SERA//phe/bourgne combines the Burgundian motto “More to come” with an abbreviation of Philips name in Gothic black-letter script (see fig. 203)."” Through the inscription of his name and the motto

positioned Mars so that he touches Venus’ buttocks and her hand brushes against his thigh (fig. 57).” Meit accentuated the sense of the figures’ reaching toward one another by depicting each with an upraised foot. The active gestures and contrapposto animate the couple and increase the erotic charge. Like Meit’s Venus, Gossart’s Amphitrite places her hand on Neptune's buttocks, signaling that their touch is sensual in nature. In addition to this suggestive touch, the use of a shell to partially cover Neptune's genitalia draws further attention to the pleasures of these pagan bodies. Hanging over the protruding testicles, the large, pointed conch shell mimics rather than masks the penis (fig. 59). Furthermore, the large shell/ penis is about the size of Neptune's face. The provocative placement and size of the shell exaggerate the god's sexual prowess. Gossart presented Neptune, with Amphitrite at his side, as unapologetically eroticized.

Embodying the Erotic

The eroticized physicality in Neptune and Amphitrite would have appealed to Philip's understanding of his own physical charms. Geldenhouwer described Philip’s physical appearance in the following terms in his 1529 biography.

Fig. 59. Jan Gossart, Neptune and Amphitrite (detail of cat. 30)

Gossart’s Mythological Nudes

59

Fig. 60. Jan Gossart, Venus and Cupid (cat. 33)

60

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

on the original frame, the ardent touching of Neptune and Amphitrite is identified with Philip. The shaping ofPhilip's identity through this depiction of virile sea god is a remarkably early and sophisticated display of humanism, eroticism, and sexual prowess. Given his mythic ability to charm women, the patron might well have sought to compare his own personal powers at a younger age to those of Neptune. Gossart made this association all the more effective by showing Neptune with dark eyes, rosy lips, and touches offacial hair—features similar to those described in Philip's biography. The lifelike portrayal of Neptune and Amphitrite allowed the admiral Philip to reflect on his domination at sea and seduction at home. At the ripe age of fifty-one, at the end of his military career, he confronted the power of love to conquer all.

a

Eroticism and Irony: Gossart’s Venus and

Cupid

Entries in the February 1529 inventory of Duurstede castle, where Philip resided as bishop of Utrecht, show that his taste for the erotic was not a passing fancy. The inventory mentions

mh] mecETT Vt] ADT

2

oh)

=13

paintings, tapestries, and sculptures of titillating subjects throughout the castle. For example, it describes, in his bedroom, tapestry with a hunting scene that had implicit sexual connotations (“on which 1s depicted a man who wants to put his drill into the web of a young woman™)."" In the treasury, in a stockpile ofvaluable goods, was “a marble statue of Priapus,” the ancient god of fertility notable for his gigantic, erect penis." Furthermore, the sumptuously appointed little house by the hoenrepoert (one ofthe city gates of Wijk bij Duurstede), where Philip entertained, contained “two expensive, well-made paintings of illicit love affairs with a storage box in which one

a

belongs.” Most important to this discussion is a mythological painting that hung in Philip’s private study. It is characterized in the inventory as “‘a large painting of a nude woman with an arrow in the hand called Cupid covered with a blue and yellow curtain.”"* Despite the awkward description—the result ofthe inventory maker's error—it is quite certain that the nude female figure referred to is Venus, Cupid's typical companion. The fact that the painting was covered with a curtain indicates that the subject was not appropriate for all viewers, most likely

SPP LIE — gr ll]- ph -

r Ow

Lar.

5

TC

.

-

Fig. 61. Jan Gossart, Venus and Cupid (detail ofcat. 33)

Fig. 62. Jan Gossart, Venus and Cupid (detail ofcat. 33)

Gossart’s Mythological Nudes

01

because of its overtly erotic depiction of the goddess of illicit love.” By covering the painting with curtains, Philip set up a viewing experience in which he could be a voyeur of a titillating female nude. As the curtains were the heraldic colors of the house of Burgundy, they also further associated the patron with erotic mythological subject matter, much as the Neptune and Amphitrite did. Gossart’s Venus and Cupid of 1521 provides us with an example of what the erotica at the Wijk bij Duurstede residence may have looked like (fig. 60, cat. 33). As it 1s similar in subject matter to the painting described in the inventory, Gossart’s painting was very likely made for Philip. A portrayal of the nude Venus as she playfully restrains her son Cupid from nocking an arrow, it refers to Venus’ vain attempt to stop her son from inflicting the gods and men with his arrows, which spur illicit love affairs. The artist directly addressed Cupid’s powers by including text on one of the two arched gilded frames. The outer, detachable frame bears the inscription NATE EFFRONS HOMINES SVPEROS QVE LACESSERE SVET[VS]| NON MATRI PARCIS: PARCITO,NE PEREAS MDXXI (Shameless son, you who are inclined to torment men and gods, you do not [even] spare your [own| mother: cease, lest you be destroyed 1521)."

Gossart emphasized Venus’ inability to control Cupid by showing the two locked in a spiraling struggle. The goddess energetically turns and twists to grasp Cupid’s hand as she gracefully takes his elbow and gently steps on his foot. If Venus were not holding on to Cupid, she would topple to the left. This dependence on Cupid to balance Venus makes it difficult to read her gestures solely as restraint. Instead, her instability is more likely to lead him into movement than to stop him. Gossart heightened this sense of instability with the architectural setting. Although he provided a niche for the figures to stand in,Venus lunges forward from overlapping the niche at the left as she twists her body. Cupid's wing and bow extend beyond the niche at the right. Together they appear to have stepped off it, into the shallow foreground. Outside the niche, Ionic columns stand on bases with roundels decorated with figures in relief. The columns and bases do not symmetrically frame the figures either; indeed, they are largely obscured at the right by the interior frame. By showing more of the column and base on the left and by shifting Venus’ weight in that direction, Gossart emphasized the left side of his composition. Through asymmetry he further implied instability. In the roundels, Gossart conveyed the victory of carnal pleasure over its punishment or control. On the right, Venus appears with Mars, the god of war, who was spurred to an adulterous tryst by Cupid's arrows of lust. On the left, Venus’ husband, Vulcan, pulls back a curtain to reveal the nude lovers entwined on a canopied bed (fig. 61). Typically, the two are caught in a net made by the cuckold Vulcan, but the net is not a prominent

it,

62 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

part of this composition. Instead, Gossart focused on the voyeuristic aspect of the story. As Venus and Mars passionately embrace, Mercury and Neptune in the foreground observe the adultery. According to Homer, these two, along with other gods, had come to see the spectacle of Venus and Mars caught in Vulcan's net, and they looked upon the lovers with “unquenchable laughter.” Mercury expressed a desire to change places with Mars, even if he would end up similarly ensnared and humiliated. Neptune, on the other hand, beseeched Vulcan to set Mars free to preserve his dignity.'” In the right roundel, no obvious action has been taken against Venus and Mars. Vulcan has been dismissed, and Venus and Mars are free from his net. The lovers stand with arms entwined, gazing into one another’ eyes (fig. 62). Whereas the god of war is dressed in his armor and helmet, the goddess of love is nude; thus Gossart openly acknowledged the potential of love to quiet war.” Through the depiction of the love affair between Venus and Mars, Gossart explicated the Latin text on the removable frame, and in particular Venus’ words to her shameless son, “You do not [even] spare your [own] mother.” Given a painting that both stylistically and iconographically depicts Venus’ futile attempt to control her own lust (Latin: cupido), how was the viewer to interpret the removable, inscribed frame, which characterizes the behavior as shameful? Were viewers meant to disregard the moralizing tone of the inscription because it was written on an impermanent frame? Was the text meant as a didactic warning intended to negate the pleasures depicted in the painting? Or is there evidence to suggest that the text around Gossart’s Venus and Cupid was meant to be ironic in tone? In fact, the use of this type of frame on Gossarts Venus and Cupid demonstrates Philip's sophisticated study of the ancients. In his biography of Philip, Geldenhouwer recounted that the patron employed “versifiers, who decorated pictures and buildings with poems, so that he could display each picture as both talking and silent” By placing Latin verses on frames of mythological paintings such as Venus and Cupid, Philip put his humanist study of the ancients on display. While demonstrating Philip's familiarity with Ovid and Homer, the texts further emphasized his erudition and ability to read Latin, a prerequisite for any humanist scholar. The decision to decorate frames that could be removed was a knowing play upon Horace. In his Ars poetica (ca. 25 B.C.—8 B.C.), Horace coined the dictum wut pictura poesis (as a painting, so a poem) to refer to the equal abilities of painting and poetry to imitate nature. From his own use of removable frames inscribed with text, Philip considered how his pictures could speak as well as be silent. The learned Philip would have easily understood the text on the frame surrounding Gossart’s Venus and Cupid as an ironic commentary on the suppression of desire. The Latin words do not literally warn against lust, but instead mock efforts to control it. Furthermore, the text reinforces what the

Fig. 63. Jan Gossart, Venus (cat. 34)

Gossart's Mythological Nudes

03

titillating painting makes clear—Venus herself cannot control Cupid’ actions. The scenes in the roundels reinforce this message: the net made by Venus’ betrayed husband does little to arrest illicit desire, and the viewer, much like the voyeur Mercury, is invited to enjoy viewing the sexual pleasures that result from Venus and Cupid's interrelationship. Gossart stressed the efficacy of Cupid's power by collapsing the space between image and viewer. The figures stand before an arched, shallow niche—traditionally a space reserved for sculpture. Rather than being confined in the niche, the striding, twisting Venus moves onto the shallow ledge in front of Gossart created a spatial continuum between these two spaces by reiterating, in the foreground, the ledge of the background niche. Continuing in this vein, with the molding of the gold frame that abuts the bottom edge of the painting, he echoed the shape of the ledge in the background and foreground. As the foreground ledge appears to drop off onto the ledge created by the molding of the inner frame, Gossart playfully suggested the possibility that Venus and Cupid—much as they have come forward out of their niche—might step down out of the pictorial space into that of the viewer. Gossart further conflated the space of the painting with that of the viewer by depicting a cast shadow on Cupid's leg closest to Venus, implying a light source originating outside the left side of the painting. As it comes into the picture, the light appears to be blocked by Venus. By connecting the various spaces with the implied light source, the artist further linked the interior space of the image with the exterior space of the viewer. This spatial conflation allowed for the mythological scene of carnal pleasure to be brought closer to the world of the sixteenth-century Burgundian court,

it.

Dorp’s Dialogus and the Celebration of Carnal Pleasures

The pleasure to be derived from ironic portrayals of Venus and Cupid was not unique to Gossart’s painting at Philip's court but is also found in contemporary literature produced by Philips acquaintance Martin Dorp. A close friend of Geldenhouwer, Dorp was on the faculty of the University of Leuven. Philip thought highly of him and asked him to be his suffragan bishop in 1519.” Sometime between 1508 and 1514 Dorp wrote Dialogus: in quo Venus & Cupido omnes adhibent versutias: ut Herculem animi ancipitem in suam Militiam inuita Virtute perpella[n[t (Dialogue: In which Venus and Cupid, apply all cunning, in order to drive Hercules, wavering in his mind, against his

of Virtue), which was published in 1514 together with Geldenhouwers earlier letter praising Philip as governor of the sea, previously discussed.” Owing to his interest in Venus and Cupid and his close acquaintance with Dorp, Philip would most certainly have been familiar with the Dialogus. own army, against the will

64 JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

of Hercules at the crossroads, when the mythological hero must choose between paths of Dorp’s Dialogus tells the tale

“virtue or

the text, Venus and Cupid compete against Virtue to compel Hercules to follow their path. In the beginning, Hercules sides with them and 1s tempted by Venus’ promise to “restore you and anoint you with an entire cabinet of pleasures.”” He seems willing to become her “only beloved and the most longed-for surrogate of Adonis.”** Before he can side with Venus, Virtue interjects to warn him of how “Venus [1s] most impure [and a] scoundrel thief of [men’s] souls [who does| not release anyone she has captured from her claws.””’ After a fierce battle between Virtue and Venus and Cupid, Hercules is persuaded to align himself with Virtue.” Like Gossart’s Venus and Cupid, the Dialogus acknowledges that controlling Cupid is a feat impossible to guarantee. Cupid is utterly aware of his power and willing to use it. Cupid prom1ses Venus, “If it thus seems a good idea to you as well, I will pierce her [Virtue] with this gilded arrow of mine, this arrow, which I say, mother, renders senseless those transfixed by and makes them insane with love.”?” The inability to restrain Cupid was, in fact, a primary consideration for Dorp. In the dedication of the Dialogus, he stated," You should be carefully warned lest at some point Cupid slay you, my audience. . . . Keep him silent, to the extent you can.” In addition to recognizing the difficulty of controlling Cupid, Dorp made the pleasures offered to Hercules very appealing. Even though Virtue constantly criticizes what Venus and Cupid proffer to Hercules, she ends by admitting how enjoyable it sounds. Instead of using his text to condemn sensual pastimes, Dorp took delight in describing them in detail. Through his attentiveness to Venus and Cupid’s carnal pleasures, Dorp even downplayed the virtues of heaven. Ironically, instead of providing a severe warning against carnal pleasures, Dorp offered his readers an opportunity to enjoy his description of eroticized behavior. vice.”** In

it

Love Conquers All

There

additional evidence, aside from Gossarts Venus and Cupid and Dorp’ Dialogus, to suggest that Philip enjoyed depictions of even more explicitly erotic imagery. In the sumptuously appointed house by the hoenrepoert, as previously mentioned, there were “two expensive, well-made paintings of illicit love affairs with a storage box in which one belongs.”*' Gossart’s small cabinet painting of a nude woman holding a mirror, now in the Accademia dei Concord, Rovigo, could well have been one of Philip's boelschap (illicit love) paintings (fig. 63, cat. 34).** The artist made it about 1521, when he was in service to Philip, surely either for his patron or for a member of Philips court circle. With her idealized proportions and pose, Gossart’s nude recalls sculptures of Venus from ancient Rome. Her sloping 1s

shoulders, narrow waist, cylindrical breasts, and muscular arms, legs, and abdomen are similar to the proportions of an ideal1zed nude such as the Venus Felix (Museo Pio-Clementino, Vatican).> Furthermore, her hand resting over her pubic region recalls the modest pose of a Venus Pudica.* Yet Gossart’s nude is not hiding her sex completely: her open fingers allow a peek at the upper part of her labia. With her curved fingers delicately resting upon her pubic area, Venus evokes a titillating sense of touch. Gossart emphasized the tactile quality of hand on skin by bathing her in a soft, glowing light, making her flesh the touch. seem sensuous and warm Gossart’s emphasis on sensuality in ancient mythology is further seen in the pile of armor and weapons displayed at Venus’ feet. The plumed helmet with classicizing ornamentation is unmistakably that of her lover, Mars. While the helmet is a sign of the god of war, the bow, arrows, and wings are references to Cupid. Mixed together with Mars’ helmet, Cupids arrows imply that Mars has taken off his military garb to devote his attention to the pleasures of carnal love. The proximity of Mars’ armor suggests that the woman undressed has to be Venus. Along with the signs of Mars and Cupid placed at Venus’ feet, Gossart included a mirror, an urn with flowers, and an ornate necklace—other accoutrements of the goddess of sensual pleasure. Unlike the convex mirrors of the medieval period,

to

Gossart’s gilded-wood mirror has classicizing ornamentation

and locates the nude in the realm of ancient mythology.” Similarly, the artist gave the urn an antique flair by decorating it with bucrania and acanthus leaves; through their resemblance to the gillyflowers typically held by lovers, the flowers growing in the urn further indicate that the female nude is the goddess of love.” Preparing herself for her romantic trysts, Venus is often shown gazing at herself in a mirror, wearing only a necklace.” Gossart also followed this formula. The necklace here consists of three large pearls and a gold pendant decorated with shell-like motifs, perhaps in reference to Venus’ birth at sea. These glistening, sparkling accessories allowed Gossart to highlight the classicizing ornamentation and call attention to the identity of the nude woman as the ancient goddess Venus.

The Pleasures of Looking

Philips taste for eroticized mythological paintings and his understanding of himself in sensual terms strongly imply that carnal pleasures were openly advocated at his court. Philip’s appointment as bishop of Utrecht did not bring about the moral condemnation expected in such circumstances. If anything, Philip successfully used the arts to legitimize his erotic preoccupations while he served in that capacity. During his tenure as bishop, Philip took a strong stance in favor of physical love, according to this text by Geldenhouwer.

If he had ever felt himself to be burdened by excessive drinking, he used to alleviate himself by abstinence on the following day. He especially disliked drunkards accustomed to flooding themselves with beer; he was less hostile to whoremongering. Indeed, he himself was rather inclined toward physical love and was rather passionate in the love of young girls. If any nun, monk, priest, or one of those hailed either as our teachers or theologians admonishingly mentioned chastity, he used to laugh out loud, saying it was impossible for men of sound body, in the prime of life, with so much leisure, in so great a supply of all things, who either heat up with wine or swell with beer, to live chastely. For this reason he took the chastity of these people to be a most impure affront to human nature. He judged the priests who kept mistresses at home to be much more pure than experts in feigned chastity. Because of this he gained a bad reputation as a woman1zer among the tyrannical mendicants [Franciscans and Dominicans] and was regarded with suspicion in public meetings. Nevertheless, he used to persistently condemn this, hoping that it would come about while he was alive (so he used to say) that all requirements for compulsory chastity would be removed by the unanimous council ofbishops and prelates.™

From this description, it appears that Philip not only enjoyed physical love; he preferred it with young girls. While he was bishop, he fervently believed that chastity was an affront to a man’s nature, so he tolerated whoremongers and priests who kept mistresses at home. Owing to his public denouncement of chastity, or perhaps to his passionate love of young girls, Philip was considered a womanizer. Such criticism did not prevent him, however, from continuing to openly advocate for the end

of compulsory chastity. According to Geldenhouwer, Philips penchant for young girls corresponds with his ardent belief that chastity was an intolerable personal and vocational burden, an opinion not uncommon in religious circles and even expressed in sanctioned performances at the court of Pope Leo X, the Medici pope under whom Philip served as bishop. Leo, like his friend Cardinal Bernardo Dovizi da Bibbiena, was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure—whether it was music, the theater, art, poetry, hunting, or women—and he expressed similar criticisms of chastity. While he served as pope, a ballet performance known as the moresca was performed in his honor.” This dance inspired by the ancients involved a young maiden, Venus, Cupid, and eight dwarfs who impersonate cloistered monks. As a result of Cupid's arrows of lust and Venus’ prescribed opiates, the dwarfs make frantic demonstrations of love toward the lady, whom they had earlier spurned. Madly circling around her, they turn into dashing youths and dance gracefully to seductive music. They beseech her to choose one of them to be her husband and then to shoot the other seven. be The implied message 1s that it is better for a young man dead than living as a cloistered monk. As indicated in Philip's

to

Gossart’s Mythological Nudes

065

biography and in the art produced for his castle at Wijk bi Duurstede, the secular and the sensual were both welcome in religious courtly circles. Gossart’s Venus and Cupid, Dorp’s Dialogus, and Geldenhouwer’s biography all expressed the belief that it was impossible to protect oneself from Cupid's arrows of lust. Given man’s natural state, especially after many cups of wine, the pleasures of the flesh were considered too tempting. Even a bishop such as Philip could not and did not restrain himself and openly advocated for the acceptance of physical love. Given Philip's taste for the erotic, it is possible that Gossart’s painting of a nude woman holding a mirror belonged to him and hung in the sumptuous house as a scene of boelschap. Gossart’s portrayal of the goddess Venus could be interpreted as a representation of the pleasures that took place at Philips court and spurred on the amusement with young girls that he preferred. is highly If Philip did not own the painting in Rowvigo, likely that he commissioned it and gave to his friend Philip of Cleves, lord of Ravenstein. In his castle of Wynendaele, Philip of Cleves built a bathhouse in which he hung several paintings of mythological nudes. These included three large paintings given to him by Philip of Burgundy: one of Diana and Actacon and two others that depicted, respectively, Mars and Venus nude and a beautiful woman undressed.*” With her mirror and state of undress, Gossart’s Venus would have been perfectly appropriate for a bathhouse, where it could have been an erotic complement to the commingling of nude men and women." Like paintings that decorated other bathhouses, such as those made by Raphael and his workshop for Cardinal Bibbiena in Rome, Gossart’s Venus was intended to entice the senses.” By placing his female nude on an elevated plinth, the artist put the sensual female body on display. With the use of a black background, he not only highlighted her luminous skin but pushed her body close to the foreground, placing the plinth at the edge of the picture frame. Resting her toes over the edge of the

it

1.

2.

66

it

plinth, she seems about to step into the viewer’ space. Like his Venus and Cupid, Gossart’s Venus is on the threshold of moving from fictive space to the viewer’ tangible, real space. In effect, the artist presented the patron with a sensuous nude brought to life. The collapsing of the space of the image with that of the viewer occurs in one other way in Gossart’s Venus. For Gossart, the female nude’s regarding herself in the mirror provides a model for the viewer's gazing at the image. In this way, the act of looking depicted in the painting imitates the action occurring outside it, bringing the two closer together. Gazing upon the undressed Venus, the viewer becomes a stand-in for Mars, as he takes pleasure in observing the object of his desire. Like the act of voyeurism—advocated by the curtains placed over the painting of Venus described in Philips inventory and also represented in the roundels of Gossart’s Venus and Cupid—scopophilia (the eroticized gaze) reigned supreme at the bishop's residence. With this contextual discussion of Gossart’s depictions of mythological nudes, a clearer understanding of the paintings emerges. Gossart’s creation of idealized nudes that appear to burst forth from the picture plane signifies more than artistic showmanship. The painters ability to collapse the space depicted in mythological paintings into the real space of the sixteenth-century court became an essential part of Philip of Burgundy’s humanist endeavor: to update the ancient past in order to validate his eroticized sense of self. By bringing mythlife, Gossart invited Philip to compare his ological eroticism seductive physical charms with those of a virile Neptune. Similarly, the paintings of Venus decorating his castle at Wijk bij Duurstede allowed the sensually inclined bishop to display his conviction that clerical celibacy was an impure affront to human nature. Employing Gossart’s depictions of mythological subjects that condone sensual pleasures, Philip celebrated a conflated sense of his sexual and political power.

to

Gossart’s mythological paintings are traditionally considered to be condemnations of carnal pleasures. Silver and Smith posit that all female nudes in Northern art

carry negative connotations “as any search for exceptions will bear out.” For them, “much of the world-centered energy of that period was expressed as a celebration of the love, including sexual love, between men and women, the inevitable double of which was condemnation of the pleasures ofthe flesh and affirmation of the values ofthe spirit.” See Silver and S. Smith 1978, pp. 265-68, and Silver 1986a, p. 14. See also Muller and Noel 1987, esp. pp. 152—53;Veldman 1990-91a, pp. 127-28; Veldman 1991, p. 384; Hinz 2000, p. 90; Mensger 2002, pp. 174-93; Schrader 2006, pp. 155-218; and Schrader 2007-8. The notable exception to this interpretation 1s Eric Jan Slugjter, but his primary concern 1s Gossart's panting of Danae. See Sluijter 1999a; and Slusjter 2000, pp. 35-38. Geldenhouwer’s Laun text loosely translates: “Prince Philip, governor of the sea, convinced me that Walcheren derived from Galha since the G had been changed into a Wand in this year he found in Westkapelle a marble stone with the name Hercules inscribed mn old letters and therefore he believed that Hercules landed in this territory or it was given to Hercules” (Walachriam a Gallia denomunar;

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

mutata G in duplexV, persuasit mihi vir Princeps Philippus Burgundus, oceani praefectus; qui et hoc anno in Westcappella marmor repperit Herculis nomine vetustissimis mscriptum hiteris; quare et Herculem aut 1b aliquando appulisse aut Zelandiam Herculi sacram fuisse asserere mititur). That, according to myunderstanding, 1s not far from the truth. For a reprint of Geldenhouwer’s espistola, see Seriverius 1609, p. 139; and Prinsen 1898, pp. 20-21. See also Sterk 1980, pp. 25, 153; and Mensger 2002, p. So. See Ewe 1972, p. 218; and Sicking 2004, p. 101. 4. Sterk 1980, pp. 117-18; Sicking 2004, p. 101. 5. Larry Silver understands the pagan couple as a celebration of conjugal bliss and a hcit counterpart to Gossart’s “sinful” portrayals of Adam and Eve. See Silver 1986a, 3.

pp. 11-12. 6. Meit was most likely the German sculptor employed by Philip

of Burgundy

whose services Margaret of Austria wanted to borrowin 1512 to have a portrait made of her deceased husband, Philibert II of Savoy. Thus 1t 1s highly probable that Gossart knew Meit's work prior to his execution of Neptune and Amphitrite in Souburg. After traveling to Rome with Philip of Burgundy in 1508-9, Gossart

settled near Souburg, in Middelburg. He later stayed with Meit in Mechelen during his 1523 visit to Margaret of Austria's court, where Meit had been working

.

since 1514. See J. Duverger 1934, pp. 68, 79; von der Osten 1961, pp. 466-68; Herzog 1968a, pp. 4-7; and Burk 2006, p. 24. For more on this statue, see Bange 1949, pp. 68—70, Herbert Beck in Frankfurt 1985-86, pp. $§66—67, no. 312; Eichberger 2002b, pp. 306—7; and Jens Ludwig Burk in Munich 2006-7, pp. 72-75, no. 2.

.

“Eo tempore wvenili supraque modum amabili forma erat, oculis nigricantibus et nescio quid Cupidineum eraculantibus, ore roseo, mento prima lanugine herbescente, gracih corpore decoraeque proceritatis, moribus vero et conversatione 1ta compositus, ut magis Parthenias quam Philippus adpellar: potuisset. Quare non tam amabat quam amabatur; lasciviores emim quaedam matronae, in tantum eum, seposita omni verecundia, deperibant, ut harum caussa fere in vitae periculum incidisset, nisi is qui €1 mortem intentaturus putabatur, occisus fuisset.” Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 229. This first translation from the Latin has been provided by Sean Easton.

.

The root of Parthemas 1s Greek, but it 1s found in ancient and neo-Latun texts. For other references to the name’ being translated as a young maiden, see ID. R. Stuart

pp. 383-84: and Bing 1990, p. 285. 10. Herzog 1968a, p. 235. See also discussion under cat. 30. “Daerupstact een man die zijn fret walt steken n't gaern van een jonffrou.” This tapestry 1s mentioned on the recto of fol. xvin. See Sterk 1980, pp. §7, 237, 303; 1917,

I.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

and Van Miegroet 1998, p. 14. “Eenen marmeren afgod Preapus genaempt.” See Sterk 1980, pp. 137, 263. It 1s described on the recto of fol. xxxvi. “Twee costelicke taeffereclkens van de boelsc|hjap wel gedaen mut een custodie daer deen in hort.” See Sterk 1980, pp. §8-60, 136, 173, 264, 315-16. It 1s described on the verso of fol. xxxvi. “Een groot taeffereel van een naict vroutken mut een pyjl in de hant genoempt Cupido overdect mit een gardipnken blau ende geluwe” Sterk 1980, pp. 56, 137, 227, 285:Van Miegroet 1998, p. 16; Sluyjter 1999a, p. 13; and Slater 2000, p. 36. This description is in the 1529 ventory on the verso of fol. 1x. Sluijter also makes this assumption. See Sluijter 1999a, p. 13. See Van Miegroet 1998, p. 16. Philip also had a bed in this study with curtains of blue and gold. See Sterk 1980, pp. 227,287, n. 1.

Silver 1986a, p. 14. 18. Homer 1919 (ed.), vol. 19. Homer 1919 (ed.), vol. 17.

pp. 280, 281 (bk. 8, line 320); and M. Bull 200s, p. 183. 1, pp. 282-85 (bk. 8, lines 335-60). 20. This was a common allegorical reading of the story of Venus and Mars, See M. Bull 2005, p. 186. 1,

21. “versificatores, qui picturas atque structuras carmnmmbus ornarent, ut utramque

picturam

et loquentem et tacitam ostentare posset” See Geldenhouwer

1529/1901,

and Sluijter 2000, p. 38. 22. Sterk 1980, p. 48; Bietenholz and Deutscher 1985-87, vol. 1, p. 400. 23. This Latin text is reprinted with commentary in Ijsewin 1979. Russell Newstadt provided me with a complete translation of this text; all the quotations in English p- 235;

"Quin hanc ego, siquidem ita ct tibi videtur, aurato hoc telo meo traiicio; id dico,

mater, quod transfixos dementat cogitque amoribus insanire.” Dorp 1514/1979, p. 86. . Sed heus vos, ne 30. “Cavendum sollicite ne feriat ohm Cupido vos, spectatores. periculum in verbi msolenua, id, inquam tacetote quantum poteritis.” Ibid. p. 83. 3. See note 13 above. See also Sluijter 1999a, p. 13.

.

.

of boelschap around the portrayal of Venus, the word can also mean a loose woman or the act of making love (especially extramarital love), which would include a depiction of Venus. See Sterk 1980,

32. Although Sterk centered his definition

p. 136; Sluyjter 1999a, p. 13, n. 44; and Sluijter 2000, p. 36. 33. The Venus Felix, placed in the Belvedere Courtyard in 1509, could have been

known to Gossart from his Italian sojourn. See Bober and Rubinstein 1986, pp. 61-62, no. 16, ill. 34. Ibid., p. 61, no. 15,1ll. 3s. Gossart’s mirror recalls actual Renaissance mirrors as well as those depicted in Itahan Renaissance paintings, including Giulio Romano's Woman with a Mirror (Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow). See New York, Fort Worth 2008-9, pp. 185-86, no. 87 (entry by Linda Wolk-Simon), and pp. 225-26, no. 115 (entry by Deborah L. Krohn and Wolk-Simon). 36. For the identification of the flowers, see Vignau-Wilberg 1994, pp. 112-13, 152-53, 158~59, 37.

Examples of these types of paintings include Titan's Venus at Her Toilet (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.) and Woman with a Mirror (Musée du Louvre, Paris). See Santore 1997, p. 195, fig. 1,and p. 198, fig. 7.

38. "$1 quando largiore compotatione sese gravatum sensisset,

sequent dier abstinen-

tia sibi medebatur. Ebriosos, praesertim, qui cerevisia se ingurgitare solent, detestabatur; scortationibus minus infestus. Ipse enim in Venerem propensior inque

adulescentularum amoribus ardentior erat. Si quis sacrarum virginum, monachorum, sacrificulorum et eorum qui aut magistri nostri, aut theolog: salutantur, coelibatum praedicasset, irridebat vehementer, impossibile dicens, homines integro corpore, aetate, in tanto 0C10, In tanta rerum omnium copia qui crebro aut vino calerent, aut turgerent cerevisia, posse caste vivere. Quare horum castitatem impurissimam humanae naturae contumeliam interpretabatur. Sacrificulos qui domi concubinas alerent, simulatae castitatis professoribus multo puriores iudicabat. Hine male, ut muhierosus a ptochotyrannis audiebat et in publicis contiombus oblique notabatur. Quod tamen patienter contemnebat, futurum sperans (ut aiebat), se vivo, ut omnis compulsae castitatis necessitas, Unanim episcoporum ac praesbyterorum consilio tolleretur”” Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, pp. 242-43; see also Geldenhouwer 1529/1717, vol. 3, pp. 226-27. Sean Easton provided me with the English translation, the first to be made from the Latin text; Melanie Holcomb of the Metropolitan Museum helped in clanfying certain areas of the text. Mensger discusses aspects of the text but only in passing. See Mensger 2002, p. 124.

39. H. M. Vaughan 1908/1971, pp. 181-82; and Wolk-Simon 2008, p. 44.

40. See Sterk 1980, pp. 124-26; Slujter 1999a, p. 11; and Zerner 2003, p. 225. The inventory of Philip of Cleves’ collection 1s found in Finot 1895, pp. 422-35; and

Denhaene

1975.

41. A pen-and-ink drawing attributed to Gossart in the Brinish Museum (cat. 98)

are taken from his translation. 24. DeVocht 1934, p. 129. tota voluptatis prxade delibutum reddam” Dorp 1514/1979, pp. 87-88. . “ub 26. “unicus amasius et optatissimus vicarius Adonidis.” Ibid. p. 88.

te

27 “Venus impurissima, o furax animorum carnifex! bus, s1 quem inuncaveris.” Ibid,

29.

.

28. See M. Bull 2005, pp. 96-98, for a fuller discussion

. .

quam non amittis ex ungui-

of this

topic.

depicts a women’s bathhouse and shows a nude woman holding a mirror as she combs her hair. See Popham 1932, pp. 18-19, no. 2. With her classicizing body type, frontal pose, and downward gaze, the central figure in the bathhouse drawing comes close to the portrayal of the female nude in Rovigo. 42. For more information on Bibbiena’s bathhouse pamtings and the bath in general as an erotic space, see Becatti 1069, pp. 541-48; and Wolk-Simon 2008, p. 44.

Gossart’s Mythological Nudes

67

-

oo

.-

Observations concerning Gossart’s Working Methods Maryan W. Ainsworth

he high acclaim that Gossart received in his own day for his extraordinary abilities as a painter was not just the hyperbole of court discourse. Gossart’s artistic innovations encouraged numerous followers to adopt his style, which became a staple of sixteenth-century Antwerp painting and a highly marketable commodity, even after the artist's death in 1532. Writers of the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century, among them Dominicus Lampsonius and Karel van Mander, continued to revere Gossart above other artists of his time. The revolutionary aspects of his art in terms of its themes, its new manner of representing the human body, and a parallel use of Late High Gothic and antique architectural modes are discussed in other essays in this volume. The subject here is an overview of the artist's working procedures and the details of his technique and execution, which justify even today the laudatory remarks of early chroniclers. Little has been published to date on Gossart’s methods of working." However, in the course of the research for this monograph and the accompanying exhibition, it has been possible to collaborate with conservators and scientists at many museums in the United States and Europe that house paintings by Gossart and to study these works in great detail. Using a variety

of investigative methods—including

X-radiography, infrared reflectography, SEM-EDS (scanning electron microscopy —energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry), Raman microscopy, and the binocular microscope—we have reached new conclusions about Gossart’s materials and tech-

Gossart that have been analyzed so far are all on oak from the Baltic region of Europe.” Several of the paintings—namely, the Royal Collection Adam and Eve, the Berlin Adam and Eve, and the Bilbao Holy Family (cats. 2, 3, 18)—revealed on their versos the original marks of the panel distributors (fig. 65). Peter Klein's dendrochronological research on nearly fifty panels attributed to Gossart and his followers, the results of which are found in the Appendix, offers no particular surprises in terms of dating; all the felling dates of the trees from which the wood planks came for accepted paintings by Gossart were well within the lifetime of the artist. The drying and seasoning periods for the wood planks are generally quite liberal for the proposed art historical dates of the paintings. In a number of cases—not surprisingly, for those paintings of the largest dimensions—the planks constituting the panel came from the same tree (cats. 3, 29, 30, 35, $5B,C). In a few notable instances, some of the planks for different paintings also came from the same tree, namely, the Berlin Portrait of a Woman, the Metropolitan Museum Portrait of a Man, and the Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (cats. 43, 44, 58). As might be expected, quite a number of the panels have been thinned, but several of those that are intact are relatively thick, including the Antwerp Portrait of a Man (1.9 centimeters; cat. 47) and the Royal Collection Adam and Eve (varying from 1.9 to 2.5 centimeters; cat. 2).

niques. The substantial amount of new information, which is still in the process of being assembled and analyzed, cannot be discussed comprehensively here. Our aim is to create a website that will present the findings of conservators and conservation scientists at various institutions in order to facilitate a broader discussion of Gossart’s techniques. The conclusions presented here must therefore be considered preliminary, but at the very least they will, I hope, provide a useful overview.

The Panel and the Frame Except for the Portrait of an Old Couple (cat. 53), which is oil on parchment laid down on canvas, the surviving paintings by

Fig. 65. Jan Gossart, Adam and Eve (verso), detail showing panel

distributor’s mark Opposite: Fig. 64. Jan Gossart, Deesis, infrared reflectogram (detail of cat. 29)

(cat. 3)

69

There have been several unanticipated findings concerning the oak supports. Chief among these is the unusual orientation

of the planks in certain paintings. Normally, planks of early

Netherlandish paintings are oriented in the predominant direction of the painting. That is, for a vertical-format painting, the planks are normally positioned vertically, and in a horizontalformat painting, they are arranged horizontally. It was surprising to find, therefore, that the panel for Neptune and Amphitrite (cat. 30), a vertical picture, is composed of eight horizontal planks. Christ on the Cold Stone (cat. 27), also a vertical, 1s made of three horizontal planks. In addition, there are cases in which a quite narrow second plank was added to a relatively wide one. At first these would appear to be later additions, but as the examples of the private collection Virgin and Child and the Metropolitan Museum Portrait of a Man (cats. 13, 44) show, the thinner strip of wood 1s original to the support. Equally unusual 1s Gossart’s seeming lack of concern for differences in the quality of the wood. For example, in the Carondelet Diptych (cat. 40), arguably one of Gossart’s finest works, the portrait panel has a rather wide, prominent grain structure, whereas the Virgin and Child is on wood with a much finer grain. Similar anomalies exist about the same time within the oeuvre of Lucas Cranach the Elder and his workshop in Germany. Gunnar Heydenreich has noted that shortages of good-quality wood in certain regions and the economical use of raw material led to varied practices.” In Gossart’s case it may also be that, because of the peripatetic nature of his career, he did not have regular access to a good panel supplier. This matter needs to be studied further. In his 1529 biography of Philip of Burgundy, Gerard Geldenhouwer wrote that Philip had “versifiers, who decorated pictures and buildings with poems, so that he could display each picture as both talking and silent.”* The poems were apparently inscribed on the outer frames of the paintings, which could be detached so that the paintings could also be viewed without these texts.” The best example is Gossart’s Venus and Cupid, for which both the inner and outer frames have survived (cat. 33). Margaret of Austria’s 1523 inventory notes another case— Hermaphroditus and Salmacis, a gift from Philip of Burgundy—in which there were two frames: “the first frame of marble, the second gilded, bearing an inscription underneath.” This 1s presumably the Rotterdam painting (cat. 32), but the original framing has been lost, and the remaining integral frame has been recarved with a motif of leaf tendrils. There must have been other double frames of this type, especially for the mythological paintings that Gossart made for Philip of Burgundy and the humanist courts he frequented. However, these are no longer extant. A small number of works with their original frames show Gossart’s traditional approach to this element of the painting. These are the Malvagna Triptych, the Miinster Virgin and Child, 70

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

the National Gallery Mary Magdalen, and the Carondelet Diptych (cats. 6, 11, 36, 40). The frame of the Mary Magdalen is integral with its painted panel, but the purpose of the dowels placed at regular intervals around the side edges has yet to be determined.” The complicated structure of the Malvagna frame, the upper edge of which was later cut into an ogee-arch shape, needs to be studied further. The Carondelet Diptych panels were slid into their frames.” The frames of the Malvagna Triptych and the Miinster Virgin and Child have their original polychromy, albeit restored. Traces of original polychromy exist underneath the repainted gold frame of the Mary Magdalen, but too little remains to enable a reconstruction of the original appearance of the work.” It is quite likely that the interior of the Carondelet Diptych frame has also been repainted, given the mediocre quality of the gold application and of the lettering of the inscription.’ The signed and dated (1531) Cleveland Virgin and Child in a Landscape 1s a unique case: there remain elements of the original frame that were painted by Gossart himself (cat. 20). Although the innermost and outermost frame profiles are later additions, the flat portion of the frame is certainly original. The inscriptions at top and bottom, as well as the lateral designs of columns, decorated by swags, acanthus leaves, cherubs, bucrania, lions’ heads, and putty, are executed with the greatest care—no doubt for a discriminating patron, who may have been Mencia de Mendoza. Recent technical examinations of Gossart’s paintings reveal that the sequence of his panel and frame production varied. A number of panels show the barbe of the ground preparation and wood reserves at the edges, indicating that they were painted within their frames.'' However, there are also examples where the brushwork of the painting continues out into the wood reserve of the panels—in some cases, beyond incised lines that served to mark the planned edges of the composition.” These paintings were finished before being framed. Occasionally, there is evidence that a panel was placed in a holder while the ground preparation and the priming were applied; this is recognizable in paintings where only some of the edges show a barbe, while others reveal brushwork extending out into the wood reserves." Finally, there are instances of the use of temporary frames. In The Adoration of the Kings (cat. 8) barbes along all the edges indicate that it was painted in a frame. But the fact that the brushstrokes of the attendant at the extreme right edge go into the wood reserve suggests the initial frame was removed before the final touches were put on the painting. Irregularly placed holes at the top and bottom in the wood reserve were drilled to attach a second frame. In the Budapest Christ on the Cold Stone (cat. 27), the brushwork continues to the edges of the panel, and the Roman soldier at the far upper left originally had an orange-red hat with a geometric design. The panel was most likely cut at the left edge, for unknown reasons, and when it was framed, the left edge of the

orange-red hat was covered. Subsequently, Gossart repainted the soldiers hat gray, up to the edges of the new frame. These recent investigations have shown that Gossart apparently did not have a uniform procedure for joining the picture and frame. This represents a transitional phase in late fifteenthand early sixteenth-century practice. In the fifteenth century, most paintings were painted within their engaged frames; this changed well into the sixteenth century, as more frames and paintings were executed separately.

The Ground, the Priming, and the Underdrawing RELIGIOUS AND MYTHOLOGICAL PAINTINGS

Certain characteristic features of the layering structure of Gossart’s paintings have already been observed and can be

preliminary way. The ground layer applied to prepare the surface of the wood for painting is chalk bound in glue. This layer was covered by a priming of lead white, occasionally mixed with a little chalk and a little lead-tin yel-

reported here in

a

low bound in oil to create a slightly yellowish tint; black and red particles were sometimes added to create a slightly pinkish gray color.” The tiny parallel scraping marks of the knife used to even out the priming are a consistent feature of Gossart’s

paintings.”

Not

all

of

Gossart’s paintings reveal underdrawing with

infrared reflectography, which may in part be owing to the effect of dark intermediate layers. Most Netherlandish painters immediately preceding Gossart, such as Gerard David, made their underdrawings directly on the ground preparation.’ Gossart, on the other hand, apparently drew on top of the priming, a practice that was followed soon after by Jan van Scorel."”” Where exactly Gossart learned to do this is not known, but it is intriguing to note that Raphael drew on top of the priming in both his early and late paintings." Van Mander, in his book Den grondt der edel vry schilder-const (The Foundations of the Noble and Free Art of Painting, 1604) noted the distinction

between those who drew on the ground layer and secured that and those who drew drawing with a thin priming on top of on the priming."

it

Fig. 66. Jan Gossart and Gerard David, The Adoration of the Kings, infrared reflectogram (detail of cat. 8) Gossart'’s Working Methods

71

Fig. 67. Jan Gossart, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, infrared reflectogram (detail

of

cat.

Like a number ofhis contemporaries—including Gerard David, Bernard van Orley, and Joos van Cleve—Gossart used both brush underdrawing and black chalk for the preliminary sketch of his panels.” Sometimes the brush was quite dry and skipped over the priming, leaving a slightly broken line and appearing much like black chalk, but the telltale lines of liguid underdrawing are encountered in most works.” Black chalk was previously thought to have been the tool for Gossart’s Adoration of the Kings as well, but in more recent reexamination it appears that it was made with a dry brush.” It is often diffi-

a

cult to distinguish visually between a dry brush application and black chalk, and this aspect should be studied further. Gossart’s practice of using pen or brush for the underdrawing parallels his preference for using a pen in his drawings on paper. The only autograph drawing in which Gossart employed black chalk 1s the Amsterdam Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine and Barbara (cat. 72), whereas the Providence Adam and Eve probably represents the type of black chalk drawing that Van Jan

GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

9)

Mander mentioned Gossart made while in prison (see Stijn Alsteens’ essay in this volume and cat. 68). Given the relatively large number of extant drawings by 1s surprising that none of them relates exactly Gossart, any of his paintings. The closest relationship exists between the Berlin Grotesque with Tivo Sirens (cat. 107) and the decorative pilasters on the Vienna Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (cat. 12), but even here only one element in the drawing—the mermaids—recurs in the painting. The lack of direct correspondence between Gossart’s drawn oeuvre and his paintings may be further confirmation that he worked mostly alone. If he had maintained a large workshop, there would probably be more drawings that show working stages of design as well as individual motifs used by assistants to work up underdrawings or to execute certain parts of paintings for the master. This was the case in the workshop ofJan van Scorel, for example.” The paintings from the earlier part of Gossart’s career have rather fully worked up underdrawings, as if he used the panel

it

to

for his sketch pad. For one in particular, the forerunner of the Malvagna Triptych in a German private collection, the preparatory drawing on the panel is so complete that it likely served as a workshop model (cat. 5). This hypothesis is supported by the facts that the figural motifs were followed nearly exactly in the Malvagna Triptych and that so many versions and copies were later made of this composition by Bruges artists (see the discussion under cats. s, 6). In terms of style, the underdrawing in Gossart’s paintings of the early 1510s, such as The Adoration of the Kings and the Prague Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (cats. 8, 9), 1s very free and loose, much more so than any of his drawings on paper from this

more finished (cats. 72, 84, 91). There are lively scribbles as well as hatching and cross-hatching in the draperies to indicate the shading and articulation of the folds (figs. 66, 67). Numerous changes in the configuration of the folds of the draperies and adjustments to the poses of figures indicate an evolving design. Except for the architecture, which generally reveals a more carefully defined design from the outset, certain details are in flux in these underdrawings. At the beginning of the 1520s, in such works as the Vienna Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin and the Toledo wings with The Annunciation and Saint John the Baptist and Saint Peter (cats. 12, 24A,B, figs. 68, 74), Gossart developed a more schematic, shorthand style of drawing. These underdrawings show figures with bold contours made in brush and very broad parallel- and cross-hatching used to model the folds of the draperies. Only two extant drawings on paper exhibit the same broad handling and execution, albeit on a far smaller scale and in pen rather than brush. These are the Munich Virgin of Humility and the Berlin Lamentation, and these similarities help to date the sheets to about 1521—the date of the Toledo panels (compare figs. 68, 69, and 70).

period, which are

Fig. 68. Jan Gossart, Saint Peter, infrared reflectogram (detail of cat. 248)

Fig. 69. Jan Gossart, Virgin of Humility (detail

of cat.

74)

all

Fig. 70. Jan Gossart, The Lamentation (detail

of

cat.

82)

Gossart’s Working Methods

73

5

-

>

N

SE,

aa

Lr

od

Be mel

Ye Ee

|

.

’ YY

EE 13"

[9 —

foo-

1

ak

Yow

pe

od Ee

-

Fig. 71. Unknown Netherlandish artist, after Jan Gossart, Virgin and Child with Putti Playing Music, 16th century. Brush and purplish gray ink, 13%6 x 7% (34.4 % 19.2 cm). Rijksmuseum, Rijksprenten-

In.

Fig. 72. Simon Bening, Pentecost, ca. 1490-1500. Pen and brown ink over black chalk on prepared paper, §'%e 4% in. (14.7 X 10.8 cm). Museum Boijymans Van Beuningen, xX

Rotterdam (N-124V.)

kabinet, Amsterdam (RpP-T-1065-148)

At some point, though it is not clear exactly how, Gossart became aware of the advantages of employing cartoons as part of his procedure for producing the figures in his paintings. Since this was standard practice among Italian artists, one might conclude that they were Gossart’s primary source for it, but his 1508-9 Italian sojourn took place at about the same time that two of the chief practitioners of the method, Michelangelo and Raphael, also arrived in Rome. Their work in the Sistine Chapel had hardly begun during Gossart’s visit to the Eternal City. It is more likely that Gossart learned about the use of cartoons closer to home, on those occasions between 1509 and 1515 when he was working in Bruges with Gerard David (see cats. $—8). At that time, the use of patterns and cartoons was standard practice in Bruges panel-painting workshops for rep-

licating certain best-selling compositions for open-market sale. Motifs of the Virgin and Child and particular drapery patterns were repeated in varying scales and orientations in paintings by David, Adriaen Isenbrant, and Ambrosius Benson.” Gossart’s use of pattern drawings and cartoons during this period was limited, as far as can be determined, to the architecture and perhaps the putti in the Malvagna Triptych (cat. 6). He must have worked out the preliminary design of the architecture on paper and then traced it onto the panel; the rigid contour lines of the canopy and its tracery indicate a predetermined design (see fig. 135). Only half of such a design needed to be worked out, since it could then be flipped to ensure that the corresponding halves agreed in all details. A few surviving sheets show how these preparatory drawings may have looked.

74 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted mate

Fig. 73. Jan Gossart, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, infrared reflectogram (detail of cat. 12)

Fig. 74. Jan Gossart, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, infrared reflectogram (detail

of

cat.

12)

Gossart’s Working Methods

7§

Fig. 75. Jan Gossart, Adam and Eve, infrared reflectogram (detail ofcat. 2)

Fig. 77. Jan

Gossart, A

Women's Bath (detail

76 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

of

cat.

98)

Fig. 76. Jan Gossart, Danae, infrared reflectogram (detail ofcat. 35)

Fig. 78. Jan Gossart, Adam and Eve, infrared reflectogram (detail ofcat. 2)

variation of the centerpiece of the Malvagna Triptych, and the other (fig. 72) is Simon Bening’s design for the Pentecost miniature in the Grimani Breviary,” which probably was being completed in Bruges during the time that Gossart was intermittently working there. Gossart continued the same practice about ten years later when he produced the Deesis (for illustrations, see cat. 29).* Here he used a variety of methods. Tracings on paper were made of four heads from the Ghent Altarpiece, which were laid down on Gossart’s panel to be worked up in oil paint with the rest of the composition. Another tracing was made from a cartoon developed for the decorative canopy over the three principal figures. Finally, freehand drawings for the draperies and the hands of the figures provided the remaining elements of the composition that deviated from the Ghent Altarpiece. Gossart would have had renewed contact with the Italian practice of using cartoons for figural motifs at the time of the momentous arrival in Brussels of Raphael's cartoons for the Acts of the Apostles tapestry series to be woven for Pope Leo X. The cartoons arrived in 1516, but not until Tommaso Vincidor came to head up Raphael’s workshop in Brussels in 1520 did these practices become more widely known in the Netherlands.” It was at this point that local artists, such as Bernard van Orley, began to embrace standard elements of Italian workshop practice.” The earliest documented use by Van Orley of cartoons for the transfer of specific figural motifs to a painting—in this case, by pouncing—is for the 1522 Holy Family in the Prado. This painting was clearly inspired by Raphael in composition as well as in working method, both of which were brought north by Vincidor.”” Van Orley and Gossart were certainly known to each other, as Van Orley was Margaret of Austria's official court painter and Gossart worked for Margaret from time to time. They seem to have worked in parallel or even sometimes in competition with each other.” Although Gossart did not use cartoons for all of his post1515 works, he certainly employed them for his more ambitious designs from then on. His use of cartoons primarily served the purpose of transferring the major figurative elements to the prepared panel. Hercules and Deianira of 1517, Hermaphroditus and Salmacis, and Venus and Cupid of 1521 (cats. 31-33) all show a linearity in the underdrawing that is restricted to the contours of figures, suggesting the possible transfer of these motifs from a cartoon. Hercules and Deianira and Hermaphroditus and Salmacis reveal some areas of freer, looser drawing that augments the strict outlines. During the initial technical study of the figures of Neptune and Amphitrite in the 1516 Berlin painting (cat. 30), no visible underdrawing could be detected, but this should be studied further, as it 1s most likely that cartoons played a role here as well.” Four paintings in which it is absolutely clear that the figures were transferred to the panel from a cartoon are the Vienna

One (fig.

71)

1s

a

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, ca. 1520-22; the Royal Collection Adam and Eve, ca. 1520-25; the Prado Virgin and Child, ca. 1527; and Danae, 1527 (cats. 12, 2, 16, 35). In the case of the Vienna

and Prado paintings, residue from the charcoal or chalk tracing material can still be found in the underdrawing. In the Vienna painting, it 1s on the left leg of the angel supporting the Virgin at the lower left (fig. 73); in the Prado painting, is on the right leg and toes of the Christ Child. All other transferred contours were gone over with pen or brush and black pigment, and the traced design was then augmented with freer, looser underdrawing to work out the system of shading and the volume of forms in parallel hatching (fig. 74). The charcoal or black chalk of the tracing was then brushed away in all except these few missed areas. The two stages of preparatory drawing resulted in an underdrawing that combines rather rigid contour lines with more spontaneous strokes that further work up the preliminary design. This 1s also true of the Royal Collection Adam and Eve, in which Gossart augmented the traced design for the figures with parallel hatching to suggest further modeling of the body. He also edited the tracing a bit by changing the position of Adam’s right arm (fig. 75). In Danae, Gossart secured the tracing of the key figure with pen and ink; changes to the position of her left ear, for example, were simply made in the painted layers without any redrawing (fig. 76). Gossart’s practice of using cartoons for figures that were transferred to his paintings parallels his method in drawings and prints. As Stijn Alsteens points out in his discussion of the the Vienna and Frankfurt Adam and Eve and the Hercules Killing Cacus drawings (cats. 65,67,93), Gossart may well have employed tracings for the figures, which show rather rigid-looking black chalk outlines. Likewise, Nadine Orenstein sees evidence in the prints: in Cain Killing Abel (cat. 117), the figure of Cain, like that of Cacus in the drawing, relates to the figure of Adam in the Vienna Adam and Eve drawing (cat. 65). A common model was probably used for all these figures. A different method of transferring a drawn composition to another support is indicated by two of Gossart’s sheets that are squared with black chalk for transfer: Hercules Killing Cacus and A Women’s Bath (cats. 93, 98). It is tempting to imagine that the squaring was used to transfer these compositions to large-scale paintings—in the case of the latter, perhaps a wall painting for a bathroom. Because there are no surviving related works, however, and because none of Gossart’s paintings shows squaring in the underdrawing stage,” it is difficult to interpret the use of squaring in these isolated instances. Two features support the notion that A Women’s Bath was intended as a preliminary stage for a larger-scale cartoon: it was squared for transfer, and it also exhibits the particular abbreviated drawing style associated with Gossart’s pattern transfers in paintings. The shorthand execution here matches that in the underdrawing of Gossart’s Royal Collection Adam and Eve

it

Gossart’s Working Methods

77

Master ofthe Lille Adoration(?), Portrait of a Man, 16th century. Oil on panel, 15 x 11 in. (38.1 x 27.9 cm). McMaster University Collection, Hamilton,

Fig. 79.

Fig. 80. Master (fig. 79)

of the

Lille Adoration(?), Portrait of a Man, infrared reflectogram

Ontario

(cat. 2). In a comparison of the underdrawing for Eve with figures in A Women’s Bath, the summary drawing shows the

same emphasis on the contours of the figures and a similar brief interior modeling of the body. The sinuous line at the

of the breast, the short hatching that rings the inner contour of the breast, the suggestion of the round pockets of flesh at the

belly, the confidently drawn arc defining the outer contour

hips in similar short hatching all indicate the same handling and execution (compare figs. 77 and 78). For Gossart, this type of brief notation of form in both drawing and underdrawing signifies a relationship to cartoon transfer.

PORTRAITURE

the style and extent of the

underdrawing, Gossart’s portraits are treated differently from his other paintings. That 1s to say, many examples reveal minimal underdrawing—usually only the merest indication of the contour of the head and placement ofthe features of the face. Sometimes, as in the In terms

78

of

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Toledo portrait of Jean Carondelet, there is a scribbly drawing in brush for the hands (cat. 39, fig. 215). There is only one instance of a possible color indication in an underdrawing of a portrait by Gossart: the Pushkin Portrait of a Man (SelfPortrait?) (cat. 41), in which the word rot (red) is found in the area of the sitters upper-right chest, beneath his red shirt. It is the later works—among them, Portrait of an Old Couple, the Brussels Portraits of Tivo Donors, and Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (cats. 53, $5B,C, §8)—in which Gossart took more care at the underdrawing stage to prepare the volume and shading of draperies with parallel hatching and, sometimes, to work out in summary fashion the gestures of the hands. Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck? is a special case, because the underdrawing is so carefully and fully worked up. Perhaps this was owing to the importance ofthe sitter, the relatively high fee he may have paid for the portrait, or the particularly complicated nature of the elaborate design. This fuller understanding of Gossart’s working methods in portraiture has helped answer some attribution questions.

Gossart never used parallel hatching in the underdrawing of the faces of his portraits, and this is why (in addition to the uncharacteristic handling of paint and the feeble expression of the sitter’s hands) the Portrait of a Man in the McMaster Museum of Art in Hamilton, Ontario, cannot be by Gossart. Perhaps it is by a follower, quite likely the Master of the Lille Adoration (figs. 79, 80).”

Gossart clearly must have made preliminary drawings on record the physiognomies of his sitters, especially since paper his underdrawings of the faces are, for the most part, so sketchy, if they are visible at all. It may be that the individuals who came to him for portraits were willing to sit for the period necessary for him to bring the painting to the desired level of finish. Nonetheless, the lack of portrait drawings is remarkable; only one of Gossart’s surviving sheets is a portrait. This is

to

the extraordinary portrait of Christian IT of Denmark (cat. 111), which, in any event, is preparatory for a print and not for a painting. Arnoldus Buchelius, a Dutch antiquarian and humanist living and writing in Utrecht, mentioned in a manuscript a red and black chalk drawing, dated 1528, made by Gossart of the physician, historian, and theologian Reinier Snoy of Gouda, but Gossart is not known to have worked in red and black chalk, and the drawing has not survived (see Alsteens’ essay herein). One can only guess that his preparatory portrait drawings looked something like Lucas van Leyden’s well-known portrait sketches of the early 1520s, several of which are preserved in the Louvre (see fig. 100).”

Considering Perspective and the Construction of Ideal Human Proportions THE SETTINGS IN GOSSART'S PAINTINGS

From the beginning of Gossart’s career, he clearly considered the settings in his paintings equally as important as the figures placed within them, and he manipulated a quasi- or perfect Albertian perspective system to achieve the desired emphasis. Few specific examples of axis lines have yet been discovered in the underdrawings of early Netherlandish paintings prior to his time, although artists must have made them.” Gerard David certainly employed them to achieve the unified appearance of seven panels in an Italian-style polyptych, the Cervara Altarpiece commissioned in 1506 by Vincenzo Sauli for the high altar of the church at San Girolamo della Cervara, which he completed several years before collaborating with Gossart.™ Linear perspective, as developed in the fifteenth century by Filippo Brunelleschi and Leon Battista Alberti, had already been in practice in Italy for quite some time, and axis lines aligning compositions have been found in Raphael's early work, from before his move to Rome in 1508, about the same time that Gossart arrived there with Philip of Burgundy.”

Jos Sterk proposed that the first instance in which Gossart employed proper Albertian perspective was The Adoration of the likely that he used it in the underKings (cat. 8),” although drawing of the centerpiece of the Malvagna Triptych as well. In the underdrawing of the background is a building with it

is

sharply receding sides that indicate perspective construction, but this was changed in the paint layer to a building parallel to the picture plane.” Gossart’s method of constructing the space in The Adoration of the Kings has been studied through technical examination.”’ He must first have prepared a working drawing on paper for the approval of the patron, presumably Daniel van Boechout. Gossart then established some of the main horizontals and orthogonals of the composition by incising lines into the ground preparation or priming. Next he employed a straightedge and brush to mark the leading lines of the architecture. In the infrared-reflectogram assembly, the latter can be seen passing through some of the figures, in particular the angels at the upper right and left (see fig. 66). Gossart then drew the principal figures and additional architectural features and finally used a straightedge again to establish the grid of the floor tiles around the figures. In the process of painting, additional features were added without having been drawn, such as the golden scepter beneath Caspar’ red hat in the foreground." This general strategy—establishing the basic description of the perspective space, adding the figures to it, and then completing additional detailed description of the architecture and flooring around the figures—appears to have become standard practice for Gossart throughout the rest of his career. However, he would modify this plan to achieve certain effects. The perspective recession lines of both The Adoration of the Kings and the Prague Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (cat. 9) converge at a specific point on the horizon line of each painting. The orthogonals in the Adoration converge just to the right of the Virgin's head, at the two figures looking over the fence in the middle ground. In the Prague Saint Luke composition, Gossart chose to make the Virgin the point of convergence in the subsidiary but important scene in which she dictates her story to the saint in his study. This cleverly underscores the fact that Luke was the author of the Gospel as well as the painter of the Virgin and Child. Likewise, in the Vienna Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (cat. 12), Gossart planned the perspective system so that the orthogonals would converge in the head of the angel, thus reinforcing the important notion that Luke's image making was aided by the divine intervention of a messenger from God. As discussed fully under catalogue number 12, he sees the vision of the Virgin and Child in his mind’ eye and cannot then be accused of blatant idolatry. In other instances, Gossart enhanced the sensuous nature of a theme through his perspective plan. In Hercules and Deianira (cat. 31), most of the sight lines end in the head of Deianira (several, provocatively, at her parted lips), while one independent Gossart’s Working Methods

79

orthogonal lands directly between the breasts of the object of Hercules’ desire. In Danae(cat. 35), the orthogonals converge in the figures lap at a point directly below her exposed breast and near the golden rain, thus emphasizing Jupiter's disguised visit to the voluptuous young mortal. The architecture in the background, interestingly, 1s not part of this perspective system. In paintings that Gossart made while in the employ of Philip of Burgundy at Souburg and Wijk bij Duurstede, he implemented a different strategy, one that related specifically to the viewer's position. Neptune and Amphitrite (cat. 30) must have been hung rather high on the wall, for the eye level of the viewer is at the knees of the figures, and the orthogonals converge near Neptune's left knee. This makes the lifesize figures all the more imposing in stature and sheer physical power; they are heroic mythical beings to which the viewer looks up in awe. In Venus and Cupid (cat. 33), Gossart established a specific focal point, marked in the preliminary paint layers, to the upper right of Cupid’s head in the outer frame of the niche. This ensured that the twist of Venus’s body to the right and the physical action in play to keep Cupid from shooting his arrow would be emphasized. When the viewer stands at a forty-five-degree angle to the left of the picture, the base and column at the right are viewed in proper perspective and the effect 1s enhanced. The fact that incised lines for the perspective plan and for the architecture are not usually visible in the X-radiographs of these paintings indicates that these were made not in the ground preparation but in the intermediate paint layers. The perspective system was probably established on the priming layer along with the rest of the underdrawing.

CONSTRUCTION OF IDEAL HUMAN PROPORTIONS

When Gossart returned from Rome in

1509, inspired

by a new understanding of the antique as well as the modern Italian world, he sought links to that experience in his own setting. He perhaps became acquainted with the Venetian Jacopo de’ Barbari, who may have worked briefly for Gossart’s patron

Philip of Burgundy before being appointed to Margaret of Austria's court in Mechelen in 1510. Gossart also looked to the works of another Northern artist who shared his enthusiasm for the antique world, Albrecht Diirer. Diirer had met de’ Barbari in 1500 when the latter worked at the court of Emperor Maximilian I in Nuremberg for a year, before going on to other German courts and eventually to the Netherlands in about 1509. In the manuscript for the introduction to his Four Books on Human Proportion, written in 1528, Diirer wrote: have found no one who [knows or] has written about a system of human proportion, except Jacobus, a native of Venice

I

and a lovely painter. He showed me how to construct man 80

JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

and woman based on measurements. When he [first] told of this, I would rather have come into possession ofhis knowledge than a kingdom. . . . But Jacobus I noticed did not wish to give me a clear explanation; so I went ahead on my own and read Vitruvius, who describes the proportions of the

human body to some extent.” Gossart, too, must have wanted to learn the secrets of ideal proportion, but whether he experienced the same frustration with de’ Barbari we cannot know. It is questionable, in any event, whether Gossart’s acquaintance with the Venetian facilitated his initial forays into the ideal construction of the human body. His Thyssen-Bornemisza Adam and Eve of about 1510 (cat. 1) was based directly on Diirer’s famous 1504

engraving (see fig. 117), which was the culmination of the proportion studies that the German undertook beginning in about 1500. It is unclear from the technical investigation of this painting what method Gossart used to construct—that is, copy—the figures from Diirer’s print and enlarge them to about twice the size they are in the engraving. That he quite closely copied the figures (albeit producing a more svelte Adam) 1s indicated by the X-radiograph and the infrared reflectography in which one can see Diirer's Roman profile of Adam, which Gossart changed in the paint layers to the bearded young man we see now (see cat. 1). At about the same time, Gossart made use of another Diirer print, the Adam and Eve of 1510 from the Small Passion, for the figures in the Garden of Eden on the exterior of the Malvagna Triptych (cat. 6). The fact that neither artist used ideal proportions for these figures shows that they were not always considered appropriate, or even necessary. This is also true of Gossart’s approach to the other nude figures in his drawings and paintings of Adam and Eve and of mythological themes. In fact, the only other examples in which it 1s quite clear that Gossart employed ideal construction for his figures are Neptune and Amphitrite, which by all considerations was an exceptional commission, and the Rovigo Venus (cats. 30, 34). In accord with the Vitruvian canon, Amphitrite’s head is one-eighth of her body length, and her face is one-tenth of her body length;" Neptunes face-to-body proportion works out to 1:9. The Rovigo Venus proportion of head to body again is 1:8, head to body. Gossart’s large-scale Adam and Eve figures and his other works including nudes show more interest in body torsion than in ideal body proportions, indicating that he was possibly not as preoccupied with ideal measurements as Diirer had been. Gossart’s use of ideal proportions may have come into play especially for those works he produced for Philip of Burgundy. An account first published by Jan Smeken in 1511 of the Hercules snowman made outside Philip's Brussels residence in January and February of that year would seem support this assumption. It is reported that “all the part[s] of his body

to

were done after measures” (see cat. 100). That Gossart was responsible for the correctly proportioned snowman is an Intriguing notion.

Painting Materials and Working Technique

The pigments that Gossart used were standard for an early Netherlandish painter at the beginning of the sixteenth century. However, there are some unusual characteristics that distinguish his paintings from those by other artists of the time. Chief among these is his special fondness for blue pigments and his frequent use of highly expensive ultramarine. Produced from the semiprecious stone lapis lazuli, ultramarine was available in Antwerp, but as Diirer noted on his trip there in 1520-21, it was as expensive as gold. Gossart used it often—Van Mander even remarked on his use of blue in his painting of the Virgin

and Child modeled on Anna van Bergen and her son (“And there was a blue drapery, so absolutely clear that it looked as if it were freshly painted”)*”—and this may have been because Gossart often worked for wealthy courtiers who could afford expensive pigments. Sadly, in a number of cases where ultramarine was used, the pigment has degraded over time and the brilliance of the effect is much diminished, as in the Virgin's draperies in the Chicago and Vienna Virgin and Child paintings (cats. 14, 174). Where the ultramarine has been well preserved, as in the Budapest Christ on the Cold Stone or Danae, one can get an impression of what Van Mander was talking

about (cats.

27, 35).

Sometimes the alteration in the blue is due to a particular mixture of pigments. For example, in the Metropolitan Museum Portrait of a Man (cat. 44), Gossart underpainted the man’s jacket with a mixture of red lake and black (achieving a dark reddish tone) and then added a layer of red lake and ultramarine on top." The red lake in the top layer has faded, changing the blue from its originally more purplish hue. When he painted two adjacent blues, such as the Virgin's blue dress and her blue mantle, Gossart often differentiated them by underpainting one of

the blues with gray or black paint. He did this in the dress of also the the Virgin in The Adoration of the Kings (cat. 8).*” This case in the Metropolitan Museum’s Virgin and Child (cat. 37) by a close follower of Gossart in which the Virgin's cloak was underpainted with a black layer, over which there is a layer of the blue pigment smalt, and finally a very thin layer of ultramarine, applied before the previous layer was completely dry.** We are just now learning that possibly Gossart and certainly his close followers used smalt more than had previously been assumed, and in several cases, including the Munich Virgin and Child and the Metropolitan Museum Virgin and Child (both by followers, cats. 17¢, 37), the smalt has degraded.” Sometimes the gray underlayer beneath the blues caused patterns of wide cracks on the surface, as in the blue coat in the Antwerp Portrait of a Man (cat. 47). Here the mixture of lead white, red lake, and carbon black paint dried more slowly than the upper layer of azurite blue mixed with black, resulting in exaggerated dry-

is

ing cracks.” Gossart seems to have used red lakes often in his paintings. His original intent is better preserved when these were mixed with other colors or served as an underpainting than when these lakes were applied as a glaze on the surface of the painting. For example, in The Adoration of the Kings the red lake glaze on Joseph's robe and cloak was mixed with vermilion and is well preserved.” But in the Mauritshuis Virgin and Child with the Veil, the red lake glaze on the cloth covering the foreground ledge has faded, leaving this feature of the composition looking out of key with the rich blues of the Virgin's dress and cloak (cat. 10). When the red lake glaze used for lips and cheeks has faded, as in the Mauritshuis painting, the stark white, polished-marble effect of the faces becomes

exaggerated.” Gossart handled the illusionistic effects of gold with exceptional skill. He almost never used actual gold in his paintings. Two notable exceptions are the gold leaf of the tracery canopies over the holy figures in the niches in the Deesis and the rain of gold in Danae (cats. 29, 35), but these instances certainly

had to do with the subject matter and with the extraordinary

Fig. 81. Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Male Donor (detail of cat. 558)

Gossart’s Working Methods

nature of the commission. In the majority of his works, Gossart used lead-tin yellow to represent gold, and he placed his brushstrokes so judiciously that he skillfully achieved the illusion of glittering gold objects, whether jewelry, cloth-of-gold fabrics, hat ornaments, or architectural motifs.

Aspects of Paint Handling and Execution Recently, it has been possible to study a number of Gossart’s paintings under the microscope to observe more closely the details of his paint handling and execution. The works ofthe early 1510s—among them, the putti in Virgin and Child with Musical Angels, the Malvagna Triptych, Saint Jerome Penitent and Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (cats. 6, 22, 23)—show that Gossart was not yet adept at depicting the human body. This is

s,

also true ofhis early drawings (for example, cats. 69—72): the rather doughy putti and formless Christ Child figures in some

ofthese examples are cases in point. Even at this relatively early stage, however, Gossart had developed an extremely sophisticated sense of illumination in his paintings. This 1s particularly

evident in the extraordinary Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (cat. 23), in which light is used not only to create dramatic moonlit passages but also to model the figures in a most sculptural manner. Nonetheless, Gossart’s rather thick application of paint in discrete, unblended brushstrokes and his less than subtle modeling of forms are indications that he had not yet embraced the lessons of Eyckian technique, though he soon

Follower of Jan Gossart, Floris van Egmond, ca. 1520. Oil on panel, 11% in. (39 X 29.5 cm). Mauritshuis, the Hague (841), on loan from 15% Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (Sk-A-217) Fig.

82. xX

Fig. 83. Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Man (detail ofcat. 47)

82

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 84. Jan Gossart, The Holy Family (detail ofcat. 18)

Fig. 85. Jan Gossart, The Holy Family, X-radiograph (detail of cat. 18)

became a quick study of it in Bruges. Even early on, however, there are virtuoso passages of painting wet-in-wet, sgraffito technique, and feathering out the edges of forms to soften them. Probably as a result of his working with Gerard David on and off in Bruges, Gossart became increasingly aware of Jan van Eyck’ heritage and specifically of the details of his techniques as they could be observed in paintings in Bruges, in Ghent, and in Mechelen at the court of Margaret of Austria, who owned several Van Eyck paintings, including the Portrait of Giovanni(?) Arnolfini and His Wife. In 1523 Margaret hired Gossart to come to her palace to restore certain pictures in her collection. Even if the Van Eyck was not among those to be restored, this would have been an opportunity for Gossart to closely study the master’s work. In his 1568 book Den spieghel

attributed to Gossart

der Nederlandscher audtheyt (The Mirror of Netherlandish Antiquity),

Marcus van Vaernewijck told ofthe praise that Diirer, Gossart, Hugo van der Goes, and others hadfor the Ghent Altarpiece.™ Indeed, Gossart’s practice of sometimes signing his paintings as if the signature were cut into the stone ledges or bases of platforms, and even his use of marble slabs behind his figures in portraits, may be homages to Van Eyck. However, the use of variegated marble panels in this way might also have come from funerary monuments that Gossart saw in Rome. Several authors have called attention to Gossart’s “archaism”™ and his emulation of Van Eyck not only by copying the earlier artist's compositions but also by adopting his technique.” However, as discussed elsewhere in this catalogue, only one of the works partially copied after Van Eyck and traditionally

is

actually by him: the Deesis (cat. 29).

part of the Doria Diptych, is a copy by Gerard David, not Gossart (cat. Donatian and the Kansas City Jean Carondelet are by of Gossart, possibly Jan Vermeyen (see below in this Virgin and Child in the Church,

Pamphilj 7A). Saint

a follower and essay

figs. 86— 80).

Gossart, however, apparently did make a close study of Van Eyck’s technique and how depended on the process ofvision and the optical effects of light.” More than any other artist of his generation, Gossart assimilated certain features that Van Eyck used to address these concepts, such as the blotting of glazes, the use of sgraffito, and the specific manner in which he

it

painted pearls and gems, reflected light on gold objects, and the translucency of skin.’ Gossart understood, as did Van Eyck, that the ability to render the semilucency oftextiles, gems, pearls, and so forth led to a convincing illusion ofthe materiality of things. This depended on the empirical understanding that a ray of light that hits an object 1s not onlyreflected but also partially absorbed. It also relied on the precise observation of where the light hits and where there is shadow. When painting the eyes ofthe sitters in his portraits, Gossart emphasized the illumination of the face by painting the eye that was in direct light more precisely than the one in shadow—that is, the prominently lit eye is not just brighter but also more meticulously rendered (see, for example, the Brussels portrait of male donor, fig. 81). Wanting to describe fully the intensity of light, Gossart enhanced the brightness in certain areas by causing the forms to dissolve in others. He skillfully feathered the

a

Gossart’s Working Methods

| a

=, i

i

aL

)

~

Fig. 86. Follower of Jan Gossart (Jan 1525—30.

Oil on panel, 167 x

13%

Cornelisz.Vermeven?), Saint Donatian, in. (43 x 35 cm). Musée des Beaux-Arts,

Tourna

Fig. 87. Follower

of Jan

Gossart (Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen?), Jean Carondelet,

O1l on panel, 167% x 13% in. (43 34.8 cm). The Nelson-Atkins Museum Art, Kansas City, William Rockhill Nelson Trust (63-17) 1525—30.

xX

of

TS Fig. 88.

Follower of Jan Gossart (Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen?), Saint Donatian

(detail offig. 86)

84

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

a

ven

”

Ed

.

pa

Fig. 89. Follower of Jan Gossart (Jan Cornehisz. Vermeyen?), Jean Carondelet (detail of fig. 87)

damask costumes worn at court, and he was both delighted and amused when he discovered by touching it that it was made of paper. Charles did visit Veere in 1517, intermittently from 1520 to 1522, and from 1531 to 1532,” all occasions when such an event could have taken place. How exaggerated this tale became in Van Manders telling cannot be known, although it vividly illustrates Gossart’s remarkable talents. The damask fabrics worn by the sitters in the Antwerp Portrait of a Man and the Berlin Portrait of a Man (Charles of Burgundy?) make such a tale plausible (cats. 47, $6). When studied closely, the successful illusion ofthe fabric becomes even more impressive because the palette used to create it 1s so limited (see fig. 83). The base tone for the golden brown damask

Fig. go. Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen, Jean Carondelet, ca. 1530 Oil on panel, 30% x 24% in. (78 x 62.2 cm). Brooklyn Museum, New York, Gift of Horace O. Havemeyer (47.76)

brushstrokes at the edges of forms, such as the features ofa face, in order to give the impression that they are in half-light or shadow, while exaggerating the contrast between light and dark elsewhere, often in portraits, where the head joins the neck. A strategy that Gossart frequently employed to enhance the lifelike quality ofhis figures was to show them with their hips slightly parted and their teeth showing. Was Gossart aware of Pliny’s praise of Polygnotus of Thasos in this regard? Pliny recorded in his Natural History (book 3s, line 58) that Polygnotus had made the first serious contribution to the development of painting by opening the mouth, showing the teeth, and varying the archaic form the features ofhis figures. Gossart’s superior abilities at verisimilitude were proclaimed by Van Mander in the often-recounted episode ofthe white silk damask fabric at the court of Adolf of Burgundy, the Marquis of Veere.” The marquis had apparently planned for his court to be dressed in this most expensive of fabrics on the occasion of visit by Emperor Charles V. Gossart procured his damask beforehand in order to have an exotic robe made, but instead sold it and spent the money—some say on drink. He covered his indiscretion by fashioning a robe out ofclean white paper decorated with beautiful damask flowers and handsome ornaments. The emperor found it the most beautiful ofthe

of

a

worn by the Antwerp man is a warm midtone. The pattern was created with transparent dark browns, and the highlights were brushed in with lead-tin yellow. The successful illusion ofthe tactile quality of the fabric was achieved mainly through Gossart’s masterful execution in working back and forth between the dark and light paints.” Such examples help to clarify certain questions of attribution. In comparison to the Berlin and Antwerp portraits, the Mauritshuis Floris van Egmond (fig. 82) shows a markedly inferior and ultimately unsuccessful handling and execution of Egmond’s damask coat and slashed red tunic. The lack of convincing illusion of tactile values here, combined with the lifeless and far less subtle rendering ofthe face and hands, places this work among Gossart’s followers. The painting is possibly a copy after Gossart. Although the flesh tones in Gossart’s paintings ofthe late 1510s

are rather thinly painted (for example, the Carondelet Diptych), those ofthe later 1520s, such as the Prado Virgin and Child, the Bilbao Holy Family, and the Boston Mary Magdalen (cats. 16, 18, 38), as well as many of the portraits, are more densely worked up in lead white paint (as 1s evident in the X-radiographs, for example, figs. 84, 85). Furthermore, it has been discovered that in some ofthese heads there is a locally applied grayish underpainting, as in the head ofthe Virgin in the Mauritshuis Virgin and Child with the Veil (cat. 10). This lends to these figures the look of highly polished marble, at a time when Gossart became closely acquainted with Margaret of Austria’s court sculptor, Conrad Meit, and the two shared similar aesthetic goals (see my essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume). Gossart’s subtle use ofthe gray layer became exaggerated in the work of his close followers. The very broad, streaky application of the dark gray priming over the entire surface of the Metropolitan Museum's Virgin and Child (cat. 37), as well as the less refined handling and execution ofthe features ofthe faces and the textures of the costumes, indicates that this work 1s by a follower

imitating, but not fully understanding, Gossart’s technique. Gossart did not always achieve this effect of high polish, simulating marble more than flesh, in the same way. In some of Gossart'’s Working Methods

85

the portraits, namely, the Antwerp Portrait of a Man (cat. 47)," he applied over the gray undertones a pale pinkish paint containing lead white, black, vermilion, and red lake. Above this is a paler version of this mixed color, perhaps blended wet-inwet. Finally, on top is an extremely thin dark glaze of warm browns and grays used to heighten the volumes of the facial features. This manner of using a midtone for flesh and then manipulating it with glazes and scumbles to produce a highly sculptural and marblelike effect was achieved by Gossart with remarkable skill. It should be stressed here that the underpainting used by Gossart had a very subtle effect on the tone of his upper paint layers. That is why—in addition to the quite loose brushwork and uncharacteristic underdrawing (figs. 86, 87)— it is unlikely that the Tournai Saint Donatian and the Kansas City Jean Carondelet are by Gossart.”” They both show a very prominent peach-colored underlayer in the flesh tones, which remained visible and over which the shadows and highlights were broadly applied to form the modeling of the face (figs. 88,

1.

89). These same technical features

ered brushwork have been observed in paintings by Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen—namely, in the Amsterdam Portrait of Erard de la Marck and the Brooklyn Jean Carondelet (fig. 9o), both from about 1530—and it is possible that the Tournai and Kansas City paintings are early works by this artist. Vermeyen worked for Margaret of Austria from about 1525 to 1530, and Bob Haak has suggested that he may have trained early on with Gossart.” It was in the next generation, with artists such as Vermeyen, Van Scorel, and Maarten van Heemskerck, that Gossart’s use of tinted underpaintings was further exploited.* In this overview of the technical findings to date concerning Gossart’s paintings, it has been possible to begin defining his working methods and technique more clearly. Continued investigations and discussions will certainly bring greater understanding ofJan Gossart’s pivotal position in the development of painting techniques in northern Europe in the six-

teenth century.

See Van Asperen de Boer, Faries, and Filedt Kok 1986; Folie 1996, esp. pp. 27-28, “Working Methods and Technique”; Campbell, Foster, and Roy 1997a; Garrido 1999; Hopfner 2005; Ana Gonzilez Mozo in Madrid 2006, pp. 102-13, no. 4; and

Kotkovi and Pokorny 2008-9. I have benefited enormously from discussions with Michael Gallagher, Conservator in Charge, and Karen Thomas, Associate Conservator, the Department of Paintings Conservation, Metropolitan Museum, about Gossart’s pamntings in restoration at the Museum. These have included not only the Museum's own paintings (cats. 37, 44) but also the Budapest Christ on the Cold Stone and Antwerp Portrait of a Man (cats. 27, 47).Various colleagues at other institutions who have provided technical information and studied their Gossart paintings with me are acknowledged in individual catalogue entries. In some cases it has not been possible to examine the wood type, and there are questions remaining, for example, about the panel for the Carondelet Daptych at al. at the Louvre (cat. 40). See the thorough technical report by Bruno Motun the Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France (dossier F2961, dated January 28, 2009).

15.

of

te

.

et

Heydenreich 2007, pp. §7-62. 4. "Aderant e1 et versificatores, qui picturas atque structuras carminibus ornarent, ut utramque picturam et loquentem et tacitam ostentare posset.” See Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 235. See also Sluyter 2000, p. 38; and Schrader 2006, p. 195, n. 511. 5. Sterk 1980, p. 126. 6. "le premier bort de mabre, le second doré et en bas ung escripteau.” Michelant 3.

1871, p. 110. 7.

My thanks to Britta New, conservator at the National Gallery, London, for this

information. 8.

The structure of the Carondelet Diptych

1s

similar to that described in Verougstraete

and Van Schoute 1989, pp. 41, 47, and 1n a thorough technical report by Bruno Mottin et al. (see note 2 above). the 9. The restoration of the Mary Magdalen has been carried out by Britta New National Gallery in London in 2009-10. 10. See the thorough technical report by Bruno Mottin et al. (see note 2 above).

at

11.

12. 13.

14.

16. 17. 18.

Mander’s Den grondt der edel vry schilder-const 1s the “Didactic Poem” portion of the Schilder- Boeck; 1t also includes the biographies of painters and the iconology

19. Van

with the interpretation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. See Van Mander 1604/1973, vol. 1, pp. 254-55, chap. 12:7f, pp. 256-57, chap. 12:17f, vol. 2, pp. 594, 598. 20. Most recently on these artists, see, respectively, Ainsworth 1998, passim; Ainsworth 2006; and M. Leeflang 2006. The black pigment that Gossart used could have been vine black and thus the source of the charcoal that was discovered in the samples taken from the underdrawing in the Prague Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (see Kotkovi and Pokorny 2008-9, p. 35, and nn. 25, 26). 21. The black chalk underdrawing material that 1s referred to throughout the hterature on early Netherlandish painting is actually a carbonaceous shale. It is described in Cennini’s Il libro dell’arte as pietra negra, or “black stone,” which could be sharpened with a knife. See Cennimi ca. 1390/1960, pp. 22-23 (chap. 37). Olga Kotkovi and Adam Pokorny’s recent discussion of the Prague Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin indicates that charcoal was used for the underdrawing (see note 20 above). Since Gossart made the underdrawing on top of the priming and as he appears to have proceeded without sealing the underdrawing with an additional o1l layer, the material discovered by Pokorny was probably not dry but suspended in an aqueous or oil medium and applied with a brush, as the infrared reflectography mmages seem to indicate. ~ tv .

of Denmark?) and A Man Holding a Glove (cats. §7, 60) have a lead white priming, and the Virgin and Child and Portrait of a Man with a Rosary (cats. 13, 54) have a priming tunted pinkish gray (see ibad., p. 97, n. 21). Further examples

24.

86 Jan GoOsSART's RENAISSANCE

with a priming layer over the ground are found in the paintings in Prague, Vienna, New York, and Antwerp (cats. 9, 12, 44, 47). A general review of the use of this type of priming, which soon became rather widespread in Europe, 1s found in Van Asperen de Boer, Faries, and Filedt Kok 1986, p. 108; and Spring 2004, esp. p. 21. I am grateful to Griet Steyaert, private conservator in Antwerp, and Babette Hartwieg, Chief Restorer at the Gemildegalerie in Berlin, for discussions about this phenomenon observed in paintings by Rogier van der Weyden and Gossart. Campbell, Foister, and Roy 1997b, esp. p. 25. Campbell, Foister, and Roy 1997a, p. 89; Faries forthcoming, See Rossi Manaresi 1990, pp. 129-30; and Roy, Spring, and Plazzotta 2004, pp. 14, 18, 26.

Among these are cats. 1, 2, §, 12, 20, 24A,B, 26, 13, 38, 39, 47-50, §5B,C, 59, and 60. Among these are cats. 10, 13, 14, 27, 34, 51, 54, and 56. Among these are cats. 3, 8, and 31. Campbell, Foster, and Roy 1997a, pp. 89, 97, n. 21. Four other Gossart paintings in the National Gallery, London, also have a priming over the ground preparation: A Young Princess (Dorothea

of paint layering and feath-

The underdrawing was originally published as black chalk in Campbell, Foster, and Roy 1997a, p. 89, where 1t 1s described simplyas a “dry material” More recendy, when examined by Lorne Campbell, Rachel Billinge, and Maryan Ainsworth in April 2009, the underdrawing material was thought to be liquid instead of dry.

23. See Faries forthcoming.

On this phenomenon, see Ainsworth

1998, pp. 257-312; and J. C. Wilson 1998,

pp. 87-117. For a comparison with Itahan cartoon usage, see Bambach 1999, esp. pp-

29-32.

25. Grimani Breviary, fol. 205v; see Grimam Breviary 1974 (ed.), fig. 85. For a discus-

sion of the shared use of such patterns for both manuscript illumination and panel painting, see Ainsworth 2003a, esp. pp. 245. 250. 26. For a discussion of the underdrawing in the Deesis, see Garrido 1999, pp. 75-82;

and Ann Gonzilez Mozo in Madrid 2006, pp. 102-13, no. 4. 27. On Vinador in Brussels, see Thomas P. Campbell in New York 2002, pp. 233-43. 28. Ainsworth 2006. 29. Ibid., pp. 108-9. 30. In addition, Gossart and Van Orley may also have been related through the formers marriage. Gossart’s wife, Margriet 's Molders, was from the family of the Antwerp sculptor and painter Jan de Molder, and Van Orley’s mother’s name was Jeanne de Molder (s Molders). See Szmydki 1986, esp. pp. 36, 48—49. 31. Thanks especially to Christoph Schnudt and Babette Hartwieg for their assistance in studying the painting on April 3, 2008, and especially June 16, 2009. 32. Infrared reflectography of the Metropolitan Museum's Virgin and Child (cat. 37) does show vertical and horizontal lines that appear to have been drawn in several locations. It 1s not clear what these lines signify, although possibly they are related to squaring up the image or determining placement of sections of the image. This, however, is an isolated instance, and further study 1s needed to clarify the purpose of

the possible registration lines.

33 This painting was investigated with infrared reflectography and X-radiography by the author when it was on loan to The Metropolitan Museum of Art from the

Peter Sharp collection in the 1980s. 34. See Hessel Miedema in Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. also Stn Alsteens’ essay in this volume.

3

(1996), p. 142, n. 10. See

See Lugt 1968, pp. 30-32, nos. 88-90, pls. 47-50. 36. Perhaps the earliest known Northern example 1s Petrus Christus’s Madonna Enthroned with Saints Jerome and Francs in the Stidel Museum, Frankfurt, See

49. My thanks to Jan Schmidt, Head of the Paintings Conservation Department at the Alte Pinakothek in Munich, for identifying the blue pigment in the Virgin's

50. 51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56. 57.

58. 59.

35.

Maryan W. Ainsworth in New York 1994, pp. 136—41, no. 13, esp. p. 139. 37- Ainsworth 1998, pp. 177-201; Ainsworth 2005b. 38. Roy, Spring, and Plazzotta 2004, pp. 4-33 (for registration lines, see p. 6). For the development of linear perspective in art, see M. Kemp 1990, esp. pp. 7-162. 39. Sterk 1980, p. 145. 40. See Amsworth and Faries 2006, p. 145. Hh . Campbell, Foster, and Roy 1997a. oP

-

.

Ibid. esp. pp. 89, 91. Albrecht Durer, Hjerin sind begriffen vier Biicher von menschlicher Proportion, published by Hieronymus Andreae, called Formschneyder, 1532-34, The George Khuner

Collection, Gift of Mrs. George Khuner, 1981; MMA 1981.1178.12, fol. 44. See also Rupprich 1956-69, vol. 1, p. 102; and Strauss 1974, vol. 2, p. 503. . This was pointed out in Schrader 2006, p. 163. 45. Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. 1 (1994), pp. 160, 161, fol. 225v, lines 34-39. 46. Report by Silvia A. Centeno, Research Scientist, Department of Scientific Research, Metropolitan Museum, October 29, 2008. Gerard David used a reddish layer underneath his blue draperies of the Virgin in the Metropolitan Museum's Annunciation, something that he may have learned from north Netherlandish painters hike Geertgen tot Sint Jans or even on a sojourn in Italy. 47. Campbell, Foister, and Roy 19972, p. 92. A gray underpamnting had already been used earlier for blue draperies by Geertgen tot Sint Jans. See Faries 2007-8, esp. p. 28. 48. Report by Silvia A. Centeno and Mark T. Wypyski, Research Scientists, Department of Scientific Research, Metropolitan Museum, July 16, 2009.

.

61.

.

63.

draperies in the Munich Virgin and Child. On the use of smalt in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century painungs, see Stege 2004; and Delamare 2007, chap. 2, on smalt. See report by Karen Thomas, January 19, 2010, departmental files, Department of Paintings Conservation, Metropolitan Museum. Campbell, Foster, and Roy 1997a, p. 92. My thanks to Petria Noble, Chief Conservator at the Mauritshuis, The Hague, for discussing pigment issues relating to the Virgin and Child in numerous emails from late 2009 and early 20710. Van Vaernewijck 1568, fol. 117v, in Dhanens 1965, pp. 110-15. For Gossart’s “archaism,” see Panofsky 1953, vol. 1, p. 353; Pauwels 1968; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 90-91, 93, nos. 3, §, 19, pls. 8,9, 12, 13, 24; Silver 1987, pp. 58, 61-62; Mensger 1999; Mensger 2000; and Mensger 2002, PP. 33~3$. For his adoption of Van Eyck’s technique, see Campbell, Foister, and Roy 19972, pp. 95-96; and Schrader 2006, pp. 54-66. On Jan van Eyck’s understanding of the mechanism of vision and light, see Borchert 2005 and De Mey 2008. On Jan van Eyck’ painung of flesh, see Lehmann 2010. On early recipes and techniques for painting flesh, see Lehmann 2007-8. Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. (1994). pp. 160-63, fol. 225v, lines 42-47, fol. 226r, hnes 1-16, and vol. 3 (1996), p. 153 (commentary by Miedema). See also Schrader 2006, pp. 30—41. Schrader 2006, p. 32. I am indebted to Karen Thomas for helping to characterize the paint layer structure n this damask tunic. Although the underlying gray layer has been suspected in a number of the portraits and also the heads of the Virgin, cross sections have been taken only from a very few paintings. For this information | am grateful to Petria Noble, Chief Conservator at the Mauritshuis (email of February 17, 2010). Karen Thomas cleaned and restored the Antwerp portrait in 2009-10 at the Metropolitan Museum, and she had the opportunity to study the structure of the paint layers at that ime. I am extremely grateful to her for sharing her observations of the buildup of the paint layers with me (emails of February 27 and March 3, 2010). The Tournai Saint Donatian shows pouncing for the crozier held by the saint, which 1s not known in any other painting by Gossart. I am indebted to Ron Spronk for sharing the underdrawing documentation of the Tournai Saint Donatian (studied by Spronk and Catherine Metzger in 2005). The rough brush underdrawing of Carondelet’s sulpice in the Kansas City painting appears very similar to the underdrawing in the costume (not the face) of the figure at the far left in Vermeyen's Marriage at Cana of about 1530 (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). See Amsterdam 1986, p. 202, under no. 76, fig. 76a (entry by Wouter Th. Klock); and Dunbar 200s, p. 230, fig. 17a. The Kansas City Jean Carondelet attributed to Gossart is fully catalogued in Dunbar 200s, pp. 228-38. 1

Haak 1963. 65. See Van Asperen de Boer, Faries, and Filedt Kok 1986, esp. p. 109; John Oliver Hand, Catherine A. Metzger, and Ron Spronk in Washington, .

Antwerp 2006-7, pp. 236-39, 323-24, no. 35; Bagley-Young 2008; and Faries forthcoming.

Gossart’s Working Methods

87

Gossart as a Draftsman Stijn Alsteens

an Gossart is the first Netherlandish artist who has left us a fairly large and varied body of drawings. By even the most conservative count, it includes some twenty sheets executed in a number of techniques, and they range in subject from sketches after antique sculpture and architecture and mythological and biblical compositions to ornament drawings and a bathhouse scene." Admittedly, depictions of landscape are absent, apart

from the background of some of the more elaborate compositions (for instance, cat. 87), and it is surprising that only one drawn likeness by such an outstanding portraitist is known (cat. 111).

How exceptional one considers Gossart’s place in the history of Netherlandish drawings depends, of course, on how strictly one defines the limits of his oeuvre. The scholars who catalogued Gossart’s drawings in previous publications disagreed about the attribution of a fairly large number of them. A sheet that in 1930 Elfried Bock and Jakob Rosenberg deemed “one of the clearest Gossart drawings” (cat. 87) was assigned by Jacqueline Folie, twenty years later, to a group of “drawings alien to Gossart’s personality as well as to his art.””* In the 1930s Max Friedlinder recognized thirty drawings as autograph Gossarts,” but he was unaware of ten sheets that have been discovered since, at least six of which have become generally accepted.’ In her catalogue of 1951, published in 1960, Folie accepted eight of those ten, but only twenty-two drawings in all.” Folie’s “restrictionist” viewpoint was confirmed in Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann’s review of the first exhibition devoted to Gossart, organized in Rotterdam and Bruges in 1965.° Three years later, one of the contributors to the 1965 exhibition, Sadja Herzog, accepted twenty-three drawings as authentic Gossarts; however, he differed from Folie in his evaluation of some of them.” In this essay and the drawings entries that follow, I argue for a much enlarged corpus of more than forty drawings by Gossart. Four of them have never been published before under his name.” In addition, some drawings are—or are likely to be—copies after originals by Gossart no longer known,” and others can be considered works by artists working under his influence.'” The reader will notice that it is Friedlinder’s view of Gossart’s drawn oeuvre that most closely resembles the one presented here. Opposite: Fig. 91. Jan Gossart, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (detail

of

cat.

9)

Early Drawings: Antwerp Mannerism and Italy Gossart’s drawings present an invaluable complement to his

extant paintings, casting light on his artistic evolution and working process as well as on the scope of his activity." This certainly holds true for the first decade or so of the artists career. Although Gossart was received in the Antwerp painters’ guild as early as 1503, no signed paintings by him are known before the beginning of the 1510s, and few convincingly attributed paintings can be dated earlier than that. By contrast, five of the six signed drawings we have by Gossart probably all belong in the first decade of his career (cats. 65, 69, 70, 84,91)." The earliest of the five—and they are Gossart’s earliest known works—are two sheets in Copenhagen and Berlin (cats. 69, 91) depicting, respectively, the Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine and the Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl. They were probably executed shortly after Gossart’s reception in the painters’ guild. The relatively large size and finish of these works, the signatures, and the virtuoso style all indicate they were made for collectors who had a special interest in works on paper." The penmanship and composition of these two drawings relate them closely to a new style that developed in Antwerp in the early decades of the sixteenth century." Few of the so-called Antwerp Mannerists are known by name and few of their works are dated, making it difficult to grasp the chronological development of the trend. But it seems that Gossart was one of its pioneers and most talented practitioners. In their drawings—for example, a Lamentation from the circle of Jan de Beer, the other most prominent member of the group (fig. 92)"*—a lively line and vigorous hatching tend to fill any space not already filled, in marked contrast with the concentrated and self-effacing way most fifteenth-century Netherlandish artists drew.'® The Antwerp artists’ style may reflect the influence of prints, especially those by Albrecht Diirer, to which they also avidly and constantly turned for iconographical and compositional inspiration (fig. 93)." The Antwerp Mannerists’ crowded compositions are often set within elaborate architecture (loggias or baldachins were particularly beloved motifs), and model sheets for these fanciful cityscapes appear to have circulated among Antwerp’s fashionable studios." Especially in The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (cat. 91), Gossart proved to be highly imaginative in this respect. The buildings and the spatial relationships

Fig. 92. Circle of Jan de Beer, The Lamentation, ca. 1505(?). Pen and black ink over traces of black chalk, 6% x 9 in. (15.3 x 22.9 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Purchase, Pat and John

Rosenwald Gift and 2000 Benefit Fund (2001.189)

between them are convincing—an admirable achievement in itself; moreover, Gossart managed to depict the subject of the drawing clearly and forcefully and to breathe life into a composition that could easily have been stiff, labored, and chaotic. And even when it 1s compared with a freely drawn sketch by a contemporary artist, such as an anonymous Presentation of the Virgin (fig. 94),"” Gossart’s drawing remains remarkable for the liveliness and sensitivity of the line. Two other, only slightly later, drawings can also be called independent works. One, The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Another Female Saint, in Vienna, 1s unfinished but nonetheless signed (cat. 70); the other, Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine and Barbara, in Amsterdam (cat. 72), was cropped on all four sides and may originally have been signed as well. In the fantastical clothes of the female saints and in Saint Catherine's mannered pose in The Holy Family, Gossart betrays his adherence to Antwerp Mannerism. But in the faces of the Virgin, the drawings also show the influence of the suave style of Gerard David, with whom it now seems Gossart collaborated in the early 15105 (see Maryan Ainsworth’ essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume). The modeling of Mary's face in the Amsterdam drawing—Gossart’s only known work in black chalk, with the exception of a fragment on the verso of Scenes from the Life of Saint Giles (cat. 89)—recalls David's rare and exquisite head studies, for which the elder master favored the delicacy and softness of metalpoint and chalk over the crispness of pen. Most important to note here is that the drawings in Vienna and Amsterdam reflect Gossart’s exposure to antique sculpture and architecture during his trip to Rome in 1508—9; moreover, the Viennese sheet seems also to reflect Q0

JAN GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

his interest in modern Italian art. David's influence steered Gossart’s work away from Antwerp Mannerism toward an even

newer aesthetic—one that would change the course of Netherlandish sixteenth-century art.” In a famous passage, the learned biographer of Philip of Burgundy, Gerard Geldenhouwer, remarked, “Nothing pleased him [Philip] more when he was in Rome than those sacred monuments of antiquity which he commissioned the distinguished artist Jan Gossart of Maubeuge to depict for him" Four of those depictions have come down to us, and three of them are perhaps Gossart’s most celebrated drawings: the View of the Colosseum Seen from the West (cat. 102), The Hercules of the Forum Boarium Seen from the Back (cat. 100), Sheet with a Study of the “Spinario” and Other Sculptures (cat. 101), and The Apollo Citharoedus of the Casa Sassi (cat. 99).** Scholars have noted that the Roman sketches show Gossart still very much rooted in the

artistic tradition in which he was trained.” He does not

attempt to record much more than the form of a sculpted figure or the details of the architecture and their disposition; certainly he was not moved to capture antique art's “noble simplicity and quiet grandeur.” But Gossart adds a touch of his own to all the models he follows, individualizes the faces, and seems to have aimed at representing the sculptures as made out of flesh. In doing so, he manages to charge the sculptures, and even the Colosseum, with a potency that derives from his own enthusiasm and excitement upon discovering these monuments in Rome. The Roman drawings also show a heightened attention to volume: “nets” of small hooks are used for hatching and modeling, as in the early drawings in Copenhagen and Berlin, but here they convey the play of light on the

interest in art made in Italy continued even after he returned home, when he had to make do with prints, engraved reproductions of painted works, and drawn copies (see especially cat. 66, a copy after a composition by Baldassare Peruzzi, on which Peruzzi was working ten years after Gossart left Italy). Gossart’s four Roman studies are central to an understanding of his art (see Stephanie Schrader’s essay on the subject in this volume). These “incunabula of Netherlandish copies after the antique” ** number among the earliest known studies by any artist of the antiquities they depict and compare favorably with most of them.*® Moreover, they are the very first known studies after the antique by a Northern artist of some renown. Only twenty-five years after Gossart, when the painter Maarten van Heemskerck came to Rome, would a Netherlandish artist attempt to document the ruins and riches of ancient Rome on a larger scale.”

The influence of Gossart’s Italian studies on his work was

Fig. 93. Albrecht Durer, Studies of Five Figures ("The Desperate Man’), ca. 1515. Etching, 7% x §% in. (18.7 x 13.7 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Fletcher Fund, 1919 (19.73.78)

sculptures’ surface much more convincingly. This attention to the three-dimensional quality of his paintings and drawings would become one of the most distinctive traits of Gossart’s style.

Gossart certainly brought many more than four drawings back from Italy, and he must have continued to refer to them throughout his career. From the evidence of his known paint1s possible to identify some of the other ings and drawings, sculptures that he may have recorded for Philip of Burgundy.** He must also have made more architectural studies than the one rendering of the Colosseum, for drawings such as catalogue number 72 and several of his paintings show that Gossart, like Philip himself, studied antique architecture. We are even less well informed about the studies of modern Italian art that Gossart must have brought back to the Netherlands in 1509, yet clearly he did look at works by contemporary or slightly earlier Italian painters, sculptors, and other artists and borrowed motifs and composition from them (see, for instance, the painting in Birmingham [cat. 31], which quotes from a fresco by Jacopo Ripanda in the Palazzo dei Conservator: in Rome, where he also made the sketch after the Spinario). Gossart’s

it

immediate and is especially apparent in his drawings.*® Two studies of a standing soldier in armor, one of which is signed (cats. 103, 104), and two similar sheets that can be attributed to Gossart (cats. 103, 100), all probably of about 1509, display the same interest in armor all’antica as Gossart’s sketches of helmets on both sides of the study sheet in Leiden (cat. 101). Antique and Italian Renaissance motifs appear in the architecture of some of the drawings of the early 1510s—not only in The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Another Female Saint and Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine and Barbara (cats. 70, 72) but also in a design for a glass roundel (cat. 84), the fifth of the six signed drawings by the artist. Here, too, the “signature™ is a decorative part of the composition and does not permit the kind of “graphological” approach that a normal handwritten signature would. Indeed, in at least one case—a signed miniature in the Grimani Breviary (see figs. 9, 10) that is particularly close in composition to the glass design—the “signature” (on the architrave at upper right) should not be understood as such, but instead as an homage to Gossart (see Matt Kavaler’s essay in this volume).

Mature Drawings: Style, Function, and Technique The sixth and last of Gossart’s signed drawings 1s a pen sketch in Vienna representing Adam and Eve, or the Fall of Man (cat. 65). At lower left, next to the tree trunk, the monogram IMB is inscribed in black chalk. The letters stand for Ioannes Malbodius, the Latinized form

of

Gossart’s name, whose first dated appearance is on Neptune and Amphitrite (cat. 30), a paint-

ing of 1516. The Vienna sketch does probably not predate by much, and is probably later than, the Neptune. A similar date may be proposed for two other depictions of Adam and Eve (cats. 67, 68), whose dry handling points to their being careful Gossart as a Draftsman

91

As the two positions of Adam's right leg attest, the drawing in Vienna (cat. 65) was made to explore the possibilities of

depicting two nudes entangled in lust and guilt. These explorations led to results—which can also be seen in two autograph Gossart paintings of the same subject (cats. 2, 3)—that must have looked startlingly innovative in the 1520s. In William Robinson's words, their bold sensuality heralded “a new interpretation of the Fall of Man that explicitly stressed the origin of sexual knowledge.””" In this respect, Gossart’s drawings and paintings on the theme are more akin to Baldung’s than to Diirer’s. The latter never emphasized the worldly and narrative in his depictions of Adam and Eve in various media; in the hands of Gossart and Baldung, Adam and Eve are secularized and humanized, and are given roles similar to those in the artists” mythological compositions.* Just as he did with architecture, Gossart must have developed an understanding of human anatomy, palpably present in many of his works, and it sets him apart from all Netherlandish artists of his generation. In order to be able to depict nudes successfully on the scale he adopted in his paintings and even some of his drawings, is highly probable that Gossart studied the nude figure after life.” No such drawings by a Netherlandish artist can be accurately dated before two double-sided sheets of 1553 by Lambert van Noort,™ but it is evident that some Netherlandish artists must have made them earlier. It was perhaps more common for earlier Northern artists to study the parts of the human body separately, rather than the full nude. This practice may explain why the poses in early depictions of the nude by Netherlandish artists (including Gossart!) often look somewhat unnatural. A certain consistency in Gossart’s nudes, especially the female ones, may be attributable to the use of proportion studies he may have made in the manner of Diirer, perhaps under the influence of the Venetian artist Jacopo de’ Barbari, who from 1510 until 1516 lived in the Netherlands for some time in the service of Gossart’s patron Philip of Burgundy (see Maryan Ainsworth’s essay on Gossart’s working methods in this volume). As a yardstick for Gossart’s graphic style, the Adam and Eve in Vienna is of the greatest importance because it is his only secure drawing that is unlikely to be an independent work; 1s the only one that can be dated to his maturity. moreover, The five early signed drawings, the Roman study sheets, and the drawings that can be connected with either group, made at a time when Gossart was still developing his style, offer precious but only limited help in understanding Gossart’s later draftsmanship. By contrast, certain idiosyncrasies of the mature Vienna Adam and Eve offer useful points of comparison, allowing us to construct a corpus of Gossart’s later drawings. The idiosyncrasies include the couples facial features; his and her curls (hers drawn as chains of interlaced half circles, rather than as uninterrupted wavy lines); their feet, with the big toe standing

it

Fig. 94. Unknown artist (Antwerp, early 16th century), The Presentation of the Virgin, ca. 1505—20. Pen and brown ink, 11 x 7%e in. (27.9 x 19.3 cm). The British Museum, London, Department of Prints and Drawings (1923,0417.5)

copies rather than originals by Gossart. Gossart’s earliest known depiction of the Fall may be a large and highly finished sheet at Chatsworth—without doubt made as an independent work of art (cat. 64).*” Probably, it was in part inspired by woodcuts by Hans Baldung that are dated 1511 and 1519 (see figs. 259, 260), which suggests that Gossart’s preoccupation with the theme should be dated no earlier than 1520. A similar terminus

post quem applies to a drawing, retouched in the seventeenth century with cream gouache and some pen by Peter Paul Rubens that hitherto—and, judging by an old inscription, for a

long time—nhas been attributed to Pieter Coecke van Aelst

(cat. 66). It is related to a fresco by Baldassare Peruzzi in the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome, on which that artist worked about 1519 (see fig. 261). Since no print after Peruzzi’s design is known, and since Gossart did not return to Italy after 1509,

Gossart (whose authorship of the original drawing in pen and dark brown ink is confirmed, in my opinion, by a comparison with the Vienna Adam and Eve) must have worked after an intermediary copy, presumably also drawn, of Peruzzi’s composition.” The drawing illustrates how Gossart tried to keep abreast of modern developments in the art of Italy long after his stay there. 02

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

it

slightly apart; the rather careless hatching, quite different from the “nets” seen in earlier works: the lobate form of the leaves around Adam’s waist; and the lumpy roots of the tree.

With the Vienna drawing as a guide, it is possible, in my opinion, to make convincing arguments for the reattribution of a considerable number of drawings that in the past decades have been too hastily rejected from Gossart’s oeuvre. Some of those sheets number among the most ambitious in Nether-

landish art of the first three decades of the sixteenth century: The Lamentation (cat. 82), The Conversion of Saul (cat. 87), The Martyrdom of Saint Cyriacus and His Companions(?) (cat. 88), Design for a Triptych with Scenes from the Life of Saint Leonard (cat. 90), and Design for the Tomb of Isabella of Austria (cat. 108). Others are important in a different way, because they expand our knowledge of the variations in style and finish of Gossart’s drawings (for instance, cats. 77, 80, 98). Some stylistic traits of the mature drawings can be recognized in Gossart’s paintings

and prints: for example, in Hercules Killing Cacus and View of the Colosseum Seen from the West (cats. 93, 102), the nervously drawn branches, the tips of which are indicated with short strokes, are echoed in The Adoration of the Kings and Saint Jerome Penitent (cats. 8,22) and in the print The Mocking of Christ (cat. 114). The pufty children in the Design for the Tomb of Isabella ofAustria and the Design for a Ceiling with Nine Angels Carrying the Instruments of the Passion (cats. 108, 109) and the young Christ in Virgin and Child with Saint John the Baptist (cat. 73) find counterparts in Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin inVienna and Saint John the Baptist and Saint Peter from the so-called Salamanca Triptych (cats. 12, 24A,B). Gossart’s handling of architecture and ornament 1s a hallmark of his style. Many artists tried to emulate it but failed to achieve the intelligence, grace, and originality apparent, for instance, in Gossart’s altars and candlesticks (see cats. 79, 86, 90, fig. 324), his columns (cats. 86, 9o, 108, fig. 324), and manifold Gothic flourishes (cats. 69, 72, 77, 83, 86, 90, 91, 110).> The backgrounds of several drawings have been filled in with figures and landscapes in a light, rapid, and wavering line (see, for instance, cats. 77, 79, 87, 93), a mannerism that also appears in a larger figure sketch on the back of The Lamentation in Berlin (see fig. 276) and in a relatively large compositional sketch here attributed to Gossart, The Adoration of the Holy Lamb and the Crowning of the Virgin in Rotterdam (cat. 92). Gossart’s treatment of drapery is consistent and highly recognizable by its nervous lines, small passages of parallel hatching, and little hooks or bubbles marking the ends of a fold; clear examples can be found in catalogue numbers 72, 82, 87, 89 (on the back of which is Gossart’s only known independent drapery study), 108, and 109. Many more features that lend stylistic coherence to the drawings catalogued here as mature works by Gossart could be mentioned, but I will limit myself to a consideration of one general category: the facial types that turn up now and again

in his works. The Saint John the Evangelist in the Berlin Lamentation (cat. 82) and London Lamentation (see fig. 268, a copy after a lost original) reappears as a man to the right of Saul in The Conversion of Saul (cat. 87) and as the kneeling servant in the foreground of The Adoration of the Magi in Paris (cat. 75). Another type could be named after the figure of Saint John the Baptist in one of the altarpiece wings by Gossart in the Toledo Museum of Art (cat. 24A). His deep-set eyes, long nose, and bony face can easily be recognized in three drawings (cats. 82, 86, 90). A more friendly “Saint Joseph” type 1s found in other drawings (see, for example, cats. 75,77, and 79) and also as one of the men to the left of the pulpit in the central panel of catalogue number go. A “Saint Giles” type, named after the saint of that name (cat. 89), appears again as the high priest in catalogue number 79. An old, bald man with a rather fleshy face is seen standing to the left of the high priest in the latter drawing and kneeling and praying at the right in catalogue number 89. He also appears in an etching by the seventeenthcentury Dutch printmaker Simon Frisius after a lost work by Gossart (perhaps a painting) representing the Mass of Saint Gregory (see fig. 324).>° This etching could be characterized as old men’s faces in Gossart’s style. But Gossart’s a compendium source for the composition was a woodcut by Diirer.”” Indeed, many of the facial types seen in this etching and other Gossart compositions derive from Diirer’s prints, especially his woodcuts. The few examples given here (fig. 95)** should suffice to prove what has been obvious to most scholars dealing with Gossart—that Diirer’s influence on him was all-pervasive. The

of

Fig. 95. Facial types as seen in Albrecht Durer (details of woodcuts Saint John the Baptist and Saint Onuphrius, upper left, and The Four Avenging Angels, from the Apocalypse, lower left) and Jan Gossart (details of cat. 89, upper right, and cat. 82, lower right)

Gossart as a Draftsman

93

Fig. 96. Bernard van Orley, Romulus Offers the Head of Amulius to Numitor, 1524. Pen and brown

ink, watercolor, heightened with white body12'%e In. (34.4 X $5.4 cm). color, 13% Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, Munich (9792)

X

influence of other artists—Germans such as Baldung and Martin Schongauer, Italians such as Raphael—was mostly limited to specific motifs, which Gossart was able to blend seamlessly with each other and with the structures of his own imagination (see, especially, cat. 87). The task of defining the corpus of Gossart’s later drawings is made difficult by the fact that not one autograph drawing related to an extant painting has come down to us; moreover, the subjects and compositions of the drawings we have differ widely from those of the paintings. This disparity is especially remarkable in the case of a group of drawn multifigural compositions, whose scale, ambition, and pathos are unlike almost anything to be found in Gossart’s painted oeuvre.” Gossart’s ambition to infuse his compositions with movement and complexity—sometimes, in Friedrich Winkler’s words, “beyond the limits of his capacity” **—for which it would be hard to find any parallels in earlier or contemporary Netherlandish art, is apparent already in one of his earliest drawings, The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (cat. 91). But it is only in his later multifigural compositions, which can all be dated after 1515 or even 1520, in the second half of the artists career, that Gossart embraced a style that especially for South Netherlandish artists such as Bernard van Orley and Pieter Coecke van Aelst would set the tone in the decades to come. As a result of the impact of Gossart’s multifigural compositions on younger Netherlandish artists, there has been some confusion among scholars about the drawings in this vein that have come down to us, and none of the sheets associated at some time with Gossart (approximately ten in number) are now generally accepted as his. Folie and other authors situated some drawings from that group in the circle of Bernard van Orley," Dirk Vellert,” Pieter Coecke van Aelst,” and Jan I Rombouts (formerly identified as Jan van Rillaer).** The con04

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

fusion with Van Orley is especially understandable. Luckily, today we have a better undertanding of his drawings, which makes them less easy to confuse with Gossart’s.*” The similarities between the two artists’ works can be best explained by assuming that at least one of them was aware of the work, and specifically the drawings, of the other. Van Orley was the younger artist, becoming a master in the Antwerp guild almost fifteen years after Gossart; moreover, he never traveled to Italy and had to rely at least in part on other artists’ interpretations of Italian art. Thus, he probably followed Gossart, rather than the other way round (but see cat. 25). A tapestry design by Van Orley dated 1524 (fig. 96)* mixes Renaissance architecture and ornament, armor all’antica, and figures and expressions inspired by Diirer’s prints. These characteristics were not, of course, exclusively found in Gossart’s work, but Gossart was certainly the first major artist in the Netherlands to introduce them abundantly and successfully into his art.” In addition, Van Orley’s cursory drawing style, which is especially noticeable in his background figures and landscapes, echoes the style of some of Gossart’s more loosely drawn sheets (see, for instance, cats. 87 and 89).** Not surprisingly, among Gossart’s multifigural composition drawings there are at least three made in connection with paintings (cats. 79, 80, 90), although it is unclear whether any of the paintings were actually executed. Only The Crowning with Thorns (cat. 80) can be termed a preparatory sketch, in this particular case for a panel of a small polyptych. The drawing is not so much unfinished as focused exclusively on the disposition of the four figures within the frame and on their facial expressions. An unpublished drawing in Rotterdam (cat. 92), here attributed to Gossart and which certainly belongs in his circle, has a more complex composition; it must have been made to fix the general design of the composition rather

than its details. A few other drawings are preparatory in nature, but it is less clear if they were related to a painting or another type of finished work. For example, The Conversion of Saul (cat. 87) echoes Italian compositions on the same subject in different media—tapestry and woodcut. By contrast, two little-known sheets in Copenhagen (cats. 88, 89) seem to represent more advanced stages in the development of a composition, although they must nevertheless have been working drawings. One can only speculate about the projected works they were related to. The same applies to A Women’s Bath (cat. 98), in which the nude figures Gossart was famous for have a prominent place. Twofinished

drawings can be said with certainty to be connected with paintings, although the latter are neither known nor documented, for each drawing contains an indication of a painting's frame. One, Design for a Triptych with Scenes from the Life of Saint Leonard in Berlin (cat. 90), is a design for the interior of a triptych. The other, The Presentation in the Temple in Hamburg (cat. 79), is for the left wing of another triptych; a copy in London after the latter drawing is preserved with a copy of the companion right wing (fig. 268). The finished drawings were made either as vidimi, to show a patron what the finished paintings would eventually look like, or perhaps as ricordi, records of a composition for the artist to keep. A design in Florence for a stained-glass window with scenes from the life of Saint John the Evangelist (cat. 86) certainly belongs in the former category. Two Adorations of the Magi, one in Paris (cat. 75) and one in NewYork (cat. 76), are more likely to be autonomous works. A large drawing in Amsterdam (cat. 93), which has been very tentatively connected with a documented series of paintings depicting the Labors of Hercules, may be another type of independent drawing, where the painterly yet carefully applied washes in the figures add finish to the loosely drawn landscape and staffage. The drawing in Florence just mentioned (cat. 86) is the only extant design by Gossart for a monumental glass window, although he 1s documented as having been commissioned by CharlesV to make one for the Buurkerk in Utrecht—a project aborted, however, by the artist's death.” But several designs for smaller-scale glass roundels are preserved, of which the signed drawing representing the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (cat. 84) has already been mentioned. Notwithstanding their differences in style, at least four others (cats. 94—97) can be firmly connected with the style of Gossart’s mature paintings and drawings. They may have been part of the same set, probablyall illustrating stories taken from ancient history or mythology, as would not be unusual for an artist who moved in erudite humanist circles.” Although their form makes them look like designs for stained-glass roundels, their refined drawing style and finish are quite unlike the more laconic pen drawings of professional glass painters such as, for instance, Dirk Vellert, and

it is not out of the question that they were made as finished works of art. Gossart’s designs for glass were not his only excursions into the decorative arts. As a true Renaissance artist, he was involved in many projects of a diverse nature. Documented are the following: in 1516, the decoration of a triumphal chariot for the procession held at Brussels following the death of Ferdinand Aragon;” in 1520, the design for wooden choir stalls for the cathedral of Utrecht (the Domkerk), to have been carved by an artisan named Jan van Oy but never executed; 1524, when

of

in

Philip of Burgundy died, the task of designing his epitaph (a memorial plaque); and in 1526, when Isabella of Austria, sister of Charles V and wife of the king-in-exile of Denmark, Christian II, suddenly died, the commission to design a monument for her as well.” Additional works in media other than paintings or prints have been attributed to Gossart, but there is little documentary evidence or none at all for them: a snowman in the guise of Hercules, which was erected in 1511 at Philip's residence (see under cat. 100); the design of a medal with the portrait of the Dutch pope Adrian VI, which can be dated during his short reign, between January 1522 and September 1523 (fig. 97);> the design of two medals, each bearing a portrait of Philip of Burgundy on the obverse and emblems on the reverse; the design of two small-scale wooden sculptures of the Virgin and Child, one of which is mounted between two vasiform columns (figs. 98, 99);>” and the design of a separate pair of columns, both decorated with rams’ heads, of a type often encountered in Gossart’s paintings and drawings (see fig. 294).

Fig. 97. Unknown artist (Netherlandish, first quarter of 16th century), after Jan Gossart(?), Medal wath portrait of Pope Adrian V1, 1522-23. Copper alloy, Diam. 3%. in. (8.8 cm). National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Samuel H. Kress Collection (1957.14.1225)

Gossart as a Draftsman

Q§

of

16th century), after Jan Gossart(?), Fig. 98. Unknown artist (Haarlem or Utrecht?, first half Virgin and Child on the Crescent Moon between Columns, ca. 1520s. Oak, H. of Virgin, 17% mn. (45 cm), of columns, 22 in. (56 cm). Sint-Agathakerk, Beverwijk

Fig. 99. Unknown artist (Haarlem or Utrecht?, first half of 16th century), after Jan Gossart(?), Virgin and Child on the Crescent Moon, ca. 1520s. Oak, 18% x 8% x 41n. (47 X 21.5 X 10 cm). Museum

Catharyneconvent, Utrecht (smi bhis30)

Apart from the medals and the sculptures, of which the attribution 1s not altogether certain, nothing of these commissions remains. For the triumphal chariot, two contemporary descriptions survive.” For the well-documented Utrecht choir stalls, we are informed that Gossart made a small drawing (“minor patronus”), undoubtedly on paper, as well as one “in majori forma,” that is, in real size, possibly on wood.” The only one of these works for which there is some visual evidence 1s the sepulchral monument for Isabella of Austria. Although it was destroyed during the iconoclasm in the Netherlands at the end of the sixteenth century, its appearance is recorded in a sixteenth-century woodcut and a nineteenth-century copy of an older drawing (see fig. 295); moreover, a magnificent, autograph drawing of a design preceding the final one has been preserved (cat. 108). Other projects are documented only by the existence of drawings. One of Gossart’s most accomplished drawings (cat. 109) is a ceiling design with putti bearing the has been convincingly identified Instruments of the Passion; as destined for the ceiling of the chapel in Philip's castle in Wijk by Duurstede. The ceiling was probably not executed in stucco but painted in trompe l'oeil; in any case, it confirms Gossart’s affinity with sculpture and his profound knowledge

it

06

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

of antique architecture and ornament. A more playful application of this knowledge can be seen in an unpublished gro-

tesque in Berlin (cat. 107), which numbers among the earliest Netherlandish ornament drawings in the Renaissance style. Rather more Northern in style is a drawing in NewYork of a reliquary (cat. 110), which, however, was probably not intended as a guide for the making of an actual object. Following the deattribution of two sheets in Vienna (see figs. 307, 308), Friedlinder’s assumption that Gossart was trained as a goldsmith has lost most of its credibility; the German scholar was more correct in calling Gossart’s Gothic style “a goldsmith Gothic run wild.” The somewhat careless execution of the New York drawing of a reliquary can be explained by its function as a cursory sketch, and rather than rejected, the sheet should be welcomed as a type of drawing that has rarely survived. Similarly unassuming are some other smaller drawings by Gossart, such as catalogue numbers 77, 78, and 83. Sketches or fragments, they vary considerably in finish and style, and because they are one of a kind, their function and date are difficult to define. They are also hard to connect iconographically with any known type of work by the artist—unlike, for example, two drawings in

London and Munich (cats. 73, 74), which can be compared with Gossart’s many paintings of the Virgin and Child as well as with his prints of the same subject (cats. 112, 113). Most of these show the Virgin in bust length, however, and it is surprising that not one drawing of a similar composition exists, although one must assume Gossart made some while preparing these works. That he had the habit of fixing a composition on paper before committing it to panel is also clear from the fact that many of his paintings show only very little underdrawing (see Ainsworth’s essay on working methods). This lacuna in our knowledge of Gossart’s working methods is even more frustrating in the case of the genre he truly excelled at, portraiture. Only one drawn portrait (cat. 111) has been preserved, and the sheet can hardly be considered a typical portrait drawing. In fact, it is probably more aptly described as a print model, which helps to explain its superb and patient execution. The portrait drawings that Gossart must have made in preparation for his painted likenesses may have looked more like those by his slightly younger admirer Lucas van Leyden (fig. 100)," which were probably inspired by those made by Diirer during his stay in the Netherlands (fig. 101).”® At least one such draw-

ing by Gossart is documented. The Dutch humanist Arnoldus Buchelius (Aernout van Buchel) mentions having seen in Utrecht in 1623 at “painter Adam's house™ a portrait of Reinier Snoy (historian and physician to Adolf of Burgundy), dated

and “marvelously drawn from life by Mabuse in black and red chalk.”® No drawings in a combination of red and black chalk made so early in the sixteenth century by a Netherlandish artist have come down to us.” Contemporaries who did work in the technique include Hans Holbein the Younger and Jean Clouet, who made his reputation at the court of the French king Francis I but who hailed from Flanders, where he may have learned his distinct realism and use of chalks 1528

(fig.

102).

The technical range of Gossart’s drawings must have been larger than we know. Van Mander claims that Gossart “made various fine drawings of which I have seen a number, well executed with black chalk.”*® Because they are given special mention, they must have been autonomous, probably large and finished sheets. As was said above, only one chalk drawing by Gossart 1s known today (cat. 72). There also exists a copy in black chalk of a depiction by Gossart of Adam and Eve (cat. 68), which may record not only the composition but the medium of a lost original. To judge from extant drawings by Gossart’s contemporaries in the Netherlands, he was almost unique in working with chalk, a medium that was, however, very popular with Italian and German draftsmen. Completely absent from the corpus of Gossart’s drawings are sheets executed in metalpoint, a technique favored by most fifteenth-century Netherlandish artists, including Gerard David (see figs. 49, 50, 134).

x

137% in. (26.1 x Fig. 100. Lucas van Leyden, Portrait of a Man, 1521. Black chalk, 10% 35.2 cm). Stedelyk Museum de Lakenhal, Leiden, legacy of Mr. CH. M. Dozy, 1901 (5245)

Fig. 101. Albrecht Durer, Christian II of Denmark, 1521. Charcoal, 15'%6 X 11%6 10. (39.9 x 28.7 cm). The British Museum, London, Department of Prints and Drawings (5218-48)

Gossart as a Draftsman 97

Diirer used it in the sketchbook he kept with him on his journey to the Netherlands (fig. 103) and a few sketches in metalpoint by Lucas van Leyden are also known,” but the medium became increasingly less common in the Low Countries, before being popularized again at the end of the sixteenth century by artists such as Hendrick Goltzius. Nonetheless, Gossart, who was trained in the fifteenth-century tradition, must have used

Fig. 102. Jean Clouct, Jean de la Barre, ca. 1520. Black and red chalk, 11%. x 7% m. (28.4 x 20 cm). Musée Condé, Chateau de Chantilly, Chantlly (MN 163)

metalpoint, perhaps particularly for sketching from life. Indeed, when he depicted the patron of painters, Saint Luke, drawing the Virgin and Child, he represented him using metalpoint (see figs. 5,91). Overall, pen and ink appears to have been Gossart’s favorite medium. Throughout his career he occasionally used pen on tinted paper in combination with white heightening (see cats. 64, 94-97), as was popular with the Antwerp Mannerists.” But in most known cases, Gossart relied on the pen alone, in some of the later drawings enhanced with washes, which partially or completely replaced the extensive hatching he had relied on for modeling in his earlier drawings. His painterly use of wash in catalogue number 93 must have seemed uncommon, if not completely new, in the 1520s, when the drawing was made. In many of Gossart’s pen drawings, an underlying loose sketch in black chalk can be detected, which the artist largely erased (see cat. 99, for example). Chalk underdrawing is evident also in some other drawings by Gossart (cats. 93, 98), but here the underdrawing is so neat it seems probable that it was traced. Careful construction is also evident in Gossart’s use of ruled construction lines—often incised but sometimes in chalk or pen—especially in drawings where architecture is an important part of the composition (cats. 80, 86, 90, 107-9, 111).*

Fig. 103. Albrecht Durer, Portrait of a Man with a View of the Sint-Michielsabdij at Antwerp, 1520. Silverpoint on (13 x 19 cm). Musée prepared paper, §% x 7% Condé, Chateau de Chantilly, Chanully (892)

in.

08 JAN GOSSART’s RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted material

To establish a chronology for Gossart’s drawings after the early 1510s is a task no scholar has been up to, and I cannot claim to be an exception. Different authors disagree widely on the subject, and few of their arguments are convincing.” The paintings offer little help, either, as many of them prove difficult to date. The relative paucity of drawings by Gossart makes it

hard to propose a straightforward stylistic and technical development, but most to blame, perhaps, is the “artists obsession with innovation and his imaginative and capricious nature.””’ Only a few of the later drawings can be dated with some precision. The drawings of Adam and Eve must date from 1519 or later, as discussed above; the ceiling design (cat. 109) must date from between Philip of Burgundy’s appointment as bishop of Utrecht in 1516 and his death in 1524, if one accepts it as part of the project for his chapel at Wijk bij Duurstede; part of A Grotesque with Tivo Sirens (cat. 107) can be related to a detail of Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin in Vienna, here dated to about 1520-22 (cat. 12); the design for Isabella of Austrias tomb (cat. 108) must date from the year of her death, 1526, or shortly thereafter; and the portrait of her husband, Christian II (cat. 111), was most likely made about the same time. One drawing may be stylistically compared to another—for example, The Presentation in the Temple in Hamburg with The Lamentation in Berlin (cats. 79, 82), the design for a ceiling with the portrait of Christian II (cats. 109, 111), and the scenes from the life of Saint Leonard with the drawing of a grotesque (cats. 9o, 107)—but while, in my opinion, confirming that all these drawings are by the same hand, that exercise does not help much in establishing a firm chronology.

The Early Provenance of Gossart’s Drawings

What we know about the history of Gossart’s estate offers little information about the drawings that Gossart had kept as part

of his workshop at the time of his death, with the exception of “patroen,” or cartoon, for the Middelburg Altarpiece (see Maryan Ainsworth’s essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume). It can only be assumed that Gossart’s son, Pieter, and his son-in-law Hendrik van der Heyden, who were both painters, inherited the drawings.” Pieter must have died in the second half of the sixteenth century, and that year may have marked the dispersal of his father’s drawings—if they had indeed stayed together that long. Buchelius mentioned seeing drawings by Gossart in the collection of the engraver and calligrapher Cornelis Dircksz. Boissens in Leiden in 1622,” but the description of his visit does not suggest that he was viewing a substantial part of Gossart’s drawings. Rather, they were probably worth a special comment because they were autonomous works, like the portrait of Reinier Snoy or the chalk drawings mentioned by Buchelius and Van Mander (see above). a

Gossart would have made them for the market or on commission, and they would have been sold or offered by him shortly

after completion. The drawings he made to fulfill a functional goal—whether exploratory sketch or model drawing, study after life or ricordo—would probably not have caught the attention of men such as Buchelius and Van Mander, and many must have been neglected and eventually lost. To most if not all collectors, dealers, and art lovers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Gossart was probably little more than a wellknown name they could use, along with those of Lucas van Leyden, Diirer, and a few others, when attributing their Netherlandish drawings.” This brings up the question of drawings inscribed in a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century hand with the name of Gossart’s brother Nicasius.” It has been suggested that these inscriptions indicate Nicasius’ ownership of these drawings; in fact, they are quite certainly old attributions by an unknown collector or dealer. There are other drawings inscribed with Netherlandish and German artists’ names, including that of Jan Gossart, in the same handwriting.” The as yet unidentified, probably Netherlandish, author of these inscriptions appears to have had an unusually encyclopedic, albeit not very reliable, knowledge of Northern drawings, and he may indeed have been, as suggested by Frits Lugt, “one of the first collectors of this type of works of art.””® Handwritten attributions to Gossart, probably also dating from the sixteenth century, can be found on the two closely related drawings of standing warriors in Frankfurt and Dresden (cats. 103, 104), but it has not yet been possible to connect other drawings with the author of these inscriptions, let alone to identify him. There is another indication that at least some of Gossart’s drawings were dispersed early in the sixteenth century: the existence of a few early copies after the artist, which imitate his style to perfection although they lack the liveliness of line we know from autograph sheets. If Gossart did indeed not have a traditional workshop (as proposed in Ainsworth’s essay on his working methods in this volume), one must assume that these copies were made outside his studio, in those of artists eager to become acquainted with Gossart’s style and compositions. Not surprisingly, they depict Gossart’s most popular subjects, which would have appealed both to the copyists and to their clients. Two of them, in Hamburg and Leipzig, show the seated Virgin and Child (figs. 300, 301); a third, in Amsterdam (fig. 299), 1s reminiscent of Gossart’s compositions (cats. §, 6), but not of his graphic style, and must thus be a copy after a painting rather than after a drawing. A large sheet in Providence on the theme of Adam and Eve (cat. 68) has already been mentioned as a possible record of one of Gossarts documented drawings in black chalk. Closer, indeed very close, to the artists drawing style, are an Adam and Eve in Frankfurt (cat. 67) and the designs for the left and right wings of a triptych (figs. 268, 269). For the Gossart as a Draftsman

QQ

left wing design, the original has also been preserved (cat. 79), and a comparison between the sheets makes clear both the painstaking effort of the copyist and his inability to imitate Gossart’s controlled vet lively line. The stylistic similarities between these three drawings and Gossart’s autograph sheets make it hard to believe that they are not by artists who trained

under him—but the same can be said of some of the better painted copies. Needless to say, there are also numerous drawings that have been associated with Gossart in the past but that can no longer be convincingly connected with his oeuvre.” Although Gossarts extant drawings are relatively numerous and varied for a Netherlandish artist of the early sixteenth century, in comparison with the drawings oeuvres of most of his major Italian and German contemporaries, their number is still modest. One can only guess how many have been lost. Some of his most important drawings were discovered only in the last century—after the publication in 1930 of Friedlinder’s seminal

1.

2.

Compare Wescher 1949, p. 262. “eine der klarsten Gossacrtzeichnungen.” Bock and Rosenberg 1930, vol. 1, p. under no. KdZ 8484. “dessins étrangers a la personnahité comme a l'art de

4. For those ten drawings (cats. 72, 76, 83, 93, 100, 101, 104, 109, 110, and 111 in this

5.

volume), see Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 118-19, n. 21, Addenda nos, 31-40, pl. 70. Of the ten drawings referred to in note 4, Folie was unaware of cat. 83, and she did not accept cat. 76 (Folie 1951/1960, p. 96, n. 14).

6. Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 403. 7.

Herzog 1968a, nos. p. 1-0. 23. The same publication catalogues drawings that the author attributes to Gossart’s workshop (nos. b. 24-b. 31), as well as drawings for which he rejects the attribution to Gossart (nos. p. 32-D. 41).

Cats. 88, 92, 107, and 105, 9. Of these, only cats. 67 and 68 have been given full entries here. For other copies, see the sheets reproduced in figs. 268, 269, and 285; those 1n Amsterdam, 8.

10. 11.

12.

13.

Hamburg, and Leipzig (figs. 299-301); and those in Paris and Gottingen mentioned under cats. 25 and 51. See also the copy mentioned in note 42. See figs. 299-308 in this volume. Compare Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 14 (1937), p. 111. For Gossart’s early drawings, see Winkler 19212; W. Kronig 1934; Winkler 1962; and Herzog 1968a, pp. 18-39. On the early appreciation of drawings in the Netherlands, see Held 1963, p. 79. Gossart’s may be the carliest preserved Netherlandish examples of this type of drawing—a claim that has also been made for a few drawings by Hieronymus Bosch dated about 1505 and later (Fritz Koreny in Antwerp 2002, p. 18, nos. 40,

Hoffmann 2004-5, p. 86; and M. Leeflang 20045, pp. 248-51. The stylistic influence of Durer’s prints on Gossart is also noted in Held 1931, p. 118. It is mteresting that a possibly Netherlandish sixteenth-century drawn copy of Durer's print, reproduced 1n fig. 93, exists in the collection of the Ryksmuseum, Riyjksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, no. rp-1-1963-267 (Boon 1978, vol. 1, no. $48, vol. 2,1ll.). 18. See, for instance, a drawing in the Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, no. KdZ 2501 (Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 81,

ill). The drawing was previously attributed to Gossart (in Lippmann 1882,

15.

16.

17.

For Antwerp Mannerism, see, most recently, Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6 and the essays published on the occasion of that exhibition in Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen / Antwerp Royal Museum Annual, 2004-5 (see Van den Brink, Goddard, Hoffmann, and M. Leeflang, all 2004-5). Ewing 1978b, no. 28, fig. 75: Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, p. 100,1ll. p. 101, under no. 32. For drawings by the Antwerp Mannersts, see Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6; and Van den Brink 2004-5. For fifteenth-century Netherlandish drawings before Gerard David, see Antwerp

100

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

29,

Judson 1986. 21. “Nihil magis cum Romace delectabat, quam sacra illa uctustatis monumenta, quac per clanssimum pictorem lToannem Gossardum Malbodium, depingenda sibi curamt.” Geldenhouwer 1529, fol. A 6v (Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 233). The translation by Waldo E. Sweet is quoted from Herzog 1968a, p. 41. 22. On Gossart’s Roman drawings, see Van Gelder 1942; and Herzog 1968a, pp. 42,

44-50. 23. See, among others, Boon 1953, p. 67. 24. Sce cats. 67, 68, 72, 88, 93, and 98.

“Inkunabeln der mederlindischen Antikenkopien.” Matthias Winner in Berlin 1967, p. 45, under no. 25. 26. Compare, for instance, the drawings in the Codex Escurialensis, mentioned under 25.

cat. 101, 1. 3. 27. ForVan Heemskerck's Roman sketchbooks, see Hulsen and Egger 1913-16; and, more recently, Veldman 1987 and Nesselrath 1996. 28. Notwithstanding the opinion expressed in W. Kromg 1934, pp. 163-64;

Glick

1945, pp. 128-20; and Schwarz 1953, pp. 146, 149. 29. For Gossart’s renditions

of Adam and

Eve, see Schwarz 1953; Silver 1986a,

pp. 1-10; and Bark 1994, pp. 68-83.

Not just prints but also drawn copies of contemporary art were made and circulated in the North; for example, see the

30. We can only guess how Gossart obtained it.

copies after the decorations of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo and of the Palazzo del Te by Giulio Romano, commissioned in 1547 from Giovanm Battista Scultori by Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (1977 [ed.], pp. 45. 47-50). Brussels, as the highly international center of tapestry production, attracted many Italian artists, who undoubtedly brought drawings and prints to the

2002. Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), p. 84, no. 70; Rainer Schoch in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 1, no. 79. For the iconographical, motivative, and compo-

sitonal mfluence of German prints on Antwerp Mannerism, see Goddard 2004-5;

p.

no. 59; see also Rooses 1902-4, vol. 1, pt. 2 [1902], p. 125). 19. Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 62, 1ll. 20. For an assessment of Gossart’s influence on Netherlandish art, see Gluck 1945 and

45.100). 14.

altniederlandische Malerei—including

If

35,

Gossart.” Fohe 1951/1960, p. 78. 3. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 64—67, nos. 1-27, and vol. 14 (1937), pp. 111—12, supplement to vol. 8 in vol. 14.

of Gossart in Die

two of his most celebrated drawings, the Leiden sheet of Roman studies and the portrait of Christian II (cats. 1o1, 111), which one were saved from oblivion only by chance discoveries. thinks that the number of drawings attributed here to Gossart is large, one should not forget that the artist must have made many more, and see this as “a warning to those critics who believe they can come to know a master from only a few of his works, rejecting others that do not live up to their ideas.”™ If, on the other hand, one thinks that the number of attributed drawings is small, it should be remembered that there are many Netherlandish artists of this period whom we know only by name and that they, too, must have made drawings of quality and interest. In the catalogue entries on the drawings that follow this essay, I hope to have found a balance between these two views—and also to have shown that Gossart was an even more gifted and varied draftsman than he is already known to be. study

31.

North, as well

the Campbell in New as

cartoons from which the tapestries were woven (see Thomas P. York 2002, pp. 202-93, 205-96, 340-63). William Robinson in Providence and other cities 1983-83, p. 204, under no. 72.

32. In connection with Baldung, compare Koch 1941, p. 202, under nos. A 26 and A 27;1n connection with Gossart, compare Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 51. 33.

34.

35.

36.

37

38.

39.

Compare Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 47: for an English translation, see Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 34. See Van Ruyven-Zeman 1995, pp. §0—52, no. T.34—T.35, ill; see also Boon 1992, vol. 1, no. 154, vol. 3, pls. 66, 67. The second drawing has recently been attributed to an anonymous Tuscan artist by Catherine Monbeig Goguel in Czére 2007, no. 12, 1ll. For the nude studies by Master B of the carly 1560s and now generally identified with Bernaert de Ryckere (but see Hessel Miedema in Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. 4 [1997], p. 233), see Boon 1977. Geldenhouwer (1529, fol. A 7v; Geldenhouwer 1592/1901, p. 235) called de’ Barbar and Gossart “pictores & architectos primi nominis” (painters and architects of the first rank); both fully deserved to be called painters, but Geldenhouwer must have been thinking specifically of Gossart when he mentioned the second profession, since de’ Barbar showed little interest in architecture, as observed in Levenson 1978, p. 157, n. 86; compare Herzog 1968b, pp. 27-28, n. 12, but see also Sterk 1980, pp. 107, 133-34, 144—45, where it 1s stated that de’ Barbari taught Gossart the principles of perspectival construction. A drawn copy, probably a tracing, of parts of Frisius’ print 1s in the Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, no. bN 204-101. Gossart’s composition was clearly inspired by the Durer woodcut of the same subject of 1511 (Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 [1808], no. 123; Yasmin Doosry in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 2 [2002], no. 230,1ll.). For Diirer’s prints, see Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), pp. 139, 128, nos. 112, 69; and Bernd Mayer and Peter Kruger in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 2 [2002], nos. 135, 119,1ll. The details are taken from impressions at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, nos. 19.73.167 and 1975.653.66. Among the exceptions to this statement are the central panel of a dismembered altarpiece depicting the Deposition (cat. 25) and, to a lesser degree, the composition after which Frisius’ print (fig. 324) was made. There are also a few documented paintungs that fall in this category, notably, the Middelburg Altarpiece.; see also Steppe 1965.

40. “liber die Grenzen seiner Fahigkeit” Winkler 1921b, p. 411. See also Winkler 1962, p. 145.

41. Jacqueline Folie (1951/1960, pp. 78, 96, n. 13) mentioned among drawings that she felt were closer to Van Orley the following sheets: cats. 75, 79, 82, 86, 87, 90, 96, and figs. 305 and 306.

Other authors have also suggested attributions to Van Orley or his

circle for drawings accepted here as by Gossart, including cats. 75 (see Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 276, under no. 53), 79 (see Herzog 1968a, p. 430, under no. p, 29), and 86 and 9o (see Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 404). Tivo previously unpub-

49. The document establishing this 50.

51.

52.

53.

56.

Nicole Dacos in Brussels, Rome

1995, no. 147,1lL

of Renaissance architectural and ornamental moufs

of a nude) in Netherlandish art

(and

found in some badly preserved mural paintings associated with the Brussels artist Jan van Roome in the house of the humanist Jeroen van Busleyden in Mechelen, daung before the patron's death in 1517 and probably about 1507-8 (Dhanens 1945—48, pp. 117-18; and Roggen and Dhanens 1951); for Van Busleyden’s house, see Schliiter 1995, pp. 77-87. In the past, these paintings have also been attributed to Gossart, 48. Compare also the figure of Saint John in Van Orley’s drawing of the Crucifixion (Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Graphische Sammlung, no. 1720; see Maryan W. Ainsworth in New York 2002, no. 34,1ll) with the same figure in cat. 82 and fig. 268 in this volume. For other examples, see discussion under cats. 98 and 105.

of Jeroen

van Busleyden'’s house in Mechelen (see note 47) was probably decorated with two such series of roundels, one depicting scenes taken from mythology and Greek and Roman history and hypocaustum)

one taken from Petrarch’s Trionfi (Roggen and Dhanens 1951, pp. 145—46). Document published in Henne 1858—60, vol. 2 (1858), p. 159, n. 1. See also the literature mentioned in note 58. See Vroom 1964, where all the relevant documents are published and discussed. Before the commussion of the window for the Buurkerk in Utrecht, Gossart had been involved with the design of a rood screen for the chapel of Saint Martin in Utrecht Cathedral (see Coster 1909, pp. 205, 217-18; and Van Miegroet 2001; the relevant documents regarding this project were published by A. L. van Rappard in Obreen 1887-90, vol. 4 [1881-82], pp. 246-64). The original design of the screen was made by the painter Hendrick de Zwart of Gouda; it would have been carved m wood by Gregorius Wellemans from Antwerp, who was asked to reshape the design in the antique fashion; his oak model would then have been cast in bronze by Jan van den Eynde from Mechelen, but differences of opinion between Wellemans and Van den Eynde brought the project to an end. Gossart was probably asked to advise Wellemans on how to transform the original design into a design in the Renaissance style dear to Philip of Burgundy. Elisabeth Dhanens (1987b, col. 317) has suggested that Gossart may have been involved in the redesign of the abbey church of Middelburg, for which he painted the altarpiece. She specifically mentions the chorr stalls, which Durer called “uberkostlich schon” (Rupprich 1956-69, vol. 1, p. 163), and also the antependium of Gossart’s altarpiece. However, one should reject, at the very least, her suggestion that Gossart designed the latter—which Dhanens identifed convincingly with one preserved at the Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Brussels (no. Tx. 1297; see Dhanens 1985, pp. 107-17, figs. 33, 35; Dhanens 1987a)—as1t 1s closer in style to Pieter Coecke van Aelst. The text of Philip's epitaph 1s recorded in Geldenhouwer 1529, fol. B 6v—8 7r

5

(as after Gossart); and Pollard 2007, vol. 2, no. 766, 1ll. (as after an

anonymous artist). Louwet 1993 attributes the execution of the medal to Conrad Meit (see esp. pp. 124-25, under no. 5). In favor of the design's attribution to Gossart, proposed by Louwet (pp. 124, 125), it can be said that the shields are 1dentical in form to some of those seen in cats. 108 and 111 and to the one at lower left in cat. 86, and that the likeness has the force that distinguishes Gossart’s portraits from those of most other Netherlandish artists of his time. The two medals, one originally in the collection of the former Ryksmuseum Het Koninklijk Penmingkabinet in Leiden and the other in the Historisch Museum in Utrecht, are now, respectively, in the Geldmuseum, Utrecht (no. re-737) and the Centraal Museum, Utrecht (no. 1421); unfortunately, the former not well preserved and the latter 1s a recast. For a discussion of these medals and Philip of Burgundy's interest in coins and medals, see Sterk 1980, pp. 48, 85, 88-89, 132, 142, 146, 151, 152, 155, 156, 203-94, n. 3, under fol, xm, figs. 48, 49; G. van der Meer in Amsterdam 1986, no. 9.1—2, ill. (as probably after Gossart); Louwet 1993, pp. 112, 113-14, pl. 1x, figs. 1-2 (as after Gossart); and Mensger 2002, pp. 88—90, figs. 40—44. The rather pedestrian portraits on these medals are difficult to accept as Gossart's work, but the simple yet elegant “hieroglyphs” on the reverse could well reflect a design by him. It has been suggested that these symbols are based on an illustration in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili (Venice, 1499); the helmet on the reverse of the second medal contains a helmet all'antica, recalling that in cat. 101 and especially that in cat. 94. By contrast, completely unconvincing is the attribution to Gossart of the rather old-fashioned and not well articulated designs of two medals with the arms of Philip of Burgundy (proposed in Sterk 1980, pp. 39, 127-28, 146, 169, figs. 34-36) and the design of a medal with a portrait of Virgil (sce Louwet

is

Amnsworth 1982, esp. chap. 2.

47. A rare carly appearance

The main room (called the

pl. vir, fig.

Rillaer); and Bruijnen 2010. 45. Compare Held 1933, p. 139. ForVan Orley’s drawings, see Farmer 1981 (pp. 343-50), where fifty-one of them, almost all related to tapestry designs, are catalogued; and 3;

Belges 1948,

in Van Wezel et al. 2003, pp. 178-82, no. 37,1). 55. J.W. C. van Campen in Utrecht, Leuven 1959, no. 94, fig. 16; G. van der Meer in Amsterdam 1986, no. 10, ill. (as after an anonymous artist); Louwet 1993, no. §,

PP. 44-47. 135-36, no. 5, figs. 4, 16-21), see Bruyjnen 1999, pp. 35-73 (as Van

fig.

see also

(Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 248). 54. On [sabella’s tomb, see discussion under cat. 108. The attribution to Gossart, proposed inVan Luttervelt 1962 (pp. 82-102, esp. pp. 85-01), of the design of the tomb for Engelbert II of Nassau and his wife, Cimburga van Baden, in the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk in Breda, commussioned by Gossart’s patron Henry 111, has rightly been rejected in the recent literature on the monument (Frits Scholten

.

s1,

1947;

FE

Van Orley’s name.

46. Holm Bevers in Munich 1989-90, no.

published in Beltjes

p. 116.

lished sheets, cats. 88 and 92, are kept in their respective repositories under Cat. 79 (see Bruyn 1965b, p. 467). For Vellert’s drawings, see Konowitz 1992; and Ellen Konowitz in NewYork 1995, pp. 142-57. 43. Cat. 80 (see Bruyn 1965b, p. 467). For Coecke’s drawings, see Marlier 1966, esp. pp. 86-90, 200-375. 44. Cat. 87 (see Herzog 1968a, pp. 440-41, under no. n. 39). For Rombouts, whose drawing style is documented only by a few prints and a grisaille painting dated 1528 mn the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie (no. 1630; Brujjnen 1999,

1s

1s

1993, no. 37.

1,

esp. pp. 112-13, pl. v1, no. 1).

For the first sculpture (fig. 98), of which only the figure and the columns are origmal, see Defoer 1970, pp. 490-50, fig. 2 (as after Gossart); W. Halsema-Kubes in

Gossart as a Draftsman

101

Amsterdam 1986, no. 11, ill. (as after an anonymous artist); and Van Vlierden 2004, pp. 238, 239-40 (as after an anonymous artist), For the second sculpture (fig. 99), see Defoer 1970, fig. (as after Gossart); W. Halsema-Kubes in Amsterdam 1986, no. 12 (as after an anonymous artist); and Van Vhierden 2004, pp. 238, 239—40,1ll. (as after an anonymous artist). Peter Parshall (1987, p. 104) found it “revealing to discover how well Gossaert's drapery style translated into sculpture.” It has been rightly suggested (Defoer 1970, pp. 49—50) that the design of the sculpture was influenced by Donatello’s Pazzi Madonna of about 1417-18, now at the BodeMuseum, Berlin (fig. 310), or perhaps by one of the old rephcas made after it. Also of note 1s the possible influence of an engraving by Durer of 1514 (Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 [1808], no. 6; and Matthias Mende in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 1, no. 72,1ll.). The two sculptures of the Virgin may be compared to a drawing by Gossart in Munich (cat. 74), as well as to his two engravings on that subject (cats. 112, 113); for the Christ Child, see also the angels in works such as cats. 12 and 109. For the design of two pairs of columns (figs. 98, 108), compare those m cats. 24A,8, 88, 94, and 108 with those in the print by Simon Frisius of the Mass of Saint Gregory (fig. 324) and the vase in cat. 96. 58. The descriptions are those by Geldenhouwer (1516, fol. 3v; Geldenhouwer 1516/ 1901, pp. 209-10) and Remy Dupuys (1515, fol. d it v-e¢ 1 r). For a discussion and reconstruction of the chanot, see Scheller 1983; see also Sterk 1980, 1

.

_

.

69 Compare Sterk 1980, pp. 133-34. 70 For attempts to put the drawings in chronological order, see Wescher 1949, p. 264: Folie 1951/1960, pp. 84-86; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, pp. 454-356; Bruyn 1965b, 464; and the catalogue and appendix in Herzog 1968a, pp. 382-442, 476-80. 71. “die Problematik und Vielfalt in des Kiinstlers neuerungssiichtiger, erfindungsreicher und sprunghafter Natur” Wescher 1970, p. 99. p-

72. For Hendrik van der Heyden and Pieter Gossart, see Smeyers 1968. 73. “noch teyckeningen ibidem gesien van Maubius.” Buchehus 1928 (ed.), p. 56. For

Boissens, see Plomp 2001, pp. 23-25, 26; and Romer 1996. 74. See, for instance, a drawing in the Stadel Museum, Frankfurt, no. 1790 (Sonkes 1969, no. ¢ 18, pl. xxviu b, as by a Netherlandish artist of the second half of the sixteenth

century working in the style of or after Rogier van der Weyden; Plomp 2001, p. 197, n. 2, p. 199; and Michiel C. Plomp in Haarlem, Paris 2001-2, no. §7,1ll.). The drawing 1s inscribed at lower left with Diirer’s name, an attribution that was later “corrected” bythe eighteenth-century Dutch collector Cornelis Ploos van Amstel, as 1s clear from the inscription Mabuze On the verso of the sheet, Ploos added the following: Jan de Mabuze f/geb: 1492. /overleden 1543" (Jan of Maubeuge fecit, born 1492, died 1543). Another old attribution to Gossart 1s written on a sheet in the Rijksmuseum, Ryjksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam (no. re-1-1954-181), which Karel G. Boon (1978, vol. 1, no. 529, vol. 2, ill) dates to the early sixteenth century; the

f

scription

pp. 112-16. 59. See Vroom 1964, pp. 173-74. . On Gossart as a trained goldsmith, see Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 14 (1937), p. 111. “ene verwilderte Goldschmiedegouk.” Friedlinder 1916, p. 128 (the translation by

taken from Friedlander 1956, p. 99). 61. Klock 1978, pp. 428-29, 431, 432, no. 13, 1ll. Five other portrait drawings by Lucas are known (ibid, nos. 14-18,1ll.). 62, Winkler 1936-309, vol. 4, no. 815, ill; Rowlands 1993, vol. 1, no, 227, vol. 2, pl. 150. 63. “vir Octobris 1623, vidi apud Adamum pictorem effigrtem Regneri Snoy, artificiosa Mabusii manu ad vivum expressam creta nigra et rubra.” Marginal note in a manuscript copy of Snoy's De rebus batavicis libri xu (first edition Frankfurt, 1620) atled Historia Hollandiae, Zelandiae, Frisiae et episcoporum trajectensium, published in Visscher 1846, p. 175." Adam pictor” 1s probably Adam Willaerts, whom Buchelius knew well. Also according to Buchehus, the drawing was inscribed “1528. AT. Marguerite Kay

col. 319.

the Klassik Suftung Weimar, Graphische Sammlung, no. kk 1558 (Klock 1978, no. 15, 1ll., where it 1s considered “uncertain” whether these touches are by Lucas or by a later hand; the delicacy and restraint strongly suggest the former possibility). Slightly later examples are two portrait drawings with old attributions to Hans I Liefrinck in the British Museum, London, Department of Prints and Drawings, nos. 1900-7-17-34 and 1900-7-17-35 (Popham 1932, p. 168, nos. 1-2, pl. LX). 65. Mellen 1971, no. 11, fig. 18; Alexandra Zvereva in Chantilly 2002-3, no. §4,1ll. For

the origins of Jean Clouet’s technique and drawn French court portraits, see Chanully 2002-3, pp. 19-21. Pamtings by Jean Clouet have occasionally been attributed to or associated with Gossart (see Mellen 1971, p. 238, under no. 141, and p. 242, under no. 149). For Holbein's portrait drawings and his use of colored chalks, see, most recently, Christian Muller in Basel 2006, p. 30. die met swart crit wel waren 66. “maeckte verscheyden aerdighe teyckemingen ghehandelt” Van Mander 1604, fol. 226r (the translation by Jacqueline PennialBoer and Charles Ford 1s taken from Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. (1994), .

|

.

1

p. 162. 67. Winkler 1936-39, vol. 4, no. 774, 1ll.; David Mandrella in Chanully 1999-2000, no. 9, 1ll. For Durer’s other metalpoint drawings made during his journey to the

Netherlands, see Winkler 1936-39, vol. 4, nos, 761-773, 775~787,1ll. For the metalpoint drawings by Lucas van Leyden, see Kloek 1978, nos, 1, 20-22,1ll. 68. For examples, see Peter van den Brink and Dan Ewing in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, nos. 30-45, 47-56, 59-61, ill.

102

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

by

the same

a

(Maddalena Bellavias mn Venice 2010, p. 146, no. 3,1ll., as by follower of Gossart). For Gossart’s relative fame among eighteenth-century Dutch collectors, see also

Plomp 2001, pp. 94,

n. 2, pp. 199, 262. known to us from a document dated 1529, where he 197,

1s men75 Nicasius Gossart 1s tioned as the author of the model of a projected extension of Middelburg harbor (document published 1n translavon in Gossart 1903, p. §7), and one dated 1536, where he 1s mentioned as “uncle on his father’s side” (oncle . du coté paternel) of Gossart’s son, Pieter (published in Smeyers 1968, p. 108). This suggestion was first made in London 1953, pp. 64-65, under no. 251. Three sheets inscribed with Nicasius’ name (Nicasius Gossart van Mabuse) are known to me: cat. 70; a drawing from Gossart’s circle in Vienna (fig. 304); and a drawing by an anonymous Antwerp Mannerist in the Albertina, Vienna, no. 7837 (Benesch .

.

1928, no. 34).

64. There are some touches of red chalk (in the eyelids, cheeks, nose, lips, and chin) in a portrait drawing by Lucas van Leyden, predominantly done in black chalk, in

of slightly later date. (Other drawings

hand, which also look rather like pastuches of drawings by Gossart, are in the same collection, with an inscribed attribution to Porbins or Pourbus [no. re-1-A-1878-603,; ibid. vol. 1, no. 528, vol. 2,1]; in the State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, no. 4387 [Dobroklonskii 1955, 1ll.]; and in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, no. KdZ 17603). A drawing in oil on paper, by another hand, but also in Gossart’s manner, 1s in the collection of the Universiteit Leiden, no. PK-12373. Comparable in composition but not in style, and perhaps closer in spirit to an onginal by Gossart, 1s a drawing in the Gallerie dell’ Accademia, Venice, no. 456

1s

53. MAGISTER REYNERUS SNOYE GOUDANUS /MEDICINAE DOCTOR. /MALBOIUS PINXIT DVM QVINA DECENNIA VIXIT /IN CINERES DUM FATA JUBENT MORITVRVS ABIBO. The observation that Gossart made the portrait “when he was fifty years old” (dum qvina decennia vaxit) 1s the basis for putting the artist's birth date about 1478-79 (Herzog 1968a, pp. 3, 168-69, n. 24). For Snoy, see C. G. Letjenhorst in Bietenholz and Deutscher 1985-87, vol. 3 (1987), pp. 261-62; and Dhanens 1987b,

Mabuse. fecit must be

77 The perceived similarity in the handwriting of the inscription on the sheets mentioned in note 76 was the starting point for the idea that Nicasius might be a collector, but the handwriting on the drawing reproduced in fig. 304 1s in fact more regular and ornate than that on cat. 70, as 1s the handwriting of the mscriptions Jenin Goflart van Babuse on the drawing reproduced in fig. 306 and Denis Caluart Boloniae on a drawing by the Netherlandish-Bolognese artist in the Albertina, Vienna, no. 2054 (Birke and Kertész 1992-97, vol. 2 [1994], no. 2054, 111). The inscriptions on the last two drawings and certainly that on the drawing reproduced 1n fig. 304 are thus more likely to be by another hand (notwithstanding the opinion expressed in Benesch 1928, p. 7, under no. 34). Otto Benesch (1938, pp. 35-36) also thought that the scription Jennin Mabuse on the drawings reproduced in figs. 307 and 308 nught also be written in the same handwriting, but that 1s certainly mncorrect. Other drawings with attributions inscribed in the same hand as on cat. 70 include: cat. 91, inscribed amout de beer van Mecheln; two drawings by Picter de Kempener, inscribed | Pleeter de kempener v{an] Bruss! and Pectter de kempener, in the Ryjksprentenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, nos, RP-T-1984-124 and RP-T-1984-125 (Schapelhouman 1987, nos. 49, 50,111); one from the circle ofJan de Beer, inscribed Quintin Metsijs van Bredael, here reproduced as fig. 92; a drawing probably after Bartholomeus Spranger, inscribed Bartolomeo Spranger/mana [sic] propria in the Museum Plantin-Moretus/Prentenkabinet, Antwerp, no. § (A.11.3) (Carl Depauw in Antwerp 1988, no. 8, 1ll.); and two drawings inscribed Christof Amberger, one in the same collection, no. RP-T-19§7-200 (Hemrich Geissler in Stuttgart 1979-80, vol. 1, no. A 4,11, as by Amberger), and one—now attributed to Sebald Beham—in the J. Paul Getty Museum, no. 94. GA.53 (Lee Hendrix in Turner, Hendrix, and Plazzota 1997, no. 61,111).

78. “il fut un des premiers collectionneurs de ce genre d'oeuvres d'art” (that is, drawings or, more specifically, Netherlandish drawings). Lugt 1956, p. 246, under no. 1774€. 79- I have, however, included all drawings whose attribution to Gossart was deemed possible in Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930); Folie 1951/1960; or Herzog 1968a. Among the drawings for which any connection with Gossart’s oeuvre can be rejected without much discussion are the following sheets in public collections: four roundel designs with scenes from the life of Saint Agathopus and

Saint Theodulus in the Kupferstichkabinett, Dresden, no. ¢ 2760~c 2763 (published as by Gossart in Baldass 1937b, p. 51, fig. 12; the auribution was maintained by Christian Dittrich in Dresden, Vienna 1997-98, no. 9,1ll.); a roundel design of Adam and Eve in the Museum Kunst Palast, Dusseldorf, no. 2637 (according to Budde 1930 [no. 849, pl. 173], 1t was Friedlander who suggested the attribution to Gossart; published by Eckhard Schaar as by an artist from the circle of, or a contemporary copy after, Gossart in Dusseldorf 1968, no. 38); a roundel design representing the Damned in Hell in the Musée des

Beaux-Arts, Orléans (published as by Gossart, with some hesitation, by Carlos van Hasselt in Paris 1965-66b, no. 156, 1ll.); a roundel design of Bathsheba Spied upon by David in the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, no. 6633 (published as attributed to Jan Gossart in Popham and Fenwick 1965, no. 127,111); and a drawing representing Jonah and the Whale in the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, no. N 134 (published as by Gossart in Baldass 1937b, 52, fig. 13). fo. Frits Lugt found the portrait (cat. 111) in 1936 at a Paris auction, where it was for sale as an anonymous engraving (according to Van Berge-Gerbaud 1990, p. 270); p.

Albert Welcker discovered the Leiden study sheet (cat. 101) at a Utrecht auction house in 1937 in a folder with drawings (Van Gelder 1942, p. 5). SI. “Eine Warnung . . . an die Adresse der Stilkrituker, die einen Meister aus einigen seiner Schopfungen zu kennen glauben und andere, die ihrer Vorstellung nicht gemab sind, von der Schwelle weisen.” Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 14 (1937), pp. 111-12 (the translation by Heinz Norden is taken from Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 [1972], p. 50).

Gossart as a Draftsman

103

ERR] ANNA Ne \NN NR & Y \ RRRBROu JERE RGR \ A SP RAR ~e

AN

ALA

po)

2

NTN, TR RRR RRR oh . 2.

)

= Od -

.

8

Ray )

-

N !

»

WN

N

»

g

-»

. tn

TS > ")

CLA

.

h

Nig NOOR

MORONS

~3 WO

B

\

8

AE NLS W

x

AA

ha Vi ~ AN

\

1

NS

Ba. d

LRN A" 3A >

©

A,

15

:

v

3

\

v

RECO

Ab

IRC Ey

NE 0

"

-

NAN 0

AOA WN

A

’

\

A

BALE A

A

\!

MY

4

OV

\

CY)

\

IX

AC

MN

AAoy x

ERNE TS

ox

|

AAA TY o “~

N

RELL

AENRR

JA

\

J

J

~

N

-

AA

OR

F

MG Le \ AEA 3d em WE \! AARERR 8 \ we &

0

1

oo

L

he

:

Y

i

.

i

»

Eri

:

5 SE

07,

Lhd w,

Iv eel

+ (A

7

-

/

LJ

(£3 Zr

J -

TE

7

ay

Vl

NE #74

(3A

AL

ik

J)

Bo

ON

,

5

5

Ty

.J

3

1% A

~

E :

HRS Salt HE

ds

’

va

NS

4

=ITF pr

of the figures aspect ~

.

>

7

rockylandscape. Firsthand study of details of the execution and paint handling indicate a date preceding but close to that of the Malvagna Triptych, painted by Gossart and David in about 1513—15 (cat. 6). The portions of the 3 triptych that are by Gossart, such as the i Singing angels, share with the figures of the Berlin painting a certain dense, pasty quality to the paint and a looseness of execution, y

y

‘

‘

right) and Saint Peter here. The Gethsemane shares with portions of the triptych (including the singing putti at the far left) a starthingly subtle illumination of the figures that indicates the same sophisticated observation and execution of unusual lighting effects, and thus the same artistic sensibility. The connection ofthe Berlin Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane

with the Saint

TT IN in Washington-yand the YO) Jerome panels ques tion of its possible commission are dis-

»

’

MWA

}

8

ata

partacuiarly in the

»

tones. F or example, the prominent facial features, somewhat crude and awkwardly foreshortened, and ~ bse the clawlike form of- the hands are similar to those of the puttCLin the triptych (especially the flower-holding angel in blue to the

104

a

ofhis

en

rooms at Wijk bij Duurstede. Whether it was the Berlin painting or not cannot be determined. Sterk 1980, pp. $8, 173, nn. 382.

buffet in one

pO 5

=

og

9. Weisz (1913b, pp. 13, 14, 99), Segard (1923, pp. 29, 30),

1507-8; Friedlander (1967-76, vol. 8 [1972], p. 25) apparently did, although 1n the catalogue sections of

Schulz 1937, esp. p. 97 and pl. na. 2. Mensger (2002, p. 60) suggests that in general 1t follows the principles ofthe religious movement known ) 1.

as

wp

the devotio moderna,

as

3.

4. 4

5.

SAR

WW

>




-

29, 2009)

p.

and I 152) T8081 “about 15127

[1930], LERCh

listed as

p.

1967-76 (vol. 1503

8

Herzog (1068a,

209) suggested about 1509/11, immediately follow-

ing the trip to Rome, which 1s accepted by Grosshans “83. Gem: ler Berlin 1978, (in Sreniikiogaerie, p. 186), Hand (in m

m

rl

SOROE

10.

18

D.

Hand and Wolff 1986, p. 102), and Mensger (ca. 1512; 2002, p. $6). Nothing m the composition or style of the painting manifestly suggests Italian influence, but this 1s not a criterion for dating, since Gossart’s assimilation of the lessons learned in Italy was not immediate Te and depended more on the commission or patron For the topic of mght scenes in general, see Breustedt

Seer

Wack:

ANC.

1t 1s

8

pe

1966. Manuscript illuminators surpassed panel painters

in their variety of subjects and invention of specific light effects from the 1470s into the first decades of

the sixteenth century. For some examples, see Los Angeles, London 2003-4, pp. 130 (no. 16¢), 143 (no. 20¢), 147 (fig. 50),

155

(no. 25¢), 172 (no. 32d), 269

(no. 71a), 287 (no. 79a); and Vienna 1987, figs. 14, 20. The Da Costa Hours (Morgan Library and Museum,

New York, Ms. 399) of about

1515

by Simon Bening

and his workshop shows several different and quite imventive treatments of might scenes in varied subjects: fol. 360v (Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane), fol. 291v (Saint Christopher Carrying the Christ Child), fol. 151v 11.

(Night Nativity), and fol. 15v (Arrest of Christ). See Campbell 1998, pp. 254-59 (inv. no. NG 2159). David's painting and a second copy, wrongly attributed to Michel Sittow, are in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, and a third copy 1s in the Evangelisch-

12.

Lutherische Kirchgemeinde, Annaberg-Buchholz. Marie Montfort in Musée des Beaux-Arts, Strasbourg

13.

2009, pp. 27-28, no. 6. Mensger 2002, p. $9; Neidhardt 2006, where it attributed to followers of David.

14.

For a discussion of the moon in Gossart’s painting,

1s

|

grateful to Neil D. Tyson, Astrophysicist and Director, the Hayden Planetarium, the American Museum of Natural History, New York City (letter of

am sincerely

January 28, 2010). According to Dr. Tyson, “The angle 1s what you the crescent makes to the horizon would find for the range of about 15°~55° North ‘The Netherlands are about 53° North lantude. lantude. At that alutude above the horizon, the ume of day (if the moon 1s portrayed accurately) is an hour or two before sunrise.” For further on the representation of the moon in early Netherlandish pamting, see .

.

15.

16.

.

.

.

Montgomery 1994, Montgomery 2001, esp. pp. 86-95; and Ewing 2003. Weisz 1913b, pp. 13, 14. See note 10 above. There are other versions by contemporary Netherlandish painters that are inspired by Gossart’s painting: in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Johnson Collection (Flemish and Dutch Paintings 1972, p. 2, no. 382), and in the Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, Munich (inv. no. 1142).

Exhibitions: Washington 1948; Wiesbaden 1948; Wiesbaden

1949-50; Amsterdam 1950, no. 45; Brussels 1950, no. 45; Paris 1951, no. 17 Literature: Von Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), p. 82; Weisz 1913b, pp. 13, 14, 99; Winkler 1921b, p. 492; Segard 1923,

29, 30, 179, no. 17, Winkler 1924, p. 241; Friedlinder 1924-37. vol. 8 (1930), pp. 35, 152, no. 13, pl. xx; Schulz

PP:

97: Roth 1945, pp. 36, 67, 68, 130, 134, 167, 205, n. 21; Washington 1948, n.p.; Amsterdam 1950, p. 29, no. 45; Brussels 1950, p. 26, no. 45; Paris 1951, p. 20, no. 17; Walker 1937, p-

Willlam E. Smda in Washington 1951, p. 198, under no. 87; von der Osten 1961, p. 457; Breustedt 1966, 1951, p. 15;

pp. 161-62, 166—68, no. 76; Herzog 1968a, pp. 61-62, 207-9, no. 4; Herzog 1969, pp. 64, 67; von der Osten and Vey 1969, p. 156; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 25. 92, no. 13, pl. 21; Gemaldegalerie, Berlin 1978, p. 186 (no. 551A); Grosshans 1986, pp. 172-73; John Ohver Hand in Hand and Wolff 1986, pp. 98-103; Esler 1996, pp. 103—4; Folie 1996, pp. 25-26; Mensger 2002, pp. 56-62

Jan Gossart 24A,B. Two

Wings from the So-Called

Salamanca Triptych sale, The Hague, August 12, 1850, nos. 36, 37 [bought in]; his sale, The Hague, September 9, 1851, nos. 21, 22 |bought in]); Eugéne Schneider, France (his sale, Paris,

Left wing, exterior: The Angel Gabriel; interior, Saint John the Baptist B. Right wing, exterior: Virgin Mary; interior, Saint Peter A.

April 6-7, 1876, nos. 19, 20, [Edward Speelman, London, in 1952]; [Agnew’s, London, in 1952]; acquired Art, 1952 by the Toledo Museum

of

1521

Oil on panel, left wing 47% x 18% 1n. (120 x 47 cm), right wing 47% x 182 in. (120 x 47 cm) Signed and dated: (on left interior wing, lower left and right) 104Es MALBODI PINGEBAT, (at lower right of Interior wing) ANNO 1521 Inscribed: (on left interior wing, lower center, on tablet) IOANES LVCERNA/ARDS ET LVCENS (He was a burning and a shining hight [John 5:35]); (on night interior wing, lower center, on table) PETRE PASCE

ovirs

MEAs (Peter, feed my sheep [John 21:17])

of

Toledo Museum Art, Ohio, Purchased with funds from the Libbey Endowment, Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey 1952.85A,8 Condition: The panels and paint layers are in remarkably fine condition, with only small scattered paint losses

throughout. Each panel has been cut down at the top inner edges (when in the closed position). The ultramarine blue of Saint Peters robe 1s blanched. Technical investigation: The only technical investigation

undertaken has been infrared reflectography by Molly Faries, Catherine Hoemiger, and Catherine Metzger on September §, 1984, with a revised report of July 1990 (on file at Ryksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The Hague); the resultant captures were scanned and reassembled digitally by Alison Gilchrest in 2006. The monochrome light tan exterior wing paintings are easily penetrated with infrared reflectographyand reveal underdrawing typical of Gossart in the early 1520s: confident contour lines with no hatching for the architecture, and long contour lines with hooked ends, short comma strokes, and zigzag lines in brush for the draperies. The same is true for the figures on the interior wings, although Peter's blue robe could not be penetrated (perhaps because of dark underpainting beneath the ultramarine), and the red-orange (possibly vermihion) of John's cloak was dendrochronology sermopaque. No X-radiography has been undertaken for these paintings.

a

or

Provenance." Family chapel

Church

of

of Pedro de Salamanca,

the Augustinians,

Bruges, possibly by 1609”

and certainly by 16417; [L. J. Nicuwenhuys, acquired in Bruges, 1810, as part of a Deposition triptych]; [Alexis Delahante, London, by May 1811]; (sale, Philipps, London, May10, 1811, no. 57, as part of a Deposition triptych); (sale, Philipps, London, June 4, 1814, no. 61, as part of a Deposition triptych); Edward Solly, Berlin and

London, by

1833,

until

1837 (his sale,

London, May

31,

three compartments, to fold”); [C. J. Nieuwenhuys, Brussels, on March 3, 1838; sold to William IT]; William II, The Hague, 1838—51 (his 1837. no. 86, as “an altarpiece in

ossart’s signed and dated altarpiece

wings representing the Annunciation on the exterior and Saint John the Baptist and Saint Peter on the interior are remarkable for their striking contrast, respectively, of the late High Gothic mode with the Italian Renaissance style of architecture (see Matt Kavaler’s essay in this volume). From a review of the associated documents as well as certain stylistic anomalies, discussed under catalogue number 25, it has become clear that these wings did not

originally belong with the Hermitage Deposition in an altarpiece known as the Salamanca Triptych. Moreover, although the panels are reliably recorded by 1641* in the chapel devoted to the Virgin of the Pieta founded by Pedro de Salamanca in the Augustinian church in Bruges, there 1s no Iirrefutable evidence that Salamanca commissioned them from Gossart or for this chapel.

One of the formerly compelling reasons for associating these panels with Pedro de Salamanca, according to Joseph Maréchal, was Canon Antonius Sanderus’ claim in his Flandria illustrata of 1641° that Saint Peter is a disguised portrait of Salamanca and Saint John the Baptist a self-portrait of Gossart.” However, a careful reading of the original document indicates that Sanderus made the claim only in relation to Saint Peter and Salamanca.” Moreover, this claim, although attractive, cannot be substantiated from the visual evidence. Both figures reflect the familiar types for these saints found in contemporary early Netherlandish painting: Saint John with his full head of dark, curly hair and unkempt beard, and Saint Peter bald and elderly with graying hair and full beard. Both are painted in a

Paintings

19%

— =

Fare

-

— a

a ee

s————

i » ) py SET

"

——l]

eS

=

J

-—

tt |

RP

Cat.

196

24A. Le ft

wing, exterior

JAN GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

Cat. 248. Right wing, exterior

J)

J s=irs=

7Pa

IN

EE Cat.

244A.

Left wing, interior

Cat.

248.

Right wing, interior

Paintings

197

generalized rather than individualized fashion and bear no resemblance in execution to the tighter brushwork and more meticulous rendering found in Gossart’s portraits. Instead, they approximate Gossart’s other depictions of saints, such as Luke in the Vienna Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin

Fig. 182. Peter Wolfgang van Ceulen, Lamentation with Pedro de Salamanca, 1529. Copper, 46% xX 44% In. (117 x 113.5 cm). Sint-Salvator

Kathedraal, Bruges

(cat. 12). The Baptist’s physiognomy is not particularly close to Gossart’s in the identi-

fied portraits of the artist—for example, the Wierix engraving and the Schwarz medal (figs. 1, 2)—and is not convincing as a self-portrait. Equally important for the question of the identification of Saint Peter with Salamanca 1s

Maréchal’s publication

of documents

concerning the gilded-copper bas-relief commissioned by Salamanca for his chapel and made shortly after February 21, 1529, by the Rhenish sculptor Peter Wolfgang van Ceulen (fig. 182)." Devoted, as was the chapel, to the Virgin of the Pieta, the relief shows the Virgin weeping over the dead Christ, accompanied by John the Evangelist, Mary Magdalen, another Mary, Joseph of Arimathea, and—in profile, kneeling in prayer—Salamanca himself, a clean-shaven,

long-nosed gentleman with a full head of hair—that 1s, not resembling at all the Saint Peter in Gossart’s right wing. Since Gossart’s interior wings represent neither himself nor Salamanca, and since there are no extant documents of the commission or identifying inscriptions concerning Salamanca on the panels, there 1s no proof that the Toledo wings were commissioned by Salamanca for his chapel. Furthermore, the chapel was completed in 1515, and the date on these wings, 1521, indicates that they were not commissioned for its dedication. What might have been the theme of the central part of the triptych to which these wings belonged, and how might the altarpiece originally have looked? The exterior wings of the Annunciation introduce the theme of Christ's Incarnation. The placards below each saint on the interior wings bear excerpts from the Gospel of John, which narrates the life of Christ from his Baptism to after his Resurrection. Below the Baptist, identifying his role as the precursor of Christ, the text reads, “He was a burning and a shining light” 198

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

(John 5:35). John points to the lamb at his feet—"“the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin

of the world” (John 1:29)—

indicating Christ's mission on earth. Below Peter 1s the command that Jesus gave him after the Resurrection: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This order, which placed Peter in charge of the physical and spiritual leadership of Christ's disciples and all Christians, is the source of Peter’

foundation of the church. Given the themes introduced by the wings, the most appropriate subject for the

Fig. 183. Follower

of Jan Gossart, Madonna and Child

Oil on wood, 41 x §§% 1n. (104.1 x V. Hickox (1958.361A—C)

141

centerpiece would have been a Crucifixion, a Deposition, a Pieta, a Resurrection, or perhaps an Ascension of Christ.” Still problematic, however, is the fact that such themes invariably take place in exterior settings and would thus be a difficult match with the assertive architectural settings of the interior wings. One possibility is presented by a triptych attributed to a follower of Gossart that is now in the Joslyn Art Museum, Omaha (fig. 183)." The architectural settings on the wings for Saints Catherine and Agnes—elaborate

with Saints Catherine and Agnes, ca. 1520.

cm). Joslyn Art Museum, Omaha, Gift

of Mrs. Charles

deep niches of Renaissance design—Dbear a resemblance to the even more ambitious setting of the Toledo wings. These are complemented by a similar architectural setting for the central panel of the Virgin and Child with Musical Angels. The centerpiece of the Omaha work, harmonious in setting and design with its wings, indicates the type of composition that would have accorded better with the Toledo wings than the open landscape scene of the Hermitage Deposition. A second possibility is worth considering. Somewhat larger, nearly exact copies of the Toledo wings are extant in fragmentary state in the Westfilisches Landesmuseum, Miinster.'' These were produced at the very beginning of the seventeenth century: the barely visible numerals 1, 6, 0, and 0 or 9'* can be read beneath those of 1521 in the lower right corner of the Saint Peter. In an interesting coincidence, these two wings are also missing their central portion. This raises the question of whether the missing piece of each triptych was possibly a sculpted corpus instead of a painting. The architecture of the wings then could have been coordinated with a similar setting for a sculpted center representing the Passion of Christ. Whatever this scene or scenes may have been, it most likely was planned to resolve the perspective views that are so carefully designed in both interior wings to converge at a point in the center. When designing the Toledo wings, Gossart clearly took into consideration the position of the viewer. The figures of the outside Annunciation wings are viewed di sotto in su, while those figures of the inside wings are encountered at eye level. Herzog suggested that the former concurs with the viewers eye level, and serves to draw him or her toward the image; the latter viewing experience is coordinated with how the altarpiece is seen up close when open." In each case, the figures are remarkably sculptural, to a degree unprecedented in Netherlandish painting at this time. The rhythmic sense of the deeply cut draperies of both the grisaille figures and the two saints call to mind Verrocchio’s lifesize Doubting of Thomas

of 1466-83

tae

.

Sanderus 1641-44, vol.

1

(1641), p. 243; Maréchal

1

(1641), p. 243; Maréchal

1963, p. 12,0, 7. 4.

Sanderus 1641-44, vol. 1963, p. 12,1. 7.

Sanderus 1641—44, vol. (1641), p. 243; quoted in Maréchal 1963, p. 12, no. 6. 6. This has since been accepted in the literature, as in Herzog 1968a, p. 261; and John Oliver Hand in “.

1

7.

Bauman and Liedtke 1992, p. 121. See Sanderus 1641-44, vol. 1 (1641), p. 243; and Maréchal 1963, p. 12,n. 7.

8.

Maréchal 1963,

©.

If it

p. 16.

was a Pieta, then the resulting triptych would

have been appropriate for the Salamanca chapel, which was devoted to this theme. 10.

11.

Roger Aiken and Janet L. Farber in Joslyn Art Museum 1987, pp. 36—38, no. 24. Both copies are vertical rectangles with no arched top, and the cut figures at the top edges of Gossart’s original are completed here. Saint Peter measures 132 by 47 centimeters and is about 2 centimeters thick and cradled. The left half of the Saint John panel has disappeared, but the remaining part 1s about 2 cenumeters thick. Both panels seem to have been split from their rectos, and all of the edges are cut. These paintings

Fig. 184. Andrea del Verrocchio, The Doubting of Thomas, 1466-83. Bronze, H. 90% in. (230 cm).

Orsanmuchele, Florence

appear to have

(fig. 184), a revolutionary piece installed

in an exterior niche of Orsanmichele, Florence, where Gossart could well have seen it when he stopped in that city on his way to Rome in 1508-9. Gossart’s figures are so masterfully achieved that he must have worked them out in a series of preparatory drawings. The confident and spontaneous underdrawing employs both brush contours and parallel hatching to indicate the modeling of forms (see fig. 68). The grouping of vertical strokes, the long brush lines with hooked ends, and the animated, curling zigzags are all characteristic of his execution—and very close to the underdrawing encountered in the Vienna Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (cat. 12). The architecture was completely underdrawn in contour lines that follow along ruled ones. Here and there, as in the red cloaks of both saints, adjustments were made freehand from the underdrawing to the painted layers. Nothing in these wings was casually considered, and together they represent the peak in Gossart’s expression of parallel Gothic and Italian RenaisMWA sance modes. 1.

2.

For a full discussion of the provenance of this painting, see Hinterding and Horsch 1989; see also Koopstra

forthcoming A. Sanderus 1641~44, vol.

warm, orange-red imprimatura. The details of Gossart’s execution have been closely observed, and attempts have been made to copy them in his manner. My thanks to Angelika Lorenz, Curator, and Franke Wenzel, Conservator, for the study these paintings at the Westfalopportunity isches Landesmuseum, Munster (June 15, 2009). The date of the copies interestingly coincides with the ime of Bentivogho's visit to Bruges and Sanderus’ tale that copies were made for the pope (Sanderus [1641], p. 243). If these could possibly 1641-44, vol. be those copies, then it 1s difficult to explain how they reached Munster. Paul Pieper (1986, pp. 503-6, nos. 248, 249) does not discuss the provenance of a

to

12.

1

these paintings. 13.

Herzog 1968a,

p. 261.

Exhibition: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 14 Literature: Sanderus 1641-44, vol.

1

(1641), p. 243:

(1666), p. 91; Passavant 1833, 351; Gailhard 1857-64, vol. 2, pp. 209-300; Weisz

Monconys 1665-66, vol.

2

pp- 111, 1913b, p. 123; Friedlander 1916, pp. 131, 188; Conway 1921, p. 369; Friedlander 1921, pp. 139, 198; Winkler 1921b,

411-12; Segard 1923, p. 177, no. 9; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 151, no. 7; Held 1933, pp. 138-39; De PP-

Poorter 1934-35, pp. 2, 6-7: W. Kronig 1936, pp. §7-59; Friedlinder 1956, p. 102; von der Osten 1961, pp. 455, 464; Maréchal 1963, pp. 11-15; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 111-18, no. 14; Borsch-Supan 1965, pp. 199-200; Herzog 1968a, pp. 102-6, 256-61, no. 24; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 91, no. 7. pls. 15, 17, and p. 120, nn. 53, $4 (Notes by Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog); Toledo Museum of Art 1976, pp. 65-66; Sterk 1980, pp- 123-24; Van Asperen de Boer, Faries, and Filedt Kok 1986, pp. 93, 110, n. 83; Silver 1987, p. 64; Hinterding and

Horsch 1989, esp.

p.

66; John Oliver Hand in Bauman and

of

Liedtke 1992, pp. 121-23, no. 34a,b; Toledo Museum Art 1995, pp. 68-69; Barcelona 2000-2001, p. 180; M. P. J. Martens and Peeters 2002, p. 163; Mensger 2002, p. 23;

Mensger 2008b, pp. 202-4; Koopstra forthcoming a 1

(1641), p. 243; Maréchal

1963, p. 12.

Paintings

199

Jan Gossart 25. The Deposition Ca. 1525 Oil on panel, now transferred to canvas, ogee-arched top (perhaps not oniginal), §5% x 41% in. (141 x 106.5 cm) The State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg

ra 413 Condition: The painting has been transferred twice from panel to canvas and 1s in only fair condition. Although

the panel cannot have been cut down very much, neither the edges nor the ogee-arched top are guaranteed to be original; a modern, black-painted line around all the edges obscures any further information. There are many paint losses and restored areas, the extent of which 1s visible in the X-radiograph and infrared-reflectogram assembly. Most of the damage has occurred along the borders of the panting and the original three vertical panel joins, located at the left of the ladder with the figure supporting Christ's body; at the center of the painting through the cross; and through the center of the ladder at the nght. The damages do not significantly affect most of the faces. Technical investigation:

The original oil-on-panel painting

was first transferred to a panel with an interleafing canvas;

the second panel was later replaced by a lining canvas. The transfer from panel to canvas makes dendrochronology impossible. X-radiography and infrared reflectography were carried out by Alexander Kossolopov at the State Hermutage Museum. There appears to be some freehand brush underdrawing, especially in the figure on the ladder at the right and the figure on the lower right with the crown thorns. In these cases, the brush underdrawing shows a different pattern of draperies extending beyond that painted, indicating the working process of an original design rather than a copy. Because of the transfer of the painting, very lide underdrawing can be identified elsewhere.

of

Provenance:" Family chapel

of Pedro de Salamanca,

Church of the Augustimans, Bruges, probably by 1767; [L. J. Nieuwenhuys, acquired in Bruges, 1810, with side wings (see cat. 24), as a Deposition triptych); | Alexis Delahante, London, by May 1811]; (sale, Philipps, London, May 10, 1811, no. §7, with side wings, as a Deposition triptych); (sale, Philipps, London, June 4, 1814, no. 61, with side wings, as a Deposition triptych); Edward Solly, Berlin and London, by 1833, unul 1837 (his sale, London, May31, 1837, no. 86, as “an altarpiece in three compartments, to fold”); |[Frangois Nieuwenhuys, Brussels, on July 8, 1844; sold to William II}; Wilham II, The Hague, 1844-50 (his sale, The Hague, August 12, 1850, no. 46, to Brum); acquired by the State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (as by Lucas van Leyden), 1850

n this traditional rendering of the Deposition, Christ is lowered from the cross with the help

whom

of several men, among

Nicodemus at the center and the right in a fluttering red Saint John 200

is

to

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

mantle. Joseph of Arimathea, in the middistance to the left of the cross, carries a large container of ointments to prepare the body for burial. Near the cross, with her back to us, and dressed extravagantly in a patterned damask dress and a headdress decorated with pearls and gems,

Mary Magdalen turns to look toward the Virgin. Collapsed in grief at the lower left, the Virgin is attended by the other Marys. At the right the Roman centurion Longinus picks up Christ's crown of thorns and the nails of the cross, which lie near a skull and jawbone abandoned on Golgotha. A large fortress in the left background is balanced at the right by the tomb, with a subsequent scene of the Marys gathered there to find Christ’s body missing. Nearby there is a man kneeling against a rock, who only observes the Deposition and does not participate in the event. Perhaps he is the patron who commissioned the painting. This work and two double-sided wings in Toledo, showing the Annunciation on the exterior and Saints John the Baptist and Peter on the interior (cat. 24A,B), were first proposed as a triptych in 1933 by Julius Held.” In 1963 Joseph Maréchal published ten documents, dating from 1609 to the early nineteenth century, concerning the reconstruction of the “Salamanca Triptych,” which he assumed was commissioned by Pedro de Salamanca for a chapel devoted to the Pieta at the Augustinian church in Bruges.” Construction of the chapel began on the exterior south side of the apse in 1513 and was completed in 1515. However, close scrutiny of relevant documents reveals that the subjects of all three of the paintings in the “triptych” are not discussed together until 1767. In that year the painter Jan Antoon Garemijn was asked by one of the descendants of the Salamanca family to restore three triptychs, two of which were in the Salamanca chapel. One of these was composed of the Hermitage Deposition and the Toledo wings."

From the 1767 document, Maréchal worked backward in time to reconstruct a history for the Salamanca Triptych. Of the three early documents discussed by him, the earliest, from 1609, concerns the visit of the papal nunciate, Guido Bentivoglio, to the Salamanca chapel. There he saw “a painting” so beautiful that he wished to send a copy of to the pope.” This citation cannot be traced or substantiated, and in any event, the mention 1s so vague that it 1s difficult to link it with the panels in question. A 1641 document by the famous canon and historian Antonius Sanderus discusses only the wings

it

(representing “SS. Prodrom Christi” [John

the Baptist] “et Apostolorum Coryphaer™ [Saint Peter], “a manu Maubeugiana”),® as does a travel diary entry by Balthasar de Monconys in 1663 (published in 1666).”

Unfortunately, there 1s no surviving document that traces a commission by Salamanca to Gossart for this altarpiece or that describes its original appearance. Herein lies the problem, and everything that has been readily accepted by modern scholars about the validity of these panels as a triptych, and even about Salamanca as its patron, cannot

be corroborated.” Additional documents discuss the placement of objects in the Salamanca its foundation in 1515: an altar chapel with a retable, a chalice, a missal, and various tapestries.” Between 1524 and 1529, 2 stained-glass window with the Tree of Jesse and the coats of arms of Spain, as

at

well as various religious vestments, was ordered, and later in 1529 Salamanca commissioned a gilded-copper bas-relief of the Lamentation from the German artist Peter

Wolfgang van Ceulen (see fig. 182). There is no mention of a large triptych in any of these documents or even in Salamanca’s will, which lists the disposal of his most

important possessions, including unicorn horns, a gilded-silver piece holding one of the nails from the Crucifixion, an enamel picture, and an image in silver of Saint Anne. In addition, Maréchal did not

Pa

{

"n

timgs

2- 0

1

explain why the chapel was completed before the Toledo wings, dated 1521, were

executed. He also neglected to question why such a large triptych of the Deposition would be placed in a chapel that was relatively small (only “18 pieds,” or about 5 meters long)."” How and when did the Deposition and the Toledo wings become so closely associated with the Salamanca chapel?" Because of Sanderus’ report, the wings can be placed credibly in the chapel by 1641. The earliest description of the Deposition in the chapel is the 1767 mention, when Garemijn was asked to clean and restore the “triptych.” The period between 1578 and 1584 in Bruges was a particularly turbulent one of Calvinist rule. The religious orders were driven out, and the Salamanca chapel itself was dismantled on June 7, 1580. After Pedro's death, Francisco de

Salamanca, his cousin, rescued objects his from the chapel and stored them

202

the Acts ofthe Apostles tapestry series, woven in Brussels after cartoons that arrived in 1516—17—sources that Van Orley 1s better known for assimilating in his works."” Mantegna’s engraving of the Deposition has been suggested as the model Gossart drew upon for the cross, Christ figure, and weight-bearing man on the ladder." In fact, his Deposition relies far more closely on Van Orley’s design, in

authorship 1s confirmed. Certain scholars have seen more of Van Orley than Gossart in the Hermitage Deposition because the two painters relied simultaneously on some of the same visual

extending horizontally between the two ladders, is gently lowered from the cross by figures above, viewed front and back, assisted by Nicodemus and other male and female helpers below. The collapsed Virgin and attendant Marys are similarly at one side in the foreground, balanced by a

sources—namely, quotes from Mantegna’s engravings and from Raphael’s designs for

reverse, for The Descent from the Cross in his “Square” Passion tapestry series of about 1518-20, woven for Margaret of Austria (fig. 185). In both, Christ's body,

at

when the altar in the Salamanca chapel was reconsecrated to the Virgin Mary and to Saint Bernard, no mention was made of the Salamanca Triptych. Considering the religious strife, the dismantling of churches and chapels, and the redistribution of works of art during and after this period, it is most likely that Gossart’s Deposition joined the Toledo wings long after the founding of the Salamanca chapel. The fact that the Deposition 1s in relatively poor condition and the Toledo wings are excellently preserved underscores the fact that they did not experience the same environmental conditions in the same location on any continuous basis. The authorship and date of the Toledo wings are assured by the signature JOAES MALBODI PINGEBAT on the left interior wing and the notation ANNO 1521 on the right. No such guarantees are offered for the Deposition, which over time has been attributed to Bernard van Orley," Pieter Coecke van Aelst,” and Lucas van Leyden." Certain areas of the picture lack the crispness of detail found in Gossart’s best works. Indeed, portions of the figures and background have been lost and restored, albeit very skillfully.” Yet, in home. In

those portions that are better preserved, the specific handling and execution of various materials and textures, such as the Magdalen’s dress and headdress and Longinus’ gold-cloth jerkin, are familiar from Gossart’s other paintings. Moreover, as Herzog pointed out, the “active composition, contorted figures, and bold colors” are characteristic of the artist,"® whose figures here are expressed in his usual sculptural manner. Finally, the anatomically correct skull in the foreground 1s so close to the remarkable skull on the verso of the Carondelet Diptych (cat. 40) that Gossart’s

1597,

JAN GOsSSART'S RENAISSANCE

TRE :

eo

Bernard van Orley, The Descent from the Cross, from the “Square” Passion tapestry series, ca. 1518-20. Wool, silk, and gilt-metal-wrapped thread, 11 ft. 6% in. x 11 ft. 6% 1n. (345 x 345 cm). Patrimonio Nacional, Fig.

185.

Madnd

(TAa-10/4 10005844)

Fig. 186. Bernard van Orley, The Crucifixion, from Alba

the

tapestry series, ca. 1524—28. Wool, spun silver, and silver-gilt thread, 12 ft. 1% in. x 11 ft. 7% In. (370 x 354 cm). Natonal Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Widener Collection (1942.9.448)

Fig. 187. Raphael, The Stoning of Saint Stephen (detail), from the Acts

of the Apostles tapestry series, 1516—21. Wool, silk, and metalwrapped thread, 12 ft. 1%

in. (450

14 ft. xX

9% in. x

370 cm). Vatican

Museums, Pinacoteca, Vatican State (3871)

crouching figure at the other. The group around the fainting Virgin and the standing Saint John in passionate entreaty with raised praying hands is more closely connected with another of Van Orley’s tapestries, namely, The Crucifixion from the Alba series, of about 1520 (fig. 186)." Both Gossart and Van Orley took from Raphael's Acts of the Apostles series the figure who bends over to pick up a rock

in The Stoning of Saint Stephen (fig. 187), but Gossart’s Longinus 1s even closer to the pose of Raphael's model than is Van Orley’s half-kneeling figure. Finally, the pose of the exquisite Mary Magdalen figure also derives from Raphael: his last work, The Transfiguration of 1518-20, provides the female figure viewed from the back with her left arm raised and her head

turned to the left in profile view (fig. 188). Typically, Gossart does not quote his sources exactly here, but assimilates them in a waythat best suits his own compositional strategies. The Deposition in a certain way 1s his response to the new Romanism expressed in Van Orley’s tapestry designs, which were so admired at Margaret of

Austria's court at Mechelen. Gossart, who was the elder of the two artists by about a decade, visited but did not work in Brussels, the center oftapestry produc-

tion. Nonetheless, he certainly knew Van Orley’s work, and the man himself. It could well have been through Gossart’s connections with the Mechelen court that he met Van Orley and studied his tapestries firsthand.”' The dates ofthe “Square” Passion (ca. 1518-20),

which influenced the com-

position of Gossart’s Deposition, and ofthe Alba series, which provided further figural motifs (designed ca. 1524-26; woven in ca. 1525-28), help to date the Hermitage painting. It most likely does not predate Van Orley’ initial use of Raphael's motifs in about 1520-21, which Van Orley knew well because of his direct dealings with Tommaso Vincidor, Raphael's workshop representative in Brussels.” The Deposition, therefore, probably dates about 1525—that 1s, somewhat later than the dated 1521 wings in Toledo.

Could the Hermitage painting have been the picture that Van Mander

Fig. 188. Raphael, The Transfiguration (detail), 1518-20. Oil on panel, 13 ft. §%2 In. x ¢ ft. 17% in. (410 X 279 cm). Vatican Museums, Pinacoteca, Vatican State (40333)

Paintings

203

Fig. 189. After Jan Gossart, The Deposition, ca. 1525-30. Oil on panel, 22 x 16% in. (55.9 X 42.4 cm). Private

collection, Madrid

Fig. 190. After Jan Gossart, The Deposition, 16th cen-

tury(?). Pen and brown ink, 10% x 7'%e 1n. (26 x 20.2 cm). Musée du Louvre, Paris, Département des Arts Graphiques (19887)

describes in his biography of Gossart as having been seen in Middelburg in the house of Jacob Simonsz. Magnus? He describes it as a large picture in tall format, in which the body of Christ is being let down from the cross, with figures that are about 46 centimeters high.** After Maréchal’s article, which purported to recount the early history of the Hermitage painting, this would have seemed impossible. In light

of the reconsideration of

these documents, Van Mander’s statement may again be entertained. Certainly, this composition was popular enough to have

generated at least one contemporary copy on a small scale (fig. 189), as well as a schematic drawn version (fig. 190) and an adaptation by Pieter Coecke van Aelst for the centerpiece of his triptych, now in the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon, which seem to support the notion that the Deposition could have been a painting either with or without wings.** MWA

.

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

of the provenance of this paint-

ing, sec Hinterding and Horsch 1989; see also

.

ew .

Own

.

.

19.

Maréchal 1963.

20.

Ibid, pp.

®

18.

Koopstra forthcoming a. Held 1933, pp. 138-30.

Ibid. pp. 81-82. Ibid, p12. Ibid. p. 12,n. 7. 12-13, n. 8, This question was already raised in Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 111-18, nos. 13, 14.

Maréchal 1963, p.

21.

Ibid.

22.

11.

The following suggestion of the early whereabouts of

23.

12,

based on Koopstra forthcoming A. Friedlander (1924-37, vol. 8 [1930], pp. 41, 42, 154. no. 18, and 1967-76, vol. 8 [1972], pp. 28~29, 93, The Deposition

the attribution to Van Orley (Marlier 1966, pp. 80-81, 13.

n. 23). See Herzog (1968a, pp. 105-6, 329, no. 62) for the suggestion that Pieter Coecke van Aelst collaborated

15.

with Gossart. In the 1850 sale of the collecuon of William the painting was given to Lucas, and it was acquired by the Hermitage under that name. See X-radiograph and infrared reflectogram in

16.

Hermitage conservation files. Herzog 1968a, p. 105; see also Rotterdam, Bruges

14.

II,

1965, pp. 115, 117.

On these influences, see Thomas

Campbell and Maryan W. Ainsworth, respectively, in New York 2002, pp. 287-303, 304-21, nos. 30-34. P.

1

161, fol. 225v,

1s

no. 18) notes that the Deposition was formerly catalogued under Van Orley’s name. Marlier also favored

Herzog 1968a, p. 330. See Ainsworth in New York 2002, pp. 304-21, nos. 30-34. In fact, the poses of Gossart’s Mary group appear even closer to those of the Virgin Mary and the Mary who supports her with her left hand on the Virgin's in Van Orley'’s Crudfixion in the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford. Ibid., pp. 304-21, nos. 33, 34. Although Gossart most likely visited the Mechelen court carlier, we know for certain that he was there in 1523, when Margaret summoned him restore some of her painungs. Gossart 1903, p. 39. See Ainsworth 2006, esp. pp. 99-106. Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. (1994), pp. 160,

to

11.

10.

17.

204

For a full discussion

24.

lines 13-15.

The small copy

has a curved,

not ogee-arched, top,

which maght indicate the original form Hermitage painting. Exhibition: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no.

of

the

13

Literature: See Literature for cat. 244.8; see also Waagen 1864, p. 121; Semenov 188s, p. 37; Hoogewerff 1912, p. 58;

Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 41, 154, no. 18, pl. xxi; State Hermitage Museum 1958, vol. 2, p. 17; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 111-18, no. 13; Bruyn 1965sb; Fryns 1965, pp. 76-81, no. 68; Vieten 1965; Marler 1966, pp. 80-81; State Hermutage Museum 1967, no. 61; Herzog 1968a, pp. 105-6, 328-30, no. 62; Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 28-29, 93, no. 18, pls. 15, 16, and p. 120, n. 54 (Notes by Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog); Hinterding and Horsch 1989, pp. 69—70; Nikulin 1989, pp. 102-4, no. 48

Jan Gossart

26. Christ Carrying the Cross Ca. 1520-25 Oil on oak panel, 9% x 7% Private collection

1n.

(25.2 x 19 cm)

Condition: The painting is in very good condition.

The highlights of Christ's robe, probably made wath ultramarine, have blanched. investigation: The painting 1s made on one oak panel, which has a vertical split near the left edge. For Techmical

Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. The presence of a barbe and a wood reserve of less than 1 centimeter on all sides indicates that it was made inside its frame. X-radiography and infrared reflectography were carried out by Ron Spronk and Rhona MacBeth in September 2009. There 1s normal distribution of lead white in the composition. The abundance of lead white in the blue of Christ's robe suggests that the pigment may be azurite mixed with white. The area above and below the waist at the right 1s a degraded blue, possibly ultramarine. The very free, loose underdrawing in the figure, landscape, and buildings appears to be made with a dry medium, probably black chalk. Provenance: Private collection, Spain; [Rafael Valls,

London]; [Alexander Gallery, New York]; [Colnaghi, New York]; private collection, from 1983

n this diminutive panel Christ stum-

bles, weighed down by the heavy burden of the cross that he bears (John 19:17). He wears the crown of thorns and the

purple robe he was forced to put on when he was mocked as “King of the Jews.” The temple in the left background and the other buildings to the right indicate the location outside the walls of Jerusalem. This representation is stripped of the usual crowds accompanying Christ's journey to Golgotha. As such, is an Andachtsbild, an image intended for private meditation on Christ's suffering during the Passion. Widely popular texts such as John of

it

Caulibus’ Meditationes vitae Christi (Meditations on the Life of Christ) of about 1300 and Thomas a Kempis’ Imitatio Christi (Imitation of Christ) of the 1420s advocated contemplation focused on the individual events of the Savior life for private devotional practice. Chapters 11 and 12 of

Book

2

of the

Imitation of Christ are titled,

respectively, “On the Few Lovers of the

ofJesus” and “On the Royal Road of the Holy Cross.”” They speak of how many fear to tread the road of the Cross Cross

with Christ, which is the only route to inner peace and salvation. The strong emphasis in these texts on the reader’ personal relationship with Christ through self-denial and suffering finds a visual parallel in the present painting, which is limited to the figure of the Savior. While the panel may once have belonged to a series of images representing the Stations of the Cross or devoted to the Passion that were framed together,” this is perhaps less likely. No other small panels by Gossart have survived that could have been part of such a group. Another possibility is that this panel formed part of a diptych with a praying donor figure at the right. However, no candidate in Gossart’s oeuvre exists for such a reconstruction, and the back of the panel is not painted, as it

would have been if part of a closing diptych. Given its especially close connection to the texts of the Imitation of Christ, this small panel was most likely either framed individually and hung on a wall or possibly hand-held for private devotional practice. Thus little-known panel was last displayed publicly in 1983 in New York, and since then it has been in a private collec-

tion. Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann and Ellen Konowitz catalogued the painting at that time as by Gossart, an attribution supported by comparison with the artist's other works. In the 1520s, Gossart represented Christ in isolated Passion scenes in

and in cat. 27) but also by the specific pose of the figure.

The seemingly awkward, exaggerated

pose of this Christ figure is closest to that of Adam in Gossart’s Vienna drawing Adam and Eve (cat. 65). Each shows a ser-

pentine pose of the body, an impossible position of the right arm and hand— whether grasping the cross or a tree limb (with a second left hand!)—and a forward-moving left foot with splayed big toes. A comparison of the painting with its X-radiograph (fig. 191) indicates that Gossart apparently painted the pose of the spread legs before adding the drapery over them, working out their crucial position first, just as he did in the reworked legs of Adam in the Vienna drawing. The purple of Christ's robe cannot be penetrated with infrared reflectography (perhaps because of a dark underpainting), so the under-

drawing in this area is not visible. But the rest of the composition exhibits Gossart’s typical nervous, jittery line in the very rough and summary sketches for the land-

scape and buildings as well as for Christ's facial features, hands, and feet.” As also typical of many of Gossart’s paintings, straightedge was used, in this case to form

is

a

the contours of the cross, which extend beyond the painted forms in the crossbeam. The buildings in the background of the panel can be related closely to those at the left background of the Hermitage Deposition (cat. 25). The Vienna drawing dates to about 1520-25 and the Hermitage painting to about 1525, and a similar date is likely for Christ Carrying the Cross.

several paintings, in drawings, and in a

print. He portrayed Christ being mocked in both a painting and a print (cats. 27, 114) and also focused on his utter despair before the Crucifixion in Christ on the Cold Stone (cat. 28). All these share Gossart’s deeply felt and poignant depic-

tion of the suffering Jesus, which is conveyed especially by the facial expression (compare, for example, Christ's head here

MWA

1.

2. 3.

My thanks to Peter van den Brink for providing

provenance information. Thomas a Kempis 1997 (ed.), pp. 55-60. Examples of such composite groups with the Passion of Christ include Master of the Blumenthal Passion, Four Scenes from the Passion (41.190.14), and Netherlandish painter, The Fifteen Mysteries and the Virgin of the Rosary (1987.290.3a—p), both in The Metropolitan

Museum of Art; Bruges Master, Triptych with

Scenes

Paintings

20S§

206 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Jan Gossart

27. Christ on the Cold Stone 1527

Onl on oak panel, 20 x 15% 1n. (50.8 x 40.4 cm)

Szépmivészeti Mizeum, Budapest, Bequest of Count Janos Pilffy, 1912 4362 Condition: The painting is in very good condition.

general abrasion throughout, and a fine but prominent crack pattern appears in the pant layers. Discrete paint losses occur mostly along a horizontal split running through the center of the panel as well as at the left edge, which was cut before the painting was completed. The painting was cleaned and restored in 2009-10 by Michael Gallagher at The Metropolitan Museum Art, New York.

There

1s

of

Technical investigation:

The painting

is made

of three

planks of oak joined horizontally, with the wood grain running horizontally. The verso 1s beveled at all edges. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. Infrared reflectography was done by Andris Fay in Budapest; Karen Thomas, with Sarah Kleiner, carried out infrared reflectography and X-radiography at the Metropolitan Museum in April 2010. A very fine linear underdrawing was made visible that is restricted to the contours ofthe figures. Scientific analysis carried out by Silvia A. Centeno and Mark T. Wypyski at the Metropolitan Museum indicated the use of dark gray layers beneath the ultramarine blue jackets of the figures at the far left and right. The couleur-changeant turban of the man at the left has an azurite underpainting for the ultramarine blue and red lake applications on the surface. The paint layers were Fig. 191. Jan Gossart, Christ Carrying the Cross, X-radiograph (cat. 26)

from the Life of Christ (Rob Smeets Collection, Milan; see Dirk De Vos in Bruges 1994, vol. 2, pp. 233-36, no. 9o); and the Retablo of Isabel the Catholic, which

1s

dispersed, but part of which belonged to Margaret of Austria in Mechelen in Gossart’s ime (see Ishikawa 2004). See also Sun Alsteens’ discussion under cat. So for another type of mini-altarpiece with composite Passion scenes. 4.

This type of underdrawing

is

also visible in Gossart’s

Hermaphroditus and Salmaas (cat. 32).

Exhibition: New York 1983, no.

15

Literature: Ellen Konowitz in New York 1983,

p.

17, no.

15

brushed out to the edges of the panel. When the painting was nearly completed, the panel was cut at the left edge. The picture was subsequently framed, and certain areas were reworked or completed, such as the gray hat of the figure at the upper left and the blue garment of the figure at the far right. The cattail or reed was painted as a last stage. Provenance: Vienna, in 1755;'

Count Janos

Pilffy,

Pezinok;” bequeathed by Count Janos Pilffy to the Szépmiivészeti Mlzeum, Budapest, 1912

Oi

of Gossart’s most popular images,

this Andachtsbild exists in as many as twenty surviving copies, which have been given various titles: Christ on the Cold Stone, Christ Mocked, Christ in Distress, and Christ in the Praetorium. Based on

it

Matthew 27:27-29 or Mark 15:16—18, depicts Christ after Pilates interrogation, when he has been taken by the soldiers to the praetorium, stripped, given a scarlet (or purple) robe, and crowned with thorns. His tormenters offered him a reed as a scepter and mocked him with the Paintings

207

retort, “Hail, King of the Jews.” The setting— “beneath the terrace there, into a kind of prison which can be seen to this day” —appears to come from John

of Caulibus’

Meditationes vitae Christi

(Meditations on the Life of Christ), as does the Savior’s sorrowful, contemplative

mood.’ The poignancy of the moment is expressed in the sensitively rendered face of Christ, whose upward glance appeals to his heavenly Father at a moment when he “has renounced all resistance of his own free will." This theme provided an opportunity for Gossart to render a muscular nude body and slightly bent-over torso based on

the

Belvedere Torso (see fig. 194),

which

Gossart must have seen on his 1508-9 trip to Rome and likely recorded in a now-lost drawing. The artist chose not to follow the biblical text exactly—instead of being dressed in a scarlet or purple robe, Christ has a white cloth simply draped over his loins—in order to emphasize the body and Gossart’s adept modeling of it in chiaroscuro. The motley assortment of onlookers includes a Roman soldier, a Jewish Pharisee, a turbaned bailiff, and

two other figures on either side of the large marble column, the one on the right directly confronting the viewer and pointing antagonistically at Christ. These caricatured figures likely derive from Leonardo's famous physiognomic types, which were already in vogue and circulating as copies in prints and drawings in the North beginning in the first decade of the sixteenth century.” They were often used to represent humanity's morally debased nature, particularly as related to the theme

of the Mocking of Christ. Unlike the menacing figures in Quinten Metsys’ paintings in the Palazzo Ducale, Venice, and the Museo del Prado, Madrid,® Gossart’s characters express profound ignorance and awe in the presence of Christ. Gossart was inspired by two prints by Diirer as he considered this composition. One 1s The Man of Sorrows (fig. 192), with Christ in a similar pose on a large stone slab being offered the reed scepter by a jeering soldier, which was featured as the frontispiece of Diirer’s Large Passion of

208

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

1511.

The other

is Diirer’s 1509

engraving

The Man of Sorrows by the Column (fig. 193),

from which Gossart assimilated the general composition: a tightly edited space with Christ at a column, figures looking up at him from below, and an outside view at the upper left corner. But Diirer’s two Andachtsbilder show Christ after the Crucifixion, already bearing the stigmata, not before as in Gossart’s painting. Thus, the presence of the porphyry column at Christ’s back in the painting 1s a threaten-

ing reminder of the scourging to come. Among the large number of surviving copies are several that are signed Joannes Malbodius Invenit 1527 (Philadelphia Museum Art, J. G. Johnson Collection) or Joannes Malbodius Pingebat 1527 (Staat-

of

liche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe),” indicating Gossart’s authorship of an original produced in 1527. Friedlinder apparently did not know the Budapest painting and did in his list of copies; it was not mention only Winkler, in his 1921 Thieme-Becker entry on Gossart, who suggested that this painting might be the original.” The Budapest painting is the only one with five jeering figures; all the other versions have three. A study ofthe painting in Budapest and in New York leaves no doubt that this 1s Gossart’s original, on which every copy is based.” It is very close to prints that Gossart produced toward the

Fig. 192. Albrecht Diirer, The Man of Sorrows, from the Large Passion, 1511. Woodcut, 8% x 7'%e 1n. (22.2 x 19.8 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rogers Fund, 1919 (19.70.1)

it

end of his career: The Mocking of Christ (cat. 114), an etching of about 1525 that in general mimics the composition of the Budapest painting in reverse, and Hercules and Deianira (cat. 118), a woodcut of about 1530 in which Deianira assumes a very similar pose to that of Christ in a comparable setting aptly described by Nadine Orenstein in this volume as looking “like a room in an ancient Roman architecturalsalvage warehouse.”

Furthermore, the painting exhibits characteristic details of Gossart’s work. These include the sensitively rendered head of Christ, very close in its physiognomy to the 1517 Hercules of Hercules and Deianira (cat. 31); the bold articulation of the musculature of Christ’s torso, similar to that of Adam in the Adam and Eve drawing of about 1520-25 in Vienna

Fig. 193. Albrecht Diirer, The Man of Sorrows by the Column, 1509. Engraving, 47%xX 2'%e 1n. (11.6 x 7.5 cm). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Gift of

Edward Habich (m8835)

1

Pa I ings

20 0 >)

(cat. 65); and the beautifully composed motif of the crossed legs, as in the figure

of Danae in the

painting in Munich (cat. 35). Also evident are the small details 1527

so often seen in Gossart’s other paintings:

the chipped edges of stone ledges and platforms; the exquisitely marbled columns, with an incised or double-painted line indicating the reflection oflight on the rounded edge; and the startling color harmonies of blue, pinkish red, and couleur the changeant effects. The outside view Roman triumphal arch at the upper left corner 1s also found in Gossart’s other late works, among them the Washington Virgin and Child and Danae (cats. 21, 35). These comparisons all suggest that the date of 1527 on some of the many copies may well indicate the date ofthe original in Budapest. All of meager quality and execution, the later versions attest to the great popularity of the composition in Gossart’s waning years and thereafter.

to

MWA

1. 2.

3.

4.

Terey 1913,

On

p.

20, no. 47.

Pilffy, see Ciulisova 2006.

John of Caulibus 2000 (ed.), p. 244. Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p.

Saxony. 8.

Winkler 1921b,

although Susan Urbach seemed to be leaning in this direction (see her short entry in Tokyo and other cities 1994). All other authors refer to the Budapest painting as a copy p. 412,

Jan Gossart

28. Christ on the Cold Stone

after Gossart.

thanks to Susan Urbach, Ildiko Ember, Axel Vecsey, and Andras Fay for their help in studying the panting in the Budapest museum’s conservation studio on January 9, 2009. The painting subsequently came to New York to be cleaned and restored by Michael Gallagher in the Department of Paintings Conservation at The Metropolitan Museum ofArt. This allowed for further technical investigation.

9. My sincere

Ca. 1530 Onl on panel, 44% x 33%

84 cm) Real Colegio del Corpus Christi, Valencia 094 1n. (112 x

Condition: The painting 1s in very good condition, but there has not been an opportunity to examine it closely in a conservation studio.

No technical investigations are have been undertaken for this painting.

Technical investigation: Exhibition: Tokyo and other cities 1994, no. 61 Literature: Terey 1913, p. 20, no. 47; Baldass 1917, pp. 3-4: Winkler 1921b, p. 412; Térey 1924, p. 33; Held 19031, p. 123;

Mayer-Meintschel 1958; Lossky 1964, p. 101, n. 1, MayerMeintschel 1966, pp. 35-36; Rudloff-Hille 1967, pp. 116, Herzog 1968a, pp. 350-52, no. 76; Silver 1986a, pp. 29, 39, n. 91; Susan Urbach in Tokyo and other cities 1994, pp. 168-69, 219-20, no. 61; Mensger 2002, 119, 120, 122;

Pp. 149-50

known

to

Mendoza (1508-1554); Juan de Ribera, Valencia, 1569—1611;" Real Colegio del Corpus Christ, Valencia, from 1611 Provenance: Possibly Mencia de

ariously known as Christ on the

Cold Stone or Christ as the Man of Sorrows, this theme was developed in late medieval narrations of the Passion. It refers to that moment after the “Ecce Homo” when Christ was taken into a subterranean chamber and stripped of his clothes prior to being tied to a column and scourged. This particular version of the theme 1s generally reminiscent of the Budapest Passion scene (cat. 27). Whereas

31.

Kwakkelstein 1994, pp. 115-19. 6. Illustrated in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 7 (1971), p. 61, 5.

7.

collection of Count Schall-Riaucour, Gaussig Castle,

there Christ

1s

the embodiment of

nos. 10, 11, pls. 16, 17. The following copies ofthe Budapest painting are known: Komnklyk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,

Antwerp; Staathchen Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie (no. 181); formerly collection Mme Dugniolle, Brussels; W. Schmutz collection, Cologne (formerly J. P Weyer, Cologne); Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, Gemaldegalerie (no. 805A); Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent (no. 82/5-62); Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe (no. 150); formerly Count of Castello-Melhor, Lisbon; art market London (Sackville Gallery, 1908); formerly New-York Historical Society (no. D.40); formerly Beckstein collection, Berlin; Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia; sale, Christie's, London,

October

27, 1989,

no. 195; Pushkin State Museum

of

Fine Arts, Moscow (no. 2844); Philadelphia Museum of Art, |. G. Johnson Collection (no. 391); Musée des

Beaux-Arts, Tours (no. 1962-12-5); sale, Millon & Associés, Paris, November 7, 2008, no. 4; sale, Christie's, New York, June 2, 2005, no. 24; Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig (no. 1094); sale, Sotheby's, London, October 28, 1999, no. 279; sale, Sotheby's, New York, October 17, 1997, no. 76; sale, Hotel de Ventes, Horta, December 9, 1996, no. 145; formerly Guecco collection, Genoa; Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, Cracow (no. N.1.4903); Chazen Museum ofArt, Madison, Wisconsin (no. 58-4-3); private collection, Belgium, formerly

210 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

of Athens,

Belvedere Torso, 1st century B.C. Marble, H. 62% mn. (159 cm). Musco PioClementino, Vatican Museums, Vatican State (1192) Fig. 194. Apollonius

Pa n

itng0s

n 211

patience, completely resigned to the torments he must endure, here he is the mel-

ancholy hero whose taut musculature and profoundly distraught expression reveal the depths of his anguish. There are no clear attributes of the Passion, only a subtle suggestion of the column to which he will be bound for thrashing and a long, decoratively displayed cloth draped over his thighs, which anticipates the shroud used to wrap his body after the Crucifixion.

The relative absence of detail encourages

Fig. 196. Camelio (Victor Gambello), Seated Hercules Shooting at the Stymphalian Birds, ca. 1515-20. Bronze, H. 9% in. (24.8 cm). The Metropolitan Museum

of

Art, New York, Gift of C. Ruxton Love Jr., 1964 (64.304.2)

212 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

such example based on the Belvedere Torso. That the Valencia Christ is very close to the pose, in reverse, found in Gossart’s

sculptural form of the body as a way to convey meaning. Whether for Hercules, Adam, or Christ, he pursued the same aesthetic approach.® The common source for several of the male figures in his late paintings, including the Valencia Christ,

support

was the Belvedere Torso (fig. 194). Although

in Valencia very early on, in the collection of Juan de Ribera, archbishop of the diocese of Valencia from 1569 and founder of the Real Colegio del Corpus Christi, which he bequeathed the painting in 1611. Just how Ribera acquired the painting is

psychological pain and suffering.” The sheer physical bulk of the figure and the exaggerated modeling of his muscular form led some early on to identify him as Samson.” Gossart did not separate biblical from mythological subject matter in his continuing development of the

of

Seated Hercules Shooting at the Stymphalian Birds of about 1515-20 (fig. 196) is just one

etching The Mocking of Christ (cat. 114)’ suggests that the two may well have depended on the same working drawing. In addition, the exaggerated, overly detailed rendering of the musculature of the Valencia Christ 1s shared by the figure of Adam in the Providence drawing, a work that Stijn Alsteens considers a close copy after Gossart (see cat. 68). These are among Gossart’s latest works, a supposition strengthened by comparison with the Budapest Christ of 1527 (cat. 27), which shows a more restrained, softer modeling of the male torso.” A date of about 1530 for the Valencia painting finds additional

the viewer to meditate solely on Christ in his lamentable state. It is an Andachtsbild of

Fig. 195. Marcantonio Raimondi, Mars, Venus, and Eros (detail), 1508. Engraving, 11% x 8%. in. (28.6 x Art, New 20.7 cm). The Metropolitan Museum York, Rogers Fund, 1918 (18.84.2)

might have been influenced by the small Renaissance bronzes produced in the first quarter of the sixteenth century that likewise mimicked the anatomy of antique sculpture, especially the expression of the heroic torso. The Metropolitan Museum's

no drawing by Gossart survives of this famous sculpture, which was already noted as in the collection of Cardinal Prospero Colonna by Ciriaco d’Ancona between 1432 and 143s,” he must have recorded it on his trip to Rome. Gossart would have encountered it after its move to the statue court of the Belvedere, where 1t was placed on a base. The anatomy of the Roman sculpture and the animal skin on which the man sits suggested a Hercules, but there was considerable speculation about the original pose, as the figure lacks its head, arms, and legs.” A variety of solutions could thus be explored in all media, and Gossart’s own completion of the fragment may have been inspired by Marcantonio Raimondi’s signed and dated engraving, the Mars, Venus, and Eros of 1508 (fig. 195). In the unimpeded view and detailed articulation of the musculature of the torsos, Gossart’s Christ and Marcantonio’s Mars bear a striking resemblance; even the arrangement of the limbs 1s somewhat similar. Gossart also

from

its likely provenance. It was

to

not known, but a logical assumption 1s that it came into his hands after the death in 1554 of Mencia de Mendoza, to whom the picture may have belonged. Mencia, the daughter of the Marquis of Zenete, who lived in Valencia, and the wife of Henry III of Nassau-Breda, had moved with her husband to Flanders. After Henry's death, she returned to Valencia and in 1541 married Ferdinand of Aragon, the Duke of Calabria and Viceroy of Valencia. In Gossart’s final years, from 1530 to 1532, he was employed by Mencia, who paid him a regular salary. Although the inventories of her belongings do not specifically list a painting of Christ on the Cold Stone, it is quite probable that Gossart produced the work for Mencia, who then took it to Valencia upon her return. MWA

1.

A highly influential religious and civil authority, Juan de Ribera (1532-1611) was archbishop and viceroy of Valencia, patriarch of Antioch, commander in chief, president of the Audiencia, and chancellor of the

University of Valencia. He founded the Museo del Patriarca, Valencia, today known as the Real Colegio del Corpus Christ. 2. For a further discussion of representations of Christ in distress, and mm particular Durer’s depictions of the melancholic state, see Koerner 1993, esp. pp. 17-27. 3. The subject was given as such in an 1891 inventory of the Colegio, but since the 1932 catalogue by Tormo y Monzo it has been listed as “Christ as a Man of Sorrows.” See Benito Doménech 1980, p. 37. 4. For further thoughts on this aspect of the artist's development, see Mensger 2002, pp. 153-55. 5. Haskell and Penny 1981, pp. 311-14, no. 8o, fig. 165. 6. Ibid., p. 313. 7.

Fernando Benito Doménech in Valencia 2001, p. 310, and Mensger 2002, pp. 149-33, also make these

comparisons. 8. A late dating for the Valencia Christ 1s supported by Herzog 19684, p. 301; Benito Doménech in Valencia 2001, p. 310; and Mensger 2002, pp. 149-53. Exhibitions:

Madnd 1998-99, no.

216; Valencia 1999, no. §;

Valencia 2001, no. 59 Literature: Tormo y

Monzé

1923, p. 111; Friedlander

(1930), pp. 46-47, 154, no. 20; Tormo y Monz6 1932, p. 130; Robres Lluch and Castell Maiques 1924-37, vol.

8

no. 55; Carcel Orti 1962, p. 49; Herzog 1968a, Pp. 300-303, no. 46; Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), PP. 31,93, no. 20, pl. 25; Benito Doménech 1980, p. 169, no. 18; Benito Doménech 1991, pp. 31-32; Maria Pilar 1951, p. $5,

Silva Maroto in Madrid 1998-99, pp. §78—79, no. 216; Fernando Benito Doménech in Valencia 1999, pp. 38-41, no. §; Bemto Doménech in Valencia 2001, pp. 310-11, 460-61, no. 59; Mensger 2002, pp. 14953; Gomez

Frechina 2007, pp. 91-92

Jan Gossart

29. Deesis (Virgin Mary, Christ Blessing, and Saint John the Baptist) Ca. 1525-30

Oil on paper attached to oak panel; oil and gilding on oak panel, curved top, 48 x §2% in. (122 x 133 cm) Inscribed (on pectoral of Christ’s robe): 11s Watermark (visible on pieces of paper underneath all four painted heads): Gothic P Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid ris10 Condition: The painting

1s

in good condition,

although

somewhat obscured by a darkened varnish. Recent panel restoration (2009-10) has been undertaken to secure some splits and cracks. Technical investigation: Previous

X-radiography exists, and recent infrared reflectography has been undertaken,’ the results of which are discussed below. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. king of Spain (r. 1556-98), delivered by Philip II to the Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo del Escorial, August 18, 1584; transferred to the Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, 1839 Provenance: Philip 11,

ne of Gossart’s most sumptuous works, and certainly an exceptional commission, is this Deesis. Although the painting 1s ultimately based on an ancient Byzantine-icon type,” its direct model was Jan and Hubert van Eyck’s 1432 altarpiece The Adoration of the Lamb, from Saint

Cathedral, Ghent. Gossart assimilated the principal figures from the interior of the altarpiece—Christ in Glory, the Virgin Mary, and Saint John the Baptist—nbut he made significant modifications that slightly alter the meaning. In Gossart’s painting the central figure appears without the papal miter and staff and thus 1s not shown as Rex regnum et Dominus dominantium (King of Kings and Lord of Lords). He simply wears a large pectoral with the identifying insignia IHS. In her role as the chief intercessor for humankind, the Virgin Mary prays to Christ rather than reading scriptures, as she does in the Van Eyck painting. Looking toward Christ's blessing hand, John the Baptist points to the Savior. Two appropriate texts from the Gospel of Saint John come to mind: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), and “And this is the Bavo’s

Fig. 197. The royal monastery

of Brou, 1506-32.

Bourg-en-Bresse

will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise

him up again at the last day” (John 6:40). In another departure from the Ghent Altarpiece, a bust-length angel, taken from the Angel Gabriel of the outside left wing of the Van Eyck work, hovers above these holy figures and sings from an unfurled scroll

of music.

While the altarpiece and the Deesis share the message of Christ's sacrifice and redemption of humankind, the differences in the figures indicate a shift in emphasis for the meaning and function of Gossart’s work. The Deesis must have been installed at a burial site, where prayers were recited for the soul of the deceased, the intercessory powers of the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist (effectively conveyed by their carefully arranged hand gestures) were solicited, and Christ was petitioned for his forgiveness of the sins and his blessing of the departed. As such, would have served a purpose similar to Rogier van der

it

Paintings

213

Weyden'’s Braque Triptych of about 1450 (Musée du Louvre, Paris), also with a

Deesis centerpiece, painted as a memorial to Jean Braque. The attribution of the Deesis to Gossart has been widely accepted,’ but a reconsideration ofits dating 1s needed in light of

cerning its commission. The Deesis has most often been dated to about 1513-17." In terms of style, however, it cannot be linked, as it usually 1s, with the Malvagna Triptych of about 1513-15 (cat. 6) or to

certain stylistic considerations, new tech-

Gossart’s so-called early Eyckian phase, which can no longer be supported.” As Matt Kavaler discusses elsewhere in this

nical evidence, and a new proposal con-

volume, the Flamboyant Gothic and

214 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

antique manners coexisted in Gossart’s oeuvre, and the simultaneous appearance of such disparate modes throughout his career depended upon specific commissions and the taste of the patron. The style of the architectural embellishments of the niches in the Deesis 1s Flamboyant Gothic, but the acanthus-leaf forms of the tracery, especially those above Christ's head with

Fig. 198. Jan Gossart, Deesis (detail

of cat.

29)

Fig. 200. Loys van Boghem and Jan van Roome, Tomb of Margaret of Austria (detail of fig. 43)

Fig. 199. Jan Gossart, The Annunaation, from the socalled Salamanca Triptych (detail ofcat. 244)

pomegranate seeds or grapes at their centers,” more closely resemble those found in the 1521 Annunciation wings (cat. 24A,B; compare figs. 198 and 199) than the fanciful and exuberant Late Gothic constructions of the earlier Malvagna Triptych.’ Indeed, the dendrochronology of the Deesis also tends to support a later date (see the Appendix). A closer look at the specific shape and decorative embellishment of the Deesis provides clues to its possible commission

and original location. A painting of this exact description with two wings (unspecified) was delivered by Philip II to El Escorial on August 18, 1584." How Philip acquired it 1s not known, but he received many important works of art through his Habsburg relatives, among whom was Margaret of Austria, who bequeathed them to Charles V and to Mary of Hungary before they reached Philip. The rather squat trefoil shape of the Deesis is unusual but compares closely to the giant trefoils spanning the west and north portals of the church of Saint-Nicolas-deTolentino at the royal monastery of Brou at Bourg-en-Bresse (see fig. 197), the burial site of Margaret and her beloved husband, Philibert II of Savoy (d. 1504), as well as Philibert’s mother, Margaret of Bourbon.” A masterpiece of Flamboyant Gothic, this architectural complex and its interior embellishment, including the

Fig. 201. Jan Gossart, Deesis, infrared reflectogram (detail

of

cat.

29)

Paintings

215

The materials and technique

tombs, was a long-term project commissioned by Margaret and lasting from 1506 until her death in 1530. Margaret's tomb,

designed by Loys van Boghem and Jan van Roome and constructed between 1516 and 1532, also favors the squat trefoil form on three sides of the canopy, as well as a tracery with deeply cut acanthus motifs that clearly resemble the decorative embellishment of the Deesis (compare figs. 198 and 200; see also fig. 43).

Margaret of Austria employed a succession of architects and sculptors on this project, among them Conrad Meit, who was engaged between 1526 and 1531 to produce a lifesize recumbent figure of the archduchess for each of the two tiers of her tomb monument. Meit had begun to work as Margaret's court sculptor in Mechelen in 1515, and before that he had probably been in the employ of Philip of Burgundy, in which capacity Gossart would have first known him. Meit received Gossart as a guest at his house at the SintPieterskerkhof in June 1523," when Margaret employed the latter for an unspecified number of days to work on 216 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

of

cat.

29)

some paintings and to restore others in her

collection." If the Deesis was indeed commissioned by Margaret for the burial monument at Brou, then it could have been on this occasion in Mechelen that such a contract was first discussed with Gossart. The theme of the Deesis certainly would have been appropriate for Margaret's burial site. Although her tomb and her husband’s were similar in complexity and size, only hers was placed adjacent to a private chapel and oratory where ceremonies could take place and prayers be said in her honor. A great patron of music, Margaret wrote and commissioned religious compositions for such occasions. Among these is the “Lament for the Death of Philibert,” composed between 1519 and 1530."* Any direct association between these songs and the angel who sings at the top of the Deesis remains elusive, as the angel's music and text cannot be identified.” In addition to a monumental alabaster altarpiece devoted to the Seven Joys of the Virgin, Margaret's chapel, located on the north side of the choir, would have had space for a painting such as the Deesis."

the

high-level commission and special access to the Ghent Altarpiece. For the only known occasion in his work, Gossart used gold leaf for the Gothic framework and tracery surrounding the figures. This, of course, was far more costly and labor intensive than fashioning the tracery as usual with lead-tin yellow paint to produce the illusion of gold, as he did, for example, in the Malvagna Triptych. There is a one-to-one relationship between the heads in Gossart’s painting and their counterparts in the Ghent Altarpiece." It is likely that Gossart’s were traced directly from the Van Eyck painting, as the heads were all initially drawn on rectangular-shaped paper (with the same Gothic P watermark; fig. 201),"* which probably was oiled to make the sheets transparent for tracing. Further confirmation of this hypothesis is found in certain details of the underdrawings. For example, the underdrawing for Christ's head shows the headband and large central pearl traced from the Christ in the altarpiece but not painted in Gossart’s version. Likewise, the V-shaped neckline of the angels robe 1s copied exactly from that of the Van Eyck Gabriel but was changed in the paint layers of the Deesis to a different design. In each case the paper was then pasted onto the grounded panel and subsequently worked up in oil along with the rest of the composition. These tracings were augmented by a pattern for the architecture and tracery that made use of a compass as well as incised and ruled lines, following Gossart’s usual practice.” Finally, Gossart worked in the poses of the hands with spontaneous and quite vigorous underdrawing, probably in black chalk (fig. 202; see also fig. 64). This manner of drawing—including the loose outlines of forms, parallel hatching for deep shadows, and squiggly lines for half-shadows—is also found in other late paintings by Gossart, such as the female donor in the Norfolk Triptych of about 1528-30 in Brussels (cat. s5¢). According to Jozef Duverger, the clergy at Saint Bavo’s, wishing to protect the Van Eyck masterpiece under their care, refused Deesis

Fig. 202. Jan Gossart, Deesis, infrared reflectogram (detail

indicate both

of

a

authorization for any copies to be made directly from it for 125 years after its creation. These restrictions broke down in 1557—59, when King Philip II of Spain succeeded in obtaining permission for Michiel Coxie to copy the work." Given such stringent restrictions, only someone with the highest authority, such as Margaret of Austria, regent of the Netherlands, could have insisted on direct access for Gossart to make tracings of the Deesis group from the altarpiece. Although documentation for this 1s lacking, the opportunity did exist. On January 19, 1526, Isabella of Austria, wife of the exiled King Christian II of Denmark, died and was buried at SintPietersabdij, Ghent. By February 9 of that year, Christian had commissioned designs for her tomb from Gossart (see cat. 108)."” This may well have occasioned Gossart’s presence in Ghent and afforded him chance to copy the figures from the Ghent Altarpiece at Margaret's behest.

a

MWA

See Garndo 1999; and Ana Gonzalez Mozo Madrid 2006, pp. 102-13, no. 4. 2. For the influence of Byzanune art on early 1.

1n

Netherlandish painting, see Ainsworth 2004, esp. p. 555; and Maryan W. Ainsworth in New York 2004, Pp. 556-93, nos. 329-55. 3.

Von der Osten (1961, p. 463), however, assigns only the design of the architecture and the painted angel to Gossart.

4. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 45; von der

457; Herzog 1968a, p. 233; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 30-31; Silva Maroto 2001, p. 116; Mensger 2002, p. 34; Gonzilez Mozo in

Osten 1961,

p.

Madrid 2006,

Only Jozef Duverger (1954, p. 54. n. 17) suggested a later date of 1524, when Gossart would have been in Ghent to meet with Christian 11 of Denmark to make his portrait. 5. For arguments against the artst’s so-called Eyckian phase, see my essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume. 6. It is difficult to say for sure whether pomegranate seeds or grapes are depicted here. However, both refer to “the resurrection and the eternal salvation of the righteous,” as 1s appropriate for the theme here. See p. 102.

Falkenburg 1994, p.

10.

See Kavaler 2000, pp. 228-30, for a detailed description of the tracery forms of the Malvagna Triptych. 8. The text of the document containing this description 7.

1s

given in Madrid 1998-99, p. 438, no.

of

117.

A

the painting is in the sixteenth-century copy Monasterio de las Descalzas Reales, Madrid, although it is not known when 1t entered the collection or under what circumstances. My thanks to Ana Garcia Sanz, Conservadora del Patrimomo Nacional, for

information on this painting. See also Bermejo Martinez 1980, pp. 0-354, no. 4. 9. Carpino 1997; Freigang 2003; Kavaler 2004; Gelfand 2007. 10. 11.

12.

13.

J. Duverger 1934, pp. 731. Gossart 1903, p. 39. See Catherine M. Maller in Mechelen 200s, pp. 136-37, no. 43, for this music.

The many attempts to identify the music in the Prado panting have not been successful as yet, but | am grateful to numerous musicologists in this country and abroad for their help in this quest.

14.

The Prado Deesis 1s not mentioned in the inventories of the pieces that Margaret gave to Brou. I am grateful to Magal Philippe for correspondence on this issue and for her willingness to share information about these inventories with me (emails of April 20, 2004, and June

15.

16.

1,

2005, author’ files). The large trip-

tych of the Crucifixion that Margaret commissioned for Brou from Bernard van Orley was not finished when she died, and her heir, Charles V, kept it in the Netherlands; today it occupies the main altar of Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk in Bruges. Gonzilez Mozo in Madrid 2006, pp. 105, 107. The watermark 1s closest to nos. 8562 and 8574 in Briquet and appears on all four pieces of the paper, which 1s German and was made from the last thard of the fifteenth through the first half of the sixteenth

century (Briquet 1923/1966, vol. 3). 17. See my essay cited in note § above. 18. J. Duverger 1954. 19. Such a strongly Catholic icon as the Prado Deesis could not have been made for the burial site of Isabella, who embraced the teachings of Martin Luther, felt sympathy for Protestantism, and received communion under the Protestant rite in 1524 on a visit to Nuremberg. This so enraged her Habsburg relatives that she was advised thereafter by her husband to hide her Protestant views,

Jan Gossart 30. Neptune and Amphitrite 1516

Oil on oak panel, 75% x 50% in. (191 x 128.4 cm) Signed and dated (on platform below figures): IOANNES MALBODIVS PINGEBAT 1516

Inscribed (on lintel above Amphitrite’s head): 4 / pLvs SERA// philippe bowrg[ogne Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie 648 Condition: The painting

1s

in very good condition, with

only minor restorations along some of the panel joins and locally throughout. The edges are original; there 1s a barbe and wood reserve on all sides except at the lower left edge, where the panel has been cut by approximately 2 centimeters. Technical investigation: The oak panel

1s

composed,

unusually, of eight horizontal instead of vertical planks. The panel has been planed down and the panel thickness varies from 16 to 21 mm (mostly 20 mm). For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. New infrared reflectography was carried out by Christoph Schmidt (June 18, 2009); very little or no underdrawing was made visible in the figures. There 1s a plumb line down the center of the painting as well as numerous incised lines used to establish the forms

of the architecture; the many regularly placed tiny

prick marks in the decoratve features (column capitals and bases, fluted columns, and gold balls in the ceiling border) were made to facilitate the correct perspective drawing of these forms. No X-radiography

is available.

Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 8; El Escorial 1986,

comnussioned by Philip of Burgundy for his castle at Souburg; Edward Solly (1776-1844), Berlin and London; acquired with the purchase of the Edward Solly collection by the

no. r. 60; Madrid 1998-99, no. 117; Madnd 2006, no. 4

Gemaldegalerie, Berlin, 1821

Literature: Hymans 1893, pp. 388ff; Weale 1908, Addenda, pp- 209-10; Hoogewerff 1912, p. 45; Weisz 1913b, pp. 19-20, 120, pl. m1, 5; Winkler 1921a, pp. 8ff.; Winkler 1921b, p. 411;

Winkler 1924, p. 241; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), PP. 45, 154, no. 19, pl. xx11; Zarco Cuevas 1930, p. 53 (inv. no. 1261); Brom 1941, pp. 20-21; Gluck 1945, p. 124; Sanchez Canton 1952, p. 359 (inv. no. 1510); Panofsky 1953, PP. 220, 353, 448, n. 220; J. Duverger 1954, p. 54; von der Osten 1961, pp. 457, 463; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 81-84, no. 8; Herzog 1968a, pp. 73, 232-33, no. 11; Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 30—31,93, no. 19, pl. 24; El Escorial 1986, p. 146, no. p. 60; Steppe 1990, p. 30; Checa Cremades 1992, p. 412; Maria Pilar Silva Maroto in Madrid 1998-99,

Garndo

1999; Mensger 1999, pp. 273-80; Mensger 2000, p. 47; Silva Maroto 2001, pp. 116-18; Komg 2002, pp. 751-52; Mensger 2002, pp. 34-39: Ana Gonzilez Mozo in Madrid 2006, pp. 102-13, no. 4; Mensger 2008b,

p- 438, no. 117;

pp. 204—6

Provenance: Probably

IN ee

the earliest surviving large-scale mythological composition in northern European painting to depict nude figures in antique architecture, and it 1s Gossart’s best-documented work. Dated 1516, it has the artist's first signature using the Latinized form and Amphitrite

1s

IOANNES MALBODIVS PINGEBAT instead

of the more modern Jennin

Gossart

of his earlier works. By employing the imperfect tense—pingebat (was painting)— Gossart associated himself with Apelles, the most illustrious painter of antiquity, who according to Pliny the Elder also signed his name in the imperfect tense, Apelles faciebat. Both artists thus indicated that their work was never fully finished and could always be improved.’ Paintings

217

Fig. 203. Jan Gossart, Neptune and Amphitrite (detail of cat. 30)

conceit of such a text can be linked to the fashion in noble circles of inscribing the most important illuminations of contemporary secular vernacular texts (for example, fig. 204).> Important illuminated volumes were often, and sometimes elaborately, personalized by adding the owners’ coats of arms, devices, and mottoes near the upper edge of selected folios. Rather than being simply a clue to the owner’ identity, these additions brought together “text and owner, past and present, as a conscious link, binding each to the other as part of joint hypertextual statement.” As Scot McKendrick further suggests, “many such manuscripts were conceived as markers in the life of a particular social class [and] . . . northern nobles sought to understand the present and their position in it by reference to the past.”* This merging of past and present enabled contemporary nobles to connect themselves to such historical figures as Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great. In his De Copia of 1512, Erasmus discussed a similar practice as a rhetorical device in which the orator 1s encouraged to compare a ruler’ traits with those of illustrious past heads of state.” By adding Philip of Burgundy’s motto and name to the upper right corner of this painting—just as in important secular manuscripts of the day—Gossart likewise indicated the nobleman’s strong personal identification with Neptune, god of the seas, and with the art of antiquity.” Philip was admiral of the Burgundian fleet from 1502 to 1517, and this painting 1s not only a commemoration of his power and prowess in that position but also a visual manifestation of Gerard Geldenhouwer’s anointment of him as

a

es \

SIRE

RRP Peds

eeeve RES

Fig. 204. David Aubert and Loyset Liédet, The Scribes Workshop, from L'Histoire de Charles Martel, vol. 3, 1470-72. Distemper on parchment, 16% x 117%, 1n. (41 x 29 cm).

Brussels (Ms.

Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique,

8,

fol. 7r)

In the upper right corner

an indication of ownership, added in a seemingly impromptu and casual script: A / PLVS

SERA //phlilipp Je

1s

bourg[og[ne (fig. 203).

“More to come” was Philip of Burgundy’ motto, and the abbreviated form of his name appears just below it. This inscription has always been considered a later addition to the painting, made after the original frame, on which this information might have been inscribed, was lost or intentionally removed.” However, the 218

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

endeavor to create a humanist court, Philip brought to Souburg the artist Jacopo de’ Barbari in 1510, his poet laureate Geldenhouwer in 1514, and Gossart in 1516 (who at the time lived in nearby Middelburg).” Geldenhouwer lauded these artists as “Jacopo de’ Barbari the Venetian and John of Mabuse, the Xeuxis and Apelles of our age.”'” And he praised his patron, who had studied ancient rhetoric at the University of Leuven, as “superhuman in ingenuity."

Unfortunately, Philip’ castle at Souburg has not survived. Although Neptune and Amphitrite doubtless took pride of place among his other mythological paintings, neither the identity of these works nor the arrangement of them at Souburg is known. Wherever Neptune and Amphitrite was installed, we can be certain that it was meant to be seen from below, as the viewer’s eye level is at the knees of the large nude figures. The precedent in early Netherlandish painting for such lifesize figures presented di sotfo in si is Jan van Eyck’s Adam and Eve from the Ghent

Princeps Philippus Burgundus, oceani praefectus

(Ruler Philip of Burgundy, governor of the sea) in his Epistola de Zelandiaesitu of 1514.”

The use of the term

oceani praefectus

specifically links Philip to Neptune, who was given that title in triumphal processions described in fifteenth-century humanist literature.” Given its date of 1516, the painting must have been commissioned for Philips castle at Souburg, which he had inherited in 1508. In his

Fig. 205. Jacopo de’ Barbar, Mars and Venus, ca. 1509-16. Engraving, 1176 X 7%e in. (29 x 18 cm). National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Alisa Mellon Bruce

Fund (1985.26.1)

Pa

i itIngs

>

Altarpiece of eighty-four years earlier." Gossart’s ideally constructed classical nudes, however, have nothing whatsoever to do with Van Eyck’s Gothic types. Rather, Gossart found readily available sources in Diirer’s Adam and Eve engraving (1504) and de’ Barbari’s Mars and Venus (figs. 117, 205). He also must have recalled his trip to Rome of eight years earlier and his drawing of the Apollo Citharoedus (cat. 99), whose contrapposto stance he reversed for Neptune. As Duncan Bull has

recently pointed out, Gossart apparently also knew the fresco cycle by Jacopo Ripanda at the Palazzo dei Conservator, including the Battle of the Aegadian Islands, a theme of interest to Philip of Burgundy in his role as admiral. Featured between the windows of the room are Ripanda’s colossal nude figures of Neptune and Amphitrite embracing, a rare depiction in painting that must have stayed in Gossart’s visual memory (see fig. 207). Although the pair are seated rather than standing as in Gossart’s painting, they do provide a clearer source for his ample, even chunky, embracing figures than those of Diirer and de’

Barbar."

Even though Gossart’s amorous couple nods to Italian compositions and motifs,

imbued with Netherlandish realism. Every hair on the heads of Neptune and Amphitrite 1s rendered in great detail, as are the catchlights of their eyes and the teeth behind Amphitrite’s slightly open lips. Neptune's soft beard 1s depicted with as much attention as the triton shell (Charonia tritonis) covering his penis and the scallop-shell bonnet worn by his wife, the Nereid Amphitrite. In their imposing size, stance, and detailed depiction, these figures are thrust into the viewer's space, seemingly beyond the bounds of comfort and decorum.” These edgy, erotic mythological characters are clearly meant to titillate as well as to represent Philip of Burgundy’s connection with the world of antiquity.’ The double-columned cella in which Neptune and Amphitrite stand 1s an 1imaginative reconstruction of elements of ancient monuments.” Sadja Herzog suggested that the twosome

1s

Gossart may have taken inspiration from 220

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Pausanias’ Description of Greece, a guidebook that was known in manuscripts throughout medieval times and was published in the first printed edition by S. Musurius in

.

1

also Baxandall 1971, p. 64. re . .

Venice in 1516." The description therein of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia and its cult

statue by Phidias (although seated instead of standing) bears a resemblance to the setting and details of Neptune and Amphitrite: it was inscribed with the artist's name under the feet of the cult figure, set in a Doric temple surrounded by columns, and presented a figure of gold and ivory whose head was garlanded with olive shoots." Such descriptions may at least have stirred Gossart’s imagination to choose the particular com-

bination of antique features of his composition. Vitruvius perhaps was another source. As Herzog pointed out,Vitruvius’ De architectura describes among other details how a

cult image should be placed in an elevated position so that the viewer must look up at it and suggests that the strength and mass of the Doric order should be employed for virile gods like Hercules, and therefore perhaps also

Neptune.

Pliny, Natural History; sce Pliny the Elder 1949-62 (ed.), vol. (1949), pp. 16, 17 (preface, ine 26). See

Most recently Schrader 2007-8, p. 51. For examples of mottoes and other identifying marks of owners added to the most important folios of their manuscripts, see Bern, Bruges, Vienna 2008-10, p. 46, fig. 22, no. 130, and pls. 41, 42.

McKendrick 2003, pp. 72-73. 5. See Schrader (2007-8, pp. 46—47) on Erasmus and the importance of De Copia. 6. For a fuller discussion of the extent to which Philip may have identified with Neptune, see ibid. PP. 43-47. Marisa Bass is developing further the concept of the Netherlandish revival of antiquity, the contribution of humamst hiterature to its revival, and Gossart’s role in her Harvard PhD dissertation, “Gossaert and the Orators: The Arust’s Role in the Netherlandish Revival of Antiquity” In a workshop, “Jan Gossart: Questioning Old Assumptions,” at the Historians of Netherlandish Art Conference in .

Amsterdam (May 27-29, 2010), Ms. Bass offered a new interpretation of Amphitrite as a personification of Zeeland, a theory that she will be exploring fur-

.

ther in her dissertation. On Philips esteemed position as admiral of the Burgundian fleet and his political connections with Maximilian I, Margaret of Austria, and Charles V, as well as his diplomatic missions for them, see Sicking

.

2004, passim; and Schrader 2007-8, pp. 43—47. As Schrader (2007-8, p. 46) has discussed; see esp. Sterk 1980, pp. 117-18; and Sicking 2004, p. 101.

Sterk 1980, p. 111 10. “Jacobum Barbarum Venetum et Joannem Malbodium, nostra aetatis Zeuxim et Apellem.” Geldenhouwer 1529/1901, p. 235. Il. “Ingenio supra humanum est.” From a pamphlet printed by Dirk Martens, April 3, 1516, in Leuven. See Sterk 1980, pp. 112, 183, n. 76. See also Geldenhouwer .

However, Gossart reformulated his sources to establish his own brand of antique architecture, as described in Matt Kavaler’s essay in this volume. He carefully united these features in a classic Albertian perspective scheme, whose vanishing point is found at the lower right edge of

Neptune's left knee.” Perhaps with the ancient examples of Phidias’ cult statue and Vitruvius’ instructions for the placement of cult statues in mind, Gossart planned for the viewer to be visually overwhelmed by the massive, volumetric figures of Neptune and Amphitrite above. Like living sculptures, they stand on a plinth that is inscribed with Gossart’s name in its Latinized form. Here Gossart deliberately refers to the medium of sculpture, for he inscribed his name as Phidias did, seemingly “cut into the stone” of the pedestal beneath the figures. Yet, at the same time, he reminds us of his extraordinary mastery at illusionism by

using the word pingebat (was painting) instead offaciebat (was made).* MWA

.

13.

14.

1516/1901, p. 210, See Komg 2002. D. Bull 2010. An even closer comparison with Ripanda’s figures is Gossart’s Hercules and Deianira (cat. 31).

See Kenneth Clark's description of this painting (Clark 1956, p. 334); quoted in Nead 1992, p. 21. 16. See, most recently, Schrader 2007-8, pp. 47-53. For 15.

varying viewpoints on this issue, see Herzog 1968a, pp. 80-81; Herzog 1968b, p. 28; Judson 1985a, pp. 18=19; Judson 1986, pp. 17-20; Silver 1986a, pp. 11-12; and Mensger 2002, pp. 73-79. Sluijter (1999a, pp. 4-17) goes in a direction similar to Schrader’s in his discussion

of Gossart’s

Danae

(cat. 35).

the

architecture in this painting, see Herzog 1968a, pp. 81-84; Herzog 1968b, Pp. 29-33; Mensger 2002, pp. 82-84; Heringuez 2008, pp. 1-12; and Matt

15 On

Kavaler’s essay in this volume.

8, Herzog

1968a, pp. 85-86; Herzog 1968b, p. 34; see also W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod in Pausamas 1918—

(ed.), vol. 1, pp. 1—xxvi. 19. Pausanias 1918-35 (ed.), vol. 35

1,

pp. 431ff. (bk. §,

chaps. 10-12); Herzog 1968b, pp. 32-33. 20, Vitruvius 1931 (ed.), vol. 1, p. 247 (bk. 4, chap. 9). 21. I am grateful to Joseph Godla, Chief Conservator at the Frick Collection, New York, for discussing the perspective system with me.

22. I am grateful to Anna Koopstra for a very simulating discussion of issues raised by Gossart'’s signatures. In

the

regard to this matter, see esp. Jufen 1974; and Burg 2007. Exhibition: Brussels 1963. no. 107 Literature: Gossart 1903, p. 67; Aschenheim 1910, pp. 24fF;

48; Jantzen 1910, pp. 10ff; von Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), p. 82; Weisz 1913b, pp. 26-29, 111,

Heidrich

1910, p.

pp. 16, 19; Winkler 1921b, pp. 410-12; Segard 1923, pp. 75-79, 175, no. 1; Winkler 117, pl.

vi,

11; Winkler 1921a,

1924, p. 243; Burger 1925, p. 129; Sjoblom 1928, pp. 142fF; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 48fF., 158, no. 47,

xt; J). Duverger

Held

pp. 119ff; Oberheide 1933, p. 142; ]. de Jong 1934, p. 143; Beets 1935, p. 201; W. Kronig 1936, pp. 13-14, 53, 68, 132;Van Gelder 1942, pp. 1-3: Gluck 1945; Schwarz 1953, pp. 140ff..

pl.

1931, p. 151;

1931,

Marlier 1954, pp. 42, 45, 66, 74; von Lohneysen 1956, pp. 1491; von der Osten 1961, pp. 464, 467; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, pp. 101-2, no. 107; Boon 1065, esp. pp. 26-30; Herzog 1968a, pp. 19—24, 79-88, 235-37, no. 13; Herzog 1968b; Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), PP. 32-33, 97, no. 47, pl. 41; Sterk 1980, pp. 117-22; Judson 19852, pp. 18-19; Judson 1986, pp. 17-20; Silver 1986a,

pp. 11-12; Gemaldegalerie, Berlin 1996, p. 55: Slunjter 2000, p. 36; Hendrikman 2002, pp. 16-17; Komig 2002; Mensger 2002, pp.

7379; Schrader

2007-8; Heringuez 2008

2006, pp. 155-83; Schrader

Jan Gossart 31. Hercules and Deianira 1517

Oil on oak panel,

14%:

x 10% in. (36.8 x 26.8 cm);

pancl thickness 4 mm Signed (on front of step, visible only wath infrared reflectography) and dated (lower left): IOoHANNES

,

.

.

[P]INCGEBAT

/ 1517

Inscribed (at top to left and right of central bucranium): HERCVLES DYANIRA The Trustees of the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham 46.10 Condition: The painting 1s in very good condition. The 1s painted is radially cut. single oak panel on which There 1s a barbe at the left edge and an unpainted edge

it

at the night; the top and bottom edges are slightly cut.

Recent infrared reflectography and microphotography were carried out by Rachel Billinge at the National Gallery, London, in April 2009." There are preexisung X-radiographs, whose results are discussed below. No dendrochronology has been undertaken. Technical investigation:

Provenance: Francis Otway, Esq., Riverhill and Ash Grove (his estate sale, Christies, London, May 1800, no. 93,

3,

1517" by Albrecht Durer); Omphale . Willham Benoni White (his sale, Christie's, London, May 23-24, 1879, no. s1, as “Hercules and Dejanira. Dated 1517,” by Diirer);" Sir John Charles Robinson (sold to Cook); acquired by Sir Francis Cook (1817~ 1901), Doughty House, Richmond, Surrey, 1879; his son, Sir Frederick Lucas Cook (1844-1920), Doughty House; his son, Herbert Frederick Cook (1868-1939), Doughty House; his son, Sir Francis Ferdinand Maurice Cook (1907-1978), Doughty House; acquired from the Cook collection by the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham, 1946

as “Hercules and

.

.

Reo

in size to Hermaphroditus and Salmacis (cat. 32) and also inspired by

Ovid's Metamorphoses (9.89—272) 1s Hercules and Deianira. Above the heads of the figures, to the left and right of the central bucranium, is an inscription that identifies them. The two sit in a marblepaneled niche, decorated with bucrania above and with panels below showing a selection of scenes from the life of Hercules, among which are some of his twelve labors. These small panels represent (from left to right) Hercules killing Antacus, with the Hydra of Lerna, wearing the skin of the Nemean Lion, cleaning the Augean stables, and holding the world for the giant Atlas.” The moment represented belongs not to the labors of Hercules but to the praxeis,

or events leading up to Hercules’ death. The river god Achelous had attempted to secure Deianira’s hand in marriage by threatening her father, but Hercules fought and killed the river god, then married her himself. Later, when the couple was attempting to cross a river, the centaur Nessus offered to help Deianira but instead tried to rape her. Hercules killed Nessus with a poisoned arrow, but before he died, the centaur offered advice to Deianira: she should take his blood-soaked tunic, and if ever her husband strayed, she should give it to him to wear, which would magically ensure Hercules’ undying love. The day came when Deianira began to question her husband’ fidelity, but

when he donned the poisoned tunic it burned so painfully that he threw himself on a funeral pyre and died. The Birmingham painting shows the couple in happier times, their interlocking legs a sign of conjugal bliss. With mouths shghtly open in a sigh, they stare lovingly into each other’ eyes. Deianira’s hair is arranged in a love knot, and she wears only a pearl fillet entwined in her golden locks; her husband's sex 1s modestly covered by an ivy vine. Hercules has put down his club, resting from some of the labors that are illustrated in the relief panels below. Delanira meanwhile sits on the tunic that will later cause his demise. As the epitome of physical and moral strength, Hercules was highly revered by

the royal households of the Burgundian Netherlands from the time of Philip the Good, who regarded him as his ancestor.’ Among the many authors who retold the story of Hercules was Boccaccio, in his De genealogia deorum gentilium (1351-60). Philip of Burgundy owned a copy of this text, and there 1s further evidence that he

identified personally with the ancient hero.” In the Birmingham painting, how1s not Hercules’ extraordinary ever, strength but his vulnerability to the female

it

Paintings

221

of her husband—and in the

visual models.

with his paintings and drawings of Adam and Eve, Gossart focuses here on the

As

erotically charged physical relationship between the figures. Their beautifully composed crossed legs, and in particular the pose of Deianira, were in part inspired by Jacopo de’ Barbari’s drawing and

engraving of Cleopatra (fig. 206), to which Gossart would have had access, as both artists worked for Philip of Burgundy.” Gossart seems to have followed even

Fig. 206. Jacopo de’ Barbari, Cleopatra, 1495-1516. Engraving, 7% x 4% in. (18.1 x 11.7 cm). The British

Museum, London, Department of Prints and Draw-

ings (1854,0628.127)

Fig. 207. Jacopo Ripanda, Neptune and Amphitrite from the Sala di Annabale, 1505—7. Fresco. Palazzo dex

Conservatori, Rome

powers of seduction that is portrayed.” Gossart apparently perceived parallels between Hercules and Deianira and his many later representations of Adam and Eve (cats. 2, 3, 64, 65, 67, 68). The similarities are evident both in the theme—deceived by a beast, a woman ultimately causes the death 222

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

more closely the model ofJacopo Ripanda’s Neptune and Amphitrite figures from his fresco the Battle of the Aegadian Islands, part of his series depicting the Punic Wars (fig. 207).” This cycle is in the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome, where Gossart also sketched the famous Spinario sculpture, which was installed there at the time (cat. 101). He reversed the pose of the figures and added their intertwined legs in an adaptation of Ripanda’s embracing spouses. Although carried out with Gossart’s typical technique, the thinness of the paint layers and the somewhat loose brushwork give the impression of a work that was produced hastily. This led Sadja Herzog to doubt Gossart’s authorship, which has otherwise not been challenged.'” The underdrawing (probably in dry brush) is mostly limited to the contours of forms and may have been based on a cartoon for the figures. There are only minor adjustments from the preliminary drawing to the final painted stage. The figures were drawn in first, and then the architecture was filled in around them with ruled and incised lines. The distinct difference between the warm tones of Hercules’ flesh and the cool, pearly tones of Deianira’s 1s achieved with a pale salmon-colored underpainting of the former. This juxtaposition of warm and cool tonalities is picked up in the architecture, where the marble panels and bucrania are executed with Gossart’s characteristic virtuoso brushwork. The painting is signed JOHANNES . . . [PIINGEBAT on the front of the step across the center three tiles, but this 1s visible only with infrared reflectography; as it is covered by overlying restorations of the presumably damaged paint layers below.

Because

of

this, it 1s difficult to judge the

originality of the inscription, but the location of it and the formation of the letters are indeed characteristic of Gossart’s autograph signatures. The date 1517 appears at the lower left, painted to look as if cut into the stone. In May of that year Philip of Burgundy was elected bishop of Utrecht, and he moved from Souburg to the castle at Wijk bij Duurstede. Herzog suggested that Hercules and Deianira and Hermaphroditus and

might have been either reduced replicas of decorations at the Souburg residence or modellos for compositions never executed on a large scale.” These are intriguing suggestions, especially given the relative speed and looseness of brushwork with which the painting was produced. In the Brussels palace of Henry III of Nassau-Breda, there was a large painting of Hercules and Deianira that was seen in 1517 by Antonio de Beatis along with the group accompanying Cardinal Luigi von Aragon on his Netherlands sojourn.” Might Gossart’s small Birmingham picture have been somehow related to this work? Gossart returned to the theme of Hercules and Deianira late in his career and produced an even more explicitly erotic image, a woodcut in which Hercules aggressively approaches his mate (cat. 118)." Salmacis (cat. 32)

MWA

1.

My sincere thanks to Paul Spencer-Longhurst of the Barber Institute of Fine Arts and to Susan Foster

and Lorne Campbell for making arrangements for the painting to be brought from Birmingham to the Natonal Gallery, London, for this technical examination. 2. Two possible earher records for the Barber panting are provided by Burton Fredericksen (formerly of the Getty Provenance Index) in a letter dated July 17, 2003, 1n the curatorial files of the Barber Insutute of Fine Arts: anonymous sale, A. J. Pallet, Paris, June 24, 1799, no. 122," Le sujet d"Hercule & Jole: ils sons [sic] représentés assis & nuds dans une rotonde antique, Hauteur 37¢, largeur 25. Blois],” by Albrecht Diirer (the dimensions correspond to those of the Barber panting); and Robert Walpole, 1st Lord Orford, and Robert Walpole, 2nd Earl of Orford (their sale, Langford, London, June 14, 1751, no. 4," "Hercules and Dejamira,” by Durer [sold for £1.2; no buyer recorded]). Fredericksen also pointed out that, according to the 1736 inventory of his collection of paintings, Robert Walpole owned a painting depicting

“Hercules & Omphale” In addition, a painting described as “Hercules and Deianira” by Durer was included in a sale at Christie's, London, January 17,

PP. 132, 137; Schwarz 1953, p. 151; Marlier 1954, p. 67;

Brussels 1954-55, p. 76, no. 37; von der Osten 1961, p. 467; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, pp. 1023, no. 108; Herzog 19684, pp. 88-92, 320-22, no. 57; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8

1800, no. 10. 3.

4.

Bought by Lesser, according to an annotation in a copy of the sale catalogue at the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The Hague. Gossart apparently found inspiration for these representations from various sources, small bronzes, bronze reliefs, and marble sculpture. A bronze relief attributed to Antico shows a similar Hercules Resting after the Fight with the Lion (see Wendy Stedman Sheard in 1978, n.p., no. 93). Weisz (1913b, pp. 30-31) and W. Kromg (1936, p. 133) thought that

recently carried out by Margret Woulters with equipment from the Riyjksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie; pigment analysis was conducted by J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. Natural ultramarine was found in the sky. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix.

Antoine de Lalaing, the Count of Hoogstracten, in whose 1548 ventory it appears. For the importance of Hercules to Philip of Burgundy and his personal identification with the ancient hero, see Schrader 20006, p. 10, and for the story of the Hercules snowman constructed outside of Philips residence in Brussels in 1511, pp. 6-12.

Provenance: Philip

See Silver 1986a, p. 13;Veldman 1990-91a, pp. 128-29; and Sluijter 1990a, pp. 38-39. Although this panting

sometimes associated with the Power of Women topos that was very popular at the beginning of the sixteenth century, there is no known visual parallel in

1s

these series to Gossart’s Hercules and Deianira. See Silver 1986a, p. 14; and Mensger 2002, p. 113.

Birmingham painting. See

Levenson 1973, esp. p. 291. 9. D. Bull 2010.

Herzog 1968a, pp. 90-91, 320-22, no.

1. Ibid, p.

88.

1974-76, vol. 13.

37.

Steppe 1967, p. 8. The painting was later described as “grand tableau” (Drossaers and Lunsingh Scheurleer

12.

1,

a

p. 27, no. 3).

About the same time in 1530 he painted the Deeds of Hercules for Hypolito Michael in Antwerp, but this work 1s no longer traceable. See Denucé 1932, p. 12; and Wescher 1949, pp. 263-64.

Exhibitions: London 1892, no. 45; London 1899-1900,

no. 12; London 1927, no. 187; Brussels 1954-55, no. 37; Brussels 1963, no. 108; Amsterdam 1986, no. 1; London 1998a, no. 282; Ghent 1999-2000, no. 98; Birmingham

2008-9 Literature; London 1892, p. 21, no. 45; London 1899-1900, p. 3. no. 12; Weisz 1913b, pp. 20ff, 121, pl. v1, 13; Brockwell 1915, p. 90; Conway 1921, p. 371; Winkler 1921b, p. 412;

Burger 1925,

p. 129: Tancred

Borenius in Conway 1927,

no. 187; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 49-50. Brockwell 1932, p. 15: W. Kromg 1936, 159, no. 50, pl.

p. 81,

xr;

PP. $4.68, 133;Van Gelder 1942, pp. 2, 8; Gluck 1945,

224

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

of Burgundy (1465-1524); Margaret

of Austria, Mechelen, by

1523; private collection, France, before 1934; [Jacques Goudstikker, Amsterdam, by 1934; sold to Van Beuningen|; Dani¢l George van

Beuningen (1877-1955), Rotterdam and Vierhouten, 1934-55; acquired with the Van Beuningen collection by the Museum Boymans (now the Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen), Rotterdam, 1958

Both Silver (1986a, p. 13) and Mensger (2002, p. 112) suggest Cristofano Robetta’s engravings as a source, namely The Allegery of Mother Earth and The Allegory of Envy. As Jay Levenson points out, however, the prints of Robetta (b. 1462; d. no earlier than 1535) are very hard to date, particularly because he worked in a retardataire style. The prints mentioned here probably fall into Robetta’s “muddle period,” which may well

10.

of

Technical investigation: Infrared reflectography was

6. Sterk 1980, p. 291. Philip bequeathed the book to

1517

it

siderably abraded. The oak panel and frame consist a single panel arched at the top.

small scene of Atlas. 5. See A. Millar 2001.

postdate Gossart’s

Ghent 1999-2000, pp. 228-29, no. 98; Mensger 2002, pp- 110-13; Schrader 2007-8, pp. 49-51

Ca. 1517 Onl on oak panel, 127% x 8% m. (32.8 x 21.5 cm) (panel measurements) Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam 2451

at

the Atlas Farnese now in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, served as a model for Gossart's

8.

pp. 12—14;Veldman 1990—91a, pp. 128-29; Richard Verdi in London 1998a, pp. 340-41, no. 282; Allmuth Schuttwolf in

32. Hermaphroditus and Salmacis

has losses Condition: The painting 1s in fair condition; the bottom and 1s conthroughout and especially

Northampton

7.

(1972), pp. 33,97, no. 50, pl. 43; Sterk 1980, pp. 128-29; Jos Sterk in Amsterdam 1986, p. 120, no. 1; Silver 1986a,

Jan Gossart

ased on Ovid's Metamorphoses (4.274—388), this

painting represents the story of Hermaphroditus, son of Hermes and Aphrodite, and his encounter with the water nymph Salmacis. One day Salmacis spied the young man, renowned for his beauty, bathing in her lake, and she instantly fell in love with him. Hermaphroditus spurned her advances, but she dove into the water and wrapped herself around his body. The gods granted Salmacis’ wish to unite them as one, and thus was formed the being, both male and female, known as Hermaphrodite, which can be seen evolving at the left of Gossart’s painting. Horrified at his emasculation, Hermaphroditus petitioned his parents to ensure the same fate for any man who would enter Salmacis’ lake. Although Owid’s illustrated text was popular in late medieval and early Renaissance times, Gossart was among the first to produce an independent painting of this theme. His authorship of the Rotterdam panel has been questioned only by Sadja Herzog, who attributed the design to

Pa

i ting8

Gossart but the execution in paint to an assistant.’ Although the condition of the compromised, the technique and handling are characteristic of Gossart.

painting

is

Comparison with the Birmingham Hercules and Deianira (cat. 31) reveals a similar contour underdrawing (probably based on a cartoon), with staccato strokes to define the features of the faces, the hair, and the musculature of the male torsos. Gossart’s animated squiggles for the bushes to the left of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis, slight changes in the position of the feet, and only a rough sketch for the rocks and water augment the fixed design of the figures. For the lithe yet classically constructed body of Hermaphroditus, Gossart probably consulted the drawing he had made in Rome of the Apollo Citharoedus (cat. 99), a sculpture that was thought at the ume to portray Hermaphrodite.” The twist of Salmacis’ body is similar to that of Gossart’s

the tale as a Christian allegory and Salmacis as the archetypal temptress.” The original golden frame of the painting might have presented lines from this late medieval version of Ovid's classic text, offering a “speaking picture” of the type that Gerard Geldenhouwer noted was enjoyed at Philip’s humanist court.” When the outer frame was removed, different experience of the painting, without the moralizing overtones, could be enjoyed. The outer frame was detached and lost, and the inner one was recarved later with an ivy-leaf motif. MWA

a

Herzog 1968a, pp. 89-90. 2. Bruyn 1965a; Sterk 1980, p. 126; Friso Lammertse in Muscum Boiymans Van Beuningen 1994, p. 177: Mensger 2002, p. 116. 3. Mensger 2002, p. 116. 1.

4. Silver discussed this issue (1986a, pp. 16—18). 5.

Venus (see cat. 33), only in reverse. The

frontal view and rather planar quality of the engaged figures of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis suggest sarcophagus relief sculpture of the type that Gossart would have seen in Rome.” Throughout the 1510s and 1520s, Gossart continued to search for successful solutions to depicting interlocking figures—whether in confrontation, as here, or in amorous embrace, as in his drawings of Adam and Eve.” The Rotterdam painting shows Gossart’s early attempts in this regard, close in date to Hercules and Deianira of 1517. Hermaphroditus and Salmacis 1s most likely the painting cited in Margaret of

Austria's 1523 to 1524 inventory as a gift from Philip of Burgundy, then bishop of Utrecht.” Margaret kept it in her collection cabinet of curiosities and naturalia

near her garden, which provided a fitting context for this theme of man, woman, and nature.’ The inventory described the painting as having an inner (probably trompe-I'oeil) marble frame and a secondary golden frame with an inscription at the bottom. The latter may have been— as in the case of Gossart’s Venus and Cupid (cat. 33)—a removable frame with a moralizing text. Margaret owned at least three editions of Ovide moralisé, which interpreted 226

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Michelant 1871, p. 110; see also Folie 1960, p. 196. Gluck (1945, pp. 129-31) was the first to recogmze the panting in Margaret's inventory, followed by Fohie'’s fuller discussion of the ink (Folie 1960).

6. Exchberger 2002b, 7.

p.

301.

Ariane Mensger in Mechelen 2005, pp. 251-52,

no. 9o. 8. Sterk 1980, pp. 13, 126-27. For theories about the relationship ofthis painting to the Power of Women theme that was so popular in the early sixteenth century, see Eichberger 2002b, pp. 209-300; Mensger 2002, pp. 120-21; and Caudill 2006. Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1936, no. 108 (paintings); Rotterdam 1938, no. 6; The Hague 1945, no. $6; Rotterdam 1949,

no. 13; Paris 1952, no. 50; Rotterdam 1955, no. 12; Brussels 1963, no. 109; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 16; Amsterdam 1986, no. 2; Mechelen 2005, no. 91 Literature: Baldass 1936, pp. 256-57; Rotterdam 1936, p. 50, no. 108 (paintings); Rotterdam 1938, p. 3, no. 6; The Hague 1945, Pp. 42-43, no. 56, Hannema 1949, p. 27, no. 13;

Rotterdam 1949, n.p., no. 13; Dirk Hannema in Paris 1952, PP. 20-30, no. 50; Rotterdam 1955, p. 17, no. 12; Folie 1960; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, p. 103, no. 109; Bruyn 19653; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 123-26, no. 16; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), Supplement, p. 112, no. 156, pl. 139; Herzog 1068a, pp. 89-90, 322-24, no. 58; Jos Sterk in Amsterdam 1986, pp. 120-21, no. 2; Friso Lammertse in Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen 1994, PP. 174=79, no. 36; Eichberger 2002b, pp. 298-301;

Mensger 2002, pp. 114-21; Ariane Mensger in Mechelen 200%, pp. 252-53, no. 91; Caudill 2006

Jan Gossart 33. Venus and Cupid 1521

Oil on oak panel, painted surface 12% x 9% in. (32 x 24 cm); including integral frame 16% x 12%

mn.

(41.5 x 30.7 cm)

Dated (on lower edge of frame):

MDX x1

Inscribed (on frame): NATE EFFRONS HOMINES SVPEROS QVE LACESSERE SVET[VS] NON MATRI

PARCIS: PARCITO NE PEREAS

Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels 6611 Condition: The painting is in very good condition,

with some discolored retouches locally throughout, especially in Venus’ upper torso and in the gray area of the background niche. There are two frames: one 1s integral with the panel, the other 1s independent but has been glued to the primary one. The frames have been regilded and the lettering of the inscription restored. Technical investigation:

New technical examinations—

including X-radiography, infrared reflectography, and UV photography—were carried out by Catherine Fondaire and Freya Maes with the assistance of Alexandre Galand with the permission of Veronique Bucken. The paint layers could not be easily penetrated with infrared reflectography (perhaps because ofthe heavily discolored overlying varnish), but thin underdrawing in a crumbly material (perhaps black chalk) could be observed in the architecture, in Cupid's wings, and faintly in the facial features of both figures. There are numerous incised lines, including curved ones in the upper part of the miche, that were made using a compass, the center point of which 1s to the right of Venus’ head, level with the bottom of her nose. Additional vertical incised lines are found in the fluted columns. Pinpoints were made in order to create straight lines by snapping a carbon-coated string attached to the pins. The roundels at the base of the columns were also formed with the aid of a compass. No dendrochronology of the frames has been undertaken. Provenance: Possibly Philip

of Burgundy; sold

in Paris,

Abbott, Esq.; Adolphe Schloss, Paris, by 1907; his heirs; confiscated during World War 11; returned to the Schloss family, 1945 (Schloss famuly sale, Galerie Charpentier, Paris, December s, 1951, no. 24, to the Musées Rovaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique); Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de 1858; S. A. B.

Belgique, Brussels, from

T

1951

prevent Cupid from shooting an arrow into an unwitting god or mortal and thereby inciting a love affair, Venus restrains her son. With both hands, she halts his reach for an arrow from his quiver and impedes his forward stride by stepping on his right foot. Her rebuke, inscribed on the outer frame of the painting, states,

Jp

PR

Ee

LE a

EE

—

-t

-

Ramen

Oc Ee

EE

i

Paintings

“Shameless son, you who are inclined to torment men and gods, you do not [even]

spare your [own| mother: cease, lest you be destroyed.” Venus’ meaning is amplified by the scenes depicted in the antique

roundels at the bases of the columns (see figs. 61, 62). At left,Vulcan, her husband, pulls back a curtain to reveal Venus and Mars caught in an adulterous tryst, while Mercury and Neptune look on. According to Homer, Mercury would have willingly risked the same shame as Mars for the pleasure of taking his place with Venus, but Neptune begged Vulcan to free Mars." At the right, Mars—fully dressed in armor and helmet—stands intertwined with the nude Venus. Apparently both went unpunished for their misdeed.” Much of the literature on Venus and Cupid interprets this painting and the inscription on the outside frame as a condemnation of and warning against carnal pleasures.” More recently, however, Eric Jan Sluyjter and Stephanie Schrader have taken a different view, based on the likelihood that the painting was commissioned by Philip of Burgundy." The painting is dated 1521, in the period when Gossart worked for Philip during the latter's tenure as bishop of Utrecht (1517-24). The 1529 ventory of Philip's belongings at Wik bij Duurstede castle lists a number of works that were apparently enjoyed specifically for their erotic content. Among these was a large painting of Venus and Cupid that he kept in his study.’ The painting was covered with a curtain, and the titillating image would be unveiled only for certain visitors. Philip also owned two “exquisite scenes of the boelsc[hjap,” probably depictions of Venus and Mars making love, which he kept in a small house on his estate where he entertained young women.’ Given Philip’s unabashed pleasure-taking interests, and his scoffing at the concept of chastity for bishops and prelates (according to his court humanist Gerard Geldenhouwer),” a less moralistic reading of Gossart’s painting seems feasible. In fact, two possibilities can be entertained.” Since the outside frame with Venus’ rebuke of Cupid could be easily removed, the painting could be enjoyed strictly for its 228

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

erotic content without the moralizing message, allowing Philip to decide how his guests would experience the painting—as

the

in the case of large Venus and Cupid kept in his study. Gossart was apparently in

on the joke, as he deliberately planned the composition to ensure that Venus and Cupid would appear to be spilling out from their niche and into the viewer’ space. The composition 1s decentralized and has two perspective systems, based on each of the two columns. The observer may encounter the painting from a position either directly in front or at an angle to the left. Jacqueline Folie thought that the composition was intended to match a pendant, perhaps showing Mars in a reverse-angle view.” There is another possibility that might have pleased Philip even more. The view from the left side indicates Gossart’s—and perhaps Philip’ s—intention to provide a different confrontation with the luscious body of Venus, as well as a correct perspective view of the Mars and Venus roundel, the denouement of the story initiated in the roundel the left. From angle at the left

at

an

of the painting, her body appears to emerge

Fig. 208. Marcantonio Raimondi, Venus and Cupid, 1512—13. Engraving, 8 x 3% in. (20.3 x 8.3 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Elisha Whittelsey Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1949 (49.97.109)

from the picture as a living sculpture would, creating the illusion of a three-dimensional figure." Gossart has purposely collapsed the space behind Venus and Cupid to push them forward. We cannot be sure for whom this Venus and Cupid was painted. It was most likely Philip of Burgundy—though possibly not for his own collection. Philip gave paintings of such subjects to his close friend Philip of Cleves to decorate his castle at Wynendaele,'" and it could well be that this Venus and Cupid was made for this purpose.

Often proposed as the sources for these classicizing nude figures are two prints by Marcantonio Raimondi: Venus and Cupid of about 1512-13 (fig. 208) and Venus after the Bath (B. 297)."* Because the Venus in the former print twists in the opposite direction from Gossart’s figure, a more likely model may be Lucas van Leyden’s Suicide of Lucretia of about 1514 (fig. 209), which was based on Raimondi’s print." However, neither the Raimondi nor the Van Leyden example captures the bold

Fig. 209. Lucas van Leyden, The Suicide of Lucretia, 6.8 cm). ca. 1514. Engraving, 42 x 2"Y16 1. (11.4 Xx

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, KupferstichKabinett (A 1883-83)

sense of the figure in the round that is so impressive in Gossart’s painting. For this inspiration, he must have studied the many small figural sculptures by Conrad Meit that he would have seen at the Mechelen court of Margaret of Austria, whom Meit served as court sculptor starting in 1514, after a period probably spent working for

Philip of Burgundy." Meit’s Lucretia (see fig. 11) closely resembles Gossart’s Venus in its quality of line and twist of the body, his subtle modeling of the soft luminous flesh, and the detailed accentuation of the folds at the belly and erect nipples of the breasts."® Venus and Cupid shows clearly the extent to which Gossart assimilated the aesthetic of sculpture in his paintings. MWA

1.

Homer

1919

(ed.), vol.

1,

pp. 283-84 (bk. 8,

lines 335-60). 2. In one interpretation, this represents the potential of love to quiet war. See M. Bull 2005, p. 186 (as in 3.

Schrader 2006, p. 190). See Stephanie Schrader’ essay on Gossart’s mythological nudes in this volume, including n. for 1

bibliography. 4. Sluijter 1999a, pp. 10-14; Sluijter 2000, esp. pp. 35-38;

5.

Schrader 2006, pp. 183-94; and Schrader’s essay cited in note 3 above, Sterk (1980, p. 227) cates the inscription from the 1529 inventory of Philips belongings on the verso of fol. 1x:"Een groot taeffereel van een naict vroutken mit een pijl in de hant genoempt Cupido overdect mit een gardijnken blau ende geluwe” (a large painting of a nude woman with an arrow mn the hand called Cupid covered with a blue and yellow curtain).

6. “Twee costelicke taeffereelkens van de boelsc[h]ap™;

7.

Sterk 1980, p. 264, verso of fol. xxxvi, and see also pp. 58, 136, 285, n. 24, p. 315, n. 11. See Schrader’s essay cited in note 3 above,

Mensger 2002, pp. 17479, esp. p. 179. 9. Jacquehne Folie in Brussels 1963, pp. 103—4, no. 110. 10. This type of visual trick was employed by other artists at the ume, namely Hans Holbein the Younger. 8.

See Basel 2006, esp. pp. 178-80, no. 30 (entry by Maryan W. Ainsworth), pp. 192-93, no. 37 (entry by

11.

Stephan Kemperdick), pp. 203-5, 208-12, nos. 42, 44, 45 (entries by Christian Miller). See Denhaene 1975; Sterk 1980, pp. 72-73, 125-26; and Olivier 2007, esp. pp. 155—56, nn. 62, 63.

Mensger 2002, pp. 174-76. 13. For the most recent discussion of the Lucas van Leyden print with bibliography, see Achim Riether in Munich 2006-7, p. 194, no. 42. 14. J. Duverger 1934, p. 68; see also Burk 2005. There was a carved “Lucretia” by Meit in Margarets 1516 inventory, but this was perhaps a relief sculpture (bien taillée) rather than a figure in the round (Finot 1895, p. 212;

12.

J. Duverger 1934, p. 110). 15.

Long thought to be by Meit, the Metropolitan Museum's Lucretia (17.190.582) has more recently been

attributed to Daniel Mauch. See Jens Ludwig Burk in Ulm 2009, pp. 302-3, no. 45. However, the high quality of the sculpture and its close proximity to the sub-

tle modeling and heightened three-dimensionality of Meit’s other works speak for an attribution to him.

Jan Gossart 34. Venus Ca.

Exhibitions: Bruges 1907, no. 221; Brussels 1935, no. 30;

Brussels 1954-55, no. 38; Brussels 1956, no. 21; Brussels 1963, no. 110; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 15; Liége 1966, no. 89; Sint-Niklaas, Hasselt 1990; Brussels, Rome 1995, no. 108; Brussels 2008, no. 108 Literature: Pol de Mont in Bruges 1907, p. 63, no. 221;

Hoogewerft 1912, p. 48; Weisz 1013b, pp. 41-43, 113, 121, pl. 1x, 22; Winkler 1921b, p. 412; Segard 1923, pp. 163-65, 182, no. 39; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 39, 158, no. 44, pl. xxxvii; W. Kronig 1936, pp. 5s, 133; Van Gelder 1942, p. 3; Fierens 1952; Marlier 1954, pp. 36, 47, 67.0. 17; Brussels 1954=55. p. 76. no. 38;Verhaegen 1955, p. 179; Brussels 19$6, n.p., no. 21; von der Osten 1961, pp. 465, 468; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, pp. 103—4, no. 110;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 119—22, no. 15; ]. Hendrick in Liege 1966, p. 36, no. 89; Herzog 1968a, pp. 92-95, 262-64, no. 25; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 27. 32, 96, no. 44, pl. 39; Silver and S. Smith 1978, pp. 265-68; Sterk 1980, pp. 133-37, esp. p. 133; Silver 1086a, pp. 14-15; Muller and Noél 1987, pp. 152—53; Sint-Niklaas, Hasselt 1990, pp. 136—37; Veldman 1990—9r1a, esp. pp. 127-28; Arnout Balis in Brussels, Rome 1995, pp. 211-13, no. 108; Huvenne 1997, p. 187; Sricchia Santoro 1998, p. 62; Sluijter 1999a, pp. 10-13; Hinz 2000, p. 90; Sluijter 2000, pp. 36-38 Musée d'Art Ancien 2001, p. 60; Mensger 2002, pp. 174-79; Blismiewski 2003, pp. 10-13; Bottermann 2004, p. 101; Schrader 2006, pp. 183-95; Brussels 2008, p. 238; Busine and Gielen 2008, p. 59

1521

Oil on panel, 23% x 11% in. (59 x 29.9 cm) Pinacoteca dell’Accadema der Concords, Rovigo 79 Condition: The painting 1s in good condition but has suffered abrasion and losses to the paint, especially in

the legs and feet of the figure. The background has darkened significantly, so that Venus’ flowing hair to the right and left of her head 1s difficult to see. The picture was not painted in an engaged frame. The brushstrokes taper off at the right and left edges in the bare wood reserve; the top and bottom edges are cut. Technical investigation: Provenance: Possibly

None

1s

currently available.

Melchior Wyntgis, Middelburg and

Brussels, by 1604; purchased by Giovanni Francesco Casilini (1748-1820), 1798;" bequeathed by his brother Nicolo Casilini (b. 1753) to the Accademia dex

Concordi, Rovigo,

1838

beautiful young woman, adorned

only with a pearl-studded bonnet and an exquisite pearl and gold pendant necklace, admires herself in a mirror. She stands on a gray stone platform next to a large antique urn decorated with rams’ heads and holding gillyflowers. On the steps to her right are a feather-crested helmet, a bow and arrow, and a winged quiver filled with arrows. An old identification of this figure as Vanitas derives from the seventeenth-century inventory of the collection of Melchior Wyntgis, a resident of Middelburg and Brussels, which lists “A standing naked female figure, a Vanity, or all 1s vanity, painted by Mabuse . . . 15 guilders.”” The Rovigo panel is the only surviving work by Gossart that closely fits this description.” However, even though the inventory identifies the subject as a Vanitas, this is more likely a seventeenthcentury interpretation than the one intended in the early sixteenth century, as discussed below.

The

Venus Felix, a

famous Roman mar-

ble from the second half of the second century A.D., which was in the papal collections by 1509, has been suggested as a possible model for the idealized proportions and pose of Gossart’s figure." Far

more likely, though, are various statues of the Venus Pudica type,” or even the Paintings

229

~~ The serpentine pose; sloping shoulders;

small, disklike breasts; taut arms, legs, and

abdomen; and sweet countenance of the woman, who tilts her head to observe herself in a mirror while partially covering her sex with her left hand, are features also found in late fifteenth-century Italian bronzes after the antique. A Venus of about 1480-1500 attributed to Andrea Riccio represents this type (fig. 210), including the twin corkscrew curls falling on her shoulders and the decorative headband typical

of northern Italian

all’antica images

of

ideal beauty.” These features as well as the sculptural aspect of Gossart’s figure,

perched on the edge of her stone platform, reinforce this connection. In contrast are the nudes by contemporaries of Gossart such as Jacopo de’ Barbari and Hans Suess von Kulmbach, who apprenticed with de’ Barbari at the court of the dukes of Saxony before entering Diirer’s workshop in Nuremberg. Although de’ Barbari’s engraving of about 1503-4

(fig. 211) and Kulmbach’s Nude Woman with a Mirror of 1500-1505 (fig. 212)” share

Fig. 210. Attributed to Andrea Riccio, Venus, ca. 1480-1500. Bronze, H. 10% in (26 cm). The Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology,

University of Oxford (Fortnum 411)

sinuous pose of the body—though in reverse—in the drawing that Gossart made after the Apollo Citharoedus (fig. 53). However, by the time Gossart made this painting—close in date to the 1521 Venus and Cupid, which it resembles in style and technique (cat. 33)—his trip to Rome, along with the sculpture that he encountered there, would have been but a distant memory. Perhaps he had at hand examples of the proportion studies that Diirer had produced for his 1504 Adam and Eve engraving, a print that Gossart copied for . Adam and Eve the Thyssen-Bornemisza (cat. 1). On his 1520-21 trip to the Netherlands, Diirer may have taken along studies such as his Nude Woman with a Staff, which shows how the ideal proportions were achieved.” Gossart clearly adopted a similar method, although the . telltale marks of his. own construction have yet to be revealed.’

230

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 211. Jacopo de’ Barbari, Nude Woman Holding & Mitr (Allgory of Vinités), ca. 15654. 2% in. (8.5 xX 6 cm). National Engraving, 3%

Gallery

x

iC

of Art, Washington, D.C., Rosenwald

Collection (1948.11.18)

a

with a Mirror, ca. 1500-1505. Pen and brown Paul ink, 6% X 4% in. (17.1 X 10.5 cm). The Getty Museum, Los Angeles (89.GA.6)

J.

with Gossart’s figure a similar sense of modeling that emphasizes the contrast of light and shade on the body, Gossart’s female figure is strongly articulated in a far more sculptural manner. The very cool tonalities of her flesh evoke the polished surfaces of ancient Roman sculpture— life. here come Ever since Henri Hymans published Wyntgis’ inventory in 1920, this painting has been associated primarily with the theme of Vanitas. In line with this interpretation is the symbol of vanity—the mirror—as well as the woman’s nudity and decorative adornments. For other scholars, the attributes of Mars and Cupid—the feathered helmet along with the bow, arrows, and quiver—suggest that she 1s also Venus. Thus they consider her a Venus vana, or both aVenus and a Vanitas figure." Interpreted as such, the image would have held a certain shock value for the viewer, or would at least have served as a warning against sensual love." Stephanie Schrader has suggested that all the attributes of the figure are, in fact,

to

typical of Venus at her toilette." Moreover, the antique urn with gillyflowers (a symbol of loving couples), the helmet of Mars, and Cupid’s bow and arrows with quiver place this representation in the realm of classical mythology. Schrader proposes that Venus is preparing herself for a romantic tryst, an occasion when Cupid often attends her. Perhaps she1s taking a last look in the mirror before going to meet Mars, who, having cast off his helmet at the bottom the stairs, waits for her in a

of

room on the upper level. Or 1s Venus poised to step from her stone platform into a communal bath, toward the viewer? Such themes decorated baths in the houses ofthe nobility, where men and women would meet for relaxation followed by sexual pleasures in adjoining bedrooms." the Bolstering this interpretation likely context ofthis painting among others made by Gossart for Philip of Burgundy at his Wijk by) Duurstede resi-

is

dence. Indeed, this Venus

very close in theme to Gossart’s Venus and Cupid (cat. 33). Such works should be considered along with Gerard Geldenhouwer’s poem dedicated to Philip, in which he praised him for giving painters commendable tasks such as painting “the ever so sweet adultery of Venus with Mars.”"* The Rovigo painting may have been a gift from Philip to his friend Philip ofCleves, whose castle at Wynendaele—specifically his bedroom and bathhouse—were decorated with paintings of mythological nudes. The 1528 inventory mentions one representing Mars and Venus, and another a beautiful woman undressed.” Could the latter have been the Rovigo painting? is

Whatever its original location, the sensuous allure ofthis Venus would have made it well suited to such an environment. MWA

1.

Acquired from a “certa Nob. Sig.” Elena Capitanachi™ (as “Verita,” attributed to Van Dyck); Romagnolo 1981, p.

2.

(J)

70. See also Romagnolo

1991,

esp.

pp.

“Een staend nackte vrowen figure, een omnia vanitas, geschildert by Mabeuze

25-28 Vanitas vel

|

15

gulden”

Inventory published in Hymans 1920, p. 744; see also Gluck 1945, pp. 134-35. A very close replica 1s in the Museo Civico Gaetano Filangicri of Naples. Acton 1961, p. 25

ty daintings

231

4. Haskell and Penny 1981, pp. 323-24, no. 87, fig. 172. See also Schrader 2006, p. 208.

Examples include the Capitoline Venus and the Venus

5.

de’ Medici, which were

not recorded unul the seven-

teenth century. See Haskell and Penny 1981, pp. 318—20, no. 84, fig. 169, and pp. 325—28, no. 88, fig. 173. See also Herzog 1968a, p. 266; and Mensger 2002, pp. 187-88, 6. See Howard Collinson in Vancouver, Ottawa,

Jan Gossart 35. Danae 1527

Oil on oak panel, 44% x 37% in. (113.5 x 95 cm) Signed and dated (on front face of step beneath Danace’s feet): IOANNES MALBODIVS PINGEBAT 1527.

Washington 1988-89, pp. 91-93, no. 28. For other examples, see Giulia Bartrum in London 2002-3,

Bayerische Staatsgemildesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek,

Munich

38

pp- 137—38, 150—53, nos. 70, 87—90.

Infrared reflectography examination of the Rovigo painting has not been made available.

7.

See Wendy Stedman Sheard in Northampton 1978,

8.

n.p., nos. 37, 37a, 38. Mensger (2002, p. 187, fig. 100) suggests a northern Italian bronze Venus of ca. 1500 (Basel, Historisches Museum). 9. Lee Hendrix in Goldner and Hendrix 1992, PP. 290-91, no. 128; Butts 2006, p. 156, fig. 50. 10. Sterk 1980, p. 136; Silver 1986a, pp. 18-19; Mensger 2002, pp. 187-90. 11. Silver 1986a, p. 19; Mensger 2002, p. 189. 12. Schrader 2006, p. 210, and her essay on Gossart’s mythological nudes in this volume. 14.

his penchant—even while bishop of Utrecht—for young girls and his intolerance of compulsory chasrules for bishops and prelates (text transcribed in Schrader 2006, pp. 212-13). Philip was not alone in

tty

his opinion about the impossibility of chastity; members of the courts of Pope Leo X, whom Philip served as bishop, as well as Cardinal Bibbiena and Agosuno Chigi shared this view.

Finot 1895, pp. 422-35, esp. Olivier 2007, pp. 155-57.

15.

p.

432; Sluijter 1999a, p. 11;

Exhibitions: Venice 1946, no. 163; Florence 1947, gallery

vir,

no. 14; Schaffhausen 1955, no. 46; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no.

18

Literature; Museo Civico Gaetano Filangier: 1888, p. 383;

Hymans 1889, pp. 15253; Hoogewerff 1912, pp. 47-48; Weisz 1913b, p. 124, pl. v1, 12; Hymans 1920, p. 744; Conway 1921, p. 273; Winkler 1921b, pp. 411-12; Segard 1923, p. 184, no. 51; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), no. 45, pl. xxx1x; Hoogewerft 1935, p. 118; W. Kromg 1936, p. $6; Gluck 1943, p. 135; Rudolfo Pallucchini in Venice 1946, pp. 94-95, no. 163; Florence 1947, p. 42,

p. 158,

no. 14; Acton 1961, p. 25; von der Osten 1961, p. 472; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 132—34, no. 18; Herzog 1968a, pp. 264-66, no. 26; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. § (1972), 96, no. 45, pl. 40; Ruggeri 1972, pp. §2—53, no. 22; Wendy Stedman Sheard in Northampton 1978, n.p., under no. 37a;

p.

Romagnolo 1981, pp. 70-71, no. 22; Mauro Lucco in Fantelli and Lucco 1985, pp. 143—44, no. 331; Silver 1986a, pp. 18—19; Collob1 Ragghianti 1990, p. 107, no. 187; Romagnolo 1991, p. 26; Meijer 1993, p. 78; Sluyjter 2000,

Mensger 2002, pp. pp. 207-18 p. 38;

232

185—90;

Schrader 2006,

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

indicating that the painting has not been cut down. There are some restorations in the sky and at the bottom of the painting in the signature; the second N in IOANNES and the Vin MALBODIV'S have been restored. The deep blue ultramarine of Danae’s mantle has been treated for degradation with the Pettenkofer method.” Technical investigation: The panel is made

Levy 1988; Turner 2008. See also Wolfthal 2010. Sterk 1980, p. 136. Also relevant here 1s Geldenhouwer's biography of Philip, in which he described

13.

Condition: The painting is in excellent condition. The barbe as well as a wood reserve 1s present on all edges,

of four vertical

planks of oak that are joined together with the original dowels: four dowels each for the joins at the right and left sides, and five dowels for the jon of the two central planks. The panel is not cradled, and the original tool marks from the planing of the wood are visible on the reverse. Panel thickness varies from .6 to

centimeters. There are three small splits in the plank at the upper left corner of the painting. New infrared the painting were reflectography and X-radiography undertaken 1n January 2008 by Lars Raffelt, with the permission of Martin Schawe. Jan Schmidt examined the painting under the microscope with Maryan Ainsworth on January 28, 2008. The results of this technical examination are discussed below. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. .8

of

Kunst- und Schatzkammer, Prague, by 1621;* Prince Elector’s Gallery, Munich, from 1748; Hofgartengalerie, Munich; Alte Pinakothek, Munich, Provenance:

from 1836

he ancient Greek myth of Danae 1s told in perhaps its earliest complete version by the second century B.C. author Apollodorus.” Danae was the daughter of Acrisius, king of Argos. When he asked the oracle how he could have male children, Acrisius was told that Danae would bear a son who would eventually kill him. In order to thwart this divination, he sequestered his daughter in an underground chamber. There, in one version of the story, she was seduced by her father’s brother, Proetus. In another version, it was Zeus himself who came to Danae in the form of a stream of gold that poured through the roof into her lap, impregnating her. When Perseus was born to Danae, Acrisius locked the mother and child into

chest and cast it into the sea. The two landed on the island of Seriphus and were cared for by Dictys, whose brother, Polydectes, king of Seriphus, fell in love with Danae. Perseus kept Polydectes away from his mother and therefore the king sent him off to slay the Gorgon. In the end, the original prophecy was fulfilled when Perseus competed in an athletic competition and threw the quoit directly at the foot of Acrisius, killing him instantly. Gossart’s signed and dated 1527 representation of the myth takes place not in an underground chamber but in a splendid antique hemicycle with variously colored engaged marble columns that sit on bases inlaid with similarly variegated marble panels. Above the slender Ionic columns with Corinthian capitals 1s a frieze decoa

rated with golden bucrania, opening to a half-dome pierced with oculi. Placed at the center of a lintel that runs across the top of the foreground picture plane is the golden head of a cherub flanked by leafy tendrils; “carved” into the base of the room 1s Gossart’s Latinized signature and the date. In the background, viewed through the columns, are buildings in a mixture of architectural styles: an Italian Renaissance palace, a medieval turret, a North Italian church tower and lantern, and a Flamboyant Late Gothic edifice with a porch that features to the far right a column topped by the sculpture of a naked male pointing heavenward. At the center of this classical realm an enraptured Danae sits on two plump red pillows on the floor. With her bare legs spread apart, and her deep blue mantle slipping seductively from her shoulders to reveal her right breast, she receives Zeus in the form of the fertile golden rain that gently falls into her lap. This mythological theme was not commonly represented in early Netherlandish painting, and Gossart’s is the earliest surviving autonomous example.* Given the

Pa

i tinggS /

2

great interest of Philip

of Burgundy in the

literature of classical architecture, discussed by his biographer Gerard Geldenhouwer, Gossart would certainly have had access to textual sources for the structures in his composition. But, as Sadja Herzog points out, the Danae shows little dependence upon Vitruvius, except perhaps for one passage, namely 1.2.5, in which he specifies that temples should reflect the character of the gods to whom they are dedicated.” Thus the Ionic order, with its slender proportions, suits the feminine nature of Danae. Gossart may have made drawings on his trip to Rome of the Temple of Vesta in the Forum Romanum.’ As was often the case with Gossart, this famous ancient monument would have provided only a starting point, from which his image deviates in a number of important respects: the columns and their dadoes in the Aedes Vesta are on the exterior of the temple, not the interior as here; the columns of the Aedes Vesta are fluted and white, while Gossart’s columns are polychromed smooth shafts.’ Whatever his specific sources may have been, Gossart reformulated them for his composition with extreme care. Results from the recent technical examination of the painting help reconstruct Gossart’s working method. The painting is meant to be seen from below, and the viewer's eye level 1s at Danae’s womb. Using a horizon line that runs through her abdomen, Gossart developed a classic perspective system with the point of convergence on that line and directly below Danae’s exposed breast.” Gossart placed Danae at the center of his composition, and the underdrawing of the figure shows rigid contour lines that indicate a transfer of the image from a cartoon (fig. 76).” The artist then proceeded to construct the architecture around the figure; incised and ruled lines for the columns and bases partially pass through the edges of her form. The incised lines do not appear in the X-radiograph and therefore must have been applied at a midstage of the painting process, probably on top of the priming. Applying the incised and ruled lines at a such a stage had the benefit of sharpening the edges and contours of the painted forms. 234 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 213. Jan Gossart, Danae, X-radiograph (detail cat. 3s)

Although

a

of

number of the composi-

tals

tional features were fixed at the outset, many were not. Only rough reserves were left for the architecture in the background

the

(fig. 213), which was not part of perspective system of Danae’s temple. The

balustrades at the top of each of the two stories of the buildings at left were added

in the final paint stage; the entire dome the building at the center over Danae’s

Fig. 214. Jan Gossart, Danae, infrared reflectogram (detail of cat. 35)

of

head was painted in over the completed sky; and, at the right, an earlier oniondome-topped structure was altered to the Flamboyant Gothic building that was added in the paint layers alone (fig. 214). These significant changes in a late paint stage indicate the wishes of either Gossart or his patron to represent, as Matt Kavaler writes in his essay in this volume, “the span [of the] scope of architectural aspirations at the time.” The decorative cherub and leafy tendrils on the foreground plane were painted over the completed lintel, and the four oculi in the dome were added in the final paint stage. As with the best of Gossart’s paintings, the illusionistic effects are masterfully achieved through his extraordinary execution. The half-temple is illuminated from the left with light that evenly bathes the interior of the structure and the figure. The excellent condition of the painting reveals Gossart’s subtle transitions in the modeling of Danae’ flesh tones. On the columns, perfectly placed strokes of light paint are scored with a stylus to call attention to the highlight and to enhance its rounded form. The golden bases and capi-

of the columns, the bucrania, and

the lintel decoration are all masterfully achieved with lead-tin yellow paint. Gossart reserved actual gold for the divine rain. In order to give it volume, he made the tiny drops in three ways: in gold leaf applied on a mordant; painted in shellgold; and brushed with small strokes of whitish paint, especially where the background 1s dark. Although this 1s one of Gossart’s most important paintings, the details of its commission and original location remain obscure. Furthermore, a debate has devel-

oped concerning the original meaning of the painting. Erwin Panofsky initially discussed Gossart’s Danae in terms of a medi-

the

eval, moralistic, and didactic reading of antique myth, considering it as an allegory

of chastity based on the medieval “Pudicitia type” found in moralizing treatises such as the Fulgentius metaforalis by the fourteenth-century English Franciscan

John Ridwall."” Panofsky also mentioned other fourteenth-century texts in which Danae’s being impregnated by the golden rain was interpreted as prefiguring Mary's virgin conception of Christ." Since then, other scholars—namely, Leopold Ettlinger, W. S. Heckscher, Sadja Herzog, Madlyn Kahr, Larry Silver, and Craig Harbison— have accepted and expanded upon Panofsky’s view that Gossart’s Danae represented the image of Pudicitia.'* However, Silver and Harbison also acknowledged the physical allure of the figure," and these observations eventually prompted a reconsideration of the painting.

Harald Olbrich was the first to question previous interpretations of the Danae, based on his own closer consideration of the obviously erotic allure of the picture." Shortly thereafter, Eric Jan Sluijter completely overturned the status quo by

recognizing that “Neither the outward appearance of Gossaert’s painting, the milieu in which the work originated, nor Gossaert’s other paintings of mythological representations can . . . justify the[se ear"” lier] . . . interpretations.” He saw Gossart’s painting not as following the course of medieval tradition but as leading contemporary trends, even slightly in advance of newly erotic representations such as Correggio’s Danae of just about four years

later." Sluijter convincingly argued that the similarities to medieval examples are minimal and that the eroticism of the image has been daringly enhanced by Gossart. He presented Danae as “not only . . . more naked” but also in her demeanor—marked by a sense of calm wonder—accepting the disguised Zeus at the moment of impregnation."” Sluijter saw this representation as having originated in the highly sophisticated milieu of Gossart’s chief patron Philip of Burgundy and the latter’ close friend Philip of Cleves. As Philip of Burgundy died in 1524, and the Danae 1s dated in the humanist manner in 1527, that leaves open the question of whether Philip of Cleves or Adolf

of Burgundy,

inciting the viewer to action." Although the numerous representations of Danae in ancient frescoes and mosaics would have been unknown in Gossart’s time, smaller objets d'art such as gems, coins, medallions, and cameos were available, and any of these could have provided visual sources for the sensuous pose of his

Danae.” Philip of Burgundy had a sub-

stantial collection of antique medals, coins, and cameos, many of which may have been acquired during his sojourn in Rome, with Gossart, in 1508-9.” Since the Danae no longer has its original frame, any accompanying text that originally existed there 1s now lost to us. Given the likely origins of this work at a humanist court, any associated text would not have related a Christian allegory. In fact, Erasmus, who was much admired by Philip of Burgundy and his court human-

11.

conflating divine and pagan subject matter.” Rather, it might have been a text derived from antique sources that referred to the power of gold, in this case to corrupt female chastity. As Sluitjer pointed 1s this interpretation, presented in out, literature from the time of Horace to Boccaccio to sixteenth-century mythological handbooks, that would have been favored in the humanist courts that

it

Gossart frequented.”

MWA

Panofsky 1933, p. 206. Among the earliest to mterpret the myth of Danae as a Christian allegory 1s the early fourteenth-century Omid moralisé. See also Madlyn Kahr and Larry Silver,

who hkewise associated Danae with attributes of the Virgin Mary, especially her humility (Kahr 1978, p. 46; Silver 1986a, pp. 19-20). 12.

Etthnger 1954; Heckscher 1961, pp. 191-92; von der Osten 1961, p. 455; Herzog 1968a, pp. 291-92; Kahr 1978, pp. 45—46; Silver 1986a, pp. 19-20; Harbison 1995, pp- 162-63.

13.

Silver 1986a, p. 20: “Once more Gossaert walks a precarious tightrope between an overt erotic appeal

transcendent canon of beauty as the embodiment of a moral ideal” Although Harbison interpreted Danae as a prefiguration of the Maria humilitatis, he acknowledged that “A pure nurturing Virgin has been transformed into an object of extreme sensual beauty” Harbison 1995, p. 163. Olbrich 1995.

and

14. 15.

16.

17.

a

Slunter 1999a, pp. 7-8. Ibid. pp. 5-17; for specific comparisons between the pantings of Danae by Gossart and Correggio and between their artistic mihieus, see pp. 10-11.

Ibid,

p. 9.

ibid, pp.

14-15; see also Pliny the Elder 1949-62 (ed.), vol. 9, p. 357 (bk. 35, chap. 40, hne 131); Martial 1919-20 (ed.), vol. 2, p. sor (bk. 14, chap. 175);

18. As

ist Geldenhouwer, strongly objected to

in

and Terence

12,

(ed.), vol. 1, pp. 292-95 (act 4). 19. For a fuller discussion of this, see Sluijter 1999a, 1912

pp. 14-16. 20.

Ibid. pp. 10-11, figs. 8-13, shows a number of images of the type that Gossart may have seen.

21.

Sterk 1980, pp. 22, 101, 230, 293. See Van der Coelen 2008, p. 185.

tv

1&5

.

tv ta .

Sluyjeer 1999a, pp. 15-16, and n. 59.

On the mterpretation of the Danae myth in ancient literature and

ibid,

1n

texts

of

the sixteenth century, sce

p. 15.

Exhibitions: Brussels 1948, no. 66; Amsterdam 1948. no. 60;

Paris 1948-49, no. 69

Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), pp. 81, 82, 84: Weisz 1913b, p. 120, pl. X, 25; Winkler 1021b, p. 412; Segard 1923, pp. 49-53, 176, no. 4; Winkler 1924, p. 243; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 50-51, 159, no. 48, Literature:VGon

Gossart’s subsequent patron,

might have commissioned the work. The Munich painting thus fits in well with the courtly interest in depictions of mythological female nudes and the amorous exploits of the gods that were valued chiefly for their erotic content (see cats. 30—34 and Stephanie Schrader’ essay on Gossart’s mythological nudes in this volume). Sluijter ties the tradition for this to Pliny’s mention of a painting of Danae by Nicias (ca. 350—300 B.C.), to Martial’s epigram on a painting of her, and to Terence’s well-known comedy The Eunuch." Terence’s comedies were widely read in the sixteenth century, and one passage from The Eunuch was held up as the example nonpareil of an image that was capable of arousing erotic feeling and

10.

1.

The Pettenkofer method used in the 1860s-70s to

regenerate the degraded blue color 1s discussed by Sibylle Schnmdt in the 1988 conservation report “Das Pettenkofersche Regenerationsverfahren™ (Paintings Conservation Department, Alte Pinakothek, Munich). 2. Inventory dated December 6, 1621, no. 1015, “Die Danaa mit einem guldenen regen vom Joan Mabusen (Orig.)"; transcribed in Zimmermann 190s, p. X11, and cited in Mensger 2002, p. 71, n. 23. Gossart’s Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (cat. 9) 1s also mentioned in this same inventory. 3.

Apollodorus

1921

(ed.), vol.

1,

pp. 153ff. (bk. 2,

chap. 4); see also Kahr 1978, p. 43. a Mensger 2002, p. 181. .

. Ow

.

. Cg .

pl. x11; Panofsky 1933, p. 206; Hoogewerff 1935, p. 122;

Brussels 1948, p. 33, no. 66; Amsterdam 1948, p. 28, no. 60; Paris 1948-49, p. 34. no. 69; Lassmgne and Delevoy 1958,

Heckscher 1961, pp. 191f; von der Osten 1961, p- 455:Van Puyvelde 1962, p. 308; Herzog 1968a, PP. 291-92, no. 41; Herzog 1968b; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 33,97, no. 48, pl. 42; Kahr 1978, esp. PP. 45—46; Peter Eikemeier in Alte Pinakothek 1983, Pp. 223-24 (inv. no. 38); Silver 1986a, pp. 19-20; Olbrich p- 83;

1995; Sluijter 19990a, esp. pp. 4-17; Pp. 24-25; PP- 2—4;

Slujter

1999b, esp.

Slujter 2000, pp. 35-38; Haveman 2002,

Mensger 2002, pp. 179-85

Herzog 1068b, pp. 37-38. Ibid, p. 38; Mensger 2002, pp. 181, 192, n. 17. Herzog 1968b. p. 39. My thanks to Joseph Godla, Chief Conservator of the Frick Collection, New York, for discussions of the

perspective schemes in Gossart’s paintings. 9. This 1s visible above all in the head of Danae. The ultramarine blue drapery could not be penetrated with infrared reflectography.

Paintings

235

Jan Gossart 36. Mary Magdalen Ca. 1506-8 Oil on oak panel, overall 11% x 8% in. (29.3 x 22.1 cm); painted surface 8% x §% in. (22.2 x 14.6 cm)

The National Gallery, London

NG

2163

of the painting

has been heavily abraded and much restored in the past, especially in the Condition: The surface

background, hair, eyes, nose, and fur trim of the dress. The red lake of the hips and flesh tones has faded, as has the pink stone in the Magdalen’s necklace. Evidence from pant samples taken by Marika Spring during the restoration by Britta New indicates that the frame originally may have been a trompe-I'oeil variegated marble. The halo 1s thinly painted in yellow paint and appears to be onginal. Technical investigation: The oak panel

1s

vertical in grain

and radially cut; its frame is one piece with the support. Infrared reflectography carried out by Rachel Billinge (April 2009) reveals minimal underdrawing in a dry brush that roughly lays out the profile ofthe face, the drapery folds of the dress, and a few short notations for the hands. The stem of the vessel's lid 1s painted over the fabric of the Magdalen’ sleeve, and the larger of the two pendants is painted over the patterned dress. There were changes made to the hands, edges of the sleeve, and contour of the face during painting.

Thomas Henry Mack (1862-1943), London; purchased by the National Gallery, London, 1907, out of the Lewis Fund Provenance:

has caused it to be mostly ignored in the literature. It entered the collection of

National Gallery, London, simply

the

as

“Flemish School” and was published by

“Antwerp School.”* Kronig proposed the name of Jan van Scorel but

Holroyd

as

from 1912 to 1929 it was catalogued as Gossart.” Friedlander considered it as by Gossart dating to about 1515, but Davies,

who thought that the style was too painterly to be Gossart’s, saw a certain HispanoFlemish quality to it and suggested it was “the youthful work of a pupil of Gossart.”* Herzog relegated it to the “Misattributions™ section of his dissertation, and Lorne Campbell's negative assessment notes the “poor drawing of the hands.” Recent cleaning and restoration” as well as technical examination have revealed that the painting 1s in fact closely related to other early works by Gossart, namely, the Thyssen-Bornemisza Adam and Eve and the Toledo Jean Carondelet (cats. 1,

The Magdalen’ full, oval face, with its pronounced chin, large eyes, bowed 39).”

ary Magdalen can be recognized by her attributes: her splendid attire, and the unguent jar that she holds in her hands. Here she wears a magnificent patterned dress, made of cloth of gold trimmed with brown fur, over a red piéce. She is lavishly

adorned with

a pearl- and diamondstudded headband, a ruby pendant necklace, and a large cluster of gems with a tear-shaped pearl that hangs from the ribbon fastening her bodice. The gold unguent jar 1s decorated with antique scenes: on the lid, of uncertain identification, is one figure being carried by another. Below, on the main part of the vessel, is a nude Mercury wearing his winged hat (petasus) and carrying his caduceus in his left hand. Just below Mercury are two cows, which may refer to Admetus’ cattle that Mercury stole." How these myths could be connected with the Magdalen 1s a conundrum. The abraded and previously overrestored state of this little gem a painting

of

236 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

upper lip, and curled strand of hair in front of the ear, 1s similar to the head of Eve in the Madrid painting, although even more individualized. Characteristic of Gossart in both early works 1s the slightly open mouth revealing tiny teeth, as if each subject were about to speak. In terms of style, pose, and composition this Magdalen 1s presented like a portrait, and indeed she may represent a young woman in the guise of Mary Magdalen. Representations of sitters in the guise of the saint became especially popular from the late fifteenth to the beginning of the sixteenth century, when the Magdalen was believed to embody the ideal balance between the vita contemplativa and the vita activa.” The young woman's delicately individualized features suggest a work as early as the Toledo Jean Carondelet, which notably has the same deep blue-green background. Infrared reflectography shows that

both paintings were begun with similar, minimal dry brush underdrawing, and the paint handling and execution in both works evidence Gossart’s early virtuosity, including passages of wet-in-wet, feathered brushstrokes to soften contours, fingernails tipped with white impasto strokes that are dragged in a perpendicular direction to form the highlight, and so forth. The oval form of the iris in the large eyes, the bowed upper lip, and the deftly painted highlights on the rings are likewise the same. Above all, there is a sensitive understanding of light, which softly bathes these figures in a more uniform and less sculptural manner than that in Gossart’s later work. MWA The sections on condition, technical investigation, and provenance have been provided by Lorne Campbell and are based on work carried out at the Natonal Gallery by him in association with his colleagues there, parucularly Rachel Billinge, Britta New, and Marika Spring. 1.

Graves 1960, vol,

2.

Holroyd 1908.

3.

1,

pp. 63-65.

J. O.Kronig 1908 and information provided by Lorne

Campbell. 4. See Weisz 1913, p. 123; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8

(1930), p. 155, no. 25, and Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 94, no. 25; Davies 1955, p. 49; Davies 1968, p.

66.

Herzog 1968a, pp. 364—65, no. 85; Campbell, written communication to the author, September 30, 2009. 6. The painting was cleaned and restored by Britta New at the National Gallery in 2009-10. 7. My thanks to Susan Foister, Lorne Campbell, Rachel Billinge, and Britta Newfor facihtating a close technical study of the painting in April 2000. 5.

8.

On this painting

portrait, see J. O. Kronig 1908 and Gluck 1933a, p. 192. For a discussion of the phenomenon of female portraits in the guise of Mary Magdalen, see Anne Dubois and Bart Fransen in Syfer-d'Olne et al. 2006, esp. pp. 163-67, under no. 7. as a

See also cat. 38 in this volume. Literature: Holroyd 1908; J. O. Kronig 1908; Weisz 1913,

Friedlander 1924-37,

vol. 8 (1930), p. 155,

no. 25; Gluck 1933a, p- 192; Davies 1955, p. 49; Davies 1068, p. 66; Herzog 1968a, pp. 364-65, no. 85 (under “Musattributions™); Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 94, no. 25, pl. 29

p. 123;

—

~

*

=

- —

-—

—

*

-

—

-

~~

wv,

237

Unknown Netherlandish artist, after Jan Gossart 37. Virgin and Child Ca. 1522 Oil on oak panel, overall 17% x 13% in. (45.4 x 34.6 cm); painted surface 17% x 13 In. (43.8 x 33 cm) The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917

17.190.17

Condition: The paint layers are generally in good

condition, although there is evidence of pigment degradation. The tunic worn by the Child is now more transparent than was likely originally intended. Although the garment 1s made of a filmy fabric, the increased transparency of the paint medium-——the result of normal aging processes—has exaggerated the difference between where the diaphanous cloth covers the Child's flesh and where it overlaps the background and the Virgin's dark clothing. Because of this change, the clarity of the form of the Child's garment has become muted. Material changes appear to have occurred in the Virgin's clothing as well. Her blue mantle displays a mottled, ashy appearance that is likely the result of deterioration of the smalt component of the paint. New infrared reflectography, X-radiography, and microscope examinations were undertaken by Karen Thomas in February 2009. No dendrochronology was possible because of the marouflage of the support. There is a gray priming over the entire panel. The degraded blue mantle has a black underpaint, then a layer of smalt (60 microns thick), and a thin layer (2 microns) of ultramarine mixed with some faded red lake on top." By contrast, the dark blue bodice appears to comprise azurite Technical investigation:

(estimated), black, and red lake pigments. Provenance:

Rodolphe Kann (d. 1905), Paris; |. Pierpont

Morgan (1837-1913), New York (his estate, 1913-17); The Metropolitan Museum Art, Gift of |. Pierpont Morgan, 1917

of

his Virgin and Child, although not by

Gossart himself, 1s discussed here because of the considerable popularity of this composition in the artist's own lifetime and its notable link to the famous description in Karel van Mander’ biography of Gossart published in his 1604 Het Schilder- Boeck,

which states:

Among other things, when in the service of the Marquis of Veere, Mabuse painted an image of Mary in which the face was painted after the Marquis’ wife and the little child after her child. The piece was so outstandingly subtle, and painted so purely, that everything else 238 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

one sees by him appears crude by comparison. And there was a blue drapery, so absolutely clear that it looked as if 1t were freshly painted. This piece was later seen in Gouda with the Lord of Froimont.” Lord, of Veere (Adolf of Burgundy) married Anna van Bergen in 1509. The identification here of Lady Veere and her son, Hendrik (b. September 26, 1519), in the guise of the Virgin and Child 1s based on surviving portraits of her, including a drawn one in the Arras Codex (Recueil d’Arras) (see fig. 223), and three painted ones in the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts (cat. 52), the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, and the McNay Art Museum,

The “Marquis,” that

1s,

San Antonio.’ The Child depicted here appears to be about two years old. If it is indeed a representation of Hendrik, Anna’s

youngest son, then this suggests that the painting was produced in about 1522, when Anna was barely thirty years old. This identification presents some difficulties, however, as the physiognomies of the Virgin and that of Anna van Bergen do not match precisely. As Lorne Campbell pointed out, the shape and proportion of the heads, the double chin, and the rather thick neck are similar,” but the portrait of Anna shows a thinner upper lip and a more pointed and larger nose than her counterpart in the Metropolitan painting, More important, perhaps, they both have green eyes and dark brown hair, and in this respect they are closer in appearance to each other than the Virgin is to any of Gossart’s other Virgin types, where the norm 1s light brown or golden tresses and more refined, delicately formed facial features. If the Metropolitan painting shows an idealized portrait of Anna, then perhaps Van Mander’s statement can be taken at face value. The practice of representing

mere mortals as holy figures—whether the Virgin, Mary Magdalen, or certain saints—developed in the mid-fifteenth century and became even more popular in the early sixteenth century, especially in courtly circles.” In such cases, the portrayed individual wished to be associated with the virtuous character of the holy figure. The compositional device of placing figures before a trompe-I'oeil frame was first developed by Hans Memling, the portraits of Tommaso Portinari and Maria Baroncelli (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; see fig. 15) being primary examples. Gossart favored this device for a

number of his portraits (e.g., cats. 45, 48, 51, 57), to which he sometimes added various types of marble background panels. The present work has a reddish brown marble that sets off the pearly flesh tones of the figures and visually projects them forward into the space of the viewer. The fifteen or more copies of this painting achieve the same effect, to varying degrees of success.” These versions, which date from Gossart’s time and well into the sixteenth century,’ are an indication of the popularity of this composition, but it remains a mystery why so many were produced. The Metropolitan painting is the best of all the versions in terms of quality and condition. Although the details of its execution and handling closely follow those found in Gossart’s autograph works,” they vary to a degree that indicates the hand of a follower. This can be noticed especially in the less subtle modeling of the flesh tones, harder contours of forms, and shortcuts taken in rendering details such as the eyes or pearls. The underdrawing of the Metropolitan painting comprises several vertical and horizontal inscribed lines that appear to have served the purpose of placing the figures within the space. In addition, very fine drawing restricted to the contours of the figures indicates the possible use of a transferred cartoon. It is

daintings

239

most likely that Gossart’s lost original inspired the production of copies made to be sold on the open market. Several of the versions show that the preliminary design was transferred by either tracing or pouncing, an indication of streamlined workshop production.” Although such production may have begun locally wher-

it

ever Gossart was working at the time, seems eventually to have become part of wider manufacture and distribution, especially in Antwerp (see my essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume).

MWA

1.

tv .

Report of Silvia A. Centeno and Mark T. Wypyski, Department of Scientific Research, Metropolitan Muscum, July 16, 2009. For more on the technique and execution, see note 8 below. Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, vol. (1994), pp. 160, 161, fol. 225v, lines 30-35. For the likely provenance of this 1

original, see Bok 1993, p. 154. For illustrations, see Friedlander 1967-76, vol.

3.

8

(1972), p. 100, nos. 76, 76a, pl. 60. 4. In London 2008-9, p. 132. . Polleross 1988; Campbell 1990, pp. 3, 137; Mensger 2002, p. 166. See also the discussion of portraits of women as Mary Magdalen n cats. 36 and 38 in this

volume. 6. Among the known copies

of the

Virgin

and Child are:

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden; Courtauld Insutute of Art, London; Musées Royaux des BeauxArts de Belgique, Brussels; The State Hermutage Museum, Saint Petersburg; Memphis Brooks Museum

7.

8.

of Art, Tennessee

(Gift of Morrie A. Moss);

private collection, Great Britain (formerly Bob Haboldt collection [2009]); Amahaconvent, Dessau; Duke of Buccleuch, Drumlannig Castle, Dumfriesshire; Earl of Radnor, Longford Castle, Wiltshire; Kochertaler collection, Madrid; Catherine House; private collection, Great Britain (sale, Sotheby's, London, April 26, 2007, no. 16); current location unknown (formerly private collection, South America [1997]); formerly collection Lady Ludlow, London; formerly Hay collection, New York. The version in the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art may date as late as about 1600. Mysincere thanks to Stanton Thomas, Curator of the Brooks Museum, for sending the painting to the Metropolitan Museum for technical study in 2008. My thanks to Karen Thomas for discussing with me her examination of this painting under the microscope and for her report of February 25, 2009 (files, Department of Paintings Conservation, Metropolitan Museum), from which the following information 1s paraphrased: The flesh tones appear smooth and finely blended, with minute, feathery brushstrokes used to soften contours and blend shadows. The manner in which this technique was applied at the corners of the Virgin's mouth, for example, 1s similar to Gossart’s method. The hips were painted with a vermilion underpaint enhanced with vertical hatching in shades

240

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

of red and pink. A stroke of dark brown paint divides the Virgin's lips, The soft, reflective quality of the eyes, especially the whites, with their hint of blue, 1s parucularly accomplished and quite convincing, as are the complex catchlights in the irises. In the hands, mmpasto highlights along the curve of the nail up combined wath a stripe of the same color pulled along the length of the nail are characteristic of Gossart’s painting techmique. 9. Among the versions with underdrawing showing evidence of a cartoon transfer are those in the

a

Courtauld Insutute of Art, London, and in private collection mn Great Britain (formerly in the Bob Haboldt collection). Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 22; New York

Jan Gossart 38. Mary Magdalen Ca. 1530 Oil on oak panel, 20% x 15% in. (51.5 x 39.8 cm) Muscum of Fine Arts, Boston 1991.85 Condition: The painting

in very good condition. The single, vertically grained panel has been thinned, 1s

attached to another panel, and cradled. Extensions of inch have been added at all sides. There is a streaky, possibly grayish, priming over the white ground that has perhaps caused the pronounced craquelure in the paint layers, ¥%

1998-99, no. 40; Madrid 2008, no. 57; London 2008-9, no. 26 Literature:Van Mander 1604/7 1994-99, vol. 1, pp. 160, 161, fol. 225v, lines 30-35; Ermerins 1786, p. 39; Weisz 1913b,

pp. 86-87; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 157, no. 39a, pl. xxx vi; Wehle and Salinger 1947, pp. 142-43;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 149-52, no. 22; PopeHennessy 1966, p. 257; Herzog 1968a, pp. 150, 156-57, 197, n. 31, pp. 348-49, no. 75; Bialostocki 1970, p. 164; Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 25, 95-96, no. 39a, pl. 37; Bauman 1986, pp. 14—16; Campbell 1990, pp. 3, 137, 257, n. 53; Bok 1993, p. 154; Véronique Sintobin in New York 1998-99, pp. 192-94, no. 40;Van den Brink 2001, pp. 26-27; Mensger 2002, pp. 165-66; Ainsworth 2005a, pp. 59-60; Chatelet 2007, p. 277, under no. 17-7; Lorne Campbell in Madrid 2008, p. 483, no. §7; Campbell in London 2008-9, pp. 132—33, no. 26

New infrared reflectography, X-radiography, and microscope examinations were carried out mn July 2007 by Rhona MacBeth and Meta Chavannes. Virtually no underdrawing could be detected with either the Mitsubishi or Fup cameras. Contour shifts at the hands, back of the neck, and left of the face are visible with X-radiography, infrared reflectography, and the naked eye. No dendrochronology has been undertaken because the panel 1s marouflaged. Technical investigation:

Provenance:' Lucien-Félix Claude-Lafontame (18401909), Paris; (sale, Hotel Drouot, Paris, March 14, 1018,

no. 3, as “Portrait de Femme,” by Bernard van Orley [possibly unsold or repurchased]); Claude-Lafontaine family, Paris (sale, Palais Gallieria, Paris, April 11, 1962, no. 8, to Rosenberg and Sticbel); [Rosenberg and Stiebel, New York, 1962-63; sold to Coolidge, April 19, 1963]; Wilham A. Coolidge (1901-1992), Topsfield and Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963-91; gift of William A. Fine Arts, Boston, 1991 Coolidge to Museum

of

ary Magdalen sits by a gray stone ledge with marble panel insets, just below a corner window. Embracing an enormous golden unguent jar, she casts a sultry glance at the viewer. Alluding to her sinful past, she is ostentatiously attired in a red dress and blue overdress that covers a transparent blouse decorated with gold strips sewn with pearls; her cloth-of-gold sleeves are slashed to reveal a brilliant white fabric pulled through. An elaborate gold, pearl, and gemstone necklace adorns her neck. Her golden tresses, braided and tied in a topknot, loosely cascade down her back and are dressed with a pearlstudded headband and snood. Even her gilded jar 1s lavishly embellished with rams’ heads, acanthus leaves, and swags. Contrasting with these rich color effects is the Magdalen’s porcelain-white skin, which gives her face the appearance of a highly polished surface. There 1s an undeniably erotic sensibility in the figure

i

Pa tttngs

o I 24

of this Magdalen, who seems not to have fully renounced her former lifestyle. Her

elaborate, classicizing topknot signals her

connection with other voluptuous and sinful women often represented with similar hairstyles, such as Venus and Eve (see cats. 33,

65).

The representation of Mary Magdalen varies throughout the pictorial tradition and often changes in focus. Most popular in fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Northern painting is the repentant woman of the Gospel of Luke (7:38), who anointed Jesus’ feet during a meal at the house of Simon the Pharisee. She is also the Mary of Matthew, Mark, and Luke who accompanied Mary, the mother of James, and Mary Salome to Christ's tomb and brought spices with which to anoint his body, only to find, to her astonishment, that he was not there and had risen. Through such pious acts Mary Magdalen became known as the archetypal female penitent saint, one whose righteous behavior encouraged emulation. Wishing to identify personally with the Magdalen’s virtuous character, sitters had themselves portrayed in her guise.” Among the best known of these from Gossart’s time are the portraits of Catherine of Aragon, Margaret of Austria, and Isabella of Austria, as the Magdalen in versions associated, respectively, with Michel Sittow, the circle of Bernard van Orley (about 1510-15), and, formerly, with Gossart (about 1530).> Evidently, this courtly conceit was popular in part because the reformed sinner was believed to be the daughter of a prince, and also because her visit to Marseille in A.D. 14 was thought to have influenced the baptism of the king of Burgundy, providing a link between Mary Magdalen and the Burgundian-Habsburg dynasty.” It is interesting to note, therefore, that the inventory of Philip of Burgundy’s Wijk by Duurstede castle lists “A painting of Saint Mary Magdalen [made] after another woman of Mechelen.” Just who this sitter from Mechelen was 1s not known, but Sterk speculates that she might have been Philip's mistress (and the mother of his three bastard sons, Philip, Johannes, and 242

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Olivier).” Although it is hard to imagine that the highly stylized and mannered facial type of this Magdalen 1s a portrait, if we loosely construe Karel van Manders statement in his biography of Gossart that the artist painted a Virgin and Child after Anna van Bergen and her son (see cat. 37),” then this painting, too, may have

occasioned the use of a model, even if it 1s not an exact likeness. Until the 1965 Rotterdam, Bruges exhibition, this painting was considered a copy of one in the Museum Mayer van den Bergh, Antwerp. The direct comparison between the two afforded by that exhibition left no doubt that the Boston painting, then in the Coolidge collection (Topsfield, Massachusetts), was in fact the superior work. This painting shows many adjustments that were made to the contours of forms during the creative process, for example, while the Antwerp painting reproduces that fixed design.'” And though the Antwerp painting is a close copy in terms of size (51.5 by 39.8 centimeters), lacks the remarkable mastery of execution

dimensionality of his figures and the porcelain-like, polished surfaces of heads especially characteristic of his output in the late 1520s until his death in 1532 (see, especially, the Chicago Virgin and Child and the Bilbao Holy Family and hands

[cats. 14, 18, and figs. 84, 85]). This theme, in 1ts mannered mode, was carried on 1n a

number of variations by Pieter Coecke MWA van Aelst and his workshop."

1.

including the dynamic characterization of the tightly cropped space. In the Antwerp copy, the more generalized illumination causes the figure and the setting to merge in a less volumetric description of forms. Dendrochronology has recently confirmed that the Antwerp copy could not have been painted before 1612, that 1s, considerably later than Gossart’s original."’ Gossart’s Magdalen dates to the end of his career, when he became quite interested in placing his figures in crowded stone architectural settings. Such settings can be seen in the Prado Virgin and Child, the Brussels Portraits of Tivo Donors, and the Getty Francisco de los Cobos, where a similar window at left was painted out in favor of the green curtain (see cats. 16, §5B,C, 63). In addition, Gossart’s increasingly mannered attempts to reference marble sculpture by accentuating the three-

Based on the provenance information for this paintFine Arts, ing given on the website of the Museum Boston (http://mfa.org; accessed March 29, 2010).

of

sign of passion, see Panofsky 1961,

|) .

On topknots

3.

pp. 22-25; Harrison 1994, pp. 10—11,n. 13. For a thorough discussion of the iconography of Mary Magdalen and the question of contemporary

as a

images of the saint as concealed portraiture, see Anne Dubois and Bart Fransen in Syfer-d'Olne et al. 2006, pp. 163-67, under no. 7. 4. Matthias Weniger in Munich 2006-7, pp. 244-45, no. 6s. 5. For these and a number of other examples, see Polleross 1988, vol.

1,

pp. 208-14. See also Campbell

1998, pp. 334-37 (Inv. no. NG 2614); Ariane Mensger

in Mechelen 2003, pp. 266-67, no. 107; Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, nv. no. 4341; and note 3 above.

it

and paint handling typical of Gossart, especially where the tactile quality of various materials and textures is concerned. Equally different are the lighting effects. In the Boston painting, Gossart used lighting to enhance the lively articulation of forms,

1s

6. Mensger in Mechelen 2005, pp. 266—67, no. 107. =~]

.

8.

“Een taeffereel van Sint Marien Magdalena nae een ander vrouken van Mechelen”; Sterk 1980, pp. 226-27. This could not have been the Boston panting, as it dates to ca. 1530, that 1s, after Philip's death in 1524.

Ibid,

p. 18.

9. See cats. 37 and 52. 10.

11.

12.

In the Boston version, the upper lid of the Magdalen’ proper left eye was lowered in the painting process to effect a more sensuous look; contour shifts were made

to the left of her face, her hands, and her shoulder at right. My thanks to Pascal Fraiture (Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels), who carried out the dendrochronology, and to Hans Nicuwdorp and Héléne Mund, who made the report available to me. Report dated February 9, 2009. Marlier 1966, pp. 250-51, figs. 194, 195.

Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 35; Cambridge

(Mass.) 1967; Worcester (Mass.) 1983-84, no.

14

Literature: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 203-7, no. 3s; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 201; Bruyn 1965b, p. 464; Herzog 1968a, pp. 155-56, 302-3, no. 47; Rasmussen 1973, p. 63, n. 18; De Coo 1978, pp. 70-71, under no. 385; James A.

Welu in Worcester (Mass) 1983-84, pp. 56-359, no. 14; Peter C. Sutton in Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 1992, p- 38;

P C. Sutton 1995, pp. 31-35, no.

3

Jan Gossart 39. Jean Carondelet Ca. 1503-8 Oil on oak panel, 15% x 11% 1n. (39.7 x 28.9 cm) Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio, Gift of Willham E. Levis 1935.58 Condition: The panting 1s in very good condition, although the flesh tones are quite abraded, having been

strongly cleaned in the past. There is a barbe on all edges except the bottom one, which has been trimmed shightdy.

The panel 1s one piece of oak, beveled on all edges on the reverse. Infrared reflectography was conducted by Molly Faries on September §, 1984. No other technical examination has been undertaken, except microscopic examination by the author (April 2008). Technical investigation:

Crews, Esq.; Charles T. D. Crews (1839-1915), London; [Colnaghi, London, in 1910]; Leopold Hirsch, London; (sale, Christies, London, May 11, 1934, no. 112); William E. Levis, 1935; gift of William E. Levis to the Toledo Museum of Art, 1935 Provenance:

FE

ean Carondelet (1469-1545), a noted Flemish cleric, was appointed to a succession of important posts beginning in 1493. Philip the Fair selected him for the Grand Council of the Low Countries in 1497, and he became a member of the Privy Council in Mechelen in 1508. Either event may have occasioned the first of the portraits of him made by Gossart over Carondelet’s long and illustrious career. The identification of the sitter may have been indicated on the original, now-lost frame. However, 1s supported by two later por-

it

traits—the left half of the 1517 Carondelet Diptych in the Louvre (cat. 40) and the portrait of about 1525 in Kansas City (see figs. 87, 89, and 253)—that show the same characteristic traits of Carondelet’s physiognomy as he aged. Both paintings bear

inscriptions and/or a coat of arms that identify the sitter as Carondelet. In addition, one of two weak copies of the Toledo portrait, now in the Musée du Temps, Besan¢on (the other was with C. E Massey, New York, in 1953)," shows a banderole with the text: REPRESENTATION DE

MESSIR. IEHAN. CARRONDELET. HAULT DOYEN DE BESANCON. EN. SON. EAGE. DE. 45 ANS FAIT LAN. 1514 (|This| representation of Monsieur Jean Carondelet, High Dean of Besang¢on, at his age of 45 years made in the year 1514). As a result, Friedlinder and Fierens dated the Toledo painting to about 1514.> However, based on the

apparent age of the sitter and early style of the painting, Conway, Segard, and von der Osten considered a date slightly before Gossart’s trip to Rome in 1508. Thus, it could have been painted to mark Carondelet’s appointment to the Privy Council in 1508." Burton Dunbar pointed out that the artist of the Besan¢on painting may have updated the age of the sitter

Fig. 216. Hans Memling, Portrait of Benedetto Portinari(?), ca. 1490. O1l on panel, 13% x 92 1n. (35 x 24 cm). Galleria degh Ufhz, Florence (1123;

confiscated, current location unknown)

and date in the added banderole at the time the copy was made.’

This sensitively rendered, independent portrait shows the hallmarks of Gossart’s early style: the tightly cropped composition; the plain, dark green background; and the conservative pose of the sitter, which emulates earlier examples from Bruges, namely, portraits by Hans Memling. But even at this early date, Gossart’s assertive, sculptural style 1s evident in the strikingly three-dimensional expression of the form of Carondelet’s head and the prominent, boldly articulated hands. The panel retains its original edges, indicating that Gossart if he planned for the sitter to appear were nearly bursting out of the tightly cropped space. He must have worked from a drawing, for the underdrawing on the panel, done in a dry brush, exhibits only minimal indications for the facial features and left ear. Gossart sketched the hands more fully, but in the painted layers he changed their positions and enlarged them beyond the design in the preliminary sketch (fig. 215).°

as

Fig. 215. Jan Gossart, Jean Carondelet, infrared reflectogram (detail

of

cat.

39)

Paintings

243

244

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

In terms

of the

of the rendering of

essential features

composition and the sensitive the sitter’s physiognomy, this painting pays homage to the great master of portraiture in Bruges at the end of the fifteenth century, Hans Memling. Even if Gossart never personally knew Memling, who died in Bruges in 1494, he certainly must have known his reputation in this genre, and there can be no doubt that Gossart imitated Memling’s compositional strategies both carly on and later in his stylistic development (see cats. 36, 57). For example, Gossart emulated the earlier artist's tightly cropped portraits, in which the head and prominently displayed hands, set in a relaxed pose, express the self-assured essence of the man. Memling’s portraits of Folco Portinari(?) and Benedetto Portinari(?)

of about

1490 (fig. 216)

provide a compelling comparison with the Toledo Jean Carondelet.” The Portinari brothers, both Bruges residents, ran the branch of the Medici bank there after their illustrious uncle Tommaso retired to Florence in 1496. Like them, Carondelet sought the most noted portraitist of the day MWA to capture his likeness. 1.

| &

.

Information from the curatorial files of the Toledo Museum of Art. My thanks to Lawrence Nichols and Suzanne Hargrove for the opportunity to study the painting under the microscope on April 30, 2008. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 36, 38, 59, no. 51; Fierens 1956, p. 245.

Conway 1921, pp. 362-63; Segard 1923, pp. 111-12, 114; von der Osten 1961, pp. 454, 457-58. 4. Herzog 1968a, p. 128. Dunbar 200s, pp. 231-32. Infrared reflectography was carried out by Molly Faries at the Toledo Museum of Art in 1984. The infrared reflectography technical documents are in the curatorial files of the Toledo Museum of Art and at the Ryksbureau voor Kunsthistorische 3.

wn .

AN

.

Documentate, The Hague. 7.

See De Vos 1994, pp. 222-25, nos. $6, 57: Till-Holger Borchert in Madrid, Bruges, New York 2005, pp. 174-75, nO. 24.

Exhibitions: London 1927, no. 200; Toledo (Ohio) 1935, no. 14 Literature: Weale 1010, p. 342; Ring 1913, p. 147; Weisz 1913b, pp- 77. 121, pl. xv1, 45; Conway 1921, pp. 362-63; Segard 1923, Pp. 111-12,

114, 181,

no. 32; Tancred Borenius in Conway

no. 200; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 36, 38, 39, 151, no. §1, pl. Xvi; Toledo (Ohio) 1934, n.p., no. 14; Fierens 1956, p. 245; Rotterdam, Bruges 1963, pp. 103-4, 1927, p. 86,

under no.

von der Osten 1961, pp. 454, 457-58; Herzog 1968a, pp. 128-29, 205-6, no. 2; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 25, 27, 28, 97, no. 51, pl. 45; Toledo Museum of Art 1976, p. 65; Dunbar 200s, pp. 231-32

Jan Gossart

40. The Carondelet Diptych Left panel: Jean Carondelet Right panel: Virgin and Child 1517

Oil on 0ak(?) panel, each panel: painted surface 16% x 10% 1n. (42.5 x 27 cm), overall size 20% x 14% in.

(52.5 x 36.8 cm)

Inscribed: (on frame of Carondelet portrait) REPRESENTACION CARONDELET

*

*

DE

*

HAVLT

DOYEN

*

EAGE “DE

MESSIRE *

IEHAN

*

DE

*

*

SON

°

©

48

A

+

-of

-

Gossart used starting in 1516 with the Neptune and Amphitrite (cat. 30). It is, arguably, Gossart’s most splendid portrayal of

of

of Virgin panel) POST

*

DEVM

*

©

MEDIATRIX

SPES

*

SOLA

+

*

NOSTRA TVO

*

QUE

*

FILIO

*

*

ES

-

ME

(Our Mediatrix, who art after God our only hope, represent me to your son); (along bottom REPRESENTA

+

of Virgin panel)

JOHANNES MELBODIE PINGEBAT (Joannes Malbodius painted [this]); (on verso of both

panels) MATVRA (mature); (suspended 1n the entrelac) ¢ [Carondelet’s imtials]; (on paper in niche above skull, in Gothic script) Facile contemnit omnia qui se simper cogitate moriturim Hieronimus 1517 (One values everything when being mindful of death) 1

+

+

+

(Hieronymus, Epistolae, §3.11.3) Musée du Louvre, Paris 1442, 1443 Condition: The interior paintings are in extraordinarily

fine condition; the versos are considerably damaged and restored, particularly the coat of arms. Technical investigation: Examinations using

X-radiography, infrared reflectography, and X-ray fluorescence were carried out by Bruno Mottin, Elsa Lambert, Eric Laval, and Myriam Eveno, and the results were submutted in a report dated January 28, 2009 (Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, dossier F2961). According to those analyses, each painting in the diptych 1s made on one panel within an engaged frame. The wood 1s probably oak, but this has not been conclusively determined, and because of the original engaged frame no dendrochronology has been undertaken. The panels vary mn the relative width of the wood grain (the Virgin and Child is on a finer-grained wood) and in thickness (the portrait is almost twice as thick as the Virgin and Child). While no underdrawing could be detected in either the portrait or the coat of arms on the verso, there 1s a rough sketch in a dry material (probably black chalk) for the Virgin and Child and their draperies (except for the left sleeve, the Virgin's blue dress could not be penetrated with infrared reflectography). X-ray fluorescence by Eric Laval revealed no unusual pigments for an early

sixteenth-century Netherlandish painting (report, September 15, 2008, Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France; dossier F2061).

11;

Joseph Bernard (1801-1856), Valenciennes; acquired from Joseph Bernard by the Musée du Louvre, Provenance:

Paris, 1847

edge of the interior frame and is inscribed at the bottom right edge JOHANNES

MELBODIE PINGEBAT, the form

BESANCON

(Representation Messire Jean Carondelet Archdeacon of Besangon at the age of 48); (along bottom portrait frame) FAIT LAN 1517 (Made in the year 1517); (on frame EN

*

his remarkably well-preserved diptych is dated 1517 at the bottom left

Jean Carondelet, painted when the subthe cathedral at ject was archdeacon Besancon, and it is one of the masterpieces of early Netherlandish portraiture. The sensitive rendering of Carondelet and the accompanying depiction of the Virgin and Child attain a level of verisimilitude beyond that of any other contemporary artist except, perhaps, Hans Holbein the Younger. Indeed, Gossart’s achievement here places him on par with Jan van Eyck, whose lifelike portraits had earned him wide acclaim nearly a century earlier. Gossart was clearly at the peak of his abilities in 1517; the masterful manipulation of oil paint to depict different textures of fur, hair, and rings as well as living, breathing flesh 1s extraordinary. The painting shows highly sophisticated handling and execution in the modeling of the physiognomy and hands of the sitter, and it exhibits a subtlety of expression that is not evident in the earlier Toledo portrait (cat. 39), which represents Carondelet as a

of

younger man, perhaps in his late thirties. It 1s possible that the Louvre painting’ strikingly individualistic portrayal of Carondelet was based on repeated sittings instead of a single drawing by Gossart after the sitter’s likeness. There 1s no apparent underdrawing in the painted portrait, which may sup-

port this hypothesis.

Like the portrait of Carondelet, the depiction of the Virgin and Child 1s starthingly fresh. It does not mimic the idealized type of the Virgin that Gossart used for his frequent representations of her and

therefore might be a portrait of a woman Paintings

245

-

FAIT. EAN 1517 246

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

¢

Pa

i

i

J

.

s

247

Cat. 40, verso

in the guise

of the Virgin. This woman

has brown hair, a very wide neck, and a face with extremely wide-set eyes, a long, pointed nose, and a full, dimpled chin. She

seems ready to speak, with her ever so slightly parted lips and barely visible teeth. In an uncommonly naturalistic pose, the Child turns sharply to view Carondelet at his right while daintily resting his left hand on his mother’s chest and holding on to her left forefinger." Like the head of the Virgin, that of the Child is not idealized in the same wayas the other images ofthe Christ Child in Gossart’s oeuvre (see, for

Here his full cheeks and tightly arranged facial features appear crowded into the lower half of the head below pronounced forehead and cranium. Also, this Child has sparse, new hair growth—not the abundant curly locks of Gossart’s other babies. This example, cats.

11, 14, 15).

a

248

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

heightened realism recalls Karel van

Mander’ assertion in his

1604 Schilder-

that Gossart used Anna van Bergen and her baby son as models for one of his Virgin and Child paintings (see cats. 37, 52).Van Mander’s claim, true, could indicate a more widespread practice by which Gossart employed models in order to enhance the verisimilitude of the figures or to relate the character traits of the sitter to the Virgin Mary, the prime exemplar of virtue. If the Virgin and Child in the Louvre painting were based on live models, perhaps Carondelet knew them. The successfully achieved realism of the figures underscores the exceptional nature of this diptych, in which not only Carondelet but also the Virgin and Child are perceived as living beings. The fact that the inscription on the frame calls this a representacion rather than a portraict 1s conBoeck

if

sistent with the manner in which such images appear in inventories and contracts for sculpture, the former term being used to indicate the lifesize scale and the official nature of certain renderings.” This, in part, is what makes the diptych appear less conventional than the traditional form that it takes. Not often encountered, but not at

abnormal in early Netherlandish painting, 1s the placement of the prayerful donor, Carondelet, to the left of the Virgin and Child. Erwin Panofsky considered the placement of the donor to the left of the holy figures highly irregular, but Lorne Campbell has shown more recently that this supposed rule.’ there are exceptions Although the gold and lettering on the original frames have been restored, there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the 4 inscriptions in terms of their information. On the interior inner frame edge around all

to

the portrait, the text states in French that Carondelet was archdeacon of the diocese of Besancon and was forty-eight when the painting was made in 1517. The damaged reverse of the panel reinforces the identification of the sitter, as it shows Carondelet’s coat of arms, the interlaced letters I and C, and the motto MATVRA within a stone niche.’ The inner frame edge of the Virgin and Child conveys Carondelet’s supplication in Latin to the Virgin: “Our Mediatrix, who art after God our only hope, represent me to your son.” The use of the Latin word representa indicates that the Virgin is being asked in the legal sense to represent Carondelet to her son. This reflects the Virgin's role—Dbeyond that of the Incarnation—as a direct intera role, as cessor for the supplicant. This Andrea Pearson notes, that became more common in men’s devotional portrait diptychs after 1470.° Representa also provides a play on the French word representacion 1n the inscription surrounding Carondelet’s portrait. Like bookends, representacion initiates the inscription at the left, and representa completes the inscription at the right, reinforcing the word's dual meanings of both “to represent” and “to

is

intercede.” Complementing the parallels in the text, Carondelet and the Virgin turn toward one another, each seemingly lost in self-reflection and meditation. As Ivan Gaskell noted, “We view Carondelet as though from left of center and shightly below; we see the Virgin from right of center on a level with the bridge of her nose. We see Carondelet from about the level of the Christ Child's eyes; we see the Virgin and Child from about the level of his eyes.” Only the Child seems to be actively engaged, as he turns backward toward Carondelet in response to his entreaty to the Virgin. When the paintings are positioned at an angle of ninety degrees, the Child directly addresses Carondelet in a most intimate way. The reverse of the Virgin and Child panel portrays a skull in a niche, which, like the figures on the recto, 1s painted with extraordinary realism. The black chalk underdrawing, partly visible to the

naked eye, indicates that the artist reworked the details in order to achieve accuracy informed by direct observation of a human skull.” Along with the repeated date 1517 and motto MATVRA is a quote from Saint Jerome (Hieronymus, Epistolae,

concerning the fragility of life and the inevitability of death. It is the final sentence of Jerome’ letter to Paulinus, bishop of Nola (“Ad Paulinum de Studio Scripturarum”), in which Jerome urges him to study the Scriptures and devote himself to God. The adjoining verso shows Carondelet’s coat of arms (quite damaged and apparently painted by an inferior hand) hanging from a leather strap in a trompe'oeil niche, with the interlaced letters I and

1.

it

Given the high quality of the diptych, is surprising to find differences in materials and working methods in the two pan-

Although the panels are roughly the same dimensions, they differ in thickness (9 millimeters for the portrait, § millimeters for the Virgin and Child) and in the quality of the wood (the portrait has a widely spaced and prominent wood grain, the Virgin and Child a narrow and finegrained wood). While the portrait has no perceptible underdrawing, the Virgin and Child as well as the skull on the verso have underlying spontaneous free sketches for the figures and forms. Because of these anomalies, one wonders whether the two paintings were originally planned as a pair, or if the portrait was joined to an already existing Virgin and Child. If the latter, then that might explain why the gilding and lettering of the inscription on the interior does not equal the quality typical of Gossart’s inscriptions. On June 16, 1517, Jean Carondelet planned to set out with the future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V on a trip to Spain, which was postponed until September 7 because of inclement weather." Could the importance and the possible danger of that trip have prompted Carondelet to commission this diptych to guard him on his way? so, he might have carried it with him as an ex-voto, to be set up along the route for els.

a

of

5§3.11.3)

C displayed illusionistically above.

development of Hans Memling's Virgin and Child diptych of about 1485-90 (Ryerson Collection, Art Institute of Chicago, nos. 1933.1050, 1953.467), in which the Child turns sharply to view the male donor behind him, but in this case to his left. A copy the Carondelet diptych Virgin and Child from about 1600 1s in the Bayerische Staats-

This pose was

|] .

gemaldesammlungen, Staatsgalerie im Schloss Johanmsburg Aschaffenburg (no. 6551). It 15 1n on panel, 41 x 32.5 cm. See Burk 2003, pp. 282-84; and Sander 2006,

ol

pp. 424-25.

Campbell 2006, pp. 36—41. 4. See the technical report by Bruno Mottin et al. of January 28, 2009 (Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France; dossier F2961). 5. Herzog (1968a, p. 243) suggested that since Carondelet was a high official of the church and never married, perhaps the entrelac uniting 3.

Carondelet’s initials is a symbol of love alluding to his devotion to the church. 6. Pearson 2005, pp. 78-81. 7.

Michel

120-31; A. Diilberg 1990, pp. 155, 181, no. 16; Campbell 2006, esp. p. 42; Syson 2008, 1953, pp.

pp. 18-19.

Gaskell 2006, p. 210. 9. Skulls in niches on the exterior panels of diptychs or triptychs or even in prints (such as those by Master W 8.

with the Key) were not uncommon, but Gossart’s anatomical accuracy goes far beyond contemporary depictions. Only Leonardo da Vinci's extraordinary studies of the skull provide a more exact rendering (see Carmen C. Bambach in New York 2003, 412-15, no. $8). 10. For a discussion of the terminus ante quem Carondelet Diptych, see Claerhout 1967. PP.

of

the

Exhibitions: Paris 1935, no. 49; Paris 1952-53, no. 20;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no.

11;

Paris 1990, no.

15

Literature: Gachard 1872; Wauters 1898; Gossart 1903,

pp. 82-83, 119—20; Roberts 1907; Weale 1910; von Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), pp. 81, 82, 84; Weisz 1913b, pp. $0, 74-76, 121, pl. X1, 29; Friedlander 1916, pp- 132, 188; Conway 1921, pp. 372-73; Segard 1923, pp. 62,

105-9, 176, 177, no. 5; Winkler 1924, p. 254; Burger 1925, p. 130; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 54, 60, 151, no. 4, pls. 1x—x1; Gluck 1933b, pp. 45, 280; Jacques Dupont and Jacqueline Bouchot-Saupique in Paris 1935, pp. 38-39, no. 49;Van Puyvelde 1941, p. 36; Sewter 1948; Paris 1952-53, p. 32, no. 20; Michel 1953, pp. 120-31; Marlier 1954, p. 265; Friedlinder 1956, p. 97; von der Osten 1961, p. 464; Van Puyvelde 1962, p. 308; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 97-104, no. 11; Claerhout 1967, Herzog 1968a, pp. 8, 128-29, 242-44, no. 16; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 64—65,

(1972), pp. 35. 38, 91, no. 4, pls. 10, 11; A. Dilberg 1990, pp- 155, 181, no. 16; Cécile Scailliérez in Paris 1990,

96-99, no.

Campbell 2006, pp. 35, 38, 40, 42; Gaskell 2006, pp. 209-10; Mensger 20006, p. 219; Sander 2006; Van der Velden 2006, pp. 128, 146; Verougstracte 2006, p. 159; Mensger 2008b, pp. 204-7; Syson 2008, pp. 18, 19, 25; Foucart 2009, p. 34

Pp.

15;

Mensger 2002, pp.

45—51;

If

his personal devotions.

MWA

Paintings

249

250

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Jan Gossart 41. Portrait of a Man (Self-Portrait?) Ca. 1520 Oil on oak(?) panel, 14% x 11 1. (36 x 28 cm) Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow 2039 Condition: The painting is in fairly good condition,

with a number of discolored retouching, especially in the hands. New infrared reflectography, X-radiography, and ultraviolet and color photography were recently carried out at the Pushkin Museum thanks to Igor Borodin. X-radiography shows that wood strips have been added to all four edges (or that the painting 1s set into another panel). Infrared reflectography shows minimal brush underdrawing for the head, the facial features, and the right ear. Broad brush underdrawing for the costume shows a higher position for the jerkin, rough indications for the folds of the right sleeve, and a shift in the collar at the right side of the coat. In the underdrawing on the upper left part of the shirt is brushed in the word rot, a color indication for the red overshirt. The right hand originally showed three fingers and a thumb but was changed in paint to a full hand with rings on the index and pinkie fingers. Initially, the man's left iris and pupil were turned to the inside corner of the eye and probably looked out at the viewer. No dendrochronology has been undertaken. Technical investigation:

Counts Shuvalov, Shuvalov Palace, Saint Petersburg; Shuvalov Museum Palace, 1919-24; Pushkin State Muscum of Fine Arts, Moscow, from 1924 Provenance:

his little-known painting fits comfortably into the group of Gossart’s

relatively small, tightly cropped portraits of about 1520, yet the approach here 1s more personal. There are far more changes from

the underdrawing to the painted layers than usual with Gossart (see Technical investigation), and the relative looseness of the brushwork also suggests a deviation from his regular practice. These are signs of an evolving portrait rather than one fixed at the outset by a standardized approach. The bright orange-red of the sitter’s shirt and the decorative snood that binds his hair beneath his beret are also touches that enliven the portrait. Above all, the sensitive illumination of the head adds to the lifelike quality of the image, as highlights dance across the back of the man’s snood and the rim of his right ear, while a more uniform lighting bathes the right side of his face, leaving the far side in deep shadow. We cannot say for sure who the man 1s. His large hat badge at the upper right shows a leafless tree, but it is not clear what this denotes; it is not likely to be the emblem for the prestigious Confraternity of the Dry Tree in Bruges, as there are no figures of the Virgin and Child at its center." The portrait does bear a striking resemblance to certain of the putative

images of Gossart:” the Johannes Wierix engraving; the portrait of Gossart in the center of Lucas van Leyden’s print The Poet Virgil Suspended in a Basket; and even the image of Gossart on the Hans Schwarz medal (see figs. 1, 4, 2). Each of these portraits has a thick neck and a head that sits low on the shoulders; a very long, flattened nose with a bony bridge and extended nostrils; wide-set eyes; and a full-lipped mouth surrounded by mustache and short cropped beard. If the Pushkin painting is a self-portrait, then that could explain the unusually casual and loose manner in which it was painted, as well as the original position of the left eye looking out at the viewer—who perhaps was Gossart looking in a mirror to capture his own likeness. MWA

1.

On the Confratermity of the Dry Tree, see De Schodt 1876-77. See also Maryan W. Ainsworth in New York 1994, pp. 162-65, no. 18.

ts

.

Herzog (1968a, p. 296) suggested this connection, and Pauwels and Herzog (in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 [1972], p. 122, n. 112) thought that this sitter and the man portrayed m the Currier Museum of Art painting (cat. 46) are the same. See also my introduction to this volume.

Literature: Pushkin State Museum 1961, p. $9 (no. 2039);

Malitskava 1964, pl. 34; Herzog 1968a, pp. 2905-96, no. 43; Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlinder 1967-76, vol.

8

(1972), Addenda, p. 113, no. 165, and p. 122, n. 112

Paintings

251

Jan Gossart

42. Portrait of a Man Ca. 1520-25 Oil on oak panel; support 16% x 11% in. (42.8 x 29.6 cm); painted surface 14% x 10% In. (37 x 27.5 cm) Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 837 Condition: Although the corners at upper right and left are cut off, bevels on the verso right, left, and bottom edges suggest that the other edges are not reduced in size. The original panel

set into another panel. The painting is in fairly good condition but has suffered from abrasion, especially in the flesh tones and hair. 1s

X-radiography and infrared reflectography carried out at the Kunsthistorisches Museum under the direction of Elke Oberthaler clearly show the cut triangular portions at the top right and left of the panel. The oak grain of the panel is very prominent. Because the panel has been marouflaged, no dendrochronology was possible. The underdrawing in dry brush 1s summary, providing only a simple indication of the contour ofthe face (which 1s mside the painted contour); the eyes, nose, and mouth; and the placement of the fingers. There are no major changes in composition. Technical investigation:

Provenance: Royal collections since 1781; Kunst-

historisches Museum, Vienna

252

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

his Portrait of a Man has darkened

considerably over time, so that the details of the sitter’s costume are no longer clearly visible. Infrared reflectography helped to clarify the forms. The man wears a dark jacket over a black undergarment and a pleated white shirt. The costume is very similar to the one in Lucas van Leyden’s drawing Portrait of a Man, dated 1521 (see fig. 100).” Both wear the same type of hat with earflaps tied up with straps or buttoned at the crown, pleated white shirt, and high-collared jacket. The man in the Vienna portrait grasps the lapel of his jacket with his left hand, on which are

prominently displayed two rings—one with a green stone and the other with a monogram that might identify him. Unfortunately, it has not yet been possible to decipher this mark. This portrait 1s part of a group of works that are more modest than Gossart’s highly prized efforts for important and wealthy clients, such as the panels in Fort Worth, London, Washington, and Los Angeles (cats. 48, 54, $8, 63). Among the rather quickly executed paintings of standard size and simple composition are male portraits in Moscow, the Metropolitan Museum, and Brussels (cats. 41, 44, 49). These compositions show a bust-length figure before a simple green background, facing right or left, and usually with one hand resting at the lower edge of the painting. The brushwork 1s somewhat broader and more quickly executed than in Gossart’s ambitious portraits, but the hallmarks of his style are still evident in all of them. The simplicity of these paintings and the relative lack of personal identifying marks have relegated these sitters to anonymity. The Rotterdam, Bruges catalogue (1965) based the dating of this Vienna portrait on its relationship to the similar Portrait of a Man in Brussels and dated both to about 1525—30, or even after 1530.” Herzog, on the other hand, assumed that all of the portraits showing calmly posed sitters in a

a

tightly cropped space and in front of dark, neutral background must be dated before 1516" —that is, they must be part of Gossart’s early maturity. The Vienna and Brussels portraits, however, are not painted as thinly or with brushwork as tight as the carly portraits (for example, the Toledo Jean Carondelet, cat. 39). Instead, the looseness of the brushwork and, above all, the

sculptural approach to the modeling of the sitters’ faces denote a later period for both the Vienna and Brussels portraits, about 1520-25, or even about 1525-30 for the latter. MWA

1.

Possibly the work listed in the 1772 inventory of

paintings in the royal collection, no. 69, as “Jan Gossart painted by himself, small piece” (Johann Gossart von sich selbst gemalt, Klemnes Stick); BadenBaden 2009, p. 60. 2. See Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 214, no. So. 3. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 73; followed most recently by Alexander Wied in Baden-Baden 2009, p. 60.Von der Osten (1961, p. 465) alternatively suggested about 1520. 4. Herzog 1968a, pp. 134, 207. Mensger (2002, pp. 160-61) equated the ughtly cropped portraits

with Gossart’s Carondelet Diptych,

1517 (cat. 40).

Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 6, Baden-Baden

2000 Literature: Von Mechel 1783, p. 251, no. 61; Scheibler 1887, p-

203;

Glick

1903, p. 229; Friedlander 1909, p. 105; Weisz

1913b, pp. 78, 122, pl. XVII, 48; Segard 1923, p. 183, no. 42;

Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 65; Kunsthistorisches Museum 1958, p. 60, no. 174; von der Osten 1961, p. 465: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 71-74, no. 6; Herzog 1968a, pp. 206-7, no. 3; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 99, no. 65, pl. 50; Demus, Klauner, and Schutz 1981, pp. 195-96; Mensger 2002, p. 161; Alexander Wied in Baden-Baden 2009, p. 60

daintings

Jan Gossart

43. Portrait of a Woman Ca. 1520-25 Oil on oak panel, 14% x 13% In. (36.4 x 34 cm); panel thickness: "4s in. (1.7 cm) Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie 1202 Condition: The painting is badly abraded. The black

of

the costume is pitted and degraded, and the green background 1s significantly discolored (possibly a copper resinate glaze turned brownish). There 1s no barbe, and the painting has been cut down on all edges, especially at the bottom edge, eliminating the hands of the sitter. Underdrawing can be seen with the naked eye in the contour of the face to the right of the painted contour, through the hips, and in the nose and nostrils. X-radiography shows one panel with extremely wide growth rings; no major changes in composition; and damage in two areas at the top and in three areas at the bottom of the panel, as if it had been held by clips at one point. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. The technical investigation was carried out with the permission and assistance of Babette Hartwieg and Christoph Schmdt at the Gemildegalerie on April 7, 2008. Technical investigation:

Provenance: Royal castles

254

to the Gemaldegalerie, Berlin

Jan GOSSART's

RENAISSANCE

Ithough very damaged, this portrait is consistent with Gossart’s work in its composition, the pose and illumination of the sitter, and the execution of the details. As is typical of Gossart’s portraits of the 1520s, the sitter’s left eye, which is closer to the viewer, is rendered in greater detail than the right one. The lips are reddish, with curved vertical whitish strokes indicating the volume of the lower lip. Also characteristic 1s the summary underdrawing used to indicate the contour of the face at the left inside of the painted contour, as well as the wavy line for the position of the lips. The woman wears a simple white blouse, with worn gold edging, that is fastened at the neck. Her now-pitted and degraded black coat has a turned-back fur collar and voluminous fur sleeves. The green background, typical of Gossart’s more modest portraits, may be a discolored copper resinate green over a brighter green below. The identity of this well-to-do woman has not been confirmed, although Justi thought that she was perhaps Agatha van Schonhoven on the basis of a Jan van Scorel portrait in the Galleria Doria Pamphilj in Rome." A close comparison of the physiognomies of these portraits indicates that

Justis proposal 1s untenable. A far better preserved seventeenth-century copy of the Gossart painting, measuring 48 by 35 centimeters, is in the Lobkowicz Collections at Nelahozeves Castle, near Prague.” It shows that the Berlin panel must have been cut at the bottom edge by about 12 centimeters, eliminating the hands of the sitter. In the Lobkowicz copy, the woman is silently saying the Lord’ Prayer as she pauses on the paternoster bead of her rosary. Max J. Friedlander noted that there exists an engraving by Bartsch of about 1700 that includes the hands;” this was perhaps made after the Lobkowicz collection copy. MWA

1.

Justi 1881, pp. 193-94. For more onVan Scorel’s portrait, sec Molly Faries in London 2008-9, pp. 156-57, no.

37.

2. My thanks

3.

to David A. Krol, Deputy Director, and John Somerville, Chief Curator, at the Nelahozeves Castle, for the opportunity to make a firsthand study of the painting. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 163-64, no. 78; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 100, no. 78.

Literature: Justi 1881, pp. 193—94.; Friedlinder 1924-37,

vol.

8

(1930), pp. 163-64, no. 78; Herzog 1968a, pp. 255-56,

no. 23: Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 100, no. 78, pl. 61; Gemaldegalerie, Berlin 1996, p. 56

Pa ;

nH

rnggs

oa .

Jan Gossart

44. Portrait of a Man Ca. 1520-25 Oil on oak panel, 18% x 13% in. (47 x 34.9 cm) Signed (on left side of scroll): . . pm[?[rpses /Joannes. m /malbodius ./pingeba Inscribed: (on right side of scroll, fragments) dnz /oty; (on hat ornament) 1m The Metropolitan Museum Art, New York, The Friedsam Collection, Bequest of Michael .

.

.

.

.

of

Friedsam,

1931

32.100.62

Condition: The panel is made

of two oak planks joined

together vertically and thinned and cradled on the reverse. The painting is in fairly good condition, although the flesh tones and lighter areas are somewhat abraded and there are old damages along the night and bottom edges. Scattered tiny losses appear 1n the face, and the hand holding the scroll has lost much of its modeling. The scroll itself has become more transparent with age. Normal aging has darkened the paint of the jerkin and the patterned sleeve, obscuring details. The purplish blue gown has taken on a mottled appearance because of the fading of red lake pigment and the decolorization of ultramarine. New X-radiography and infrared reflectography were carried out by Karen Thomas in spring 2009 (report, Paintings Conservation Department files, April 6, 2009). The X-radiograph shows that the flesh tones have been rather densely worked up. Minimal underdrawing was found at the contours of the hat and head and for the features of the face. Silvia A. Centeno took paint cross sections from the man’s robe and determined the following structure: calcium carbonate ground, a lead white priming, a dark layer of red lake and carbon-based pigments, and a final layer of mixed ultramarine blue and faded red lake (report, October 29, 2008). For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. Technical investigation:

Provenance: Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792),

London

(has estate sale, Christie's, London, March 16, 1795 [third

day

of sale], no.

41, as

“The Portrait of John Duke of

Flanders,” by Mabuse);' [Michael Bryan, London (sale, Bryan's Gallery, London, April 27, 1795, no. 17, as “The Portrait of the Painter,” by Mabuse)]; Edward Coxe, London (sale, Peter Coxe, London, April 25, 1807, no. 33, from the Collection of Sir as “His Own Portrait Joshua Reynolds,” by Mabuse, to Philippe Panné); Comte de Quincey, Paris (his sale, Hotel Drouot, Paris, June 22, 1904, nO. 35, as “Portrait présumé de l'artiste,” by Mabuse, to Kleinberger); [Kleinberger, Paris, from 1904); Richard .

.

.

von Kaufmann (ca. 1850-1908), Berlin, by 1906 (his estate, 1908-17; his estate sale, Cassirer & Helbing, Berlin,

December 4, 1917, no. 91, as “Bildnis eines Mannes,” by Gossart); Camillo Castiglioni, Vienna (his sale, Frederik Muller & Co., Amsterdam, July 13-15, 1926, no. 21, as “Portrait d'un homme mur,” by Gossart); [Kleinberger Galleries, New York, in 1926; sold to Friedsam|; Michael Friedsam, New York, 1926-31; bequeathed by Michael Friedsam to The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1931

256 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

the only surviving independent portrait to be signed by Gossart—Joannes malbodius pingebat on the scroll—the identity of the sitter is unknown. It has sometimes been suggested that it represents the painter himself, because of the letters IM, presumably A

Ithough this

is

for “Joannes Malbodius,” fashioned as a hat pin and affixed to the man’ beret. However, the physiognomy of this sitter is

very unlike that of other proposed portraits of Gossart, including the engraving by Johannes Wierix for Dominicus Lampsonius’ Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germaniae inferioris effigies (Portraits of Some Celebrated Artists of the Low Countries) of 1572 (see fig. 1). The Roman capitals may indicate that the sitter is a humanist and could denote the first letters of a personal motto or device.” Perhaps the IM is for

Max J. Friedlander proposed.’ Deacons of guilds are known to have worn such pins, and this may identify the métier of the man, if not his name.” This tightly cropped composition showing the sitter turned to the left in a three-quarter pose against a dark background derives from the tradition of Bruges portraiture, especially that of Jan van Eyck and Hans Memling.® Indeed, the combination of naturalistic observation and painterly virtuosity so admired by the contemporaries of Van Eyck and Memling Thesus Maria, as

was likewise achieved in Gossart’s best independent portraits. All three artists por-

trayed their sitters as dignified yet aloof, not overtly haughty but always highly refined and elegant. One thinks immediately of Van Eyck’s 1432 Portrait of a Man (Léal Souvenir) in the National Gallery, London, in which the sitter likewise holds a scroll, but with illegible script.” As with Memling’s portraits—for example, his Portrait of Tommaso Portinari (The

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)—Gossart paid careful attention to the subtle modeling of the flesh tones, the stubble of the beard, the cleft chin, and the

individually painted hairs of the eyebrows. His far more sculptural treatment of the

bony structure of the face distinguishes his work from Memling’s softer, more generalized style.

The technical mastery

of

this fine por-

trait has been compromised by the change in the color harmonies over time. The

somber tones of the costume and the background have become darker and now appear to merge into each other. It is thus difficult to make out the different textures of the rich brown damask sleeve on the man’s right forearm, the fur lining of his purplish jacket, and the fur-trimmed garment that covers his white shirt. Most significantly, the once rich purplish blue robe has turned a mottled bluish gray because of the fading of the red glaze and blue ultramarine mixture of the paint.” The Metropolitan Museum portrait is generally dated to the early 1520s.” It is less ambitious a portrait than those traditionally dated to the later 1520s, toward the end of Gossart’s career, such as Portrait of a Man (Charles of Burgundy?) and Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (cats. $6, 58). Therefore, should be considered part of

it

Gossart’s more routine production, along

with the examples in Moscow, Vienna, and Brussels (cats. 41, 42, 49). MWA

1.

The date

of

the sale was corrected

in writing from

Friday, March 13, 1793, to Monday, March 16, 1795, in a copy of the sale catalogue at the Ryksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The Hague. According to the dates printed in the catalogue, the sale had

been scheduled to take place March 11-14, 1795. 2. For other suggested portraits of the artist, see my introduction to this volume. 3.

Suggested by Jos Kodewery in email

of September

§,

2009, to the author. 4. Friedlander 1906, p. 34. 5.

6.

Larsen (1960, pp. 88—89). See also Renard 1919, cited in Larsen 1960, pp. 88-89.

On Memling's portraiture, see Madrid, Bruges, New York 2005.

7.

Véronique Sintobin, Ariane Mensger, and Stephanie Schrader, following Weisz, note a connection with Jan van Eyck’s Portrait of a Man (Léal Souvenir) as an

it

Pa 1 ing 5 .

5

homage to that carlier fiftcenth-century pater (Weisz 1913b, pp. 84-85; Sintobin in New York 1998-99, p. 190; Mensger 2002, p. 160; Schrader 2006, pp- 65—67). But Van Eyck’ sitter has quite a different relationship to his surrounding space and is generally less accessible to the viewer than Gossart’s sitters are. 8. Report by Silvia A. Centeno, Research Scientist, Department of Scientific Research, Metropolitan Museum, October 29, 2008, on file in the Department of Pamtings Conservation. 9. Herzog alone dates it earlier, to about 1516, on the basis of the tightly cropped space, dark background, and expressionless face, but not much before Gossart's adoption of a Latinized signature in 1516 (Herzog 1968a, p. 239). Exhibitions: Charleroi 1911, no. 16; Berlin 1914, no. 50;

New

York 1929, no. 74; New York 1932-33: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 4; New York 1998-99, no. 30 Literature: Friedlander 1906, p. 34; Weisz 1913b, pp. 84-85, 115, n. 66, p. 117, pl. xvin, 54; Berlin 1914, p. 18, no. 50; Renard 1919; Segard 1923, p. 178, no. 11; Harry G. Sperling in New York 1929, pp. 216-17, no. 74; Friedlander 1924-37,

vol. 8 (1930), p. 161, no. 63, pl. xuvir; Burroughs and Wehle 1932, pp. 26-28; Wehle and Salinger 1947, pp. 141-42; Larsen 1960, pp. 88-89; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 65-66, no. 4, Herzog 1968a, pp. 238—39, no. 14; Friedlander 1967—76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 99, no. 63, pl. 49; Bauman 1986, PP. 42, 48; Véronique Sintobin in New York 1998-99, PP. 190-91, no. 39; Mensger 2002, p, 160; Schrader 2006,

pp. 65-67

Jan Gossart 45. Portrait of a Man (Philip of Burgundy?) Ca. 1524

Oil on oak panel, 25 x 18% in. (63.5 x 47.6 cm) Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts 1955.941 Condition: The painting

in good condition, although the flesh tones and the fur collar of the coat are abraded. A red lake glaze over the blue background appears to have faded, causing the uncharacteristic 1s

high-key blue and broad brushwork to be more prominent.

of

this underlayer

Technical investigation:

No technical documentation or

dendrochronology

available for this painting.

1s

Nathaniel Bayly, Esq. (his sale, Christie's, London, May 31, 1799, no. $6, as "portrait ofJohn Elector of Saxony,” by Hans Holbein); Robert Stayner Holford (1808-1892), Westonbirt, Gloucestershire, and Dorchester House, Park Lane, London, by 1854; his son Sir George Lindsay Holford (1860-1926), Westonbirt and Dorchester House (his estate sale, Christie's, London, May 17, 1928, no. 12, as “Portrait of David of Burgundy,” by Gossart, to Knoedler); [M. Knoedler & Co., New York; sold to Clark]; acquired by Robert Sterling Clark (1877-1956), 1928; Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, from 1955 Provenance: Possibly

about 1525 (cat. 111). The sitters in both the painting and the drawing are projected forward by the framing device behind them but contained by the ledge in front. The identity of this well-to-do gentleman cannot be clearly established. His prosperity is marked by his attire. He wears a broad black velvet beret with lappets fastened under his chin and a robe with an unusually wide fur collar over a satin waistcoat and white shirt. His wealth and status are further indicated by the extremely long, heavy gold chain around his neck, as well as three rings—two set with gemstones and one with an antique cameo head. Weisz and Wescher pointed out that a former identification of the sitter as David of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht and half brother of Philip of Burgundy, was not plausible.” David died in 1496, and this does not appear to be a

Ithough generally accepted as Gossart’s work," this portrait, with the exaggerated ogee arch of its trompel'oeil frame and the strident blue background, is an anomaly in his oeuvre. Remnants of a faded red lake glaze, which would have produced a softer, purplish color, explain the now discordant background tone. The framing device is conservative, indicating a date about 1520, and yet the sharp shadow cast on the architecture at right suggests Gossart’s later works. Indeed, the robust aspect of the man and the manner in which he is positioned at an oblique angle to the background frame—parallel to the angled stone ledge before him—are similar to some of Gossart’s works from about 1530, such as the Brussels donor portraits and the Los Angeles Francisco de los Cobos y Molina (cats. 55B,C, 63). However, the closest parallel in terms of the pose of the figure, the expression of the hands, and the costume

the portrait drawing of Christian II of Denmark that Gossart must have made in

1s

258 JAN

GoOssART’'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 217. Unknown artist, Philip of Burgundy, from the Recueil d’Arras, ca. 16th century. Graphite, 16%6 X 11% In. (42 x 28 cm). Médiathéque d’Arras, Arras (Ms. 266, fol. 98 [94)])

Pa I 1 I ! ngs

p 29 Y -

posthumous portrait. One might, however, suggest Philip of Burgundy as the sitter.’ The image of Philip known from the Recueil d’Arras* (fig. 217) does show certain similarities with the Williamstown portrait: the full, round face; the large, wide-set eyes with drooping bags beneath them and an age crease at the brow; the long, straight nose with large nostrils; the thin upper lip and wide lower lip; and the prominent chin and sagging flesh at the neck. But the Recueil d’ Arras drawing portrays Philip with ear-length hair, while that of the Williamstown man is entirely concealed. Moreover, the latter is even fuller in the face than the former, and in this regard the Williamstown man appears more like the profile image of Philip in the portrait medal in the Geldmuseum, Utrecht.” If this 1s a portrait of Philip of Burgundy; it would have to be from very late in his life, that is, just before his death in 1524. MWA

1.

tv .

3.

Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 161, no. §7; Herzog 1968a, pp. 253 §5, no. 22; Friedlander 1967 76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 98, no. §7. Mensger (2002) does not discuss the pamnung. Weisz 1913b, p. 114, followed by Wescher 1965, p. 160. This was first suggested by Wescher (1965, p. 160) and then followed by Broos (1987, p. 152).

4. 5.

Chatelet 2007, pp. 275, 279, no. 17-1. For an illustration, see Mensger 2002, p. 89, fig. 43.

“Portrait of John, Elector of Hanover,” by Hans Holbein); London 1802, no. 43; London 1893, no. 173; London 1899-1900, no. 29; London 1927, no. 190; Wilhamstown 1957, no. 411 Exhibitions: London 1870, no.

111

(as

Literature: Waagen 1854, vol. 2, p. 199 (as by Hans Holbein),

London 1892, p. 21, no. 43; Phillips 1893, p. 230; London 1809-1900, p. 7, no. 29; Reinach 190s, p. 607; von Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), p. 84; Weisz 1913b, 65; Friedlander 1916, p. 188; Conway pp. 114, 119, pl. 1921, p. 377; Segard 1923, p. 181, no. 32; Tancred Borenius

xx,

in Conway 1927, pp. 82-83, no. 190; Holford Collection 1927, vol. 2, p. 13, no. 109; Earp 1928, p. 106:W. Gibson 1928,

Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 161, no. §7; Wilhamstown 1957, n.p., no. 411; von der Osten 1961, p. 159; Wescher 1965, p. 160; Herzog 1968a, pp. 253-55, no. 22, Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 98, no. 57, pl. 47; Broos 1987, p. 152; Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute 1992, p. 70

p. 197;

260

JAN GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

Jan Gossart

46. Portrait of a Man Ca. 1520-25 Oil on oak panel,

x 12% in. (43 x

cm) Currier Muscum of Art, Manchester, New Hampshire, Museum Purchase: Currier Funds 1951.6 167%

31

Condition: The painting was transferred and mounted on a new panel in 1951 by William Suhr; it has a

modern cradle on the reverse. All the edges are slightly trimmed. The painting 1s in good condition but 1s abraded throughout. At the edges, there 1s evidence of a now-lost darker green glaze that once covered the brighter green background. The upper edge of the shirt was altered during painting and now appears as a pentiment. It is possible that there have been some color shifts in the jacket. and some pigment analysis were carried out at the Museum of Technical investigation: Infrared reflectography

Fine Arts, Boston, by Rhona MacBeth, Meta Chavannes, and S. Kelberlau in 2009. There was very little perceptible underdrawing found 1n the features of the face. A cross section taken from the jacket of the sitter revealed,

on top of the ground preparation, a hight gray priming, a brown layer with black and red particles, and a top layer of mostly organic material. No dendrochronology was possible because of the transfer. Provenance:

Frederick

B. Pratt (1865-1945), Glen Cove,

New York, by 1913; his daughter Mary Caroline Pratt (Mrs, Christan A. Herter, 1895-1980); [M. Knoedler & Co., New York, by 1950, until 1951]; acquired by the Currier Museum of Art, Manchester, New Hampshire, 1951

this, one of Gossart’s most dynamic

I:portraits, the sitter appears about to

speak. He directly addresses the viewer and gestures with his left hand, as if to emphasize a point. He wears an open-

necked white shirt beneath a low-cut jerkin and a voluminous coat with a wide, turned-back collar. This costume, as well as his tight-fitting black cap and largebrimmed hat adorned with a decorative badge and three small buttons with gemstones, 1s very similar to that worn by the man in the Antwerp portrait (cat. 47). The two may have shared the same vocation or social status. The man’s attire in the Currier portrait

neither that of the nobility nor of the clergy, and this has led some to speculate that he was a well-to-do painter." Heinrich Schwarz suggested that this 1s a selfportrait of Gossart, further noting that his right hand (that 1s, the one that would

is

it

is hold his brush) is hidden.” However,if a self-portrait, the painter would have been viewing himself in a mirror and thus the left hand in the painting is actually his right hand.” What little we know about Gossart’s appearance is based on the engraving by Johannes Wierix in Domin-

icus Lampsonius’ Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germaniae inferioris effigies (1572), and the

medal by Hans Schwarz (see my introduction to this volume and figs. 1, 2).* Wierix

depicted him with a relatively shortcropped beard, shoulder-length curly hair, and a very distinctive nose—exceedingly long, with a bony bridge and a flat end with flaring nostrils. These features are all found in the Pushkin Portrait of a Man (cat. 41) and in the central figure in Lucas van Leyden’s 1525 print The Poet Virgil Suspended in a Basket (see fig. 4), but they are not in evidence in the Currier portrait. Even if the identity of this sitter remains unknown, there is no question about the attribution of the painting to Gossart or the probable dating of the picture to between 1520 and 1525. The composition of the sitter before a green background, his figure casting a shadow to the right, was favored by Gossart for his portraits during this period. His sculptural approach to the figure and, in particular, the successfully foreshortened gesturing hand are hallmarks of his late style. Despite the painting’s abraded condition, the masterful drawing of the form and the specificity of Gossart’s rendering of the facial features are characteristic of his execution. A further comparison for the dating 1s Gossart’s etching of Charles V dated 1520 (cat. 115). The Currier portrait shares with this etching the pose of a figure who gestures in an animated way,as if to communicate with the viewer. MWA 1.

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p.

197,

no. 33; Herzog 1968a,

294, NO. 42. 2. Schwarz 1953, pp. 167-68. 3. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 197, no. 33; Herzog 1968a, P.

P.

294,

NO.

42.

Pa

i iiinggs

26) Sy

1

discussion of these portraits of Gossart, sce my introduction to this volume, and especially notes

For

4.

a

I-14

Von der Osten (1961, p. 465) dated

to the late second sixteenth century, Schwarz

5.

1t

or early third decade ofthe (1953, pp. 167-68) thought it was about 1518; and the Rotterdam, Bruges catalogue (1965, pp. 195-98, no. 33) as well as Herzog (1968a, p. 293, no. 42) dated it to the mud- to late 1520s. Exhibitions: New York 1929, no. 76; Indianapolis 1950, no. 29;

Rotterdam, Bruges

1965,

no.

33

Literature: Ring 1913, p. 147; Weisz 1913b, pp. 81, 120, pl.

xvi,

51;

Friedlinder

1916, p. 188;

Conway 1921,

p. 375;

Segard 1923, p. 182, no. 36; Harry G. Sperling in New York 1929, pp. 220-21, no. 76; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 161, no. 62, pl. xv; Indianapolis 1950, n.p., no. 29; G. M. Smith 1951; G. M. Smuth 1952, pp. 22, $8; Schwarz

167-68; von der Osten 1961, p. 465; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 195-98, no. 33; Wescher 196s, pp. 161-62; 1953, pp.

Herzog 1968a, pp. vol.

8

203—95,

(1972), p. 99, no. 62,

no. 42; Friedlinder 1967-76, pl.

49

Jan Gossart 47. Portrait of a Man Ca. 1520-25 Oil on oak panel, 24 x 18%

mn.

(61 x

46 cm)

Koninklyk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp 263 Condition: The painting is in very good condition except for the background, which was completely the eighteenth century. A overpainted, probably

in

coat of arms was added on top ofthe overpainted background at the right. The coat of arms remains but was touched out during restoration. The appearance of the painting has been greatly improved by recent cleaning and restoration (2009—10) by Karen Thomas, Associate Conservator, Department of Paintings

a

Conservation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The panel 1s made up of two oak boards of nearly equal size. The edges are original and show their barbes as well as a trimmed wood reserve. Infrared reflectography and X-radiography were undertaken by Karen Thomas in November 2009. There 1s a barely visible underdrawing 1n the face and hands; the coat and damask garment ofthe sitter cannot be penetrated with infrared reflectography. The X-radiograph does not reveal any information because the back of the panel 1s coated with lead white paint. Paint cross sections from the background and the blue coat of the sitter were analyzed by Silvia A. Centeno and Mark T. Wypyski, Research Scientists, Department of Scientific Research, Metropolitan Museum, in December 2009. All cross sections showed a chalk-glue ground and a lead white priming. The green background was underpamted with gray paint covered with a resinous glaze oftranslucent green. The blue jacket was built up with a pink-tinted gray pant (lead whate, red lake, and carbon black) on which a layer of azurite mixed with calcium carbonate and carbon black was Technical investigation:

superimposed. Provenance: Johannes Enschede (1707-1780), Haarlem (has sale, Jelgersma and Van

der Vinne, Haarlem, May 30,

1786, no. 63, as “Frank van Borselen,” by Jan Mostaert),

Florent van Ertborn (1748-1840); bequeathed by Florent van Ertborn to the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, 1841

he formerly visible coat of arms to the right ofthe sitter (touched out during restoration) is that of Franck van Borselan (ca. 1395-1471), Count of Ostrevant and a

knight ofthe Order ofthe Golden Fleece.’ Van Borselan was married to Jacoba van Beieren (1401-1436), Countess of Holland, and a supposed portrait ofher, identified by her coat of arms, 1s also in the Antwerp museum (fig. 218). Both purportedly posthumous portraits have similar green backgrounds and are mounted in identical gold frames. When these panels were in the 262

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 218.

Attributed to Ambrosius Benson, Woman

Praying (Portrait of Jacoba van Beieren), 16th century. Oil on panel, 24% x 18% in. (62.5 xX 47.7 cm)

Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp (264)

collection of the Haarlem town printer Johannes Enschedé,” they were engraved pair in 1753 by Jacob Folkema and again in 1769 by C. van Noorde.” A number of other portraits of Franck van Borselan and Jacoba van Beieren exist, and in his Het as a

Mander mentioned one pair of “Countess Lady Jacoba and her husband the Lord van Borselen™ by Jan Mostaert, which was in Schilder-Boeck (1604), Karel van

the collection of Nicolas Suyker (Mostaert’s grandson) in Haarlem.* Enschedé likely relied on this reference in order to identify two portraits in his collection as those of Jacoba van Beieren and Franck van Borselan and to attribute them to Mostaert, thus raising their value when they were sold in 1786. The coats of arms and the green background are later additions to make the portraits match each other, but whether Enschedé was responsible for this conversion cannot be determined. In any event, the woman cannot have been a pendant to the man originally, since her devotional attitude indicates that she is praying

Pa Hitnes ’

‘

26)

~

to a holy image to the left, and the painting 1s by a different artist, probably Ambrosius Benson. Although in the late eighteenth century the Antwerp Portrait of a Man was assigned to Mostaert,” Segard and Friedlander each noted the characteristics of Gossart’s style and were the first to attribute it to him.® In the Rotterdam, Bruges catalogue (1965) as well as Herzog’s 1968 dissertation, however, the artist 1s considered to be probably one of Gossart’s imitators’ because of the larger than usual size of the panel and because of the placement of the head and the torso on opposing axes, in a kind of contrapposto more characteristic of Italian Mannerist artists than of Gossart. Furthermore, Herzog noted that the man’s furrowed brow (a feature exaggerated in a previous restoration) and “withered hands” find no parallel in Gossart’s portraiture.”

Attributing the portrait has been made additionally problematic by the very dense and discolored varnish that covered the painting for centuries and obscured the details of its execution. Recently the painting has undergone cleaning and restoration as well as a new technical examination at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. This has shown that although the presentation of the sitter 1s novel in some ways, the execution is quite typical of Gossart’s work. The bold, sculptural quality of the figure within the restricted space 1s very characteristic of the artist, and this feature has emerged more clearly with the removal of the varnish that dulled the exquisite modeling of the head. The pose and drawing of the head should be compared with those of the Portrait of a Man (Charles of Burgundy?) (cat. 56): the sinuous contour line along the left side of the face; the sensuous shape of the mouth, with small pouches of flesh at the corners; and the assertiveness of the nose and eyes are used to convey lifelike expressions in both portraits. The two figures fill the space in like manner, and despite the considerable differences in their attire, there are similarities in the bold articulation of the folds of the coats and in the convincingly rendered design and texture of the white and golden yellow damask garments. The man in the Antwerp 264

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

portrait finds another counterpart in the sculptural Portrait of a Man (cat. 46) in Manchester, who also is dressed in the latest style— blousy white shirt, low-cut jerkin, and voluminous coat. The pose and expressiveness of the

Antwerp portrait—especially the twist of the torso—must be seen in context with the work of Conrad Meit, official court sculptor to Margaret of Austria.” Meit’s sculpture, even if not always meant to be viewed in the round, 1s conceived as if it were. See, for example, his portrait busts of Philibert IT of Savoy and Margaret of

Austria (fig. 18,8), as well as his Head of a Man in the Antique Manner (fig. 16), in which the head twists in an opposing direction to the body in a newly expressive way, just as in the Antwerp Portrait of a Man. In addition, the modeling of the face in Gossart’s Antwerp portrait mirrors the approach in Meit’s Head of a Man in the Antique Manner. When Gossart was engaged by Margaret of Austria in 1523 to restore some of her paintings in Mechelen, he was the houseguest of Conrad Meit."" Although the two might have met previously, since Meit is believed to have worked for Philip of Burgundy, Gossart’s stay in Mechelen certainly offered him the opportunity to see

the work that Margaret's court sculptor had produced for his patron. This clearly informed Gossart’s approach to his painted portraits, especially the Antwerp Portrait of a Man, which dates from this period, about 1520-25. MWA

1.

Henn Pauwels in Bruges 1962, pp. 103-4, no. 24. If the sitter was a member of the Golden Fleece, it is hard to explain why he 1s not wearing the collar of

the order. |] For more on Enschedé as a collector and publisher of prints of works in his collection, see C. S. Wood 2006. 3. Jan de Jong in Bartelings, De Klerck, and Shuijter .

2001, pp. 101-4. 4. See Van Mander 1604/1994-99, vol. 1 (1994), pp. 176-77, fol. 229v, and vol. 3 (1996), pp. 200-201 (commentary by Hessel Miedema). 5.

In the 1786 sale of the J. Enschedé collection (Jelgersma and Van der Vinne, Haarlem, May 30, 1786, no. 63).

6. Segard 1923, pp. 121-22; Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 7.

(1930), p. 161, no. 59. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 220, no. 39, Herzog 1968a, pp. 373-74, nO. 97.

Herzog 1968a, p. 374. 9. Most recently on Conrad Meit, see Burk 2005. See also the discussion in my essay on Gossart's artistic milieu this volume. 8.

mn

10.

Gossart 1903, p. 39; J. Duverger 1934, pp. 79ff.

Exhibitions: Paris 1952-43; Ghent 1955, no. $1; Bruges 1962,

no. 24; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 39 Literature: Segard 1923, pp. 121-22, 179, no. 16; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 161, no. 59, vol. 10 (1932), p. 15;

Delen 1948,

no. 263; Paris 1952-53, p. 34; Ghent 1955, p. 121, no. 51; Henri Pauwels in Bruges 1962, p. 124,

pp. 103-4, no. 24; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 217-20,

no. 39; Herzog 1968a, pp. 373-74, no. 97; Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 98, no. 59, pl. 47

Jan Gossart

48. Portrait of a Man (Henry III of Nassau-Breda?) Ca. 152025 Oil on oak panel, 22% x 18 in. (57.2 x 45.8 cm) Inscribed (later addition in upper left and upper right corners): DX SAX Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth Ar 1979.30

The cradled panel 1s made of two oak boards of nearly equal size. The edges are original and show their barbes as well as a trimmed wood reserve. The Condition:

in very good condition, although the flesh tones are abraded. There are scratches by the sitters left eye and across the right check. There 1s restoration along a crack that extends the length of the panel near the right edge; the middle finger of the left hand has

painting

1s

been repainted. Technical investigation: Infrared reflectography was

undertaken by Molly Faries in 1984 and more recently by Clare Barry, who also made a new X-radiograph. There is a sketchy underdrawing in a dry material, probably black chalk, which maps out the placement of the figure. The features of the face and the pose of the hands, as well as the folds of the shirt cuffs, are all summarily indicated. The dark, dense pigments of most of the costume and background were not penetrated by infrared reflectography. The various edges of the profile of the trompe-1"oeil frame have been incised. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix.

Baron Alfred Charles de Rothschild (1842-1918), Seamore Place, London, and Halton House, Buckinghamshire; his daughter, Almina Victoria Marie Alexandra Carnarvon (1877-1969), Countess of Carnarvon, London (her sale, Christie's, London, May 22, 1925, no. 71, to Agnew); [Thomas Agnew & Sons, London]; [Sir Joseph Duveen (1869-1939), 1st Baron Duveen of Milbank, London and New York, before 1927]; Ernst Rosenfeld, New York, by 1929; Mr. Charles V. Hickox (1890-1979) and Mrs. Catherine Barker Hickox (1896-1970), New York and Chicago, by 1939; [Newhouse Galleries, New York]; purchased by the Kimbell Art Foundation, Fort Worth, 1979 Provenance:

dressed in fur, cloth of gold, and velvet, this imposing figure occupies a narrow space between a framed green marble panel behind him and a ledge covered with an Anatolian carpet with geometric design. His voluminous hat sports a large antique cameo bust of a woman; his burgundy velvet sleeves are embellished with large damascened but-

REY

tons; and, most conspicuously, the insig-

nia of the Order of the Golden Fleece hangs from a ribbon around his neck. The script on the folded paper in the man’s right hand is unfortunately very

abraded, though it appears to have once been readable.

Although attributed early on to Jacopo de’ Barbari by André de Hevesy, this portrait has been associated with Jan Gossart since the 1927 exhibition of Flemish art in London." Staring subsequently identified the sitter as Henry III of Nassau-Breda (1483-1538), based on a drawing in the Recueil d’ Arras that shows a profile view of Henry with deep-set eyes, a large, straight nose, full lips, and a prominent chin jutting out above his columnar neck (fig. 219). Chatelet proposed that the Recueil d’ Arras portrait might document Henry's election as Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece in 1505, at the age of twenty-two.’ The Kimbell portrait, then, would depict Henry at a later point— according to Sadja Herzog, about 1520." Gossart produced a third portrait of Henry III of Nassau-Breda about 1530-31, when the artist was in the employ of Henry's wife, Mencia de Mendoza. That portrait has not survived, but it exists in three copies in Barcelona, Dessau, and formerly Madrid (see fig. 234; current location unknown), as well as two illuminations, about 1531, by Simon Bening, which show Henry paired with his wife and which are inscribed with the names of the sitters (figs. 232, 233).” The identification of the Kimbell portrait as Henry III of Nassau-Breda has not been universally accepted. As early as 1961, Gert von der Osten expressed doubts, presumably because of the differences between Henry's appearance in the Kimbell and Madrid paintings.® In the latter he is bearded, and his square-shaped head sits on a squatter neck. Ariane Mensger notes, however, that both likenesses have the identifying mark of a wart to the left of the right eye,” a feature that in the Recueil d’Arras drawing appears at the jawline instead. If the Kimbell portrait is Henry, he must be a good ten years younger here than he appears in the copies after Gossart’s

Fig. 219. Unknown artist, Henry IIT of NassauBreda, from the Recueil d'Arras, ca. 16th century. Graphite, 16%6 x 116 in. (42 x 28 cm). Médiathéque d’Arras, Arras (Ms. 266, fol. 123 [119])

portrait. This is certainly possible, as the style of the Kimbell portrait agrees with that of other Gossart portraits from the early 1520s. Herzog posited a connection with the Jean Carondelet portrait in the 1517 Carondelet Diptych (cat. 40), but a much closer comparison is with Gossart’s drawing of Christian II of Denmark of about 1525 (cat. 111). In the drawing, as in the Kimbell portrait, the figure is presented in three-quarter view behind a parapet or ledge and in front of a trompe-1’oeil frame. The robust character of the boldly threedimensional form and the self-assured demeanor of the two are extremely close, as is the position of the hands, which helps to anchor each triangular-shaped body in the foreground picture plane. The two men are even attired in a similarly elegant manner. Gossart especially favored the use of framed marble panels behind his sitters in his paintings of the 1520s. The Three 1530—31

Children of Christian II of Denmark of 1526 (cat. 51) 1s closely comparable; as in the Paintings

2065

266

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Kimbell portrait, the figures occupy a shallow space between the marble background panel and the covered table or ledge in the foreground. An extremely important statesman and general in the Netherlands during the Burgundian era, Henry III of NassauBreda served Margaret of Austria, Maximil1an I, and Charles V. Twice widowed, he married a third wife, who was the richest woman in Spain, Mencia de Mendoza.

Exhibitions: London 1927, no. 185; New York 1929, no. 78;

Together they built an important art col-

New York 1939-40, no. 226; New York 1942; New York

lection and, in 1526, hired Tommaso Vincidor to remake their palace in Breda in the Renaissance style. If the Kimbell portrait is indeed Henry, then it must have

1967, no. 39

been painted about 1522—that 1s, just at the point when he accompanied Charles V to Spain and subsequently took Mencia as his wife. The self-confident demeanor of the man and his extravagant costume are appropriate for such a highly important and influential figure at court. MWA

Hevesy 1925. See also Tancred Borenius in Conway 1927, p. 80, no. 185; and Servolim 1944, p. 156. 2. Staring 1952, pp. 144-45. Friedlander also supported this identification (Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 [1930], 1.

pp. 159-60, no. 52, and Friedlander 1967-76, vol. § [1972], p. 97, no. 52). It is the Recueil d' Arras portrait that appears most like one by Aertgen Claesz. van

3.

Leyden, in which Josua Bruyn (1960, p. 100) identified Henry as a donor on the left wing of a triptych (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, nos. 977-979). The only difference 1s that Henry here wears a beard. See Chatelet 2007, pp. 288, 292, no. 18-2.

4. Herzog 1968a, p. 253. 5.

The apparently best of the copies was in the Rotterdam, Bruges exhibition (1965, pp. 225-28, no. 41), when it was in the collection of Conde de Revilla Gigedo, Madrid. For the illuminations, see Thomas Kren in Los Angeles, London 2003-4, Pp. 465-66, no. 149.

6. Von der Osten (1961, p. 470) suggested that, because

of the inscription

DX

SAX at the top of the pant-

ing, the nobleman could instead be Albrecht the Brave from Sachsen-Meissen (1443-1500). Wescher (1965, pp. 158-59) alternatively suggested Prince Johann

(1498-1537).Von der Osten (1961, p. 470) notes that

Albrecht was inducted into the Order of the Golden Fleece mn 1493, but in fact he was inducted in 1491, 1n Mechelen (see Bruges 1962, p. 38). However, the scription a later addition, and in any event, the sitter 1s Albrecht, then the portrait would have to have been painted posthumously. Furthermore, the man in the Kimbell portrait wears the Golden Fleece insignia as a pendant on a ribbon around his neck stead of

is

if

on the official gold collar. This was allowed only from 1516 on (Bruges 1962, p. 154)—that 1s, too late for this to be a portrait of Albrecht. The eighteenth Golden Fleece chapter meeting took place in Brussels in 1516, where twenty-four new members were inducted. The nineteenth chapter meeting occurred in Barcelona in 1519, where thirteen additional members were elected for membership. Given the probable date of the Kimbell panting, some of these individuals might also be considered as candidates for the identity of the 7.

sitter. See Bruges 1962, pp. 38-39, for the list Mensger 2002, p. 197.

of names.

Jan Gossart

49. Portrait of a Man Ca. 1525-30 Oil on oak panel; support 13% x 10 1n. (34.8 x 25.3 cm); painted surface 13% x 9% in. (33.6 x 24.2 cm); unpainted edge ca. % mn. (§ mm) Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels 4392 Condition: The barbe

Literature: Tancred Boremius in Conway 1927, p. 80, no. 185;

Friedlander 1927, pp. 214-15: Harry G. Sperling in New York 1929, pp. 224-25, no. 78; Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 159-60, no. 52, pl. xr1v; New York 1939-40, pp. 110-11, no. 226; New York 1942, p. 82; Staring 1952, esp. Pp. 144—45; von der Osten 1961, p. 470; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 201, under no. 34; Wescher 1965, pp. 158-59; New York 1967, n.p., no. 39; Herzog 1968a, pp. 130, 252-53, no. 21, p. 256; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 97. no. 52, pl. 44; “Acquisitions des musées” 1980, p. 31, no. 163; Kimbell Art Museum 1981, p. 72; Kimbell Art Museum 1987, p. 172; Wollheim 1987, p. 185; Folie 1996, p. 27;

Mensger 2002, p. 197; Edwards 2007, p. 64

evident on all four edges, indicating that the painting has not been cut down. The painting 1s in very good condition, although the hand at the bottom edge 1s abraded. 1s

Technical investigation: The most

recent infrared reflectography, X-radiography, and microscope examinations were carried out in May 2008 (technical documentation by Freya Maes, Musée Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, and Catherine Fondaire, Institut Royal du Patrimoine Arustique). There is no apparent visible underdrawing, probably because the portrait lies on top of another one. The changes are visible in both the radiograph and the infrared reflectogram. For Pascal Fraiture’s dendrochronology, see the Appendix. Provenance: Marquise de Chabenat(?);

De Campagne

collection(?); Baron De Worden(?), in 1760; Busch collection, Mainz, 1917," [Galerie Paul Cassirer, Berlin, mn 1921; sold to Schoutheete de Tervarent, Baron Terwangne, and Peers de Nicuwburgh]; acquired by Madame de Schoutheete de Tervarent, Baron Raymond of Terwangne, and Albert Peers de Nieuwburgh and given to the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels, in memory of Albert Weber and

Herminie Weber,

1921

nly a handful of Gossart’s portraits address the viewer so directly. The sensitive rendering of the physiognomy and the relaxed, rather casual demeanor of this individual, as if he had just turned to regard us, underscore the candid nature of the presentation. Such compositional devices encourage a more intimate communication between sitter and viewer, and one wonders whether Gossart was friendly with this man, whose identity remains unknown.’

This portrait covers another one, possibly of a different sitter, that was complete, or nearly so, when the panel was reused for the current portrait. Infrared reflectography and X-radiography (figs. 220, 221) show that the portrait of a man underneath looked toward the left (his proper right), as do most of Gossart’s sitters. He wore a smaller beret, with a badge, that fit his head rather tightly.” His Paintings

267

Fig. 220. Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Man, infrared reflectogram (cat. 49)

costume was rather like that in Jan Mostaert’s Portrait of an African Gentleman (fig. 222):* his white chemise sat lower on his neck and was not fastened with tie,

a more widely, with

his jacket was open turned-back lapels, and he wore a striped jerkin. The left hand in the final painting, which rests on the lower edge, has been

somewhat enlarged and painted partially over the black jacket. The Rotterdam, Bruges exhibition catalogue (1965) and Sadja Herzog’s 1968 entry both mentioned a thin imitation-stone frame that once surrounded the portrait on three sides, but this was not confirmed bythe recent technical reexamination.’ A label on the reverse ofthe panel indicates that this portrait was once attributed to Holbein and dated about 1530.° Although that date is not far off the mark, the style and execution are typical of Gossart’s, rather than Holbein’s, works.’ Such portraits of somewhat modest size, tightly cropped, and featuring a plain dark green background were part of Gossart’s standard output (see also cats. 42—44). In 268

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 221. Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Man, X-radiograph (cat. 49)

each, the pose of the sitter and the illumination from the left, with sharply defined passages oflight and dark—especially at the brow and beneath the chin—are consistent features. The brushwork ofthe Brussels painting, however, is somewhat looser than in those examples, and areas

at the edge

of his

left eye, are closely

observed and show a man a generation younger than the profoundly aged gentleman in the London double portrait (cat. 53).

MWA

of

impasto along the bridge of the nose, around the eyes, and in the whites of the eyes are less typical. The denser paint applications may have been necessary to

mask the painting beneath. Nevertheless, the looser brushwork is rather close to that ofthe Pushkin Portrait of a Man (SelfPortrait?) (cat. 41). In both, the strokes are less blended than in some of Gossart’s more ambitious portraits, such as the Brussels Portraits of Tivo Donors and the

1.

1s

on the back of the

Herzog 1968a, ts

.

p.

derived from handwritten labels panel; they are fully transcribed in

308

A label on the reverse of the panel indicates that

when the painting was in the Campagne collection, in the eighteenth century, the sitter was thought to be Martin Luther—a suggestion that 1s difficult to understand, given the large number of extant portraits

of Luther that

show

a very different

appearance.

See Herzog (1968a, p. 308) for the transcription this label 3.

Los Angeles Francisco de los Cobos y Molina (cats. §5B,C, 63). The subject ofthe Brussels Portrait of a Man is shown in middle age. The deli-

cately rendered strands ofhis graying hair and the salt-and-pepper stubble ofhis beard, as well as his deeply lined jowls, sagging double chin, and the crow’s-feet

This information

The hat badge oniginally appeared on the hat in the underlying portrait, then was overpainted with the hat of the current portrait, which was abraded with later cleanings, allowing the badge to show through once again. Although the Rotterdam, Bruges catalogue (1965,

5.

p.

223) and Herzog’s catalogue entry (1968a,

both maintained that it was possible to identify the figures of Venus and Amor on the hat badge, this 1s no longer the case and cannot be confirmed For further on this portrait, see Van den Boogaart 20054; and Filedt Kok and De Winkel 2005.

p.

4.

of

310)

Herzog (1968a,

p.

300) also mentions a stone back-

plate instead ofthe current neutral green background,

daintings

269

Jan Gossart 50. Portrait of a Monk 1526

in.

Onl on oak panel, support 15% x 10% (38.6 x 26.4 cm), painted surface 14% x 9% mn. (37 x 24.8 cm)

Inscribed: (above monk's head) E1415 40.15,26; (Just above monk's left shoulder) 10ANE / MALBOD / PINGE (addition by another hand) Musée du Louvre, Paris, Gift of Jean-Bapuste Foucart, 1872

RF

23

Condition: The painting 1s on one piece of oak, and the grain runs vertically. A barbe on all of the edges indicates that the painting has not been cut down and was painted in a frame. The thickness of the panel is about 8 millimeters. The painting is in excellent

condition, with only superficial retouching of abraded arcas and minor losses throughout. complete technical investigation was carried out by Bruno Mottin, Jean Marsac, Eric Laval, Myriam Eveno, and C. Lavier, and a report was 1ssued on April 23, 2008 (Centre de Recherche et Technical investigation: A

Fig. 222. Jan Mostaert, Portrait of an African Gentleman, ca. 1520-30. Oil on panel, 12% x 8% in. (30.8 x 21.2 cm). Ryksmuseum, Amsterdam (SK-A-4986)

but

cannot be seen using infrared reflectography, X-radiography, or microscope examination. I am extremely grateful to Veronique Biicken, Alexandre Galand, and Freva Maes for their assistance wath the renewed technical study of this portrait on May 19, 2008. The portrait was cleaned and restored by Joseph Van der Veken (date unknown), who made a 1t

copy

See Brussels 2005, pp. 17, 37, no. 11; and

Vanwijnsberghe 2008, p. 269, no. 257 See Herzog 1968a, p. 308, for the transcription of this label, which was perhaps affixed when the panting possibly was owned by the Marquise de Chabenat.

6.

~

of it.

.

Nicole Verhaegen (in Brussels 1963, p. 107, no. 116) alone has questioned Gossart’s authorship, noting the unusually shy and sensitive demeanor of thesitter. Von der Osten (1961, p. 465) dated the portrait to about 1519, which 1s too carly; Winkler (19212, p. 19) rightly placed it among Gossart’s late works.

Exhibitions: Mons 1953; Brussels 1963, no. 116; Rotterdam,

de Restauration des Musées de France, dossier F15290). There 1s a typical calcium carbonate ground preparaton. A minimal underdrawing in brush to establish the placement of the forms can be seen here and there with the naked eye but does not show up in infrared reflectography, which cannot penetrate the gray

costume of the monk. The brushwork

extremely fine and blended, and the quality of the handling and the execution is especially evident in details such eyes, fingernails, and fur of the collar. While the inscription at the top of the painting 1s executed in Gossart’s characteristically refined manner, as if chiseled into the stone, the one at right 1s squeezed mto a small space and the letters are crudely formed without the customary illusionistic effect. The latter was perhaps added later from information on the lost frame. Dendrochronology carried out by C. Lavier (report of April 1, 2008) indicated that the panel is from Baltic region and that it dates from the end ofthe 15th to the beginning ofthe 16th century 1s

as

the

Provenance: Désiré van den Schrieck, Leuven (his sale, Le Roy, Leuven, April 10, 1861, no. 48); Jean-Bapuste

Foucart (1823-1895), Valenciennes; bequeathed byJeanBaptiste Foucart to the Musée du Louvre, Pans, 1872

Bruges 1965, no. 40; Brussels 1967-68 Literature: Friedlander 1921, pl. 7, Winkler 1921a, pp. 18~19;

Winkler 1921b, p. 412; Segard 1923, p. 185, no. 52; Friedlander 1924-37. vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 66, pl. 11; Mons 1953, p. 146; von der Osten 1961, p. 465; Nicole Verhaegen in Brussels 1963, p. 107, no. 116; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 221-24, no. 40; Brussels 1967-68, p. $6; Herzog 1968a, pp. 307-10, no. 51; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 99, no. 66, pl. 51; Breme 1992; Brussels 2008, pp. 17,37, n0 11; Vanwinsberghe 2008, p. 269, no. 257

his portrait is one of two by Gossart in the Louvre that are signed and

dated, the other being the Carondelet Diptych (cat. 40). Although here the signature, [OA NE /MALBOD / PINGE, 1s not autograph,’ it probably records an inscription by Gossart from a now-lost frame. Perhaps, as with the Carondelet Diptych, the artist's signature was origi-

nally on the lower edge ofthe frame ofan

adjoining painting. 270

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

The monk appears to meditate as he joins his hands in prayer, presumably to a holy image to his right.Von der Osten, followed by Wolff, suggested that the Virgin and Child currently on loan to the National Gallery, London (cat. 13), could have formed the left half of a diptych with the

The two paintings are approximately the same size, the figures are both Monk.”

placed before backgrounds ofred marble, and the illumination of the Virgin and Child and the Monk is fairly uniform. However, the Portrait of a Monk was painted in a frame (now lost) and still retains its barbe on all edges, while the slightly larger Virgin and Child shows no barbe (38.9 by 26.6 centimeters compared to the Monk's painted area of 37 by 24.8 centimeters). Moreover, when the images are placed side by side, the monk is positioned lower in his composition than the Virgin and Child are in theirs, and the two images do not form a convincing pair. Because the reverse ofthe Louvre panel has been thinned by few millimeters,

it is not possible to say whether

it was ever painted, as a

a

one would expect of

diptych.

Although this sitter, who according to the inscription was forty years old in 1526, is described as a Benedictine monk in the earlier literature, at the time the portrait was made the members ofthat order generally wore black habits, not gray, and there are no other identifying clues as to his affillation.” The composition is tightly edited and quite spare, and there is no trompel'oeil frame behind the figure, which Gossart liked to provide for his wealthy clients, as in the Fort Worth Portrait of a Man and The Three Children of Christian II of Denmark, both produced about the same time (cats. 48, 51). Instead, the rich red marble backdrop enlivens what 1s otherwise the somber tonal range of the monk's gray robe and pale flesh tones, perhaps appropriate for a pious man representing a religious order. Indeed, the monk's focus and attention are on otherworldly matters,

Pa

i rings I

27

1

and Gossart powerfully communicates to the viewer the essence of his subject’ spiritual preoccupation. MWA

1.

2.

3.

This was already observed by Herzog (1968a, p. 288). Von der Osten 1961, pp. 454, 469; Martha Wolff in Wolff 2008, p. 231. Herzog (1968a, p. 289) and Pauwels and Herzog (in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 [1972], p. 121, n. 86) already questioned the identity of the monk as a Benedicune.

Exhibitions: Mons 1930, no. 16; Paris 1935, no. 48; Mons 1953;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 20

Literature: Gossart 1903, p. 83; von Wurzbach 1906-11,

vol. 2 (1910), p. 84: Weisz 1913b, pp. 72,92, 121, pl. xx111, 63; Friedlander 1916, p. 188; Winkler 1921a, p. 142; Segard 1923, pp. 119-20, 178, no. 14; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 72, pl. Lu; Henry Delanney in Mons 1930, p. 22, no. 16; Jacques Dupont and Jacqueline Bouchot-Saupique in Paris 1935, p. 38. no. 48; Van Puyvelde 1941, p. 36; Michel 131-32; Mons 1953, p. 146; von der Osten 1961, PP. 454, 469; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 139-42, no. 20; Herzog 1968a, pp. 126, 127-28, 287-90, no. 39; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 100, no. 72, pl. 58; Foucart 2009, 1953, pp.

P-

34

Jan Gossart 51. The Three Children

of Christian II of Denmark

1526

Oil on oak panel, 13% x 18% 1n. (34.2 x 46 cm) Her Majesty Queen Ehzabeth II, The Royal Collection, Windsor Castle rCIN 405782 Condition: Cleaned in 1983, the painting 1s in very good condition, although the red lakes have faded (see below).

The panel 1s a single oak board, 1s millimeters thick and horizontal in grain. No dendrochronological data are available. Some freehand loose underdrawing, visible to the naked eye, was not always followed accurately in the painting. The lines of the architectural elements are incised. The artist mampulated the paint with astomshing skill and superb economy-—for example, in the chain around the boy's neck, where the links are defined by the lead-tin yellow Technical investigation:

highlights, rapidly executed over a brownish base. Gossart dragged wet paint—the eyelashes, for instance, are blackish lines across which the flesh pant was dragged to suggest individual lashes; in the ermine, he used his brushes to push wet paint aside; and in the cherries, he scraped through wet paint to expose underlayers. The pallor of the flesh, which has occasioned some comment, is due in part to the fading of the red lakes and in part to the fact that some black (charcoal?) was mixed into the paint even in the palest areas. Larger quantities of black were used in the shadowed parts. Reserve areas were left for the quinces, but the cherries were pated over the green tablecloth. Provenance: The Royal Collection (at Kensington Palace

in 1743)

he boy in the center of this splendid early example of portraits depicting children has been identified as John (1518—1532), prince of Denmark, by comparing the painting with a drawing of him in the Arras Codex (Recueil d’Arras).' The two girls are therefore his sisters, Dorothea (1520-1562) and Christina (1522-1590). They were the children of Christian II, king of Denmark, and Isabella of Austria, sister of Emperor Charles V. Christian fled Copenhagen in 1523 and went into exile in the Low Countries, England, and Germany. Isabella died on January 19, 1526, and was buried at Sint-Pietersabdij in Ghent. By February 9 of that year Christian had commissioned from Gossart designs for her tomb. Although Christian left the Netherlands in March, his children, aged eight, six, and four, remained 272

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

behind to be brought up by their greataunt, Margaret of Austria. In the triple portrait they appear to be wearing mourning attire for their mother. It was probably painted in 1526, when they were living in Mechelen. The fruits are quinces and cherries, the exact significance of which has not been explained. There are a number of versions of this triple portrait, but the one in the Royal Collection 1s by far the best. The details of technique and handling, briefly discussed above (see Technical investigation), are characteristic of Gossart, and the attribution of the painting to him is well established.” Of the other versions recorded, one was in the collection of Henry VIII at Whitehall by 1542: “oone table with the pictures of the 3 childerne of the King of Denmarks.” Still at Whitehall during the reign of Charles I (1625—49), it seems to have left the Royal Collection under the Commonwealth (1649-60); it may have

returned between

and 1743.” Two drawn versions attributed to Matthijs van den Bergh exist: one belonged to Everard Jabach and is now in the Louvre (21.728), and the second is in Gottingen, Germany.’ The other painted versions all come from English collections and may have been produced in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the original was believed to represent children either of Henry VII or Henry VIII.” George Vertue's engraving after the original dated 1748; he identified the subjects as Henry VII's children, namely, the future Henry VIII, his elder brother Arthur, and their sister Margaret. In 1535 Dorothea married Frederick II, Elector Palatine. Christina married Francesco Maria Sforza (d. 1535), Duke of Milan, in 1533. She was the Duchess of Milan who sat to Holbein in Brussels on March 12, 1538; the resulting portrait is in the National Gallery, London. She later married Francis, Duke of Lorraine (d. 1545). 1714

is

LC

.

tv

.

Chatelet 2007, pp. 278, 286, no. 17-8. Winkler (1924, p. 245) alone thought it was

a

copy

after Gossart.

Campbell

1985, pp.

Lugt 1929-33,

vol.

53-54. 1,p.

11, pl.

X.

Campbell 1985, p. $5. The Methuen version 1s now mn a private collection mn San Francisco; the copy made by Nathamel Caspary in 1752 after the Wilton version was sold at Christies, South Kensington, July 11, 2008, no. 46; another version belonged to Sir George Rothe Bellew (1899-1993), Garter Principal King of Arms. Further copies are in the Nationalhistoriske Museum pa Frederiksborg Slot, Hillerod (no. A7545); collection of the Earl of Radnor, Longford Castle; collection of the Earl of Pembroke, Wilton House; collection of Lady Ashcombe, Sudeley Castle, Winchcombe, Gloucestershire

Exhibitions: London 1820, no. 141; London 1832, no. 125;

London

London 1866b, no. $8; London 1895, no. 89; London 1927, no. 186; London 1953-54, no. 54; Brussels 1963, no. 113; London 1977, no. 8; London 1988, no. 2; Edinburgh, Brussels, London 2007-9, no. 6

Verhaegen in Brussels 1063, pp. 105-6, no.

Literature: Vertue 1713-21/1929-30,

p.

53;

Vertue

1736-41(7)/ 1935-36, p. 108; Vertue 1742-52/1937-38, PP- 13, 21-22, 25; Vertue 1748, p. 2;Vertue 1776, pp. $6; Passavant 1833, p. 49; Waagen 1838, vol. 2, pp. 114-15; Jameson 1842, p. 349, no. 305; Waagen 1854, vol. 2, p. 364,

Scharf 1863; London 1866b, (ed.),

vol.

53:

1, p.

Gossart 1903,

p.

Just

1895;

p.

12,

1953—54, p. 23, no. §4;

von der Osten 1961; Nicole

Herzog 1968a, pp. 131-32, 139—41, 280-82, no. 34, Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 101, no. 79, pl. 62; London 1977, 113;

Campbell 1985, pp. 3-56 (with extensive prov enance information); London 1988, pp. 11-12, no. 2; Folie 1996, p. 26; Mensger 2002, pp. 162-64; Lorentz 2005, p. 120; Desmond Shawe-Taylor and Jennifer Scott in Edinburgh, Brussels, London 2007-9, pp. 62-63, no. 6; Lorne Campbell in London 2008-9, p. 138, under no. 29 p. 6, no. 8;

no. §8; Walpole 1888

London

1895, p. 21, no. 89;

62; Weisz 1913b, pp. 80-90, 119,

pl.

XX, 60;

Segard 1923, pp. 143-44, 180, no. 26; Winkler 1924, p. 245; Tancred Borenius in Conway 1927, pp. 80-81, no. 186;

Friedlander 1924-37, vol.

8

(1930), p. 164, no. 79, pl. Lvi;

Paintings

tv ~J

2

Jan Gossart 52. Anna van Bergen Ca. 1526-30 Oil on oak panel, 22% x 17 1n. (56 x 43.2 cm) Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, Gift of the Executors of Governor Lehman's Estate and the Edith and Herbert Lehman

pose—facing left and slightly angled to the picture plane—and in its winsome but reserved expression. The convincing tactile quality and volume of the ermine sleeves recall a similar feature in The Three Children of Christian II of Denmark of 1526 (cat. 51), and the way paint was handled to create the illusion of sparkling gems, lustrous pearls, and rich gold is likewise found in A Young Princess (Dorothea of

Foundation 1968.297 Condition: The

good condition, although the flesh tones and brown fur are abraded. Overpainting in the wood reserve at the upper right and left, used to create a vertical rectangular painting, was removed to restore the picture's original curved-arch top. There is restored damage along the arch, the panel join, and along a crack through the sitter’s right shoulder.

panting

is in

composed of two oak boards from the same tree. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. The painting was examined using infrared reflectography on August 25, 2004, with the kind permission of Richard Rand, Tom Branchick, Sandy Webber, and Kate Duffy. There 1s a rough sketch, probably in black chalk, for the features of the face, the hands and cuffs, and the contours of the drapery folds. Parallel hatching was used for the shaded areas of the voluminous ermine sleeves. Technical investigation: The painting

Denmark?) of about 1530 (cat. §7). The Williamstown portrait thus probably dates MWA to about 1526-30.”

1s

1.

Just

Provenance: Sir Abraham

he identification of the sitter as Anna van Bergen (1492-1541) is based on a likeness of her in the Arras Codex (Recueil d’Arras) (fig. 223)."' The daughter of John of Brabant-Glymes, Lord of Bergen-opZoom, Anna married Adolf of Burgundy (ca. 1489-1540), admiral of Zeeland and “Marquis,” or Lord,

of Veere, in

1509.

Together they had three sons and three daughters.” Gossart worked for Adolf and other members of the nobility following the death, in 1524, of his primary patron,

Philip of Burgundy, who was Adolf’s granduncle, and it was at this time that he would have had an occasion to paint Anna's portrait. The Williamstown portrait is best known for relationship to a Virgin and Child that Van Mander reported was based

its

274

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

18953).

2. Ermerins 1786, vol. 3, chap. 2, p. 39. 3.

Hume (1749-1838), 2nd Baronet, in 1834; by descent to his grandson John Egerton (1812-1851), Viscount Alford and son of the 1st Earl Brownlow; by descent to Rt. Hon. Adelbert Wellington (1844-1921), 3rd Earl Brownlow, Dale (his sale, Christie's, London, May 4, 1923, no. 77); Mrs. Stevenson Scott, Glen Cove, New York; Herbert H. Lehman, New York; Gift of the Executors of Governor Lehman's Estate and the Edith and Herbert Lehman Foundation to the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, 1968

Chatelet 2007, pp. 277, 285, no. 17-7; Justi’s suggestion that she 1s Isabella of Austria is not convincing (see

Fig. 223. Unknown artist, Anna van Bergen, from the Recueil d'Arras, ca. 16th century. Graphite, 11%6 In. (42 x 28 cm). Médiathéque d’Arras, 16% Arras (Ms, 266, fol. 106 |102])

X

on a likeness of Anna van Bergen and her son (cat. 37). If this is indeed the case, then the portrait shows her at a somewhat more advanced age and fuller in the face. As is appropriate for a woman of Anna’s social standing and wealth, she is dressed extravagantly, with full ermine sleeves and an additional fur piece around her shoulders. An enormous pendant with three large tear-shaped pearls and two gemstones hangs from her neck on a black ribbon; her belt is decorated with additional gems and pearls in elaborate gold settings; and she wears three rings with precious stones. Anna holds a folded paper, and she gestures with her left hand as if to communicate its unknown message. Few portraits of female sitters by Gossart have survived. This one compares most closely to the Berlin Portrait of a Woman of about 1520-25 (cat. 43) in its

There are two contemporary copies of this portrait, of comparable but not exact size: one 1s in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, and the other in the McNay Art Museum, San Antonio. On the Gardner version, see Hymans et al. 1907; and La Farge 1907, Pp. 142-43.

Exhibitions: London 1899-1900, no. 97; London 1927,

no. 188; New York 1929, no. 75; Chicago 1933, no. 44; Williamstown 1985-86, no. 6 Literature: Justi 1895; London 1899-1900, p. 97, no. 97;

Conway 1921, p. 374; Segard 1923, p. 180, under no. 23; Tancred Boremus in Conway 1927, pp. 81-82, no. 188; Harry G. Sperling in New York 1929, pp. 218-19, no. 75; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 61, 163, no. 76, pl. Liv; Hendy 1931, pp. 211-13; Chicago 1933, pp. 7-8, no. 44; Herzog 1968a, pp. 283-84, no. 3s; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 100, no. 76, pl. 60; Alexandra R.

Murphy in Wilhamstown 1985-86, n.p., no. 6; Bauman 1986, pp. 14-16; Sterling and Francine Clark Art Insutute 1992, p. 52: Held 1997, esp. p. 507; Véronique Sintobin in New York 1998-99, p. 192; Lorne Campbell in London

2008-9, p.

132,

under no. 26

R

>

|

|

.

h

a

Ce

-

i

Ed

-——

-

Paintings

275

Jan Gossart 53. Portrait of an Old Couple Ca. 1525-30 Oil on parchment laid down on canvas, 19 x 27% in. (48.1 x 69.2 cm); parchment 18% x 26% in. (47.1 x 67.8 cm), painted surface 18% x 26% in. (46 x 66.9 cm) The National Gallery, London NG 1689

Fig. 224. Jan Gossart, Portraits of Tivo Donors, infrared reflectogram (detail

ofcat. 558)

Condition: The painting 1s 1n very good condition, The man’s black doublet is slightly worn. There 1s some

damage in the woman's veil at the lower right, and the yellow pins that held the headdress in place have inexplicably been overpainted by restorer. It was last cleaned and restored in 1942.

a

Technical investigation;

The parchment, which may once

have been tacked or laced to a panel, has been laid down

on a single piece of fine canvas. On the parchment is a thin lead white priming. Infrared photographs and reflectograms reveal a certain amount of underdrawing, apparently in brush, with mated areas of hatching, Drawn lines demarcate the limits of the composition above, below, and on the left. There are many small changes. The background 1s underpainted in azurite mixed with lead-un yellow and some lead white; the glaze 1s verdigns, partially dissolved in linseed oil, and contains some pie resin. The medium ofthe woman's veil 1s walnut oil. The paint was applied with great skill and, in some places, at great speed. The artist used sgraffito in the eyebrows; worked the paint wet-in-wet and feathered and dragged the wet paint; and blotted some ofhis glazes. Wonderfully illusiomstic stray hairs fall from the man’s head to curl around the ribbons of his headdress (on our left) and lodge in his fur collar (on our right). Examinations using infrared reflectography and micro- and regular photography were carried out in April 2009 by Rachel Billinge; X-radiography was provided by the Photographic Department.

Fig. 225. Jan Gossart, Portrait of an Old Couple, infrared

reflectogram (detail

of cat.

53)

Provenance: William Wells (1760-1847), Redleaf, Kent,

by 1824 (his estate sale, Christie's, London, May 13, 1848, no. 76, as by Quinten Metsys, to Seguier for

Simpson); Maria Louisa Simpson (1773-1855), Barrow Hill, near Rocester, Staffordshire; her miece Louisa Jane Finch Simpson (d. 1865); her son Captain Arthur Finch Dawson (1836-1928); [Ayerst Hooker Buttery

(1868-1929), London]; purchased by the National Gallery, London, 1900

his astonishingly candid study age

1s

of old

the only double portrait by

Gossart that has survived. Portraits of married couples already existed in the fifteenth century, but most were painted as

pendants, not on the same support.’

Some, like Hans Memling’s Portrait of an Elderly Couple (Gemildegalerie, Berlin, and Musée du Louvre, Paris), were painted on adjoining panels that became separated from each other and eventually took dif276 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

ferent routes to different collections.” The London couple, though they share the same space, appear to be at a great psychological distance from each other. Their lack of communication and mutual affection 1s palpable, as it 1s in the contemporary portrait pair by Quinten Metsys (private collection, Belgium, and The

of

Art, New York) Metropolitan Museum and in the one of Dirck Borre van Amerongen and Maria van Snellenberg by the Master of the Amsterdam Death of the Virgin (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam).” Each partner, lost in personal reflection, inhabits his or her own closed world.

These works are

sigmficant departure from Gossart’s standard portraiture and thus are harder to place in his oeuvre. Early on, and when sold from the Wells a

estate, the picture was attributed to Metsys, but Friedlinder, Davies, and others eventually accepted it as one of Gossart’s most important works.” Opinions on the dating ofthe painting have varied widely, from the 1500s to 1513° to the 1520s.” Recent technical examination with infrared reflectography, and the opportunity to compare these results with new infrared documentation from other Gossart paintings, helped to solve this question. Com-

paring infrared reflectography ofthe head

The deep folds ofthe old man’s sleeves call to mind not only those found in the Brussels male donor portrait but also

Gossart modeled both heads with a washlike application that divides the shaded part ofthe face, to the right, from the broadly lit side to the left (compare figs. 224 and 225). The large, beautifully modeled hands of both men are prominently placed in the composition (compare figs. 228 and 229), and they are described in the underdrawing in a similar manner, with short comma strokes to articulate the form of the knuckles and careful outlining ofthe broad, flat fingernails.

those in the Washington Portrait of a Man

ofthis old man and that ofthe male donor portrait in Brussels (cat. $58) shows that

(Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (cat. 58). Although

the underdrawing indicating the threedimensional form ofthe folds 1s tighter here than in the Washington painting, the same style and comparable parallel hatcharticulate the form are found ing used in the London old man’s sleeves (compare figs. 226 and 227). In addition, both the old man and the Brussels man reveal similar features of execution: eyebrows formed partly with sgraffito, wet-in-wet brushwork,

to

Paintings

277

Fig. 226. Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz Snoeck?), infrared reflectogram (detail of cat. 58)

Fig. 227. Jan Gossart, Portrait of an Old Couple, infrared reflectogram (detail ofcat. §3)

Fig. 228. Jan Gossart, Portrait of an Old

Couple (detail of cat. 53)

278

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

deftly feathered strokes for the fur, and dragged white applications for highlights

of fingernails. Given these

stylistic connections, a late date for Portrait of an Old

Jan Gossart 54. Portrait of a Man with a Rosary

Couple (about 1525-30) seems more likely

than an early one. The style of costume worn by the men in the London, Brussels, and Washington portraits is generally similar, perhaps providing further evidence for the common dating. The identities of the sitters in the London painting are not known. Given their dress, including the man’s golden hat badge with antique figures (two lovers with a cornucopia), silver-tipped walking stick, and ample fur collar on his purple gown, they were certainly a prosperous couple.

MwA

The sections on condition, technical vestigation, and provenance have been provided by Lorne Campbell and are based on work carried out at the National Gallery by him in association with his colleagues there, particularly Rachel Billinge, Marika Spring, and Raymond White, The author 1s most grateful to Susan Foster, Lorne Campbell, and Rachel Billinge for the opportunity to study the painting in April 2009. 1.

2. 3.

Hinz 1974, pp. 157-59. DeVos 1994, p. 115, no,

14.

For illustrations, see New York 1998-99, pp. 187-89, no. 38; and Rotterdam 2008, pp. 188-90, no. 29.

4. Friedlander (1924-37, vol. 8 [1930], pp. 62, 164, no. 8o; 1967-76, vol. 8 [1972], pp. 39, 101, no. 80) considered

it “in many respects his masterpiece,” and Davies (1955, p. 46; 1968, pp. 61-62) as well as most other scholars accepted it. Weisz 1913b, pp. 78-79. 6. Von der Osten 1961, pp. 459-60. 5.

7.

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 176, no. 28; Herzog 1968a, p. 297, no. 44; Lorne Campbell (in London 2008-9, p. 186) recently dated the painting to about 1520.

Exhibitions: London 1824, no. 28; London 1837, no. s;

London 1839, no. 22; London 1848, no. 88; Derby 1870, no. 184; London 1879, no. 219; London 1947, no. 33; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 28; London 1975, no. 16; London 2008-9, no. 50 Literature: Gossart 1903, p. 62; Waetzoldt 1908, p. 278; von

Wurzbach 1906-11, vol.

2 (1910), p. 83;

Ring

1913, p. 146;

Weisz 1913b, pp. 78—79, 119, pl. XV, 44; Segard 1923, pp. 137-38, 181, no. 30; National Gallery 1929, p. 205 (inv. no. 1689); Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 62, 164, no. 80, pl. vir; London 1947, p. 36, no. 33; Davies 1955, p. 46 (inv. no. 1689); von der Osten 1961, pp. 459-60,

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 173-77, no. 28; Davies 1968, pp. 61-62; Herzog 1968a, pp. 137-38, 206-98, no. 44; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 39, 101, no. 80, pl. 63; National Gallery 1973, p. 285 (inv. no. 1689); Hinz 1974, pp- 157-38; London 1975, p. 54, no. 16; Dunkerton, Foister, and Penny 1999, p. 159; Mensger 2002, pp. 161-62; Lorne Campbell in London 2008-9, pp. 186-87, no. 50

Ca. 1528 Oil on oak panel, 27% x 19% in. (69 x 49.1 cm) The National Gallery, London NG 656 Condition: The painting was cleaned in 1994-95. It is in very good condition, although there is general abrasion throughout, especially in the har, fur, and architecture.

made up of two boards joined vertically. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. The ground and priming continue to all four edges, but since the paint stops short of the top and bottom edges, 1t may be deduced that the panel was not in a frame when the ground and priming were applied and when the portrait was pated. Since the rosary beads do not continue to the lower edge, the artist anticipated that the edges would be concealed by the rabbets of a frame. The ground is chalk, and there is a relatively thick pale pink priming of lead white tinted with red lead. Some underdrawing, apparently in a dry medium, 1s revealed mn infrared photographs and reflectograms (the latter carried out by Rachel Billinge in November 2008). Some of the lines of the architecture are incised, and all the straight lines are ruled. The chin is drawn well mside of the painted contour. The rings and rosary beads are painted without reserves on top ofthe fingers and gown. The paint of the fur 1s very thin, and in places the priming is left uncovered. Sgraffito techmques have been used in the architecture; the paint has been applied wet-in-wet and is feathered in several places, for example, along the edge of the standing collar. The gray of the architecture contains a brown carth as well as black and white. The purple sleeves are painted in mixtures of red lake and black, over which 1s a scumble of azurite. The medium of the priming is linseed oil. In the architecture on the left, the medium 1s walnut oil. Technical investigation:

The panel

1s

Provenance: Edmond Beaucousin (1806-1866), Paris;

acquired with the purchase of the collection of Edmond Beaucousin by the National Gallery, London, 1860

distinguished-looking gentleman, with his right hand at his heart and his left holding a rosary, stands before an imposing architectural setting decorated with variegated marble panels. He is very well dressed, in a high-collared shirt and purplish satin doublet open at the neck, topped by a low-necked garment and a robe with fur lining and large, capelike fur collar. The only indications of the sitter’s identity are his clothes, which are unusual but very similar to those worn in two portraits in Liverpool and Brussels by Jan

Mostaert," painctre aux honneurs to

Margaret of Austria as of March 1518. Although the colors of the garments worn by the three sitters differ, they are otherwise so similar that they could be some kind of official costume. As Lorne Campbell points out, because the Brussels sitter has been identified as Abel van den Coulster (1477-1548), councillor at the Court, or Council, of Holland, Zeeland, and West Friesland (from 1506 until his death),? it seems possible that these men may all have been part of the Council of Holland and that the costumes may indicate their different offices. This would indeed be a more plausible identification than A. J. Wauters’ suggestion that the sitter

Philip of Burgundy.’ Indeed, as is noted in the Rotterdam, Bruges catalogue (1965), Philip was fifty-eight years old when he died in 1524, and this sitter is a younger man, depicted in a portrait that was likely painted closer to 1528.° The Italianate architectural setting 1s similar to that of the Prado Virgin and Child of about 1527 and Gossart’s Danae of 1527 (cats. 16, 35). Ernst Weisz suggested the former as a pendant to the London panel, a proposal that Martin Davies found unlikely.” Although the paintings are similar in size (the London panel measures is

69 by 49.1 centimeters, and the Prado panel is 63 by 50 centimeters), their archi-

tectural settings do not complement each other. Weisz more convincingly related the London portrait to surviving copies of a Virgin and Child in an architectural setting whose original by Gossart has been lost.” Two reduced copies of it by followArt ers are in the Philadelphia Museum (54 by 40 centimeters) and a private collection (50 by 31.9 centimeters); a larger third version (99 by 68.1 centimeters), signed HBG (the monogram of Hans Baldung Grien) and dated 1530, 1s in Nuremberg.” The architectural settings in the lost Virgin and Child and the London portrait could have met at the adjoining

of

Paintings

279

280

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

inner edges. However, when so joined, the Virgin and Child would be significantly larger than the sitter, whose position would also be far lower. Additionally problematic is that the Virgin and Child appear to be self-contained, not communicating with the supplicant by either pose or glance. Although the man in the London portrait is silently offering his devotions to a holy image at his proper right, this particular Virgin and Child composition is not a likely pendant. Not only the composition but also the technique and execution of this painting are typical of Gossart’s late works (compare cats. 13 and §5B). As in many of the other portraits from his mature phase, Gossart summarily established the figure’ position 1n the space with underdrawing in a dry material. Wavering, disconnected lines vaguely map out the body of the man and the contours of his costume. The drawn contours for his head and neck fall well inside the painted ones, and the space left open for the doublet on his chest was enlarged from the more constricted preliminary drawing. The architecture is carefully planned, with ruled lines, some incised lines, and sgraffito on the modeling of the volutes. Some details, such as the chips in the stone framework above the man’s head, are painted wet-in-wet. In others, such as the fingernails and the gemstones of the sitter’s rings, the paint 1s dragged to create the highlights; the brushstrokes for the rosary beads are feathered to soften the edges. MWA

The sections on condition, on technical mvestigation, and on the man’s clothes have been provided by Lorne Campbell and are based on work carried out at the Nauonal Gallery by him in association with his colleagues there, particularly Rachel Billinge, Jill Dunkerton, Marika Spring, and Raymond White. The author 1s most grateful for the opportunity study the painting with Lorne Campbell and Rachel Billinge in April 2009.

to

1.

This has been noted by Lorne Campbell (unpublished manuscript of his forthcoming catalogue on sixteenth-century Netherlandish paintings at the National Gallery, London). The Mostaert portraits are illustrated in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 10 (1973), p.

2.

72, nos.

33,

38, pls.

22, 23.

Thanks to Lorne Campbell for these observations (unpublished manuscript; see note above). For the identification, see Thierry de Bye Délleman 1963, 1

for Abel's life, see De Ridder-Symoens, lllmer, and Ridderikhoff 1978, p. 176, Wauters' comparison of the London sitter with the drawing of Philip in the Recueil d’ Arras (Médiathéque

p. 136;

3.

d’ Arras, Ms. 266, fol. 98 [94])

not convincing. See Wauters 1902 (cited in Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, 1s

pp. 159-60). 4.

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 159, dates the picture after 1524 and before 1530. Weisz (1913a, p. $36) thought it should be before 1526, and Lorne Campbell (unpublished manuscript; see note above) in the late 1520s. 1

Weisz 1913a, p. 536: Davies 1955, p. 45. 6. Weisz 1913b, pp. 81-82. 5.

7.

For a discussion ofthe Baldung painting as well as the other copies, see von der Osten 1983, pp. 192-94, no. 68, pl. 142.

Exhibition: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 24 Literature: Wauters 1902; Gossart 1903, p. 61; von Wurzbach

vol. 2 (1910), pp. 81, 83; Ring 1913, p. 146; Weisz 19132, p. 536; Weisz 1913b, pp. 81-82, 119, pl. xXvI1, 52; Winkler 1921b, p. 412; Segard 1923, pp. 135, 137, 181, no. 28; 1906—11,

Bautier 1925, pp. 89, 91; National Gallery 1929, p. 204 (inv. no. 656); Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 71; Davies 1955, p. 45 (inv. no. 656); von der Osten 1961, p. 472; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 159-60, no. 24; Davies 1968, pp. 60-61; Herzog 1968a, pp. 276—77, no. 31; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 100, no. 71, pl. 55; National Gallery 1973, p. 284 (inv. no. 656); Folie 1996,

p.

26

Jan Gossart

ssa—c. The Norfolk

Triptych A.

Central panel:

Virgin and Child

Ca. 1525-30 Oil on oak panel, 18% x 14% in. (47.3 x 36 cm) Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virgima, Gift of Walter P. Chrysler Jr. 71.491 Condition: The painting 1s made of two planks joined vertically. The panel has been cut at the right and left

edges and shows a bevel on the verso at the top and bottom. There are significant paint losses at the upper right and left corners (probably due to a later apphcation and subsequent removal of an ogee-arch frame) and more minor ones along the join. The pant 1s otherwise in good condition.

No dendrochronology has been undertaken. New X-radiography and infrared reflectography were carried out by Catherine Metzger when the pamting was studied at the National Gallery, Washington, in October 2008. The X-radiograph shows the extent of the paint losses mentioned above, as well as the originally more closed position of the Virgin's eyes. The infrared reflectography shows brush underdrawing, mostly limited to the contours of the architecture and figures. The blue dress of the Virgin 1s not penetrated with this method, and the underdrawing appears very faint in her red cloak, probably because of the density of the paint there. Very clearly visible, though, are the change in position of the Child's head from a profile to a three-quarter turn to his right and the raising of the Virgin's upper eyehds in the paint stage. Summary lines define the meeting of the Virgin's lips (with a typical curved stroke at the far right edge) and the up of her nose. Technical investigation:

John Rushout (1769-1859), 2nd Baron Northwick, Cheltenham (his estate sale, Phillips, Thirlestane House, Cheltenham, August 23, 1859, [17th day of sale], no. 1703, to Phillips); Sir Thomas Phillipps (1792-1872), Baronet, Middle Hill; by descent to Alan G. Fenwick, Thirlestane House (his sale, Christie's, London, July 21, 1950, no. 88); [David M. Koetser, New York, in 1952; sold to Chrysler]; Walter P. Chrysler Jr., 1952-71; Gift of Walter P. Chrysler Jr. to the Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia, 1971 Provenance:

s5B,C. Wings: Portraits of Tio Donors Ca. 1525-30 Oil on oak panel, each 27% x 9% in. (70 x 23.5 cm) Inscribed: (on verso of left wing) MISERERE MET DEVS

/ SCEGVNDVM

MAGNA

(on verso of night wing) TVDINE MISERATIONV

/

£71

MISERICORDIA

/ TVAM,

secvNpvM mvLrt/

TVARVM DELE

INIQVI/

TATEM MEA

Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Musée d'Art Ancien, Brussels 4740

Paintings

281

Cat. 558, verso

SSC,

Condition: The paintings are in extremely fine

condition, although somewhat obscured

by

a very

heavy varnish that has developed its own crack pattern. The versos of the panels show their original fauxmarble effects and scriptions on trompe-I'oeil

parchments, although they are somewhat damaged owing to wear of a minor sort. Technical investigation: The paintings are made from

one

plank each, which were cut from the same tree. For Peter Klemn'’s dendrochronology, see the Appendix. The panels are not cut and have a barbe and wood reserve at all edges. New X-radiography and infrared

282

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Cat. 558

Verso

reflectography were carried out by Freya Maes, with the collaboration of Veronique Biicken and Alexandre Galand, in May 2008. The X-radiographs show relatively dense buildup of lead white paint for the heads but no changes in the paint layers. Infrared reflectography reveals summary brush and black chalk(?) underdrawing for the architecture, the priedieus, the devotional books, and the placement of the figures. The decorative elements of the prie-dieus are drawn in a livelier way and changed slightly in their design. The woman's hands and sleeves are underdrawn with greater detail than the man’s. There are no major changes from the underdrawing to the painted layers.

a

Provenance:

Hendrik Fagel the Elder (1617-1690) and

his son Frangois Fagel (1659—1746);" by descent to

Mary (Maria) Doublet (1720-1801), Countess of Holderness (her estate sale, Christie's, London, March 6, 1802, no. 34); Edward Coxe, London (sale, Peter Coxe, London, April 25, 1807, no. 32); William Roscoe, Esq. (his sale, Winstanley, Liverpool, September 28, 1816, no. 101); Lady Trevelyan (1847-1928), Welcombe, England (her estate sale, Christie's, London, June 8, 1928, no. 93); [Arthur J. Sulley, London, in 1928; sold to the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique]; acquired by the Musées Royaux des BeauxArts de Belgique, Brussels, 1928

Cat. 554 (suggested reconstruction

of

Cat. ssc

triptych)

t the time ofthe 1965 Rotterdam, Bruges exhibition of Gossart’s works, only the Brussels donor portraits were widely known. The catalogue entryfor those paintings emphasized the unusual nature ofthe relationship ofthe figures to their different architectural surroundings.

The space ofthe right wing appears to be deeper than that ofthe left, and the woman turns at an angle and looks to her

right, while the man 1s placed parallel to his architectural background and looks out at the viewer. In each painting, the figure prays at a prie-dieu that is placed nearly perpendicular (the woman) or at an angle (the man) to the picture plane. Because the two panels are so narrow, Verhaegen suggested that they were part of a larger ensemble of perhaps four wings, representing two pairs of donors.” If so, then the

intact texts on the reverse of these panels indicate that these wings would have to be on the outermost edges, closing together to cover a missing central panel. Herzog thought that, given the tall, thin dimensions of the wings, perhaps the missing central piece was sculpture or a relic.’ These questions, as well as the overall asymmetry ofthe two panels, remained troubling until Jefferson Harrison proposed

Paintings

283

instruction on Christian living and explains that salvation is offered to those who practice Christ’s teachings as they are written in the gospels. The themes of

Fig. 229. Jan Gossart, Portraits of Tivo Donors (detail

of cat.

an ingenious reconstruction of a triptych that had as its centerpiece the Chrysler Museum Virgin and Child." The virtue of

this reconstruction is that the spaces ofthe right wing and of the Virgin and Child panel relate to each other, forming one

continuous room. Furthermore, the truncated bench on which the Virgin sits has an unusual diamond-shaped honeycomb pattern on its wooden components as well as decorative gold finials with acanthus leaves that are both matched on a corresponding portion ofthe same bench in the background of the female donor panel. When these panels are placed side byside, the female donor looks at the Christ Child, to whom she 1s praying with hands clasped over her devotional book; he, in turn, meets her gaze. The male donor remains isolated in another space that is not integral with the central panel of the Virgin and Child. Indeed, the left side of the latter shows a stone-framed window opening to the blue sky beyond, and this does not connect directly with the back of the man’s chamber, where there 1s a window opening also onto blue sky. Instead of communicating with the holy figures to his left, the man looks straight ahead as he turns the page of his Bible open to the Epistle of Saint Paul (hg. 229).

The disjuncture of the male donor panel with the central and right panels can be explained, as Harrison notes, by the likely circumstances of the commission of the work. These are implied bythe texts 284 Jan

GoOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

558)

repentance, forgiveness, and salvation in these textual references—from the Old Testament on the wings and from the Newin the donors book—together indicate a memorial purpose for the triptych. Harrison suggested that the different environments of the two donor figures and their dissimilar visual relationships with the Virgin and Child are meant to indicate “different states of being—that one donor living, the other dead.”” That is to say, the female donor has joined the realm of the Virgin and Child and communicates with them directly, while her husband remains behind and prays for his wife. The ensemble thus most likely was commissioned as a memorial to the deceased wife. In this connection the pear jointly held by the Virgin and Child symbolizes the Incarnate Christ and signals his enduring love for humankind.” There is no escaping the fact that the ensemble represents a curious joining of two tall, very narrow panels with a central panel of quite different dimensions, and the challenge is to reconstruct just how they originally appeared together. That both wings have not been cut down and

is

found on the reverse of the two donor wings as well as in the male donor’ devotional book. On a pair of trompe-1’oeil parchment sheets “attached” with little balls of red wax to the marbleized panels are verses from Psalm s1 in Latin. The

outside left wing reads, "MISERERE

MEI DEVS /SCEGVNDVM

MAGNA /MISERICORDIA / TVAM” (Have mercy upon me, O God, According to thy unfailing love); the outside right wing, “ET

SECVNDVM

MVLTI/ TVDINE MISERATIONV / TVARVM DELE INIQVI/TATEM MEA” (According to your great compas-

sion blot out my transgressions). These verses, traditionally referred to as the Miserere, belong to one of the most familiar of the Penitential Psalms. That psalm was frequently used in liturgy and provided the text for a number of composers of polyphonic music from the 1480s on,

beginning with Johannes Martini, Josquin

des Prez, and Palestrina. Historically

related to King David's indiscretion with 1s generally concerned with Bathsheba, the concepts of sin and forgiveness. Added to this is a reference to one of the letters of Saint Paul. At the top of the page turned by the male donor is the title, in script: Epistle S. Pauli (fig. 229). Although it is not clear which group of letters from Paul is meant, Paul's letter to

it

is

the Romans highly likely. The most popular of the epistles, is the one that best suits the theme of this painted ensemble. The letter to the Romans provides

it

all

sides indicates they display a barbe on were painted in their frames, most likely

to fold over the central panel of a triptych. The Virgin and Child panel has been cut on all of its edges and planed down on the back (revealing open worm tunnels). However, there 1s what appears to be an original bevel at the top and bottom on the verso, made to ease the fit ofthe panel into a frame, thus suggesting that these edges might not have been cut significantly. Indeed, if compared with other Gossart paintings, this seated, half-length Virgin and Child find close parallels in several compositions (see cats. 14, 15, 20), even if in execution the Norfolk painting appears less subtle.’

that the painting of the Virgin and Child existed independently before the wings were painted to form a triptych. This would explain why

One possibility

1s

the position of the Child's head was altered: it was turned to meet the gaze of the female donor (fig. 230). When the male donor commissioned the wings to go with the Virgin and Child panel, Gossart perhaps decided to make these wings and the donor figures larger in order to create the unusual, dynamic spatial relationships that have resulted here. This would be in line with Gossart’s attempts in his late paintings to play with atypical and disjointed architectural settings of near and far views.

Of course, it

is always

possible that when the central panel was later separated from the wings, the painting—perhaps originally the height of the wings and twice the width of each wing—was cut down on all sides to fit into a new frame. Unfortunately, the Holy Family Triptych in Saint Louis formerly attributed to Gossart (see figs. 26, 240), which likewise has an unusual relationship of wings to central panel, cannot be used as a model for the Norfolk Triptych. All the edges of every panel in the Saint Louis ensemble have been cut and placed into later frames, and the original configuration or whether these panels even went together in the first place cannot be easily

If questions remain about the original configuration of the Brussels wings and the Norfolk Virgin and Child, there is more certainty about their dating to the last phase

of Gossart’s career. The interior

gray-stone architectural setting, the exaggerated gesture of the male donor's hands, the robust body forms, and the very cool flesh tonalities, especially of the Virgin, are all features of the artists late works, including the Virgin and Child paintings in Chicago and Berlin, the Mary Magdalen in Boston (sporting a similar topknot),”’ and especially the Holy Family in Bilbao (cats. 14, 15, 38, 18). The Norfolk Triptych most likely dates from about 1528-30. MWA

1.

Hendrik Fagel held the function of Greffier of the Dutch States-General until his death in 1690 and was succeeded by his son Frangois. The Fagel family seems to have originated in the Southern Netherlands; Hendriks grandfather Francois Fagel (d. 1587), a merchant, resided in Bruges and Antwerp before he

moved to Amsterdam, where he died. See Regt 1914. 2. Nicole Verhaegen in Brussels 1963, p. 104, no. 111. 3. Herzog 1968a, p. 311 4. Harrison 1994. The reconstruction on pp. 282-83 1s based on Harrison 1994, p. 6. s. Ibid., pp. 5-6. 6. On the pear symbolism and its relationship to certain

determined.” 7.

prayers, see Falkenburg 1994, pp. 92, 97. Herzog (1968a, pp. 345-46, no. 72) calls the Virgin and Child “ateher”

Amsworth and Faries 1986, pp. 10-11, 41—42. 9. On the possible meaning of the Virgin's decorative topknot, see Harrison 1994, pp. 10-11, n. 13. 8.

Cat. 56a:

Virgin

and Child

Exhibitions: Portland and

other cities

1956—57,

no. 2;

Jan Gossart 56. Portrait of a Man (Charles of Burgundy?) Ca. 1528-30 Oil on oak panel, 22 x 16% mn. (56 x 42.5 cm) Inscribed (on scabbard of dagger): A[v]TrRE QVE vov[s jE N'AimE] Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie §86a in very good condition although somewhat abraded throughout. It 1s made Condition:"The painting

1s

of

two planks of oak joined vertically through the left temple of the man. The panel 1s about 8 millimeters thick and cradled. It was not painted in a frame, and the brush marks of the composition extend into the borders, which are about 1.3 centimeters wide and covered with a white ground on all edges; the top edge has been overpainted with dark green. Technical investigation: The

painting was studied together with Babette Hartwieg and Christoph Schmidt on June 16, 2009. New X-radiography, conducted by Schmidt, showed strokes of the rather densely applied priming visible throughout, as well as some paint losses at the bottom left and right along the edges and at the lower half of the panel join. The flesh tones in the face revealed strong highlights under the left eye, at the bridge and lower left of the nose, and a broadly ht forchead. New infrared reflectography, also carried out by Schmudt, revealed summary underdrawing for the contour of the head, the features of the face, and the hands. There 1s evidently a grayish underpainting beneath the surface layers that impedes the examination by infrared reflectography, and no underdrawing could be made visible in the costume of the sitter. There are no dendrochronology results available at this time,

Barthold Suermondt (1818-1887), Aachen, untl 1874; acquired with the purchase of the Suermondt collection by the Gemaldegalerie, Berlin, 1874 Provenance:

Provincetown 1958, no. 39 Literature: Greig 1950, p. 149; Greig 1951, p. 84; Herzog 1968a, pp. 345-46, no. 72; Chrysler Museum 1982, p. 26;

Harrison 1991,

p. 10,

no. 9; Harrison 1994

Cat. s68,c: Portraits of Tivo Donors Exhibitions: Amsterdam, Rotterdam 1946, no. 42; Paris 1952-53, no. 22; London 1953-54, no. 57; Brussels 1961, no. 45; Brussels 1963, no. 111; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 27 Literature: Michel 1920a; Michel 1929b; Friedlander

1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 151, no. 6; Amsterdam, Rotterdam 1946, p. 31, no. 42; Paris 1952-53, p. 33, no. 22; London 1953-54, p. 24, no. §7, Van Puyvelde 1962, p. 315; Nicole Verhaegen in Brussels 1963, p. 104, no. 111; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 171-72, no. 27; Herzog 1968a, pp. 310-12, no, $2; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 91, no. 6, pl. 14; Harrison 1994

Fig. 230. Jan Gossart, Virgin and Child, infrared

reflectogram (detail

of cat.

554A)

long with the Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (cat. 58), the Portrait of a Man (Charles of Burgundy?) is Gossart’s

most extraordinary demonstration of his mastery of illusion. His successful rendering of varied textures in these two paintings elevates him to the level of Jan van Eyck—a level to which he must have aspired, given the courtly circles in which Gossart worked. The materials—the sheen of satin, the soft nap of damask, the raised gold and white embroidery on the stuff shirt collar, the crisp cotton fabric pulled through the slashes of the voluminous sleeves—all appear remarkably tangible. Add to this the smoothness of the thin Paintings

285

leather gloves and the cold, hard gold and brass in the chain and ring, hat pin, sword

Lorne Campbell has suggested.”

hilt, dagger sheath, key, aglets, and fish pendant. It is a tour de force of painting in which the splendor of the man’s attire nearly swallows up the man himself. Indeed, the gestures of the sitter and his

supported the identity

physical connection to his worldly goods accentuate his superior social status. Several possibilities have been suggested for the man’s identity. A label on the verso of the painting identifies him as Baudouin

de Bourbon (or Baudouin of Burgundy), but if this refers to the bastard son of Philip the Good, he died in 1508, before this painting could have been made." The youngest of Baudouin’s three sons was also called Baudouin, of whom very little is known. A.-]. Wauters suggested as the sitter Adolf of Burgundy, whom he connected to the golden fish biting the man’s right pinkie finger.” Adolf was appointed Admiral of the Seas in 1517, and he apparently had a beard after 1528. He commussioned several works from Gossart, and if this portrait 1s one of them, was likely painted between 1517 and 1527. Ernst Weisz, followed by Achille Segard, was the first to identify the sitter as Charles of Burgundy (1491-1538), a proposal that has found increasing acceptance.’ The magnificence of his dress and accoutrements makes it clear that the sitter 1s of noble rank and closely connected with the court. The key hanging below his left hand may signify his rank as court chamberlain, and only nobles were approved to wear a sword and chain. The inscription on the sheath of his gold dagger, A[VJTRE QVE VOV[S JE N’AIME |], meaning “I love no other but you,” 1s very close to Philip the Good's motto: “Aultre n’auray” (I shall have no other).* The man’s hat badge representing Venus and Cupid, which is quite similar to a North Italian plaquette by the sculptor Moderno,” indicates an interest in the ancient mythological themes and humanist learning favored in courtly circles. The brocade collar of the shirt, with its decoration of diagonal crosses, may refer to the “knotty branches of Saint Andrew used as a device of the Burgundian dukes,” as

it

286 Jan

GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

this plaquette arc in Basel (Historisches Museum, no, 190s.5162); Florence (Museo Nazionale del

Stephanie Schrader, in particular, has of

this nobleman as

Charles of Burgundy.” Gossart could well have known Charles, who was the son of Baudouin of Burgundy and grandson of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy). They might have met in 1525, when Gossart was working for Adolf of Burgundy, who (like Charles) lived in Zeeland. Or Gossart could have been introduced to Charles

through his connections to Margaret of Austria, whom Charles served as caesarus et cambellanus (bell ringer for the ruler), indicating that he probably had a pension at court.” What further supports the identity of the sitter as Charles is a drawing of him in the Recueil d’Arras (folio 107), labeled “Charles de Bourgogne, seigneur de Bredam.”” The facial features of the man the Berlin painting and in the drawing are

in

similar: a long nose, deep-set eyes, finely

arched eyebrows, a thin upper lip, and a square jaw. The pageboy hairstyle and even the flat beret are featured in both. If, as seems most plausible, this truly 1s Charles of Burgundy, there are a few unresolved questions raised by other clues in the painting.

What 1s the meaning of the golden fish that appears to bite the man’ finger?" The ring hanging from his neck could mean that he is a widower, and his devotion to his lost love may be reiterated in the hat badge with Venus and Cupid and in the motto declaring that he loves no other. The portrait joins those made toward the end of Gossart’s career, about 1528-30. The smooth transitions in flesh tones and the remarkable attention to detail here are similar to effects seen in other late works, such as the Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. MWA Snoeck?) of about 1530 (cat. 58).

1.

tv

.

The painung’s subject was idenufied

Baudouin de Bourbon when it was exhibited after World War II in the United States and Europe. Wauters 1903, pp. 20-21. See also Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 215; and Herzog 1968a, p. 299. as

3.

Weisz 1913b, p. 83; Segard 1923, p. 179, no. 18. See esp. Schrader 2006, pp. 25-26.

4.

Campbell 1990, p. 110; Schrader 2006, p. 23. The plaquette is listed in the standard plaquette catalogues (Molimer 1886, no. 190; Bange 1922, no. so1): ca. 1500, attributed to the North Italian sculptor Moderno (Galeazzo Mondella, 1467-1528). Casts of

5.

Bargello, no. 6648); and formerly in Berlin (Staathche

Museen, Skulpturensammlung, no. 1127; missing since 1945). A good illustration 1s available in Toderi and Vannel Toder: 1996. 6. Campbell 1990, p. 110.

Schrader 2006, pp. 25-26. 8. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 215. 9. Chatelet 2007, pp. 197, 214, no. 11-17. See also Campbell 1977. 10. Among the paintungs of secular and erotic themes listed 1n the 1492 inventories of the Medici collections in Florence is a work on canvas described as “a half-length figure with books over his head and a pike bing his finger” (see Christiansen 1998, p. 43). One wonders whether the meaning of this mouf relates in any way to that found in the Berlin painting. 7.

Exhibitions: Washington 1948; New York 1048, no. 51;

Boston 1948, no.

51;

Amsterdam 1950, no. 46; Brussels 1950,

no. 46; Paris 1951, no. 18; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 38 Literature: Justi 1895, p. 198; Gossart 1903, pp.

118—=19;

Wauters 1903, p. 21; Ring 1013, p. 145: Weisz 1913b, pp- 83-84, 117, pl. xvi, 53; Conway 1921, p. 376; Winkler 1921h, p. 412; Segard 1923, p. 179, no. 18; Michel 1920a,

Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 160, no. 56, pl. x1v; Boston 1948, no. 51; NewYork 1948, no. sr; Washington 1948; Amsterdam 1950, no. 46; Brussels 1950, p- 26, no. 46; Paris 1951, pp. 20-21, no. 18; von der Osten 1961, p. 472; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 213-16, no. 38; Herzog 1968a, no. 43, pp. 208-300; Friedlinder 1967-76, p- 16;

vol.

(1972), p. 98, no. 36, pl. 46; Gemaildegalerie, Berlin 1978, pp. 186-87 (inv. no. 586A); Campbell 1990, p. 110; Gemaldegalene, Berlin 1996, p. 55; Schrader 2002; 8

Schrader 2006, pp. 21-29

Paintings

287

Jan Gossart 57.

A Young Princess (Dorothea of Denmark?)

Ca. 1530 Oil on oak panel, 15 x 11% in. (38.2 x 29.1 cm) Inscribed: (on jewel pinned to bodice): /11Esvs/ Mmfarta] . . ;(onarmillary sphere): .

NE... ./.

.

1*I1*1*A®A*N*NC*R®*R®*R*PCECE®"

geseoseoesge[utloegerToey The National Gallery, London

NG 2211

Condition: The painting must have been cleaned several times before going to the National Gallery, and at least

one of those early treatments was fairly drastic. Although there are no major paint losses, some areas, particularly the hair, are very worn. The blue patterns on the sitter’ sleeves and snood should be purple, the red lake pigment having faded. The red lakes in the flesh and probably also m the red glaze on her bodice have faded as well,

and the green glaze on the background would orignally have been more intense in color. The yellowed old varnish has recently been removed, and the picture the was restored in 2009-10 byJill Dunkerton

at

Natonal Gallery.

Technical investigation: The panel

one oak board, vertical in grain and radially cut. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. The chalk ground is covered by a relatively thick lead white priming. Both ground and paint continue to the edges of the support; the portrait was probably painted unframed. Infrared photographs and reflectograms reveal a certain amount of underdrawing, with small areas of hatching. There are many small alterations. Some of the lines of the painted frame are incised. The armillary sphere is painted without a reserve directly on top of the dress. The medium 1s linseed oil, and some resin, probably pine resin, has been detected in the red bodice. The hightest areas of the sleeves are evidently the priming, left uncovered; the sleeves are modeled in scumbles of white, black, and earth pigments over the priming. 1s

Edmund Anthony Harley Lechmere (1826-1894), Baronet, The Rhyd, Worcestershire, by 1882; his son Sir Edmund Arthur Lechmere (1865-1937), Baronet; (sale, Christie's, London, April 27, 1901, no. 75, to Pottier); Léon Gauchez (pseud. Paul Leroi, 1825—1907), Paris (his estate sale, Hotel Drouot, Paris, December 16, 1907, no. 29, to Agnew); [Thom. Agnew & Sons, London; sold to the National Gallery]; acquired by the National Gallery, London, 1908 Provenance: Sir

he picture was exhibited in 1882 and 1907 as a portrait of “Jacqueline de Bourgogne.”' In 1908, Hulin proposed that Jacqueline was Jacoba (1523-1556), daughter of Adolf of Burgundy, Marquis of Veere; this identification was tentatively accepted by Martin Davies.” According to Sterk, the sitter 1s Isabella of Portugal (1503-1539), who married Emperor 288

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Charles V in 1526. Neither identification

convincing. In her left hand the child holds, upside down, a small armillary sphere; the hoops of the skeleton sphere show the motions of the heavenly bodies. The vertical rod 1s the celestial axis; the small globe at its center is the earth; and the horizontal rings mark the Arctic and Antarctic Circles, the tropics, and the equator. The broad diagonal band of the ecliptic would normally have been decorated with the signs of the zodiac and the names of the months, but here it is marked instead with letters forming a possible anagram, which may include the words IENNI[N| G[O|SSART PAI[NT|RE;the letters R E S [H?]Y remain to be explained. Toward the end of his life, Gossart signed documents in this way," but he is thought to have preferred to sign pictures JOANNES MALBODIVS. The signatures are so rare that it is not possible to generalize. The girl's snood, thickly sewn with pearls, 1s tied under her chin; the blue (once purple) pattern on it 1s similar, but not identical, to the pattern on her sleeves. Her bodice was probably intended to be a richly colored red velvet, and her gown is decorated with hundreds of pearls. The child, who seems to be about nine or ten years old, must be of the highest rank. The only young girls in the Low Countries in about 1530 who might have been so lavishly dressed were Dorothea and Christina of Denmark, the daughters of Christian II of Denmark and Isabella of Austria. They resided at the courts of Margaret of Austria and Mary of Hungary; both Margaret and their uncle, Charles V, gave them enormous quantities of jewelry, including huge numbers of pearls. Gossart painted the two sisters with their brother in a triple portrait (cat. 51) that was probably executed shortly after their mother’s death in January 1526." The girl on the left is Dorothea, who was born on November 10, 1520, and would have 1s

been five at the time of that portrait. With her high forehead, wide-spaced greenish gray eyes, irregularly shaped eyebrows, bowed upper lip, wide lower lip, slightly receding cleft chin, and frizzy golden hair, she bears a marked resemblance to the sitter here, who may well be the same child, five years older. The sitter in A Young Princess 1s indicat-

ing on the outer ring of her sphere

a

point

approximately 55 degrees north of the equator. Since the latitude of Copenhagen 1s 56 degrees north, she may be directing the viewer's attention to her father’s lost kingdoms; the sphere, and the world, may be upside down because of the political disturbances that drove him and his family out of Scandinavia. Brought to the Low Countries in 1523 when her father fled Copenhagen, Dorothea was married in 1535 to Frederick II, Count Palatine (later Elector Palatine), who died in 1556. When Christian II died in 1559, Dorothea became titular queen of Denmark. She LC died, childless, in 1580.

1.

Worcester 1882, no. 87; Bruges

1907,

no. 68

(pamntings). . ow

.

=

.

5.

Hulin de Loo 1908; Davies 1968, pp. 62-63. Sterk 1980, pp. 279-81. For example, see Gossart’s signature on a document of September 12, 1532, as reproduced in March 1949. Campbell 1985, pp. 53-56.

Exhibitions: Worcester 1882, no. 87; Bruges 1907, no. 68

(paintings); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 19; London 1975, no. 17; London 1980-81, no. r2; London 2008-9, no. 29 Literature: Pol de Mont in Bruges 1907, p. 31, no. 68;

Holroyd 1908, pp. 33-34; Hulin de Loo 1908; Weisz 1913b, pp- 88—89, 119, pl. xX, 59; Segard 1923, p. 181, no. 31; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 163, no. 75; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 135-38, no. 19; Davies 1968, pp. 62-63; Herzog 1968a, pp. 132, 134, 279-80, no. 33; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 100, no. 75, pl. 59; London 1975, p-

$4, no. 17; Janet Arnold in London 1980-81, pp. 99-100,

no. r2; Sterk 1980, pp. 279-81; Mensger 2002, pp. 164-65, Lorne Campbell in London 2008-9, pp. 138-39, no. 29

— ~*

—_

-—

-

~—

—

*-—

-

—

~~

wg

wv,

259

Jan Gossart $8. Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) Ca. 1530 Oil on oak panel, 25 x 18% in. (63.6 x 47.5 cm); panel thickness % in. (1 cm) Inscribed: (on paper at upper left) Alrehande Missiven;

(on paper at upper right) Alrehande Minuten; (on the ring on sitters left index finger) 1s; (on pin on hat) 145 National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund 1967.4.1

Condition: The portrait is in nearly perfect condition, with no important losses. Two poorly saturating varnish layers were removed and replaced with a more

appropriate varnish in 2009 by Catherine Metzger. The painting is on a support of two quarter-sawn oak members, joined vertically. The reverse was planed and painted with a lead-containing paint that has considerable flaking. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. New infrared reflectography by Catherine Metzger (2009) reveals varied underdrawing, from single freehand contour for the face and hands—probably transmitting studies made of the sitter—to detailed but freely sketched drawing with muluple contour lines and hatching for the jacket and background. While some foreground elements are neatly drawn, the penholder at the right 1s painted over the sketch for the sitter’s sleeve. Both the X-radiograph and the infrared reflectography reveal a change inthe size and shape of the hat, which was originally larger on the right. The excellent state of the paint fully reveals Gossart’s meticulous execution, with fine glazing and scumbling defined and sharpened by pinpoint accuracy in the description of detail. Skin tones are subtly but convincingly modeled, and a fourTechnical investigation:

a

pane window

is reflected

in the catchlights

of

the

sitter’s eyes.’ Provenance: Marquesses

of Lansdowne, London and

Bowood, Wiltshire, by 1866; by descent to Lord Lansdowne (until January 1967; sold to Agnew); [Thos. Agnew & Sons, London, in 1967; sold to the National Gallery of Art]; acquired by the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1967

his extraordinarily well-preserved

painting represents the peak of Gossart’s achievement in portraiture. In terms of its ambitious composition and the mastery of illusion in depicting such a wide variety of objects, is unparalleled in

it

his oeuvre. Beautifully attired in sumptuous garments, the young man shifts his

attention from his writing and, with haughty self-assurance, stares out at the viewer. Around him are the accoutrements of his daily business. Above at the left are Alrehande Missiven, or “miscellaneous let200

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

ters, and at the right are Alrehande Minuten, or “miscellaneous drafts.” A dagger, balls of twine, and a knotted cord hang on the wall overhead. Artfully arranged on the desk

before him are a shaker of talc or sand for blotting the ink as he writes, a round, flat box, scissors, a small portable case for writing implements, a pile of coins, a balance with a dobla excelente con on the triangular scale and a square weight on the round scale at right, a penknife, a book with a brown leather cover closed with a stylus,” and an inkstand with four writing quills, red sealing wax, and a roll of paper. The man writes on a loose quire in front of him while

holding his place in his bound notebook. This painting joins a group of occupational portraits that had begun to appear by the middle of the fifteenth century, with examples such as A Goldsmith in His Shop by Petrus Christus (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), and became increasingly popular in the early sixteenth century with paintings by Bernard van Orley, Quinten Metsys, Maarten van Heemskerck, and Hans Holbein.? The sitter in Gossart’s Washington painting has been identified by the objects on his desk as either a banker or a merchant.” Basing his observations on a close copy in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Leo van Puyvelde called attention to the initials IS on the ring on the man’left index finger as well as the IAS pinned to his beret. He

proposed that the sitter could be Jerome or Jeronimus Sandelin, a tax collector in Zeeland, who subsequently rose to the post of receiver general of Zeeland for the region of the West Scheldt.” Countering this identification is the fact that Sandelin 1s mentioned only in documents dating between 1539 and 1557—that 1s, after Gossart’s death in 1532. Puyvelde posited, however, that Sandelin’s talents must have been recognized prior to 1539, offering earlier opportunities for Gossart to have made his portrait. His proposal was accepted by others, including Jakob Rosenberg,

until more recently.” Hand rightly cautioned against the circumstantial evidence supporting the Sandelin identification,’ but it was Colenbrander who provided the first plausible alternative to the Sandelin theory. Basing his research on a watercolor drawing of about 1750 (Snouck van Loosen Stichting, Enkhuizen) that nearly exactly copies the Washington painting, Colenbrander has painstakingly reconstructed the likely identity and profession of the man in Gossart’s painting.” He is Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck (1510-1585), a descendant of a noble family of Gorinchem, a town in the province of South Holland in the southwestern Netherlands and east of Gossart’s residence in Middelburg.

Although the watercolor states his birth year as 1500, Colenbrander has discovered archival documents that indicate a birth date in 1510. Along with his family members, Jan held important posts, including alderman, in the town of Gorinchem. However, he did not hold the office of alderman until 1534, and Colenbrander proposes that it was Jan's succession to his grandfather as secretary of the city or to his grandfather and father in important positions related to the collection of river tolls for Gorinchem that accounts for the grandeur of his representation in the Washington portrait. The IS on the man’s ring would thus stand for Jan Snoeck, and the IAS on his hat for the family motto INT WATER CLOUC, which in Latin would be INACQUIS STRENUS. Because snoeck is the Dutch word for pike fish, and because various family members were occupationally involved with the waterways, the motto is fitting: “Vigorous in the water.” Although the Washington portrait was attributed early on to Marinus van Reymerswaele, since the 1960s there has been no challenge to Gossart’s authorship.” Indeed, the tightly cropped composition, rather aloof expression of the sitter, and

7 Thm

N

iy

bo —

-=-|

-— -—

1

-

Paintings

291

Jan Gossart 59. Portrait of a Man (Janus Secundus?) Ca. 1530 Onl on oak panel, support 11% x 9% 1n. (28.2 x 23.1 cm); with wood additions to top and bottom 11% in. (29.5 cm) Inscribed (on cartouche held by man): vv mre CAVSA

/

/

DOLORIS

Muscumlandschaft Hessen, Kassel 6k27 Condition: The edges are original and show their barbes around all four sides; there 1s a bevel on the left side of

Fig. 231. Jan Gossart, Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?), infrared reflectogram (detail

extraordinary execution of the various objects and textures in the painting are all

3.

characteristic of Gossart’s best work. The date of about 1530, which 1s usually pro-

Hand, Curator, National Gallery of Art, for sharing this information. See, for example, the portraits Secretary of Charles 17 by Bernard van Orley (Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de

(1532) in the Gemildegalerie, Staathche Museen zu

Berlin; Pieter Gerritsz. Bicker by Maarten van Heemskerck (1529) in the Ryksmuseum, Amsterdam.

the London 1884 exhibition, the painting was entitled The Banker. For a discussion of the occupa-

4. In

tional designation of the sitter, see Grossmann 1957, pp. 4-5. Voet 1973, p. 252; and Hand in Hand and

a

Wolff 1986, p. 104. See also Voet 1973, pp. 249-349. 5. Van Puyvelde 1957, p. 9. 6. Rosenberg 1968, p. 42. 7. John Oliver Hand in Hand and Wolff 1986, pp. 103-7; Hand in Bauman and Liedtke 1992, p. 124. 8. Colenbrander 2010. 9. Ambrose 1897, p. 60; von der Osten 1961, p. 474; Brussels 1963, pp. 104—5, no. 112; Nicole Verhaegen

in

Rosenberg 1968, pp. 42-43; Herzog 1968a, pp. 312-15, no. $3; Hand in Hand and Wolff 1986, p. 104: Mensger 2002, pp. 166-68, Exhibitions: London 1866a, no. 70; London 1884, no. 288;

London 1954-55, no. 17; Bruges 1956, no. no. 112; Washington 2002-3, no. 32

My thanks to Catherine Metzger for studying the

1.

painting with me and for her report on the condition and technical examination ofthe panting (email to author, May §, 2010). For a discussion ofthese erasable books fastened by a stylus, see Stallybrass et al. 2004, esp. pp. 407-9. A similar Dutch book of 1545 with inset panels for a pair of handscales, such as those in the Washington painting, was sold at auction in 2006; see Christie's, New York, sale

cat, June 27-28,

2006, no. 222, Le

Manuel des marchans moult utile a trestous (Ghent: Pierre Cesar pour Victor le Dayn, 1545). My thanks to John

292

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

33;

Brussels 1963,

Literature: Richter 1884, p. 34; Ambrose 1897, p. 60, no. 115; Marlier 1954, pp. 273-74: D. Sutton 1954, p. 1959; London

1954-55. 1.

58)

by Quinten Metsys (The Royal Collection, Hampton Court; private collection); Hans Holbein's Georg Gisze

Portrait of Francisco de los Cobos y Molina in Los Angeles (cats. 55B,¢, 63). The underdrawing of all three of these 1s executed in

MWA

cat.

Belgique, Brussels); Desiderius Erasmus and Peter Gillis

posed, is supported by comparison with Gossart’s other late portraits, such as the Portraits of Tivo Donors in Brussels and the

dry material (probably black chalk) and similarly works out the details of the composition in loose, quick strokes and the details of the modeling of the fabrics with even parallel hatching (compare figs. 226 and 227). The importance of the Washington portrait—and perhaps an indication of an elevated price for it— 1s clear from the extremely careful handling even at the underdrawing stage (see figs. 226, 231). In every detail, from the ground up to the final painted layers, this 1s likely Gossart’s most meticulously rendered portrait.

of

the verso. This small painting 1s in very good condition, although rather abraded in the flesh tones and the fur. The picture has been strongly cleaned in the face, and there are discolored retouches in the nose and cheeks.

p- 14,

no.

1957. Pp. 4—5:Van p-

17;

Bruges 1956, p. 36, no. 33: Grossmann

Puyvelde

1957, p. 9;

von der Osten 1961,

474; Nicole Verhaegen in Brussels 1963, pp. 104-5, no. 112;

no. $3; Rosenberg 1968; Flemish and Dutch Paintings 1972, p. 43; Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), Addenda,

Herzog 1968a, pp.

137, 312—15,

no. 164, pl. 57; Voet 1973, p. 252; National Gallery of Art 1975, p. 158; Silver 1977, p. 76; Broadley and Hand 1978, pp. 7. 26; Holman 1979, p. 141; Grosshans 1980, p. 35; p. 113,

John Oliver Hand in Hand and Wolff 1986, pp. 103-7; Hand in Bauman and Liedtke 1992, p. 124; Mensger 2002, pp. 166-68; Hand in Washington 2002-3, p. 182, no. 32; Stallybrass et al. 2004, pp. 407-8; Colenbrander 2010

Technical investigation:

None

has been undertaken.

Landgraf Wilhelm VIII von Hessen-Kassel (inv. of 1749, no. 161, as by Albrecht Durer); Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel Provenance:

he well-dressed man directly addresses the viewer and prominently displays a cartouche with the Latin phrase

TV MICHI/ CAVSA/DOLORIS (You are the cause of my pain). The sitter has been identified by Dekker as Janus Secundus (1511-1536), the poet and human-

author, who worked for Margaret of Austria.' However, the features of the man differ from those in copies after his portrait by Jan van Scorel.? The possibility that the man may have been a famous humanist is supported by the cartouche with the Latin text and by the fact that there are at least four remaining copies of this painting.’ The text on the cartouche cannot be fully explained. It is similar but not identical to a phrase from the writings of Sextus Propertius, a Latin poet of the first century B.C.: "Sed tu sola mei, tu maxima causa doloris” (But you alone are the main cause of my sorrow; Elegies 1.35). This would contrast with a text from the same work found on scroll in another version of this portrait, formerly in the collection of the Duke of Fife. There the text reads, “Tu mihi sola places” (You are my only joy; ibid., 2.7.19), which in the context of the Elegies 1s addressed to Cynthia, the object of the author's desire. Whatever the exact meaning in the case of the ist

a

EE

Br

Br

EE

MGI

-

gy wT

———— Yang

BGT,

rT

-~—e

Ea

WE

AG.

amma oo

WU

pu

lire

Sy

F

BE

WMT

¢

el > -

-

TR

We

Tw

wall

wg

:

:

a 2

— ~~

"me —-

-

-—

Te

"-—

- Se —-5

wv)

293

Kassel portrait, such texts point to the

milieu of a humanist court. The elegantly dressed gentleman is portrayed before a green background in a very small painting of a type perhaps given to a close friend or lover as a memento. The only other painting of similar size in Gossart’s oeuvre 1s A Man Holding a Glove (cat. 60), which likewise was painted about 1530. In each, the square cut of the man’s beard and the style of his hat and attire, including the coat with its broad fur collar, indicate a date close to 1530.’ Max J. Friedlander questioned the attribution of the painting to Gossart, assuming it instead to be an old copy, and in his review of the 1965 Rotterdam, Bruges exhibition, Helmut Borsch-Supan also doubted it.” However, Gert von der Osten, Sadja Herzog, and the authors of the Rotterdam, Bruges catalogue accepted it.” This picture has not been given the attention it deserves because of its diminutive size, rather straightforward presentation, and somewhat abraded condition, especially in the face. However, a recent opportunity to study it closely under the microscope” clearly revealed Gossart’s characteristic execution.

This is especially true of the exquisitely painted costume, which, although on a much less grand scale, is close to that of Portrait of a Man (Charles of Burgundy?) (cat. §6). There are wet-in-wet applications in the right cuff and in areas where the white paint was dragged along to create a softer-looking texture of the fabric. The paint at the tips of the gloved fingers and soften on the fur collar 1s feathered out the contours. A very subtle understanding of light is evident in the beautifully volumetric sleeves, where the grayish tone 1s modified in lighter and darker passages and deftly handled strokes of brown paint establish the stripes. The fur collar is closely studied, with split hairs of both brown and black. The meandering black pattern on the collar 1s extremely well done for its miniature scale and even includes a shadow cast by the sitter’s head. Two tiny scalloped bell-like ornaments at the right and left edges of the hat provide accents of light, as does the golden cartouche.

to

204

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Although abraded, the man’s face 1s rendered in Gossart’s characteristic manner: a slender line divides the sensuous full lower lip from the cupid’s bow above; the strongly defined nose 1s modeled at its end with feathered strokes that soften its form; a blue tinge 1s typically added to the whites of the eyes and to the catchlights in a window shape at the upper left of the iris, which itself 1s modified with lighter strokes over a deep brown tone. Unmistakable as Gossart’s is the sculptural rendering of the eye: its ovoid pupil and iris seemingly attached to the upper lid and floating above the strongly marked lower one, a technique that creates a convincingly rounded form. MWA

1.

2. 3.

Dekker 1986, p. 44. Schnackenburg 1996, vol. 1, p. 126. Herzog (1968a, p. 306) noted four copies: London, art market, 27 x 21 cm; New York, art market, 30 x 25 cm; Seligman, 1924 (files, Frick Art Reference Library, New York); New York, Mondschein Galleries, 1939, in which the man holds a violet and a scroll with “Tu mihi sola places,” from the collection of the Duke of Fife (more recently, Phillips, London, sale cat., April 6, 1995, no. 35).

4. My thanks to Anna Koopstra for researching this text. 5. See the discussion under Portrait of a Man with a Rosary (cat. 54). 6. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 68, and

7.

8.

Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 99, no. 68; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 201. Von der Osten 1961, p. 473; Herzog 1968a, p. 305; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 211. My sincere thanks to Anne Harmssen, Head Conservator at the museum, for the opportunity to study this painting in Kassel on June 19, 2009.

Exhibition: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 37 Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 68; Staathche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel 1958, p. 64; von der

Osten 1961,

p.

473; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 209-12,

no. 37; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 201; Herzog 1968a, pp. 305-6, no. 49; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 99, no. 68, pl. 52; Dekker 1986, p. 44: Schnackenburg 1996, vol. 1, p. 126

Jan Gossart

60. A Man Holding a Glove Ca. 1530 Oil on oak panel, support 9% x 67 in. (25 x 17.4 cm); painted surface 9% x 6% in. (24.3 x 16.8 cm)

The National Gallery, London

NG

946

Condition: The portrait, cleaned 1n 1972,

in good condition. Drying cracks in many areas have been retouched, and there 1s some repaint in the background, where the overall tone is now too low and where the shadow cast by the sitter is scarcely visible. The red lakes have faded in the sleeves and probably also 1n the tablecloth. Technical investigation: The panel

1s

a

15

single board

of oak;

the unpainted edges survive on all four sides but have evidently been trimmed. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology. see the Appendix. On the verso 1s the crowned CR brand of King Charles I. The ground 1s chalk; the priming is a thin layer of lead white. An infrared photograph and infrared reflectography reveal some underdrawing, most obviously in the pink upper sleeves. Purple fluorite, mixed with lead white and a little red lake, is found in the pink sleeves.’ The dark green background consists of two layers of greenish azurite covered by a glaze of verdigris partially dissolved in 01l. The medium 1s linseed oil. Provenance: Vincenzo Il Gonzaga (1594-1627), Duke

of Mantua; among the “Mantua pieces” purchased by Charles I, king of Great Britain (his brand, the crowned CR, 1s on the reverse; the portrait hung in the Cabinet Room at Whitehall Palace); presumably sold from the Royal Collection during the Commonwealth; recovered for Charles II (removed by William III [d. 1702] to the United Provinces); palace of Het Loo, by 1712, until at least 1757; William Wells (1760-1847), Redleaf, Kent; Charles Scarisbrick (1801-1860), Scarisbrick Hall and Wrightington Hall, Lancashire; Wynn Ellis (1790-1875); bequeathed by Wynn Ellis with his collection to the National Gallery, London (accepted by the Trustees, 1876)

he earliest known description of this portrait is in the catalogue of pictures owned by King Charles | of Great Britain: “A mantua peece. [tem the Picture of an indifferent auncient Gentleman in a blac

Capp standing at the right side of his head—in a grey Coney skin coullor'd furr'd gowne, and in his left hand a paire of gloves and w™ his right hand—upon a Table being redd, in a woodden frame painted upon the right lighte.”* The cut of his beard and the style of his hat and clothes suggest a date toward 1530." The fact that both his doublet and his gown are lined with fur probably indicates that the portrait was painted during the winter.

_ :

r

7

‘ »

a

Ry

-

I

-

YTaL

Ee

o =

olws AN Fd

a

.

i.

Paintings

295

In 1966 Reis Santos identified the sitter,

3.

admirable. Though Charles I did not know who had painted “the Picture of an indifferent auncient Gentleman’ and though he had no particular sympathy for early Netherlandish art, he chose to place is

the painting with some of the greatest treasures of his collection in the Cabinet LC Room at Whitehall Palace.

1.

2.

Spring 2000, pp. 21-22. In 1712-13 Robert Du Val, curator of the stadtholder’s collections, drewup a list of pictures claimed as Crown property by Queen Anne. No. 88 was a “Portrait by Holbein,” and “n88" is written in white in the lower right corner of A Man Holding a Glove in a characteristic script found on other paintings included in Du Val's lst.

206

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Jan Gossart

(26.7 x

61A,8. Henry III, Count of Nassau-Breda and Mencia de Mendoza

the

Santos 1966b omits the section on the present work. 6. Davies 1968, p. 61 7.

8.

shows a man with very differently shaped eye sockets.” The sitter here looks a little more like the one in an engraving by Philips Galle, published in 1587 and

pink sleeves, may provide some indication of the sitters profession. The portrait 1s unusually small. The panel is not radially cut, which seems exceptional, and the drying cracks may indicate that Gossart was compelled to paint it quickly. The sitter may have arrived unexpectedly, when Gossart did not have a better-made panel available. Neither the sitter nor the artist may have been able to spare much time, which might explain why such a small panel was selected. Despite the speed of execution, however, the immense skill of Gossart’s brushwork

8 mn.

spectator’s left (ibid, p. xix). 4. First suggested by von der Osten 1961, p. 472. 5. Reis Santos 1966a. The summary published in Reis falls from

at Alenquer,

landish pictures from many different sources.” The dress—and particularly the broad black bands around the ends of the

x

“Painted upon the right hight” means that the hght

This identification was tentatively accepted by Davies,” but it is no longer tenable. A damaged portrait in high relief of Damiio de Gois, on his monument in the church

inscribed DAMIANVS A GOES, but the print is based on a portrait by Diirer that cannot represent Damido.” The resemblances between the two sitters seem, in any case, to be coincidental. Although the Mantuan provenance of the present work might suggest that the sitter was Italian, the Dukes of Mantua acquired Nether-

as 10%

20.3 cm). See O. Millar 1958-60, p. 90, no. 73

by comparison with other portraits, as the Portuguese humanist Damiio de Gos.”

of Santa Maria de Varzea

The measurements are given

Reproduced in Segurado 1975, pls. v=X. For the engraving, published in Imagines L.. doctorum virorum, Antwerp, 1587, see Hollstein 1949-2007, vol. p- 82, nos. 685-734. For the drawing attributed to Durer (Albertina,Vienna; Winkler 1936-39, vol. 4, pp. 87-88, no. 917) and related paintings, sce Mende 1085.

9. Campbell 1985, pp. xxxvi—xxxvi1 (and references). Exhibitions: London 1863(?), no. 88; London 1975, no. 15;

Lisbon 1983 Literature: Gossart 1903, p. 61; von Wurzbach 1906-11,

vol. 2 (1910), p. 83; Ring 1913, p. 146, Weisz 1913b, PP. 93-94; Segard 1923, pp. 137, 181, no. 29; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 70; von der Osten 1961, 472; Wescher 1965, p. 161; Davies 1968, p. 61; Herzog 1968a, pp. 306-7, no. 50; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8

p.

(1972), p. 100, no. 70, pl. 54; London 1975, p. 54, no. 15; Ben Broos in The Hague 1988—89, pp. 107-9

1530-31 7,

Location unknown

ossart’s original pendant portraits of Henry III (1483-1538), Count of

Nassau-Breda and Marquess of Zenete, and his wife, Mencia de Mendoza (1508-1554), Marchioness of Zenete, are lost. Copies in oil on panel have been recorded in various collections. It is the pair in tempera on parchment by Simon

Bening that identifies the couple as the marquess and marchioness, in original inscriptions: HE[N [RIC [US] CO" NASSAVIA "MAR ZENETA and MENCIA

ZENETA (figs. 232, 233). As chamberlain to Emperor Charles V, Henry III was one of the most powerful and influential members of the court— *MENDOCA MAR

2

indeed, of the Habsburg Empire. Mencia was exceptionally cultivated and well educated in the humanist tradition, having grown up in an important noble family. The couple married in 1524, when Mencia was just a teenager and her new spouse, previously twice widowed, was forty-one. They lived in Spain until 1530, then sojourned in the Netherlands for three years at their castle in Breda. Henry already had an impressive art collection, counting among his treasures Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights. How-

ever, it was Mencia who became an insa-

tiable collector not only of paintings but also of tapestries, illuminated manuscripts, metalwork, antique coins and gems, and sculpture. At various times, she employed the most noted painters in Flanders: Bernard van Orley, Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen,

Maarten van Heemskerck, Simon Bening, and, of course, Jan Gossart. Payment records indicate that Gossart was employed by the couple for a stipend of one hundred gulden, paid out in three installments during the last year of his life.” However, exactly what he produced

Figs. 232, 233. Simon Bening, Henry 111, Count of Nassau-Breda and Mencia de Mendoza, probably 1531. Tempera on parchment (8.4 x 5.5 cm) and 3% x 2% in. (8.4 x 6 cm). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaildegalerie (Mm. 513, 514)

for them

not known. The extant copies ofthe portraits of Henry and Mencia reflect Gossart’s late style. In the Madrid version, formerly owned by Conde de Revilla Gigedo (fig. 234), the sitter fills the picture plane and is positioned in front of a stone panel with a trompe-I'oeil frame, over which passes the shadow ofthesitter’s head. The pendant of Mencia, a por1s

mounted on oak panels,

3% x 2% m.

Bening’s illuminations are reduced and simplified versions of Gossart’s larger panel

paintings. They eliminate the trompe-1'oeil frame, and instead of a marbleized panel

with shadow effects, the backgrounds are plain blue. It was perhaps these reduced copies that Henry gave to his brother William of Nassau-Dillenburg in November 1531." Ifso, then they were presum-

trait facing left, must have shown similarly

ably made by Bening shortly after Gossart

lifelike effects.

completed the panel paintings, creating a terminus ante quem for Gossart’s originals. This may also indicate another instance of a relationship, or at least an acquaintance, between the manuscript illuminator and the panel painter (see my essay on Gossart’s

Fig. 234. Copy after Jan Gossart, Henry III of NassauBreda, ca. 1530-35. O1l on panel, 21% x 15% in. (53.5 x 40 cm). Formerly Collection Conde de

artistic milieu in this volume).

MWA

Revilla Gigedo, Madnd

Paintings

297

1.

The copies on panel of Henry III, Count of NassauBreda include the following: Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya, Barcelona, 44 x 33 cm (no. MNAC: 024187-000); Anhaltusche Gemildegalerie, Dessau (see Werche 2001, pp. 95-96); Collection Conde de Revilla Gigedo, Madrid, §3.5 x 40 cm (current

location unknown; see Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 225-28, no. 41, as after Gossart); private collection, Mexico City (see Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 [1930], p. 160, no. 55). Those of Mencia de Mendoza include the following: Musée Condé, Chanully (see Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 9, pt. [1972], p. 71, no. 109b, pl. 116); art market, Paris, 1913 (sec Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 9, pt. [1972], p. 71, no. 109a, pl. 116); and location unknown (see Mensger 2002, 1

1

p- 199, fig. 113). wv

.

Thomas Kren in Los Angeles, London 2003-4, pp- 465-66, no. 149, also explains the differences between the oil on panel copies after Gossart and

Jan Gossart 62A,B. The Juan de A.

Left panel: Virgin and Child

B.

Right panel: Juan de Ziniga

Ca. 1530-32 Onl on panel, dimensions unknown Location unknown

Formerly Capilla, El Palau, Barcelona; location unknown (lost during the Spanish Civil War) Provenance:

he identity of the man in the right half of this diptych as Juan de Zaniga

3.

see also pp. 147-49. Literature: Benesch 1929, p. 209; Friedlander 1924-37,

vol. 8 (1930), p. 160, no. $5; March 1949; Staring 1952, PP- 144-49; Bruyn 1961, pp. 123-26; von der Osten 1961, p. 469; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 225-28, no. 41; Herzog 1968a, pp. 355—57. no. 78; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8

(1972), p. 98, no. 55; Mensger 2002, pp. 197-98, figs. 111-13; Thomas Kren in Los Angeles, London 2003-4, pp. 465-66, no. 149

y Avellaneda (1488-1546) was established

by José Maria March, based on documentary and historical evidence." Juan de Zamga served Mencia de Mendoza as her cleric in Spain and traveled with her retinue to the Netherlands in 1530. After the death of Henry III of Nassau-Breda in

Zuniga returned to Spain with Mencia. In the portrait, he wears the insignia of Grand Commander of Castile in the Order of Santiago; he received the appointment on March 2, 1532, when he was in the Low Countries.” Thus, would appear that Gossart painted the portrait after Zaniga’s prestigious appointment, which would have been only a few months before the painter’s death, presumably in the fall of 1532. The portrait originally formed half of a diptych, with a Virgin and Child at the left. This diptych was formerly at El Palau in Barcelona, but it was lost during the Spanish Civil War and has since been known only from black-and-white photographs. Based on this meager visual evi1s difficult to assess the qualities dence, of the portrait and the Virgin and Child. However, the pair is quite similar to the diptych form that Gossart established with his Carondelet Diptych of 1517 (cat. 40)— except for the reversed positions of donor and Virgin and Child. In both diptychs, the donor figure is somewhat larger and closer to the picture plane than the holy figures, which slightly recede in space. Zuniga, like Jean Carondelet, appears self1538,

it

it

298

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

y

Avellaneda

Bening’s miniatures.

Documents published in March 1949; and Steppe 1965a. The first two payments were made in May and September 1532. The last payment of twenty gulden was made to Gossart’s wife on October 13, 1532, indicating that Gossart was deceased by that ume. 4. “Twee kleyne schilderikens Gen. van Nassau en zijn gemaal” (Two very small paintings of General van Nassau and his wife). Staring 1952, p. 147, 0. 4, and

Zuniga Diptych absorbed in his prayerful thoughts. Yet when the two halves are placed at a ninety-degree angle to each other, the glances of the Christ Child and the donor appear to meet. The Virgin offers a pear, perhaps as an inducement for the devout to consider the sweetness of Christ and Mary or the “sweetness of virtue itself,” as Falkenburg suggested.’ Based on the historical and documentary evidence mentioned above, the Juan de Zaniga Diptych most likely dates from Gossart’s final year—1532. Stylistically, the Virgin and Child fits with his other late Virgin and Child compositions (for example, cats. 13, 14, 15, 20): tightly cropped images with a wriggling Child nearly spilling out of his mother’ lap. This partially draped Child with rotund belly and muscular arms is quite similar to the Child in the Cleveland painting dated 1531 (cat. 20), and both Virgin and Child are close to the figures in the private collection painting on loan to the National Gallery, London (cat. 13).*

1.

March 1948; March 1949.

2.

March 1941-42, vol.

1,

MWA

p. 84.

Falkenburg 1994, p. 92. this painting, dated 1548 and oddly missing 4. A copy the fruit held by the Virgin, was formerly in the Haags Gemeentemuseum. See Ekkart 1982, p. 34, 1ll. 3.

of

p. 31.

Laterature: Angulo Iniguez 1937; March 1948; March 1949;

von der Osten 1961, p. 473; Herzog 1968a, pp. 133, 317-18, no. 55; Henn Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander

1967-76, vol.

8

(1972), Addenda, p. 113, no. 162, pl. 139

Cat. 62A

Cat. 62B

Paintings

299

Jan Gossart 63. Francisco de los Cobos y Molina 1530-32 O1l on oak panel, 17% x 13% Inscribed (on the hat badge): LIVA

1n.

(43.8 x 33.7 cm)

acy...

s14

.

.

|

VaGo Ws sv The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles 88.pB.43 a

in excellent condition, with only slight abrasion to the enamel-like surface of the skin, hat badge, and brown of the fur. The lower edge, especially the pinkie finger of the right hand, has been restored. The oak panel, composed of two boards, has not been thinned. A shight bevel is apparent on the verso edges of the panel, and the recto edges may have Condition: The painting

1s

been trimmed shghtly. Examination with infrared reflectography and X-radiography in 1988 and 2008 by Yvonne Szafran and Tiarna Doherty revealed that a stone-framed window opening was originally painted at the left and that the gloves were mcreased 1n size over the painted thumb and forefinger. There 1s extremely vague contour drawing, in a dry material, for the nose and eyes and for the position of the gloves. For Peter Klein's dendrochronology, see the Appendix. Technical investigation:

Odilon Lannelongue (1840-1911), CastéraVerduzan; Musée Lannelongue, Castéra-Verduzan, 1911-38 (museum closed in 1938); returned to the heirs of Odilon Lannelongue, 1986 (their sale, Alain Briscadieu, Auch-en-Gascogne, December 7, 1986, no. 108, to Speelman); [Edward Speelman, London, 1986-88; sold to the Getty Museum]; acquired bythe J. Paul Getty Muscum, Los Angeles, 1988 Provenance:

among Gossart’s last great works, painted during the time that he was employed by the prominent Spanish patron of the arts Mencia de Mendoza. It was not known in the Gossart literature until the Getty Museum acquired it in 1988. This elegant, selfpossessed gentleman wears the insignia of the chivalric Order of Santiago: a red “cross fleury” and a magnificent jewelencrusted gold pendant in the shape of a scallop shell. Victor Franco de Baux first suggested the identity of the sitter based on a portrait medal of Francisco de los Cobos y Molina (ca. 1475/80~1547) that was made in 1531 by Christoph Weiditz on his visit to Brussels (fig. 235). Notwithstanding the difficulties of comparing a small bronze medal with a painting, the features of the two portraits do bear a striking resemblance to each other, and his portrait

1s

300 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 235. Christoph Weiditz, Portrait Medal of Francisco de los Cobos y Molina, 1531. Bronze, Diam. 2% in. (60 mm). National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (A 1327-588A)

both sitters wear the red “cross fleury” and a similar pearl-rimmed and jeweled scallop pendant.” Members of the Order of Santiago often wore such pendants with an emblematic scallop shell, but its specific decoration was apparently determined by each individual member.’ Supporting this identification of the Getty portrait are details of the biography of de los Cobos, who was an increasingly powerful figure at court and a noted patron of the arts. He initially served as secretary to Ferdinand V, king of Castile. In 1516 he traveled to Flanders for King Charles I of Spain (later Emperor Charles V), who made him a Knight of the Order of Santiago in 1519. De los Cobos rose to the position of Trece and Commander of Bastimentas in the Kingdom of Leén in 1521.° The next year he married into a distinguished noble family, wedding Dona Maria de Mendoza y Pimentel, and he was appointed in 1529 as Grand Chancellor of the Kingdom Leon and then Comendador Mayor of the Order of Santiago. Most important, de los Cobos was a trusted confidant and adviser as secretary to Emperor Charles V, with whom traveled to Bologna in 1530 for Charles’ coronation by Pope Clement as

Holy Roman Emperor and afterward to Germany and Flanders, between 1530 and 1532. It was probably on the trip to Flanders that de los Cobos met and engaged Gossart to paint his portrait. The sitter is sedately dressed in a dark, fur-trimmed robe, black doublet, and Castilian embroidered shirt. His status and wealth are established through the splendid insignia of the Order of Santiago and his hat with decorative gold aglets and a large gold badge with an antique cameo of a woman's head.” Gossart deliberated over the setting for this very important commission, first placing de los Cobos to the right of an open stone-framed window,as seen in the X-radiograph (fig. 236), which he employed in other late paintings, such as the Norfolk Triptych (cat. s5A-c). He opted instead for the grander solution seen here: a vibrant green curtain pulled up and gathered at the right. This motif is unique in Gossart’s oeuvre and may have been requested by de los Cobos, who collected Italian paintings,” notably by Titian, in which this feature 1s more common. The perfection of Gossart’s execution

of

he

Fig. 236. Jan Gossart, Portrait of Francisco de los Cobos y Molina, X-radiograph (cat. 63)

aintings

301

here—the extraordinary attention to

.

pp. 488-89, no. 163) has proposed that the Getty por-

detail; the rendering of varied textures of jewels, fine embroidery, fur, leather gloves, and heavy curtains; and the astonishingly lifelike modeling of the face—shows him at the peak of his abilities. This portrait and the Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (cat. 58) are exemplary

of Gossart’s high-

end, undoubtedly costly production for his most important clients. MWA

1.

Victor Franco de Baux'’s report was made about 1988 by request of Edward Speelman, London, when the picture was in the trade (curatorial files, J. Paul Getty Museum). The medal is inscribed: FRANCISCO -

COVO

-

MAGNO

LEGIONIS SECRETis]

+

+

CO|m|ME[n]D]atori]

-

CA Slanis] CAROLI'V-A-

MDXXXI (to Francisco de los Cobos, great chancellor of the -

CONS[ihario] A[nno] -

-

imperial army, privy councillor of Charles the fifth, in the year 1531). See Habich 1929-34, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 64, no. 396, pl. L1, 3; and Hill and Pollard 1967, p. 111, no. $88,

302 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

los Cobos y Molina are by Jan Cornclisz. Vermeyen, ca. 1531 (unconvincing as to the sitter, in my opinion, and location unknown; Horn 1989, vol. 2, pl. A33);

2. Mari-Tere Alvarez (in Los Angeles, London 2003-4,

.

trait by Gossart instead represents Juan de Zaniga y Avellaneda, the Grand Commander of Castile in the Order of Santiago (see cat. 62), and that this portrait 1s the same as the one listed in the 1548 and 1554 mventories of Mencia de Mendoza's collection (in the hbrary of her castle in Ayora, Spain, and at the time of her death, respectively). However, the portrait of Juan de Zamga hsted in Mencia’s collection cannot be the Getty pantung. Documents showthat in 1546, a few months after Zuniga died (and fourteen years after Gossart did), Mencia, who did not have a portrait of her very close friend, commissioned Alonso Berruguete to make a copy of a Juan de Zaniga portrart that was in the collection of Francisco de los Cobos (see Silva Maroto 2000, pp. 151-52). Berruguete apparently charged too much for the portrait, and two years later, in 1548, Mencia paid de Carracejas four ducados for the copy (see March 1949, p- 219). The portrait in Mencia’s 1548 and 1554 inventories, then, was probably the one by de Carracejas. De Baux (see note above) posited that the splendid jewel worn by de los Cobos was one of many gifts from Emperor Charles V. It is listed in Cobos’ 1547 will, in which he bequeathed it to his eldest son, Don Diego de los Cobos y Mendoza, first Marquis of Camarasa. Other purported portraits of Francisco de 1

and by an anonymous eighteenth-century master (Madrid, Duque de Alcala; Toledo 1958, p. 128, no. 185, ill. no. Lxxxvui, and Keniston 1960, fig. 18). 4. See Keniston 1960; Tessar1 1996; Ubeda 1997; and Silva Maroto 2000, pp. 145-52. 5. Among de los Cobos’ other positions were secretary to the Royal Council of Castile and member of the Council of Aragon, the War Council, and the Council of the Military Orders; in 1529 he became Commander of Azuaga and then Comendador Mayor (High Commander of Leon and State Councillor) 6.

7.

The inscription AGV

.

.

.

STA.

.

.

LIVA

.

.

VC. V. may stand for AUGUSTA LIVA VCV, with VCV perhaps standing for “V Carolus V For de los Cobos as a patron of the arts, see Silva Maroto 2000, pp. 145-52.

Exhibition: Los Angeles, London 2003-4, no. 163 Literature: Acquisitions” 1989, p. 123, no. 30; Hans J. van Miegroet in Bauman and Liedtke 1992, pp. 118-20; D. Jaffé

Kohler 2000, pp. 9—10; Silva Maroto 2000, p. 146; Tracy 2002, p. 93; Mari-Tere Alvarez in Los Angeles, London 2003-4, pp. 488-89, no. 163; Falomir 2004, p. 78; 1997, p- 55:

Sassu 2007, p. 122

Paintings Previously Attributed to Gossart

This list includes paintings not accepted

autograph bythe present author, but accepted by one or more of the following: Max J. Friedlander (1924-37; English translation, 1967-76), the Rotterdam, Bruges exhibition catalogue (1965), and Sadja Herzog (1968a). The exclusion of these works from Gossart’s oeuvre is based on issues ofstyle, technique, and execution. In some cases it has been possible to propose an alternative attribution. This list does not include copies of works byY p Gossart, which are illustrated and/or mentioned in the endnotes of the associated catalogue entries. Paintings that are neither in the accepted or rejected works in this catalogue were deemed too distant from Gossart’s oeuvre to include. as

.

Antwerp Mannerist :

Fig. 238. Altarpiece of the Holy Family Oil on oak panel, (50

X

19% x 12% in.—18% x

31.5 cm—47.5

X

47%

Follower of Gossart

in.

12.5 cm)

Fig. 239. The Holy Family

Lisbon 1479 Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, ? Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 150, no. 1, pls. 1, 11; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 47-54, no.

Onl on panel, 20% x 14% 1n. (51.5 1;

Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 90, no. 1, pls. 1-3; W. S. Gibson 1987, pp. 79-89; Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, pp. 48-50, no. 14; Styn Alsteens, cat. 70, fig. 264 in this volume Herzog 1968a, pp. 202-35, no.

1;

Follower of Gossart

Master of the Lille Adoration(?)

Fig. 237. Adam and Eve

Fig. 240. The Holy Family with the Coats ofArms of Charles VV and Isabella

Oil on panel, 30% x 25% 1n. (78 X 64.5 cm) Staatliche Schlosser und Garten, Jagdschloss Grunewald, Berlin

of Portugal Oil on panel,

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 152, no. 11, pl. xvi; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 153-56, no. 23;

Herzog 1968a, pp. 252-55, no. 77; Friedlander

1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 91, no. 11, pl. 19; Mensger 2002, pp. 144—46, fig. 78; Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Artistic Milieu,” in this volume, fig. 30

76.2 cm) Saint Lows Art Museum, Museum Purchase 94.1947 16%

x 30 1n. (41.3

xX

X

37 cm)

The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, The Robert Lee Blaffer Memorial Collection, gift of Sarah Campbell Blaffer 59-27 Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 158, no. 42; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 96, no. 42, pl. 38

Antwerp or Bruges Master Fig. 241. The Holy Family with Saints and Angels

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 158, no. 43, pl. xxxvii; Herzog 1968a, p. 334-35, no. 65; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 97, no. 43, pl. 38:

Onl on panel, 32% x 26%

Silver 1982, pp. 28-29; Ainsworth and Faries 1986, pp. 10-11; Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Artistic Milieu,” in this volume, fig. 26

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol.

Hamburger Kunsthalle

in.

(81.6 x 66.5 cm)

751

(1933), p. 75, pl. Lux; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. §5—58, no. 2; Herzog 1968a, pp. 359-60, no. 81 (under “Misattributions™); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), Supplement, p. 112,

no.

11

155, pl. 138

Paintings

303

Follower of Gossart

Follower of Gossart

Follower of Gossart

Fig. 242. Virgin and Child

Fig. 243. Virgin and Child

Fig. 244. Virgin and Child

Oil on panel,

Oil on panel, 30% x 21% in. (78 X §4 cm) Fundagio Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon

Oil on panel, 27% x 22% Musée Marmottan, Paris

Literature: Rotterdam, Bruges 1964, pp. 187-90, no. 31; Herzog 1968a, pp. 342-43, no. 69

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 157, no. 37, pl. xxxiv; Herzog 1968a, pp. 347-48, no. 74; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 95, no. 37, pl. 35

Literature: Herzog 1968a, pp. 344-45, no. 71; Falkenburg 1994, fig. 80

Follower of Gossart

Follower of Gossart

Follower of Gossart

Fig. 245. Virgin and Child

Fig. 246. The Crucifixion

Fig. 247. Hercules and Antaeus

13% x 10% in. (33.3 X 27.5 cm)

Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels 6706

Oil on panel,

10% x

in. (27

77%

X

20 ¢m)

Formerly Mrs. L. van Pannewitz Collection; war loss Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 156, no. 31, pl. xxix; Herzog 1968a, pp. 346-47, no. 73; Friedlinder 1067-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 94, no. 31, pl.

Oil on panel, 43% x 30% in. (110.5 Hamburger Kunsthalle 377

X

78 cm)

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 153, no. 15; Herzog 1968a, pp. 331-32, no. 63; Friedlander 31

1967-76,

vol. 8

(1972), pp. 92-93, no. 15, pl. 23

in.

(69

xX

§7 cm)

Oil on panel, 17% X 13% in. (45 X 34.5 cm) Vincenz Maggioni Ackermann Collection, Emmenbrucke, Switzerland Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 159, no. 49; Herzog 1968a, pp. 327-28, no. 61; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 97, no. 49, pl. 40; Sotheby’s,

London, sale cat., October 30, 1996, no. 172; Mensger 2002, p. 121

304

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Master

of

the Lille Adoration(?)

Fig. 248. Lucretia Oil on panel, 18% 14% in. (46 Private collection, Switzerland Xx

X

36.5 cm)

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 14 (1937), p. 112; Herzog 1968a, pp. 324-25, no. 59; Friedlander 1967-76,

Follower of Gossart

Follower of Gossart

Fig. 249. Peleus, Thetis, and Achilles(?)

Fig. 250. Eleanor of Austria(?)

Oil on panel, 30% x 25% in. (78.2 X 65.3 cm) State Art Collections of Wawel, Cracow 3227

Oil on panel, 15 X 117 1n. (38 X 30 cm) Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts, on loan from private collection

a

Literature: Herzog 1968a, pp. 325-26, no. 60; Mensger

2002, pp. 121-22 (for the Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, County Durham copyafter the Wawel Castle painting, see Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Artistic Milieu,” in this volume, fig. 29)

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 163, no. 74, pl. Lin; Herzog 1968a, pp. 357-58, no. 79;

Follower of Gossart

Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen(?)

Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen(?)

Fig. 251. Floris van Egmond

Fig. 252. Saint Donatian

Oil on panel, 15% X 11% in. (39 X 29.5 cm) Mauritshuis, The Hague 841 (on loan from Rijks-

Oil on panel, 16% x 13% in. (43 Musées des Beaux-Arts, Tournai

Fig. 253. Jean Carondelet (Diptych with Tournai Saint Donatian [fig. 252])

vol.

8

(1972), Supplement,

p.

112, no. 157, pl. 139;

Mensger 2002, pp. 155-359, fig. 85; Peter van der Coelen in Rotterdam 2008-9, p. 182, no. 9o; Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Artistic Milieu,” in this volume, fig. 27

museum, Amsterdam); Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

A

X

8

cm)

Oil on panel, 167

217 Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol.

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol.

35

(1930), p. 160,

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 127-30, no. 17; Herzog 1968a, pp. 240-41, no. 15; Friedlander 1967-76,

no. 54;

8

(1930), p. 151,

no. §, pl. x11; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 143-47, no. 21; Herzog 1968a, pp. 249-50, no. 19; Friedlander

1967-76,

vol. 8

(1972), p. 91, no. 5, pl. 12;

Dunbar 2005,

(1972), p. 98, no. 54, pl. 45; Ben Broos in Broos and Van Suchtelen 2004, pp. 103-6, no. 21; Maryan W.

pp- 228-38 (with bibliography), esp. pp. 232-35; Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Working Methods,” in this

Ainsworth," Working Methods,” in this volume,

volume, figs. 86, 88

vol.

8

fig. 82

Friedlinder 1967-76,

Xx

vol.

8

(1972), p. 100, no. 74,

pl.

61

34.8 cm) Art, Kansas City,

13% 1n. (43

X

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of William Rockhill Nelson Trust 63-17

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930),

p.

151, no.

s,

x11; Herzog 1968a, pp. 247-48, no. 18; Friedlander 1967-76, vol, 8 (1972), p. 91, no. 5, pl. 13; Dunbar 200s,

pl.

pp. 228-38 (with bibliography); Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Working Methods,” in this volume, figs. 87, 89

Paintings

30§

Jan Cornelisz.Vermeyen(?)

Follower of Gossart

Follower of Gossart

Fig. 254. Portrait of a Man with Gloves; Lucretia (verso)

Fig. 255. Portrait of a Man

Fig. 256. Portrait of a Man

Oil

on

24%

panel

X

19%

(Lucretia transferred to canvas),

1m.

(63

X

$0 cm)

Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Wilhamstown, Massachusetts 1968.298 Literature: Friedlander 1924—37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 161, no. 60; Herzog 1968a, pp. 375-76, no. 99 (under “Muisattributions™); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972),

Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen 184

Oil on panel, 13 x 12% 1n. (33 X 31 cm) Musée d'Art et d'Histoire, Geneva 1872-

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 162, no. 69, pl. 11; Herzog 1968a, p. 379, no. 105 (under “Misattributions”); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972),

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 164, no. 81; Herzog 1968a, p. 377, no. 102 (under “Misattributions™); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972),

Oil on panel,

Pp-

16% x 117 m. (41

26,99, no. 69, pl.

X

30 cm)

p. 101,

53

pp. 98-99, no. 60, pl. 47; Maryan W Ainsworth,” Artistic Milieu,” in this volume, fig, 22

Master ofthe Lille Adoration(?)

Follower of Gossart

Fig. 257. Portrait of a Man

Fig. 258. Portrait of a Woman

Oil on panel,

Oil on panel, 16% x 11% Whereabouts unknown

15

x

11

1n. (38.1

X

27.9 cm)

McMaster University Collection, Hamulton, Ontario Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 35-36, 161, no. 61; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 199-202, no.

34;

Herzog 1968a, pp. 290-91, no. 40, Friedlander

1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 25,99, no. 61, pl. 48; Mensger 2002, p. 159, fig. 87; Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Working Methods,” in this volume, figs. 79, 80

306

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

mn.

(41

X

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol.

29.5 cm)

8

(1930), p. 163,

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 191-94, Herzog 1968a, p. 304, no. 48; Friedlander

no. 77, pl. Lv;

no. 32;

1967-76, vol.

(1972), p. 100, no. 77, pl. 61; Sotheby's, London, sale cat., July 9, 2008, no. 4 8

no. 81, pl. 63; Elsig 2005, pp. 126-28, no. 34

DRAWINGS

Jan Gossart 64. Adam and Eve Ca. 1520 Pen and black and brown ink, brush and gray ink, and white gouache, on blue-gray prepared paper (laid down), 13'%6 x 9% 1n. (34.8 x 23.9 cm) Framing line in pen and brown ink Watermark: none visible because of secondary support The Duke of Devonshire and the Trustees of the

Chatsworth Settlement, Chatsworth 935 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower left, inscribed 4

in pen and gray(?) ink; at lower right, collectors mark of Nicolaes Anthoni Flinck (Lugt 959) Condition: The drawing is generally well preserved.

There are manystains, including a large one at lower right, probably caused by a liquid. Losses of medium have occurred along creases in the paper in the center and especially in the lower half of the drawing. Losses have also occurred above—for instance, in Adam's face, along the upper edges of Adam's and Eve's hair, and along Eve's lips, chin, and night shoulder.

Anthom Flinck (1646-1723), Rotterdam; Wilham, 2nd Duke of Devonshire (1672-1729), Chatsworth, ca. 1723-24 until 1729; by descent to Peregrine Cavendish (born 1944), 12th Duke of Devonshire Provenance: Nicolaes

fen

interest in—even obsession with—the Fall of Man inspired him to make some exceptional, almost unprecedented, paintings (see cats. 1-3). It should not come as a surprise, then, that he also dealt with the subject on paper, experimenting with its possibilities and problems. Before A. E. Popham attributed this unsigned sheet to Gossart, having compared it with Gossart’s monogrammed drawing of Adam and Eve in Vienna (cat. 65), it was considered to be a work by the German artist Hans Baldung. That attribution made some sense: not only did Baldung often draw with pen and white heightening on colored paper, but he also shared Gossart’s fascination with the Fall of Man.” The earliest of Baldung’s works on that subject are drawings and prints dated between 1510 and 1519, followed by a group of paintings dated to the 1520s and early 1530s.” In Gossart’s Chatsworth drawing, as suggested by Schwarz, the proportions of Eve's body, the contrapposto, and her left leg were likely derived from a

woodcut by Baldung dated 1519 (fig. 259); her left arm—and the chiaroscuro effect— 308

JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

echo that of a colored woodcut by him of 1511 (fig. 260)." It has been proposed that Gossart became familiar with them after Albrecht Diirer took “Green Hans’s stuff” (Baldung’s nickname was “Grien”) with him on his journey to the Netherlands in 1520—21,” but these prints, which number among the best of their time, certainly did not need Diirer to travel, and they may have reached the Netherlands before his arrival. Eve's luxuriant locks mayalso

Fig. 259. Hans Baldung, Adam and Eve, 1519. Woodcut, 0% X 3% In. (25 X 9.5 cm).

Hamburger Kunsthalle (11172)

go back to models by Northern artists.” Although Adam’s oddlycrossed legs reflect those in a print by Jacopo de’ Barbari’

and although the motif of Adam leaning against a tree is probably based on a print by Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael,” the Italian influence perceptible in Gossart’s other drawn versions ofthe subject (cats. 65, 66) and in the two compositions by him known from early copies (cats. 67, 68) is less dominant here. For this reason, seems justifiable to place the Chatsworth sheet at the beginning ofthe series of drawn versions, in 1519 or shortly after.” Not only the Northern style distinguishes this Chatsworth drawing from Gossart’s others ofthe Fall of Man but also its more reflective mood. It has been proposed that Adam in these four works 1s a

it

self-portrait'®—an attractive suggestion for which there 1s little basis. Instead, Adam's features, which resemble those ofseveral other young men depicted by Gossart (for examples, see cats. 65, 67), should be seen as well-developed type. The pensive atmosphere of the scene 1s enhanced by the dark paper, which also allowed Gossart to carefully model the bodies of the figures. He used a brush to shape the tree— a technique not known from any ofhis earlier

a

drawings but encountered in several of his mature works (see, among others, cats. 86, 94, 100). This high finish characterizes the drawing as “not the study for a painting, but rather a completely executed drawing SA in its own right.”"’

Fig. 260. Hans Baldung, Adam and Eve, 1511. Chiaroscuro woodcut, 14'%e x 10%6 10. (37.3 X 25.5 cm).

Collection Frits Lugt, Paris (1540)

.

Popham 1926b,

p.

vol. 7 (1808), pp. 305-6, no. 1; Hollstein (German) 1954 , vol. 2 (1954), p. 74, no. 1,1ll.; and Mende 1978, no. 33, 1ll. For the paintings, see von der Osten 1983,

34, under no. 63. Popham did not

explicitly compare the two works; however, in another publication (1932, p. 19, under no. 2), he made 1t clear that he understood the importance of

the Vienna sheet bo

.

as a

standard for judging Gossart’s

later drawings. For Baldung's drawings, see Koch 1941; and Washington, New Haven 1981. For Baldung's highly personal interpretations of the Fall, see, among others, Boudreau 1978, pp. 100-119; Hartmann 1978; Hieatt 1983; and Brinkmann 2007, pp. 148-64, 174-81.

.

For the prints, see those reproduced here as figs. 259 and 260 as well as one catalogued in Bartsch 1803-21,

.

nos. $4, $7.75. w 101, pls. 121, 125, 159, 191. Schwarz 1953, pp. 163—65. For Baldungs woodcut of 1519 (fig. 259),

James H. Marrow and Alan Shestack in Washington, New Haven 1981, no. 19,1ll; and Holm Bevers in Paris 2010, no. 2-m,1ll. .

see Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808),

p.

306, no. 2; Hollstein (German)

p-

75, no. 2,1ll.; Mende 1978, no. 73,11; and James H.

1954

,

the proposed connection to Gossart, see Schwarz

vol. 2 (1954),

Marrow and Alan Shestack in Washington, New Haven 1981, no. 75, ill. For Baldung’s woodcut of (fig. 260), see Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), pp. 306-7, no. 3; Hollstein (German) 1954— , vol. 2 1511

(1954). p. 76, no. 3,1ll.; Mende 1978, no. 19,1ll;

“des Grunhanssen ding.” Rupprich 1956-69, vol. 1, p. 175. Diirer recorded that he sold and gave prints by Baldung during his trip (see ibid., pp. 167, 175). For 1953, p. 163.

.

Compare this drawing, for instance, with the print reproduced here (fig. 260), as well as Baldung’s woodcut Virgin and Child with a Donor of 1514 (Hollstein [German] 1954— , vol. 2 [1954], p. 99, no. 64; Mende 1978, no. 43, 1ll.) and Lucas van Leyden's engraving of

Drawings

309

of about

Lucretia

1515

(sce fig. 209). See also Silver

1986a, p. 2, 7.

De’ Barban's drawn model for the print 1s at the Briush Museum, London, no. 1883-8-11-35, (Popham and Pouncey 1950, vol. 1, no. 4, vol. 2, pl. 1v; Ferrari 2006, pp. 159—60, no. §,1ll.). It 1s interesting that the drawing was sold in 1864 as by Gossart; his name inscribed on the sheet at lower left 1s still visible. For

the engraving after it, see Zucker 1999, p. 41, no. 27,1; and Ferrar1 2006, pp. 140—41, no. 25. The connection was first suggested in Oberheide 1933, pp. 7-8, 142. See also note 8 below: 8. Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 14 (1813), pp. 3—4, no. 1; and Innis H. Shoemaker in Lawrence, Chapel Hill, 1ll. The

connection was first suggested in Oberheide 1933, pp. 7-8, 142, where the motif of Adam's crossed legs 1s also related to this print. Heinrich Schwarz (1953, pp. 155—356) also suggested that Gossart reversed Eve's right arm in Raimondi’s print for the left arm in his drawing, but the connections with de’ Barbar's and Baldung's Wellesley 1981-82, no, 22,

11.

Schwarz 1953, pp. 165-67. Ibid. p. 155.

87; Brussels 1963, no. 289;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 60; London 1975, no. 89; Richmond and other cities 1979-80, no. 77; London 1990, no. 2; London 1993-94, no. 169; Washington, New York no.

7%

Literature: Strong 1902, pl. 54 (as attributed to Hans

Baldung): Strong 190s, p. 134 (as by Baldung); Popham 1926b, p. 14, no. 63,1ll.; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 64,

no.

1;

Oberheide

1933, pp.

7-8,

142, pl. 11, fig. 3;

Kromig 1936, pp. 70, 146, no. 26; Dirk Hannema in Rotterdam 1936, vol. 1, p. 69, no. 43, vol. 2, fig. §7 (draw-

W.

ings); Wescher 1949, p. 263; Schwarz 1953, pp. 155-56, 164, 165, n. 29, fig. 6; Folie 1951/1960, p. 85, no. 14; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p. 455; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963,

under no. 285, p. 194, no. 289; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 200; Bruyn 1965b, p. 464; Misiag-Bochenska 1965, PP. 42—43; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 60, ill; Herzog p. 192,

1968a, pp. 113-15, 116, 121, 403-5, N0. D. 14,

Pp.

478, pl. 104,

pl. 64; Ebria Feinblatt in Los Angeles 1976, p. 188; Anthony Blunt in Richmond and other cities 1979-80, no. 77,1ll.; Silver

Friedlander 1967-76, vol.

1986a, pp.

8

(1972), p. 40, no.

1,

2-3, fig. 6;]. Richard Judson in Washington,

New York 1986-87, no. 67,1ll.; Anne W. Lowenthal in London 1990, no. 2,1ll.; Michael Jaffé in London 1993-94, no. 169, ill.; Bark 1994, pp. 65-66, 67, 75, no. ¢.18, fig. 26; Michael Jaffé in Washington, New York 1995-96, no. 75,

ill; Folie

1996, p. 27: M. Jaffé 2002, vol. 2, no. 1192,1ll,;

Lehmann 2002,

Mensger 2002, pp. 142-43, fig. 74; Paola Squellati Brizio in Florence 2008, p. 26, under no. 12; Paola Squellan Brizio in Paris 2008, p. 20, under no. 10

310

down),

nk, over black chalk or charcoal

10%s x 8%s 10. (25.9

X

(laid

21.1 cm)

Signed (at center left): 1vB [monogram; 1a in hgature, with line above the three letters] in black chalk Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Albertina, Vienna 13341 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: Above

monogram, three-line Dutch illegible inscription in black chalk (16th- or 17th-century handwriting).” At lower left, blind stamp of the Albertina (Lugt 174) Condition: The drawing 1s well preserved, although there are stains (some on the verso visible on the

recto). The upper left corner is a loss at

1s

shghtly damaged, and

the upper right.

(1738—1822),Vienna; Albertina, Vienna

1949, no. 31; Manchester 1961, no. 82; Washington and

199§—96,

Ca. 1520-25 Pen and brown

Provenance: Albert Kasimir von Sachsen-Teschen

Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1936, no. 43 (drawings); London

other cities 1962-63, no.

65. Adam and Eve

there

prints are more convincing. 9. Compare Herzog 1968a, pp. 113-15, 478. 10.

Jan Gossart

p. 19, fig. 19;

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

isregarding most earlier Northern depictions of the theme, the artist here represented Adam and Eve both seated, apparently having just eaten the fruit of the tree God had forbidden them to touch and then having “sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Genesis 3:7).” Not only the composition but also the straightforward sensuality of Gossart’s depiction must have seemed new to Netherlandish viewers, and they have been related by Schwarz to works by the German artist Hans Baldung, especially two woodcuts dated 1511 and 1519 (figs. 259, 260), of which at least the latter 1s likely to have influenced Gossart directly (see discussion of the Chatsworth drawing, cat. 64). This connection, the dating after 1519 of Gossart’s copy of Baldassare Peruzzi’s drawing (cat. 66), and compositional and stylistic similarities with Gossart’s woodcut Cain Killing Abel (cat. 117), which was published no later than 1527, all suggest that this drawing in Vienna can be roughly

dated to the first half of the 1520s. The figure types differ somewhat from those in the Chatsworth drawing, which seem slightly further removed from Gossart’s later well-proportioned figures; the Vienna drawing is thus probably later than the Chatsworth sheet.

This work's “extreme formal sobriety” has made more than one scholar suggest that it was meant as a design for a woodcut, perhaps a pendant to the Cain Killing Abel just mentioned. No such print is known, however.* But the sketchiness of the drawing should not be overstated: was clearly drawn although much of freehand, the outline of the figures 1s somewhat stiff, albeit not in the same way as in a drawn copy of Adam and Eve in Frankfurt (cat. 67). A comparison with that sheet not only highlights the greater

it

quality of this one—which bears an auto-

graph monogram at center left—but also suggests that both are based on some common model: when turned ninety degrees, the pose of the Frankfurt figures 1s remarkably close to that in the Vienna sheet. The evenness of the line in the latter could be explained by the assumption that the outlines were traced rather than drawn freehand.” By rotating the model while tracing it, Gossart could have made slight but significant changes in the position of limbs and the relation between the figures. He may have been doing this here when he gave Adam a second right leg, which puts him perilously out of balance: the thigh is identical in form and size to that of the leg in front of probably drawn first.” This hypothetical method may also help explain why certain poses in Gossart’s drawings seem slightly awkward. This and other peculiarities in the composition do not detract from the fact that this drawing is one of Gossart’s finest. Perhaps more than any of his other depictions of the Fall, it projects the couple's intimacy; intermingled with shame and guilt.

it,

SA

1.

According to Benesch (1964, p. 351, no. 127; followed in Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 61, and Herzog 1968a, Pp. 420, no. D. 22), both scriptions are by the artist and read mB: / Get. [for Getekend, meaning “drawn” den 6. /1525. This reading 15 definitely incorrect.

2. According to Herzog 1968a (p. 421, no.

which that artist started working about the time Philip of Burgundy was received by Pope Julius 11.

p. 22; see also

Weisz 1913b, p. 32; and Schwarz 1953, p. 152), the motifs of the seated Adam and the hand gripping a

branch were borrowed from Raphael's ceiling paintmg in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, on

See Dussler 1971, pp. 69-71, fig. 3.

117.

“extréme dépoullement formel” Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, p. 192, under no. 285.

4.

The connection to a woodcut was first proposed in Weisz 1913b, p. 37; see also J. Meder in Schonbrunner and Meder 1896-1908, vol. 10, under no. 1189. An

argument in favor ofthe idea that the drawing was made as a print design 1s the left-handedness of both

Drawings

311

Copyrighted material

figures (Silver 1986a, p. 4), although the composition does not look very satisfactory when mirrored. 5.

Compare Maryan Ainsworth’s essay on Gossart’s working methods in this volume, and cats. 67 93. For tracing methods, see Meder 1923b, pp. 534-38; and Borring 2007. A similar remark has been made by Winslow Ames (in Meder and Ames 1978, vol. 2, p. 70) in connection with Dirk Vellert’s drawing of bathhouse attendant, now in the Musée du Louvre, Paris (no. 18804; John Ohver Hand in Washington,

a

New York 1986-87, no. 113,1lL). 6. Judging from the way Adam’ two feet and Eve's right foot overlap, and from the way one of Adam's thighs overlaps the tree trunk,

it seems clear that the most

worked-out leg was drawn last. On this pont, I am in disagreement with W. Kromg (1936, p. 75) and also Benesch (1964, p. 351, under no. 127). Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1936, no. 42 (drawings); London 1948, no. $1; Brussels 1949, no. 31; Paris 1949, no. 33;

Vienna 1949, no. $6; Brussels 1963, no. 285; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no.

61

1896-1908, vol. 10, no. 1189, 1ll.; Weisz 1913b, pp. 35-36, 37. 228; Becker 1915, p. 302; pl. vir, fig. 17; Baldass 1915, p.

Friedlinder 1916, p. 131; Meder 1919, p. 390, n. 3; Friedlinder 1921, pp. 130—31; Winkler 1921b, pp. 411, 412; Meder 1923a, pp. 5, 13, pl. 3; Leporini 1925, no. 94, ll; Popham 1925, p. 209; Popham 1926b, p. 9o: Benesch 1928, no. 36, pl. 11; Wescher 1928, p. 366; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 64, no. 3; Popham 1932, p. 19, under no. 2; W. Kromig 1936, p. 75; Dirk Hannema in Rotterdam 1936, 69, no. 42, vol. 2, fig. 56 (drawings); Baldass 1937b, p. 52; Delen 1942, pp. 56-38, pl. xvi, fig. 19; Degenhart 1943, no. 8s,1ll.; De Tolnay 1943, p. 61, no. 161, 1ll.; Benesch 1,

p.

1945, pp. 82-83; A. E. Popham in London 1948, no, s1,1ll.;

C. Ebbinge Wubben in Brussels 1049, no. 31;A. E. Popham in London 1949, p. 20, under no. 31; J. C. Ebbinge

J.

Wubben in Paris 1949, no.

Wescher 1949, p. 263; Besangon 1951, 1ll. p. 97; Schwarz 1953, pp. 156—57, 158, 162, fig. 11; Besangon and Fick-Lugten 1954, 1ll. p. 93; 33;

Dobroklonskui 1955, p.19; Friedlander 1956, p. 101; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 85, 86, no. 17; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, Pp. 455; Haase 1962, no. 4,1ll.; Edschid 1963, fig. 202; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, no. 28s, fig. 273; Benesch 1964, p. 351, no. 127; Benesch 1965, p. 95; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 61, ill.; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 200; Bruyn 1965b, p. 464; Misiag-Bochenska 1965, pp. 30-40, 42-43, fig. 3; Herzog 1968a, pp. 117-18, 326, under no. 60, p. 354,

under no.

419-21, n0. D. 22,p. 479, pl. 113; Steinberg 1968, p. 350; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 41, no. 3, pl. 64, and in Notes by Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog, 77, pp.

Ebria Feinblatt in Los Angeles 1976, p. 188; Meder and Ames 1978, vol. 1, p. 349, n. $5; Friedlander

p. 118, n. 17;

1986, p. 134; Silver 1986a, p. 4, fig. 12; M. S. Sellink 1n

Amsterdam 1986, p. 124, under no. 7, fig. 7a; Dhanens 1987b, col. 321; Silver 1987, p. 63, fig. 16; Pley 1988, p. 106, ill. p. 105;

Michael Jaffé in London 1993-94,

p. 154,

under

no. 169; Bark 1994, pp. 68—70, no. £.6, fig. 29; Folie 1996, p. 27: M. Jaffé 2002, vol. 2, p. 202, under no. 1192; Mensger 2002, p. 143, fig. 75; Paola Squellat: Brizio in Florence 2008, p. 25, under no. 12,1ll; Paola Squellatt Brizio in Paris 2008, pp. 19-20, under no. 10; Nakada 2009, p. 123, under no. s, fig. 22

66. Adam Accuses Eve before God Ca. 1520-25 Pen and gray-brown ink, gray wash; retouched (by Rubens) with pen and hight brown ink, black chalk, and cream oil or gouache (laid down), 77% x 10%. 1n. (20 x 26.5 cm)

Watermark: circle without three-line cross'

a

fourth quadrant, above

a

Rijksmuseum, Ryjksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam RP-T-1960-83 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower van aelst/ 1540 va

.

.

.

right,

M" peter

/

in pen and dark brown ink (16th-

or 17th-century handwriting);* below, collector's mark of Nicolaes Anthom Flinck (Lugt 959). Verso, pieter koek van aelst in black chalk’

Literature: J. Meder in Schonbrunner and Meder

vol.

Jan Gossart, after Baldassare Peruzzi Retouched by Peter Paul Rubens

Provenance: Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640),

Antwerp,

Nicolaes Anthoni Flinck (1646-1723), Rotterdam; (sale, Sotheby's, London, February 17, 1960, no. 55, as by an anonymous North Netherlandish arust of the sixteenth century); Rijksmuseum, Riyjksprentenkabinet, from 1960

hen, in 1960, the Rijksprentenkabinet in Amsterdam acquired this drawing, retouched by the great seventeenth-century painter Peter Paul Rubens, it reminded I. Q. van Regteren Altena of Gossart." Five years later, Justus Miiller Hofstede claimed the underlying

original drawing to be by Pieter Coecke van Aelst.” This attribution to Coecke was long-standing, going back to the seventeenth or possibly the sixteenth century, as the inscription at lower right testifies. Moreover, Coecke’s interest in the work of Raphael and his circle is well known, and the present drawing 1s a copy of a work by Raphael’ assistant Baldassare Peruzzi, one of his decorations for the Volta Dorata in the Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome, which was probably completed in about 1519 (fig. 261).° It is not surprising, then, that the attribution to Coecke was accepted by all subsequent students of the drawing, most of whom were Rubens scholars. Nevertheless, apart from the old inscription, the argument for an attribution to Coecke 1s rather weak. Miiller

Hofstede compared the drawing with one 312

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

by Coecke in Vienna, which has a secure attribution to him but is only superficially related to this drawing.” A much more convincing comparison can be made with Gossart’s drawings, especially his signed Adam and Eve inVienna (cat. 65). The

comparison is, of course, somewhat hampered by Rubens’ intervention, which has heightened the expressions and the modeling ofthe figures. But underneath the added heightening, chalk, and ink, the original pen work in gray-brown ink can still be discerned relatuvely easily. Adam's whirling curls, the chain of half circles that form Eve's, the couple’ raised big toes, the way their toenails and heels are drawn, the concentric circles that delineate Adam's nipples, the use of hatching, and the tree with its knot and roots—the similarities with Gossart’s style are abundant and striking. Completely untouched by Rubens are the roots to the left and right of the reclining couple; they resemble not only those in the Vienna drawing but also, and more compellingly, those in a woodcut after Gossart representing Cain and Abel (cat. 117). An attribution to Gossart finds

Fig. 261. Baldassare Peruzzi and workshop, Adam Accuses Eve before God, from the Volta Dorata, ca. 1519. Fresco. Palazzo della

Cancelleria, Rome

additional confirmation in the watermark of the present sheet, which is probably identical to that in the two sheets of paper that compose a drawing in Providence (cat. 68). It thus seems correct to honor Van Regteren Altena’s intuition and attribute the present drawing to Gossart. Where did Gossart find the model he followed? Since Peruzzi’s painting was commissioned, prepared, and executed almost ten years after Gossart left Rome, and no print after the composition is known, he must have relied on a drawing,

most probably a copy of Peruzzi’ fresco or a preparatory drawing for it. Throughout his career Gossart seems to have tried to keep abreast of developments in Italian art, and given his many depictions of Adam and Eve, we can assume he would have been particularly interested in new works on the theme. Peruzzi’s composition is one of the rare depictions of the moment after Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, when Adam said to the Lord, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me ofthe tree, and I

did eat” (Genesis 3:12). The model that Gossart copied may not have included Gods figure, whose presence is not even hinted at in the drawing. Because of Rubens’ retouching, it has become impossible to see whether Eve, who seems to be looking at Adam, originally was looking at God, as she does in Peruzzi’s painting. SA 1.

Reproduced in Boon 1978, vol. 2, p. 231, no. 132. The watermark is probably identical to that of cat. 68, as was first noted by Wilham W. Robinson in Providence and other cities 1983-85, p. 205, n. 1, under no. 72.

Drawings

313

Copyrighted material

noted by Kristin Lohse Belkin (in Antwerp 2004, p- 322, under no. 89; see also M. Jaffe 1966, p. 141), the handwriting 1s not that of Rubens, Justus Maller

2. As

3.

Hofstede’s opmion notwithstanding (1965, p. 261). | have not been able to study the drawing directly; my description 1s based on a color photograph, as

well as on information about the drawing provided in

Boon 1978, vol.

48, no. 132. 4. To quote Van Regteren Altena (in Van Schendel et al. 1960, p. 35): “in Gossart’s manner, retouched by 1,

p.

Rubens with white heightening, according to the old inscription by Pieter Coecke van Aelst” (in Gossaerts manier, door Rubens met witte hoogsels opgewerkt, volgens het oude bijschrift door Pieter Coecke van Aclst). For Rubens’ habit of retouching drawings by other artists, see, most recently, Belkin 2000, vol. 1, 41-59. 5. J. Miiller Hofstede 1965, pp. 261-62, no. 1. 6. For the Volta Dorata, see Frommel 19068, no. 53a, pl. xxx1xa; and Gnann 2005. For good reproductions of the entire ceiling, see Schiavo 1964, pl. xx11, figs. 116, 117. The identification of the model for the drawing was first made in |. Muller Hofstede 1965, pp. 261-62. Georges Marler (1966, p. 304) was the first to note that a boy and a woman 1n the foreground of a tapestry design by Coecke in the Staathche Graphische Sammlung, Munich (no. 1927:9), are both in Adam's pose (see also Holm Bevers in Munich 1989-90, no. 18, fig. 10; and Nadine Orenstein in New York 1988, p. 45, no. 66). The observation 1s valid, but 1t does not make a compelling argument for the attribution of the present drawing to Coecke. 7. Albertina, Vienna, no. 25127 (Benesch 1928, no. si, PP-

1966, p. 281, fig. 222). J. Miller Hofstede (1965, pp. 261-62) judged Adam’s hair and

pl. 16;

Marler

the grass in the two drawings to be comparable. Exhibitions: New York 1988, no. 7; Brussels, Rome 1995,

no. 66; Antwerp 2004, no. 89 Literature: |1. Q. van Regteren Altena] in Van Schendel et al. 1960, p. 35 (as in Gossart’s manner, attributed to Pieter

Coecke van Aclst, retouched by Peter Paul Rubens); J. Muller Hofstede 1965, pp. 261-65, no. 1, fig. 185 (as by Coecke, retouched by Rubens); M. Jaffé 1966, pp. 141-42, pl. 15 (as by Rubens after Coecke, after Peruzzi); Marher 1966, pp. 303—4, fig. 248 (as by Coecke, retouched by Rubens); Frommel 1968, p. 95, n. 428 (as by Coecke, retouched by Rubens); Matthias Winner in Berlin 1977, p. 39,

under no. 6

(as

by Coecke, retouched by Rubens);

M. Jaffé 1977, p. 49 (as by Rubens after a drawing by Coecke, after Peruzzi); Boon 1978, vol. 1, no. 132, vol. 2,1ll. by Coecke, retouched by Rubens); Nadine Orenstein in New York 1988, no. 7,1ll. (as by Coecke, retouched by Rubens); Nicole Dacos in Brussels, Rome 1995, no, 66, 1ll. (as

(as

by Coecke, retouched by Rubens); Kristin Lohse Belkin

in Antwerp 2004, p. 322, no. 89,1ll. (as by Coecke, retouched by Rubens); A. Born 2008, pp. 06, 97 (as attributed to Coecke, retouched by Rubens); Belkin 2009, vol. 1, no. 103, vol. 2, fig. 296 (as by Coecke, retouched by Rubens)

314

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Unknown Netherlandish artist, after Jan Gossart 67. Adam and Eve Ca. 1520-25 or later Pen and two shades of brown ink, over black chalk, 1046 x 15%6 1. (27.1 x 38.3 cm) Framing line in pen and dark brown ink Watermark: cross within a hand, above a flower with five petals (fig. 262)"

Stadel Museum, Frankfurt 1789 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower

center night, in pen and brown ink (18th-

inscribed Mabuse— 2¢(?) century handwriting), partly covered by framing line. Verso, at center left, inscribed 7 I in pen and black ink, upside down (17th- or 18th-century handwriting) Condition: The drawing

1s

Provenance: Acquired by

the Stadel Museum, Frankfurt,

well preserved. There 1s a vertical crease, and the upper right corner 1s filled m.

1852

f the four unsigned drawings associated with Gossart that depict the Fall of Man, this sheet is closest in style to the drawing in Vienna monogrammed by the artist (cat. 65). And yet its uninspired draftsmanship made Friedrich Winkler in 1921—and scholars ever since—decide

that it

“only a good, possibly contemporary, copy after a lost original, the style and composition of which, however, are well preserved through the faithful transcription of the original.” The drawing imitates Gossart’s style so faithfully that the artist 1s likely to have been a contemporary of Gossart who knew his drawings well, possibly a pupil or assistant (but see Maryan Ainsworth’s essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu and my essay, both in this volume). The tight underdrawing in black chalk, which can still be seen in certain is

areas (in Adam’s and Eve’s left arms and Eve’s thigh), was followed rather precisely

with the pen, and it seems likely that the chalk was used for tracing from a model sheet.” This model may have been close to one that Gossart himself possibly used when working on the Vienna drawing. Viewed from the side, the seated figures there become, with some adjustments, the toppling figures of the present sheet, whose unstable pose evokes their mutual attraction and struggle particularly well.

Fig. 262. Watermark (actual size)

The pose

is

of cat.

67

more complicated and

ambitious than any in Gossart’s other depictions of the first man and woman. It must be considered quite a triumph for this artist striving to emulate the complexity and grace of figures in contemporary Italian art.* Several possible sources have been identified for the figure of Adam:

a

Roman copy of a Hellenic sculpture of a fallen Gaul, which, when Gossart could have seen it in the Grimani collection in Rome, lacked both arms, the whole right leg, and the left leg below the knee;’ the fallen Heliodorus in Raphael’ fresco in the Stanza d’Eliodoro or the figure of Joshua in one of the frescoes after the master’s design in the Loggie, both works at the Vatican;® and a river god in Marcantonio Raimondi’s famous engraving of the Judgment of Paris after Raphael of about 1517-20.” It seems hardly possible to identify with certainty one of these or another work as the direct inspiration for Gossart. His figure of Cacus in a drawing in Amsterdam (cat. 93), which probably goes back to the Laocoon, 1s also close in pose, as 1s one of the bathing women in his drawing in London (cat. 98)." SA

Compare Briquet 1923, vol. 3, no. 10719, and similar watermarks. 2. The quotation is from Schwarz 1953, p. 153. 3. For Gossart'’s possible use of tracing, see my essay in this volume. 4. For a different view, see Weisz 1913b, p. 37. 5. For the Fallen Gaul, see Bober and Rubinstein 1986, no. 149, ill. For the suggested connection with this Adam, see Van Gelder 1942, p. 4. 6. For Raphael's Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple, see Dussler 1971, pp. 79-80, fig. 135. For Joshua 1.

Commands the Sun and the Moon to Stand Still by

Perino del Vaga after Raphael, see Dacos 1977, no. x3, pl. x1. The connection was first made in W. Kronig 1936, pp. 71-72, 142, no. 17. Both works were finished only in the second half of the 1510s. 7.

Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 14 (1813), pp. 197-98, no. 245;

Innis H. Shoemaker in Lawrence, Chapel Hill, Wellesley 1981-82, no. 43, 1ll. 8. The connections between the present drawing and cats. 93 and 98 were first made in Schwarz 1953, pp. 158, 160.

Exhibition: Frankfurt 1995-96, no. 60 Literature: Weisz 1913b, pp. 36-37, pl. viii, no. 18 (as by

Gossart); Baldass 1915, p. 228 (as by Gossart); Becker 1915, p. 302 (as by Gossart); Winkler 1921b, p. 412 (as possibly a copy); Wescher 1928, p. 366; Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 64, no. 2 (as by Gossart), W. Kronig 1936, Pp. 71-72, 73, 142, no. 17, pl. 1 (as by Gossart); Van Gelder 1942, p. 4 (as by Gossart); A. E. Popham in London 1949, p. 20, under no. 31; Wescher 1949, p. 263 (as by Gossart); Schwarz 1953, pp. 152, 157-58, 163, 165, 166, fig. 8; Marher

1954. p- 34 (as by Gossart); Lassaigne and Delavoy 1958, p. 78; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 85, 86, no. 13 (as by Gossart);

von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p. 455 (as possibly a copy); A. E. Popham in Washington and other cities 1962-63, p. 37. under no. 87,1ll. (as by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, pp. 113, 120-21, 143—44, 239, under no. 14, p. 327, under no. 60, p- 354, under no. 77, pp. 425-26, no. n. 25, pl. 116; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 41, no. 2, pl. 64 (as by Gossart), and in Notes by Henn Pauwels and Sadja Herzog, p. 118, n. 16; Silver 1986a, pp. 3-4. 36, n. 42, fig. 9; M. S. Sellink in Amsterdam 1986, p. 124, under no. 7, fig. 7b; Michael Jaffé in London 1993-94, p. 154, under no. 169 (as by Gossart); Bark 1994, pp. 72-73, 75, no. E.8, fig. 31; Jochen Sander in Frankfurt 1995-96, pp. 173, 175, no. 60, fig. 167; M. Jaffé 2002, vol. 2, p. 202, under no. 1192 by Gossart); Mensger 2002, p. 144, fig. 77 (as by Gossart)

{as

Drawings

315

~ rn Copyrighted matenal

™N

~

-

»

Su

-

Unknown Netherlandish artist, after Jan Gossart 68. Adam and Eve Ca. 1525 Black chalk, partly stumped, and traces of red chalk,’ on two sheets joined horizontally, 2476 x 187%

in.

(62.1 x 46.8 cm)

Watermark: circle without a fourth quadrant, above

three-line cross’ Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, Walter H. Kimball Fund 48.425

a

Condition: The drawing is well preserved. A strip

of

paper inserted at the right runs from the upper corner down to the tree trunk. There are small tears, holes, and repairs, as well as restorations by another hand in brush and gray ink. Some foxing 1s present, especially on the insert, Provenance: Acquired by the Albertina, Vienna

(no. 20585), 1908; reverted to Archduke Friedrich (1856-1936), Duke of Teschen, after 1918; Czeczowicka

collection, Vienna (sale, C. G. Boerner & Paul Graupe, Berlin, May 12, 1930, no. 102); Oskar C. Bondy (1877— 1944), Vienna and New York (confiscated in 1938; restituted to Bondy's widow, Elizabeth Anna Bondy, in 1945); acquired from Elizabeth Anna Bondy by the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, 1948

his is the most frankly erotic composition in Gossart’s oeuvre. Because of its explicitness, the drawing has been

thought of as Gossart’s ultimate exploration of the subject, and thus it 1s usually dated later than his other paintings and drawings on the theme, which may well be correct. The motifs of the seated Adam and of Adam and Eve reaching for a branch of the Tree of Knowledge, which Gossart used in several works, have been said to derive from Raphael (see discussion under cat. 65, note 2). Schwarz recognized several other models that inspired Gossart in this particular drawing. Adam’ outstretched right leg resembles that of Adam in Michelangelo's famous fresco in the Sistine Chapel of the Creation of Man." The crossed position of Adam's legs probably goes back to the Spinario (see fig. 48), an antique sculpture that Gossart recorded on one of his preserved sheets of Roman studies (cat. 101). A woodcut depicting the Fall of Man, part of Albrecht Diirer’s series known as the Small Passion and dated about 1510, must have been the 316

Jan

GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

direct source for the snake: in both works, the serpents’ heads are crested.” Widely exhibited, this Adam and Eve has been counted among the “great drawings of all time,” to quote the title of one of the publications in its lengthy bibliography.” Yet even before 1968, when Herzog offered a dissident assessment, others had questioned the authenticity of the sheet.” There 1s no need to doubt that Gossart was author of the composition, but the wooden and labored execution of the drawing indicates it cannot be the work of Gossart, whose only known chalk drawing, a sheet in Amsterdam (cat. 72), shows an

incomparably subtler use and understanding of the medium. Even Meder, who first attributed the Providence sheet to Gossart, saw “marks of tracing in the contours of foliage and fruit” and assumed the entire sheet was based on “another preliminary drawing of the same size.” It is likely that some autograph drawings by Gossart were at least partly based on tracings (see cats. 65, 93, 100), but they retain a liveliness of line that is absent here. Nonetheless, this Adam and Eve probably originated in Gossart’s immediate circle and may even have been created under his supervision: the watermark is probably identical to the one in the sheet Gossart used for a copy after a composition by Baldassare Peruzzi (cat. 66)."" The watermark also suggests that both Gossart’s original lost drawing and the present copy should be dated to roughly the same period. Meder described this sheet as a cartoon for a cabinet painting, or Tafelkarton.Very few (if any) Netherlandish examples of this type of drawing are preserved, although there 1s evidence that they were sometimes used (see Maryan Ainsworth’ essay on Gossart’s working methods in this volume). Alternatively, it has been suggested that this drawing may be either a modello or a ricordo of a painting, made to allow a patron to approve the design before the execution of the finished product or to

record it for subsequent reuse in the studio." Yet, as with Gossart’s chalk drawing in Amsterdam (cat. 72), one is reminded that he produced a group of chalk drawings that Van Mander considered very fine.” The fact that Van Mander singled out those drawings to mention suggests they were made as independent works. SA

1.

The presence of red chalk—on the recto as

as well

the verso—is accidental and unrelated to the

drawing. 2.

On the watermark, see below. Meder 1919, p. 533. The further provenance

largely based on the file on the drawing in Providence. 4. Although the ceiling was not finished unul 1512, Michelangelo started working on it before Gossart’s 3.

1s

arrival in Rome (see Acidini Luchinat 2007, pp. 119-29; for the Creation of Man, see ill. pp. 158-59). Schwarz (1953, p. 162) presupposed that “the Pope

have taken his art-loving guest and his tran to the Sistine Chapel where Michelangelo work on must

.

.

the ceiling was in full progress”; see also Silver 1986a, PP- 4-35. 29. For other possible borrowings by Gossart from Michelangelo's ceiling painting, see cat. 31 and Anne W. Lowenthal in London 1990, pp. 44-45,

under no.

3.

As suggested in Schwarz 1953, p. 161, n. 23. 6. On the Fall of Man in Durer’s Small Passion, see 5.

Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), p. 119, no. 17; and

Erich Schneider in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 2 (2002), no. 187,1ll. Gossart used the figures in the print for the outer wings of the Malvagna Triptych (cat. 6). The connection with the Providence drawing was suggested in Schwarz 1953, pp. 163-64, n. 28. 7.

8,

Moskowitz 1962. David Carter, See a letter from Wolfgang Stechow director of the museum in Providence, January 14, Art, Rhode Island 1960 (archives of the Museum School of Design): “I shall be very frank: I like Gossaert but I have very strong suspicion that the

to

of

copy (after a painting?). I know that I am not the only one who has been disturbed bythis thought.” For Sadja Herzog’s opinion, see Herzog Prov. drawing

1s

a

1968a, pp. 423-24, no. b. 24. See also William W.

Robinson in Providence and other cities 1983-85, p. 205, under no. 72. 9. “deuthchen Spuren aufgepauster Konturen in dem Blattwerk und den Fruchten” Meder 1919, p. $33.0. 3 and Vorzeichnung in derselben GroBe.” Ibid. p. 533. The translaton by Winslow Ames 1s taken from Meder and Ames 1978, vol. 1, p. 396. 10. As noted by William W. Robinson (in Providence and

“ee

other cities 1983-85, 11.

Schwarz 1953, p. 160.

p. 205, n. 1).

Drawings

317

12.

Heinrich Schwarz (1953, pp. 160-61) was the first to make a connection between the Providence drawing and the chalk drawings mentioned by Van Mander (for which, see cat. 72). See also my essay

in

this

volume.

Exhibitions: lowa City 1951, no. 46; New York 1959, no. 22;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 62; Houston, New Orleans, and Providence 1969-70, no. 4; Los Angeles 1976, no. 209; Providence and other cities 1983-85, no. 72; Ann Arbor, Wellesley 2002, no. 7 Literature: Meder 1919, pp. 390, 533, fig. 247 (detail) (as by Gossart); Meder 1923b, pp. 390, 533, fig. 247 (detail) (as by

Gossart); C. G. Boerner and Paul Graupe 1930, no. 102 (as by Gossart); Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 64, no. 4 by Gossart), W. Kronig 1936, pp. 75-76, pl. 2 (as by Gossart); Wescher 1949, p. 263 (as by Gossart); Schwarz

(as

1953, pp. 157, 160-62, 163, 164, n. 28, fig. § (as by Gossart);

Lugt 1956, p. 302, under no. 2053 (as by Gossart); Faison 1958, pp. 209, 225-26, fig. 10; Anne Betty Weinshenker in New York 1959, no. 22, pl. xx1; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 85, 86, by Gossart); von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p. 455 (as by Gossart); Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann in Moskowitz 1962, vol. 2, no. 490, 1ll. (as by Gossart); A. E. Popham in no.

18 (as

Washington and other cities 1962-63, p. 37, under no. 87, ill. (as by Gossart); Jacquehne Folie in Brussels 1963, p. 194, under no. 288 (as by Gossart); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 62 (as Pp.

by Gossart), ill; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 200; Bruyn 1965b, 464 (as a copy after a lost painting by Gossart); Misiag-

Bochenska 1965, pp.

42—43 (as

by Gossart); Sele arte 1965,

fig. 21 (as by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, pp. 113, 117, 119-20,

under no. 14, p. 295, under no. 42, p. 206, under no. 43, p. 321, under no. §7, pp. 326-27, under no. 60, PP. 354, 355, under no. 77, pp. 423-25, N0. D. 24, p. 448, under no. pr. 4, pl. 115; Gert von der Osten in von der Osten and Vey 1969, p. 189 (as by Gossart); Friedlander

Jan Gossart

69. The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine Ca. 1503-8 Pen and brown ink (laid down), 8'%6 x 6'%6 1n. (22.7 x 17.2 cm) Signed in pen and brown ink (on hem of Saint Catherine's bodice): HENNING. O5AR Framing line in pen and brown ink Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen kksgbg828 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower left, collector's mark of Edward Peart (Lugt 891). On old mount, at lower left, inscribed E. Pleart] Lugt 891 in graphite

(20th-century handwriting); at lower right, collector's mark of William Esdaile (Lugt 2617). Verso, at lower center, collector's mark of John Thane in graphite (Lugt 1544); in lower half, a large scribble in graphite Condition: There are several important losses—most

notably, in Saint Catherine's garment, in the body of the angel to the left of her, 1n the foreground, in the architecture at upper night, and in the upper left and lower left corners. The drawing was completed in brush and gray ink by later hand. It is abraded, especially along the edges, and creased; the paper is soiled, with a small hole at upper left.

a

Fig. 263. Albrecht Durer, The Glorification of the Virgin, ca. 1502. Woodcut,

11% x

8%

mn.

(29.9 x 21.3 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rogers Fund, 1918 (18.65.19)

121, 239,

1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 41, no. 4, pl. 64 (as by Gossart), and in Notes by Henn Pauwels and Sadja Herzog, p. 118, n. 18; Ebria Feinblatt in Los Angeles 1976, pp. 188-80, no. 209, ill. (as by Gossart); Frye 1978, pp. 240, 247, 269, 270, n. 38, pp. 271, 274, 292, fig. 166 (as by Gossart); Meder and Ames 1978, vol. 1, pp. 305, 396, vol. 2, pl. 72 (as by Gossart); Silver and S. Smith 1978, p. 249, fig. 13 (as by Gossart); Hicatt 1980, p. 224, fig. b (as by Gossart); Hicatt 1983, p. 298; William W. Robinson in Providence and other

cites 1983-85, no. 72, 1ll. (as by Gossart); Silver 1986a, pp. 4-5, fig. 13 (as by Gossart); J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 183, n. 4, under no. 66 (as

probably

a copy after a lost painting by Gossart); Pley)

1988, p. 106,111. p. 104; Anne W. Lowenthal in London 1990, p. 38, fig. 2a, under no. 2; E. L. Smuth 1992, pp. 300-301, fig. 18; Michael Jaffé in London 1993-04, p. 154, under

no. 169 (as by Gossart); Bark 1994, pp. 70-72, 73, 75, no. £.7, fig. 30; Hessel Miedema in Van Mander 1604/ 1994-99, (1996), p. 154 (as attributed to Gossart); Ann Arbor, Wellesley 2002, no. 7,1ll. (as by Gossart); M. Jaffe 2002,

vol.

3

vol. 2, p. 202, under no. 1192 (as by Gossart); Mensger

2002, pp. 143-44, fig. 76 (as by Gossart)

London and Butterwick (his sale, Christie's, London, April 12, 1822, and following days, probably part of no. 3, fourth day of sale, to Thane for £1-10s-6d); John Thane (1748-1818), London (probably in his sale, George Jones, London, March 25-26, 1819); William Esdaile (1758-1837), London (his sale, Christie's, London, June 18, 1840, and following days, no. $36, with no. 537, for £3);" Frederik Siegfred Bang (1810-1889), Balslev; bequeathed with his collection of drawings and prints to the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, 1861 Provenance: Edward Peart (1756/ §8~1824),

his rendition

of the Mystic Marriage

of Saint Catherine

has little in com-

mon with the more hieratic compositions of the same subject by some earlier and contemporaneous Netherlandish artists—for example, a panel by Gerard David in London of about 1510.7 Forgoing symmetry in the grouping of the figures and indulging in the creation of an elaborate architectural backdrop, Gossart seems to have wanted to break with the tradition he must have grown up with.” Two other drawings by Gossart depicting the encounter between the Virgin and Child and Saint Catherine (cats. 70, 72) show a similar but

somewhat more mature originality. The theme of Catherine's Mystic Marriage with Christ goes back to Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend (Legenda 318

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

aurea). In it, Catherine, a princess, declares that she chose Christ as “my lover, my

shepherd, and my one and only spouse.” The saint with the prayer book at right may represent Saint Barbara, Catherine's usual companion. She is not identified by any attribute, unlike Catherine herself, who is carrying her sword and at whose feet lies the wheel used in an unsuccessful attempt to put her to death. The angel between Catherine and the Virgin is holding the ring that Christ will give to the saint as a token of their spiritual bond. As in some of Gossart’s other early drawings (see my essay in this volume), his signature

part of the decorative exuberance of the composition. Here, can be found on the hem Catherine’ elaborate bodice. As so often in depictions of this saint, her fancy clothes belie her “contempt for worldly things” and characterize her as the daughter of a king. The drawings style 1s most closely related to that of Gossart’s Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (cat. 91). Nearly all scholars have agreed on the early dating of both drawings, before the artist's trip to Rome in 1508-9, and most scholars also is

of

it

NE

LI El

2 PRR,

*

LN

.

\ Daly

I)

-

JET -—

VL rs

ae

NEAT

ea PV

oo

2

“a

_ ASN

Nl

ZO

'

Drawings

319

Copyrighted material

338. For the Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine, see Réau 1955-59, vol, 3, pt. (1958), pp. 263, 264,

agree that the one in Copenhagen came first, which makes this the earliest surviv-

ing work

of

p-

1

the artist's entire oeuvre. Its

draftsmanship seems slightly less accomplished, and the vibrant web of crosshatching establishes the space and captures

the volume of the than in the Berlin drawing. The drawing— "half etching, half embroidery,” in Friedlinder’s words—must have been made as an independent work of art.” The presence of Moses, identified by the Tablets of the Law, in the chimneypiecelike construction in the background may not seem to make much sense in connection with Catherine's Mystic Marriage.’ In fact, other Netherlandish artists of the early sixteenth century also included the motif in their depictions of scenes from the life of the Virgin.” In doing so, they showed their knowledge of the latest in German printmaking—notably, Albrecht Diirer’s set of twenty woodcuts of the Life of the Virgin, in which Moses serves as the Old Testament prefiguration of Christ, in whose birth and early life the series culminates.” Although the prints were published as a book only in 1511, at least some of them had come out separately in advance, including the print that seems to have inspired Gossart and that 1s generally dated about 1502 (fig. 263)." It, too, includes a crowned Catherine kneeling at the Virgin's right, joined by several male saints, two

of playful putt. Gossart took over the figure of Moses

as

well as the monumental columns that frame the scene, the putti holding coats of arms, and the slightly chaotic ineup of the actors. This drawing thus shows not only an artist breaking away from the Flemish traditions he grew up with, but also one aware

of the most recent international

artistic trends.

SA

6. "Eine Federzeichnung, dem Stile nach halb Radierung,

70. The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Another Female Saint

halb Stickere1r” Friedlander 1931, p. 184. 7. Gossart also included a sculpted Moses in his panung in Vienna of Saint Luke drawing the Virgin (cat. 12). 8. See, for instance, the drawings by Jan de Beer of the

Ca. 1510-15 Pen and brown ink, heightened with white gouache, on dark blue prepared paper (laid down), 12% 10% In.

5.

1993 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 340.

figures less successfully

angels, and a handful

268-69; Bronzini 1963, cols. 966, 970; and Assion 1974, cols. 292, 204, 205-97. “contemptuls] terrenorum.” Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 1358; the translation is taken from Voragine

Birth of the Virgin (Stadel Museum, Frankfurt, no. 737) and of the Betrothal of the Virgin (Albertina, Vienna, no. 7809); for both drawings, see Dan Ewing and Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, nos. 33, 34,11 9. For Diirer’s series, see Anna Scherbaum in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 2 (2002), Pp. 241-23, and nos. 166-85. For the influence of German prints, especially Durer’s, on early sixteenthcentury Antwerp painting, see my essay in this volume. 10.

15 .

(no. 3.

4.

NG

1432), see Campbell 1998, pp. 146—57.1lL

Compare Winkler 1962, p. 145. "Ipse emim deus meus, amor meus, pastor et sponsus unicus meus.” Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 1356; the translation is taken from Voragine 1993 (ed.), vol. 2,

320 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Alberuna, Vienna 17552

lower left, inscribed Nicasius gossaert van Mabuse, in pen and black ink (16th—17th-century handwriting?). At lower right, blind stamp of the Albertina (Lugt 174). Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At

Condition: Much of ink has faded, especially in the upper half. There are small areas of damage, some abrasion, stains, and a horizontal fold with loss of

medium.

was already noted in Heidrich 1910, p. 272; see also von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p. 457; and W. S. Gabson

Provenance: Private

1987, p. 86.

century,’ Albertina, Vienna, by 1909

Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1936, no. 3gb (drawings); Rotterdam,

Bruges 1965, no. 43 Literature: Winkler 1921a, pp. §-6, 8,9, 11,1ll.; Winkler 1921b, p. 411; Benesch 1928, p. 7, under no. 35; Wescher 1928, p. 366; Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 24-25, 65, no. 10, pl.

tv; Friedlander 1931, pp.

183-84, 185;

Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 11 (1933), p. 74: W. Kronig 1934, pp. 164, 165-66; D. Hannema in Rotterdam 1936, vol. 1, 68, no. 39b, vol. 2, fig. 79 (drawings); Baldass 1937a,

pp- 120, 121, 122, fig. 127; Baldass 1937b, pp. s1—52;

Friedlander 1924—37, vol. 14 (1937), p. 111; Delen 1942, p. 58; Gluck 1945, p. 116; W. Bouleau-Rabaud in Paris 1947, p. 16, under no. 73; Wescher 1949, pp. 263, 264, 265; Boon 1953, p. 67, fig. 2;

Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 80,95, no.

1;

von

pp. 458-59, 461; Winkler 1062, PP- 143, 152; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 52, under no. 1, p. 58, under no. 2, no. 43, 1ll.; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 199;

der Osten

1961, vol.

1,

Bruyn 1965b, p. 463; Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 405; Herzog 1968a, pp. 23—24, 27-29, 30—33, 34, 35. 36, 37. 44, 55. $7-58,71, 169, n. 28, p. 205, under no. 2, p. 208, under no. 4, p. 216, under no. 6, p. 230, under no. 10, p. 234, under no. 12, pp- 382-83, no. n. 1, p. 476, pl. 91; Gert von der Osten in von der Osten and Vey 1969, p. 157; Wescher 1970, p. 100; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 19-20, 41, no. 10, 66, vol. 11 (1974), p. 44; Judson 1985a, p. 50. n. 3; Eric M. Zafran in Washington and other cities 1985-87,

The Copenhagen drawing 1s incorrectly described in the catalogue as “The adoration of the Magi before a Gothic portico, pen; from Dr. Peart’s Collection.” For the David panel in the Nanonal Gallery, London

Signed (on band on sleeve of saint at left): [GJosa[rT[af?] Framing line in black chalk(?) along upper edge

(2002), no. 185, ill. The influence of Durer’s Life of the Virgin on Gossart’s carly works 2

p. 50, pl.

1.

x

(32 x 26.5 cm)

the

Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), no. 95; Anna Scherbaum in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum

2001-4, vol.

p.

Jan Gossart

under no. 23; Judson 1986, pp. 15, 16, fig. 3:]. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 183, n. 7, under no. 66; Dhanens 1987b, col. 312; W. S. Gibson 1987, PP. 79, 80, fig. 5; Stampfle 1991, p. 44, under no. 72; Nicole Dacos in Brussels, Rome 1995, pp. 15-16, ill; Steinmetz 1995, p. 107. no. T842; Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, p. 41,1ll. p. 42, under no. 10, p. 46, under p. $4,

no. 12; Mensger 2008a, p. 171; Mar Pietrogiovanna in Venice 2010, p. 18, under no. 1

collection, Germany(?), 16th or 17th

one of three drawings by Gossart representing the Virgin and Child with Saint Catherine. It is unfinished and difficult to read, especially in the upper part, because the ink has faded and no longer stands out against the dark blue prepared paper. Without doubt, should be dated after the drawing of a similar subject in Copenhagen (cat. 69) and looks earlier than the more accomplished drawing in Amsterdam (cat. 72). As noted by his

1s

it

it

signed in a decorative way, as are several of Gossart’s other early drawings (see my essay in this volume); here his signature appears on the sleeve of the saint to the left, “who has only one cheek.”” To the left of the Virgin is Saint Catherine, carrying a sword (her attribute) and offering a Folie,

1s

pear to the Christ Child. Although the lower part of the drawing ends before the paper (often the sign of a copy), the attribution to Gossart would impose itself even without the signature. The face of Joseph, inspired by those of old men in Albrecht Diirer’s woodcuts; the way the drapery is drawn; and the hatching—Dboth in ink and in gouache—are all characteristic

of Gossart’s early drawings.

This drawing has always been dated before Gossart’s trip to Rome in 1508-9, but it seems likely that it 1s, in fact, somewhat later. However interesting the similarities may be between this figure of Saint Catherine and that of Saint Barbara on the right wing of a triptych in Lisbon, they have lost their relevance to the date ofthis

drawing, since that painting is no longer

accepted as Gossart’s (fig. 264). Certainly the throne, which takes up most of this composition, was designed by someone familiar with Northern architecture, but it is also unlikely to have come from someone unfamihar with Itahan examples— more specifically, from the north ofthe

country.” Thrones of a comparable construction, with putti playing around and above them, do occur in earlier Northern painting,” but they usually do not betray as much Italian influence. A date during or after the trip to Rome would find further support in the face ofthe Virgin, which strongly recalls those by Gerard David, as Drawings

321

Jan Gossart 71. The Holy Family Seated at the Foot of a Tree Ca. 1510-15(?) Pen and two hues of brown nk, over black chalk, on vellum, 6% x 5 1n. (15.6 x 12.7 cm) The Metropolitan Museum Art, New York, Purchase, Eugene V. Thaw Gift, 2001 2001.190

of

Inscriptions, marks, and stamps:

On secondary support,

underneath drawing, at lower left, inscribed Rodrigues / 12 vir 1921 N* 30 in graphite

veiling

Condition: The drawing is generally well preserved. The

ink 1s shghtly faded, and there is some abrasion and surface dirt.

Eugene Rodrigues (1853-1928), Paris (his sale, Frederik Muller & Co., Amsterdam, July 12— 13, 1921, no. 30 [as by Gossart], to Cassirer); Leo Blumenreich (1884-1933), Berlin; Franz Koenings Provenance:

Unknown Netherlandish artist, 16th century,

Triptych with the Holy Family, Music- Making Angels, and Saints Catherine and Barbara, ca. 1516-25. O1l on oak panel, central panel 19% x 12% mn. (50 x 31.5 cm); wings 18% x 47% 1n. (47.5 x 12.5 cm). Muscu Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon (1479 Pint.) Fig. 264.

does the rine and Barbara in Amsterdam (cat. 72). Gossart appears to have been particularly influenced by David in the early 1510s, and

Virgin and Child with Saints Cathe-

the Vienna drawing can probably be dated to those years. Nonetheless, in contrast to the Amsterdam sheet, the Vienna drawing shows the Northern style dominating the Italian. This 1s also clear in the refinement of the draftsmanship, “pushed so far that the artist has lost the overview of the whole.”* In the part of the throne behind the Virgin, the definition of the space is not successful, and it takes some time to understand that the two lower festoons held by the little soldiers are not parallel to the picture plane but attached to the deepest part of the semicircular space behind them. More appealing are the Virgin and Saint Catherine, both admirably drawn; the latter counts among the most attractive figures in a drawing in the Antwerp Mannerist style and reappears not only in the Lisbon triptych previously mentioned but also in several paintings by SA later artists.”

322

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

For this collector, see my essay in this volume. 2. "die nur eme Wange hat” Winkler 1921a, p. 10. 3. See, for instance, an anonymous engraving by a Milanese printmaker of about 1470-80 (Zucker 1999, pp. 82-93, no. 16,1ll.; Giovanm Sassu in Ferrara 1.

2007-8, no.

156,11l.).

4. See, for example, Jean Bellegambe’s Le Cellier

Altarpiece from 1509 in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (no. 32.100.102; Mary Sprinson de Jesus in New York 1998-99, no. 87,111). 5. “Iie Subtihtit der Zeichnung ist so weit getrieben, dal} der Kiinstler dartiber den Blick firs ganze verloren hat” Winkler 1921a, p. 9. 6. Gluck 1945, pp. 118—19;W. S. Gibson 1987, p. 88. Exhibition: Rotterdam 1936, no. 39 (drawings) Literature: Schonbrunner and Meder 1896-1908, vol. 6,

pl. 635 (as by an anonymous Netherlandish arust from

about 1520); Winkler 1921a, pp.

9—11, fig. 3; Winkler 1921b,

PP. 411, 412; Benesch 1928, no. 35, pl. 10; Wescher 1928, p. 366(?); Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 26-27, 66,

no.

15;

Friedlander

1931, pp.

184-85; W. Kromig 1934,

pp. 173, 176-77; D. Hannema in Rotterdam 1936, vol. 1, p. 68, no. 39, vol. 2, fig. 51 (drawings); Baldass 1937a, pp. 120, 121; Benesch 1945, p. 81; Wescher 1949, p. 263;

Boon 1953, p. 69, fig. 4; Folie 1951/1960, p. 84, no. 11, Winkler 1962, pp. 145, 146, 152; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 20-21, 42, no. 15, pl. 66; Herzog 1968a, PP. 3537. 45, 169, n. 28, 170, n. 44, p. 205, under no. 1,

208, under no. 4, p. 228, under no. 9, p. 383, under no. 0. 1, pp. 386-87, no. n. 3, p. 476, pl. 93; Wescher 1970, pp. 100, 104; Karel G. Boon in Florence, Paris 1980-81,

p.

p. 128, under no. 88 (as attributed to Gossart); J. Richard

Judson in Washington, NewYork 1986-87, p. 183, n. 7, under no. 66; W. S. Gibson 1987, pp. 79. 80, 88, fig. 6; Stefaan Hautekeete in Madrid 2007, p. 146, n. 56

(1881-1941), Haarlem; his descendants (sale, Sotheby's, New York, January 23, 2001, no. 4); [Kunsthandel Katrin Bellinger, Munich; sold to the Metropolitan Museum, 2001); The Metropolitan Museum of Art, acquired by 2001

his drawing was possibly inspired by one of Albrecht Diirer’s engravings

of the Virgin “on

bench” (see fig. 105)," in which the Christ Child looks at the viewer and the composition 1s framed at right by a tree. It 1s one of the least studied of the drawings associated with Gossart, even though it appeared under his name in the 1921 Rodrigues sale and was included by Max Friedlander in his 1930 list

a grassy

of Gossart’s drawn oeuvre.

Paul Wescher, recognizing a style characteristic of “the change and transition in Gossaert’s manner of drawing from the first to the second decade,” judged the sheet “very typical.”* The tender atmosphere in the drawing—in which Joseph lays his hand on his wifes shoulder and offers the Child a carnation—can be

compared with Gossart’s other depictions of similar themes, especially two engravings from the early 1520s (cats. 112, 113) and two drawings that may date from about the same time (cats. 73, 74). The drawing can be compared stylistically to The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Another Female Saint in Vienna of about 1510 (cat. 70), in which

one finds the same hefty hands and similar features on the Virgin's face (the downcast eyes, the clearly indicated nostrils and chin); however, differences in technique and condition make it difficult to pursue the comparison much further. Gossart’s bold use of hatching, typically comprising a mesh of curved lines, 1s evident in the Vienna sheet and in several other drawings absent here. In known to be by him but some ways, the refined technique in the present example recalls the delicate drawings of fifteenth-century Netherlandish masters, in which the hatched strokes were made to blend. The use of line is perhaps closest to that in two drawings dated to the 1510s (Which accords with Wescher’s dating of the present drawing and the date

is

of the Diirer engraving): an unidentified scene in Washington, D.C. (cat. 83)" and, particularly, The Adoration of the Magi in Paris (cat. 75), which, like this sheet, is on vellum. As with the Paris drawing, the

choice of support and the style of the New York Holy Family may stem from the fact that the drawing was made either as a finished work or, more likely, as a model to show prospective patrons of paintings. SA

pp. 62-63, no. 44; and Rainer Schoch in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 1, no. 2,1ll. 2. "eine schr typische ‘Heibige Familie 3.

Baum." Wescher 1949, p. 264; and Wescher 1970, p. 107. The carnation appears mn many sixteenth-century depictions of the Virgin and Child and of the Holy Family, such as one by Durer in the Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (no. KdZ 4174; sce Fedja Anzelewsky and Stefan Morel in Washington 1999-2000, no. §0,1ll.). In these works, and in the present drawing, the flower should be understood as a symbol of the Passion (see Bergstrom 1958, especially pp. 30—48). I am grateful to Maryan Ainsworth for identifying the flower.

4. As suggested in Sotheby's,

1.

unter dem

New York 2001, p.

18,

no. 4.

Exhibition: New York 2008-9

Compare also another engraving by Durer, the Madonna with the Pear, dated 1511 (Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 [1808], pp. 59-60, no, 41; Matthias Mende in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 1, no. 63, ill.). For an engraving without a tree but including

1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 65, no. 14; Wescher 1949, pp. 263, 264; Lugt 1956, p. 128, under no. 897; Wescher 1970, p. 107, fig. 77; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 42, no. 14,

Saint Joseph, see Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808),

pl. 66; Sotheby's, New York 2001, no. 4, ill; Plomp 2001, ill.

Literature: Frederik Muller 1921, no. 30,1ll;; Friedlander

Drawings

323

Jan Gossart 72. Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine and Barbara Ca. 1510-15 Black chalk (laid down), 16'Vi6 x 11'%6 1n. (42.4 X 29.9 cm) Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam RP-T-1040-488

lower left, inscribed PV. Aelst in pen and brown ink (18th-century handInscriptions, marks, and stamps: At

writing?) Condition: The drawing 1s generally in good condition. has been cropped on all sides. Relatively large restored

It

it

1s arcas are evident at upper left and at lower left; unclear whether the drawing was completed in these

areas by Gossart or by another hand (the latter seems to be the case in the upper left corner). There are large tears in various places, including a horizontal one across

the entire sheet; some small stains of orange pamnt(?); and light foxing and small stains of another kind. Provenance: P. Baderou, Paris; N. Beets, Amsterdam;

acquired from N. Beets by the Ryksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, 1949

f Gossart’s three renditions of the

Virgin and Child with Saint Catherine, this may be the most accomplished. Indeed, it can be seen as the earliest drawing in which Gossart emerged as a mature artist, capable of balancing his chosen stylistic influences in a flawlessly executed whole. The elegant architecture and sculptural motifs that structure the composition must go back to the artist's studies during his trip to Rome in 1508-9. The handsome sculpture directly above the Virgin's head has been related to antique art and may also have inspired the sculpture in a roundel design in Paris (cat. 94).’ Herzog remarked that the ornamentation of the capitals topping the fluted columns—characterized by fishlike creatures rather than by acanthus leaves—may have been derived from North Italian examples (see fig. 44).” In the figures’ costumes, especially the headdress of Saint Catherine to the right and that of the other female saint to the left (undoubtedly Saint Barbara, whose attribute, a tower, can be seen in the background), Gossart nods to his role as a former proponent of early Antwerp Mannerism (compare the headdresses in cats. 69 and 70). 324 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Finally, the drawing testifies to Gossart’s athmity with the work of Gerard David,

for which further evidence can be found in Gossart’s paintings (see Maryan Ainsworth’s essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume). The older artist's influence 1s more evident here than in any other drawing by Gossart. That influence 1s clear from a comparison ofthe faces of the Virgin and Saint Catherine to some of David's rare studies of female heads.’ Although David's drawings are mainly built up with metalpoint, not chalk as in Gossart’s, the delicate hatching with which both artists achieved the modeling of the faces 1s essentially the same. A date in the early 15108 for the drawing under discussion here, which has been suggested by various scholars, coincides with Gossart’s interest in, and probable collaboration with, David. The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Another Female Saint in Vienna (cat. 70) is certainly earlier; the other drawing that can be confidently dated to this period, the round Beheading of Saint John the Baptist in Paris (cat. 84), may be as well.

The attribution

of

too: Karel van Mander pointed out in his Schilder-Boeck (1604) that Gossart “made various fine drawings of which I have seen a number, well executed with black chalk.”® That Van Mander made special mention of these drawings suggests that they were more than mere sketches and possibly autonomous works. The Amsterdam drawing may be just that, although it is impossible to say whether it was among the drawings seen by Van Mander. If it was an independent work of art, this sheet would likely have been signed, but any signature could have been lost when the drawing was cropped. SA

1.

study of an unrecorded sculpture, probably depicting Bacchus, which he could have seen in Florence and which in the 15108 could also have mspired works by both Pontormo (see Rearick 1964, vol. 1, p. 101, under no. 1) and Jacopo Sansovino. However, other anuque sources for the sculpture by Sansovino have also been proposed; see Boucher 1991, vol. 2, no. 6, figs. 35-37: and Pope-Hennessy 1096, vol. 2, pp. 123, 457, pl. 106. bears a striking similarity to the capitals in Giovanm Bellini’s Giobbe Altarpiece (Humfrey 1993, no. 27 and

v It .

this drawing has

never been questioned since its first publication in 1950, yet it is unlike any other drawing by Gossart—not least because it is his only autograph work done entirely in black chalk (except for a fragment of a drapery study on the back of cat. 89; see also cat. 68). This medium also makes it a rarity among early Netherlandish drawings; although black chalk was routinely used for underdrawing by Netherlandish artists, very few drawings executed exclusively in black chalk are known before Gossart’s Amsterdam sheet.* The drawing exemplifies a fuller use of the possibilities offered by the medium: he understood how to control the pressure on the chalk, creating lines of varying thickness and saturation, as well as accents that enliven his hatching technique. The use of black chalk must have struck early observers,

Sadja Herzog (1968a, pp. 38, 44) made the appealing suggestion that Gossart might have worked from a

pl. 45: Deborah Howard in Humfrey 2004, pp. 151-55).

For the “fish capitals” and their origin in anaque examples, see Debra Pincus in Humfrey 2004, pp. 128-30, figs. 37-39. For the suggested connection to Gossart, see Herzog 1968a, pp. 38, 398, no. p. 10. Comparable capitals can be seen in Gossart’s panting in Prague (cat. 9) and the signed drawing in Paris (cat. 84). 3.

See especially the drawings by David in the Stadel

Muscum, Frankfurt, no. 6926 (Ainsworth 1998, pp. 12, 14, 15, 63, 83, 319, fig. 7; Annette Strech in Frankfurt 2000, no. 2,11), and in the Hamburger Kunsthalle, no. 21575 (Ainsworth 1998, pp. 18-22, 24, fig. 26). 4. Fritz Koreny and Georg Zeman in Antwerp 2002, pp. 11-12. 5.

“macckte verscheyden aerdighe teyckeningen/waer van icker een deel heb gesien/ die met swart crijt wel waren ghehandelt.” Van Mander 1604, fol. 226r; the translation 1s taken from Van Mander 1604/7 1994-99, vol.

1

(1994), p. 162. See also my essay

in

this

volume.

Exhibitions: Antwerp 1954, no. 314; Brussels 1963, no. 288;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 49,

1ll.; Washington,

New York

1986-87, no. 66 Literature: Rocll 1950, p. 34; Boon 1953; Antwerp 1954,

no. 314; Folic 1951/1960, pp. 84, 95, fig. 6, no. 12; Winkler 1962, pp. 145, 146, 152; Jacqueline Folic in Brussels 1963,

er a I

.

)

-

,

J

.

PRT

i

SNJP

’

~

B

.

TS

~

Ee

-

BE

a

WN

rn

RTA ¢

SV FPPEE

EE

-

AL

——

-

-

-

— 10EL .

—

’

\

d

|

e


Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), p. 141, no. 120; Ramer Schoch in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001—4, .

1ll. The

clothes and the central

position of the executioner recall the composition of three roughly contemporary Netherlandish drawings: one, depicting the Beheading of Saint George, 1s in the British Museum, London, no. 1863-1-10-3 (Popham 1932, pp. 41—42, no.

1,

pl.

xvi, as

by Jan

Swart; Linda Jansen in Bruges 1998, no. 81,111, as by Lancelot Blondeel); another, in the same collection (no. 1927-4-11-1), represents the Martyrdom

of

the

Four Crowned Martyrs (Popham 1932, p. $3, no. 11, as by Dirk Vellert; Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, p. 142, under no. 57, fig. 1,as by the Master of 1518); the third, of which the subject can be identified as the Beheading of Pope Sixtus II (compare Réau 1955-59, vol. 3, pt. 3 [1959], pp. 1229-30), 1s in the Kupferstichkabinett of the Staathche Museen zu Berlin, no. KdZ $206 (Bock 62, vol. 2, pl. 52,as attributed to the Master of 1518; Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 57,1lL., as by the and Rosenberg 1930, vol.

Master of

89. Scenes from the Life of Saint Giles Verso: Drapery Study

Ca. 1520s Pen and brown ink, over black chalk; verso: black chalk (laad down on Japanese paper), 11% x 16% 1n. (29.9 x 42.2 cm) Watermark: small dog’ Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen KKs6704 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: Verso, at upper

left, us in

graphite (19th- or 20th-century handwriting). Condition: The drawing 1s well preserved. There are some losses, tears, and creases, including a vertical tear

at center down the entire length of the sheet. There are brown and reddish stains, as well as some white stains filled in with pen and brush and black ink. Provenance: Van Parijs collection, Brussels (his sale,

Frederik Muller & Co., Amsterdam, January 11-12, 1878, no. 221, as by Albrecht Durer); Sophus Larpent (1838-1911), Christiana and Copenhagen (inv. no. 6704); the Statens Museum bequeathed by Sophus Larpent for Kunst, Copenhagen, 1913

to

p.

Cyriacus and his companions, see also Amore and Aprile 1963; and Kaster 1974. Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), p. 127, no. 61; Peter Kruger in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4,

vol. 2 (2002), no. 128,

Jan Gossart

1, p.

1518).

his little-known sheet was first published by Max Friedlander in 1930 as by Gossart, but no scholar of the artist's drawings has concurred with that attribution.” As result, the drawing has been

a neglected, despite its obvious quality.

Connections to drawings by Gossart, including the monogrammed Adam and Eve in Vienna (cat. 65), can quite easily be made on stylistic grounds, however: telling details correspond almost exactly, such as the figures’ curly hair and the form of the leaves around Adam’s waist and in the foreground of the Saint Giles drawing. The strokes and lines delineating the bare trees growing out of the cave at the center of this composition can be compared to those in several more securely attributed works by Gossart, such as the panels of an altarpiece in Washington, D.C. (cat. 22), and View

of the Colosseum Seen from the West in

Berlin (cat. 102). The cave itself closely resembles the one sheltering cattle in a drawing in Amsterdam (cat. 93). The scenes in the left and right backgrounds were

done in the same summary manner as those in other mature drawings by Gossart

358

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

(cats. 75, 79, 87, 88, 90, 92). Like so many

of

Gossart’s other figures, the four men at center have faces reminiscent of those in the prints of Albrecht Diirer (to whom this

drawing was once attributed). A headdress similar to the one lying in front of the kneeling man at right—half crown, half fur cap—appears in the drawn Adoration of the Magi in Paris (cat. 75) and in the painted Adoration in London (cat. 8); the type goes back to a print by Martin Schongauer (see fig. 266). The relatively extensive landscape

seen here 1s exceptional for Gossart. Even though Friedlinder’s attribution seems fully justified, the drawing does stand somewhat apart from Gossart’s other late drawings, in that the penmanship is more even, less nervous; this 1s especially evident in the abundant but relatively regular hatching and in the drapery of the men’s clothes.* Because Gossart’s drawing style evolved from the intricate designs of his early sheets toward the ambitious but neatly drawn compositions of the second half of his life, it 1s tempting to date the Saint Giles drawing to the very end of his career. Yet, because so little is sure 1n respect to the chronology of his late drawings, it seems safer to hold to a more general dating to the last decade and a half of Gossart’s career. This elaborate drawing could have been preparatory for a painting, although no such work 1s

known or documented. The composition represents three scenes from the life of Saint Giles, a seventh-century hermit who lived in a forest in Provence and sustained himself by drinking the milk of a doe, his sole companion.’ The doe is presented here with elegant foreshortening, in a pose that communicates the tenderness between the animal and the saint. The saint's life is told in Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend.”

When the huntsmen of the king (identified as the Visigoth Wamba in other

sources) pursued Giles’ doe, the animal “took refuge at her foster son's feet”;” the force of his prayers made it impossible for

the hunting dogs to approach. The king

ordered his huntsmen to go after the doe again, and they reached the hermits cave, which was “so thickly overgrown with thorn bushes as to be impenetrable” (a detail Gossart seems to have represented in the foreground of his composition). One huntsman shot an arrow through the bushes, wounding Giles, whose chest is shown pierced by an arrow. Having discovered Giles, the king and a bishop—and, in Gossart’s drawing, a third man at right, hat in hand—asked the saint for pardon and

offered him medical aid and wealth, represented by the magnificent tazza filled with coins that the kneeling king proffers. Giles refused both, but asked the king to use the treasure to build a monastery and agreed to become its first abbot. Its construction is depicted in the left background, where the king (identifiable by his sword) stands next to the saint, pointing to the building being erected.

The right background depicts the Mass of Saint Giles, in which the saint prays for a king who did not dare to confess a sin he had committed. An angel appeared with a scroll announcing that, thanks to Giles’ prayers, the sin would be forgiven

once the king repented. (The saint's unique ability to offer exemption from confession explains his popularity during the Middle Ages.) In the right background, Gossart included the king, kneeling before a prie-dieu; the saint, kneeling before an altar; and an angel, holding the scroll in the background at right. The shepherd at far right in the middle ground does not seem to play any special role in the saint's life story; the mounted soldier at far left must be part of the king's hunting party. The wayfarers at left and right may be meant to represent pilgrims and could refer to the fact that Saint-Gilles, the site of the monastery of Saint Giles,

Drawings

359

Copyrighted material

between Nimes and Arles, was an important stopping place on the route to SA Santiago de Compostela.

1.

According to Bodil Serensen in Oslo 1999,

p. 154,

no. 46. 2. I have been unable to detect the inscriptions tran3.

scribed 1n Oslo 1999, no. 46. Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 66, no.

21.

In addi-

tion to those expressed in Folie 1951/1960, p. 96, n. 12, and Herzog 1968a, p. 433, no. n. 31, the following opin1ons are recorded on the drawing’s mount: in 1936, Jan van Gelder thought the drawing was a copy after Gossart; in 1965, he suggested an attribution to Bernard van Orley; [. Q. van Regteren Altena, probably in

reaction to Van Gelder's first opinion, asserted that the drawing was an original, not a copy, but he did not offer a name. 4. The same applies to the fragmentary drapery study

on the verso, of which no photograph was made before the back of the sheet was lined wath only relatively transparent Japanese tissue. It 1s the only study by Gossart of its kind and, with cat. 72, 1s his only known autograph drawing in black chalk. 5.

For Saint Giles, see Réau 1955-59, vol. 3, pt. 3 (1958), PP. 593-97: Viard 1964, cols. 958, 960; Hinkle 1965, pp. 136-39; and Mayr 1973.

6. Voragime 2007 (ed.), vol. 2, pp. 986, 988; for an English 7.

translation, see Voragine 1993 (ed.), vol. 2, pp. 147-49. “ad pedes sui confugit alumpni.” Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 986. The translation 1993

x

.

1s

taken from Voragine

(ed.), vol. 2, p. 147.

“locum ueprium densitate inaccesibilem in girum crcumdederunt.” Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 986, The translation 1s from Voragine 1993 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 148.

Exhibition: Oslo 1999, no. 46 Literature: Frederik Muller 1878, no. 221 (as by Albrecht

Durer); Friedlander 1924-37, vol.

8

(1930), p. 66, no. 21;

Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 96, n. 12 (as not by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, no. p. 31, pl. 122 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 42, no. 21, pl. 68; Sorensen 1996, p. 224 (as attributed to Gossart or Bernard van Orley); Bodil Sorensen in Oslo 1999, no. 46, ill.

360 JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

Jan Gossart

90. Design for a Triptych with Scenes from the Life of Saint Leonard Ca. 1520s Pen and brown ink, brush and gray ink, gray wash, over black chalk; incised construction lines and construction lines in black chalk and in pen and brown

x

ink; on three separate pieces of paper, left wing: 12% 47610. (32 x 12.5 cm); central panel: 12% x 10%6 1n. (31.8 x 25.9 cm); right wing: 12% x § in. (31.8 x 12.7 cm); all three laid down on an old (18th-century?) mount measuring 12'%6 x 20%s In. (32.2 X $51.2 cm) A double framing line on each sheet in pen and brown ink, by the artist Watermark: jug (in secondary support?)’ Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett Kdz 4647

On each separate sheet, lower center, collector's mark of Robert-Dumesnil Inscriptions, marks, and stamps:

at

(Lugt 2200). Verso, at upper left, O in graphite (20thcentury handwriting?); at lower right, Np 1n black chalk or graphite (18th- or 19th-century handwriting) well preserved. There are some stains, foxing, and dirt, especially in the left wing and, to a lesser degree, in the right wing; some tears in the left wing; a small tear at upper left in the central panel; and a small loss at upper right in the right wing. Condition: The drawing

1s

Alexandre-Pierre-Frangois RobertDumesnil (1778-1864), Paris; acquired bythe Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, 1849 Provenance:

with several of Gossart’s other drawings on religious themes, the subject of the drawing discussed here, the sixth-century abbot Saint Leonard, 1s quite uncommon.” Which scene from the saint's life 1s the main subject of the central panel 1s not immediately evident from the sources, but one can assume that it illustrates the general esteem for the saint, especially with prisoners and pregnant women. Their special devotion is explained by the two scenes in the background of the center panel: at left is Clotilde, spouse of the Frankish King Clovis, whose childbirth during a hunting party ended well thanks to Leonard’ prayers; and at right, Leonard is using the right granted to him by Clovis “that any prisoners whom he visited were straightway released from bondage.”* The peculiar form of the prisoners’ fetters seen in the foreground is particularly connected s

with Saint Leonard: one freed prisoner is said to have hung such fetters as an ex-voto over the saint's tomb. Gossart may have known its form from depictions on pilgrims’ badges.’ The left wing, which recalls the com-

position of the Presentation in the Temple in Hamburg (cat. 79), depicts the baptism of Leonard, who was raised by the bishop of Reims, Saint Remigius, better known for baptizing King Clovis in 496.° Leonard, who hailed from a prominent Frankish family, was Clovis’ godson; the king,

together with a woman (undoubtedly Clotilde) as well as the bishop and an unidentified monk in the drawing, can all be seen blessing the infant, whose hunched pose Gossart observed particularly well. Above this scene, Remigius instructs the young Leonard; at right, a slightly older Leonard refuses the bishopric offered to him by Clovis. In the background scene of the right wing, Leonard is supervising the building of the monastery in the Limousin, at a place he called Nobiliacum (now Saint-Léonard-deNoblat), in the forest given to him by the king in gratitude for his having saved Clotilde’s life during childbirth. The main subject of the right wing could represent the altar dedicated by Leonard to Saint Remigius,” but given the presence of the former prisoners in the foreground, seems more likely that the altar 1s dedicated to Leonard himself. According to The Golden Legend, the prisoners he liberated “brought their chains and fetters to Leonard, and many stayed with him and served the Lord there” at Nobiliacum.” The importance accorded to the prisoners in the composition suggests that the drawing may be related to a commission from a penitentiary institution or by an individual connected with one. As with most of the drawings catalogued here as mature works by Gossart, the attribution of this sheet has been

it

E

!

+B

=

|

a

->

)

All rae

debated. The suggestion that the drawing is a copy can be straightforwardly dismissed in light of the neat but lively penmanship.” Bernard van Orley has often been mentioned as a possible attribution, but modern understanding of his artistic development has made clear that the drawing’ style is not his. The stylistic similarities with other drawings by Gossart are

abundant; among the most convincing comparisons are the drawings already mentioned in this entry. The drapery; the faces of the figures and their mostly curly hair; the babies’ bodies (especially the one in the central panel at lower right, which can be compared to those of the angels in the ceiling design in Florence, cat. 109); the light, somewhat quivering line used for the background sketches; the washes

and hatching done in brush (also evident in cat. 93); and the balance and variety of the ornamental and architectural invention are all characteristic of Gossart’s drawing style (see my essay in this volume). In addition, the architecture in the drawing and the form of the frame were meticulously constructed with lines drawn along a ruler—some incised (one running horizontally through the lowest points of the upper edge of the frame); others in black chalk (several vertical ones in the columns of the central panel and in the right wing) or in pen and brown ink (a vertical one through the candlestick on the altar on the right wing). A hole right above the head of the saint in the central panel points to the compass used to construct its rounded top. Such carefulness in the prep-

aration of the architectural form is also evident in other of Gossart’s drawings (see my essay herein), as well as in his paintings (see Maryan Ainsworth’s essay on Gossart’s working methods in this volume). The relative tightness of the style comes closest to such sheets as the Lamentation in Berlin, the design for a glass window in Florence, and the scenes from the life of Saint Giles (cats. 82, 86, 89) and may point to a date at the end of Gossart’s life. However, as this dating is based more on intuition than on any firm evidence, it seems better to maintain for now a somewhat broader dating to approximately his last fifteen years. The drawing could be a modello, made for the final approval of the commission, but also a ricordo, to be kept as a SA record of a completed project.’ Drawings

361

Copyrighted material

1.

2.

Compare, for instance, the watermark reproduced in Briquet 1923, vol. 4, no. 12519, and many similar watermarks. The provenance given by Herzog (1968a, p. 408, under no. p. 16) mentions Ambroise Firmin-Didot (1790-1876), but this 1s probably based on a misunderstanding: there is no record of his having owned the drawing, and it does not bear his collector's mark (Lugt 119).

3.

1s

told by Jacobus de

Voragine in his Legenda aurea (The Golden Legend) (Voragine 2007 [ed.], vol. 2, pp. 1184, 1186, 1188; for an English translation, see Voragine 1993 [ed.|, vol. 2, pp. 243-46). For Saint Leonard, see also Réau 1955-59,

pt. 2 (1958), pp. 799-802; Cigmitt1 1966; and Dinnminger 1974. A sculpted fifteenth-century retable at the church of Saint-Leonard in Léau (Dutch 3,

Zoutleeuw) includes most of the scenes depicted in Gossart’s drawing (Engelen 1993, pp. 186-90, 1ll.). 4. Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 1184; the translation is 5.

taken from Voragine 1993 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 243. For the ex-voto, which sull hangs over the tomb, see

Robinne 1988, p. 23; for the pilgrims’ badges, see Koster 1983, pp. 21—42; Robinne 1988, p. 24; and Engelen 1993, p. 200. 6.

For Saint Remuigius, see Reau 1955-59, vol. 3, pt. 3 (1959), pp. 1144-47; Platelle and Celletti 1968; and G. Nitz 1976.

Mentioned in Cignitti 1966, col. 1200. 8. Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 1186; the translation 1s taken from Voragine 1993 (ed.), vol. 2, p. 244. 9. Ludwig Baldass, who mm 1915 had attributed the drawing to Bernard van Orley, later suggested (in 1937) that the drawing could be a copy by Gossart 7.

after Van Orley (Baldass 1915, p. 230; Baldass 1937a, p. 122). The suggestion that the sheet 1s a copy was also made in Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 341, under no. 69, but was nightly corrected in Haverkamp-

Begemann 1965, 10.

p.

404.

Baldass 1937a, p. 122.

Exhibition: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 69 Literature: Baldass 1915, p. 230, pl. fc. p. 224 (as by Bernard

van Orley); Bock and Rosenberg 1930, vol. 1, pp. 35-36, vol. 2, pl. 27; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 66, no. 19; Wescher 1930, p. 187; Baldass 1937a, p. 122 (as possibly a copy by Gossart after Bernard van Orley); Wescher 1949, p. 264; Folic 1951/1960, pp. 78, 96, n. 13 (as not by Gossart, close to Bernard van Orley); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 69,111. (as probably not by Gossart); BorschSupan 1965, p. 200 (as

not by Gossart); Haverkamp-

Begemann 1965, p. 404 (“closer to Bernard van Orley”); Herzog 1968a, no. p. 16, pls. 107, 478; Philip 1971, p. 23, fig. 35 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 42. no. 19, pl. 67; Dunmnger 1974, col. 308; Steinmetz 1995, no. TB44

362

01. The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl Ca. 1503-9 Pen and different hues 13%6

The life of Saint Leonard

vol.

Jan Gossart

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

X

10'%6 10. (33.9

of black ink xX

(laid down),

27.8 cm)

Signed in pen and black ink (at lower left, on border of gown of man standing in foreground and facing viewer): ANWER and IENNT Framing line in pen and black ink, by the arust Watermark: none(?) Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupfersuchkabinett Kdz 15295 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower left, [A]|rmout de beer van [or von?] Mecheln in pen and black mk (by an

unidentified collector). Verso, counterproof of a drawing in black ink; at lower center, La Sibylle Tiburtine ef Auguste. in graphite (19th- or 2oth-century handwriting) well preserved. The sheet appears to have been cut horizontally and later joined together. There 1s some foxing plus additional stains, tears, and creases, including one at the left of the column on which the putto stands. In the upper half, at left, a loss has been restored by the addition of a piece of paper on which the drawing has been completed by a later hand in brush and gray ink. Condition: The drawing

1s

collection, ?Germany, 16th or 17th century; acquired by the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, Provenance: Private

1934

f all

his early drawings, The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl stands out as arguably Gossart’s best, and certainly his most ambitious, proving that

he was already an innovative master at the beginning of his career. Like the early drawing in Copenhagen (cat. 69), the drawing in Berlin can be assumed to have been made as an autonomous work and to postdate the artists reception as a master in the Antwerp painters’ guild in 1503. (Gossart included the city’s name as part of his signature.) The tight yet lively net of hatching that also characterizes the Copenhagen drawing is put to even more confident effect here, not only modeling the volumes of figures and space but also breathing life into them. The horror vacui and other flaws of the composition cannot be denied, but Gossart nonetheless managed to define the space better than in the drawing in Copenhagen and to make a clearer distinction between what 1s important and what is less so. The drapery 1s also

somewhat less finical, the faces more individualized, and the excitement felt by the participants in the scene more convincingly conveyed. There can be little doubt that the Berlin drawing was made by a more mature artist and should be dated after the one in Copenhagen, as indeed has been the opinion of most scholars. For a story set in ancient Rome, Gossart’s depiction conspicuously lacks any reference to antique or Renaissance architecture, but it 1s tempting to propose a slightly later date than generally assumed. The drawing in Copenhagen is closer to what seems to be the earliest of the drawings dating from Gossart’s trip to Rome (cat. 99), suggesting that the drawing in Berlin could also have been made either later during that trip or even after it.’ The subject depicted here became best known thanks to Jacobus de Voragine’s thirteenth-century collection of the lives of the saints, The Golden Legend, in which it was presented as a prefiguration of the birth of Christ.” When the Roman Senate wanted to deify Augustus, the emperor “refused to usurp the title of immortality” and consulted with a Sibyl to find out whether anyone greater than he would ever be born.” “On the day of Christ's birth . . . a golden circle appeared around the sun, and in the middle of the circle a most beautiful virgin holding a child in her lap.”* Gossart’s Rome 1s decidedly Northern, and some authors have even thought they were able to recognize parts of Antwerp or Brussels in the drawing.’ The sculpted group of Cain slaying Abel to the right of the Virgin and Child—and probably also the minuscule figures on the tower in between, which have been interpreted as representing Abraham sacrificing [saac—could refer to the Passion of Christ.” The bear at lower right might be a reference to the Immaculate Conception or, given the fact that it is depicted in chains, a symbol of evil conquered, but it seems most likely that the bear is a symbol

3 k

Po or

tl 3

EA

Drawing s

303

of a converted pagan, and thus of Augustus

himself.”

The presence of the bear inspired a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century collector (who owned at least one other drawing by Gossart)” to attribute the drawing to the glass painter Arnould (or Aert) de Beer. De Beer was one of the masters (the other being Gossart) of the Liege artist Lambert Lombard: he has often been confounded with his father, the better-known Antwerp Mannerist Jan de Beer.” Arnould does not have been active in Mechelen, and seem no works by him are known today.

to

SA

1962, pp. 145, 154, n. 14; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963,

no. 286, p. 193, under no. 287, p. 195, under no. 290; Boon 1965, pp. 23-24; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 44,11;

Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 199; Bruyn 1965b, p. 463, fig. 32; Haverkamp-Begemann 196s, p. 405; Herzog 1968a, pp. 4, 18, 23-27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37. 44. 55. 57-58, 169, n. 28, p. 208, under no. 4, p. 216, under no. 6, p. 228, under no. 9, p. 234, under no. 12, pp. 383-85, no. D. 2, p. 476, pl. 92; Wescher 1970, p. 100; Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), Supplement, p. 50, no. [28], pl. 70, and in Notes by Henn Pauwels and Sadja Herzog, pp. 118—19, nn. 21, 22; Pigler 1974, vol. 1, p. 481; Trnek 1983, p. 6, n. 41; Dhanens 198s, pp. 123-24, fig. 34: Eric M. Zafran in Washington and other cities 198587, p. 54, under no. 23; Dhanens 1987a, p. 57. fig. 8; Dhanens 1987b, cols. 316-17; Arlette SmolarMeynart in Brussels 1991, p. 41,1ll. p. 39; Folie 1996, p. 27; Georg Girgensohn in Koblenz and other cities 2001-2, p. 72, n. 4; Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 10, ill, p. 46, under no. 12; Mensger 2008a, p. 171

Attributed to Jan Gossart 92. The Adoration of the Holy Lamb and the Crowning of the Virgin Ca, 1515-20(?) 11% in. Pen and brown ink, over black chalk, 13% (33.9 x 29.2 cm) (laid down); scalloped at top At top and bottom, a double framing line in pen and brown ink, with traces of a framing line at left and right, probably by the artist Watermark: none visible because of secondary support

x

Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower

A

1.

slightly later date the a stylistic connection with Gossart’s drawing of sol-

A further argument for

is

a

dier in fantastical armor in Frankfurt (cat. 103), which in all probability was not made before his trip to Rome. An argument against a date after the trip to Rome can be seen in Gossart’s difficulties with foreshortening so evident in the Berlin drawing, which he seems to have mastered by the time he made the Roman sketch now in Leiden (cat. 101); see Herzog 19682, pp. 26-27. tv .

Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 1, pp. 80, 82; for a translation, see Voragine 1993 (ed.), vol. 1, pp. 40—41. For the iconography of the story and its sources, see Bolten 1260-75; and M. Nitz 1971, cols. 225-27. “immortalitatis nomen sib1 noluit usurpare.” Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 1, p. 80. The translation 1s taken from 1937, cols.

3.

Voragine 1993 (ed.), vol.

1, p.

40. She is identified as

the Tiburtine Sibyl—from Tivol (Latin Tibur), west of Rome—in other sources (see Bolten 1937, col. 1270; and Knauer 1970, p. 333.1. 4). 4. “circulus aureus apparuit circa solem et in medio circuli virgo pulcherrima stans super aram puerum gestans in gremio.” Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 1, p. 80. The translation 1s taken from Voragine 2007 (ed.), vol. 1, p. 40. 5.

See Boon 1953, p. 71, n. 4; and Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, p. 193,

6. Folie in Brussels 1963, p. 193; compare Henderson 1968, col. 9; and Lucchesi: Pall: 1968, cols. 28-29. 7.

See Herzog 1968a, pp. 384-85, quoting Stauch 1937, cols. 1442—46. For the chained bear as a symbol of evil conquered, see Zenker 1950, col. 1146, quoting

the second-century Church Father Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, bk. 6, chap. 6). For this collector, see my essay in this volume. 9. For Arnould de Beer, see Ewing 2010. 8.

Exhibitions: Brussels 1963, no. 286; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965,

no. 44; Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 10 Literature: Winkler 1935, p. 31, pl. 32, W. Kronig 1936, p. 130; Friedlander 1924-37. vol. 14 (1937), p. 111; Van Gelder 1942, p. 9; W. Bouleau-Rabaud in Paris 1947, p. 16, under

no. 73; Wescher 1049, p. 263; Boon 1953, p. 71, n. 4; Agnes Mongan in Cambridge (Mass) 1958, p. 32, under no. 19; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 80-81, 95, no. 5, fig. 1; Winkler

364 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

right,

N

177

ATTRIBUE

BERNARD VAN ORLEY (VENTE ROSSY) [or RUSSY?]

in graphite (20th-century handwniting).! On verso of mount, at lower left, collector's mark of Franz Koenigs (Lugt 1023") Condition: The paper

damaged and torn along a vertical fold through the center, and there is a small hole at lower right. There 1s foxing as well as small tears and damage along the left and right edges. 1s

Provenance: N. Beets, Amsterdam;

acquired by Franz Koenigs (1881-1941), Haarlem, 1930; Daniel George van Beuningen (1877-1955), Rotterdam and Vierhouten; given by Damé¢l George van Beuningen to the Museum Boymans (now the Museum Boymans Van Beuningen), Rotterdam, 1940

Ithough the shaky line of this unfairly neglected drawing has almost no counterpart in Gossart’s extant oeuvre, enough comparisons can be made with more or less securely attributed drawings in this catalogue to support an attribution to him. Especially close are some of the more sketchy background scenes—for instance, those of The Adoration of the Magi in Paris (cat. 75) and The Presentation in the Temple in Hamburg (cat. 79). The plant in the foreground in the latter drawing is comparable to the one in front of the fountain of this drawing, where it has

unfortunately been damaged by the vertical fold. The landscape and buildings are

in,

for by the same spiky hand as the views instance, The Conversion of Saul (cat. 87) and Hercules Killing Cacus (cat. 93). The drapery, especially where it is more finished (at lower right and on the angel with the candle in front of God), shows all the characteristics of Gossart’s drapery style;

it

can be compared, among other examples,

Drawings

365§

to that in catalogue number 87. The modeling of the clouds resembles those in the upper part of the window design in Florence (cat. 86). The Holy Lamb itself, with its narrow head, is close to that in the Virgin and

Child with Saint John the Baptist

in London (cat. 73). The fountain displays the same knowledgeable yet imaginative approach to architecture that is a hallmark of Gossart’s style and that is evident in his study of a reliquary in New York (cat. 110); the same can be said of the throne in Gothic style at top. Overall, the drawing’s style can be compared most closely to that of the Adoration in Paris, and it is possible that the two drawings date from about the same time—probablythe second half of

the

1510s.

However, an argument could also be made for dating the drawing to the time

Madrid (cat. 29)—that is, about 1525—30—for both works were clearly inspired by Jan van Eyck’s Ghent Altarpiece, albeit in different ways. As recorded by the sixteenth-century Ghent historian Marcus van Vaernewijck, Gossart knew the famous polyptych well and praised it highly.” The iconography of its lower central panel, depicting the Adoration of the Lamb, and its three upper central panels, depicting the seated Christ flanked by the Virgin and Saint John the Baptist, were basically copied by Gossart in his Madrid painting and followed quite closely by him in the drawing here. The three figures are replaced in Gossart’s drawing by Christ and God the Father, surrounded by clouds and angels and seated on a fantastical throne in Gothic style, who together crown the kneeling Virgin.

of the

Deesis in

Below, in a hilly landscape, Gossart’s Holy Lamb appears above an elaborate

fountain of Gothic invention, the Fountain of Life. Several groups of people have come together to admire the Lamb, and Gossart seems to have followed Van Eyck’s model rather precisely here as well: in Van Eyck’s paradisal vision, clerics gather at lower right; at lower left, a group of famous

heathen men; at upper right, a group of female martyrs, carrying palms; and at upper left, a group of male martyrs, most of them clerics. Gossart is less specific, but 366 JAN

GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

he took care to identity the group at lower right as clerics; one of the men at middle left also wears a miter; and the figures at middle right are recognizable as women by their dresses. Gossart’s drawing is a remarkable paraphrase of Van Eyck’s masterpiece—an intelligent and playful simplification of a famously complex painting—and it 1s surprising that the sheet seems never to have been discussed in the extensive scholarly literature on the altarpiece. Notwithstanding his faithfulness to the main features of Van Eyck’s composition, Gossart introduced some elements that are more typically his own, such as the heavily decorated throne and fountain and the wildly gesticulating figures admiring the holy apparition. It is tempting to relate the drawing to a “watercolor” by Gossart (undoubtedly a tiichlein painting), described in the inventory of the Flemish seventeenth-century painter Philip Fruytiers as a “Crowning of

Our

Lady.”*

determined by the artist's working process and should not be given too much consideration when judging the drawings SA authorship.

|] .

3.

| have not been able to identify any collector with the name Rossy, Rossi, or Russy who could have owned this drawing. For the Ghent Altarpiece, see, among many other publications, Herzner 199s.

of June

and July 8, 1666, published in E. Duverger 1984-2004, vol. 8 (1995), p. 488, under no. 2648: “een schilderye waterferf van de Croonminge Inventory

19

van Onse-Lieve-Vrouwe van Mabuse” Exhibition: Brussels 1935, no. 424 Literature: Brussels 1935, vol. 2, no. 424 (as by Bernard van

Orley)

03. Hercules Killing Cacus Ca. 1520s Pen and brush and brown ink, over a sketch or tracing in black chalk, squared in black chalk, on buff paper, 1476 21%e6 10. (36.7 X §4.5 cm) Watermark: none Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam xX

RP-T-1948-521 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: Verso, at lower left,

308/ Mantegna in black chalk (18th-century handwriting); at right center, FF in pen and brown ink (18th- or 19th-century handwriting? upside down); at upper center, 100 in red chalk (18th- or 19th-century handwriting) 1

Condition: The drawing

well preserved. There are some large stains, including a vertical one down the full length of the sheet, as well as stains and dirt all over the surface and foxing. 1s

Otto Benesch (1896-1964), Vienna, by 1936; private collection, Paris; [Galerie O. Wertheimer, Paris, Provenance:

in 1947]; acquired by the Ryksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, 1948

The drawing’s scalloped top,

however, makes clear that Gossart, at least initially, had a panel in mind, not a canvas. The drawing should be considered a first sketch for a painting or triptych, which Gossart, if he chose to pursue the idea, would probably have worked out in a more finished drawing or in a series of increasingly finished drawings. The searching quality of the line here should, in my opinion, be understood as having been

1.

Jan Gossart

here has been some disagreement over the exact subject of this drawing. The standing man is undoubtedly Hercules, although he is not wearing his usual lion skin. According to the literary sources,’ Hercules was charged to steal the red cattle

belonging to a monster, Geryon, who lived on the island of Erytheia. Hercules not only had to conquer Geryon himself, but also his two-headed watchdog Orthus and herdsman Eurytion. Roman authors continued the story where the Greeks left off: after Hercules took the cattle to Italy, the fire-breathing giant Cacus stole some of the animals and hid them a cave.’ Hercules found them and killed Cacus to take them back. The man being attacked by Hercules in this drawing has been identified as Geryon, Eurytion, and Cacus.’ The latter has been represented slightly more often, and he 1s most likely to be the subject of the Amsterdam drawing.” Gossart omitted most details that usually establish the giants identity, just as he left out Hercules’ lion skin: he did not depict Cacus fire breathing, nor did he illustrate the monster’s habit of feeding on human flesh and nailing the heads of his victims to his

in

as

cave.’ Gossart apparently wanted to concentrate on the heroic figures, not on the narrative; Geryon’s cattle and especially the landscape are indicated in only the sketchiest of ways. The attribution to Gossart by one of

the drawings former owners, the curator of the Albertina, Otto Benesch, has been doubted by some, and others have proposed that the brushwork was added by a later hand.” There is no reason to believe so: without the brushwork, which is perfectly complementary to the penwork, the modeling of the figures would be rather sparse. The argument in favor of the attribution to Gossart should be based on a comparison with his only securely attributed drawing of nudes, the Adam and Eve in Vienna (cat. 65). Although it is less finished, the latter sheet offers enough similarities to allow for both drawings to be by

the same hand: compare the whirling curls of Adam’ facial and pubic hair, his body type, and the hatching in pen used to model the bodies, as well as the leaves around Adam’s loins in the Vienna sheet and in the lower left corner in the Amsterdam sheet. The faces of both Hercules and his victim also compare well with that of the Saint John the Baptist of the so-called Salamanca Triptych (cat. 244). The landscape and the animals in the Amsterdam drawing have been thought to be later additions, but certainly the sketchily indicated background 1s by the same hand as that of a few drawings accepted here as by Gossart, notably catalogue numbers 87 and 90.” Although it is harder to find a parallel in Gossart’s works for the animals in Geryon’s herd, their narrow faces and short, slender legs underpinning some-

what overweight bodies are similar to those of the lambs in a drawing in London and (on a smaller scale) in Berlin (cats. 73, 77) and in the wing with Saint John in the Salamanca Triptych. The painterly combination of pen and brush sets Hercules Killing Cacus apart from all other known drawings by Gossart. Pervaded by the same interest in the human figure as Gossart’s drawn depictions of Adam and Eve (most importantly, cat. 65), likely dates to the 1520s.” Jan van Gelder thought the figure of Cacus was derived from an antique sculpture that Gossart could have seen in Rome in the Grimani collection and that he believed was also the inspiration for Adam in a copy after Gossart in Frankfurt (cat. 67)." Benesch made a more convincing connection with the figure of Laocoon in the celebrated Hellenistic sculpture, which

it

Drawings

367

— COPY 2ianted mater ™N

.

-

-

-

-~

al —-

was unearthed in Rome in 1506 and immediately installed at the Vatican by Pope Julius II; it appears almost impossible

that Gossart would not have seen the statue in Rome.'' The very neat underdrawing in black chalk visible in some parts of the Amsterdam drawing—especially along Hercules’ body—suggests the figure is a tracing of a model rather than a freehand sketch (compare also a drawing probably from Gossart’s circle, cat. 67). The outstretched leg of Cacus is remarkably close to that of Adam in Michelangelo's famous painting of the Creation of Man on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and it also appears in another drawn copy after Gossart, in Providence (cat. 68), as well as in the painting Hercules and Deianira (cat. 3). The position of Hercules’ arms is almost the same as those of the executioner in Gossart’s earlier signed roundel design in Paris (cat. 84), which 1s derived from a print by Diirer. Because Hercules Killing Cacus 1s squared for transfer, it has been thought to be preparatory to a painting, although no related work 1s known today. As noted by Paul Wescher, a signed painting was recorded in the 1580s in the Antwerp collection of the late Ipolito Michaels, described as the “History of Hercules” and signed and dated 1530."" Gossart’s interest in the Labors of Hercules can also be inferred from a painting either copied after a lost original or done in his manner, inscribed with the year 1523 (see fig. 247). Moreover,

painting of the same subject 1s mentioned in a previously unnoticed passage in a seventeenth-century description of the Veronese collection of the Giusti family, where the artist's “good understanding of human anatomy” is singled out for praise." It 1s remarkable enough that any seventeenth-century viewer would appreciate the art of an early sixteenth-century Netherlandish artist. But for the source to be an Italian should be taken as extraordinary praise for Gossart’s mastery in depicting the human body in motion—which Hercules Killing Cacus exemplifies perhaps better than any

1.

368 JAN

GoOssSART’S

SA

RENAISSANCE

FF

inscription should be understood

1

Literature: Dirk Hannema

as a false

Frans Floris monogram; compare, for instance, the autograph monogram £¥ J[N]v on a drawing in the Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, Munich, no. 7008 2.

(Holm Bevers in Munich 1989-90, no. 24, fig. 30). See Brommer 1979, pp. 39—42; Brize 1990, nos. 2462-544; and Brize 1998. The most complete account can be found in the Bibliothéké (bk. 2, chap. sect. 10)

3.

of

the

of

Graf 4.

5.

§,

the story are in Virgil's Aeneid

Early publications on the drawing, up to Van Gelder 1942, pp. 4, 9, call hun Geryon; all others favor Eurytion, except Roéll 1949 and Jos Sterk (in Amsterdam 1986, no. 5), where the figure 1s idenufied as Cacus. The cave features prominently in both Virgil's and

the story of Cacus (see note 3), and the cattle in Gossart’s drawing correof

the number of sponds to the count mentioned by Virgil: “four bulls of surpassing form, and as many heifers of peerless beauty” (Aeneid, bk. vin, verses 207-8; the translation is taken from Virgil 1978 [ed.], vol. 2, p. 75). 6. Compare the prints by Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert after Frans Floris (Riggs 1971, no. 220) and by Hendrick Goltzius (Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 3 [1803], p. 72, no. 231; Nancy Bialler in Amsterdam, Cleveland 1992-93, no. 25, 1lL), which follow Owvid’s and Virgil's texts more precisely. 7.

Van Gelder (1942, p. 4) records that the attribution

was Benesch’s. See Baldass 1937b, pp. s0—-51, and Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 404. The possibility of the later addition of the brushwork, suggested in

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 333, under no. 67, was refuted in Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 404. 8. Haverkamp-Begemann (1965, p. 404) remarks that “the attributes of the figures and their facial types are well in keeping with those used by Gossart, but the landscape and especially the ammals are different,” further suggesting that the latter are “drawn in a mannered late sixteenth-century way.” 9. Bruyn (1965b, p. 464) suggests a date before or about 1520; Herzog (1968a, p. 480) one about 1530. 10. 11.

12.

See cat. 67 in this volume. For the sculpture, see Haskell and Penny 1981, pp. 243~ 47, no. $2, fig. 125, and Bober and Rubinstein 1986, no. 122,11. The connection with Gossart’s drawing was made in Benesch 1957, p. 19, n. 6. Wescher 1949, pp. 263-64. The document

published 12: "a fine, large scene being the 1s

in Denucé 1932, p. history of Hercules, made, as 1t 1s saad in an scription below, by Johannes Malbodius in 1530" (een schoon

13.

groot taeffereel wesende de Historie van Hercules gemaeckt zoo onder daarop geschreven stont by Johannes Malbodius int Jaer xv hondert dertich). “vna gran prattica nelle part del corpo humano.” Pona 1620, pp. 61-62. The painting discussed in the text, which it says was signed JoanNEs MALBODIVS, 1s likely to have been a version of the copy just menuoned. For this painting, now in a Swiss private collection, see fig. 247.

Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1936, no. 46 (drawings); Amsterdam 1963, no. 19; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 67, Amsterdam 1986, no. §

1, p.

70,

34: Boon 1953, p. 65; Benesch 1957, p. 19, n. 20, fig. 10; Folie 1951/1960, p. 86, no. 22, fig. 10; L. C. J. Frerichs in

1997.

Owid’s account

Rotterdam 1936, vol.

p-

so-called Pseudo-Apollodorus.

The main accounts

mn

no. 46 (drawings), vol. 2, fig. $8; Baldass 1937b, pp. 50-51 (as a later copyafter Gossart); Van Gelder 1942, pp. 4, 9; Roéll 1949, p. 36,1ll.; Wescher 1949, pp. 263-64; Roéll 1950,

(bk. 8, verses 190—265) and Ovid's Fasti (bk. 1, verses §43—78). See also Brommer 1984, p. 16; and

a signed

other of his works.

The

Amsterdam 1963, no. 19, ill.; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 67,1ll.; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 200; Bruyn 1965b, p. 464; Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 404 (as possibly “a later interpretation of a mouf by Gossaert”); Herzog 1968a, Pp- 96—97, 421-22, n0. 1. 23, p. 480, pl. 114; Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 114, 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 37; Boon 1978, vol. 1, no. 286, vol. 2,1ll; Jos. Sterk in Amsterdam 1986, no. §,1ll; Silver 1986a, p. 14, fig. 27; Folie 1996, p. 27; Dacos 1999, p- 21, n. 42; Christie's, London 2008, p. 140, under no. 212

Jan Gossart 04—97. Designs

for Stained-Glass Roundels

94. Aegisthus Killing Agamemnon in the Presence of Clytemnestra Ca. 1520s Pen, brush, and black ink, white gouache, on blue-gray prepared paper (laid down), Diam. 11 in. (27.8 cm) Double circular framing line in pen and black ink, by Gossart Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Frits Lugt Collection, Paris §498 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps:

On secondary support,

underneath outer framing line, inscribed L|uca| di Leiden in pen and brown ink (largely cut; 19th-century handwriting). On verso of mount: at upper right, numbered 3 in black chalk (19th-century handwriting)

Jenny Blaker; (sale, Christie's, London, November 26-27, 1974, no. 65, as by Dirk Vellert); Lorna Lowe, London; [Alain Moatti, Paris]; Jacques Petit Horry, Paris; acquired by the Frits Lugt Collection, Paris, 1978 Provenance: Probably

96. A King or Emperor at a Banquet Ca. 1520s Pen, brush, and black ink, white gouache, on blue-gray blue prepared paper (laid down), Diam. 10% in. (27.2 cm)

Double circular framing line in pen and black ink, probably by Gossart Watermark: none visible because

of secondary support

Condition: Some scratches, abrasions, and small tears are

Museum Boyymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam

present, and the surface 1s slightly soiled. The ink 1s probably discolored, while the white heightening in the curtain of the bed has oxidized. The drawing 1s laid

Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower center, a

down on the same secondary support as catalogue numbers 95 and 97 (a square field painted with gold, surrounded bysix framing lines in pen and brown nk, with wash between the fourth and the fifth). Provenance: Jenny Blaker; [P. and D. Colnaghi, London];

acquired by Frits Lugt (1884-1970), The Hague and Paris, 1938; Frits Lugt Collection, Paris

~N

139

collector's blind stamp of Thomas Lawrence (Lugt 2445). On verso of old mount: at lower left, collector's stamp of Franz Koemgs (Lugt 10237) Condition: The drawing

generally well preserved. Abrasion and creases have resulted in a loss of medium, and there 1s a water stain (?) running vertically through 1s

the center. Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830), London; Victor Koch; (sale, Frederik Muller & Co., Amsterdam, November 21, 1929, no. 12); Franz Koenigs (1881— 1941), Haarlem (sold to Van Beuningen); Daniel George van Beuningen (1877-1955), Rotterdam and Vierhouten; given by Damél George van Beuningen to the Museum Boymans (nowthe Museum Boymans Van Beuningen), Rotterdam, 1940 Provenance:

95. A Woman Killing Three Sleeping Men Ca. 1520s Pen, brush, and black ink, white gouache, on blue-gray (27.7 cm) prepared paper (laid down), Diam. 107% Double circular framing line in pen and black ink, probably by Gossart Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Frits Lugt Collection, Paris 1978-T.4

in.

Inscriptions, marks, and stamps:

97. A Woman and Her Handmaid in a Bedroom with a Resting Man

On verso of secondary

support: at lower left, inscribed Lucas van Leyden / Gossaert (?) in graphite (20oth-century handwriting); at lower right, inscribed 2rx [?] / 1mw in graphite (20thcentury handwriting); below, inscribed 17/2/60 1n

graphite (20th-century handwriting); to the right, inscribed 53 in graphite (2oth-century handwriting); below, inscribed 63005 #10 in graphite (2oth-century handwriting)

Ca. 1520s Pen, brush, and black ink, white gouache, on blue-gray prepared paper (lad down), Diam. 11% in. (28.2 ¢m) Double circular framing line in pen and black ink, by Gossart Watermark: none visible because of secondary support The Fitzwilham Museum, Cambridge pp. 356-1963 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps:

Condition: The sheet

abraded, especially at left and right. The preparation 1s darker than in catalogue number 94, and the contrast between the ink and the color of the paper is less distinct. The drawing 1s lad down on the same type of secondary support as catalogue numbers 94 and 97 but is cut around the drawing, leaving a small strip of the gold pated mount. 1s

On secondary support,

underneath outer framing line, almost entirely cut, probably inscribed Luca di] L[eiden] in pen and brown ink (compare cat. 94). On verso of secondary support: at center, numbered 657 in graphite (20th-century handwriting); below, inscribed Francesco Primaticao in graphite (20oth-century handwriting); at lower left, collector's mark of Bruce Ingram, with the 4 underneath (Lugt 1405)

Condition: The drawing

generally well preserved, but the sheet is abraded in several places, especially at center and in the upper half. There are losses and small tears along the edge, several creases, and a diagonal fold running from lower left to upper right above center. The mk 1s shghtly faded, particularly underneath the column at left and in the background. The drawing 1s laid down on the same type of secondary support as catalogue numbers 94 and 95 (a square field painted with gold, surrounded by six framing lines in pen and brown ink, with blue wash between the fourth and 1s

fifth).

Jenny Blaker, London; [P. & D. Colnaghi, London]; acquired by Bruce Ingram, 1939; bequeathed by Bruce Ingram to the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 1963 Provenance: Probably

hese four drawings of approximately the same size, made by the same

hand with the same technique, are generally discussed together. In addition, at least four other round drawings on blue or dark-colored paper have been associated with Gossart’s name: The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist in Paris (cat. 84); a Judgment of Paris in Edinburgh (see fig. 304); and an Allegory ofJustice in Vienna and an Allegory of Fortune in Hamburg (see figs. 305, 300). The Beheading is signed; the three latter works are more likely by two (possibly three) artists from Gossart’s circle. All of these drawings clearly derive their form and size from stained-glass roundels, which were particularly popular in the Low Countries in the first half of the sixteenth century.’ Of the four associated drawings noted above, only the one in Rotterdam (cat. 96) was known to Max Friedlander and

Jacqueline Folie. Characteristically, the former accepted it as by Gossart, but the latter did not, seeing it instead as closer to the work of Bernard van Orley, to whom A. E. Popham had attributed the sheet when he first published it in 1928. Popham, somewhat equivocally, felt that “Mabuse 1s the only other artist to whom the drawing might be attributed, but though there are obvious similarities with his style these are to be accounted for by the influence which he exercised Drawings

369

ot PRR

Cat. 94

370

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

REE

ee Ee hE |

Ta.

Cat. 95

Drawings

371

Cat. 96

372

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Cat. 97

Drawings

373

over Orley at the time.” He later changed his mind and accepted three of the four sheets as autograph works by Gossart

(he did not know of cat. 95).* Most recent scholars, notably Karel Boon and Josua Bruyn, agree that, as Boon wrote, it would be “absurd . . . to deny the

connection between Gossaert’s drawings and this exceptional group of projects for stained glass, which are among the finest specimens of the genre.”* Boon, accordingly, catalogued them as attributed to Gossart, but for Bruyn, certain dissimilarities between the four sheets and the signed roundel in Paris (cat. 84) ultmately made it impossible for him to accept the four as autograph, and he assigned them instead to an artist from Gossart’s circle.

The Beheading in Paris 1s a relatively early work and should probably be dated to within five years after Gossart’s trip to Rome, in 1508-9. His style developed considerably afterward, and any comparison to the Beheading should take into account that in some ways it belongs more to Gossart’s so-called Antwerp Mannerist period than to the later phase of his career. With respect to technique, the roundels can also be compared with Gossart’s drawing The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Another Female Saint in Vienna (cat. 70), another early work, and the Adam and Eve in Chatsworth (cat. 64), one of the drawings that, insofar as his drawn oeuvre is

and 88, whose fluid lines, moreover, match well with those of the four roundel designs, as do the facial features and body types of many of the figures; the same can be said of the scenes from the life of Saint Giles in Copenhagen (cat. 89). In the Rotterdam drawing (cat. 96), which best preserves the contrast between the dark background and the black pen lines, compare the man at right behind the boy pouring wine to the man just above the emperor in catalogue number 88. The drapery in the round drawings, although mostly heightened with white gouache, compares well, too: look at the two standing men at left in the Rotterdam sheet and the drapery in the main figures in catalogue number 89. The four drawings also share a similar use of ornament, whose elegance and relative restraint is akin to that in catalogue numbers 78, 79, and 9o. The winged lions’ paws, which are prominent in catalogue numbers 94 and 97, as well as the small socle at upper center in catalogue number 94, are very close to those decorating the altar or socle in catalogue number 88. Many more

connections with can be made, and in my opinion they conclusively show that the four roundel designs are autograph and, indeed, “among the finest specimens of the genre.” There Gossart’s mature drawings

has been much disagreement about their

1.

For Netherlandish stained-glass roundcls and designs for them, see New York 1995.

Popham 1928. 3. Popham’s changed opinion 1s recorded in London 1953—54, p. 136, under no. 498. 4. Boon 1992, vol. 2, p. 208, under no. 114. For Bruyn’ opinion, see Bruyn 1965b and Paris 1994, p. 44, under 2.

no, 16. 5.

Tunothy

B.

Husband in New York 1995,

p. 120.

Cat. 94. Aegisthus Killing Agamemnon in the Presence of Clytemnestra Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 57; Florence, Paris

1980-81, no. 88 Literature: K. T. Parker and James Byam Shaw 1953, p.

in London

66, under no. 257, K. T. Parker and James Byam

Shaw in London 1953-34, p. 136, under no. 498; Thomas and John Baskett in Washington and other cities 1959—60,

under no 39; Carlos van Hasselt in Rotterdam, Amsterdam 1961-62, p. 43, under no. 42 (as attributed to Gossart); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 283, under no. 55, pp. 200-92, no. §7 (as attributed to Gossart); Bruyn 1965b, p- 17,

467 (as not by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, no. 0. 17, p. 477, pl. 108; Wescher 1970, pp. 106-7; Boon 1976, p. 342, fig. 11; Michael Jaffe et al. in New York and other cities 1976-77, p-

PP. 45—46, under no. 72,1ll.; Cambridge 1980, pp. 9-10;

Karel G. Boon in Florence, Paris 1980-81, no. 88, pl. 10; Andrews 1985, vol. 1, p. 33, under no. p 652; Emmanuelle Brugerolles, with David Guillet, in Paris, Hamburg 1985-86, p. 90, under no. 42; J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 181, under no. 65, n. 4; Dhanens 1987b, col. 319(?); Carl Depauw in Antwerp 1988,

under no. 1; Boon 1992, vol. 1, no. 114, vol. 3, pl. 12 (as attributed to Gossart); Josua Bruyn in Paris 1994, p. 44, under no. 16 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart), Timothy B. Husband in New York 1995, p. 131, fig. 2 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, p. 44, under no. 11 (as attributed to Gossart) p. $5,

subject matter, and only that of catalogue number 94 has been successfully identi-

Cat. 95.

fied: Aegisthus, Clytemnestra’s lover, kill-

Exhibitions: Florence, Paris 1980-81, no. 89; Amsterdam 1992; Paris 1994, no. 16

Gossart’s late drawings, especially those in the portrait of Christian II (cat. 111), the tomb design in Berlin (cat. 108), and the ceiling design in Florence (cat. 109). In

ing her husband, King Agamemnon. It has been remarked before in connection with these roundels that all of them “are finished designs, that no working drawings exist, and that no roundels based on these designs are extant [, which] may leave open the possibility that these drawings were intended as objects for a collector’s cabinet and were never meant to be executed.” But a roundel after the early drawing in Paris does exist (see fig. 279),

the same sheet, the knot in the woman's hair and the vasiform columns decorated with rams” heads recall several of Gossart’s works. The soldier fits within the artist's interest in all’antica armor and 1s especially close to figures in catalogue numbers 87

and other professional designers of stained glass sometimes worked on blue paper using a similar technique, although most of these drawings are clear designs done in a simple style and in pen and ink, at most finished with some added wash. SA

known to us, introduced Gossart’s mature style in about 1520. A further comparison of style and motifs can be made between the four roundel designs and certain other drawings not on blue paper. For instance, the putto at lower left in catalogue number 94 can be compared with many similar infants in

374

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

A Woman Killing Three Sleeping Men

Literature: Karel G. Boon in Florence, Paris 1980-81, no. 89, pl. 11:). Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 181, under no. 65, n. 4; Carl Depauw in Antwerp 1988, p- 55, under no. 1; Boon 1992, vol. 1, no. 115, vol. 2, pl. 13 (as

attributed to Gossart); Josua Bruyn in Paris 1994, no. 16,1ll. (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); Timothy B. Husband in New York 199s, p. 131 (as by an artist from the arrcle of Gossart); Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 20056, p. 44, under no. 11 (as attributed to Gossart)

Cat. 96. A King or Emperor at a Banquet Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1914, no. 20; Rotterdam 1936, no. 41

(drawings); Ghent 1955, no. 177; Mechelen 1958, no. 181;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no.

55

Literature: Popham 1928 (as by Bernard van Orley);

Frederik Muller 1929, no. 12,1ll; Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 66, no. 22; Dirk Hannema in Rotterdam 1934, no. 20, pl. vi; Dirk Hannema in Rotterdam 1936,

vol. p.

1,

p.

69, no.

41

st: Rosenberg

(drawings), vol. 2, fig. 52; Baldass 1937b,

1938, p. 43; Van Gelder 1942, pp.

9-10;

J. C. Ebbinge Wubben in Rotterdam 1948-49, no. 50; K. T. Parker and James Byam Shaw in London 1953, p. 66, under no. 257; K. T. Parker and James Byam Shaw

in London

Jan Gossart

08. A Women’s Bath

1953—54, p. 136,

under no. 498; E. Bille-De-Mot in Ghent 1955, no. 177; Mechelen 1958, no. 181; Thomas and John Baskett in Washington and other cities 1959-60, p. 17, under no. 39; Fohe 1951/1960, pp. 78, 96, n. 13 (as not by Gossart, close to Bernard van Orley); Carlos van Hasselt in Rotterdam, Amsterdam 1961-62, p. 43, under no. 42 (as attributed to Gossart); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. ss, p. 291, under no. 57 (as attributed to Gossart); Bruyn

Ca. 1520-25 Pen and brown ink, over black chalk, squared in black chalk (laid down), 147% x 19% mn. (37.9 x $0.2 cm) Framing line in pen and brown ink at left, right, and bottom Watermark: a crowned jug’ The British Museum, London 1924-5-12-1

1965b, p. 467 (as not by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, no. ». 27,

lower right, inscribed M: Angelo Bonarotti : fle] in pen and brown nk?

pl. 118 (as by an artist from the circle

of Gossart, or not

related to him); Wescher 1970, pp. 106-7; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 42—43, no. 22, pl. 68, and in Notes by Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog, p. 118, n. 20; Michael Jaffé et al. in NewYork and other cites 1976—77, p. 45. under no. 72, 1ll.; Karel G. Boon in Florence, Paris 1980-81, p. 127, under no. 88 (as attributed to Gossart); Andrews 1985, vol. 1, p. 33, under no. np. 652; Dhanens 198s, p. 110; J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 181, under no. 65, n. 4; Dhanens 1987a, p. 59, fig. 9; Dhanens 1987b, col. 319; Carl Depauw mn Antwerp 1988, p. 55, under no. 1; Boon 1992, vol. 1, p. 208, under no. 114 (as attributed to Gossart); Josua Bruyn in Paris 1904, p. 44, under no. 16 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); Timothy B. Husband in New York 1995, p. 131 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, p. 44, under no. 11 (as attributed to Gossart)

Cat.

97. A Woman

and Her Handmaid in a Bedroom with a

Resting Man Exhibitions: Oxford 1942; Bath 1952, no. 1; London 1952,

no. 27; London 1953, no. 257; London 1953-54, no, 498; Washington and other cities 1959-60, no. 39; Rotterdam, Amsterdam 1961-62, no. 42; New York and other cities 1976-77, no. 72; Cambridge 1980, pp. 9-10 Oppé¢ in London 1952, London p. 6, no. 27; K. T. Parker and James Byam Shaw 1953, no. 257; K. T. Parker and James Byam Shaw in London Literature: Bath 1952, no. 1;A.

P.

in

no. 498; Thomas and John Baskett in Washington and other cites 1959-60, no. 39; Carlos van Hasselt in 1953—54,

Rotterdam, Amsterdam 1961-62, no. 42, fig. (as attributed to Gossart); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 283, under no. ss, p. 287, under no. $6, p. 291, under no. $7 (as attributed 1

to Gossart); Wescher 1970, pp. 106-7; Michael Jaffe et al. in New York and other cities 1976-77, no. 72,1ll.; Cambridge 1980, pp. 9-10; Karel G. Boon in Florence, Paris 1980-81, p. 127, under no. 88 (as attributed to Gossart); Andrews 1985, vol. 1, p. 33, under no. p 652]. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 181, under no. 65, n. 4; Carl Depauw in Antwerp 1988, p. $5, under no. 1; Boon 1992, vol. 1, p. 208, under no. 114 (as attributed to Gossart); Josua Bruyn in Paris 1994, p. 44, under no. 16 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart), Timothy B. Husband in New York 199s, p. 131 (as by an arust from the circle of Gossart); Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, 11 (as attributed to Gossart) Pp. 44, under no.

Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At

Condition: There is abrasion in several areas, especially at lower left, lower center, and upper right, with

damage and losses at lower left and along the edges. The corners at lower left and night and upper night are missing. The paper surface 1s soiled.

London; acquired from E. C. Allwood by the British Museum, London, 1924 Provenance: E. C. Allwood,

the doubts expressed by some I agree with A. E. Popham that this drawing is “certainly an original by Gossaert,” an opinion shared by Jacqueline Folie.” Popham compared the drawing to the Adam and Eve in Vienna (cat. 65), and it 1s this monogrammed sheet that allows us to connect A Women’s Bath to the artist’s core group of drawings. Although Sadja Herzog was right in asserting that “the use almost exclusively of contour drawing and parallel shading is unlike Gossart’s attested works," this can be explained, I believe, in terms of the function of the sheet, not its authorship. As Maryan Ainsworth shows in the present volume (see her essay on Gossart’s working methods), the emphasis on contour and the manner of shading presumably identify this drawing as preparatory to a full-scale cartoon for a painting. espite DD scholars,

it

Squared for transfer in black chalk, would have provided a precise model for the author of the cartoon—maybe Gossart himself, maybe an assistant. The stylistic features described by Herzog correspond exactly with the underdrawing of, most notably, the Adam and Eve in the British Royal Collection (cat. 2; compare fig. 78). A drawing similar in type, although some-

what drier in execution, is the Virgin of Humility in Munich (cat. 74). Because Gossart’s use of cartoons seems to date to

between about 1520 and 1527, both drawings can be assigned to this period. That is slightly later than the date proposed by Popham, but it does roughly correspond with that of the Adam and Eve in Vienna. As with a well-known drawing by Dirk Vellert of a female bath attendant, which is based on a proportion study by Albrecht Diirer,” Gossart’s figures appear to be based less on direct observation from life than on other artists’ models. This dependence caused the composition to fall apart into eight individual figure studies, which are not always well integrated in the space, as with the “floating” woman upper left and the uncomfortably tilted woman below. Similar awkwardness can

at

be observed in other of Gossart’s drawings. Many sources for the drawing have

been suggested, but, characteristically, Gossart transformed whatever these were into something of his own.” The most convincing connections are to Jacopo de’ Barbari’s engraving of Venus (fig. 205), for the standing woman at center combing her hair while she looks in a mirror;” and to the Spinario (fig. 48), which can be recognized—in reverse and with the right arm on the inside, not the outside, of the leg—in the seated woman manicuring her toenails at left. Gossart may have made studies of the sculpture from a different viewpoint than the one known to us now (cat. 101), but because it was probably exhibited on a rather high pedestal, he might not have been able to draw it from slightly above, as the figure is seen here. It has been suggested that Gossart used one of the many prints after the statue,” but it 1s more probable that he worked from a three-dimensional replica. similar in the The woman at right modeling of her back and the locks on her shoulder (but not in our viewpoint of her) to the figure of Minerva in Marcantonio Raimondi’s famous Judgment of Paris after Raphael of about 1517-20.” Even closer is the upper body of the figure in another print after a Raphaelesque model (fig. 287)." The woman reclining at lower left in Gossart’s drawing has been compared to the river god at lower left in Raimondi’s Judgment of Paris, but other

is

Drawings

375

sources—both antique and modern—have also been suggested." The pentimento in the woman’ left arm is noteworthy, as it shows that Gossart continued to rework the composition, even though it was not a first sketch. In fact, there 1s evidence that at least some of the figures’ contours were traced from preceding sketches. What has remained visible of the chalk underdrawing, especially in the reclining woman and in the one leaning at upper left (notice the former’ second right thigh), has a neatness that points to a tracing—a method Gossart seems to have used in other drawings as well (see my essay in this volume). If the function of the drawing as preparatory to a cartoon now seems clear, is less certain what kind of painting the cartoon was made for. Gossart’s drawing is undoubtedly a genre scene—the only one known by him. fits within the Northern tradition of bathing scenes, not only in book illumination but also in painting, as attested by documented examples by Jan van Eyck and by Gossart’s contemporary Hans Baldung." Even more widespread are prints of the subject, which particularly flourished in Germany." Such gently erotic art must have appealed to the taste

it

It

of some

the

patrons Gossart knew, including Philip of Burgundy and Philip of Cleves. It 1s documented that the former gave the latter “a large painting of two nude figures of Mars and Venus, which can be closed with wings” and “another large painting of a pretty girl who undresses herself” (probably Bathsheba).'* It is possible that A Women’s Bath was made in of

connection with a large panel or canvas painting to satisfy a patron’s particular taste. Given the subject of the drawing, it can also be thought that it was meant for a mural painting in a bathhouse (see the Ainsworth essay previously mentioned), but most of the extant or documented examples of this kind of decoration— most famously, Raphael's bathroom at the Vatican for Cardinal Bibiena—indicate that the eroticism of the frescoes was veiled in references to ancient art and mythology." One mural depicting a more or less realistic bathhouse—with the sexes mixed—is known, and in an episcopal 376 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

palace no less: Albrecht Altdorfer’s now badly damaged frescoes in Regensburg, dated about 1532." Could Gossart’s drawing have been related to a similar project on a smaller scale? Whatever the answer, his composi-

tion seems to have had some influence on later Netherlandish artists. If the dating of an engraving of a women’s bath to about 1529—36 1s correct, its designer, identified by Giorgio Vasari as the Netherlandish artist Michiel Coxie, seems to have been aware of Gossart’s composition.'” A painting and two related drawings that can be attributed to the circle of the late sixteenth-century Antwerp painter Jacob de Backer echo Gossart’s design without actually quoting it, as does a comparable later composition by the Flemish artist Artus Wolffort."® Unless these similarities are coincidental, the seeming influence of Gossart’s composition suggests that it must

have been more publicly accessible than a mural painting in the private quarters of SA a castle would have been.

Fig. 287. Marco da Ravenna, after Raphael (or Giulio Romano?), The Birth of Venus, ca. 1515-20. Engraving, 10%6 X 6'%6 In. (26.1 X 17.3 cm). The British

Museum, London, Department of Prints and Drawings (H.7.57) 11.

1.

te .

3.

According to Popham (1932, p. 18, under no. 2); because of the secondary support, the watermark could not be examined for this catalogue. According to Popham (ibid.), the verso showed “some partially obliterated hieroglyphics of the seventeenth or eighteenth century”

Ibid; Folie 1951/1960,

p. 95.

Herzog 1968a, p. 427, no. p. 26, 5. For this drawing, see cat. 65. 6. For these comparisons, see Oberheide 1933, pp. 51, 142; W. Kromg (1936) also adds de’ Barbari’s print to these sources. See also the literature in the following notes. Popham (1932, p. 19, under no. 2) also compared the seated woman 1n the center background with an etching of Hercules and Deianira attributed to Gossart (cat. 116), but this similarity seems only

p. 76, n. 24. 12.

13.

4.

14.

For other paintings of similar subjects, see Denhaene 1975. For Philip of Cleves, see Stephanie

Schrader’ essay on Gossart’s mythological nudes in this volume.

8.

15.

this must be coincidental, as that statue could not be studied from behind (see fig. 288), and no replicas after it are known. 1972, p. 144, under no. 453, fig. 144.

For the stufetta of Cardinal Bibiena, see Oberhuber 1972, pp. 141-47. For the “appartement des bains™ at the chiteau of Ecouen, see Crépin-Leblond 2001; for the stufette of Giulio Aquili, see Dacos 2000. For bathhouses in medieval and early modern Europe, see Wolfthal 2010. For fifteenth-century bathrooms of members of the House of Burgundy, which were mostly decorated with wamscoting in Scandinavian wood, see De Jonge 2001.

Wellesley 1981-82, no. 43, 1ll. Herzog (1068a, p. 427, under no. p. 26) observes the similarity in pose with the statue in Gossart’s drawing in Venice (cat. 99), but

Oberhuber

Inventory of Philip of Cleves’ castle at Wynendaele, dated April 1, 1528, quoted in Olivier 2007, p. 156: “ung grand tableau de deux personnaiges nudz de mars ct Venus, cloz de feuillet” and “ung autre grand tableau de paincture d'une belle fille qui se désabille.” See also Sterk 1980, pp. 73, 125-26; and Olivier 2007, p. 156.

no. 226, vol. 2, pl. 148), but it 1s unlikely Gossart would have known this sketch.

ro. Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 14 (1813), p. 243, no. 323;

234-35, nos. C 187-Cl 194, pp. 248-49,

nos. Ec 1—Ec 28, ill.

Folie (1951/1960, p. 91, under no. 16) also mentions a comparable drawing by Durer in the British Museum, London (no. §218-132; see Rowlands 1993, vol. 1,

See W. Kromg 1936, p. 76: and Herzog 1968a, p. 427, under no. p. 26. 9. Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 14 (1813), pp. 197-98, no. 245; Innis H. Shoemaker in Lawrence, Chapel Hill,

For paintings of women bathing by Jan van Eyck and other Netherlandish artists, see Dhanens 1980, pp. 206-11. For Baldung, sce Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, no. 2107 (von der Osten 1983, no. Kop. 91, ill; see also von der Osten 1983, no. v 118). For bathhouse scenes in prints and drawings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see, among recent publications, Anne Rover-Kann in Bremen 2001; and Isabelle Bardiés-Fronty and Michele Bimbenet-Privat in Paris, Ecouen 2009, PP.

accidental. 7.

See entries for cats. 67, 93; see also W. Kromg 1936,

16.

For Altdorfer’s murals, see Winzinger 1975, pp. nos. 80-89, ill.

5556,

~

BEE

~

Te

]

«

vol. 2, p. 309; Vasari 1550, 1568/ 1966-87, vol. 5 (1984), p. 22. Since the print’s maker, Agostino

17. Vasari 1568,

Musi, and Coxie were together in Rome only between ca. 1529 and 1536, 1t must be dated to this period (for the artists, see Johns 1996; and Witcombe 1996). If, however, the attribution of the design or the date of the print turns out to be different, 1s probable that the print should be seen as having inspired Gossart, and not the other way around. For the painting connected to De Backer,see Bimbenet-Privat in Paris, Ecouen 2009, no. Ec 28, ill.

it

A drawing that

probably either a copy after the painung or another version of is in the Musée du Louvre, Paris, no. 8745 (ibid., no. Ec 27,11); another copy is in the Staatliche Graphische Sammlung in 1s

it

.

.

ed

yyo

>

Tas.

SF or Mw 7 -

.

FS

—

)

=

A

P

]

18.

ii

:

4

-

§

!

A vp v

Ld

.

™

Vad

-

=-

+ Y

phe.

™

"

y

-

i

’

25]

al

Munich, no. 13796 (Wegner 1973, vol. 1, no. 215, vol. 2, pl. 235). For the Backer, see most recently Leuschner 2008. A replica of the painting by Wolffort 15 1n the Musée du Louvre, Paris, no. MNR 407 (Bimbenet-Privat in Paris, Ecouen 2009, no. Ec 13, ill; Foucart 2009, p. 343,1l.)

Exhibition: London 1973 Literature: Popham 1925, pp. 209-10,

ill; Popham

1926b,

pp: 89-90, ill; Wescher 1928, p. 366; Friedlinder 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 67, no. 25; Popham 1932, pp. 18-19, no. 2;

Oberheide 1933, pp. 55, 142; W. Kronig 1936, pp. 76-77; Van Gelder 1942, p. 8, fig. 8: Wescher 1949, p. 263, fig. 3; Schwarz 1953, p. 161, n. 23; Marlier 1954, p. 34; Folie

1951/1960, pp. 85, 86, no. 16, p. 95, fig. 8; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, p. 192, under no. 285; Dacos 1964, p. 20, n. 2; Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 403; Herzog 1968a, no. 0. 26, pl. 117 (as by a follower of Gossart); Lugt 1968, p- 35, under no. 107; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), 43, no. 25, pl. 68; ]. Richard Judson and John Oliver Hand in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 181, under

p-

no. 65, p. 289, under no. 113 (as attributed to Gossart); Timothy B. Husband in New York 199s, pp. 131, 133, fig. § (as attributed to Gossart); Céale Scailliérez in Paris 2000-2001, p. 212, under no. 53, fig. $3a; Anna Rover-Kann in Bremen 2001, p. 37, fig. 4.2; Nakada 2009, p. 123, under no. s, fig. 16b, 23;Van Ooteghem 2009, p. 25, fig.

11.3

Drawings

377

Copyrighted material

Jan Gossart

99. The Apollo Citharoedus of the Casa Sassi 1509

Pen and brown ink, over a sketch in black chalk (laid down on Japanese tissue), 12% x 7 in. (30.8 x 17.7 cm) Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Gallerie dell’Accadema, Venice 455 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower left, stamp

of

the

Accademia delle Belle Arti (Luge 188) Condition: The ink has faded somewhat, especially at lower right. There are some tears and stains on the

paper surface, and corners are cut.

a

hole at lower center. The four

Provenance: Giuseppe Bossi (1777-1815), Milan; Luigi

Celott (1759-1843), Milan; acquired with the collection of Luigi Celotti by the Gallerie dell’ Accademia, Venice, 1822

he first of Gossart’s Roman studies to become known, this may also be the earliest, as well as “the first large Netherlandish drawing of a nude.”" Compared to his three other known Roman studies (cats. 100—102), the drawing style here 1s more finical and relates more closely to the early drawing in Copenhagen (cat. 69), especially in the drapery. As was first

determined by Max Friedlander, this drawing was made after a Roman copy of a Hellenistic sculpture representing Apollo with his cithara, or lyre (fig. 53). During the first half of the sixteenth century, the Apollo Citharoedus was in the collection of Decidio and Fabio Sassi and displayed in the courtyard of the Casa Sassi (located at via del Governo Vecchio 48), as recorded in a drawing by Maarten van Heemskerck (fig. 288). The sculpture was acquired in 1546 from Fabio Sassi by Odoardo Farnese, who had the missing left arm and the lower right arm completed before 1552. Gossart’s drawing does not show the sculpture as he must have seen it in Rome in 1508—9 and as it was recorded by an anonymous Netherlandish artist before any restorations were undertaken. Most notably, he slightly modified the position of the feet, thereby stressing the figure’s almost feminine elegance.” Gossart also completed Apollo's lower right arm and entire left arm, 378

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

replaced the lyre with an ornamented throne (probably of his own invention), and extended the sculpture’s drapery. It was not uncommon for artists to complete ancient sculpture when representing it; Marcantonio Raimondi’s prints of the same Apollo Citharoedus (fig. 289)° completed the sculptures arms in a different way than Gossart.

This discrepancy between Gossart’s drawing and the sculpture as he must have seen it while visiting the Sassi collection makes one wonder whether the drawing was actually made after life, as has generally been assumed, or was instead based on a drawing made after life. The sketch in black chalk visible under the left arm makes clear that Gossart experimented on the sheet itself with the position of the arm he wanted to add, yet there is no interruption in the line linking the added the rest of the body. The underarm drawing visible elsewhere, notably along

Fig. 288. Maarten van Heemskerck, The Sculpture Court of the Casa Sassi in Rome, 1532-37. Pen and brown nk, brown wash, 916 x 87% 1n. (23 x 21.5 cm). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett (kdz 2783)

to

Apollo's left hip, seems neater. The overall finish of the drawing and the differences in underdrawing make it probable that Gossart worked from a sketch that con-

formed more to reality. Nonetheless, given that the style of catalogue number 99 1s closely comparable to that of Gossart’s early drawings, the traditional dating of the sheet to his trip to Rome must be correct. In the sixteenth century the sculpture was known not as a lyre-bearing Apollo but, in the words of the Italian naturalist Ulisse Aldrovandi, as “a hermaphrodite, larger than life and clothed from the middle down; he has woman's hair and holds his right arm on his head.”” Gossart may have been inspired by this mistaken identification to use the Apollo's torso and the position of the arm held over his head in his painting Hermaphroditus and Salmacis (cat. 32). The position of the right arm reappears in a roundel design by Gossart in Cambridge (cat. 97), while the legs of his Venus in Rovigo (cat. 34) seem also to be based on the drawing.” SA

Fig. 289. Marcantonio Raimond, The Apollo Citharoedus of the Casa Sassi, ca. 1510-27.

Engraving, 12% X §'%6 1n. (31.3 X 14.4 cm). The Brinsh Museum, London, Department of Prints and Drawings (H-2-85)

Drawings

379

Copyrighted material

1.

[5

.

3.

“Die erste grosse niederlandische Akt-Zeichnung.” Held 1931, p. 118. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoh, no. 6262 (Stefama Pafurmi in Gaspari 2009, no. 43,111). The connecuon was first made in Friedlander 1916, pp. 124-25. For other Roman copies of this type, see Bober and Rubinstein 1986, no. 34.

1964, p. 20; Benesch 1965, p. 92; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965,

no. 48,1ll., p. 287, under no. $6; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 199; Bruyn 1965b, p. 463; Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 405;

Herzog 1968a, pp. 22, 23, 42, 46—48, 61, 111, pp. 208, 209, under no. 4, p. 211, under no. §, pp. 323—24, under no. 58, PP. 391-92, no. 0. 6, p. 427, under no. 26, p. 476, pl. 96; Wescher 1970, p. 101; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972),

Michachs 1891a, pp. 170-72, fig. 9; Hiilsen and Egger 1913-16, vol. 1, pp. 42~45, pl. 81; Martha Wolff in

no. 27, pl. 69; Grosshans 1980, p. 33; Sterk 1980, Pp. 22, 23, 126, fig. 20; Judson 1981, p. 337; Stephen Paul Fox in Rome 1983, p. 96, under no. 39; Alba Costamagna in Rome 1984, p. 131, under no. 44, ill; Judson 1985a, pp. 16,

p. 43,

Washington, New York 1986-87, no. 69,11. The famous print after the drawing by Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert (Veldman 1993—94, vol. 2, no. 586, 1ll.),

“probably copy after Heemskerck™ (as proposed in Veldman 1993-94, vol. 2, p. 247. under no. 586). For

Friedlander 1986, p. 128; Judson 1986, pp. 17, 20; Silver 1986a, pp. 1-2, 10, 18, fig. 4; J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, PP. 178-79, no. 64,1ll,, p. 181, under no. 65, p. 185, under no. 67; Dhanens 1987b, cols. 313-14; Friso Lammertse in Museum Bogymans Van Beuningen 1994, pp. 176-77, fig. a, under no. 36; Arnout Balis in Brussels, Rome 1995, p. 211, under no. 107; Annalisa Perissa Torri in Venice 1999,

the Sassi collection, see Hulsen and Egger 1913-16, vol. 1, pp. 42~45; and Lanciami 1989-2002 (ed.), vol.

no. $3, 1ll.; Echinger-Maurach 1999, p. 427; Paul Nieuwenhuizen in Bartehngs, De Klerck, and Slater

dated

reverses the view

1553,

of the courtyard

as

18; Judson 1985b, p. 50, fig. 2;

it

was in reality. There seems no reason to doubt

Heemskerck's authorship of the model engraved by Coornhert (as does Ilja Veldman in Amsterdam 1986, p. 267, under no. 147) or to assume that the drawing 1s

a

1,

PP- 234, 235.

4. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupfersuchkabinetr,

no. 79 p 2a, fol. 65v (Hiilsen and Egger 1913-16, vol. 2, p. 40, pl. 92). For the attribution of the sheet to the so-called Anonymous A of Heemskerck’s Roman

under no. 92; Federico Rausa in Gasparri 2007, p. 163, no. 22.1; Heringuez 2008, pp. 109, 113; Mensger 2008a, p. 171; Stefania Pafumi in Gasparri 2009, p. 100;

sketchbooks, see Hulsen and Egger 1913-16, vol. 2, p- X1v. For other sixteenth-century drawings and prints of the sculpture, see Federico Rausa in Gaspari 2007, p. 163; among these 1s a drawing by Amico Aspertini, which also depicts the sculptures state before restoration, in the British Museum, London, no. 1898-11-23-3-40 (fol. 411; see Bober 1957,

Van

pp- 70-71, fig. 90). 5.

2001, p. 21; Eichberger 2002, p. 35, fig. 40; Mensger 2002, pp- 81, 116, fig. 161; Ariane Mensger in Mechelen 200s,

Compare Held 1931, p. p-

118;

and Folie 1951/1960,

82.

6. Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 14 (1813), p. 251, no. 333. See

also David Landau in Landau and Parshall 1994, pp. 132-33, fig. 129, 7. Uhisse Aldrovandi in Mauro and Aldrovandi 1562,

anco uno Hermafrodito di paragone maggiore del naturale, é uestito dal mezo in git ha capelli di donna, e s1 tiene 1l braccio dritto sul capo: Ha uno instrumento musico appresso ¢ fu ritrouato

p-

152:"V1

&

in casa di M. Fabio Sasso.” 8. As suggested in Silver 1986a, p. 18. Exhibitions: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 48,111;

Washington, New York 1986-87, no. 64; Venice 1999, no. $3 Literature: Selvatuco 1854, p. 27, frame 20, no. 4 (as by

Heinrich Aldegrever); Stassny 1888, pp. 376—77 (as by a follower of Albrecht Diirer, after Marcantonio Raimondi); Fogolar 1913, no. 89, ill. (as by Aldegrever); Friedlander 1916, pp. 124-25, pl. 24 (as by Gossart); Friedlander 1921, p. 124, pl. 22; Winkler 1921a, p. 9; Winkler 1921b, pp. 411, 412; Wescher 1928, p. 366; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 32—33, 64, 67, no. 27; Friedlander 1931, p. 183; Held 1931, p. 118; Oberheide 1933, pp. 73-74, 142; W. Kromig 1936, pp. 131-32; Baldass 1937a, p. 120; Van

Gelder 1942, pp. 4. 5. fig. 2: Benesch 1945, p. 80; Gluck 1945. pp. 128-29, 131; Wescher 1049, p. 263; Schwarz 1953, p. 147, n. 5; Marher 1954, p. 34; Friedlander 1956, p. 96; Bober 1957, p. 71; Lassaigne and Delevoy 1958, p. 78; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 81, 82, 86, no. 9; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, PP. 454. 456; Carlos van Hasselt in Rotterdam, Amsterdam 1961-62, p. 43, under no. 42; Winkler 1962, p. 145; Dacos

380 JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

p. 253,

Ooteghem 2009, pp. 23-24, 25,

in

fig. 11.6; D. Bull 2010;

Venice 2010, no. 1,1ll,, and Loretta Mari Pietrogiovanm Salvador and Mara Guglielmi mn ibid. pp. 68, 72-73, 76, fig. 5, p. 84, figs. 37-38

Jan Gossart 100. The Hercules of the Forum Boarium Seen from the Back 1509 or slightly later Pen and ink (laid down), Framing line in pen

87%

x 4% in. (22.6 x 10.7 cm)

Whereabouts unknown

Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower center, inscribed van Mabussen (by Nicholas Lanier); below, collector's

J

mark

of Lanier (Lugt 2908);' bottom, collectors mark

of Thomas Lawrence (Lugt

2445)

Condition: The sheet on which the drawing was made 1s

irregularly cut.

Nicholas Lanier (1588-1666), London; probably William Young Ottley (1771-1836), London (and his sale, London, June 6-23, 1814, no. 769, for £2.12); Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830), London (his estate; sold to Woodburn); [Woodburn, London]; (sale, Sotheby's, London, November 7, 1951, no. 17, with no. 18 for £18 to the French embassy);” [Leggatt Brothers, London, in 1951]; Charles John Halswell Kemeys-Tynte (1908-1969), 9th Baron Wharton; whereabouts unknown Provenance:

his, the last

of Gossart’s Roman stud-

to be discovered, resurfaced at an auction in 1951. Sadly, it disappeared from view again after the 1965 exhibition in Rotterdam and Bruges.” However, the correctness of the attribution to Gossart— recorded in a seventeenth-century inscription (probably by the English composer, painter, and collector-dealer Nicholas Lanier)—is evident even from the blackand-white photographs of it. The net of hatching that models the figure 1s highly typical of Gossart’s Roman drawings, especially his study sheet in Leiden (cat. 101), as well as an earlier—and signed— drawing in Berlin (cat. 102). Jacqueline Folie identified the model for the drawing under discussion as the Hercules of the Forum Boarium, a larger-than-life statue in gilded bronze, discovered at the end of the fifteenth century on the Forum Boarium in Rome. Soon after, it was taken to the Palazzo dei Conservatori, where it remains (fig. 55).° Gossart drew the sculpture when it was placed on a high pedestal at the right side of the courtyard, as recorded in contemporary descriptions as well as in a 1es

drawing from the 1530s by Maarten van Heemskerck (fig. 290). The low viewpoint adopted by Gossart must have been that of most viewers studying the sculpture, but compared to other depictions, Gossart’s strongly emphasizes its elevated placement.” Also emphasized in the drawing is the figure’

musculature, more prominent here than in the sculpture itself and in other drawn studies, including a side view of Hercules’ back and legs by Van Heemskerck.” The field of muscles across Hercules” upper back and the elongated muscles emerging from his lower back, which look like fingers resting on his buttocks, have less to do with the reality of the statue—or of male anatomy—than with the artist’s desire to create an image of physical strength and power. This exaggeration

of

the figure’s

physique was decidedly new in Netherlandish art, and had rarely been seen even in Italy before early sixteenth-century works by such artists as Luca Signorelli and Michelangelo, whose example Gossart seems to have followed here." The result was “an unusual vision, explained by the artist's formation in the Gothic tradition, which cared little for the recovery of the canons of antique art, but announced in a

striking way mannerist art of the end of the century.”"" Gossart’s “unusual vision” has reminded more than one author of works by Hendrick Goltzius." As also remarked in connection with Gossart’s drawing of the Apollo Citharoedus (cat. 99), it seems probable that this drawing 1s based on a lost sketch, rather than being a study after life. The controlled, neat, and highly effective hatching certainly points in that direction, which makes a date slightly after his presence in Rome in 1509 a possibility. The irregular way the drawing was cut around the figure suggests there may have been other studies on the original sheet (as in the case of the drawing Drawings

381

1.

Frats Lugt’s suggestion (1956, p. 411, under no. 2908) that the collector's mark was one of those used by Lanier has

been questioned recently (J. Wood 2003, pp. 89, 91-92), but 1t seems to be confirmed by the handwriting on this drawing, which does seem to be Lanier(compare Lugt 1956, pp. 97, 98—102, figs. 7.12, 7.13). 2. The lot 1s described in the catalogue under Gossart’s

name as “One—a young Hercules—fine pen—rare,” which could very well pertain to the drawing under discussion; however, neither the drawing nor its mount bears one of Ottley’s collector's marks (Lugt 2642, 2662-65). 3. The list of prices and buyers’ names issued by Sotheby's cites the French embassy as purchaser of nos, 17 and 18. 4.

Fig. 290. Maarten van Heemskerck, The Hercules of the Forum Boarium and Fragments of the Colossus of Constantine on the Capitoline, 1532-37. Pen and brown

ink, 8% x §%e in. (21 X 13.4 cm). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett (79 p 2, fol. 531)

in Leiden, cat. 101), which might have been cut apart at some point—before Lanier’s acquisition of the sheet—in order to make several drawings out of one. Extensive collections of other study drawings, notably

of the variety and number of works that Gossart

1s

of

likely to have made for Philip

Burgundy during their trip to Rome. The drawing under discussion has also been connected to a remarkable event that took in place in Brussels a few years after Gossart’s trip to Rome, in January and February of 1511. An unusually heavy snowfall inspired a festival of snowmen, which were erected all over the city.” A contemporary description noted that at Philip's residence there was a Hercules

made of snow, which Gossart’s patron helped build." Although Gossart is not 1s certainly possible that he mentioned, helped design the snowman. The fact that the 1511 Hercules was said to be well proportioned could also point in his direction.

it

SA

1965

exhibition and may have stayed in his possession until his death in 1969. It has been published several times since then as being in the collection of Baron (or Lord) Wharton (although in fact the ninth baron was succeeded by two baronesses), but I am not aware of any scholar who has studied the drawing in the oniginal after 1965. | have not been able to contact the present (twelfth) Baron Wharton. 5. Because I have not been able to locate the drawing, this discussion 1s based on the entry and reproduction mn Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 47. 6. Haskell and Penny 1981, no. 45, fig. 117; Bober and Rubinstein 1986, no. 139, 1ll. For the idenufication, see Folie 1951/1960, p. 90, under no. 8. For the discovery of the sculpture and its move to Capitoline Hill, see 7.

Van Heemskerck’s in Berlin, offer an idea

The drawing was lent by Baron Wharton to the

Michaelis 1891b, pp. 15-18. Hulsen and Egger 1913-16, vol, 1, pp. 19-20, pl. 54. For later changes in the statue's placement, see

Exhibition: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 47 Literature: Sotheby's, London 1951, no. 17; H. J. Ronday in

Leiden 1954, p. 14, under no. 23; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 81, 82, 86,95, no. 8, fig. 3; Winkler 1962, p. 145; Dacos 1964,

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 47,111; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 199; Bruyn 196sb, p. 463; Wescher 1970, p. 101; Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 114, 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 36, pl. 70; Herzog 1968a, pp. 22-23, 42, 45—46, 52,61, 111, pp. 208, 209, under no. 4, p. 211, under

pp. 18—19, pl.

11;

.

no. s, pp. 387-89, no. 4, pl. 94; Grosshans 1980, p. 33: Sterk 1980, pp. 22, 100, 101, fig. 21; Judson 1981, pp. 337, 338, fig. 1; Alba Costamagna in Rome 1984, p. 131, under no. 44,111; Bober and Rubinstemn 1986, p. 164, under no. 129; Judson 1986, p. 17; Silver 1986a, p. 2, fig. 5; J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87,

fig.

2, under no. 67; Dhanens 1987b, cols. 313-14; Ple1j 1988, p. 29,1ll. p. 27; Winner 1993, p. 630; Anne W.

p.

185,

Lowenthal in London 1993-94, p. 40, under no. 2; Christian Dittrich in Dresden, Vienna 1997-98, p. 34, under no. 8; Cécile Scailliérez in Paris 2000-2001, p. 211, under no. §3,1ll,; Paul Nieuwenhuizen in Bartelings, De Klerck, and Sluijter 2001, p. 21; Mensger 2002, p. 64, fig. 27; Ger Luijten in Amsterdam, New York, Toledo 2003-4, p. 121, fig. 54; Ariane Mensger in Mechelen 2005, p. 253, under no. 92; Paola Squellati Brizio in Florence 2008, p. 25, under no. 12,1ll.; Heringuez 2008, pp. 109, 113; Mensger 2008, p. 171; Squellati Brizio in Paris 2008, p. 20, under no. 10; Van Ooteghem 2009, pp. 23-24, 25, fig. 11.4; D. Bull 2010; Mari Pietrogiovanm in Venice 2010, p. 18, under no. 1,1ll. p. 19

Michaelis 1891b, pp. 30, 45. The interesting connecvon, made by Sterk (1980, p. 100), to a “Hercules aversus” by Apelles, mentioned in Pliny’s Natural History (bk. 3s, chaps. 36, 94), may not be relevant, as it seems that just Hercules’ face, rather than his whole body, was seen from the back in Apelles’ painting. 8. For

other representations of the statue, see Bober

and Rubinstein 1986, pp. 164-65, under no. 129; and Winner 1993, passim. 9. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, no. 79 b 2, fol. 6ov (Hulsen and Egger 1913-16, vol. 1, p- 33. pl. 61). For the identification of the sculpture (identified by Hiilsen and Egger, vol. 1, p. 33, as drawn after life), see Winner 1993, pp. 629-30. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

See Judson 1981, p. 338. “Une vision insolite, qui s'explique encore par la

formation gothique du peintre, peu soucicux de retrouver les canons de 'art antique, mais annonce de maniére frappante art maméniste de la fin du siecle” Dacos 1964, p. 18. See ibid; Judson 1981; and Ger Luyjten in Amsterdam, New York, Toledo 2003-4, p. 121. For this festival, see Pley) 1988, pp. 9-44; and Pley) 1990. The text was first published in Smeken 15171, fol. A 11ir=a 1miv:*"Muyn heere damirael, self metter hant/Halp eenen hercules maken in syn huys/Om dat reysen soude na zeelant/Voerbi sobborch, so na der sluys/Hi sach wreedelijck, hi scheen confuys,/ Met siinder cudzen, vrom van ghelate/Hi was so wel ghedaen, twas cen abuys/In alle syn leden houdende mate.” A modern edition appeared in Pleij 1988, Pp- 357-70; for the passage quoted in the text here, see p. 361.

382 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted material

Jan Gossart 101. Sheet with a Study after the “Spinario”

and Other Sculptures Verso: Sketch of a Helmet 1509 (or shghtly later?)

Pen and gray-brown ink, 10% Watermark: none

X

8% in. (26.3 x 20.5 cm)

Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden, Prentenkabinet PK-T-AW 1041

Condition: The drawing

generally in good condition, notwithstanding important losses at upper center, upper right, and along the left edge. There are stains, as well as several creases and tears, including a vertical one running down from the upper center, which 1s consolidated on the back of the sheet. 1s

Cornelis van Ommeren (1855-1935), Rotterdam (his sale,Van Huffel, Utrecht, February 16-17, 1937, part of no. 714[?]); Albertus Welcker (1884-1957), Amsterdam; acquired by the Universiteit Leiden, Prentenkabinet, 1957 Provenance:

nlike Gossart’s three other Roman drawings (cats. 99, 100, 102), this drawing combines different studies on one sheet." Philip of Burgundy commissioned Gossart to depict the “the holy monuments of antiquity” in Rome,” but it 1s

not documented exactly how—and if— Gossart presented the results of these

depictions to his patron. Possibly working from sketches made from life, he may have produced a collection of bound drawings of antiquities in an aesthetically pleasing order, like those made by anonymous Italian artists, several of which have survived more or less intact.” There is some evidence that Gossart’s Roman drawings, including this one, are completed repetitions made after sketches from life (see cat. 99), although the crossed-out sketch of a helmet on its verso may suggest otherwise. Indeed, the recto of this sheet shows at least two sculptures seen in different parts of Rome, yet it coheres into a most harmonious whole—the fruit not of coincidence but of careful composition, with the central sculpture of a boy framed by the two sandaled legs at left and right and by fanciful helmets above and below, as well as by two lions’ heads at the top." The sculpture of the boy is, of course, the Spinario, or Boy with Thorn, one of the

most celebrated and beautifully preserved antique bronzes. Probably Hellenistic, it has been housed from 1471 to the present in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, now part of the Musei Capitolini (fig. 48).° Although numerous copies of the statue exist, it 1s almost certain that Gossart drew after the original; Gossart is known to have also studied Jacopo Ripanda’s frescoes in the same building.” Gossart’s study of the Spinario is among the earliest known renderings of the sculpture, preceded by only a few anonymous Italian drawings. Most early depictions show that the sculpture initially had a square base, later replaced by a round one. Gossart’s viewpoint, which shows the sculpture from below, may correspond more or less to that of visitors to the Palazzo dei Conservatori in the early sixteenth century and indeed perhaps to the original position intended in antiquity. However, it cannot be excluded that Gossart may have made his drawing while sitting on the ground.” Gossart could also have made other studies after the statue or, after his return to the Netherlands, after replicas. The position of the boy's legs reappears in two of Gossart’s later compositions (see cat. 98 and cat. 68, a copy after a lost original). The leg on the right side of the Leiden sheet was identified as the left leg of a colossal statue of a genius, now in Naples.” Gossart’s drawing seems to be the oldest known representation of the sculpture. Although it is not known where the sculpture was located when Gossart visited Rome, it 1s recorded as standing in the garden of the Villa Madama in the 1530s, when it was drawn by Maarten van Heemskerck (fig. 292).” Van Heemskerck’s drawing indicates how the size and position of the statue, in the first niche in the wall at left, would have made it easy to study the details of the handsome decoration of the sandals. The sculpture to which the

other leg belongs has not been identified, but there 1s every reason to assume it was also an antiquity, as must be the lions’

heads, for which Gossart could have found models almost anywhere in Rome. In contrast, the helmets—including the one sketched on the verso of the

drawing—are undoubtedly not real parade helmets but rather sculpted antique representations, partly based on actual armor, partly fantasy. Similar helmets can be found among the drawings of many sixteenthcentury artists, including the anonymous [talian draftsman of a manuscript at Holkam Hall, who copied the exact same helmet seen above the Spinario in Gossart’s drawing." Gossart could have seen examples of antique and Renaissance helmets in [taly but he may also have had access to at least one in Wijk bij Duurstede, for the inventory of Philip of Burgundy’s estate mentions “a small cap of steel in the antique manner.”'" Gossart’s interest in antique armor and armor all’antica also resulted in a few drawings of fantastically dressed soldiers (cats. 103—105), which probably date from during or right after the trip to Rome.

Fig. 291. Jan Gossart, Sketch of a Helmet (detail cat. 101 verso).

of

Drawings

383

12.

it

should be remarked that the sculpIn this respect, ture was first described as representing Priapus (Schweikhart 1977, pp. 243-44).

Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1948-49, no. 49; Brussels 1949,

no. 30; Paris 1949, no. 32; Leiden 1950, no. 71; Leiden 1954, no. 23; Amsterdam 1955, no. 29; Amsterdam 19$6, no. $1;

Mechelen 1958, no. 179; Utrecht, Leuven 1959, no. 345; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 45; Prague 1966, no. 11; Rome 1984, no. 44. Paris and other cities 1985-88, no. 40; Brussels, Rome 1995, no. 110; Paris 2000-2001, no. 53; Mechelen 2005, no. 92; The Hague 2006, no. 19; Munster

2008-9, no.

32

Literature: Van Gelder 1942, pp.

Fig. 292. Maarten van Heemskerck, The Garden of the Villa Madama, 1535-37. Pen and brown ink, §%e x 8% 1n. (13.6 x 21.1 cm). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett (79 p 2, fol. 24r)

As in all

of his other known Roman

.

studies, Gossart seems to have breathed life into the remains of antiquity that he cop-

ied in Rome and that he recorded in a especially decidedly unclassical way. This noticeable in the study of the Spinario, which in his drawing looks like a real boy, not a sculpture of a boy. The eccentric viewpoint is more exaggerated than in any other known depiction of the statue, creating an impression of energy, even of movement—an impression heightened by the boy's protruding (if not erect) penis." His face has little in common with the idealized features of the bronze and, although the foreshortening may look somewhat awkward, gives great individuality to the figure. The characteristic net of hatching, which links the drawing’s style to other drawings by Gossart (for example, the signed early drawing in Berlin, cat. 91), also contributes to the singularity of this

is

vision 1.

of antiquity.

SA

possible that cats. 99 and 100 are fragments of a larger drawing with other studies arranged 1n a comparable manner. The view of the Colosseum (cat. 102) 1s approximately the same size as the Leiden drawing, It

1s

and it has been suggested that they come from the same sketchbook (see Van Gelder 1942, p. §; and also Rotterdam, Bruges 1965,

p.

244, under no.

43).

.

See Stephanie Schrader’s essay on Gossart’s Roman drawings in this volume. See, among other examples, the Codex escurialensis at the Real Sitio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, shelf-

mark 28-11-12 (reproduced and discussed in Gomez 2000). .

.

Compare Momique van Rompay-Damiéls in Paris and other cities 1985—88, p. 108, under no. 40. Musei Capitolimi, Rome (H. S. Jones 1926, vol. 1, pp. 43—47, no. 2, vol. 2, pl. 60; Haskell and Penny 1981, no. 78, fig. 163; Bober and Rubinstein 1986, no. 203, ill; Ludovic Laugier in Paris 2000-2001, no. 47,1ll.). For representations ofthe statue and its use in Renaissance art, see also Barkan 1999, pp. 148—58; and Jean-René Gaborit et al. in Paris 2000-2001,

pp. 200-222. 6. See D. Bull 2010. 7. .

.

H. S. Jones 1926, vol. 1, p. 44. Musco Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli (Bober and Rubinstein 1086, no. 188, fig. 188). The sculpture 1s recorded from ca. 1535 in the garden of the Villa Madama in Rome. The identification was first proposed inVan Gelder 1942, p. 7. Hulsen and Egger 1913-16, vol. 1, pp. 13-14, pl. 25. A frontal view of the statue by Van Heemskerck 1s preserved mn the same collection (fol. §8r;1bid., p. 32, pl. 59). For the Villa Madama and the collection of antique sculpture once housed there, see Napoleone

2007. 10. Earl of Leicester, Holkam Hall, Norfolk, ms. 701, fol. 33r (Schweikhart 1986, fig. 133). An unpublished study sheet in the Museum Plantin-Moretus/

I.

Prentenkabinet, Antwerp (no. 1179 [p.11.9]), formerly attributed to Gossart but probably by an Italian arust, also includes a sketch after what must be the same model. “een stalen huyfken up zyn antyck” Sterk 1980,

5-8,

figs. 1,7;]. C. Ebbinge

Wubben in Rotterdam 1948-49, no. 49. J. C. Ebbinge Wubben in Brussels 1949, no. 30;]. C. Ebbinge Wubben in Paris 1949, no. 32; Wescher 1049, p. 263; E. Pehinck in Leiden 1950, no. 71, fig. 8; Boon 1953, p. 71, n. 9; Schwarz 1953, p. 147.0. 5, p. 161, n. 23, fig. 16; H. J. Ronday in Leiden 1954, no. 23, fig. 1; Marlier 1954, p. 34, fig. 2; Heckscher 1958, col. 295, fig. 4; Lassaigne and Delevoy 1958, p. 78; Mechelen 1958, no. 179; M. E. Houtzanger in Utrecht, Leuven 1959, no. 345; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 81, 82, 86, no. 7; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, pp. 454, 456, 459; Van Luttervelt 1962, p. 9o, fig. 25; Winkler 1962, p. 145; Dacos 1964, p. 19, pl. 1v; Van Regteren Altena 1964, pp. 27, 106, no. 48, fig. 1; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 45, 1ll., p. 287, under no. $6; Borsch-Supan 1965, p. 199; Bruyn 1965b, 463; Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 405; Prague 1966, no. 11, ill; Matthias Winner in Berlin 1967, p. 45, under

p-

no. 25; Herzog 1968a, pp. 22, 23, 26-27, 42, 46, 61-62, 111, 208, 209, under no. 4, p. 211, under no. 5, pp. 389-91, no. 0. §, p. 476, pl. 95; Christian Dittrich in Dresden 1970, p. 30, under no. 18; Wescher 1970, pp. 100, 101; Henri

Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 114, 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 35, pl. 70; Draper 1972, p- 58, n. 25; Schweikhart 1977, pp. 24748, fig. 1, Grosshans 1980, p. 33; Sterk 1980, pp. 22, 311, n. 27, fig. 18; E L. Bastet in 's-Hertogenbosch 1984, pp. 34-35, fig. 1;

Alba Costamagna in Rome 1984, no. 44, 1ll.; Monique van Rompay-Daniéls in Paris and other cities 1985-88, p. 108;

Bober and Rubinstein 1986, pp. 222, 236, fig. 188b; Judson 1986, p. 17; Silver 1986a, pp. 10, 36-37, n. 60; J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, p. 177, fig. 1, under no. 63, p. 185, under no. 67; Dhanens 1987b, cols. 313-14; Nicole Dacos in Brussels, Rome 1995, no. 110,1ll ; Timothy B. Husband in New York 1995, p. 131, fig. 4; Christan Dittrich in Dresden, Vienna 1997-98, p. 34, under no. 8; Barkan 1999, pp. 151-52, fig. 3.29, Timothy Clifford in Glasgow, Edinburgh 1999-2000, p. 40, under no. 3, fig. 3; Bevers 2000, p. 72; Cécile Scailliérez in Paris 2000-2001, no. $3, ill; Paul Nieuwenhwizen in Bartelings, De Klerck, and Sluyjter 2001, pp. 19-21; Eichberger 2002, Mensger 2002, p. 81, fig. 38; Kilian 200s, p. 89, fig. 87; Ariane Mensger in Mechelin 2005, no. 92, 1ll.; Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, p. 47, under no. 13,1ll;; Paola Squellati Brizio in Florence 2008, p. 25, under no. 12; Heringuez 2008, pp. 109, 113; Mensger 2008, p. 171; Squellatt Brizio in Paris 2008, p. 20, under no. 10; Angelika Lorenz in Munster 2008-9, p. 95, no. 32,1ll;Van p- 33, fig. 35;

Ooteghem 2009, pp. 23-24, fig.

11.2;

Pietrogiovanni in Venice 2010, p.

18,

DD.

Bull 2010; Man

under no.

1

PP: 57. 253.

384 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted material

Drawings

385

Copyrighted material

Jan Gossart 102. View of the Colosseum Seen from the West or slightly later(?) Pen and two hues of brown ink, over black chalk, 1509

7'%e x 10% 1n. (20.2 x 26.8 cm) Watermark: Gothic P Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett Kdz 12018 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At upper right, inscribed Jennin Mabusen eghenen /handt, Contrafetet in Roma/in |?| Coloseus in pen and hight brown ink (16th-century handwriting); at lower center and lower right, inscribed 2 (or 2?) in pen and gray(?) ink (16th-century

handwriting) Condition: The drawing 1s in good condition. There are some stains and some discoloration in the upper half.

collection (sale, Hotel Drouot, Paris, 1928, no. 63);' acquired by the Kupferstich-

Provenance: Private

May 23, kabmnett, Berlin, 1928

(

:

ossart’s

knowledge of antique archi-

tecture 1s evident in many of his works (see, for instance, cats. 30, 35, 72, 75, 76, 108), but little 1s known about how he gained this knowledge. This view of the Colosseum is Gossart’s only known study after antique architecture to have come down to us. It is not at all a “rather insignificant and arid” view (as one scholar put it) of Rome’s most famous Roman ruin, but remarkably one full of life. His vision detailed and yet far from objective, “upsetting the balance of the volumes and almost making them sway, in the manner of a Tower of Babel,” as Nicole Dacos noted.’ Gossart was undeniably challenged by the task of drawing the Colosseum: “He does not fathom the internal articulation of its mass,” Dacos commented, “and observes from the outside, giving the whole a fantastical character.” His emphasis on the external articulation created a building that 1s less formidable, more approachable. As Winner pointed out, this minimizing effect 1s partly the result of Gossart’s choosing to draw the short west side of the oval ruin and his standing very close to it.” The proportions are somewhat altered from those seen today because the first floor was hidden to a great extent by the surrounding landfill, which was not cleared away until

is

the beginning of the nineteenth century.” 386

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Given the iconic status of the Colosseum,

it is surprising that Gossart’s draw-

ing appears to be one of its earliest trustworthy depictions. Gossart lovingly recorded the vegetation growing from the ruin, as well as the hillocks that seem to engulf the amphitheater like waves. Of course, he depicted the building without the characteristic sloping silhouette of the buttress supporting the west side of its outside ring, which was constructed by the architect Giuseppe Valadier between 1823 and 1826. A comparison of the extant building to old views makes it clear that Gossart was as meticulous in recording the building's decay as its beauty. Although questioned by one scholar

without any explanation,’ the attribution

of the drawing to Gossart can be

more views of Rome Gossart might have made, almost three decades before Maarten van Heemskerck’s wealth of sketches of antiquities, archaeological sites, and city panoramas.'’ Given Gossart’s general lack of interest in landscape, his drawings are likely to have been records of isolated monuments and sculptures rather than vedute, but they must have offered a fascinating view

1.

1999. The quotation

3.

it

after a sketch made from life. In any event, the accuracy of the architectural specifics makes clear that whatever drawing may have preceded it must have been quite detailed. One can only guess how many

sale

from Gliick 1945, p. 128. “rompant I'équilibre des volumes et les faisant presque vaciller, a la maniére d'une tour de Babel” 1s

Dacos 1964, p. 18. For a comparison with Netherlandish depictions of the Tower of Babel, see also

Stritt 2004, vol. 1, p. 65, vol. 2, figs. 71,73 (2). One 1s reminded in particular ofJan van Scorel’s drawing in the Frits Lugt Collection, Paris, no. §275 (Boon 1992,

of his

Dutch, indicating that the drawing was made in Rome by “Jennin Mabuse’s own hand.” This inscription 1s not autograph, as some authors have suggested,” but can be dated to the sixteenth century and must have been made by someone well informed about Gossart’s biography and drawing style. Whether Gossart made the drawing while actually standing in front of the monument is another question. As noted recently, two different colors of ink (probably due to a slight variation in their composition) were used,” which suggests that the drawing was made in two stages. Maybe this was done in the quiet shelter of Gossart’s quarters in Rome, working

The collector, named “Madame X” in the 1928 catalogue, 1s identified as Eugéne Rodrigues in

Herzog 1968a, p. 392, under p. 7. I have not been able to verify this identification. 2. For the Colosseum, see, among many others, Gabuca

said to

signed early drawings from before the trip to Rome, as well as his Roman studies. Moreover, there is the inscription in

the city all the same.

SA

be beyond reasonable doubt. The hatching and the nervous strokes and small hooks used to denote vegetation are all entirely in line with the idiosyncrasies

of

vol.

1,

no. 182, vol. 3, pl. 44).

4. "ll ne péneétre pas I'articulation interne des masses et

wv

ON

.

.

w. 00

.

réagit de I'extéricur, en conférant a I'ensemble un caractere fantastique.” Dacos 1964, p. 18. Matthias Winner in Berlin 1967, p. 44, under no. 25. See Gabucci 1999, p. 214. Marlier 1954, p. 48. Wescher 1949, pp. 263, 265; and, more recently, Holm Bevers in Duckers 1994, p. 173, under no. 1v.6. The handwriting 1s quite different from a handwritten statement by the artist (Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pl. preceding ttle; for the document, see ibid. p. 379,

no. 19d). 9. Holm Bevers in Duckers 1994, p. 173, under no. 1v.6. 10. ForVan Heemskerck’s Roman studies, which are preserved mainly mn two so-called sketchbooks in the Berlin Kupferstchkabinett, see my essay

in this vol-

ume, note 27. Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1936, no. 45 (drawings); Mechelen 1958, no. 180; Brussels 1963, no. 287; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 46; Berlin 1967, no. 25; Washington, New York

1986-87, no. 63; Brussels, Rome 1993, no. 109; Minster

2008-9, no.

31

Literature: Wescher 1928, pp. 365-66; Bock and Rosenberg 1930, vol. 1, p. 36, vol. 2, pl. 27; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8

(1930), pp. 33. 67. no. 26; Friedlander 1931, p. 183; Held 1933, p. 137: W. Kromig 1936, p. 132; Dirk Hannema mn Rotterdam 1936, vol. 1, p. 70, no. 45 (drawings), vol. 2, fig. 54; Van Gelder 1942, pp.

4-5,

fig. 4;

Glick

1945, p. 128;

Wescher 1949, pp. 263, 265, fig. 4; Schwarz 1953, p. 147.0. §; H. ]. Ronday in Leiden 1954, p. 14, under no. 23; Marler

1954, p- 48 (as a copy after Gossart); Mechelen 1958, p. 19, under no. 179 and no. 180; Lassaigne and Delevoy 1958, p. 78; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 81, 82, 86, 95, no. 6, fig. 2; von

der Osten 1961, vol. 1, pp. 454, 456: Winkler 1962, p. 145, Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, no. 287, fig. 275: Dacos 1964, pp. 17-18, pl. 1; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 46,

ill; Borsch-Supan

1965, p. 199; Bruyn 196sb, p. 463;

Haverkamp-Begemann 19653, p. 405; Matthias Winner in Berlin 1967, no. 25, pl. 12; Herzog 1968a, pp. 22, 23, 42, 48-49, 61, 111, 208, 209, under no. 4, pp. 392-94, no. n. 7, p. 476, pl. 97: Christian Dittrich in Dresden 1970, p. 30, under no, 18; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 43.

no. 26, pl. 69; Sterk 1980, pp. 22, 100-101, fig. 19; Alba

Costamagna in Rome 1984, pp. 130, 131, under no. 44,1ll; Winner 198s, p. 91, fig. 15; Judson 1986, p. 17; J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, no. 63; Dhanens 1987b, cols. 313—14; Hicatt and Prescott 1992, p. 300, fig. 9; Luciam 1993, p. 20; Holm Bevers in Diickers 1994, no. 1v.6, ill; Nicole Dacos in Brussels, Rome 1995, no. 109, p. 215, under no. 110; Christan Dittrich in Dresden, Vienna 1997-98, p. 34, under no. 8; Gabucci 1999, 1ll. p. 204; Bevers 2000, p. 72; D. Martens 2000, p. 109, fig. 40; Paul Nicuwenhuizen in Bartelings, De Klerck, and Sluijter 2001, p. 21; Georg Girgensohn in Koblenz and other cities

2001-2, p. 186, fig. 76; Mensger 2002, pp. 74. 81, fig. 35: Gisele Lambert in Barcelona, Paris 2003—4, p. 84, under nos. 19—22, ill. p. 86; Stritt 2004, vol. 1, p. 65, vol. 2, figs. 71, 73 (2); Ariane Mensger in Mechelen 2005, p. 253, under no. 92; Paola Squellati Brizio in Florence 2008, p. 25,

under no.

12,

ill; Heringuez 2008, pp.

109, 113, fig. 1;

Mensger 2008, p. 171; Squellats Brizio in Paris 2008, p. 19, under no. 10; Plomp 2008, p. 7, fig. 7; Angelika Lorenz in

Minster 2008-9, p. 95, no. 31, ill; Van Ooteghem 2009, Pp. 23-24, 25, 61, 64, fig. 11.1; D. Bull 2010; Mari Pictrogiovanna in Venice 2010, p. 18, under no.

1

Drawings

387

— COPY 2ianted mater ™N

.

-

-

-

-~

al —-

Jan Gossart 103, 104.

Standing Warriors in Fantastic Armor

103. A Standing Warrior in Fantastic

Armor Ca. 1509 Pen and two hues

77

of black ink, over black chalk,

(20 x 12.1 cm) Framing line in pen and black ink x 4%

mn.

Watermark: crowned jug (fragment; fig. 293) Stadel Museum, Frankfurt 724 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps:

On lower part of armor,

some indecipherable letters; at lower left, inscribed with two indecipherable, abbreviated words in pen and light brown ink (16th- or 17th-century handwriting);' at lower right, inscribed Ian de Mabuijse in light brown ink (16th-century|?] handwriting). Verso, inscribed Jan van Mabuse/ zu Antwerpen 1532 1n

|

graphite (19th-century handwriting) Condition: The drawing is generally in good condition. sheet A horizontal crease through the middle of has caused some loss

of medium. There

the

1s

a large

water

stain at left center, some abrasion at upper center, and a tear at center left.” Provenance: Baron Jan Gijsbert Verstolk van Soelen

(1776-1845), The Hague and Soelen (his sale, Amsterdam, March 22, 1847, and following days, part of album Rr, as by Gossart[?]; for 401 guilders to Klinkhamer); acquired by the Stadel Museum, Frankfurt, by 1860

hese two studies of soldiers in fantastic armor are usually mentioned as a pair, yet they have rarely been seen together. In fact, for drawings assumed to be by the same hand and made about the same time, the penmanship differs considerably. The drawing in Dresden (cat. 104) bears a hitherto unnoticed signature on what appears to be the soldier's bevor, but on stylistic grounds it 1s easier to make a case that the drawing in Frankfurt (cat. 103) 1s by Gossart. Although the latter sheet has recently been described as the weaker of

the two or even a copy,’ certainly Friedrich Winkler was right when he deemed it “somewhat similar, but more sensitive” in comparison to the Dresden drawing.’ The nervous yet assured line of the Frankfurt drawing 1s closest stylistically to the drawing The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl in Berlin (cat. 91). The details of the fluttering drapery and some of the foreshortened faces are nearly identical, and there can be no doubt that they are by the same hand. The Dresden drawing is much

the

stiffer: not only the posture of figure, which lacks the dashing vibrancy of 104. A Standing Warrior in Fantastic

Armor with a Halberd 1509 or shightly later

x

Pen and two hues of brown ink, 11% 6'%6 in. (28 x 16.9 cm) Signed (on lower part of bevor|?], in pen and brown ink): cofia Watermark: none Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, Kupferstich-

Kabinett ¢ 790

left,

inscribed Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower Joha: de Malbodio. in pen and brown ink (16thcentury[?] handwriting). Verso, at upper left, vertically, inscribed la terre en celx lusant pour Dire en toux /son pueple en Dissant ansamble vous in pen and brown ink (16th- or 17th- century handwriting) Condition: The drawing is in generally good condition. There are several stains on the paper surface and some small holes.

the Kupferstich-Kabinett, Dresden, probably in 1728 from Gottfried Wagner, Leipzig, and certainly by 1737 Provenance: Acquired by

388

JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

its the line.’

counterpart, but also the quality of The man’s left hand is awkwardly turned,

and the drapery billowing from below his armor cuts the lower half of his body in two. Although the Dresden drawing certainly shares enough characteristics with the drawings in Frankfurt and Berlin to remain catalogued as by Gossart, should be noted that the drapery and the careful rendering of the feathers on the helmet come closest to those on a hitherto unpublished sheet, also in Dresden (cat. 105). Certainly, the fact that the Dresden drawing 1s “signed” in a discreet manner that is similar to several other early drawings by Gossart (cats. 69, 70, 91) should not be dismissed. Another argument in favor of the attribution of both sheets to the same hand is the fact that they seem have been kept together during their early history, as attested by the old attributions

it

to

to Gossart—one in Dutch, one in Latin— in the same handwriting, which probably date from the later sixteenth century. They were separated at least by 1738, when the drawing in Dresden had entered the electoral collection of Saxony.” Early publications dated both drawings to before Gossart’s trip to Rome in 1508-9, but after the publication of the Roman study sheet in Leiden (cat. 101) by

Jan van Gelder in 1942, most scholars have favored a date after 1509.” Indeed, the drawings in Dresden and Frankfurt seem to have been intended as re-creations of antique armor, inspired directly by studies such as those of the sandals and the fanciful re-creations of antique helmets on the Leiden sheet. Similarly adorned knights are relatively rare in earlier Netherlandish and German art, where soldiers are usually given a more “medieval” look.” They are, however, relatively common in Italian art of the latter half of the quattrocento.” This type of soldier, which may have been introduced into Netherlandish art by Gossart,'” appears in works by other Antwerp Mannerists'' where it serves as the male counterpart to the elaborately dressed women typically found in such paintings, such as Gossart’s Saint Catherine in cat. 69 or Tiburtine Sibyl in cat. 91. Both drawings have been related to a commission that Gossart received in 1516 for the design of a triumphal chariot in procession in memory of Ferdinand of Aragon." However, the descriptions of the chariot do not mention any soldiers (see my essay in this volume). Also, a dating of the drawings as late as 1516 seems unacceptable on stylistic grounds. At least for the Frankfurt drawing, a date during or immediately after the trip to Rome seems most likely. Whether the stylistic differences with the Dresden drawing should be explained by assigning it to a different (earlier?) period of Gossart’s career for now remains unclear. SA

1470s, in the Brinsh Museum, London (nos. 1900-5-

ill.; Jochen Sander in Frankfurt 1995-96, p. 92, fig. 74;

26-6, 1889-5-27-55; Hugo Chapman in London

Christian Dittrich in Dresden,Vienna 1997-98, p. 34, no. 8, ill; Bevers 2000, pp. 71, 72; Thomas Ketelsen in Jackson 2004, no. 2.33, 1ll.; Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht

1998b, no. 16, 1ll.), as well as many prints, 10.

One other drawing whose attribution to Gossart seems hkely depicts a standing soldier in fantastic armor (cat. 106); similar soldiers can also be found in cat. nos. 76 and 84, the armor

11.

1s

2005-6, no. 12,1ll.

somewhat simpler in

cat. nos. 87 and 88. See, for instance, the paintings by the Pseudo-Bles, The Adoration of the Magi in the Alte Pinakothek,

Munich (no. 708), and The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Fig. 293. Watermark

of cat.

103 (actual size)

12.

Gemaldegalerie, no. 630c (Dan Ewing in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, nos. 17-18, 1ll.). First suggested (cautiously) in von der Osten 1961, vol.

Cat.

103.

1, p.

459.

A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor

Exhibitions: Frankfurt 1995-96, no. 34; Frankfurt 2000, no. 4 1.

The reading of the words in Friedlander 1924-37,

Literature: Wescher 1928, p. 366(7); Friedlander 1924-37,

vol. 8 (1930), p. 28 (also adopted in Herzog 1968a, Pp. 402)—g0 sa—may seem probable, but it 1s almost

vol. 8 (1930), pp. 28, 66, no. 23, pl. Lx; Friedlander 1931, p. 184; Winkler 193s, p. 31; Baldass 1937a, pp. 120, 121, 122;

certainly not correct. 2. The drawing has not been retouched, notwithstanding the opinion of Annette Strech in Frankfurt 2000, 27,0. §. 3. Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, p. 46; see also Jochen Sander in Frankfurt 1995-96, p. 92; and Strech in Frankfurt 2000, pp. 26-27. Christian Dittrich (in Washington, New York, San Francisco 1978-79, p. 250) thought the drawing “may have been made as late as 1600." 4. Winkler 1935, p. 31. 5. Perhaps tellingly, the Dresden drawing was passed over by Friedlander in Die altniederlandische Malerei (see Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 [1972], p. 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 38), although 1t had been published at least twice before. 6. The drawing 1s mentioned as by Gossart in Johann Heinrich von Heucher’s manuscript inventory of 1738, still preserved in the Kupfersuch-Kabinett p-

(Consignation en detail de tous les Tomes d’Estampes qui se trouvent dans les Bureaux du Salon d’Estampes de Sa Maj. le Roi de Pol. Elect: de Saxe, no. Ca 1), as well as

in A. G. M. Franke's inventory there (see cat, 105, n. 1). 7.

of

1863,

also preserved

But notVan Gelder himself (1942, p. 8), nor Jacqueline

Folie (1951/1960, pp. 78, 80). 8. Among the few exceptions are Durer’s print of Hercules Defeating the Molionides, dated about 1496

(Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 [1808], pp. 143—44, no. 127; Rainer Schoch in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001—4, vol. 2 [2002], no. 105, 11l.), and the Flagellation of Christ from his Large Woodcut Passion, dated about the same time (Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 [1808], p. 117. no. 8; Anke Frohlich in Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4, vol. 2 [2002], no. 158,111), 9. Examples include a drawing depicting Hector wear-

ing

a

plumed helmet, by

a

Florentine artist of the

Van Gelder 1942, p. 8, n. 2; Wescher 1949, pp. 263, 265;

Boon 1953, p. 69; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 80, 86, no. 4; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p. 459; Van Luttervelt 1962, pp. 90-91, fig. 23; Winkler 1962, pp. 145, 150; HaverkampBegemann 1965, p. 403; Herzog 1968a, p. 362, under no. 82, PP. 402-3, n0. D. 13, p. 477, pl. 103; Gert von der Osten in von der Osten and Vey 1969, p. 157; Wescher 1970, pp. 100-101, 108; Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 43. no. 23, pl. 69; Christian Dittrich in Washington, New York, San Francisco 1978-79, p. 250, under no. §82,1ll; Sterk 1980, p. 101; Jochen Sander in Frankfurt 1995-96, p. 92, no. 34, fig. 73 (as possibly a copy after Gossart); Dittrich in Dresden, Vienna 1997-98, p. 34, under no. 8; Annette Strech in Frankfurt 2000, no. 4,1ll. (as by Gossart); Ellen Konowitz in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 13,1ll. Cat.

104.

A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor with

a Halberd Exhibitions: Brussels 1967, no. 60; Dresden 1970, no. 18;

Zurich 1971, no. 179; Washington, New York, San Francisco 1978-79, no, §82; Dresden, Vienna 1997-98, no. 8; Jackson 2004, p. 119, no. 2.33; Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 12 Literature: Rooses 1902, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 125; Gossart 1903, p. vo; Winkler 1935, p. 31, pl. 32;Van Gelder 1942, p.

8,n.

2,

p. 9: Wescher 1949, pp. 263, 265; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 80, 86, no. 3; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p. 459; Van Luttervelt 1962, p. 90, fig. 24; Winkler 1962, pp. 145, 150; Christian

Dittrich in Brussels 1967, no. 60, pl. 4; Herzog 1968a, no. 0. 12, p. 477, pl. 102; Gert von der Osten in von der Osten and Vey 1969, p. 157; Christian Dittrich in Dresden 1970, no. 18,1ll. p. 32; Wescher 1970, pp. 100-101, 108; Christian Dittrich in Zurich 1971, no. 179, fig. 52; Henn Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 38; Christian Dittrich in Washington, New York, San Francisco 1978—79, no. 582,

Drawings

389

Cat.

103

390 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

LD

-

Pr.

RA

)

XY)

Arh

«on

a

LR

BE

/ Sere: :

:

gc Gllodse

.

:

2 i

Sa)

i" J

MEO

2

Ee

v

Cat. 104

Drawings

391

Attributed to Jan Gossart 105. Bust 1509

of a Warrior in Fantastic Armor in Profile

or shghtly later

Pen and brown ink; hatching on verso in pen and brown ink, §% x 4% (14.2 x 10.9 cm) Framing line along the lower edge in pen and gray ink Watermark: none visible Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, Kupferstich-

in.

Kabmett ¢ 789 Condition: The paper surface

1s

soiled, and there are

many stains. Several creases are present, including a horizontal one at center that has a tear along the left. There are also several small holes.

Acquired by the Kupferstich-Kabinett, Dresden, possibly by 1737 and certainly by 1865 Provenance:

here can be no doubt that this previously unpublished drawing, recently rediscovered by Thomas Ketelsen in the

Kupferstich-Kabinett’s holdings, is related to Gossart’s oeuvre. Catalogued under his name in the 1865 manuscript catalogue of the collection,’ it may have entered the

collection before 1738, together with catalogue number 104. The drapery and hatching are characteristic of Gossart’s work and compare particularly well with that drawing, and the ostrich feathers in both sheets are also rendered in a similar way. However, the drawings in Dresden, and in particular the bust, seem less alive than Gossart’s drawing of a soldier in pseudoantique armor in Frankfurt (cat. 103). Even more so than the drawings of standing soldiers, this bust was clearly conceived under the influence of antique and Italian examples, and it should be dated no earlier than Gossart’s trip to Rome in 1508—9. Italian sculptures, drawings, prints, and paintings on the subject from the sec-

ond half of the quattrocento are numerous, 2 and we can only guess as to which works may have influenced Gossart. Northern examples, such as a print by Lucas van Leyden from 1527,” all seem to be of later date. The Gothic ornament on the chest 1s clearly Northern in origin; the small dragon facing away from the viewer and the sheep’s head on the front of the helmet seem to have been favored motifs of Gossart (see cat. 101). The classicizing, 392 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Attributed to Jan Gossart 106. A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor rather expressionless face could be seen as an attempt at a classically proportioned profile. The draftmanship, especially in the column at left, seems drier than that of other drawings by Gossart dated to the first half of the 1510s (especially cat. 84), suggesting that this example—if it is indeed by Gossart—was made during or very shortly after the trip to Rome. Similar busts of antique warriors or emperors in profile appear in works by Gossart such as the painting of Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin in SA Vienna (cat. 12).

1.

A. G. M. Franke, “Inventar der Sammlung der Handzeichnungen im Kupferstich-Kabinett Dresden,” still preserved in the Kupferstich-Kabinett, no. Ca 64-1, fols. 125-26 (“Niederlindische Schulen, Portefeuille 1,”

part of no. 8). 2. In sculpture, Andrea del Verrocchio’s presumed bust of Alexander the Great in Washington of about 1478 comes to mind (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., no. A 1669; Covi 2005, pp. 138-43, figs. 126, 127, and figs. 128-31 for related works). Other drawings include most of the profile busts on the versos of the pages in the Rosebery album by Marco Zoppo in the British Museum, London, all datable to the 1450s (no. 1920-2-14-1, fols. 1, 3~7, 10-14, 19-253; for the album, see Hugo Chapman in London 1998b, 34-40, figs. 13-21, no. 15,1ll.). In painting, one could cite the busts set in niches in Jacopo Ripanda’s frescoes, completed under Pope Julius II (r. 1503-13), in the Sala di Annibale of the Palazzo dei Conservatori (see Guarino and Masini 2008, figs. 43, 45-47), which Gossart certainly visited (see 1D. Bull 2010; and PP-

cats. 31, 101). 3.

Filedt Kok 1996, no. 160,

1lL

Ca. 1510-15 Pen and brown ink, on buff prepared paper, 4'Vie x 27610. (12.2 x 6.2 cm)

Whereabouts unknown Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At lower left, collector's mark of Eugéne Rodrigues (Lugt 897)

Eugene Rodrigues (1853-1928), Paris (his sale, Frederik Muller & Co., Amsterdam, July 12-13, 1921, no. 142, as by an anonymous Netherlandish artist, ca. 1520); Ferenc Hatvany (1881-1958), Paris and Lausanne; [P. & D. Colnaghi, London, in 1974]; (sale, Christie's, London, December 9, 1980, no. 198, as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); (sale, Sotheby's, Amsterdam, November 14, 1988, no. §, as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); whereabouts unknown Provenance:

his drawing, whose present whereabouts are unknown," appears to be a

fragment, and not a well-preserved one at that. Even so, one can cautiously say that it fits well with some drawings of which the attribution to Gossart is here accepted, such as The Adoration of the Magi at the Louvre (cat. 75), or a sheet now in Washington (cat. 83). The turbaned figure and his companion in the background at right of the Louvre Adoration are treated with the same mixture of verve and neglect, perhaps most evident in the drapery. Also, the larger figures in the left and right foreground wear somewhat comparable caplike helmets or hats. The subject, also seen in the sheets in Frankfurt and Dresden (cats. 103, 104), is treated quite differently here: the accomplished penmanship that makes the Frankfurt drawing so appealing is missing, and the costume is much more restrained. Nonetheless, the drawing is clearly reminiscent of Antwerp Mannerism and should be dated no later than the first half of the 1510s. SA

1.

The appearance of the drawing

known to me only through the Colnaghi catalogue (see London 1974) and the 1988 Sotheby's catalogue (see Sotheby's, Amsterdam 1988, no. 5). is

Literature: Frederik Muller 1921, no. 142 (as by an anonymous Netherlandish artist); London 1974, no. 14, 1ll. (as by

Gossart); Christie's, London 1980, no. 198 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart); Sotheby's, Amsterdam 1988, no.

§

(as by an arust in the circle

of Gossart)

Drawings

393

Jan Gossart 107. A Grotesque with Tivo Sirens Ca. 1520-22(?) Pen and brown ink, brown wash; a vertical incised construction line; semicircular ends at top and bottom (laid down), 9'%ie x 2% in. (24.5 x 7 cm) Framing line in pen and brown ink, by Gossart; additional framing line along the right edge, in pen and darker brown ink, by another hand Watermark: none visible because of secondary support Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kunstbibhiothek Hdz 4820 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At

lower right, inscribed

L.C. m pen and brown ink Condition: The drawing is in very good condition.

It

has a compass hole in the center of the top semicircle. There are some stains and small tears. Provenance: Adalbert von Lanna (1836-1909), Prague

(his sale, H. G. Gutekunst, Stuttgart, May 6-11, 1910,

no. $1, as by an anonymous German artist of the sixteenth century); Marc Rosenberg (1852-1930), Karlsruhe; acquired by the Kunstbibliothek, Berlin, 1930

pparently attributed at some point to (Lucas n artist with the initials

.¢.

Cranach?), this design for a grotesque, which is reproduced here for the first time, was attributed by Max Friedlinder to Dirk Vellert when it entered the collection of the Kunstbibliothek in Berlin." It has been

kept under his name there ever since, even though it does not fit well within the clear limits set for Vellert’s style by his relatively numerous signed drawings.” In contrast, the drawing can easily be connected to Gossart’s drawing style. Compare the two sirens’ faces and bodies, for instance, with Eve in the Adam and Eve inVienna (cat. 65), and with some of the bathers in a drawing in London (cat. 98). The glyphs in the central scroll are a favorite ornamental motif of Gossart (see, among other examples, cats. 86, 108); the same type of quatrefoil that bisects the grotesque is also used for the cup in front of the Virgin in The Adoration of the Magi in Paris (cat. 75). The mascarons at the top of the grotesque, especially the one at right, resemble the man at upper right in a fragmentary drawing in Berlin, which 1s probably by Gossart (cat. 81). The washes, sometimes 3904

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

superimposed on other washes, are used to model the forms and give depth to the drawing—a technique common to several of the artist’s late drawings, such as catalogue number go. The incised vertical construction line going through the middle of the grotesque and the compass hole in the center of the top half-circle are found in some other drawings by the artist as well (see my essay in this volume).

The attribution further supported by the reappearance of the motif of the figures’ upper bodies in a grotesque on a pilaster in Gossart’s signed painting of Saint Luke in Vienna (cat. 12). The peculiar form of this drawing indicates that it was made not in preparation for a painting but for the decoration of specific object. Nonetheless, this link to the painting suggests that the design was made around the same time, about 1520-22. This situates the drawing at the very beginning of Netherlandish interest in ornament in the Renaissance style, predating several highly original ornament prints by Lucas van Leyden made in 1527 and 1528.7 Similar grotesques of the “candelabrum type” appear in a print by Dirk is

a

Vellert dated 1524." Unfortunately, very

few of the prints by other Netherlandish artists who made ornament prints can be precisely dated. The earliest one might be a grotesque from 1522 by the Monogrammust IG; most of the other dated prints were made in the later 1520s or the 1530s, some of them after German models.” Ultimately, however, it was the discovery about 1500 of the Domus Aurea, Emperor Nero's famous Roman palace, that inspired the craze for the grotesque in Europe.’ The influence of Filippino Lippi

often mentioned in connection with those grotesques on the pilasters in Gossart’s painting of Saint Luke,” but Gossart was most likely inspired by many different sources: antique, modern, paintings, prints, Italian artists, German artists. Certain motifs in the design appear often in early sixteenth-century grotesques— most importantly, the sirens and the plantlike motifs including the tail ends of the monsters at center, and the acanthus leaves that form part of the mascarons. Other details of the drawing appear to 1s

be more original, like the suspended ewers at the top. The importance of Gossart’s ornamental style, and of this drawing in particular, lies not only in its use of Renaissance motifs and compositions before most other Netherlandish artists, but also in its high quality and imaginativeness. Gossart must have enjoyed inventing and combining motifs based on both the Gothic tradition he grew up with and the Renaissance style he encountered in Italy during his trip to Rome in 1508—9 (a style that he might also have studied later through prints). He used his inventions to great effect in several paintings and drawings (see, for instance, cats. 24A,B, 88), and it should not come as a surprise that, as this

drawing attests, he was also commissioned to provide models for real objects. SA

Jan Gossart 108. Design for the Tomb of Isabella of Austria

(Elizabeth of Denmark) 1526 (or 15277)

Pen and brown ink, brush and gray ink, purplish gray wash, many incised construction lines (laid down),

10%

x 18% In. (27.4 x 47 cm)

Watermark: none Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett Kdz 4646 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: Verso, at lower left,

collector's mark of Karl Ferdinand Friedrich von Nagler (Lugt 2529) and inscribed G. Pencz mn graphite

(19th-century handwriting); at upper right, inscribed [...]7/1602 in pen and brown ink (16th- or 17thcentury handwriting) Condition: The drawing is generally in good condition. The top and center left and right and lower right sides

arc cut. There are many stains, some of which (the back, orange-colored one) show through from especially at upper left and lower right. The many creases and tears include a large horizontal crease and a vertical crease on the incised construction line going through the middle of the second niche from the left. The lower left corner 1s an addition, on which the drawing has been completed by a later hand. A loss of paper has been restored at the right of the queen's hands, possibly with the original paper.

the

1.

Friedlander’s attribution is recorded in Herrmann 1930, p. 35.

2.

For Vellert, see Konowitz 1992; and Ellen Konowitz in New York 1995, pp. 142-57.

Filedt Kok 1996, nos. 160-64, ill. 4. Hollstein 1947-2007, vol. 33 (1989), p. 194, no. §,1ll ; see also another engraving by Vellert, dated 1526 3.

(ibid. p. 5.

197,

no. 9,1ll.).

For the print by the Monogrammust IG, see Hollstemn 19047-2007, vol. 13 (1956), p. 38, no. 1,1ll. For other

comparable ornament prints by such arusts as Allaert Claesz, the Monogrammists IG, I'W, LB, and R, and the Master of the Horse Heads, see Hollstein 1947-2007, vol. 3 (1950), p. 155, no. 185, pp. 156-64, nos. 188-224, and vol. 13 (1956), pp. 38—45, nos. 1-29, PpP- 54-60, nos. 4-19, p. 69, NOS. §—7,p. 73, nos. 1-3, p- 118, nos. 2, 4-5, ill. For German grotesque orna-

6.

7.

ment, and for grotesque ornament in general, see Warncke 1979. For the discovery of the Domus Aurea and the beginming of grotesque decoration 1n Italy, see Dacos 1969. Lippi’s perceived influence on Gossart’s painting was first menuoned in Aschenheim 1910, pp. 22-24; and in Heidrich 1910, p. 273; see also W. Kronig 1936, pp. 134-35. One could also mention the grotesques by Pintoricchio in Santa Mana del Popolo in Rome and at the Vatican (see La Malfa 2009, especially pp. 61-75).

Literature: H. G. Gutekunst 1910, no. s1 (as by an anony-

mous German artist of the sixteenth century); Herrmann 1930, p. 35 (as by Dirk Vellert)

Ferdinand Friedrich von Nagler (1770-1846), Ansbach and Berlin; acquired with the collection of Karl Ferdinand Friedrich von Nagler by the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, 1835 Provenance: Karl

his magnificent large drawing, argu-

ably the earliest preserved Netherlandish design for an important work of sculpture, raises several questions. The easiest of these to answer seems the attribution. First published as by Bernard van Orley, then as by Lancelot Blondeel, the drawing was attributed to Gossart by Max Friedlinder and Paul Wescher in 1930. The attribution was doubted by some later scholars, but there are many stylistic similarities with drawings catalogued here as mature works by Gossart. The curls of the female figures seated along the lower part of the tomb are drawn in the same way as those in the monogrammed Adam and Eve in Vienna (cat. 65) and several

other drawings (cats. 82, 98, 107, to name but a few). The putti compare convincingly with the infants in such drawings Drawings

395

essay in this volume).

The architectural

ornament—uvasiform columns, bucrania and rams’ heads, glyphs, plant motifs, and so on—are often found in Gossart’s paintings (cats. 24A,B, 30, 31), as well as his drawings

(cats. 90, 94, 97, 107). These stylistic comparisons should suffice to establish Gossart’s authorship of the drawing, confirming his

exceptional talent as a designer of sculpture and decorative arts. In at least a few documented cases, Gossart was asked to put his talent to use as a designer (see my essay in this volume). One undocumented example might be a pair of Renaissance columns, now in Utrecht, quite similar to the ones seen in the drawing under discussion here (fig. 294).

Fig. 294.

Unknown arust, Haarlem or Utrecht?,

of

of Christ(?), The

Presentation in the Temple, The Conversion of

Saul, and the ceiling design in Florence (cats. 78, 79, 87, 109). The drapery, especially that of the recumbent queen, is almost identical in its details and modeling to those of the Virgin in The Presentation and in The Lamentation (cat. 82). The shghtly

more nervous delineation of the drapery of the seated women is closer to that of the small Adoration of the Shepherds in Berlin (cat. 77). The modeling, enhanced with

careful brushwork and broader washes, is of a type rarely seen in Netherlandish

drawings of the period, but encountered in other Gossart drawings,’ such as catalogue numbers 77 and 82, as well as the designs for a glass window in Florence and a triptych in Berlin (cats. 86, 90). As one would expect in a drawing of this type by Gossart, the construction is carefully set up with the help of construction lines, which here are incised (see my 396 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

destroyed by iconoclasts in 1566 and 1580. Christian commissioned a monument for the church almost immediately, and Gossart seems to have been entrusted with

Willem Dedelinc and that ofthe frame to the sculptor Jan de Smytere and his assistant, Jan de Heere, who continued the work alone after his master’s death in 1528. The epitaph was apparently not installed until February 1529, on the right side of the choir. The actual tomb, completed in 1528, located “in the choir before the high altar,” was also carved by Jan de Smytere, assisted by a certain Matheus de Smet, “according to the pattern by Jan Mabuse.”” The tomb 1s recorded in a woodcut in a book on Charles V published in 1561, as well as in later copies after a drawing dated about

xX

as The Circumcision

determining the project for which the drawing may have been made. As noted by Wescher, the artist was involved in designing a sepulchral monument for Charles V's younger sister Isabella, who was called Elizabeth after her marriage to the king of Denmark, Christian II. After he had to flee his kingdom with his family in 1523, Christian seems to have been an important patron in Gossart’s later life (see, notably, cats. SI, 111, 119, 120). Soon after Isabella’s death, on January 19, 1526, she was buried in the Sint-Pietersabdij, Ghent, which was

the overall design, which is exceptionally well documented.” In February 1526, contracts were drawn up for the epitaph, to be engraved on a brass plate, and its alabaster frame, described as a “work in the antique manner,” both after Gossart’s “pattern or model” (patroon of exemplaere). The execution of the brass plate was entrusted to a

16th century, after Jan Gossart(?), first half Two columns in Renaissance style, ca. 1520s. Oak, 390% x § x 5 1n. (100 X 12.5 X 12.§ cm); §% m. (100 X 12.5 X 13 cm). Muscum 30% § Catharyneconvent, Utrecht (AmB v85a, b) xX

The attribution to Gossart helps in

a Sk

—— em!

Bleep

or

hye

badnucre

ma

Mors

olen

agi,oo

one of which also shows the appearance and text of the epitaph (fig. 295).° Despite the significant differences between the tomb as recorded by these 1560,

ar

Tisle wh eile cent

Fig. 295. Unknown artist, Belgium, 19th century, after Arent van Wynendaele, The Epitaph of Isabella of Austria in the Abbey Church of Saint Peter, Ghent. Pen and brown

x

127% in. and black mk, watercolor over graphite, 19% (48.8 x 32.7 cm). Stadsarchief, Atlas Goetghebuer,

Ghent

(L

25/12)

later drawings and Gossart’s design seen here, there can be little doubt that the drawing relates to the royal commission: Gossart 1s well documented as its designer, and no young queen other than Isabella died in the Netherlands during hs lifetime.” It can thus be assumed that the drawing is a rejected design for the tomb. Given the financial difficulties that troubled

BET EE SL RTE ol as aur $0, aa S——

oe

:

r

_

-

Christian's years in exile (and that are also

evident in his dealings with the artists involved in the execution of the tomb),” it 1s no surprise that Gossart’s elaborate design had to be adapted to the relatively modest means of his patron. It may also have turned out to be too ambitious for the sculptors commissioned to execute the design, who would probably not have been very familiar with its Renaissance style. Whether the tomb that was eventually made is entirely of Gossart’s invention is not certain. The frame of the epitaph accords well with Gossart’s use of ornament and architectural forms, but the simple base of the monument, dominated by two pairs of volutes, has no parallel in Gossart’s oeuvre. If the drawing in Berlin is indeed a rejected design by Gossart for the tomb commissioned by Christian II, it can be dated quite precisely between the queen’ death in 1526 and the completion of the tomb 1n 1528. Because the sculptors had already started work by March 1527,” it

Ee

probable that the drawing dates from before that. Gossart’s work on the tomb 1s

thus coincides exactly with the beginning of Conrad Meit’s work on the tombs of Margaret of Bourbon, Philibert II of Savoy, and Margaret of Austria, commissioned by the latter for the monastery church of Saint-Nicolas-de-Tolentino at Bourg-en-Bresse.'” Meit, whom Gossart must have known well (see Maryan Ainsworth’s essay on Gossart’s artistic milieu in this volume), carved mainly the likenesses of the deceased, as well as fourteen putti bearing coats of arms that, in their classicizing playfulness, recall those of Gossart’s design; the work was completed in 1531. Gossart’s portrait of the queen is so impersonal that one doubts he ever saw her (the same can be said of the woodcut portrait of the queen after his design, cat. 120). He made up for this by the variety and richness of detail in the lower part of the tomb. His use of monumental allegorical

figures—Ileft to right, Charity; Justice;

Faith; two women, one bearing a globe with a cross and the other a scepter, symbols of royal power; and a woman with a

book, probably representing Wisdom— seems new in Northern art, breaking from the more traditional pleurants in Netherlandish funerary sculpture. If executed as designed, this would have surpassed any existing sculpture in the Renaissance style in the Netherlands: it looks forward to some of the most accomplished works that were executed in the following decades." SA

Notwithstanding the opinion expressed in HaverkampBegemann 1965, p. 404. 2. W. Halsema-Kubes in Amsterdam 1986, no. 13, as after an anonymous artist; Van Vlierden 2004, p. 397,111, as possibly by an arust influenced by Gossart Very similar columns in the Museum Lambert van Meerten, Delft (Klock, Halsema-Kubes, and Baarsen, pp. 40-41, fig. $7) are dated 1537 (after Gossart'’s death) but could be based on an earlier design perhaps also by Gossart. The design of a pair of smaller columns of a similar design in Sint-Agathakerk in Beverwijk, framing a 1.

Drawings

397

statue of the Virgin and Child, can also be attributed to Gossart (fig. 98). 3.

For the monument, see Kervyn De Volkaersbeke 1857-58, vol. 2, pp. 236—41; Glarbo 1926-28; Deruelle 1942, pp- 74-91; Herzog 1968a, pp. 145—50; Van

Driessche 1990; Laleman 1992, pp. §6—60; and my essay in this volume. My summary mainly follows Deruelle 1942 and Van Driessche 1990. For the later fate of the tomb of Isabella, whose remains were transferred to Odense in Denmark in the nineteenth century, see also Van der Haeghen 1886. 4. See the contract quoted 1n Van Driessche 1990, p. 126: “werck van anucaigen.” 5. See the documents quoted in Deruelle 1942, p. 77 (“mn den choor voor den hooghen autaer” and “in choro, ante summum altare™) and p. 79 (“volghens den pateron van Jan Mabuse™). Herzog 1968a (pp. 147, 431, under no. n. 30) mistakenly states that the documents concerning the commission mention Gossart’s name only in connection with the epitaph; but the document cited exphcitly mentions the “tomb of the queen of Denmark” (tommen van den coninghinne van Denemaercke). The contract for the tomb does have been preserved. not seem 6. Monique Vanroose in Ghent 197s, vol. 1, no. 553, pl. 130; Van Driessche 1990, p. 129, fig. 3. Although dating to the mneteenth century, the drawing seems more accurate than the only preserved sixteenthcentury view of the tomb, a woodcut illustration in

to

Van Vaernewnjck 1561, fol. N

1

verso (also in Van

Vaernewijck 1564, fol. © 1 verso). The drawing 1s a copyafter a lost original by Arent van Wynendacle, dated about 1560; two other copies exist (Deruelle 1942, p. 82),

but the one illustrated appears to be

the most trustworthy record. A Dutch translanon of the text of the original Laun epitaph, written by a humanist in Christian's service, Cornelis Schepperius given in Van Vaernewijck 1561, verso-N 11 recto (also in Van Vacrnewijck 1564, verso-0 m recto). The tomb 1s also mentioned

(de Schepper),

7.

fol. N

1

fol. ©

1

1s

in Van Vaernewyck 1568, fol. xix verso. Given that the crowned figure must have been a queen, one can dismiss the suggestion made in

Dhanens

1985 (p. 95)

that the drawing

is

an alternative

design for the funerary monument for the thirteenthcentury William 11, count of Holland and Zeeland, and his wife, Ehzabeth

of Brunswick-Liineburg,

in the

abbey church in Middelburg. 8. See Van Driessche 1990, pp. 126-27. 9. Deruelle 1942, p. 79. 10.

For Met's work on the tombs, sce Burk 2006, pp. 40-30; and Jens Ludwig Burk in Munich 2006-7, no. 18, ill.

11.

One significant Netherlandish sculpture in the Renaissance style 1s Lancelot Blondeel’s famous chimneypiece in Bruges, commissioned in 1528 (Luc

Devhegher in Bruges 1998, [vol. 1], Notices, no. 225, [vol. 2,1ll. p. 294). There 1s also a sepulchral monument recorded in a drawing attributed to Blondeel, which 1s somewhat simular to Gossart’s epitaph for Isabella and has been related to a monument commemorating Margaret of Austria, dated 1551

(Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, no. RP-T-1953-343; Boon 1978, vol. 1, no. 76, vol. 2, ill. p. 28; Linda Jansen in Bruges 1998, [vol. 1], Notices,

no. 88, [vol. 2],1ll. p. 84). See also Bart Stroobants in Mechelen 2005, no. 22, 1ll.

398 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Exhibitions: Ghent 1955, no. 174; Rotterdam, Bruges 196s,

no. 66; Utrecht, s-Hertogenbosch 1993, no. 178 Literature: Baldass 1915, p. 228,111. (as by Bernard van Orley);

Clemen 1923, p. 5, fig. 3 (as by Lancelot Blondeel); Bock and Rosenberg 1930, vol. 1, p. 36, vol. 2, pl. 27; Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), pp. 64, 67, no. 24, pl. LX; Wescher 1930; Madsen 1931, p. 305; Held 1933, p. 137; Friedlander 1938, p. 95, fig. 4; Wescher 1949, p. 264; E. Bille-De Mot in

Ghent

no. 174, fig. 108; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 97-98, n. 47 (as not by Gossart); von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p-

1955,

455: Van Luttervelt 1962, pp. 86-87, fig. 22; Rotterdam,

Bruges 1965, no. 66, 1ll.; Haverkamp-Begemann 196s, p. 404 (as not by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, pp. 145-50, no. b. 30, pl. 121 (as possibly not by Gossart); Friedlinder 1967-76,

vol.

8

(1972), pp. 40. 43, no. 24, pl. 69; Monique Vanroose in

Ghent 1975, vol. 1, p. 484, under no. 553; Sterk 1980, p. 92; Dhanens 198s, pp. 95, 111, 124, 125-27, 128, fig. 36; Dhanens 1987a, p. 57; Dhanens 1987b, col. 317; Van Driessche 1990, pp. 137-38, fig. 6 (as by an anonymous artist); Laleman 1992, p. $7.11. p. 56; Bob van den Boogert in Utrecht,

s-Hertogenbosch 1993, no. 178,11]; Hendrikman 2001, Gazer 2002, p. 203, fig. 6; Van Vhierden 2004, p- 397; De Jonge 2010, p. 93, fig. 100 B (detail)

p- 45, fig. 8;

Jan Gossart 109. Design for a Ceiling with Nine Angels Carrying Instruments of the Passion Ca. 1520-24(?) Pen and brown ink, incised construction lines, on two separate pieces of paper laid down together on a modern mount, 97s x 18% in. (23.9 x 46.7 cm) Watermark: crowned coat of arms wath the letter L below the letter Gabinetto Disegm ¢ Stampe degh Uffiz, Florence

D

1691 ©

lower left, inscribed 1691 1n pencil (20th-century handwriting); at lower right, collection mark of the Uffizi (Lugt 930). Verso of mount, at upper center, inscribed 1691 Om /G. Mabuse in graphite (20th-century handwriting); at center right, scribed 5 in graphite (20th-century handwriting) Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: At

Condition: The drawing is in good condition. There is a torn, reinserted piece at lower left.

of paper

Provenance: Acquired by

at lower right and a hole

Leopoldo de’ Medici

1675), Florence, by 1673; by descent, Houses

(1617—

of Medici

and Lorraine, Florence; Gabinetto Disegm e Stampe degh Ufhz, Florence

he attribution of this drawing to Gossart, which goes back to at least the seventeenth century,” has never been questioned. Indeed, the drawing stands out as one of his most accomplished graphic works, approaching in both quality and style the portrait of Christian II, dated about 1526 (cat. 111). As one of the artist's more securely attributed sheets, it is a useful reference point for the attribution of other drawings that share characteristics such as the drapery, with its typical “bubbles,” hatching, and nervous outlines, and the children’s chubby, segmented bodies. The incised construction lines that Gossart used to draw the half dodecagon and to divide the borders of its three segments appear in several other of his paintings and drawings that feature a precise architectural or ornamental framework (see my essay in this volume). As indicated by the way the feet, arms, and drapery, the cross, and the column all overlap the bor-

a

der, this design of coffered ceiling was almost certainly meant to be painted as a

re

oe AR r

trompe-1’oeil decoration, maybe in grisaille, rather than to be executed in rehef.

In 1980 Jos Sterk put forward the possibility that the design 1s related to Philip of Burgundy’s renovation campaign at his castle in Wijk bij Duurstede, to which he and his court—including Gossart—moved in 1517, when Philip became bishop of Utrecht.” An old source describes the episcopal chapel in the castle as “the painted oratorium at the altar,”* which likely refers to a painted ceiling. One connection with the iconography of Gossart’s design may be Philip’s golden crucifix “with two little angels and six big pearls, eight small pearls and eight red small stones, called rubies [or spinels],” which “was said to contain a this piece of the duke’s [Philip's] cross.” refers to a piece of the True Cross, the crucifix would have been a reliquary, and thus a ceiling decorated with the instruments of Christ’s Passion would have been appropriate for the chapel in which the relic was preserved. Until other evidence comes up, linking Gossart’s design to Philip's renovation of his castle is the most convincing explanation of the design’s function. It would date the drawing to the

PE

EA

m——

Mie

ET TTPRR ARR a

>

Ie lt

aT

EL -—AN RARRRRRA x RAAIT

rai on

wm

Ng

CURAR

NS

of

NG RR

period between 1517, when Philip began renovating, and his death in 1524. On stylistic grounds, a date in the 1520s, close to that of the above-mentioned portrait of Christian II, 1s most likely. Depictions of angels carrying the Instruments of the Passion were not new in Netherlandish art.” However, as Jacqueline Folie has pointed out, Gossart’s design 1s also closely related to the fresco by Melozzo da Forli and assistants in the octagonal cupola of the sacristy of San Marco in the Basilica della Santa Casa in Loreto, which

gts

was finished in the 1480s (fig. 296).” The most compelling resemblance to Melozzo’s design 1s the coffers decorated with a broad border. In Gossart’s drawing, the ornamen-

tation 1s detailed only for the compartment at center, since the others would be identical. It must be assumed that Gossart knew Melozzo’s painting, even it 1s not documented that he ever visited Loreto. Such a visit is not implausible, as the town was a popular pilgrimage site, and Gossart could have gone there on his way to or from Rome. Certainly, it would have been fitting

if

If

Fig. 206. Melozzo da Forli and workshop, Cupola decoration with prophets and angels Passion and other attributes (detail), 1484. Fresco. Sacristy of carrying Instruments of Saint Mark, Basilica della Santa Casa, Santuario di Loreto

the

Drawings

399

Copyrighted material

for an artist as well informed as Gossart to study the decoration of the sanctuary in Loreto, where the most important relic of the True Cross was preserved, before startSA ing to work on a similar project.

1.

The watermark

1s

discussed by Arianna Meucci in

Florence 2008, pp. 164-65, no. 11 (filigrane), ill. p. 176. 2. See Baldinucci 1673/1975, p. 193. For mentions of cat, 109 1n the eighteenth-century manuscript catalogues of the Uffizi’s collection by Giuseppe Pelh Bencivenn, see Florence 2008, p. 22, under no. 12. 3. Sterk 1980, pp. 29-31, 32-36. 4. “Des biscops camere naest de capelle, dair men uuytgaet in den gescilderden oratoir bij den autare.” Quoted from Sterk 1980, p. 302, n. 3, under fol. xvi. 5. Inventory of Duurstede castle, February 1529, published in Sterk 1980, pp. 230-31, under fol. xvi: “Een ander crucefix van fijnen goudt mit twee engelkens ende zes groote perlen, acht cleyne perlen ende acht roode steenkens, ballais genoempt, dewelcke aen den voet gebroken 1s, wegende zeven onssen, zeventhien engelssen ende eenen halven engels”; plus a marginal note in the inventory, September 1534, quoted from Sterk 1980, p. 294, n. 11, under fol. xm: “hier inne seytmen een stucke van den hertogen cruce te zyn." For the reliquary,see also Frolow 1961, no. 856, 1; and Frolow 1965, p. 75. 6. Caterina Limentami Virdis (in Florence 2008, p. 23, under no. 11,1ll.) made the connection with a painting from the circle of Robert Campin in the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique/Koninkliyjke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Brussels, no. 4058 (Stroo and Syfer-d'Olne 1996, pp. $363, no. 2, pl. 2,1ll;; Thiirlemann 2002, no. m 6.3,1ll.). For other Northern examples, see Berliner 1955 and Suckale 1977. 7. For Melozzo’s fresco, see, among other publications, Clark 1990, p. 43, pl. 1x-xx1; Frank 1994; and Forli 1994-95, ill. pp. 110-23. The connection was first

made in Folie 1951/1960, p. 97, n. 45. Exhibitions: Florence 1947, gallery

1x,

case

1,

no. 21;

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 51; Amsterdam 1986, no. 4; Florence 2008, no. 11; Paris 2008, no. 9 Literature: Baldinuca 1673; Baldinuca 1673/1972, p. 79;

Baldinucc 1673/1975,

p. 193; Ferri 1890, p. 334, no. 1691;

W. Kronig 1936, p. 67, pl. 3;Van Gelder 1942, p. 9; Licia Collob1 Ragghianti in Florence 1947, p. 63, no. 21; Wescher 1949, p. 264; Folic 1951/1960, pp. 85-86, no. 20; Rotterdam,

Bruges 1965, no. s1,1ll.; Herzog 1968a, pp. 100-10, 415-17, no. D. 20, p. 449, under no. p. 5, p. 478, pl. 111; Henn Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlinder 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 33, pl. 70; Kloek 1975,

no. 126; Anna Forlani Tempesti in Florence 1976, p. 112, under no, 109; Sterk 1980, pp. 129-30, 302, n. 3, under fol. xvm, fig. 38; Karel G. Boon in Florence, Paris 1980-81, p. 128, under no. 88; Jos Sterk in Amsterdam 1986, no. 4, ill.; Caterina Limentani Virdis in Florence 2008, no. 11,1ll; Limentanmi Virdis in Paris 2008, no. 9,1ll.

400

Jan Gossart 110.

A Reliquary

Ca. 1510—-15(?) Pen and brown ink, over black chalk, 6% X 3% 1n. (16.8 X 8.5 cm) Watermark: fragment, probably of the Gothic letter P' The Morgan Library and Museum, New York 111, 127b Condition: The drawing

1s

in good condition.

Robinson (and his sale, Christie's, London, May 12-14, 1902, no. 144, as by an anonymous Netherlandish artist); Charles Fairfax Murray (1849-1919), London; acquired by Pierpont Morgan (1836-1913), New York, 1910; Provenance: Probably Sir John Charles

J. Pierpont Morgan Jr. (1867-1943), New York; given by J. Pierpont Morgan Jr. to the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, 1924

his drawing has been judged rather severely: Egbert HaverkampBegemann called it “at best a weak drawing by Gossaert, but more likely one by a pupil,” and Felice Stampfle, in 1991, attributed it to “a lesser hand, hard put to define

the three-dimensionality of the metalwork and the relationship of the various elements of the uppermost section of the piece.” The drawing certainly cannot be claimed to be a masterwork, but the difference

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

~ rn Copyrighted matenal

™N

~

-

»

Su

-

between this sheet and more broadly accepted drawings by Gossart is, I feel, one of execution rather than authorship. The Gothic ornament is drawn with the same lively line characteristic

of other sheets

by

Gossart dating from both the 1510s and 1520s (for instance, cats. 83, 90). The hatching used to indicate the shadow underneath the object is identical to that in the sketch of a warrior in Frankfurt (cat. 103), and I would date this drawing accordingly, to probably shortly after Gossart’s trip to Rome. The combination of Gothic forms and some modern Italian elements—most notably, the horizontal disk, probably intended to be set with jewels, supported by a base decorated with gadroons—seems to be highly uncommon in extant vessels of the period and points to an inventive artist. The buttresslike columns piercing the central disk are a motif that Gossart seems to have favored, as evident in the tower at upper left in his early drawing The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (cat. 91), as well as in the central panel of the Malvagna Triptych and in the tracery surrounding the column at left in one of his late paintings (cats. 6, 14). Similarly elaborate designs are recorded in ornament prints of the period.” How-

it

not altogether certain that Gossart’s drawing, which depicts a reliquary (rather than a monstrance),” was a design for a real object. It could also be a sketch made in preparation for a painting, such as the London Adoration of the Kings (cat. 8). The vessels in both this drawing and that painting are squat in comparison with reliquaries and monstrances from the period, and they would have been difficult to hold because of their short stems. The drawing also lacks the precision and detail that a metalsmith would have needed to translate the design into a three-dimensional object; the container for the relic, in particular, is only vaguely indicated. On the other hand, is plausible that Gossart would have made designs for liturgical metalware. For many years he worked in the service of Philip of Burgundy, who was head of the most important bishopric in the northern Netherlands, and he is known to have ever,

1s

it

been volved in the design of church furniture (see my essay in this volume). Max Friedlinder’s assumption that Gossart trained as a goldsmith, however, has SA become untenable. See Stampfle 1991, p. 44,1ll. p. 627, no. 19. 2. Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 404; Stampfle 1991, 1.

no. 71. 3.

For an example by the late fifteenth-century Netherlandish Master W with the Key, see Hollstemn

1949-2007, vol. 12 (1955), p. 231, no. 54. 4. As suggested in Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 52. Exhibition: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. $2 Literature: Christie's, London 1902, no. 144 (as by an anon-

ymous Netherlandish arust); Wescher 1949, pp. 264-65, fig. 1; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 86, no. 2; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 52, 1ll.; Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 404 (as a

weak drawing by Gossart or by a pupil of Gossart); Herzog 1968a, p. 218, under no. 6, pp. 394-95, no. 0. §, p. 476, pl. 98; Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlinder (1972), pp. 114, 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 40; Stampfle 1991, no. 71,1ll. (as by an artist working in the manner of Gossart)

1967-76, vol.

8

Jan Gossart 111. Christian

II of

Denmark Ca. 1526 Pen and two hues of brown ink, over black chalk; incised for transfer, 10%6 x 8% 1n. (26.9 x 21.6 cm) Framing line in pen and black ink Watermark: crowned coat of arms with three fleursde-lis and B underneath’ Frits Lugt Collection, Paris 5141 Inscriptions, marks, and stamps: Verso, at lower

Christiaan

IT

van Denemarken in

right,

graphite (by Frits Lugt)

very well preserved, with some minor stains, tears, and folds. Condition: The drawing

1s

Provenance: Probably Samuel Rogers (1763-1855),

London

sale,

Christie's, London, April 28, 1856, and following days, no. 887, as by Albrecht Diirer, for £15.10 (his

to Nieuwenhuys); |Christianus Johannes Nieuwenhuys (1800-1883), Brussels and London]; Joseph-Eugéne Schneider (1805—1875), Paris and Creusot (his sale, Hotel Drouot, Paris, April 6-7, 1876, no. 63, as by Diirer, for 400 francs to Faure Lepage); private collection (sale, Hotel Drouot, Paris, November 16, 1936 [without catalogue, for 4,000 francs to Fischman); Pierre Landry (d. after 1972), Paris; acquired by Frits Lugt (1884-1970), The Hague and Paris, 1936; Frits Lugt Collection, Paris

I

suprising that Gossart, who excelled in portraiture more than any other Netherlandish artist of his time, left only this one drawing in the genre. He must have made at least one drawing for every portrait he painted in order to capture the features of the sitter, but those studies are likely to have been relatively loose sketches, probably executed in chalk or charcoal and not in pen (see my essay in this volume). Perhaps it was their unfinished appearance, in addition to the casualties of time, that explains their absence from Gossart’s drawn oeuvre as it is known today. The high finish of the drawing seen here may be the reason it survived so well. Even though it gives the sitter remarkable presence, the drawing is, in a way, only partially a portrait; it is foremost a print model, and its style, characterized by careful hatching and great attention to detail, can best be compared to that of Gossart’s modello for a trompe-1'oeil ceiling in Florence (cat. 109). That the drawing was preparatory for a print 1s indicated by the space left open for an inscription at lower center and by the fact that most of is

the coats of arms surrounding the sitter are drawn mirrored,” anticipating the reversal of the composition in the printing process. An engraving after the drawing is a faithful but somewhat dull reproduction (cat. 121), generally thought to be by the German printmaker Jakob Binck, although there 1s no firm evidence for this attribution.” Binck, who has been called “the most flexible and widely traveled if not the 4 most talented artistic thief of his time,” also copied two extremely rare woodcut portraits after Gossart of the same sitter and his wife (see figs. 321, 322), but these are unlikely to have been made under Gossart’s supervision, because the coats of arms are incorrectly reversed. This cannot disprove the attribution to Binck of the large portrait under discussion here, but it should be noted that the print lacks the monogram with which he signed many of his works, and the only evidence that he may have visited the Netherlands (where he presumably would have had to be in order to work after Gossart’s drawing) is a signed

portrait, dated 1529, of the Netherlandish Drawings

401

cuts more lapidary style does not compare with the lovingly executed details of the drawing; and the extraordinary presence of the sitter, which puts the drawing on a par with Gossart’s best portrait paintings, outshines the simplified features of the face in the German print. It 1s beyond doubt that Gossart, like Cranach, knew the king personally and probably met him before Christian's stay in Germany. Christian's presence in Zeeland and Mechelen in 1523, in the same circles as Philip of Burgundy,

Fig. 297. Lucas Cranach the Elder or studio, Christian IT of Denmark, 1523. Woodcut, 6%

(16.6 x 11.7 cm). The British

x Museum, London,

4% in.

Department of Prints and Drawings (1911-7-8-56)

landscapist Lucas Gassel, which Binck, according to the inscription, drew after life.” Despite his nomadic life, Christian II, king of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, seems to have been one of the most important patrons of Gossart’s later career (see under cat. s1). In addition to the drawing under discussion and the two woodcut portraits mentioned above, he commissioned the artist to design his wife’s tomb and epitaph after her death in 1526 (see cat. 108) and to paint the “dwarf and his female companion of the king of Denmark,” as well as a portrait of the royal couple’s children (cat. s1).” The two print portraits of Christian by Gossart should be seen in the context of his political struggles; they were probably made at his request for use as propaganda. But his

eagerness to be portrayed by leading artists was evident as early as 1515, several years before he was deposed, and the many portraits of Christian in different media rival in quality those of almost any other sitter in the early sixteenth century.” While in Germany in 1523, Christian spent some time “at home with Lucas Cranach,” a stay that resulted in three woodcut portraits of Christian, all dated the same year; two of 402

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 208. Lucas Cranach the Elder, Christian II of Denmark, 1523. Woodcut, 9'%6 x 6'%i6 1n. (25.2 x 17.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Anonymous Gift, 2009 (2009.159)

these served as illustrations in publications used to further the king's cause.” One of these prints (fig. 297)" is particularly close in composition to Gossart’s drawing: the king's clothing, the arch under which he 1s seated, the capitals of the columns supporting the arch, the positions of the coats of arms, and the tablet on which he rests his arms are clearly related. The dependence of one of the works on the other can also be deduced from the fact that they both incorrectly represent the arms

of the county of Stormarn: the

swan wearing a crown around its neck is heading in

the wrong direction. The coat of arms is correctly depicted in another woodcut

portrait of Christian II by Cranach (fig. 298)."" A connection between this print and Gossart’s design can also be made; the prominence ofthe lions’ heads in both works is especially striking. Gossart’s design has generally been dated later than Cranach’s print, but it would be difficult to prove that it is not, in fact, the other way round. Gossart’s design is artistically far superior: the setting is spatially more convincing and reflects his knowledge of antique architecture as well as his imaginative use of ornament; the wood-

may well have coincided with an extended visit by the artist to either place.” Christian had visited the Netherlands in 1521, but the years he lived there provided the best opportunity for Gossart to meet him. Contacts between the artist and the king are documented in 1526-29, in connection with Gossart’s design for the tomb for Isabella (cat. 108); most notably, the king writes in August 1528 that he wants to

come together with Gossart and the sculptor of the tomb in Ghent." Compared to the portrait drawing that Diirer made of Christian in 1521 in Antwerp, Gossart’s king looks older by a few years. A date of about 1526 probably best reconciles the biographies of painter and sitter as well as the king's appearance in the drawing, but it should be borne in mind that they had earlier occasions to meet and that, as Friedlander put it in connection with the surprising variation in Christian's facial features in his many extant portraits, “his character sways in history as it does in

painting.” Friedlander had attributed the design of the print to Gossart “judging by its style” even before he knew the drawing.” The portrait compares indeed well with Gossart’s painted effigies, but its beauty 1s nonetheless exceptional in his drawn oeuvre, and when used as a standard for judging other drawings associated with the artist, only a few achieve the finish and detail of this work, which has been called “indisputably among the highpoints of portrait drawing of the Northern Renaissance,” equaling— and in some cases surpassing—similar works by Diirer, Holbein, and Lucas van

Leyden." In terms of Gossart’s style, the portrait

is really

comparable only to the

4

LT

Ao

‘

LAG

WB,

LN

A

BAY

|

\ 5

\

: i)

1

:

CU

ON

Eh

0X %

§ Ta

. >

C

|

;

NN

ASWie

EPR ARCTIC TU

3

:

wath)

|

‘

Rl~

5 - Ak

»

.

[SEN

5

W

WAR

W

Ay

| 3

iF

Me og

eae Tren TEP T

Drawings

Ad

—

403

ceiling design in Florence (cat. 109), but some aspects can be connected with other of his drawings, such as the king’ curls (compare those in cat. 93), as well as the putti with the body type seen in several of Gossart’s other drawings, from the sketchiest (the angels surrounding Christ in cat. 87) to the more finished (the small Leonard in the left wing of cat. 90). The difference in color between Christian's head and the rest of the drawing has been explained by proposing that, after having drawn the architectural setting, Gossart later drew the head from life. But given the faultless execution and high finish of the drawing, this seems highly improbable, to say the least, even for a draftsman as gifted as Gossart. As noted above, Gossart must have made sketches from life, probably in chalk or charcoal, to use as models when making a finished portrait. Because following such a model would have required a different kind of application than drawing the architectural surrounding and the costume, for which the artist could rely on his own skill and imagination, it makes sense that he would undertake the work on the face in a separate campaign, using an ink with a shghtly different composition from the one used before. The difference in color, which became apparent only over time, now gently highlights the likeness of the sitter. Notwithstanding the ornamental richness of the architecture and the playfulness of the border, this drawing makes its first and most profound impact as an arresting porSA trait of a proud but tested man.

.

5. .

The watermark

reproduced in Boon 1992, vol. 2, (compare Briquet 1923, vol. 1, no. 1827,

Hollstein (German) 1954, vol. 4 (1957), p. 102, no. 245,111, as by Binck. The attribution to Binck 1s due to Passavant (1860-64, vol. 4 [1863], p. 95, no. 137). The print was previously also attributed to Georg Pencz (in Michel Huber in Pauli 1909, p. 37. no.

.

pt. 2 [1801], p. 620, no. 3579, as by Pencz) and Hanns Lautensack (see Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 9 [1808], pp. 230-31, as 1,

“falsely attributed to Lautensack™). Doubts about the attribution to Binck of the print were voiced in

Friedlander 1938, p. 95. A seventeenth-century copy

404

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

The latter portrait could also have been by

the

children’s guardian, Margaret

a

commission

of Austria.

It has

been proposed that a portrait of a young girl be identified as one of the daughters, Dorothea (cat. 57); but see Sterk 1980, pp. 279-81, n. 8. For the iconography of Christian II, see Falck 1916; Madsen 1930; Friedlinder 1938; Gluck 1940; Svarre 1953; Kai Sass 1970; and Kai Sass 1976. 9. Document quoted in Schuchardt 1851-71, vol. 3 (1871), p. 253: [bei] Lucas Kranach zu hawss gewest.” For Cranach’s prints, see notes 10 and 11, and fig. 320 in cat. 119. The latter print was discussed by Tilman .

Falk in Basel 1974, vol. Cranach’s workshop. 10.

1,

p. 346, fig. 192, as by

Hollstein (German) 1954— , vol. 6 (1959), p. 101, no. 124,1ll., as by Cranach; Tilman Falk in Basel 1974, vol. 1, no. 238, fig. 191, as by Cranach or workshop. For the tradition in which both Gossart’s drawing and Cranach’s print are rooted, see Pelinck 1966; and Van Berge-Gerbaud 1990.

11.

Hollstein (German) 1954— , vol. 6 (1959), p. 102, no. 125, 1ll, as by Cranach; Dieter Koepplin in Basel 1974, vol.

12.

1,

no. 160, fig. 114, as by Cranach. The large

crowned coats of arms at the top of Gossart’s drawing and the print reproduced here as fig. 297 are those of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. The smaller escutchcons (clockwise from bottom left as they appear in Gossart’s drawing) bear the arms of the duchy of Holstein (representing what is usually considered to be a nettles leaf), the county of Oldenburg, the kingdom of the Wends, the duchy of Schleswig, the “Dannebrog” (the Damish national flag), and the arms of Stormarn. Gossart 1s documented 1n 1523 both at Adolf of Burgundy's castle in Souburg, where Christian was also staying, and at the court of Margaret of Austria in Mechelen (see the documents published in Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 376—77, nos. 12-13). See also Weisz 1913b, p. 110.

The letter

published in Deruelle 1942, p. 86; and quoted in Pinchart 1860-81, vol. 1, p. 181; and is

Wescher 1930, p. 186. 14.

IS.

A. 145;

Huber and Simmel 1801-10, vol.

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 65; Copenhagen 1975;

datable to 1615. Peter Parshall in Landau and Parshall 1994, p. 345. Hollstein (German), 1954, vol. 4 (1957), p. 105, no. 251. “la pourtraicture des nayn et nayne de Roy de 1s

fig. 237).

correctly (see below). 3.

and

sometimes been identified with a painting of Adam and Eve by a follower of Gossart in Berlin (see

1s

94, no. 116 ill, found in paper used in Bruges in 1523). 2. This was first remarked in Boon 1992, vol. 1, p. 212, n. 6, under no. 116. One coat of arms is not depicted p-

Exhibitions: Rotterdam 1938, no. 403; Brussels 1963, no. 290;

Dannemarcque, faicte par Jehanin de Maubeuge, fort bien fait.” Michelant 1871, p. $8. That painting has

13.

1.

of the print can be attributed to Nicolaes de Clerck

16.

Friedlander 1938, p. 97: “sein Charakter schwankt wie m der Geschichte, so 1m Bilde” Friedlinder 1916, p. 133. Friedlander got to know the drawing only after Frits Lugt acquired it in 1936, which explains its absence from the 1930 volume on Gossart in Die altniederlandische Malerei; Friedlander first cited 1t mn print in 1938. Jacquehne Folie in Brussels 1963, p. 195: "Se range incontestablement parm les sommets du portrait dessiné de la renaissance septentrionale (Durer, Holbein, Lucas de Leyde)”

Florence, Paris 1980-81, no. 87; Washington, New York 1986-87, no. 68 Literature: Chrisue’s, London 1856, no. 887 (as by Albrecht

Durer) (?); Gonse 1876, p. 528,1ll. p. 527 (as attributed to an artist from the school of Augsburg?); Hotel Drouot 1876, no. 63 (as by Durer); Falck 1916, pp. 75-76, 1ll.; Madsen 1930, p. 311,1ll.; Madsen 1931, p. 305; Frits Lugt in Rotterdam 1938, vol. 1, no. 403, vol. 2, fig. 215; Friedlinder fig. 6; Gluck 1940, pp. 20-21; Van Gelder 1942, p. 10; Wescher 1949, p. 264; Hennus 1950, p. 92,111;

1938, pp.

95-96,

Hollstein 1949-2007, vol.

8

(1953), p. 150, no. 1; Schwarz

n. 24; Svarre 1953, pp. 70-71, pl. Xvir; Friedlander 1956, p. 103, n. 3; Hollstein (German), 1953, p. 162,

1954,

vol. 4 (1957), p- 102, under no. 245; J. Q. van Regteren Altena and L. C.J. Frerichs in Amsterdam 1958, p. 152,

under no. 201; Folie 1951/1960, pp. 85, 86, no. 19, fig. 9; von der Osten 1961, vol. 1, p. 465; Egbert HaverkampBegemann in Moskowitz 1962, no. 489, ill; Jacqueline Folie in Brussels 1963, no. 290; Esler 1963, p. 16, pl. 17; Rostrup Boyesen 1956-63, p. 77 (as attributed to Gossart);

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 65, ill.; Bruyn 1965b, p. 467; Haverkamp-Begemann 1965, p. 405; Pelinck 1966, p. 261; Herzog 1968a, pp. 130-31, 132, 204, under no. 42, p. 299, under no. 45, pp. 417-19, no. D. 21, p. 449, under no. P. §, 478, pl. 112; Kuznetsov 1970, pp. 9-10, 81-82, pl. vi; D. De Hoop Scheffer and A. J. Klant-Vhielander Hein in Amsterdam 1972, p. 9; Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog in Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), pp. 114, 119, n. 21, Addenda no. 34, pl. 70; Strauss 1974, vol. 4, p. 2058, under no. 1521/33 (as by Jakob Binck): Boon 1976, p. 338, fig. 1; Kai Sass 1976, p. 166,111. p. 171, fig. a (as attributed to Gossart); Karling 1976, p. 152 (as attributed to Gossart), Fedja Anzelewsky in Brussels 1977, p. 77, under no. 88; Kloek 1978, pp. 452-53, under no. 23; Sterk 1980, p. 92; Karel G. Boon 1n Florence, Paris 1980-81, no. 87, pl. 9; Silver 1984, pp. 160-70, 185, pl. 156; Maria van Berge-Gerbaud in Paris 1983, p. 92, under no. 51, n. 6; Ginter Busch in Friedlinder 1986, p. 341, n. 16; Fagel 1983,

1ll. p. 143;

J. Richard Judson in Washington, New York 1986-87, no. 68; Christopher S. Wood in London 1987, p. 148, under no. 50, n. §; Wilbam W. Robinson in New York 1987, no.

68, 1ll.;

Van Berge-Gerbaud 1990; Boon 1992, vol. 1,

Bob van den Boogert in Utrecht, s-Hertogenbosch 1993, p. 239, under no. 176; Folie 1996,

no. 116, vol, 3, pl. p. 27, fig. 4;

15;

Hendrikman 2001, pp. 38-139, 46; von

Heusinger 2001a, pp. 67-68, fig. 56; Raskin 2001, 1ll. p. 112; Mensger 2002, pp. 99-101, fig. 48; Caterina Limentam Virdis in Florence 2008, p. 17, under no. 11, fig. 9a; Mensger 2008, p. 172; Jan Piet Filedt Kok in Paris 2010, p. 94, under no. 17

Drawings Attributed to Followers ofJan Gossart

This list includes all drawings not accepted as autograph in this catalogue, but accepted in either Friedlinder 1924-37 or Herzog 1968a. (None of them were accepted in Folie 1951/1960.) In addition, it includes sheets shown at the 1965 exhibition in Rotterdam and Bruges, as well as three drawings in Hamburg, Leipzig, and Berlin that can also be situated in Gossart’s circle. Two drawings that are quite certainly contemporary copies after drawings by Gossart, probably originating in his immediate circle, are catalogued as numbers 67 and 68. Three more copies after Gossart are discussed under catalogue numbers 79 and 88 (figs. 268, 269, and 285).

Unknown Netherlandish artist,

Unknown Netherlandish artist,

16th century, after Jan Gossart(?)

16th century,after Jan Gossart

Fig. 300. The Virgin and Child Seated on

Fig. 301. The Virgin and Child with

a Throne

Angels Playing Music

Pen and brown ink, over a sketch in black chalk, 7'%e x 6%6 1n.(19.5 X 15.4 cm) Hamburger Kunsthalle 21983

Pen and brown and gray ink, brush and pink ink, 7'%e x 6%6 10. (20.1 X 16.4 cm) Museum der Bildenden Kunste, Leipzig 9049

Literature: Stefes 2010, no. 1082, 1ll. (as by an artist active

Literature: Becker 1915 (as by Gossart); Folie 1951/1960,

in the arcle

of Gossart)

pp. 78.96, n. 12 (as by a follower

of Gossart)

Unknown Netherlandish artist, 16th century,after Jan Gossart

Fig. 299. Virgin and Child with Putti Playing Music

16th century, after Jan Gossart(?)

Fig. 302. The Mocking of Christ

Brush and purplish gray ink, 13%e x 7%e in. (34.4 x 19.2 cm) Ryksmuscum, Ryksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam

Pen and ink, 776 x §% in. (18.9 x

RP-T-19065-148 Literature: Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 70, ill. (as by

Unknown Netherlandish artist,

Unknown artist, after Jan Gossart

a

South Netherlandish artist after Gossart); Herzog 1968a, no. ». 28, pl. 119 (as attributed to an artist active in Bruges); Boon 1978, vol. 1, no. 287, vol. 2,1ll., p. 109 (as by an artist from the circle of Gossart)

14

Whereabouts unknown Inscribed (at lower left, probably by AD [for Albrecht Direr|

Fig. 303. The Lamentation

cm)

Pen and brown a

later hand):

(as by Gossart); Folie 1951/1960, pp. a

11

78,96, n. 12 (as by pupil or follower of Gossart); Friedlander 1967-76,

vol. 8 (1972), p. 41, no. 11, pl. 66 (as by Gossart)

and brown ink, brown wash,

heightened with white gouache, on gray-brown prepared paper, incised for transfer (laid down), 6'%16

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 8 (1930), p. 65, no.

nk, brush

x 9%6 In. (17.2

X

23.4 cm)

Inscribed (at lower right, in pen and brown ink): J. de Maubeuge Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett Kdz 5310

Drawings

405

Literature: Zeichnungen alter Meister 1910, vol. 2, no. 222, ill. (as by Gossart); Winkler 1921b, p. 412 (as possibly a

copy after an engraving by Johannes Wienx); Bock and Rosenberg 1930, vol. 1, p. 36 (as attributed to a follower of Gossart); Held 1931, pp. 124-25 (as attributed to Gossart); Hollstein 1949-2007, vol. 62 (2003), pp. 61-62, no. 710, ill; see also fig. 326 in this volume

Circle ofJan Gossart Fig. 304. The Judgment of Paris Pen and black ink, heightened with white gouache, on dark gray-blue prepared paper (laid down), Diam. 9% in. (23.5 cm) Inscribed: (at lower center in pen and black ink, in 16th-

or 17th-century handwriting): Nicasius van Mabuse National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh p 652 Literature: Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 96, n. 14 (as not by Gossart); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 56, ill. (as by

Gossart); Herzog 1968a, p. 170, n. 44, pp. 399-400, no. p. 11, p. 477, pl. 101 (as by Gossart); Andrews 198s, vol. 1,p. 33, no. p 562, vol. 2,1ll. p. 53 (as by Gossart); Timothy B. Husband in New York 1995, p. 129, no. 59, ill. (as by an artist from circle of Gossart)

the

Circle ofJan Gossart Fig. 305. Allegory of Fortune Pen and black ink, white gouache, on blue prepared paper, Diam. 8§%s in. (21.7 cm) Hamburger Kunsthalle 23908 Literature: Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 96, n.

not by Gossart, close to Bernard van Orley); Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, no. 58, ill. (as by Gossart?); Bruyn 1965b, p- 467 (as not by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, no. p. 41, pl. 140 (as not by Gossart) 13

(as

Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 14 (1937), p. 111 (as by Gossart); Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 95, 96, n. 14, p. 98, n. 59 (as not by Gossart); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 50, Supplement, no. 29, pl. 70 (as by Gossart),

Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 15, 1ll. (as by a follower of Gossart)

Circle ofJan Gossart Fig. 306. Allegory ofJustice

Circle ofJan Gossart

Black chalk, heightened with white gouache, on blue tinted paper (laid down), Diam. 10% (26.6 cm) Inscribed (at lower center, in pen and black nk): Jenin

in.

Gossart van Babuse

Literature: Folie 1951/1960, pp. 95,96, n. 13, p. 98, n. 59 (as not by Gossart, close to Van Orley); Rotterdam,

Bruges 1965, no. §9,1ll. (as by Gossart?); Bruyn 1965b, p- 467 (as not by Gossart); Herzog 1968a, no. p. 40 (as attributed to an artist from the circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst)

Circle ofJan Gossart Pen and brown ink, heightened with white gouache, 77%

in.

21.5 x 18.8 cm) Inscribed (at lower center, in pen and brown ink, 16thor 17th-century handwriting): Jennin Mabuse /B:o7 (?)

Albertina,Vienna 7835 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

6%6 x 9% 1n. (16.4 x 23.2 cm)

Inscribed (at lower right, in pen and brown ink, in 16thor 17th-century handwriting): Jennin Mabuse

Albertina,Vienna 7836 Literature: Friedlander 1924-37, vol. 14 (1937), p. 111 (as by Gossart); Folie 1951/1960, pp. 78, 95, 96, n. 14, p. 98, n. 59 (as not by Gossart); Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 8 (1972), p. 50, Supplement, no. 30 (as by Gossart), and in Notes by Henri Pauwels and Sadja Herzog, p. 118,

Fig. 307. Design for a Monstrance on light blue tinted paper (laid down), 876 x

Fig. 308. The Judgment of Paris in an Ornamental Frame Pen and brown ink, brown wash, heightened with white gouache, on blue tinted paper (laid down),

Albertina, Vienna 7834

406

307

n. 21; Peter van den Brink in Antwerp, Maastricht 2005-6, no. 16, 1ll. (as by a follower of Gossart)

PRINTS

Jan Gossart 112. Virgin and Child Seated at the Foot

of a Tree

1522

Engraving, 4'%s x 3% In. (12 x 8.5 cm) Inscribed (on plaque hanging from tree): [numbers reversed|

tus /

Impression illustrated: The Metropolitan Museum

1522

of Art,

New York, The Elisha Whattelsey Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1991 1991.1167

Fig. 309. Michelangelo, The Madonna of the Steps, ca. 1490. Marble, 217 x 15% in. (55.5 x 40 cm). Casa Buonarroti, Florence (190)

Impressions located: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

(no. 788-9); Kunsthalle, Bremen (no. 9040); Cleveland Museum of Art (no. 1953.138); Hamburger Kunsthalle (no. 3724); British Museum, London (no. 1850,0612.90); The Metropolitan Museum Art, New York (nos. 18.30.1 and 1991.1167); National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa (no. 5615); Bibliothéque Nationale de France, Paris (no. Ec.N.3221); Museum Boiymans Van

of

Museum of Fine Arts, San Francisco (no. 1987.1.176); Albertina, Vienna (no. 1949/637). Beuningen, Rotterdam (no.

L 1961/47);

he Virgin gazes into the eyes of her son as she tilts his head toward her own. Seated in her arms, he holds an apple in his right hand behind his back. A tree nearby bears a plaque, tied with a ribbon to a branch, that 1s inscribed with the artist’s monogram and the date. In the Virgin and Child Seated at the Foot of a Tree Gossart melded Italian and Northern sources. The subject is indebted to Albrecht Diirer, who produced two engravings depicting the Virgin and Child seated at the foot of a tree in 1511 and 1513." Gossart’s image is a not a copy of Diirer’s but rather a variation on the theme. Gossart worked elements from both of Diirer’s images into his own: the tree behind the Virgin, the beaded band around her head, the apple, the monogram on the plaque, and the animated folds of the drapery. He may also have adapted the gesture of the Virgins hand to the Child’ face from Diirer’s nursing Madonna in the Virgin and Child on a Grassy Bench

of 1503

(see fig. 106). The German artist had vis-

ited the Netherlands one year earlier than the date on this print, and his trip appears to have inspired not only Gossart’s engraving but also several other variations on Diirer’s images of the Virgin and Child by a tree. Among such works, created just around this time, are those by Netherlandish 408

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 310. Donatello, The Pazzi Madonna, ca. 1420. Marble, 20% X 27% 1n. (74.5 X 69.5 cm). Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Skulpturensammlung und Museum fiir Byzantinische Kunst (51)

i »,

1S

.

bY

Ea.

I

fre

A

7%

lh ¢ SE

printmakers Lucas van Leyden, Frans Crabbe, Nicolas Hogenberg, and Dirk

The oval face of the Virgin, with its long, flat nose and heavy, lidded eyes, 1s

Vellert (see figs. 107-110). Aside from looking to Diirer, Gossart also took Italian sculpture as a source.

not far from that in the most nearly contemporary work by Gossart, the painting of Venus and Cupid in Brussels dated 1521 (cat. 33). The proportions of the Christ Child, his muscled body and long legs, seem quite similar to those of Cupid in the painting as well. NMO

Michelangelo's relief The Madonna of the Steps of about 1490 appears to have been his model for the Christ Child's unusual gesture of turning his arm backward (fig. 309). The Pazzi Madonna, a relief by Donatello (fig. 310), may have inspired Gossart’s close arrangement of the two figures gazing into each other's eyes, as well as the position of the Madonna's hands.*

1.

Hollstein (German)

1954—,

vol. 7, pp. 27.

29,

30,

nos. 3I, 33, 34. 2. Lucas van Leyden, Virgin and Child with Tive Angels, 1523 (Filedt Kok 1996, p. 100, no. 84); Frans Crabbe, Virgin and Child in a Landscape, undated (Hollstein

1949-2007, vol. §, p. 77. no. 27); Nicolas Hogenberg, Virgin with the Child Seated near Tivo Tree Trunks, 1523 (ibid., vol. 9, p. 60, no. 18); and Dirk Vellert, Eve and Cain, 1522 (ibid, vol. 33, p. 188, no. 1).

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 353. 4. Weisz 1913b, p. 62; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, 3.

p. 353.

Literature: Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), p. $46, no.

1

(as

by an anonymous monogrammuist); Weigel 1845, p. 42, no. 14956; Passavant 1860-64, vol. 3 (1862), p. 23; von

Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), no. 1; Weisz 1913b, pp- 61-63, pl. xm, 36; Nagler, Die Monogrammisten, 1919, vol. 4, p. 6, no. 1; Delen 1934-35, vol. 2, p. 52; Hollstein 1949-2007, vol. 8 (1953), p. 146, no. 2; Prasse 1954, 111; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 351-54. no. 72; Herzog 1968a, PP- 444-45, no. p. 2; Ellen S. Jacobowitz in Washington,

Boston 1983, p. 290, no. 122; Fohe 1996, p. 26; Achim Riether in Munich 2006-7, pp. 212-13, no. §1

Prints

409

Jan Gossart 113. Virgin and Child Seated on a Bank Ca. 1522 Engraving, §'%e x 4% 10. (14.§ x 10.3 cm) Inscribed (in plate at lower right): rus Impression illustrated: Albertina,Vienna 0G 1949/638 Impressions located: first state, Bibliothéque Royale de Belgique, Brussels (no. SII 131113); Hamburger

Kunsthalle (no. 3725); British Museum, London (no. 1842, 0806.95); Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (no. BdH 12064); Albertina, Vienna (no. DG 1949/7638); second state, Kunsthalle, Bremen (no. 9o41)

he Virgin sits on the ground and gazes down at the Christ Child in her lap. He peeks up at her from beneath a length of drapery that he lifts with one hand. With the other, he cradles an apple that is also held by the Virgin. Gossart and his circle depicted this playful subject, the Christ Child who pulls up the Virgin's veil, numerous times in painting (see, for example, cats. 10, 554). It was clearly a popular subject for the artist, a fact that may have prompted the present engraving. One difference between the paintings and the print is that in the paintings the Child either looks out at the viewer or off into the distance; he does not look directly at his mother, as he does in the print. Two drawings also exist, possibly copies of works by Gossart, that, as in the print, depict the Virgin seated on the ground with the Child (cats. 73, 74). Scholars have remarked on the contrast between this print and Gossart’s other engraving, the Virgin and Child Seated at the Foot of a Tree, 1522 (cat. 112), some positing it as an earlier work and others as a later one. The open composition and the facial type of the Virgin set it apart from the scene by the tree. In addition, the engraving technique 1s different in each print. Here, Gossart employed long, evenly spaced parallel lines that contrast with the shorter strokes and areas of tight cross-hatching that he employed in the other piece. The variance between the two prints may reflect the difference in the models that Gossart relied on for each. While the image with the tree is largely based on 410 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

works by Diirer, for this print Gossart looked to Italy and, more specifically, to Andrea Mantegna’s monumental engraving the Virgin and Child of about 1480-85 (fig. 311)." In both works the Virgin is seated on the ground with the Child, the fabric of her dress falling around her in a mound of wrinkled drapery, from which her large knees protrude. While the ground 1s blank and the background 1s hatched in Mantegna’s print, in Gossart’s it 1s the reverse. [t may be noteworthy that in the second state of the print, in which Gossart’s monogram was removed, parallel hatching was added to the background in a manner

reminiscent of Mantegna. The dominance of parallel strokes in Gossart’s engraving seems to derive from the technique employed by Mantegna, which 1s characterized by horizontal hatching. He may also have been inspired by Diirer, who often created passages of parallel hatching. While in the Virgin and Child Seated at the Foot of a Tree Gossart derived the composition from a Northern artist but incor-

Fig. 311. Andrea Mantegna, Virgin and Child, ca. 1480-85. 9% (26.2 x 23.3 cm). The Engraving, 10% Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Elisha Whittelsey Collection, The Elisha Whattelsey Fund,

x

1952 (52.535)

in.

porated details from Italian sources, in this print he did the opposite. Although the general composition is inspired by an Italian print, the gesture of the Virgin and Child holding the apple together was taken from Diirer’s engraving the Virgin on a Crescent with a Starry Crown

of 1508

(fig. 312).> A drawing in Frankfurt (cat. 67),

probably a copy after Gossart, includes the identical gesture except that it is shared by Adam and Eve, who each touch the apple with one hand. As Weisz pointed out, the face of the Virgin in the engraving resembles that of Eve in the Frankfurt sheet— the oval shape of the head, the small mouth, protruding chin, and falling locks that seem to defy gravity.” While that drawing may be a copy, Gossart’s original may have been executed about the same time as this print.”

Unfortunately, neither the present work nor the drawing of Adam and Eve is dated, and neither are any of the known paintings that quote directly from this print. The figural group was copied at least twice in paintings, one by an anonymous

Fig. 312. Albrecht Darer, Virgin on a Crescent with a Starry Croum, 1508. Engraving, 4'%e X 2"%6 1m. (11.8 7.5 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Fletcher Fund, 1919 (19.73.38) xX

South Netherlandish artist and another attributed to Bernard van Orley.” The Rotterdam catalogue proposed a dating of about 1520-22, “given the less advanced character of this print in comparison with the other engraving,” and Von Heusinger suggested a later dating of 1525. Both datings were advanced without much explanation.” Until some concrete evidence comes to light, it would seem reasonable to assume that there was a moment about 1522 when Gossart tried the technique of engraving and that both engravings should date to about that time. Von Heusinger discovered that the Virgin and Child Seated on a Bank exists in

two states.” An impression of the second state in Bremen shows that the printing plate was cut down at some point and

horizontal hatching was added in the formerly blank background. In addition, Gossart’s monogram was eliminated. The deletion of his monogram strongly suggests that the second state was created after Gossart had no more use for the NMO plate, if not after his death.

(ibid. p. 188, fig. b). Dillon suggested that the print served as a model for three paintings of the Rest on

the Flight into Egypt by Savoldo, dated 1522, in which the Christ Child looks up from beneath the Virgin's veil (in Dubrovnik and two private collections), but that relationship seems tenuous (Gianvittorio Dillon in Brescia, Frankfurt 1990, PP. 236—37, no. 111.10a [Italian ed., p. 248]). 6. Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, p. 349; von Heusinger 2001a, p. 60. 7.

1.

Hind

1948, p. 10, no. 1.

Von Heusinger 2001a, p. 60, and figs. 38, 30. In the second state, the plate measures 13.4 by 9.2 centimeters.

2. Holistein (German) 1954—, vol. 7. p. 28, no. 32. 3.

In the head

of the Virgin—her long, thin, straight

nose and the cloth draped over her hair from which ringlets escape on either side—the present work also resembles another from Gossart’s circle, the painung of the Virgin and Child in Lisbon (see fig. 243). 4. Weisz 1913b, p. 60; he also compared the hatching in the two drawings. The former is in the Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (inv. no. 2472; Museum $5.

Literature: Bartsch 1803-21, vol. 7 (1808), pp. 546-47, no. 2

by an unknown monogrammust); Passavant 1860-64, vol. 3 (1862), p. 23; von Wurzbach 1906~11, vol. 2 (1910), p- 86, no. 2 (as after Gossart); Weisz 1913b, p. 60, pl. xm, 37; Nagler, Die Monogrammisten, 1919, vol. 4, p. 6, no. 2; Delen {as

1934-35, vol. 2, p. 52; Hollstein 1949-2007, vol. 8 (1953). p. 147, no. 3; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 347-50, no. 71; Herzog 1968a, pp. 443-44, no. p. 1; Folie 1996, p. 26; von

Heusinger 20014, pp. 59-60

Boymans Van Beuningen 1994, pp. 186-89, no. 38), the latter 1s in the Musée de Brou, Bourg-en-Bresse

Prints

411

Jan Gossart 114. The Mocking of Christ

or The Man of Sorrows

Ca. 1525

Etching on 1ron,

7'%ie x §'%6 1n. (19.8 x 14.5 cm)

Impression illustrated: Staathche Museen zu Berlin,

Kupferstichkabinett 553-42 Impressions located (wath states reversed from usual order, as described below): first state, Ryksmuseum,

Amsterdam (no. RP-P-1972-198); Museum PlantinMoretus, Antwerp (no. 8349); Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (no. 194-1892); Bibhothéque Royale de Belgique, Brussels (no. SV 42334); Stadel Museum,

Frankfurt (no. 32439); Briush Museum, London (two impressions, nos. E 2.204 and E 4.39); Bibliothéque Nationale de France, Paris (no. Ec.N. 3220a); Toledo Museum of Art (no. 1980.1012); second state, Staatliche

of

Museen zu Berlin (no. 194-1892); Museum Fine Arts, Boston (no. 1972.23); Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Paris (no. Ec.N. 3220); Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (no. BAH 9664); Albertina, Vienna (two impressions, nos. DG 1949/639 and

DG 1949/640)"

hrist, crowned with thorns and draped with a large swath of cloth, sits on a stone surrounded by ruins.

Another man, leaning on the ground nearby, points up with one hand and with the other holds a cattail toward Christ. The scene draws elements from depictions of the Crowning with Thorns, in which a fool or a Jew presents Christ with a mock scepter, often a long reed, cattail cut at the top, or, in certain instances as here, a full cattail.? The Man of Sorrows with the cattail, a symbol of salvation or the Resurrection, can be found in a number of northern European church sculptures as well. As Von Heusinger has noted, the composition also relates to Albrecht Diirer’s title pages to the Large and Small Passions, which both depict Christ as the Man of Sorrows.” In the title to the Large Passion, Christ, crowned with thorns and similarly draped, is presented with a reed by a man who looks more like a taunting soldier than the figure here; in the Small Passion, a lone Christ rests his head in his hand. While Gossart’s print is not a direct copy of either one, he was clearly familiar with both images.

finger not at Christ in a taunting manner but at the sky. Furthermore, while his mouth 1s open, he does not mock Christ but rather looks out at the viewer. The second is the way in which the man holds the cattail, displaying it to the viewer rather than handing it to the introspective Christ, who seems oblivious to his presence. Gossart’s print 1s a twist on Diirer’s image from the Large Passion: the artist seems to be taunting the viewer rather than Christ, as if to say, “Here 1s the man you see as your salvation.” In this work, Gossart typically melded both Northern and Italian sources. Christ's uncomplicated pose, so different from the one with twisted legs in Christ on the Cold Stone, the related painting in Budapest (cat. 27), was drawn from an Italian print. The torso and legs of Christ were quoted in reverse from the figure of Mars in an engraving by Marcantonio Raimond,

Mars, Venus, and Eros (fig. 313).”

No doubt

Gossart would have been well aware of the ultimate source of Marcantonio’s Mars, the famous antique Roman Belvedere Torso (see fig. 194). Christ's face in profile, on the other hand, derives from a profile of Christ in Diirer’s Christ Crowned with Thorns in the Engraved Passion of 1512 (fig. 314). This unsigned etching has been included in the Gossart literature since the 1860s.

More recently, however, Von Heusinger took issue with the attribution and preferred to see it as a piece produced in the circle of Bernard van Orley.” While the style of hatching may be tighter than in many of the master’s drawings and while the work lacks a signature, enough correspondences with his works exist to accept the attribution to Gossart. For example, the features of the man on the ground, especially his large, round eyes and open

a

Two details separate this image of the Man of Sorrows from earlier ones. The first is the pose of the man, who points his 412 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Fig. 313. Marcantonio Raimondi, Mars, Venus and Eros, ca. 1500-1534. Engraving, 11% x 8% 1n. (28.6 x 20.7 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rogers Fund, 1918 (18.84.2)

Fig. 314. Albrecht Durer, Christ Crowned with Thorns, from Engraved Passion, 1512. Engraving, 4% x 2'%e 10. (11.7 x 7.5 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Fletcher Fund, 1919 (19.73.9)

the

mouth, resemble those of the figure to the left of Christ in the Budapest painting

Gossart. For instance, the weightless, contorted hand of the man leaning on the ground in The Mocking of Christ is reminiscent of Charles V's right hand in

on the right in the same painting. Each work 1s also set in a shallow space, with an archway in the background. A parallel handling ofline and shapes can also be found in other works by

Gossart’s etching in Braunschweig (cat. 115). In both, the fingers are bent and the pinkie pulls awayfrom the hand.

(cat. 27). The pose ofhis hand, its single finger pointing up, recalls that of the man

Christ's right hand, which presses down on some drapery, is similar in pose to a

hand in

painting by Van Orley’s circle in Leipzig, as Von Heusinger suggests. Yet it 1s much more delicate than the one in the Leipzig painting, and the small circles at the knuckles and the short, parallel hatching also appear in Charles V's right hand and in Christian IT's hand in Gossart’s drawing of the monarch (cat. 111). The rocks with protruding points in the a

Prints

413

foreground of the print are similar in shape to those found, for instance, in the drawings The Conversion of Saul and Sheet with a Study after the “Spinario” and Other Sculptures (cats. 87, 101). The delicate, flicked branches at the upper left occur as well in the drawing of the Colosseum (cat. 102), and the small, rounded leaves at the top center resemble those in the foreground of The Adoration of the Magi in the

Louvre (cat. 75). All the known impressions of this print show some evidence of the rust that seems to have been progressively eating away at the iron printing plate. It appears as dark smudges or spots that reflect the areas of corrosion in the metal. These areas retained ink as the etching was printed and thus, like the etched lines, are evident in the impression on paper. Their presence in every known impression indicates that the iron plate had developed rust soon after completion. This may be what prompted Gossart’s query in 1522 for a recipe to etch on copper, which offered fewer problems with rust.” The progression of the rust marks offers some clue as to the sequence in the printing of the impressions. The etching has long been recognized as having been produced in two states. Traditionally, the first state has been described as having no monogram, and the second state as having the Diirer AD monogram added at the bottom. When impressions of both states are viewed together, it becomes clear that those state descriptions are reversed and that the print originally appeared with a Diirer monogram that was later removed.® The impressions of the state with the monogram are more brilliant and richly printed than those without. In the state without the monogram, rust marks appear to have been removed in such prominent areas as Christ's chest and under the arch, but they progressed in areas of linework that were hard to tamper with, most notably around the borders.” It is difficult to determine why the monogram was added in the initial state. The manner in which it is fitted in at the bottom suggests that it was not part of the original conception. The fact that the 414 JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

print quotes from and even builds on Diirer’s Passion images must have been

among the reasons. One entirely speculative answer may be that Gossart found this quickly rusted plate a complete loss and gave it to someone else to print out, and that printer, aware of the connection to Diirer, or hoping to make the plate more salable, added the monogram. NMO

1.

2.

3.

A pen-and-ink drawing in the same direction was auctioned in the sale of the Oppenheimer collection

(Christie's, London, July 10-14, 1936, no. 266). The full cattaal appears in a Book of Hours illumnated by Simon Bening, dated ca. 1525-30 (J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, Ms. Ludwig IX 19, fol. 160v); a cut cattail appears in Gossart’s painting in Budapest (cat. 27). Von Heusinger 2001a, p. 62; Hollstein (German) 1954—, vol. 7,p. 105, no. 113, p. 114, no. 125.

4. My thanks to Reindert Falkenburg for information

on the sculptures and suggestions as to the interpretaton of the print. 5. Held 1931, p. 123; Oberheide 1933, p. 142. 6. Von Heusinger 2001a, pp. 61-62. 7. For the letter, see my essay in this volume. It was first published in De Vocht 1928, p. 24; see also Van der Stock 1998, Appendix 3, pp. 326-27, doc. no. 16. 8. One can compare impressions of the first and second states of the print side by side in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, and the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. 9. David Tunick suggested three states of the print; state | before Diirer's monogram, state II with Diirer’s monogram, and state III with the monogram erased and the plate showing wear (Master Prints 1980, no. 15). He seems to have posited the first state on the basis of the presumably added monogram. I am grateful to David Tumick for discussing his theory with me and to Leonard Leibowitz, Alison Luxner, Annette Mamick, Maxime Préaud, Freyda Spira, Ad Stynman, and Richard Stone for our conversations regarding the progression of the print. The reversal of the traditional

Jan Gossart 115. Charles 1520

VV

iron

plate; hand-colored by Dirck Jansz van Santen," 9'%s x 6'¥%6 in. (25.3 x 17.6 cm) Inscribed: (in plate at upper right) IMS / 1520; (on sheet of paper at bottom): AVGVSTO VIVAS FOELICIOR

Etching

from

OPTIME PRINCEPS

/ TRAIANO

MELIOR REGNES, TER

/ TE METVAT VESPER TE LAVDENT INDICA REGNA / ORBIS TE ARCTOVS COLAT, ET TIBI SERVIAT AVSTER / IMAGO CAROLI MAX, CAES, AVG

MAXIME CESAR

AETATIS SVAE. AN 20 3 (May you have a

happier hfe

than Augustus, most splendid sovereign. May you reign better than Trajan, three times greatest Emperor. May the evening fear you, you are praised by immense empires. May the North worship you and the South serve you. Portrait of Charles Most August Emperor, His Age 20 years

3

months)®

Impression illustrated: Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum,

Braunschweig’

KKso81

youthful Charles V, his mouth slightly open, turns right as he looks out from the corner of his eye at the viewer. Leaning on a carpet-covered parapet, he sports a large brimmed hat with a repeated pattern of three shells. Around his neck is a large medallion displaying the head of

description of the states will be discussed in greater detail by the present author in a forthcoming article.

Literature: Heller 1831, pp. 844—45, no. 2263 (as not by

Durer); Passavant 1860-64, vol. 3 (1862), p. 23, no. 1; von Wurzbach 1906-11, vol. 2 (1910), no. 3 (as after Gossart); Nagler, Die Monogrammisten, 1919, vol. 4, p. 6, no. 3; Winkler 1921b, p. 412; Held 1931, p. 123; Oberheide 1933, p. 142; Delen 1934-35, vol. 2, p. 53, pl. xvi; Hollstein 1949-2007, vol. 8 (1953), p. 145, no. 1; Delen 1956, ill. p. 107; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 363-66, no. 75; Herzog 1968a, pp. 445-47, no. p. 3; Ellen S. Jacobowitz in Washington, Boston 1983, pp. 291-92, no. 123; Folie 1996, p. 26; von Heusinger 2001a, pp. 61-62; Achim Riether in Munich 2006-7, pp. 200-201, no. 45 Fig. 315. Hans Baldung, Charles VV, from Heironymus Gebweiler, Libertas Germaniae, 1519. Woodcut, 8% §%s in. (20.7 x 14.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Harris Brisbane Dick

x

Fund, 1925 (25.53.6)

IRIS 100k Pa hens

dob

J 0)

Mba

-

THY

Prints

415

around his shoulders the necklace of the Order of the Golden Fleece. He holds a glove and appears to gesture with his uncovered hand toward the right. In the background stands a wall behind which several sections of an ornate architectural structure are visible. This sheet, the first new print to be attributed to Gossart since 1908, was discovered among a group of portraits that have been together since at least the seventeenth century.' Von Heusinger was the first to recognize the print, with its IMS monogram, as a work by Gossart.” In addition to the monogram, the linework of the etching fits in stylistically with other works by the artist. The loose, slightly tremulous lines that define the background architecture compare closely with the treatment of distant architectural details in the drawing Emperor Augustus

a soldier, and

and the Tiburtine Sibyl (cat. 91). The figure’s right hand with its bent pinkie 1s similar to the left hand of the Virgin in the Virgin and Child Seated at the Foot of a Tree (cat. 112).

According to the final line of the inscription at the bottom of the etching, Charles V was twenty years and three months old when he was portrayed by Gossart. Since he was born on February 24, 1500, that would mean that the print was created at the end of May 1520, a few months before he was crowned emperor on October 23 and 24.° Many portraits of Charles were created in painting and print between 1515, when he assumed rule of the Netherlands, and 1520. Despite the inscribed dating, Gossart’s likeness seems to depict the monarch at an earlier age, as it shares certain characteristics with portraits of him created about 1516—18.” The clothes, style of hat, and pose are similar to those in a group of woodcut portraits by Hans Weiditz dated 1516—19 that show Charles as king of Spain. The face with a small mouth and small, pointed chin and the head that turns to the side but eyes

that look out at the viewer closely resemble features of a portrait by Hans Baldung published about 1519 (fig. 315)." Von Heusinger suggested that Gossart would have created the original drawing 416 JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

of Charles before the monarch’s departure in 1516 for Spain, where he remained until 1520. He indeed appears to have used an

earlier image of Charles as a model for this print and updated the regalia to reflect Charles’ new positions. However, the close resemblance of the facial expression in Gossart’s print to that in Baldung’s raises

the question of whether, despite the lively look of the figure, Gossart actually would have needed to draw Charles in person at all. It seems more likely that he used both Baldung’s and Weiditz’s prints as models for his own. It 1s also possible that, given the fact that both his and Baldung’s prints depict Charles facing in the same direction and given the reversal of the image inherent in the printmaking process, both artists followed another model entirely, one in which Charles was portrayed facing left. There may be no reason to assume a wide gap in time between the date of Gossart’s drawn design for the portrait and that of the resulting print. The date of 1520 places Gossart’s work not only as the earliest print by the artist but also as one of the earliest etchings created in the Netherlands.” Von Heusinger argued convincingly that this print was intended as a pendant to Lucas van Leyden’s portrait of Maximilian I (see fig. 111), dated to the same year." The figures face each other, and they are similarly situated behind a ledge draped with a tapestry and in front of a wall behind which can be seen a variety of architecture. A correspondence between the two prints would explain Charles’ gesture as he motions to the right, pointing to his grandfather in the facing print. Although Maximilian’s gaze to the left results from Lucas’ faithful reliance on a print by Diirer, it can be interpreted in this context as the emperor’ direct gaze at his successor." While likely pendants, the two prints would not have been produced together: Gossart’s portrait was pulled from an iron plate, Lucas’ from a copper one.'” The two metals require different mordants for etching, and copper, which preserved better, allowed for a mixed technique of etching and engraving, of which Lucas’ print is a prime

example.” Which of these prints came first 1s difhcult to determine, and cases can be made for each one." the print The verses at the bottom have been attributed to Gerard Geldenhouwer." Given the participation of both Gossart and Geldenhouwer in this work, it has also been proposed that the print was produced as a commission by Philip of Burgundy in honor of Charles V, who returned to the Netherlands from his stay in Spain in 1520." Charles and Philip met in Brussels at the end of June or beginning of July in that year, and this print may have been produced for that occasion." In the period following Maximilian I's death and surrounding the coronation of Charles V, portraits of the two emperors must have been popular subjects. Thus it is puzzling that while the portrait of Maximilian is known in many impressions as well as in two printed copies, the impression of Charles in Braunschweig appears to be unique." Although the rea-

of

it

sons for this discrepancy are unclear, 1s known that iron plates were often difficult to print and preserve.” The present impression—which, granted, is covered with gold and colored paint—does not appear to have been unevenly printed. However, it may be that the iron printing plate was quickly corroded or damaged in some way and that it was possible to print only a very few impressions. Indeed, some traces of rust seem to be visible on Charles’ hands. NMO

1.

Identified by Jan van Der Waals; see von Heusinger

2001b, p. 43 2 Translation based on von Heusinger’s from the Latin .

(von Heusinger 2001a, p. 32, n. 115). My thanks to Dirk Breiding for help with the translation. 3.

4.

This impression

unique. Friedlander speculated that the engraving of Hercules and Deiamira (cat. 116) should be given to Gossart (Friedlander 1908, p. 404). On the collection of portrait prints, see von Heusinger 2001b. The provenance of the Charles etching 1s as follows: Laurenz van der Hem, 1s

V

Amsterdam; his sale, April 18, 1685; Elisabeth Sophie Marie von Holstein-Norburg (1683-1767): by 1795 in $5.

6. 7.

the hbrary of the ducal museum in Braunschweig. Von Heusinger 20012

Ibid,

p. 9.

For a discussion of the early printed portraits of Charles V, see ibid. pp. 11-32.

8.

Ibid, pp. 15-25 (the Weiditz illustrated

as figs.

8-11,

the Baldung as fig. 13). For the Baldung, see also Dodgson 1903-11, vol. 2, pp. 168-70; and Mende 1978, no. 434.

Jan Gossart(?) 116. Hercules and Deianira

9. Von Heusinger 20012, p. 62. 10. 11.

12.

Ibid., pp. 70-72. Lucas’ portrait was closely based on Durer’s Portrait of Maximilian I, of about 1518 (see Ellen S. Jacobowitz in

Washington, Boston 1983, p. 199). See von Heusinger 2001a, p. 65, on the technique of Gossart’s print, and Landau and Parshall 1994, PpP-

13.

332-33.

Etching on iron began in German lands before it reached the Netherlands, and etching on copper began in Italy and the Netherlands about 1515-20 and was slower reaching German-speaking regions. Durer produced several etchings on iron dated 1515—18,

and he was followed by several others who

also experimented briefly with the technique, includ-

ing Sebald Beham, about 1519—20, Urs Graf, and Hans Burgkmair. On etching on ron in northern Europe during this period, see Landau and Parshall

Etching, 7%

x

5% in. (19.2 x 14 cm)

Impression illustrated: Staathche Museen zu Berlin,

Kupferstichkabinett 862-2 Impressions located: Universiteit Leiden (no. PK P-100.062);

Briush Museum, London (no. 1866,1013.908); Museum Boijymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (no. DN 1148/49)

Hoe

and Deianira sit on a bench,

each with a hand around the other's shoulder. He holds the club that identifies him, while Deianira grasps a length of cloth on which she 1s seated.

The print has long been titled

Hercules

and Omphale, although the image provides few clues to distinguish the story illustrated. It clearly derives from Gossart’s painting Hercules and Deianira, now in the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, Birmingham (cat. 31), which also displays the features described above. These parallel images

argue for the identification of the woman as Hercules’ wife, Deilanira. This subject was also treated in woodcut by Gossart’s circle (cat. 118).

1994, Pp. 323-32. 14.

Von Heusinger suggested that Gossart’s print may have been made first, since Lucas’ original drawing

for the print matches the size of Gossart's print and may have originally been intended to match the print even more closely (von Heusinger 2001a, pp. 71-72). However, despite von Heusinger’s assertion that the borderline on Lucas’ drawing 1s original, 1t is more likely that the drawing began as the same size as the final printing plate and that, like so many old master drawings, it was trimmed to its present size at a later date. It could also be argued that since Lucas’ print relies so closely in pose on an earher print by Diirer 1s and even reproduces that figure in reverse, Gossart’s portrait that seems to have tried to accommodate Lucas’ in the gesture of the hand and the direction in which the figure is facing. The attribution 1s based on a similarity to other encomiums written by Geldenhouwer (von Heusinger

it

15.

20014, pp. 36—38). 16.

Ibid, pp. 38-30.

17.

Ibid. p. 39.

18,

19.

The volume of New Hollstein on Lucas van Leyden records fifteen existing impressions of the print and two copies (Filedt Kok 1996, p. 154, no. 172). See, for example, Urs Graf's etching Girl Washing Her Feet (Landau and Parshall 1994, p. 330 and fig. 358).

Literature: Schaar 1993, p. 178, fig. 111; von Heusinger 2001a

Prints

417

In the nineteenth century,this rare unsigned etching was attributed to the

German artist Hans Baldung, and, more recently, Winkler proposed it as an early work by Maarten van Heemskerck.' Friedlinder first recognized its connection to Gossart.” The long, parallel curved hatching that defines the bodies is comparable with passages in other prints securely attributed to the artist, namely his two engravings of the Virgin and Child (cats. 112, 113) and his portrait of Charles V (cat. 115). The two figures are bathed in bright light, as they are in the Birmingham painting. The arms resting on each other’ shoulders, her crossed legs, and the space between the two figures parallel the poses in Gossart’s Adam and Eve in the Royal Collection (cat. 2). Indeed, the odd position of Deianira’s hand, which turns back uncomfortably to grasp the cloth, seems to mirror Eve’s as she holds the apple behind her in that painting, which ultimately derives from Diirer’s engraving Adam and Eve (fig. 117). Both the print and the painting in Birmingham were inspired by the figures of Neptune and Amphitrite in Jacopo Ripanda’s frescoes of 1505-8 in the Sala di Annibale in Rome (see fig. 207). Both reverse the positions of Ripanda’s male and female figures. The uncomfortable placement of Deianira’s hand in the print closely relates to the turn of Amphitrite’s hand in the fresco.” Other aspects of the print preclude a secure attribution to Gossart. Most prominently, Hercules” head with its short pointed clumps of hair, the small strokes added to define the features and texture of his face, and his vacant gaze into the distance differ from the facial types found among Gossart’s male figures. With its full beard and mustache and sharp locks of hair, the rectangular head resembles instead those of the figures created by Netherlandish artists influenced by Italy who were active about a decade or more after the artist's death, including Van Heemskerck, Lambert Lombard, and Frans Floris. In addition, none of Gossart’s images of nude male figures includes an uncovered penis as here (normally it is covered with a carefully placed vine). In its hard roundness, 418 JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

arched eyebrows, and slightly open mouth, Deianira’s face 1s more typical of Gossart, but the sharp, limp hair differs considerably from the distinctly curled, springing locks typically found in his work. Indeed both heads appear to have been produced with lines that are slightly thicker than those in much of the rest of the print. The long, thin parallel hatching that defines the light and shadow on the bodies seems more typical of other prints by Gossart. This abrupt discrepancy of style in Hercules’ head and in the hair of both figures suggests that two hands may have worked on this plate. One seems to have carried out the bodies, which are more typical of Gossart, while the other etched the faces and hair and possibly added details here and there to the bodies. It may be that the plate was completed only partially in Gossart’s lifetime and was left unfinished until it was completed by another hand at a later date. NMO

1.

(1862), p. 320, no. 5; Winkler Veldman 1966. The etching was not included by m her two volumes on prints by and after Van Passavant 1860-64, vol.

Heemskerck

mn

3

Ia

the New Hollstemn series (Veldman

1993-94). 2. 3.

Friedlander 1908, p. 404. Duncan Bull (2010) has identified the fresco as a source for both the Birmingham painting and the painting of Neptune and Amphitrite in Berlin (cat. 30).

Literature: Passavant 1860-64, vol.

(1862), p. 320, no. § (as by Hans Baldung); O. Eisenmann in Meyer 1872-85, vol. 2 3

(1878), p. 635, no. (as by Baldung); Friedlinder 1908, p- 404 (as in the manner of Gossart); Cunjel 1923, p. 156 (as possibly by Gossart); Parker 1925, p. 434 (as Netherlandish), 1

Hollstein (German), 1954—, vol. 2, p. 70, no. 6 (as by Baldung); von der Osten 1961, p. 467, fig. 7; Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 367-70, no. 76; Winkler 1966 (as by Maarten van Heemskerck); Herzog 1968a, pp. 449-50, no.

p.

6 (as related to Gossart)

Unknown Netherlandish artist, after Jan Gossart 117.

Cain Killing Abel

Ca. 1525

Woodcut,

12 x

8% in.

(30.5 x 22.6 cm)

Impression illustrated: British Museum,

London 1845.0800.1606 Impressions located: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

of

Fine Arts, (no. RP-P-1892-A-17346); Museum Boston (no. 51.1334); Bibliothéque Royal de Belgique, Brussels (no. SIV 12467); Harvard Art Museum, Fogg Museum, Cambridge (no. M2689); Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden (no. 1913-507); Hamburger Kunsthalle (no. 3726); Albertina, Vienna (no. DG 1949/7641), National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (no. 1943.3.4704)

Cmmost striking printed image. Cain, Killing Abel

1s

Gossart’s largest and

grasping the jawbone of an ass, pulls his arm back as he aims a blow at the head of Abel. With his other hand, he attempts to

steady his writhing brothers head by plunging his fingers into his mouth. The wrestling siblings are caught in midaction. Their fight is set in a rocky landscape scattered with spiny plant life whose twisted forms echo the poses of the battling nudes. While Cain Killing Abel bears no mono-

gram or signature, the design of the image can clearly be attributed to Gossart. The scene most closely approximates the drawing of Adam and Eve in Vienna, dated 1525 (cat. 65)." The squat proportions of the figures and the manner in which the high points of the muscles are outlined by areas of parallel hatching reflect similar aspects found in the Vienna sheet. The rubbery musculature, most notable in Cain's seemingly dislocated shoulder and boneless left arm, 1s typical of Gossart’s figures. The pose of Cain’s lower body—Dbent legs spread apart, one foot with toes pressed against the ground, the other flexed resembles that of Gossart’s Adam. The two poses are reversed but, given the reversal of the image that results from the printing process, they would have been in the same direction in the artist’s original drawing for the print. The similarity in the lower bodies of Cain and Adam suggests that they may have originated from a single

NT

g

x.

AR

HINN\\WZ NAN T~4

Ko)

WL cs om

ER ANx BX Chrysler, Jr.

Portland, 1956.

Prague 1966

Ti stoleti nizozemské kersby,

1400-1700: Van Eyck, Bosch, Rubens, Rembrandt. Exh. cat. by H. R. Hoetink et al.

Narodni Galerie, Prague, 1966. Prague, 1966.

Prague 1997 Uméni a mistrovstvi: PraZska malifska bratrstva, 1348-1783. Exh. cat. by Tomds Sekyrka, Vit Vinas, and Pavel Preiss et al. Narodni Galerie, Prague, 1997.

Prague,

1997.

Prasse 1954 Leona E. Prasse. “An Engraving by Jan Gossaert Called Mabuse.” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 41, n0. 4 (April 1954), pp. 64-66. Prevenier and Blockmans 1986 Walter Prevenier and Wim Blockmans. The Burgundian Netherlands. Antwerp, 1986.

Quint, edited byJean Jacquot, pp. 287-96.Vol. 2 of La Fétes de la Renaissance. Collection Le Choeur des

of the

Congres de I'Association Internationale des Historiens de la Renaissance (2nd section), held in Brussels, Antwerp, Ghent, and Liége, September 2-7, 1957. Paris, 1960. [Reprint ed., Paris, 1975.] Van Puyvelde 1962 Leo van Puyvelde. La Peinture flamande au siécle de muses [Proceedings

II°

Bosch et Breughel. Paris, 1962.

Raskin 2001 Brigitte Raskin. Hartenheer: Een koningsverhaal, Leuven, 2001. [Issued in Danish under the utle Hijerterkonge, translated by Hans Christian Fink, Copenhagen, 2004.]

Rasmussen

1973

Jorg Rasmussen. “Zum Meister H. L” Jahrbuch

der

Hamburger Kunstsammlungen 18 (1973), pp. 55-68. Ray 1974 Stefano Ray. Raffaello architetto: Linguaggio artistico e ideologia nel Rinascimento romano. Grandi opere. Rome, 1974.

Bibliography

463

.

Rearick

Richter

1964

Janet Cox Rearick. The Drawings of Pontormo. Cambridge, Mass., 1964. Réau 1955-59 Louis Réau. Iconographie de parts. Paris, 1955-59.

art chrétien.

3

2 vols.

vols. in 6

Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76

1884

J. Paul Richter. “The Dutch and Flemish Pictures at Burlington House.” Academy 25 (January 12, 1884).

De Ridder-Symoens, [llmer, and Ridderikhoff 1978

Philippe Rombouts and Théodore van Lerius. De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde onder de zinsprewk: Wt ionsten versaemt / Les liggeren et autres archives historiques de la gilde anver-

Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, Detlef Illmer, and Cornelia M. Ridderikhoff. Les Livres des procurateurs de la nation

saemt. 2 vols. Antwerp and The Hague, 1864-76.

germanique de "ancienne Université d'Orléans, 1444-1602.

Rome 1966

Sammlung Thyssen-Bornemisza “Sammlung SchlossRohonez" in Lugano-Castagnola: Zweiundvierzig

Vol.

Premier Livre des procurateurs, 1444—1546, pt. 2, Biographie des étudiants. Vol. 1, Introduction, sources et

Dipinti fiamminghi di collezioni romane. Exh. cat, Palazzo Barberini, Rome, 1966. Rome, 1966.

Farbreproduktionen. Berlin, 1959.

bibliographie, biographies des étudiants, 1444—1515.

Rome

Redslob 1959

Edwin Redslob.

Regt W.

Meisternwerke der Malerei aus der

Leiden, 1978.

1914

M. C. Regt. “Fagel (Hendrik).” In Nieuw

Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek, vol. 3, p. 389.

Leiden, 1914. Van Regteren Altena 1964 I. Q. van Regteren Altena. Vereewwigde stad: Rome door Nederlanders getekend, 1500-1900. Amsterdam, 1964.

Reinach

1,

de peintures du Moyen Age

et de la Renaissance (1280—1580).Vol.

Reis Santos

Printmaker and Publisher in Antwerp at the Sign of the Four Winds.” PhD) diss., Yale University, New Haven, 1971.

Ring

1913

Grete Ring. Beitrage zur Geschichte niederlandischer

1905

Salomon Reinach. Répertoire

Riggs 1971 Timothy A. Riggs. “Hieronymus Cock (1510-1570):

1.

Paris,

1905s.

1962

Luis Reis Santos. Masterpieces of Flemish Painting ofthe Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries in Portugal. Lisbon, 1962.

Reis Santos 1966a Luis Reis Santos. “Portrait vraisemblable de Damien de Goes par Jan Gossaert, de Mabuse.” Paper deliv-

ered at the XXIX® Congres de la Fédération Archéologique et Historique de Belgique, Bruges, September 16-18, 1966. Reis Santos 1966b Luis Reis Santos. “Portrait vraisemblable de Damien de Goes par Jan Gossaert, de Mabuse.” Handelingen

Bildnismalerei im

15.

und

16. Jahrhundert.

Leipzig, 1913.

[Originally presented as the author's PhD diss. Munich, 1912.)

Ringbom

1962

Sixten Ringbom. “Devotional Images and Imaginative Devotions: Notes on the Place of Art in Late Medieval Private Piety” Gazette des beaux-arts, 6th ser., 73 (March 1969), pp. 159-70.

Riviére 1987

J. Riviere. “Réflexions sur les Saint Luc peignant la Vierge flamands, de Campin a Van Heemskerck.”

Connoisseur

Renard

Robinne 1988

Reynolds 2007 Catherine Reynolds. “Patinir and Depictions of Landscape in the Netherlands.” In Madrid 2007, pp. 97-115. Rice 1985 Eugene FE Rice Jr. Saint Jerome in the Renaissance.

Baltimore,

1985.

Richardson

1945

Aspetti dell'arte a Roma prima ¢ dopo Raffaello. Exh. cat. by Dante Bernini et al. Palazzo Venezia, Rome, 1984,

Rome, 1984.

Romer 1996 Uta Romer. “Boissens, Cornelis Dircksz”" In Saur Allgemeines Kuinstler-Lexikon: Die Bildenden Kunstler aller Zeiten und Volker, vol. 12 (1996), p. 323. Munich

Edmond Roobaert. Kunst en kunstambachten in

W. Roberts. “Mabuse Portraits

16044.

Rome 1984

Ringbom 1969

de la Fédération Archéologique et Historique de Belgique, Bruges, September 16-18, 1966. Georges Francois Renard. Guilds in the Middle Ages. London, 1919. Reygersbergh and Van Boxhorn 1644 Johan Reygersbergh and Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn. Chroniick van Zeelandt. 2 vols. Middelburg,

Daniela Ih Castro, Stephen Paul Fox et al. Villa alla Farnesina alla Lungara, Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe, Rome, 1983. Rome, 1983.

and Leipzig,

d'Emulation te Brugge 103 (1966), pp. 301-2. [Summary of paper delivered at the XXIX® Congres

1919

1983 Disegni dall’antico dei secoli XVI e XVII dalle collezioni del Gabinetto Nazionale delle Stampe. Exh. cat. by

Sixten Ringbom. “Maria in Sole and the Virgin of the Rosary.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 25, nos. 3—4 (July—=December 1962), pp. 326-30.

Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, 1987, pp. 25-92. Roberts 1907

van het Genootschap gesticht onder de benaming Société

soise de Saint Luc, sous la devise: Wt ionsten ver-

18

of Carondelet.”

(July 1907), pp. 179-81.

Paul-Edouard Robinne. Saint-Léonard-de-Noblat: Un culte, une ville, un canton. Cahier de I'inventaire, 13. Paris, 1988.

Robres Lluch and Castell Maiques

1951

Ramon Robres Lluch and Vicente Castell Maiques. Catalogo artistico ilustrado del Real Colegio y Seminario de Corpus Christi de Valencia. 2nd ed. Valencia, 1951.

Roéll 1949

1992—.

Roobaert 2004 de 16*

eeu te

Brussel. Brussels, 2004. Archives et bibliothéques de Belgique / Archief- en bibliotheekwezen in Belgie 74

(special number). Rooses 1879 Max Rooses. Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche schilderschool. 2 vols. Antwerp, 1879.

Rooses 1902-4 Max Rooses. “De teekeningen der Vlaamsche meesters.”” Onze kunst 1, pt. (1902), pp. 3-8, 77-81, 1

191-96, pls. facing pp. 8, 196; 1, pt. 2 (1902), pp. 121-25, 168—72, pl. facing p. 172; 2, pt. 1 (1903), Pp. $1—57.93—100, 173-80, pl. facing p. 180; 2, pt. 2 (1903), pp. 1-9, 44-50, 133—42, 151-61; [French trans. section] (1903), pp. 23-26, 42—44, 78-80, 107-10, 126-27, 163-66, 171-74; 3, pt. (1904), pp. 65-74, 137-52, pl. facing p. 65. 1

Rosenberg

1938

Jakob Rosenberg. “Notes on Drawings: Jan Gossaert.” Old Master Drawings 13, no. s1 (December 1938), PP.

42-43. pl.

43.

Rosenberg 1968

D. C. Roell. Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam: Verslag van de hoofddirectewr over het jaar 1948. The Hague, 1949.

Jakob Rosenberg. “A Portrait of a Banker (Jerome Sandelen?) by Jan Gossaert, Called Mabuse.” In Report

Roéll 1950

and Studies in the History ofArt, 1967, pp. 39—43. National Gallery of Art. Washington, D.C., 1968.

D. C. Roell. “Ryksmuseum te Amsterdam.” Verslagen s Rijks verzamelingen van geschiedenis en kunst 71 (1949),

Rosenthal 1985

pp. $—64. The Hague, 1950.

Earl E. Rosenthal. The Palace of Charles V in Granada.

Richardson. "A Cistercian Abbot by Mabuse.” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 24, no. 5 (1945),

Roggen and Dhanens

D. Roggen and Elisabeth Dhanens. “De humanist

Rossi Manaresi 1990

pp. §8—62.

Richmond and other cities 1979-80

Busleyden en de oorsprong van het italianisme in de Nederlandse kunst.” Gentse bijdragen tot de kunst-

Treasures from Chatsworth: The Devonshire Inheritance.

geschiedenis

Raffaella Rossi Manaresi. “A Technical Examination of Raphael's Santa Cecilia with Reference to the Transfiguration and the Madonna di Foligno” In The

E.

P.

Exh. cat. by Anthony Blunt et al. Virgima Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond; Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth; Toledo Museum of Art; San Antonio Museum Association; New Orleans Museum Art; Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor, 1979-80. Washington, D.C., 1979.

of

1951

Princeton,

NJ,

1985.

(1951), pp. 127-52. Romagnolo 1981 Antonio Romagnolo, ed. La Pinacoteca dell’ Accadennia

Princeton Raphael Symposiwm: Science in the Service of Art History, edited by John Shearman and Marcia B.

dei Concordi. Rovigo, 1981.

Hall, pp. 125-34. Princeton, N.J., 1990.

Romagnolo

Rostrup Beyesen 1956-63

13

1991

Antonio Romagnolo. Giovanni Francesco Casilini collezionista. Studi e ricerche (Accademia der Concord di Rovigo), 3. Rovigo, 1991.

Lars Rostrup Bovesen."'Nederlandsk, 1514—1518/20, Christian II (1481-1559). Kunstmuseets aarsskrift

(Statens Museum

for Kunst, Copenhagen)

(1956-63), pp. 74-77, 146-47.

404

JAN GOSSART’'S RENAISSANCE

43-50

Roth

1945

Alfred Guido Roth. Die Gestirne in der Landschaftmalerei des Abendlandes: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Natur in der Kunst. Berliner Schriften zur Kunst, 3.

Bern-Bumpliz, 1945.

Rothstein 1998 Bret L. Rothstein. “On the Order of Seeing in the Burgundian Netherlands.” PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1998.

Rothstein 2005 Rothstein. Sight and Spirituality in Early Netherlandish Painting. Cambridge, 2005.

Bret

L.

Rotterdam

1934 Nederlandsche teekeningen wit de Verzameling

FE

15%,

16" en

17%

een:

Koenigs. Exh. cat., Museum Boymans,

Rowlands 1993 John Rowlands, wath Giulia Bartrum.

Sanchez Canton

Drawings by

German Artists and Artists from German-speaking Regions of Europe in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Musewm: The Fifteenth Century, and the Sixteenth Century by Artists Born before 1530. 2 vols. London, 1993.

Roy, Spring, and Plazzotta 2004 Ashok Roy, Marika Spring, and Carol Plazzotta. “Raphael's Early Work in the National Gallery: Paintings before Rome.” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 25 (2004), pp. 4-35. Royt 1997 Jan Royt. “O puvodu svatolukasského obrazu.” In

Prague 1997, pp.

43—47.

Rotterdam, 1934. Rotterdam, 1934.

Rudloff-Hille 1967

Rotterdam

Gertrud Rudloff-Hille. “Das Bild des Leidenden

1936 Jeroen Bosch: Noord-Nederlandsche primitieven. Exh. cat. by Dirk Hannema, J. G. van Gelder, and R. Pennink.

Museum Boymans, Rotterdam, 1936. 2 vols. Rotterdam, 1936.

Heilands nach Jan Gossaert gen. Mabuse im Nationalmuseum in Krakow: Untersuchung zur Ikonographie u.Verbreitung des Werkes.” Rozprawy i sprawozdania Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie 9 (1967), pp. 97-111.

Rotterdam 1938

Ruesch

1952 E J. Sanchez Canton. Museo del Prado: Catalogo de los ctadros. Madrid, 1952.

Sanchez-Lassa 2006 Ana Sanchez-Lassa. Guia: Museo de Bellas Artes de Bilbao. Bilbao, 2006.

Sander 2006 Jochen Sander. Anmerkungen zu Jan Gossaert.” In Tributes in Honor ofJames Marrow: Studies in Painting and Manuscript Illumination of the Late Middle Ages and Northern Renaissance, edited by Jeffrey E Hamburger and Anne S. Korteweg, pp. 421-30. Turnhout, 2006. Sanderus 1641-44 Antonius Sanderus. Flandria illustrata. 2 vols. Cologne, 1641-44. von Sandrart 1675/1925 Joachim von Sandrart. Joachim von Sandrarts Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Kiinst von 1675. Edited by A. R. Peltzer. Munich, 1925. [1st ed.: Joachim von Sandrart. L' Academia todesca della architectura, scultura & pittura; oder, Teutsche Academie der edlen Bau- Bild- und Mahlerey Kunste. Nuremberg, 1675.] Sanminiatelli 1967

Meestenwerken uit vier eeuwen, 1400-1800: Tentoonstelling van schilderijen en teekeningen wit particuliere verzamelingen in Nederland, bijeengebracht gedurende de veertigjarige

Arnold Ruesch. Guida illustrata del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Naples, 1911.

Donato Sanmimatelli.

regeering van H. M. Koningin Wilhelmina. Exh. cat. by

Ruggeri

Santore 1997

Dirk Hannema and Frits Lugt. Museum Boymans, Rotterdam, 1938. Rotterdam, 1938. Rotterdam 1948-49 Tekeningen van Jan van Eyck tot Rubens. Exh. cat. by J. C. Ebbinge-Wubben. Museum Boymans, Rotterdam, 1948-49. Rotterdam, 1948. [See variant catalogues for other venues under Brussels 1949 and Paris 1949.)

Ugo Ruggen. “Le colleziom pittoriche rodigine.” In L’ Accademia dei Concordi di Rovigo, pp. 29-112. Saggi ¢ studi di storia dell’arte, 16. Vicenza, 1972. Rupprich 1956-69 Hans Rupprich, ed. Diirer: Schriftlicher Nachlass. 3 vols. Berlin, 1956-69. J. G. Russell 1969 Joycelyne G. Russell. The Field of the Cloth of Gold: Men and Manners in 1520. London, 1969.

Rotterdam 1949 G. van Beuningen: Honderd jaar Museum Boymans Rotterdam. Exh. cat., Meestenwerken uit de verzameling

DD.

Museum Boymans, Rotterdam, 1949. Rotterdam, 1949.

Rotterdam

1955 Kunstschatten uit Nederlandse verzamelingen. Exh. cat.,

Museum Boymans, Rotterdam, Rotterdam 2008

1955.

Rotterdam,

1955.

Vroege Hollanders: Schilderkunst van de late Middel-

eeuwen. Exh. cat. by Friso Lammertse and Jeroen Giltaij, with contributions by Mario Damen et al.

Museum Boiymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, 2008. Rotterdam, 2008.

Rotterdam 2008-9 Images of Erasmus. Exh. cat. by Peter van der Coelen et al. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam,

2008-9. Rotterdam, 2008.

Rotterdam, Amsterdam 1961-62 150

tekeningen wit vier eevwen uit de verzameling van Sir

Exh. cat. by Carlos van Hasselt. Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen, Rotterdam; Prentenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1961-62. Rotterdam, 1961, Bruce en Lady Ingram.

Rotterdam, Bruges

1965 Jan Gossaert genaamd Mabuse. Exh. cat. by

Henri

Ruteau

1911

1972

1637

Vie & martyre de S. Adrien, ttélaire de la ville de Grardmont . . . avec le commencement &

Benoit Ruteau. La

chronique de son monastére.

.

.

.

Ath,

1637.

Van Ruyven-Zeman 1995 Zsuzsanna van Ruyven-Zeman. Lambert van Noort inventor. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 61. Brussels, 1995.

Van Ruyven-Zeman 2003 Zsuzsanna van Ruyven-Zeman, comp., with Marjolein Leesberg. The Wierix Family. Pt. 4. Edited by Jan van der Stock and Marjolein Leesberg. Vol. 62 of Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700. Rotterdam, 2003.

Van Ruyven-Zeman 2004 Zsuzsanna van Ruyven-Zeman, comp., with Marjolein Leesberg. The Wierix Family. Pt. 9, edited by Jan van der Stock and Marjolein Leesberg. Vol. 67 of Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700. Rotterdam, 2004.

Domenico Beccafumi. Milan,

1967.

Cathy Santore. “The Tools of Venus.” Renaissance Studies 11, no. 3 (1997), pp. 179-207.

Sanudo ca. 1490-94/1879-1903

Marino Sanudo. I diarit di Marine Sanuto (MCCCCXCVI-MDXXXIII) dall’autografo

ital. cl. VII codd. CDXIX-CDLXXVIIL [Written ca. 1490—94.] Edited by Rinaldo Fulin. §8 vols.

Venice, 1879-1903.

Sassu 2007 Giovanni Sassu. Il ferro ¢ "oro: Carlo V a Bologna (1529-30). Bologna, 2007.

Scailliérez 1992 Cécile Scailliérez. “Entre enluminure et peinture: A propos d'un Paysage avec Saint Jérome Pénitent de I'école ganto-brugeoise récemment acquis par le Louvre” La Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France

42,n0.

2 (1992), pp. 16-31.

Schaar

1993

Eckhard Schaar. “A German Convention.” Print Quarterly 10, no. 2 (June 1993), pp. 177-78.

Schaefer 1986

Jean Owens Schaefer. “Saint Luke as a Painter: From Saint to Artist.” In Artistes, artisans et production artistigue au Moyen Age, edited by Xavier Barral i Altet, vol.

pp. 413—27. Paris, 1986. Schaefer 1992 Jean Owens Schaefer. “Gossaert’s Vienna Saint Luke Painting as an Early Reply to Protestant Iconoclasts.” 1,

Source: Notes in the History of Art 12, no.

Schaffhausen

Meistenwerke flamischer Malerei. Exh. cat., Museum zu

Allerheiligen, Schaffhausen,

Boymans-Van Beuningen, Rotterdam; Groeningemuseum, Bruges, 1965. [Rotterdam], 1965.

Eduard A. Safafik. Galleria Doria Pamphilj: Masterpieces, Paintings. Rome and Florence, 1996.

Schapelhouman 1987 Marin Schapelhouman,

Ingrid D. Rowland. The Culture of the High

Erasmo en Espana: La recepcion del humanismo en el primer Renacimiento espanol. Exh. cat., Escuelas

Renaissance: Ancients and Moderns in Sixteenth-Century Rome. Cambridge, 1998.

Menores, Universidad de Salamanca, 2002-3. Madnd, 2002.

(Fall 1992),

1955

Safafik 1996

Salamanca 2002-3

1

Pp. 31-37.

Pauwels, H. R. Hoetink, and Sadja Herzog. Museum

Rowland 1998

Marciano

1955. Schaffhausen, 1955.

Nederlandse tekeningen,

/

Netherlandish Drawings, circa 1600. Catalogus van de Nederlandse tekeningen in het omstreeks 1600

Ryksprentenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam / Catalogue of the Dutch and Flemish Drawings in the Rijksprentenkabinet, Ryksmuseum, Amsterdam, 3. The Hague, 1987.

Bibliography

405

Scharf

1863

George Scharf. “Remarks on Some Portraits from Windsor Castle, Hampton Court and Wilton House.” Archaeologia 39 (1863), pp. 245-64.

Scheibler 1887

“Ueber altdeutsche Gemalde in der

L. Scheibler.

kaiserlichen Galerie zu Wien.” Repertorium fiir Kunstwissenschaft 10 (1887), pp. 271-305.

Scheller

1983

Robert W. Scheller. "Jan Gossaerts Triomfwagen.” In Essays in Northern European Art Presented to Egbert

Haverkamp-Begemann on His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Anne-Marie Logan, pp. 228-36, n.p. figs. 1—4.

Doornspyjk, 1983.

Scheller

Schrader 2007-8

Hoetink, and Sadja Herzog).”

Stephanie Schrader.“ Gossaert’s Neptune and Amphitrite and the Body of the Patron” Nederlands kunsthistorisch jaarboek / Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 58 (2007-8), pp. 40-57. Issue titled Body and Embodiment in Netherlandish Art / Lichaam en lichamelijkheid in de Nederlandse kunst, edited by Ann-Sophie Lehmann and Herman Roodenburg.

(April-June 1965), pp. 18-21.

Schubert

Dietrich Schubert. “Die Landschaft mat Jagdgesellschaft aus der ehem. slg. Wesendock.” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Institutes der Universitat Graz 11 (1976), pp. 69-76. Issue titled Festschrift Heinrich Gerhard Franz: Zum 60. Geburtstag.

Christian Schuchardt. Lucas Cranach

Italy, 1499—1508." Simiolus 15, no.

und Werke: Nach wkundlichen Quellen bearbeitet. Leipzig, 1851-71.

Scheller

(1985), pp. $—60.

1995

Robert W. Scheller. Exemplum: Model-Book Drawings and the Practice of Artistic Transmission in the Middle Ages (ca. goo—ca. 1470). Amsterdam, 1995. Van Schendel et al. 1960 A. FE E. van Schendel et al. “Ryksmuseum Amsterdam.” Verslagen der rijksverzamelingen van geschiedenis en kunst 82 (1960), pp. §—67. Schiavo 1964 Armando Schiavo. Il palazzo della Cancelleria. Rome, 1964.

Schliiter 1995 Lucy Schhiter. Niet alleen: Een kunsthistorisch-ethische plaatsbepaling van tuin en woning in het Conuiuium

religiosum

Schmidt

van Erasmus.

Amsterdam, 1995.

1891

W. Schnudt. Review

of Katalog

der Gemalde- Galerie im

Kunstlerhause Rudolphinum zu Prag, by Viktor Barvitius. Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft 14 (1891), pp. 163-67. Schnackenburg 1996 Bernhard Schnackenburg. Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister: Gesamtkatalog. 2 vols. Staatliche Museen Kassel.

Schulz

des Aeltern: Leben

vols.

3

G.W. Schulz. “Gottfried Winckler und seine Sammlungen” In Teupser 1937, pp. 63-103.

Heinrich Schwarz. “Jan Gossaert’s Adam and

Eve

in Public and Private Collections in Saint Petersburg). Vol. 1.

Saint Petersburg,

188s.

Servolini 1944

Sewter 1948 A. C. Sewter.“A Portrait by

1953), pp. 145-68. Schweicher and Jaszai 1970

Curt Schweicher and Géza Jaszai. “Flucht nach

in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen and the Tapestries for the Sistine

1977

Gunter Schweikhart. “Von Priapus zu Coridon: Benennungen des Dornausziehers in Mittelalter und Neuzeit.” Wiirzburger Jahrbucher fur die Altertum-

ns., 3 (1977), pp. 243~52. Schweikhart 1986 wissenschaft,

Zeichnungen

of the

Mainz, 1996.

Schoch, Mende, and Scherbaum 2001-4

Model

Rainer Schoch, Matthias Mende, and Anna Scherbaum. Albrecht Diirer: Das druckgraphische Werk. 3 vols. Munich, 2002—4. De Schodt 1876-77 A. de Schodt. “Confrérie de Notre-Dame de I'Arbre Sec.” Annales de la Société d' Emulation de Bruges 28 (1876-77), pp. 141-87.

Schools

and Some Phases of Their Influence

1972

John Shearman. Raphael's Cartoons

Agypten” In Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, edited by Engelbert Kirschbaum, vol. 2 (1970), cols. 43-50. 8 vols. Rome, 1968-76.

nach der Antike von Amico Aspertim. Studies

des beaux-arts,

1961

Shearman

Whalfegg:

Quentin Massys at the

1993 Christine Shaw. Julius II: The Warrior Pope. Oxford, 1993.

Warburg Institute, 38. London, 1986. I. Scott 1910/1972 Izora Scott. Controversies over the Imitation of Cicero as a

Schoen 2001

Petr Petrovich Semenov. Etiudy po istorii niderlandskoi

Shaw

(October

for Style

1885

Charles Seymour Jr. Art Treasures for America: An Anthology of Paintings and Sculpture in the Samuel H. Kress Collection. London, 1961.

Drawings.” Gazette des beaux-arts, 6th ser., 42

Gunter Schweikhart, Der Codex

Semenov

Seymour

1953

Schweikhart

1854.

Barber Institute, Birmingham.” Gazette 6th ser. 33 (April 1048), pp. 209-18.

1937

Schwarz

Selvatico. Catalogo delle opere d’arte contenute nella sala delle sedute dell’ I. R. Accademia di Venezia, Venice, P.

Luigi Servolini. Jacopo de’ Barbari. Padua, 1944.

Robert W. Scheller.*Galha Cisalpina: Lows XII and 1

1854

zhivopisi na osnovanii ee obraztsov nakhodiashchiisia v publichnykh i chastnykh sobramiakh Peterburga (Studies on the History of Netherlandish Painting Based on Examples

1976

Schuchardt 1851-71

1985

Selvatico

Sele arte, no. 74

on

the

of the Renaissance. 1910. Reprint ed., New York,

Chapel. London, 1972. Sicking 2004 Lows Sicking. Neptune and the Netherlands: State, Economy, and War at Sea in the Renaissance. History Warfare, 23. Leiden, 2004.

of

Silva Maroto 2000 Maria Pilar Silva Maroto. “Painting and Society in Spain at the Time of Charles V" In Carolus, pp. 139-55. Exh. cat, Museo de Santa Cruz, Toledo, 2000-2001. Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoracion de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V. Toledo, 2000. Silva Maroto 2001 Maria Pilar Silva Maroto. Pintura flamenca de los siglos XV y XVI. Museo Nacional del Prado. Madrid, 2001.

Silver

1977

1972.

Larry Silver." Power and Pelf: A New-found Old Man

M. Scott 1980

Scriverius 1609

by Massys.” Simiolus 9, no. 2 (1977), pp. 63—92. Silver 1982 Larry Silver. “Early Northern European Paintings” Bulletin of the Saint Lowis Art Museum, n.s., 16, no. 3

Petrus Scriverius [Pieter Schrijver|. Batavia illustrata,

(Summer 1982), pp.

Margaret Scott. Late Gothic Europe, 1400-1500. The History of Dress Series. London, 1980.

2—47.

Silver 1984

Christian Schoen. Albrecht Diirer, Adam und Eva: Die

seu de Batavorum insula, Hollandia, Zelandia, Frisia, territoria Traiectensi et Gelria. Leiden, 1609.

Gemalde, ihre Geschichte und Rezeption bei Lucas

Segard

Cranach d. A. und Hans Baldung Grien. Berlin, 2001.

Achille Segard. Jean Gossart dit Mabuse. Brussels, 1923.

Silver 1986a

Schonbrunner and Meder 1896-1908

Segurado

Josef Schonbrunner and Joseph Meder. HandSammlungen. 12 vols. Vienna, [1896]—1908.

Jorge Segurado. “Damido de Goes. Pinacoteca—'Ecce Homo’; Capela Tumular; Retrato escultorico.” BelasArtes (Academua Nacional de Belas-Artes, Lisbon),

Schrader 2002

ser. 2, nos.

Stephanie Schrader. “De schilder en de koning: Een schelmenroman met een moraal” Kunstschrift (Openbaar Kunstbezit) 46, no. (January—February

Seidel

Larry Silver.“ Figure nude, historie ¢ poesie: Jan Gossaert and the Renaissance Nude in the Netherlands” Nederlands kunsthistorisch jaarboek / Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 37 (1986), pp. 1—40. Issue titled Renaissance en Reformatie en de kunst in de Noordelijke Nederlanden.

zeichnmungen

alter Meister aus der Albertina und anderen

1

2002), pp. 7-12.

Schrader 2006

Stephanie Schrader. "Jan Gossaert’s Art of Imitation: Fashioning Identity at the Burgundian Court” PhD diss, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2006.

466

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

1923 1975

28-29 (197s), pp. 133-84.

1901

Linda Seidel. “The Value of Verisimilitude in the Art of Jan van Eyck” In Contexts: Style and Values in Medieval Art and Literature, edited by Daniel Poirion

and Nancy Freeman Regalado, pp. 25—43. New Haven, 1991. Sele arte 1965 “Mabuse [review ofJan Gossaert genaamd Mabuse (Rotterdam, Bruges 1965), by Henri Pauwels, H. R.

Larry Silver. The Paintings of Quinten Massys with Catalogue Raisonné. Montclair, N.J., 1984.

Silver 1986b Larry Silver. “The State of Research in Northern European Art of the Renaissance Era.” Art Bulletin 68, no. 4 (December 1986), pp. 518-35.

Silver 1987

Larry Silver. “The ‘Gothic” Gossaert: Native and Traditional Elements in a Mabuse Madonna.” Pantheon 45 (1987), pp.

$869.

Silver and S. Smith

1978

Larry Silver and Susan Smith. “Carnal Knowledge: The Late Engravings of Lucas van Leyden.”

Nederlands kunsthistorisch jaarboek / Netherlands Yearbook for History ofArt 29 (1978), pp. 239-98. Issue

titled Lucas van Leyden: Studies.

J. C. Smith

Sint-Niklaas, Hasselt 1990 Tissen heks en heilige: Het vrouwbeeld op de drempel van de moderne tijd, 15*—16" eeuw. Exh. cat. by Jan Bral et al. Stedelijk Museum, Sint-Niklaas; Cultureel

Centrum Hasselt, 1990. Sint-Niklaas, Sip and Vackovia 1973

1990.

Jaromir Sip and Jarmila Vackovi. “Nizozemské malifstvi 15. a 16. stoleti v prazské Narodni galerii.” Unpublished manuscript, 1973 (copy in the hbrary of the Narodni Galerie, Prague).

Sjoblom

1928

Axel Adolf Sjoblom. Die koloristische Entwicklung in der niederlandischen Malerei des XV und XVI. Jahrhunderts.

Slavicek 1996 Lubomir Slavicek. “Paralipomena k déjmam berkovské a nostické obrazové sbirky (Matenahe k ceskému baroknimu sbératelstvi IL) Umeéni 43 (1995), 445-71. Sluijter 1991-92 Eric Jan Sluijter. “Venus, visus en pictura.” Nederlands kunsthistorisch jaarboek 42-43 (1991-92), pp. 337-96. Issue titled Goltzius-Studies: Hendrick Goltzius, PP.

15581617.

Sluijter 1999a Eric Jan Slater. “Emulating Sensual Beauty: Representations of Danaé from Gossaert to Rembrandt.” Simiolus 27, nos. 1-2 (1999), pp. 4—45. Sluijter 1999b Eric Jan Sluyter. “Respectabele erotiek.” Kunstschrift (Openbaar Kunstbezit) 43, no. 5 (September—October 1999), pp. 22-27. Sluijter 2000 Eric Jan Sluijter. “Prestige and Emulation, Eroticism and Morality: Mythology and the Nude in Dutch Painting of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century” In Greek Gods and Heroes in the Age of Rubens and Rembrandt, edited by Peter Schoon and Sander Paarlberg, pp. 35-63. Exh. cat., National Gallery / Alexandros Soutzos Museum, Athens; Netherlands Institute, Athens; Dordrechts Museum, 2000-2001. Athens, 2000. 1511

Jan Smeken. Dwonder dat in die stat van bruesel ghemaect was: Van claren ijse en snee die wel gheraect was. Brussels, [1511].

Smeken 1946 (ed.) Jan Smeken.

1979

Jeffrey Chipps Smith. “The Artistic Patronage of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, 1419-1467." PhD diss., Columbia University, New York, 1979.

J. C. Smith 1994

Dwonder van claren ijse en snee: Een verlo-

Renetta Pennink and Diederik Th. Enklaar. 1511. The Hague,

ren en teruggevonden gedicht. Translated by

1046.

Smeyers 1968 Maurits Smeyers. “De Leuvense schilder Hendrik vander Heyden, schoonzoon van Jan Gossart.” Bulletin Museum Boymans- Van Beuningen 19, nos. 1-3

(1968), pp. 76-116. E. L. Smith 1992

Else Lawton Smith. "Women and the Moral Argument of Lucas van Leyden’s Dance around the Golden Calf” Art History 15, no. 3 (September 1992), pp. 296-316.

Easel Painting.” In The Painting Technique of Pietro Vannueci Called Il Perugino: Proceedings of the LabS

edited by Brunetto Giovanm Brunetti, Claudio Seccarom, and Antomo Sgamellotti, pp. 21-28. Proceedings of a workshop held at the Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria, Perugia, April 14-15, 2003. Quaderni di Kermes. Florence, 2004. Tech,”

Springer 1888

Anton Springer. “Iie mederlandische Reisealtar im Museum zu Palermo.” Zeitschrift fir bildende Kunst 23 (1888), pp. 25-30.

Jeffrey Chipps Smith. German Sculpture of the Later Renaissance, ¢. 1520-1580: Art in the Age of Uncertainty.

Sricchia Santoro 1998

Princeton, NJ, 1994. J. C. Smith 2000

Rinascimento, Milan, 1998,

Jeffrey Chapps Smuth. “A Creative Moment: Thoughts

on the Genesis of the German Portrait Medal” In Perspectives on the Renaissance Medal, edited by Stephen K. Scher, pp. 177-99. New York, 2000.

1933 Carolus Smuts. De iconographie van de Nederlandsche primitieven. Amsterdam, 1933.

Snyder 1985 James Snyder. Northern Renaissance Art: Painting, Sculpture, the Graphic Arts, from 1350 to 1575.

New York,

1985.

Soenen

Fiorella Sricchia Santoro. Il Cinguecento: L'arte del

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel 1958

Smits

Berlin, 1928.

Smeken

G. M. Smith 1951 Gordon M. Smith. “Self-Portrait of an Arust.” Bulletin of the Currier Gallery of Art, November 1951, pp. 2—4. G. M. Smith 1952 Gordon M. Smith. “Little Gallery on Big Scale.” Art News 50, no. 9 (January 1952), pp. 22-23, 57-58.

1991

Micheline Soenen. “Les Collections.” In Arlette Smolar-Meynart et al., Le Palais de Bruxelles: Huit Siécles d'art et d'histoire, pp. 173-266. Exh. cat., Royal Palace, Brussels, 1991. Brussels, 1991. Sonkes 1969 Micheline Sonkes. Dessins du XV* siécle, groupe Van der Weyden: Essai de catalogue des originaux du maitre, des copies et des dessins anonymes inspirés

par son style. Les Contributions a I'étude des

primutifs lamands, 3. primitifs flamands, 5. Brussels, 1969. Serensen 1996

Bodil Sarensen. “Sophus Larpent—kunstsamler.” Kunst og kultur (1996), pp. 194-259.

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen. Katalog der Staatlichen Gemaldegalerie zu Kassel. Kassel, 1958. Stabel 2006 Peter Stabel. “Selling Paintings in Late Medieval Bruges: Marketing Customs and Guild Regulations Compared.” In Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450-1750, edited by Neil De Marchi and Hans |. Van Miegroet, pp. 88-105. Studies in European History (1100-1800), 6. Turnhout, 2006.

Stallybrass et al. 2004 Peter Stallybrass, Roger Chartier, J. Franklin Mowery, and Heather Wolfe. "Hamlet's Tables and the Technologies of Writing in Renaissance England.” Shakespeare Quarterly $5, no. 4 (Winter 2004), PP.

379419.

Stampfle

1991

Felice Stampfie, with Ruth S. Kraemer and Jane S. Turner. Netherlandish Drawings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries and Flemish Drawings ofthe Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in the Pierpont Morgan Library. New York, 1991.

Staring

1952

A. Staring. “Vraagstukken der Oranje-iconographie. II: Rondom twee portretten door Jan Gossaert van

Mabuse.” Oud-Holland 67, no.

Catalogue of Old Master Paintings and Drawings. Sale cat., Sotheby's, London, November 7, 1951. London,

(1952), pp. 144-56. State Hermitage Museum 1958 State Hermutage Museum. Catalogue des peintures: Musée de I'Ermitage, Département de I’Art Occidental. 2 vols. Moscow, 1958. State Hermitage Museum 1967 State Hermitage Museum. The Hermitage, Leningrad: Medieval and Renaissance Masters. Edited by V. E

1951.

Levinson-Lessing et al. Prague, 1967.

Sotheby’s, New York 2001

Stauch

Old Master and Modern Drawings and Prints from the Franz Koenigs Collection. Sale cat, Sotheby's, New York, January 23, 2001. New York, 2001. Sotheby’s, New York 2009 Old Master Drawings. Sale cat., Sotheby's, New York, January 23, 2009. New York, 2009. Spira 2006 Freyda Spira. “Originality as Repetition / Repetition as Oniginality: Daniel Hopfer (ca. 1470-1536) and the Reinvention of the Medium Etching.” PhD diss. University of Pennsylvama, Philadelphia, 2006. Spring 2000 Marika Spring. “Occurrences of the Purple Pigment Fluorite on Paintings in the Natonal Gallery.” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 21 (2000), pp. 20-27.

Liselotte Stauch.

Sotheby’s, Amsterdam 1988

Old Master Drawings and Old Master Paintings. Sale cat., Sotheby's, Amsterdam, November 14, 1988. London, 1988.

Sotheby’s, London

1951

of

Spring 2004 Marika Spring. “Perugino’s Painting Materials: Analysis and Context within Sixteenth-Century

1937

3

“Bar In Reallexikon zur

Kunstgeschichte, edited by

deutschen

Otto Schmitt et al, vol.

1

(1937), cols. 1442-49. 9 vols. Stuttgart and Munich,

1937.

Stefes 2010 Annemarie Stefes. Niederlandische Zeichnungen, 1450—1900. Die Sammlungen Hamburger Kunsthalle, Kupferstichcabinet, 3. Cologne, forthcoming [2010].

Stege 2004

Heike Stege. “Out of the Blue? Considerations on the Early Use of Smalt as a Blue Pigment in European Easel Painting” Zeitschrift fiir Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 18, no.

1

(2004),

Pp. 121—42.

Steinberg 1968

Leo Steinberg. “Michelangelo’s Florentine Prieta: The Missing Leg” Art Bulletin 50, no. 4 (December 1968), PP-

34353. Bibliography

467

Steinberg 1996 Leo Steinberg. The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion. 2nd ed. Chicago, 1996.

Steinmetz

1995

Anja Sibylle Steinmetz. Das Altarretabel in der altniederlandischen Malerei: Untersuchung zur Darstellung eines sakralen Requisits vom frithen 15. bis zum spaten 16. Jahrhundert. Weimar, 1995.

Daumier, edited by Ekkehard Mai and Kurt Wettengl, pp. 10-19. Exh. cat., Haus der Kunst, Munich;

Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Fondation Corboud, Cologne, 2002. Wolfratshausen, Munich, and Cologne, 2002.

Strauss Walter

1974

L. Strauss. The Complete Drawings

of Albrecht

Diirer. 6 vols. NewYork, 1974.

Steppe 1952

Stritt

Jan Karl Steppe. Het koordoksaal in de Nederlanden. Verhandelingen van de Koninklyjke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgi¢, Klasse der Schone Kunsten 7.

einem Gemalde Maarten van Heemskercks. 2 vols, Frankfurt am Main and Basel,

Brussels, 1952. Steppe 1965a Jan Karl Steppe. “Het sterfjaar van Jan Gossaert.”" In

Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 33-38.

Steppe 1965b Jan Karl Steppe. “Schilderijen van Jan Gossaert in de voormalige Abdi) van Sint-Adrianus te Geraardsbergen.” In Rotterdam, Bruges 1965, pp. 39—46.

Steppe 1967

Martin Strat. Die schone Helena in den Romruinen:

Bijdragen bij gelegenheid van de herdenkingstentoonstelling te 's-Hertogenbosch, pp. 7—41.

s-Hertogenbosch,

1967.

Steppe 1990

Jan Karl Steppe. “De echo van het ‘Lam Gods’ van de gebroeders Van Eyck in Spanje.” In Het Lam Gods: Een recent onderzoek met verrassende resultaten, pp. 3-63. 4. Maaseik, 1990.

Sterk 1980

Szmydki 1986

Sandford Arthur Strong. Reproductions of Drawings by Old Masters in the Collection of the Duke of Devonshire at Chatsworth. London, 1902. [Text reprinted as “Drawings by the Old Masters at Chatsworth,” in Strong 1905, pp. 107-34.]

Strong

1905

Sandford Arthur Strong. Critical Studies and Fragments . . with a Memoir by Lord Balcarres, M.P

Dorien Tamis. “The Genesis of Albert Cornelis’s ‘Coronation of the Virgin" in Bruges.” Burlington Magazine 142 (November 2000), pp. 672-80.

Marie Tanner. The Last Descendant ofAeneas: The Hapsburgs and the Mythic Image of the Emperor. New Haven and London, 1993.

1993

Cyriel Stroo and Pascale Syfer-d'Olne. The Flemish Primitives: Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium. Vol. 1, The

Terence

Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden Groups. Brussels, 1996.

Terence. | Works. | Translated by Sargeaunt. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, 1912.

D. R. Stuart 1917 D. Reed Stuart. “The Sources and the Extent of Petrarch’s Knowledge of the Life of Vergil” Classical

Térey

(October

1917), pp. 365—404.

1954

FE

1912

(ed.)

|.

1913

Gabriel de Teérey. Katalog der Gemaldegalerie des Grafen Johann Pdlffy. Museum der Bildenden Kiinst, Budapest, 24. Budapest, 1913.

Térey

1924 Gabriel de Terey. Catalogue of the Paintings by Old Masters. Szépmivészett Mazeum. Budapest, 1924.

Tessari 1996 Cristiano Tessari. “Cobos, Francisco de los.” In The Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane S. Turner, vol. 7, p. 488. 34 vols. [London], 1996.

Zeichnung in Deutschland: Deutsche Zeichner, 1540-1640. Exh. cat. by Heinrich Geisler et al. Staatsgalerie

Teupser

Stuttgart, Graphische Sammlung, 1979-80. Stuttgart,

Festschrift zum 100-jahrigen Jubilaum des Leipziger Kunstvereins und Museums der Bildenden Kunste.

1979.

Suchet

Stiassny 1888

Tamis 2000

Stroo and Syfer-d’Olne 1996

Stummer. “Beschneidung” In Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum: Sachworterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, edited by Theodor Klauser et al, vol. 2 (1954), cols. 150-69. 22 vols. Stuttgart, 1950-2008, Stuttgart 1979-80

Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute. List of Paintings in the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute. Williamstown, Mass., 1992,

pp. 31-58.

Tanner

van Utrecht als protagonist van de Renaissance: Zijn leven en maecenaat. Zutphen, 1980.

Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute 1992

Ryszard Szmydki. “Jan de Molder: Peintre et sculpteur d’Anvers du XVIF siecle” Jaarbock Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, 1986,

London, 190s.

Stummer

no. 4 (1986), pp. 120-25.

Boston, 2004. [Collection of essays based on a symposium held at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, in March 2002.) Syson 2008 Luke Syson. “Witnessing Faces, Remembering Souls.” In London 2008-9, pp. 14-31.

Strong 1902

Jos. Sterk. Philips van Bourgondie (1465-1524), bisschop

Jos. Sterk. “Aan het Hof te Souburg herleefden de Klassicken.” Kunstschrift (Openbaar Kunstbezit) 30,

1300-1550, edited by Stephen J. Campbell, pp. 106-23.

2004.

Philology 12, no. 4

Sterk 1986

Luke Syson. “Leonardo and Leonardism in Sforza Milan" In Artists at Court: Image-Making and Identity,

Szabdé 1978 George Szabo, XV=XVT Century Northern Drawings from the Robert Lehman Collection. NewYork, 1978.

zu

Uberlegungen

.

Jan Karl Steppe. “Jheronimus Bosch: Bijdrage tot de historische en de ikonografische studie van zyn werk.” In Jan Karl Steppe et al., Jheronimus Bosch:

RAM-rapport

2004

Syson 2004

1937

Werner Teupser. Kunst und ihre Sammlung in Leipzig:

Leipzig, 1937.

1901

Robert Stassny. “Altdeutsche und Altmiederlander in oberitalienischen Sammlungen” Repertorivum fiir Kunstwissenschaft 11 (1888), pp. 369-95.

Jean-Marie Suchet. Etude biographique sur Jean et Ferry Carondelet, 1469 a 1544. N.p., [1901].

Stinger

Robert Suckale. “Arma Christi: Uberlegungen zur Zeichenhaftigkeit mittelalterlicher Andachtsbilder.™ Stadel-Jahrbuch, ns., 6 (1977), pp. 177-208. D. Sutton 1954 Denys Sutton. “Pictures from the Lansdowne Collection.” Country Life, December 2, 1954,

(c. 1473~c. 1555)." Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 17 (1963), pp. 123-36.

pp. 1958-63.

Thiirlemann 2002

1985

Charles Sunger. The Renaissance in Rome. Bloomington, Ind., 198s. Van der Stock 1993 Jan van der Stock. “De organisatie van het beeldensnijders- en schildersatelier te Antwerpen: Documenten, 1480-1530." In Antwerp Altarpieces, 15th— 16th Centuries

/ Antwerpse retabels

Essays, edited by Hans

15%~16% eeuw, vol. 2,

Nieuwdorp, pp. 47-53. Exh.

cat,, Antwerp Cathedral, 1993. Antwerp, 1993. Van der Stock 1998 Jan van der Stock. Printing Images in Antwerp: The Introduction of Printmaking in a City, Fifteenth Century to 1585. Translated by Beverley Jackson. Rotterdam, 1998.

Stoichita 2002 Victor 1. Stoichita. “Malerer und Skulptur im Bild: Das Nachdenken der Kunst uber sich selbst.” In Wettstreit der Kunste: Malerei und Skulptur von Duirer bis

468

JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

Suckale

P.

1977

C. Sutton

1995

Thierry de Bye Délleman

1963

Michiel Thierry de Bye Dolleman. “Jan Jansz. Mostaert: Schilder, een beroemd Haarlemmer

Thomas a Kempis 1997 (ed.)

The Imitation of Christ: The First English Translation of the “Imitatio Christi.” Translated and edited by B. J. H. Biggs. Early English Text Society, 309. Oxford, 1997. Felix Thurlemann. Robert Campin: A Monographic Study with Critical Catalogue. Munich, 2002.

Peter C. Sutton. The William Appleton Coolidge Collection. Boston, 1995.

Toderi and Vannel Toderi 1996

Svarre

Giuseppe Toder1 and Fiorenza Vannel Toder.

1953

Anders Svarre. Christiern II i samtidens billedkunst. Copenhagen, 1953. Syfer-d’Olne et al. 2006 Pascale Syfer-d'Olne et al. The Flemish Primitives: Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgivm. Vol. 4, Masters with Provisional Names. Brussels, 2006.

Placchette: Secoli

XV=XVII

nel Museo Nazionale

del Bargello. Florence, 1996.

Tokyo and other cities

1994 Renaissance Paintings from the Budapest Museum of Fine

Arts. Exh. cat., Tobu Bijutsukan, Tokyo, and other venues, 1994. Tokyo, 1994.

Toledo Carlos

1958

Vy

su ambiente: Exposicion homenaje en el

IV

centenario de su muerte (1558-1958). Exh. cat. by Joaquin de la Puente. Toledo, 1958. 2nd ed. Madnd, 1958.

Toledo Museum of Art Toledo Museum 1976.

1976

of Art. European Paintings. Toledo,

Toledo Museum of Art

1995 Toledo Museum of Art. Toledo Treasures: Selections from the Toledo Museum of Art. New York, 1995.

Toledo (Ohio)

1935 French and Flemish Primitive Exhibition. Exh. cat.,

Noordbrabants Museum, s-Hertogenbosch, 1993. Zwolle, 1993.

Vanwijnsberghe 2008

Utrecht, Leuven 1959

“Madeleine Renders”: Un Aspect de "histoire des collections, de la restawration et de la contrefagon en Belgique

Dominique Vanwijnsberghe, ed. Autour de

Paws Adrianus V1. Exh. cat.

by R. Post, J. W. C. van Campen et al. Centraal Museum, Utrecht; Stadhuis, Leuven, 1959. Utrecht, 1950.

Vackova 1966 Jarmila Vackovi. “Tradice a modernismus: K vystavé Jana Gossaerta v Rotterdamu a v Bruggich 1965.” Umeéni 14 (1966), pp. 278-87.

Vackova 1989

Tormo y Monzo

Jarmila Vackova. Nizozemské malitstvi 15. a 16. stoleti: Ceskoslovenské shirky. Prague, 1989. Van Vaernewijck 1561 Marcus van Vaernewijck. Die warachtighe historie van

Tormo y Monzé

den alder onverwinnelicsten, en alder moghensten Keyser van Roome, Carolus de vijffte van die name, Conijngh van Spaenguen Ec. Ghent, 1561.

Toledo Museum

of Art, Toledo, Ohio, 1935. Toledo,

1935.

1923 Elias Tormo y Monz6. Levante (Provincias valencianas y murcianas). Madrid, 1923. 1932

Elias Tormo y Monzé. Valencia: Los museos, Guias-

Centro de Estudios Historicos Fichero Arustico Nacional. Madnd, 1932. Téth-Ubbens et al. 1968

catdlogo.

Van Vaernewijck 1564 Marcus van Vaernewijck. Die warachtighe gheschiedenisse van allen gheloofweerdighe saken vanden alder onvenwinnelijcsten ende alder moghensten keyser van Roomen Carolus

.

Magdi Toth-Ubbens et al. Schilderijen en beeldhowwerken 15° en 16° een. Catalogus 1. The Hague, 1968.

de vijfste van dien name, coninck van Spaengnen, etc.

Tourcoing 1906 Exposition d'art ancien: Catalogue officiel. Exh. cat. by Jean Masson. Palais des Beaux-Arts, Tourcoing, 1906.

Ghent, 1564. Van Vaernewijck 1568 Marcus van Vaernewijck. Den spicghel der

Lille, 1906.

Nederlandscher audtheyt, einhaudende die constructie, oft

Tracy 2002

Ghent, 1568. Van Vaernewijck 1568/1829 Marcus van Vaernewijck. De historie van Belgis of kronyke der Nederlandsche oudheyd. Ghent, 1829. [1st ed.: Marcus van Vaernewijck, Den spieghel der Nederlandscher audheyt. Ghent, 1568.] Van Vaernewijck 1574 Marcus van Vaernewijck. Die historie van Belgis, diemen vergaderinghe van Belgis.

James D. Tracy. Emperor Charles

Impresario of War: Campaign Strategy, International Finance, and Domestic Politics.

V,

Cambridge, 2002.

Trésor de

art flamand

art flamand du

1932

Moyen Age au XVIII™ siécle: Meémorial de exposition d'art flamand ancien a Anvers,

Tiésor de

1930. 2 vols. Paris, 1932.

Trnek

beghinnende vanden jare 1500 tot den jare van 1564.

1983

Renate Trnek. “Das ‘Sibyllenttichlein” in der Wiener Akademiegalerie.” Alte und moderne Kunst 18, no. 188 (1983), pp- 1-9. Turner 2008 James Grantham Turner. “Profane Love: The Challenge of Sexuality” In New York, Fort Worth 2008-9, pp. 178-84.

Turner, Hendrix, and Plazzotta 1997

Nicholas Turner, Lee Hendrix, and Carol Plazzortta. European Drawings: Catalogue of the Collections. Vol. 3. J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles, 1997.

Ubeda 1997 Francisco de los Cobos y su época. Exh. cat., Centro Asociado a la UN.E.D. de Jaén, Ubeda, 1997. Madrid,

.

. . .

anders namen mach: Den spieghel der Nederlantscher audtheyt. Waer inne men zien mach als in eenen clare[m| spieghel, veel wonderlicke gheschiedenissen die van alle oude tyden, over al die weerelt gheschiet zijn, maer bysonder in die Nederlanden.

. .

.

Ghent,

en colecciones

Ulm 2009 Daniel Mauch: Bildhauer im Zeitalter der Reformation.

Exh. cat., Ulmer Museum, Ulm, 2009. Ulm and Ostfildern, 2009.

Utrecht

1953 Nederlandse architectuurschilders, 1600—1900. Exh. cat.,

Valencia, 1999. Valencia, 1999. Valencia 2001 La clave flamenca en los primitives valencianos. Exh. cat. by Fernando Benito Doménech and José Gomez Frechina. Museo de Bellas Artes, Valencia, 2001. Valencia, 2001.

Vancouver, Ottawa, Washington 1988-89

Canada, Ottawa; National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988—89. Washington, D.C., 1988.

Vandenbroeck 2004-5 Paul Vandenbroeck. “Late Gothic Mannerism in

Antwerp: On the Significance of a ‘Contrived’ Style.” Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen / Antwerp Royal Museum Annual, 2004-5,

Utrecht, 's-Hertogenbosch

Arie Johan Vanderjagt. “Qui sa Vertu Anobhst: The Concepts of ‘Noblesse’ and ‘Chose Publicque’ in Burgundian Pohtical Thought” PhD) diss. Riyksuniversiteit Groningen, 1981.

Maria van Hongarije, 1505—1558: Koningin tussen keizers en kunstenaars. Exh. cat. by Bob van den Boogert, Jacqueline Kerkhoff, A. M. Koldewerj et al.

Ryksmuseum Het Catharyneconvent, Utrecht;

.

Herbert M. Vaughan. The

Medici Popes (Leo X. and

Clement VII). 1908. Reprint ed., Port Washington,

N.Y, 1971. R. Vaughan

1975

Richard Vaughan. Valois Burgundy. London, 1975. R. Vaughan 2002a Richard Vaughan. Charles the Bold: The Last Valois Duke of Burgundy. Woodbridge, 2002. R. Vaughan 2002b Richard Vaughan. Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy. Woodbridge, 2002. Van der Velden 2006 Hugo van der Velden. “Diptych Altarpieces and the Principle of Dextrality.” In Essays in Context: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych, edited by John Olver Hand and Ron Spronk, pp. 124-55. Cambridge, Mass., New Haven, and London, 2006. [Companion volume to Washington, Antwerp 2006-17]

Veldman 1987

ja M.Veldman. “Heemskercks

Romeinse tekeningen

B."” Nederlands kunsthistorisch jaarboek Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 38 (1987),

Tekenkunst pp. 369-82. Issue utled Was gerekend door de eewwen heen: Liber amicorum Prof Dr. E. K. |.

Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 1953. Utrecht, 1953. Utrecht 1954-55 De madonna in de kunst. Exh. cat., Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 1954-55. Utrecht, 1954. 1993

Giorgio Vasari. Le vite de’ pin eccellenti pittori, scultori, ¢ architettori . . 3 vols. Florence, 1568. Vasari 1550, 1568/ 1966-87 Giorgio Vasari. Le vite de’ pin eccellenti pittori, scultori ¢ architettori nelle redazioni del 1550 ¢ 1568. Edited by Rosanna Bettarini; commentary by Paola Barocchi. 1550; 1568. 6 vols. Florence, 1966-87. Vasari 1568/1878-85 Giorgio Vasari. Le vite de’ pin eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori scritte da Giorgio Vasari, pittore. 1568. Edited by Gaetano Milanesi. 9 vols. Florence, 1878-85. H. M. Vaughan 1908/1971

valencianas. Exh. cat. by

Fernando Benito Doménech. Museo de Bellas Artes,

pp. 301-29.

Vanderjagt

Brussels, 2008. Vasari 1568

en ‘Anonymus

Master Drawings from the National Gallery of Canada. Exh. cat., Vancouver Art Gallery; National Gallery of

1997.

dans la premiére moitié du XX" siécle. Scientia Arus, 4.

1574.

Valencia 1999 Pintura europea

la

1981

.

.

/

.

Reznicek.

Veldman 1990-91a

[ja M.Veldman. “Elements of Continuity: A Finger Raised in Warning.” Simiolus 20, nos. 2-3 (1990-91), Pp. 124-41.

Veldman 1990-91b

ja M.Veldman. Review of Nizozemské

malifstvi

15.

a

stoleti: Ceskoslovenské sbirky, by Jarmila Vackova. Simiolus 20, no. 1 (1990-91), pp. 79-83. 16.

Veldman

1991

[ja M.Veldman. “Die moralische Funktion von Renaissance-Themen in der Bildenden Kunst der Niederlande.” In Die Renaissance im Blick der Nationen Europas, edited by Georg Kauffmann, vol. 1, pp. 381—403. Wolfenbiitteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung 9. Wiesbaden, 1991. [Papers from a conference sponsored by the Herzog August Bibliothek, November 3-5, 1987.]

Veldman 1993-94

llja M.Veldman. Maarten van Heemskerck. Edited by

Ger Luyten. The New Hollstein Dutch and Flenush Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700. 2 vols. Roosendaal, 1993-94.

Bibliography

469

Venice

Vertue

1946

Franciscum Craneveldium, 1522-1528: A Collection of

1748

I capolavori dei musei veneti. Exh. cat. by Rodolfo Pallucchini. Venice, 1946. Venice, 1946.

George Vertue. A Description of Four Ancient Paintings. London, 1748.

Original Letters. Monumenta Humanistica Lovamensia, 1. Leuven, 1928.

Venice 1999

Vertue 1776

De Vocht

Da Leonardo a Canaletto: Disegni delle Gallerie dell’ Accademia. Exh. cat. by Giovanna Nepi Scire and Annalisa Perissa Torrini. Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice, 1999. Milan, 1999.

George Vertue. A Description of Nine Historical Prints, Representing Kings, Queens, Princes, &Ec., of the Tudor Family . Republished by the Society. Society of Antiquaries of London. London, 1776.

Henry de Vocht, ed. Monumenta Humanistica

Venice 2010

Verzeichniss 1872 Verzeichniss der Kunstwerke in der Gemalde- Gallerie der

Humanistica Lovamiensia, 4. Leuven, 1934.

Voet

Giorgio Franchetti, Ca’ d'Oro, Venice, 2010. Milan,

Privatgesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde zu Prag. Prague, 1872.

Léon Voet. Antwerp, the Golden Age: The Rise and Glory of the Metropolis in the Sixteenth Century. Antwerp,

2010,

Viard

1973.

Venice and other cities 1976-77

Paul Viard. “Egidio.” In Bibliotheca sanctorum, edited by Filippo Caraffa, vol. 4 (1964), cols. 958-60. 13 vols.

Vogelaar 1987

Rome, 1961-70.

Sixteenth Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Ireland: A Complete Catalogue. Dublin, 1987.

Disegni fiamminghi e olandesi: Gallerie dell’ Accademia di Venezia. Exh. cat. by Man Pietrogiovanna. Galleria

Titian and the Venetian Woodcut: A Loan Exhibition. Exh. cat. by David Rosand and Michelangelo Muraro.

.

.

1964

Fondazione Giorgio Cimi, Venice; National Gallery of Fine Arts; Art, Washington, D.C; Dallas Museum Detroit Institute of Arts, 1976-77. Washington, D.C., 1976. [Issued in Italian under the ttle Tiziano e la

Vienna 1949

stlografia veneziana del Cinguecento.

Vienna 1987

Vergara 2007

Flamische Buchmalerei: Handschriftenschatze aus dem Burgunderreich. Exh. cat. by Dagmar Thoss.

of

Alejandro Vergara. “Who Was Patinir? What Patinir?” In Madrid 2007, pp. 19-45.

Verhaegen

Is a

1955

Nicole Verhaegen. “Note a propos de Jean Gossart et d'une “Tentation de S. Antoine.” Bulletin Musées

Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique / Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie 4, nos. 1-4 (1955), pp. 179-84. Issue titled Miscellanea Envin Panofsky.

Vermeylen 2003 Filip Vermeylen. Painting for the Market: Commercialization ofArt in Antwerp’s Golden Age. Studies in

European Urban History (1100-1800) 2. Turnhout, 2003.

Verougstraete 2006 Héléne Verougstraete. “Diptychs with Instructions for Use." In Essays in Context: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych, edited by John Oliver Hand and Ron Spronk, pp. 156-71. Cambridge, Mass., New Haven, and London, 2006. [Companion volume to

Washington, Antwerp 2006-7] Verougstraete and Van Schoute 1989 Héléne Verougstraete-Marcq and Roger van Schoute. Cadres et supports dans la peinture flamande aux 15" et 16° siécles. Heure-le-Romain, 1989.

Verschaffel

1964

D.Verschaffel. “St. Adriaans te Geeraandsbergen: Inventaris, 1791." Het Land van Aalst 16, no. (1964). 1

Vertue 1713-21/1929-30 George Vertue. “Vertue’s Note Book A.g. (Add.

Die schonsten Meisterzeichnungen. Exh. cat. by Eckhart Knab. Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna, 1949.

Vienna, [1949].

Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, 1987. Graz, 1987. Vienna, Kassel 1955-56 Gemalde der Kasseler Galerie kehren zunick. Exh. cat, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; Hessisches Landesmuscum, Kassel, 1955~56. Vienna, 1956.

Vieten

Lovaniensia: Texts and Studies about Louvain Humanists in the First Half ofthe XVIth Century. Erasmus, Vives, Dorpius, Clenardus, Goes, Moringus. Monumenta 1973

Christiaan Vogelaar. Netherlandish Fifteenth and

Voragine

1993

(ed.)

Jacobus de Voragine. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Translated by William Granger Ryan. 2 vols. Princeton, N.J., 1993. Voragine 2007 (ed.) lacopo daVarazze [Jacobus de Voragine]. Legenda aurea con le miniature del codice Ambrosiano

1965

Gunter C.Vieten. “Ratsel um Mabuse: Zur JanGossaert-Ausstellung in Rotterdam.” Die Weltkunst no. 12 (June 1s, 1965), pp. 528-29.

1934

35,

Vignau-Wilberg 1994

Thea Vignau-Wilberg.

Archetypa studiaque patris Georgii Hoefnagelii 1592: Natur, Dichtung und Wissenschaft in der Kunst um 1600 / Nature, Poetry, and Science in Art around 1600. Munich, 1994. Virgil 1978 (ed.)

C 240

inf.

Edited by Giovanni Paolo Maggion:. 2 vols. Edizione nazionale der testi mediolaun, ser. 2, 9, 20. Florence and Milan, 2007. De Vos 1994 Dirk de Vos. Hans Memling: The Complete Works. Ghent, 1994. De Vos 1999 Dirk de Vos. Rogier van der Weyden: The Complete Works. Antwerp, 1999. Vos and Leeman 1986 Rik Vos and Fred Leeman. Het miewwe ornament: Gids voor renaissance-architectunr en -decoratie in Nederland in de 16™ eww. The

Vroom

Hague, 1986.

1964

W. H.Vroom. “Jan Gossaert van Mabuse als ontwerper

1978.

van koorbanken in de Dom van Utrecht.” Oud Holland 79, no. 4 (1964), pp. 172-75. Waagen 1838 Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Works ofArt and Artists in

Visscher 1846

England.

[Summary of a paper delivered on Reyner Snoy on October 3, 1846. In “Wetenschappelyke Mededechingen.” Kronijk van het Historisch Gezelschap te Utrecht 2 (1846), pp. 173-76. La Vita del beato Ieronimo Savonarola 1937 (ed.) La Vita del beato Ieronimo Savonarola, Edited by Piero Ginori Cont. Introduction by Roberto Ridolfi. Florence, 1937.

Waagen 1854

Virgil. Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid, The Minor Poems. Translation by H. Rushton Fairclough. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. 1916-18. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass. ,

L. G. Visscher.

3

vols. London, 1838.

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Treasures ofArt in Great Britain; Being an Account of the Chief Collections of Paintings, Drawings, Sculptures, lluminated Mss., &e. &e. 3 vols. London, 1854.

Waagen 1857 Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Galleries and Cabinets of Art in Great Britain. London, 1857.

Vitruvius

Waagen 1864

Vertue 1725-31/1931-32 George Vertue. “Vertue’s Note Book A.g. (Add.

Granger. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass., 1931.

Gustav Friedrich Waagen. Die Gemaldesammlung in der kaiserlichen Ermitage zu St. Petersburg: Nebst Bemerkungen iber andere dortige Kunstsammlungen. Munich, 1864.

MS. 23,070)." Annual Volume of the Walpole Society 20

Vlieghe

Van Waesberghe 1627

MS. 21,111).” Annual Volume of the Walpole Society

18

(1929-30), pp. 22-80.

(1931-32), pp. 1-93.

Vertue

1736—41(?)/1935—-36

George Vertue. “Vertue's Note Book A x. (Add. MS. 23,072).” Annual Volume of the Walpole Society 24 (1935-36), pp. 101-97.

Vertue 1742-52/1937—-38 George Vertue. “Vertue’s Note Book

A yy. (Add.

1931 (ed.) Vitruvius. On Architecture. Translated by Frank

1985

Hans Vhieghe. “Flemish Painting from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century” In Mauritshuis 1985, pp. 102-16. Van Vlierden 2004 M. van Vlierden, with the collaboration of H. L. M. Defoer and H. M. E. Hoppener-Bouvy. Hout- en

J. van Waesberghe. Gerardi Montiwm, sive altera imperia-

steensculptunr van Museum Catharijneconvent, ca. 1200—

Walker 1951 John Walker. “Introduction.” In Washington pp. 9-22.

Zwolle and Utrecht, 2004.

MS. 23,073).” Annual Volume of the Walpole Society 26

1600.

(1937-38), pp. 1-92.

De Vocht 1928 Henry de Vocht, ed.

470

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Literae virorum emditorum ad

lis Flandriae metropolis eiusque Castellania. Brussels, 1627.

Waetzoldt 1908 Wilhelm Waetzoldt. Die Kunst

des Portrits. Leipzig,

1908. 1951,

Walker

1975

John Walker. National Gallery ofArt, Washington. New York, 1975.

Walpole

1888

(ed.)

Horace Walpole. Anecdotes of Painting in England, uth Some Account of the Principal Artists. Edited by James Dallaway and R. N. Wornum. 3 vols. London, 1888.

Warncke

1979

Carsten-Peter Warncke. Die ornamentale Groteske in Deutschland, 1500-1650. 2 vols. Quellen und Schniften zur bildenden Kunst, 6. Berlin, 1979.

Washington and other cities 1979-81

Wauters

Old Master Paintings from the Collection of Baron Thyssen-Bornemisza. Exh. cat. by Allen Rosenbaum. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C; Detront Institute of Arts; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and other venues, 1979-81. Washington, D.C., 1979. Washington and other cities 1985-87

Alphonse-]. Wauters. “Jean Gossart et Adolphe de Bourgogne.” Revue de Belgique 37 (1903), pp. 20-40.

Master Drawings from Titian to Picasso: The Curtis O. Baer Collection. Exh. cat. by Eric M. Zafran. National

Martin Warnke, The Court Artist: On the Ancestry ofthe Modern Artist. Translated by David McLintock. Cambridge, 1993.

Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C; Indianapolis Museum of Art; John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota; High Museum Art, Atlanta; Walters Art Gallery, Balumore; Frederick Wight Gallery, Los Angeles, 1985-87. Adanta, 1985.

Warsaw 1960

Washington, Antwerp 2006-7

Malarstwo niderlandzkie w zbiorach polskich, 1450-1550.

Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the Netherlandish

Exh. cat. by Jan Bialostocki. Muzeum Narodowe,

Diptych. Exh. cat. by John Oliver Hand,

Warnke

1993

Warsaw, 1960, Warsaw, 1960,

Warsaw, Gdansk 2004-5 Transalpinum, from Giorgone and Diver to Titian and Rubens: Paintings from the Collections of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the National Museum in Warsaw and the National Museum in Gdansk. Exh. cat.

of

Metzger, and Ron Spronk. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C; Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, 2006-7. Cambridge, Mass., New Haven, and London, 2006.

Washington, Boston 1983 The Prints of Lucas van Leyden and His Contemporaries. Exh. cat. by Ellen S. Jacobowitz and Stephanie Loeb

by Dorota Folga-Januszewska and Antoni Ziemba. Muzeum Narodowe, Warsaw; Muzeum Narodowe, Gdansk, 2004-5. Lesko, 2004.

Stepanek. Nanonal Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1983. Washington, D.C,

Washington 1948

1983.

Paintings from the Berlin Museums, Exhibited at the Request of the Dept. of the Army. Exh. cat., National

Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1948. Washington,

D.C. 1948. Washington

1951 Paintings and Sculpture from the Kress Collection, Acquired by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, 1945-1951.

Exh. cat., National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C, 1951. Washington, D.C., 1951. Washington 1999-2000 From Schongauer to Holbein: Master Drawings from Basel and Berlin. Exh. cat., Natnonal Gallery of Art,

Washington, D.C., 1999-2000. Washington, D.C, and Ostfildern, 1999. [English edition of Diirer, Holbein, Grinewald: Meisterzeichnungen der deutschen Renaissance aus Berlin und Basel. Exh. cat. by Christian Muller et al. Kunstmuseum Basel; Kupferstichkabinetr, Staat-

liche Museum zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz,

1997-98. Washington 2002-3 Deceptions and Illusions: Five Centuries of Trompe I' Oeil Painting. Exh. cat. by Sybille Ebert-Schifferer, with contributions by Sybille Ebert-Schifferer et al.

National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C, 2002-3. Washington, D.C, 2002. Washington and other cities 1959-60 Old Master Drawings from the Collection of Sir Bruce Ingram. Exh. cat. by Carl Winter, Thomas Baskett, and John Baskett. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., and other venues, 1959—60. Washington, D.C, 1959.

Washington and other cities 1962-63 Old Master Drawings from Chatsworth: A Loan

Washington, New Haven

Wauters 1904

Alphonse-]. Wauters. “Une Ambassade flamande chez le Pape Jules en 1508." Revue de Belgique 40 (1904),

I

PP. 290—307. Wauters 1910

Alphonse-]. Wauters. “L’' Adoration des Mages par Jennin Gossart, 3 Naworth Castle” Bulletin des Musées Royauxdes Arts Décoratifs et Industriels, 2nd ser. 3, no. 11 (November 1910), pp. 81-87.

Weale 1908

W. H. James Weale. Hubert and Jan van Eyck: Their Life and Work. London, 1908.

Weale Catherine A.

1903

1910

W. H. James Weale. “Portraits of Archbishop John Carondelet.” Burlington Magazine 16 (March 1910), PP. 341-42. Wegner 1973

Wolfgang Wegner. Die niederlandischen Handzeichnungen des 15.18. Jahrhunderts. Kataloge der Staatlichen Graphischen Sammlung Miinchen, 1. 2 vols. Berlin, 1973.

Wehle and Salinger

1947

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. The Metropolian Museum of Art. New York, 1947.

Weidema and Koopstra forthcoming

1981

Hans Baldung Grien: Prints and Drawings. Exh. cat. by James H. Marrow, Alan Shestack et al. National

Sytske Weidema and Anna Koopstra. Jan Gossart; The Documentary Evidence. Turnhout, forthcoming [2011].

Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C; Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, 1981. New Haven, 1981. Washington, New York 1986-87 The Age of Bruegel: Netherlandish Drawings in the Sixteenth Century. Exh. cat. by John Oliver Hand, J. Richard Judson, William W. Robinson, and Martha Wolff. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C; Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, 1986-87. Washington, D.C., Cambridge, and New York, 1986. [For a checklist of the exhibition in New York, see also New York 1987.) Washington, New York 1995-96

Weigel 1845 Rudolph Weigel. Rudolph Weigel's Kunstlager-Catalog. [Dealer's cat] No. 17. Leipzig, 1845. Weis 1974 Elisabeth Weis. “Johannes der Taufer.” In Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, edited by Engelbert Kirschbaum, vol. 7 (1974), cols. 165—90. 8 vols. Rome,

1968-76.

Weisz 1913a Ernst Weisz. “Eine Kopie Hans Baldungs nach Jan Gossart genannt Mabuse.” Der Cicerone 5, no. 14 (1913), pp. 536-37.

A Great Heritage: Renaissance and Baroque Drawings

Weisz 1913b

from Chatsworth. Exh. cat. by Michael Jaffé. National

Ernst Weisz. Jan Gossart gen. Mabuse, sein Leben und seine Werke: Ein monographischer Versuch und Beitrag zur

Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C; Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, 1995-96. Washington, D.C, 1995. Washington, New York, San Francisco 1978-79 The Splendor of Dresden: Five Centuries of Art Collecting; an Exhibition from the State Art Collections of Dresden, German Democratic Republic. Exh. cat. by Joachim Menzhausen et al. National Gallery of Art, Art, Washington, D.C; The Metropolitan Museum NewYork; Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, California Palace of the Legion of Honor, 1978-79. NewYork, 1978.

of

Wauters 1898 Alphonse-]. Wauters. "Trois Portraits de Jean Carondelet, haut doyen de Besancon, archeveque de Palerme, président du conseil privé de CharlesQuint.” Revue de l'art ancien et moderne 4 (1898),

Geschichte der viamischen Malerei in der ersten Halfte des

XVI. Jahrhunderts. Parchim

M., 1913. [Originally presented as the author's PhD diss., 1912. 1.

Welzel 2005 Barbara Welzel. “Widowhood: Margaret of York and Margaret of Austria” In Mechelen 200s, pp. 103-13.

Wentzel

1965

Hans Wentzel. “Die ‘Kornfeldlegende.™” Aachener Kunstblatter 30 (1965), pp. 131—43. Werche 2001 Bettina Werche. Die altmiederlandischen und flamischen Gemalde des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts. Kataloge der

Anhaltischen Gemaldegalerie Dessau, 9. Weimar, 2001.

Wescher

1928

Paul Wescher. “Berlin [notes on new acquisitions by Berlin museums] Pantheon 2 (1928), pp. 365-67.

Exhibition from the Devonshire Collection, Circulated by the Smithsonian Institution, 1962—1963. Exh. cat. by A. E.

pp.

Popham and T. S. Wragg. Natonal Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., and other venues, 1962-63. [Washington, D.C], 1962.

Alphonse-]. Wauters. “Jean Gossart et Philippe de

Wescher 1930

Bourgogne” In

Paul Wescher. “Ein Grabmalentwiirf Jan Gossarts fur Isabella von Oesterreich.” Pantheon s (1930), pp. 186-87.

21726.

Wauters 1902

raire,

L'Indépendance belge, supplément litte-

September 21, 1902.

Bibliography

471

Wescher 1949

Winkler 1924

Wollheim 1987

Paul Wescher. “An Unnoticed Drawing byJan Gossaert in the Morgan Library.” Art Quarterly 12,

Friedrich Winkler. Die altniederlandische Malerei: Die Malerei in Belgien und Holland von 1400-1600. Berlin,

Richard Wollheim. Painting as an Art. Princeton,

1924.

Woltmann 1878

Winkler 1927

Alfred Woltmann. Aus vier Jahrhunderten niederlandisch-

Friedrich Winkler. “Die flimische-belgische Ausstellung in London.” Der Kunstwanderer, February 1927, pp. 221-24.

deutscher Kunstgeschichte. Berlin, 1878,

no.

3

(Summer 1949), pp. 262-66.

Wescher

1965

Paul Wescher. “The Departure of King CharlesV for Spain and Jan Gossaert.” Art Quarterly 28, no. 3 (1965), pp.

155-0606.

Wescher

1970

NJ,

1987.

Winkler 1929

C. S. Wood 1998 Christopher S. Wood. “The Errera Sketchbook and the Landscape Drawing on Grounded Paper” In

Paul Wescher. “Neue Beitrage zum Schaffen des Jan Gossaert.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 32 (1970),

Friedrich Winkler. “Das Skizzenbuch Gerard Davids.”

Herri met de Bles: Studies and Explorations of the World

Pantheon

pp. 99—112.

Winkler

Landscape Tradition [symposium papers, Princeton University, October 13-14, 1995], edited by Norman E.

Van Wezel 1999 Gerard W. C. van Wezel. Het paleis van Hendrik III, graaf van Nassau te Breda. Nederlandse monumenten van geschiedenis en kunst. Zeist and Zwolle, 1999. Van Wezel et al. 2003 Gerard W. C. van Wezel et al. De Onze-Lieve-

3

(1929), pp. 271-75. 1935

Friedrich Winkler, “Jan Gossaert, Called Mabuse (c. 1478-1535): The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine

Vriowwekerk en de grafkapel voor Oranje-Nassau te Breda,

Sybil—Berhn Print Room.” Old Master Drawings 10, no. 38 (September 1935), pp. 30-31. Winkler 1936-39 Friedrich Winkler. Die Zeichnungen Albrecht Drivers. 4 vols. Berlin, 1936-39.

De Nederlandse monumenten van geschiedenis en

Winkler 1962

kunst. Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg. Zeist and Zwolle, 2003.

Friedrich Winkler. “Aus der ersten Schaffenszeit des Jan Gossaert.” Pantheon 20 (1962), pp. 145=355.

White 1997 Eric Marshall White. “Rogier van der Weyden, Hugo van der Goes, and the Making of the Netherlandish St. Luke Tradition.” In Rogier van der Weyden, St. Luke Drawing the Virgin: Selected Essays in Context, edited by Carol |. Purtle, pp. 39-48. Turnhout, 1997.

Wiesbaden 1948

“Zuruckgekehrte Meisterwerke aus dem Besitz der Berliner Museen 1." Exhibition held in Wiesbaden, 1948. [No catalogue. Wiesbaden 1949-50 “Zuriickgekehrte Meisterwerke aus dem Besitz der Berliner Museen [1.” Exhibition held in Wiesbaden, 1949-50. [No catalogue.

|

Wilenski 1960

|

Winkler 1966

Friedrich Winkler. “Eine Radierung von Maerten van Heemskerck.” In Studien aus dem Berliner Kupferstichkabinett: Hans Mohle zugeeignet, pp. 25—27. Berlin, 1966.

Winner 1985 Matthias Winner. “Vedute in Flemush Landscape Drawings ofthe 16th Century” In Cavalli-Bjorkman 1985, pp. 85-96.

Winner 1993 Matthias Winner. “Der eherne Herkules Victor auf dem Kapitol"” In Hulle und Fulle: Festschrift fur Tilmann Buddensieg, edited by Andreas Beyer, Vittorio Lampugnani, and Gunther Schweikhart, pp. 620-42. Alfter, 1993.

Muller, Betsy J. Rosasco, and James H. Marrow, pp. 101—16. Princeton, N.J., and Turnhout, 1998. C. S. Wood 2006 Christopher S. Wood. “Van Eyck Out of Focus” In In His Milieu: Essays on Netherlandish Art in Memory of John Michael Montias, edited by Amy Golahny, Mia M. Mochizuki, and Lisa Vergara, pp. 467-82. Amsterdam, 2006. C. S. Wood 2008

Christopher

S. Wood. Forgery, Replica, Fiction:

Temporalities of German Renaissance Art. Chicago, 2008.

J. Wood 2003 Jeremy Wood. “Nicholas Lanier (1588-1666) and the Ongins of Drawings Collecting in Stuart England.” In Collecting Prints and Drawings in Europe, c. 1500-1750, edited by Christopher Baker, Caroline Elam, and Genevieve Warwick, pp. 85-121. Aldershot

and Burlington, 2003.

Woods Marsden 1998

Joanna Woods Marsden. Renaissance Self-Portraiture: The Visual Construction of Identity and the Social Status of the Artist. New Haven and London, 1998.

Worcester

1882

Exhibition Building, Worcerster, Worcestershire, England, 1882. Worcestershire Exhibition, 1882. Exh. cat.,

R. H. Wilenski. Flemish Painters, 1430-1830. 2 vols.

Winzinger

London, 1960.

Franz Winzinger. Albrecht Altdorfer, die Gemalde: Tafelbilder, Miniaturen, Wandbilder, Bildhauerarbeiten, Werkstatt und Umbkreis. Munich and Zurich, 1975.

Worcester (Mass.) 1983-84

Witcombe 1996

J. C. Wilson 1998

Elisabeth von Witzleben. “Dornenkronung Christi” In Reallexikon zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, edited by Otto Schmitt et al, vol. 4 (1958), cols. 315-26. 9 vols. Stuttgart and Munich, 1937—. Wolff 2008 Martha Wolff, ed. Northern European and Spanish Paintings before 1600 in the Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Collection. New Haven and London,

Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Mass., 1983-84. Worcester, 1983. von Wurzbach 1906-11 Alfred von Wurzbach. Niederlandisches KiinstlerLexikon. 3 vols.Vienna, 1906-11. [Reprint ed., Amsterdam, 1963] Yeide 2009 Nancy H.Yeide. Beyond the Dreams of Avarice: The Hermann Goering Collection. Introduction by Robert M. Edsel. Dallas, 2009. Yiu 2006 Yvonne Yiu. “Hinging Past and Present: Diptych Variants ofJan van Eyck’s ‘Virgin in the Church.” In

Jean C. Wilson. Painting in Bruges at the Close of the

2008.

Essays in Context: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych,

Middle Ages: Studies in Society and Visual Culture. Umiversity Park, Pa, 1998.

Wolfthal 1989

edited by John Oliver Hand and Ron Spronk, pp. 110-23. Cambridge, Mass., New Haven, and London, 2006. [Companion volume to Washington, Antwerp 2006-7.) Van Ypersele de Strihou 2000 Anne van Ypersele de Strihou. De kerkschat van de

Williamstown 1957 Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Paintings. Exh. cat.,

Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Mass., 1957. Williamstown, 1957. Williamstown 1985-86 Paintings from the Collection of Governor and Mrs, Herbert H. Lehman. Exh. cat. by Alexandra R. Murphy, with Daphne L. Rosensweig and Jenmfer Gordon. Wilhams College Museum of Art, Williamstown, Mass., 1985-86. Williamstown, 1986.

C. C. Wilson 2001 Carolyn C. Wilson. St. Joseph in Italian Renaissance Society and Art: New Directions and Interpretations. Philadelphia, 2001.

1975

Witcombe. “Musi, Agostino dei.” In The Dictionary ofArt, edited by Jane S. Turner, vol. 22, p. 369. 34 vols. [London], 1996.

Christopher

L. C. E.

von Witzleben 1958

Winkler 19212

Diane Wolfthal. The Beginnings of Netherlandish Canvas Painting, 1400-1530. Cambridge, 1989.

Friedrich Winkler. “Die Anfinge Jan Gossarts.”

Wolfthal 2010

Jahrbuch der preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 42 (1921), pp. 5-19, pl. facing p. s. Winkler 1921b

Friedrich Winkler. “Gossaert (Gossart), Jan, gen. Mabuse.” Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kiinstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, edited Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, vol. 14 (1921), pp. 410-13. 37 vols. Leipzig, 1907-50.

472

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Diane Wolfthal. In and Out of the Marital Bed: Seeing Sex in Renaissance Europe, New Haven and London, forthcoming [2010]. Wolk-Simon 2008 Linda Wolk-Simon. “‘Rapture to the Greedy Eyes’: Profane Love in the Renaissance.” In New York, Fort Worth 2008-9, pp. 43—58.

Worcester, 1882. The Collector's Cabinet: Flemish Paintings from New England Private Collections. Exh. cat. by James A. Welu.

Sint-Michiels en Sint-Goedelekathedraal te Brussel. Brussels, 2000.

Zarco Cuevas

1930

J. Zarco Cuevas. “Inventario de las alhajas, rehicarios, estatuas, pinturas, tapices y otros objetos de valor y curiosidad donados por el rey Felipe II al Monasterio

de El Escorial. Anos 1571-1598." Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia 96 (1930), pp. 545-668; 97, PP- 34-144. Zeichnungen alter Meister 1910

Klauser et al., vol.

1

(1950), cols. 1143-48. 22 vols.

Stuttgart, 1950-2008.

Zerner

Pp. X1II-LXXV.

Zucker 1999

2003

Henn Zerner.

allerhochsten Kaiserhauses Wien 25, no. 6 (190s),

Renaissance Art in France: The Invention

Mark J. Zucker. Early Italian Masters. The Illustrated Bartsch, 24, Commentary pt. 4 (Le Peintre graveur, vol. 13 [pt. 1]). New York, 1999.

Zeichnungen alter Meister im Kupferstichkabinett der K. Museen zu Berlin. 2 vols. Berlin, 1910.

of Classiasm. Paris, 2003.

Zenker 1950

Heinrich Zimmermann, ed. “Das Inventar der Prager

Zurich

Sibylla Zenker. “Bar” In Reallexikon fiir Antike und Christentum: Sachwortenbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, edited by Theodor

Schatz- und Kunstkammer vom 6. Dezember 1621. nach Akten des K. und K. Reichsfinanzarchivs in Wien.” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammiungen des

Kunstschdtze aus Dresden. Exh. cat. by Anneliese

Zimmermann

1905

1971

Mayer-Meintschel et al. Kunsthaus Zirich,

Zurich,

1971.

1971.

Bibliography

473

Index

16, Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations.

Accadenna der Concordi, Rovigo, 64, 66, cat. 34 Adolf of Burgundy, Marquis (Lord) of Veere (ca. 14891540), 19-20, 85, 97, 286

and Anna van Bergen (wife), 20, 274 (see also Bergen, Anna van) and Gossart, 19, 235 and Jacoba (daughter), 288 and Philip of Burgundy (granduncle), 3, 19 Adrian VI (pope, 1459-1523), 22,95 Aclst, Pauwels van

and Coecke van Aclst (father), 157 Alberti, Leon Battista (1404-1472), 31. 32, 4313, 79 Albertina, Vienna, cats. 65, 70, 113 Almada, Rodrigo Fernandez d', 184 Altdorfer, Albrecht, 110 Amboise, chateau of (France), 36-37 Amerongen, Dirck Borre van, 276 Antwerp, 32, 81 art market, 14, 21, 22, 105, 111, 156 and Coecke van Aelst, 22 and Dawid, 14, 139 and De Backer, circle of, 376 Gossart’s death in, speculation on, 11, 22, 29n78 Guild of Saint Luke, 9, 139, 142, 362 Koninklyk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, cat. 47 and Mei, 18 and Patinir, 142 and Van Cleve, 122 and Van Hemessen, 27 and Van Leyden, 24 and Van Orley, 94 and Wellemans, 16 Antwerp Mannerism characteristics of, 11, 26, 89-90, 98, 193 Diirer’s influence on, 89, 94, 97, 105 and Gossart, 11, 89-91 and Jan de Beer, 364 and Master of the Lille Adoration, 25 Antwerp or Bruges Master

24,

The Holy Family with Saints and Angels, 303, fig. 241 Apelles (Greek painter, active late 4th century 8.C.), 3, 53=34. 55n31, 217 Apollo Citharoedus (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples), 51, 52, 55n26, 116, 230, 378, fig. 53

Apollonius of Athens

Belvedere Torso, 106, 114, 208, 210, 212, 412, fig. 194 Arras Codex. See Recueil d’ Arras (Arras Codex)

The Art Institute of Chicago, cat.

14

Aubert, David, and Loyset Liédet The Scribes Workshop, from L’Histoire de Charles Martel, 218, 218, fig. 204

Backer, Jacob de, circle of,

3176

Baldinucci, Filippo, 351 Baldung, Hans (1484/85—1545), 376

Adam and Eve (1511), 92, 308, 308, 310, fig. 260 Adam and Eve (1519), 92, 308, 308, 310, fig. 259 Charles 1] from Hewronymus Gebweiler, Libertas Germamiae, 414, 416, fig. 315

474 Jan GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

The Conversion of Saul, 354, fig. 283 and Durer, 308

and Gossart, 92, 94 Barbari, Jacopo de’ (ca. 1460/70—1516), 101n3s, 308 Cleopatra, 222, 222, fig. 206 death of (1516), 16 and Gossart, 16, 29n46, 80, 92 and Margaret of Austria, 16, 80 Mars and Venus, 218, 220, 375, fig. 205 Nude Woman Holding a Mirror (Allegory of Vanitas), 230, 230, fig. 211

and Philip of Burgundy,16, 218 Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham,

cat. 121, fig. 321 Isabella of Austria, 111, 401, 424, 425, fig. 322

Boccaccio

De genealogia deorum gentilium, 221

Boechout, Daniel van, Lord of Boelare (d. 1525/27),

cat. 31

Baroncelli, Maria

Maria Maddalena Baroncelli (Memhing), 18, 18, 238, fig. 1s

Bartolommeo, Fra Vision of Saint Bernard, 160 Basilica Amcha, Rome, 34 Baudouin de Bourbon (or Baudouin of Burgundy), 286 Bayerische Staatsgemildesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, cats. 17¢, 35 Beans, Antonio de, 222 Beccafumm, Domenico, 106 Beer, Arnould (or Aert) de (son of Jan de Beer), 364 Beer, Jan de (ca. 1475-before 1528), 21, 24, 364 Beer, Jan de, circle of The Lamentation, 89, go, fig. 92

Beham, Sebald, 110 Beieren, Jacoba van, Countess of Holland, 262 Woman Praying (Portrait ofJacoba van Beieren) (attributed to Ambrosius Benson), 262, 262, fig. 218 Bellegambe, Jean (ca, 1480-1534/36), 125 The Last Judgment Triptych, left panel (detail), 38, 38, fig. 42 Belvedere Courtyard, Rome, 22, 54 See also Apollonius of Athens, Belvedere Torso Benedetto da Maiano (1442-1497) Virgin and Child, 158, 158, fig. 161 Bening, Simon (ca. 1483-1561), 15, 20 Da Costa Hours, 144 and Grimam Breviary, 15, figs. 9, 10 Henry HI, Count of Nassau-Breda, 265, 297, fig. 232 Imhoff Praver Book, 144 Landscape with Saint Jerome, 143, 144, fig. 150 Mencia de Mendoza, 263, 297, fig. 233

and Mencia de Mendoza, 296 and Patni, 144

Pentecost, 74, 77, 136, fig. 72 Triptych with the Penitent Saint Jerome, the Flight into Egypt, and Saint Anthony of Padua, 143, 144,

fig. 140

Benmg(?), Simon The Doria Pamphil) Diptych, 140-45,

and Adolf of Burgundy (husband), 20, 274 (see also Adolf of Burgundy, Marquis [Lord] of Veere) Anna van Bergen (Gossart), 238, 248, 274, 275, cat. 52 Anna van Bergen, from the Recueil d’Arras (unknown artist), 238, 274. 274, fig. 223 Bergh, Matthys van den, 272 Binck, Jakob (1500-1569), 112n18 Binck, Jakob, after Gossart Christian II of Denmark, 111, 401, 424, 425, 425,

142, 143,

144,

150, cat. 78, fig. 148 Benson, Ambrosius, 74

Benson, Ambrosius, attributed to Woman Praying (Portrait ofJacoba van Beieren), 262, 262, fig. 218

Bentvoglio, Guido (papal nunciate), 200 Bergen, Anna van (1492-1541), 20, 21, 81, 238, 242, 248

11,

79. 146 Boghem, Loys van, and Jan van Roome tomb of Margaret of Austria, 36, 38, 39, 215, 216, figs. 43, 197, 200 Boissens, Cornelis Dircksz., gg Bordone, Benedetto, attributed to Scene with Satyr and Sleeping Nymph, from Francesco

Colonna, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, 3s, 36, 343,

fig. 39 Standing Nymph with an Arrow, from Francesco Colonna, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, 342, 143, fig. 275

Borselan, Franck van, 262 Bosch, Hieronymus (ca. 1450-1516) Garden of Earthly Delights, 20, 296 Bramante, Donato (1444-1514), 31, 42, 54, 153 Breda (The Netherlands). See HenryIII, Count of Nassau-Breda The Briash Museum, London, cats. 73.98, 117 Brooklyn Museum, 22, 24 Brou (Bourg-en-Bresse) Margaret of Austria's sepulchral church, 36, 38, 216, figs. 43. 197

royal monastery, 213, 214, fig. 197

Brucghel the Elder, Jan, 14 Bruges art market, 14 Augustinian church (Salamanca chapel), 195. 200, 202 and Bening, 144 as canvas-painting center, 9

Confraternity of the Dry Tree, 251

and Cornclis, 14 and David, 13-14, 74 and Gossart, 74, cats, §=7 Guild of Sant Luke, 15 Joyous Entry of Charles V into Bruges, 32, 152 and Memhing, 189, 243, 245 Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk, 172 “Les Primitfs flamands et d'art ancien” (1902 exhibition), 4 workshop practices, 14 Bruges School, 117, 192 Brunelleschi, Filippo (1377-1446), 79 Brussels

Ferdinand of Aragon, memorial procession for, 11=12 Guild of Saint Luke, 152 Henry III of Nassau-Breda, palace of, 222 Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, cat. 33

6, 8, and and and and and

Raphael, 77

Van Boghem, 36, 38 Van Orley (see Orley, Bernard van) Van Roome, 16, 150

Vincidor, 26 Bruyne, Gabriel van den tabernacle, Sint-Jacobskerk, Leuven, 41, 42, fig. 45 Buchelius, Arnoldus (Aernout van Buchel, 1565-1641),

death of (1559), 288 and Gossart, 19-20, 111, 272-73, 396-97, 402 and Isabella of Austria (wife), 20, 95, 272, 396-97 King Christian IT of Denmark (unknown 16th-century artist, after Gossart), 111-12, 396, 423-25, 424, cat. 119 and Margaret of Austria (aunt), 272 The Three Children of Christian II of Denmark {Gossart),

David, Gerard (ca. 1460-1523), 9 in Antwerp painters’ guild, 14, 139 art market works, 74 Cervara Altarpiece, 79 and Gossart, 13-14, 90, 322, 324 as leading master of Bruges, 13-14 and manuscript illumination, 14, cat. 6, fig. 132 metalpoint techmque, 97 and model books, use of, 46 prestige collaboration with Gossart, 13-15, 20, 74, 90,

110, 402, 242 26, 14, 79,97. 99

Busleyden, Jeroen van, 101n47, 101n50, 153

Camchio (1455/60-1537)

238, 265, 267, 270, 272-73, 273, 274. 288, 306 402, cat. §1

Chrisuna (daughter of Christian II of Denmark), 272, 288

Seated Hercules Shooting at the Stymphalian Birds, 212, 212, fig. 196

Carondelet, Jean (1469-1545) The Carondelet Diptych (Gossart), 12, 70, 86n2, 154, 166, 168, 202, 245-49, 246-48, 265, 298, cat. 40 as Gossart patron, 131, 243 Jean Carondelet (diptych with Tournar Saint Donatian

305,

[fig. 252]) (Vermeyen(?]), fig. 253 Jean Carondelet (follower of Jan Gossart [Jan Cornelisz. Vermeyen?)), 22, 83, 84, 86, 170, 243, figs. 87, 89 Jean Carondelet (Gossart), 18, 78,230, 243, 243, 243-45, 244, 245, 252, cat. 39, fig. 215 Jean Carondelet (Vermeyen), 85, 86, fig. 9o 243.

Catherine of Aragon, 242 Ceulen, Peter Wolfgang van

Lamentation with Pedro de Salamanca, 198, 198, 200, fig. 182

Chambiges, Pierre, 43n8 Charles 1 of Great Britain, 204 Charles of Burgundy (1491-1538), 286 and Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy (grandfather), 286 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1500-1558), 12, 33, 423 and Adolf of Burgundy, 85 Charles 1, from Heronymus Gebweiler, Libertas Germamae (Baldung), 414, 416, fig. 315 Charles VV (Gossart), 105, 106, 108, 413, 414-17, 415, 418, cat, 118 and de los Cobos, 300 and Diirer, 105 and Gossart, 93 and Henry II, Count of Nassau-Breda, 20 The Holy Family with the Coats of Arms of Charles VV and Isabella of Portugal (Master of the Lille Adoration|?]), 25, 285, figs. and Isabella of Austria (sister), 95, 272, 288 (see also Isabella of Austria) and Isabella of Portugal (wife), 288 Joyous Entry of Charles V into Bruges, 12, 152 and Margaret of Austria (aunt), 50, 54, 95 palace at Granada, 3s, fig. 38 and Philip of Burgundy, 416 Charles VIII of France (1470-1498), 33, 36 Christian IT of Denmark (1481-1559) Christian II of Denmark, from Thette ere thx Neye testa-

260,

240

and Francesco Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan (first husband), 272 and Francis, Duke of Lorraine (second husband), 272 portrayed in The Three Children of Christian II of Denmark (Gossart), 238, 265, 267, 270, 272-73, 273, 274, 288, 396, 402, cat. 1 Christus, Petrus (ca.1410—-1475/76)

of

The Crowning with Thorns, 140, 340, fig. 273 and Pauwels van Aclst (son), 157

and Raphael, 312 Coecke van Aelst, Pieter, circle of

Portable Polyptych with Scenes from the Passion of Christ, 338, 340, fig. 272 Coecke van Aclst, Pieter, follower of, 140 Coecke van Aclst, Pieter, workshop of, 21, 22, The Last Supper (detail), 420, 421, fig. 317

180,

Colonna, Francesco

Hypnerotomachia Poliphili (The Strife of Love in a Dream of Poliphilo) (Colonna), 3s. fig. 39

Colosseum (Rome), 11, 45, 49. 186

Colosseum Seen from the West (Gossart), 330,

331, 345,

44,

358, 378, 380,

383, 386-87, 387, 414, cat. 102, fig. 46

Cornchs, Albert, 14

Coulster, Abel van den, 279 Coxie, Michael, 376 Crabbe van Espleghem, Frans (ca. 1480-1553), 150 and printmaking, 105, 110 Virgin and Child in a Landscape, 105, 107, 409, fig. 107 Virgin and Child Seated under a Tree, 103, 107, 4009, fig. 108

menth paa danske ret effter latinen vdsatthe (Lucas Cranach the Elder), 424, 425, fig. 320 Christian II of Denmark (Binck, after Gossart), 111, 401,

Cranach the Elder, Lucas (1472-1553), 70 Christian Il of Denmark, fig. 208 Christian II of Denmark, from Thette ere thz Naye testa-

424, 425, 425, cat. 121, fig. 321 Christian 11 of Denmark (Lucas Cranach the Elder), 402, 4o2, fig. 298 Christian 11 of Denmark (Lucas Cranach the Elder or

menth paa danske ret effter latinen vdsatthe, 424, 425, fig. 320 Cranach the Elder, Lucas, or studio Christian Il of Denmark, 402, 402, fig. 297

studio), 402, fig. 297 Christian 11 of Denmark (Diirer), 97, fig. 101 Christian II of Denmark (Gossart), 79, 89, 97, 98, 99,

Cranach the Elder, Lucas, workshop of, 70 Cranevelt, Frans, 105 Croy, Guillaume de, 33 Currier Museum of Art, Manchester, New Hampshire,

100, 103080, 111, 258, 265, 374. 396, 398, 401—4, 403, 413, 423, cat. 111

402,

cat. 46

148,

fig. 152 The Adoration of the Kings (collaboration with

Jean de la Barre, 97, 98, fig. 102 Cobos y Molina, Francisco de los (ca. 1475/80-1547), 300 Frandisco de los Cobos y Molina (Gossart), 242, 252, 268, 292, 300, joo, 300-302, 301, cat. 63, fig. 236 Portrait Medal of Francisco de los Cobos y Molina (Weiditz), 300, 300, fig. 235 Coecke van Aelst, Pieter (1502-1550), 32, 94 and art market, 157

47-49, 90, 93,

Virgin and Child at the Fountain (detail), 142, 144, fig. 147

David, Gerard, paintings by The Adoration of the Kings (ca. 1515), 136, 148,

Clement (pope), 300 The Cleveland Museum Art, cat. 20 Clouet, Jean (ca. 1485—1540/41)

45,

fig. 134

Domenico Grimani, 135, 136, 142, fig. 132

of

of the

and underdrawings, 71 and use of perspective, 79 David, Gerard, drawmgs by Study of Four Heads (after Details from the Ghent Altarpiece), 46, 48, ssn12, 97, fig. s0 Study of a Tree and a Man's Head (verso), 97, 135, 136,

David, Gerard, illuminatons by Mary Magdalen Penitent, from the Breviary of Cardinal

A Goldsmith in His Shop, 290 Madonna Enthroned with Saints Jerome and Frans, 87n36 Art, Norfolk, Virgina, cat. 55a Chrysler Museum

View

148

Gossart), 148-50, 149, cat. figs. 153—356 The Doria Pamphilj Diptych (collaboration with Gossart), 130, 135, 140, 140-45, 142, 144, 148, cat. 7a, fig. 146 Forest Scene, from the Nanvity Triptych, 117 The Malvagna Triptych (collaboration with Gossart),

83,

131,

135-39, 136—39, 148, cat.

figs.

133,

13537,

140-142 Nativity Triptych, 117, 136

Rest on the Flight into Egypt (detail), 129, 130, 137, 138, figs. 130, 138 Saint Jerome, 136 Virgin and Child with Four Angels, 124, 142, 142, 144, fig. 145

The Virgin among Virgins (detail), 137, 138, 130, 144. figs. 139, 143

David, Gerard, workshop of, 189 David of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht (d. 1496) and Philip of Burgundy (half-brother), 258 Dedeline, Willem, 3906 Donatello (ca. 1386-1466) The Pazzi Madonna, 106, 328, 408, 409, fig. 310 Dorothea (daughter of Christian II of Denmark), 272, 288

and Frederick 11, Elector Palatine (husband), 272, 288 portrayed in The Three Children of Christian II of Denmark (Gossart), 238, 265, 267, 270, 272-73, 273, 274, 288, 396, 402, cat. $I Dorp, Martin Dialogus, 64, 66 Doviz1 da Bibbiena, Bernardo, 65, 66 The Duke of Devonshire and the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement, Chatsworth, cat. 64 Dupuys, Remy, 31-32, 152 Diirer, Albrecht (1471-1528) and Baldung, 308 and dc’ Barban, 80 Four Books on Human Proportion, 80 and Gossart, 3, 13, 80, 92, 93, 105, 108, 316, 326 influence on Antwerp Mannerists, 89, 94, 97, 105 metalpoint techmque, 98 Portrait of Maximilian I, 417n11 and printmaking, 105—6, 108, 110 and Vellert, 24

Index

475

tri

r Lopvyrigniega matena {

NN

/

y

97 96 3, 3. Durer, Albrecht, drawings by Christian II of Denmark, 97, fig. 101 the Sint-Michielsabdij at Portrait of a Man with a View

of

08,

fig. 103 Antwerp, Preparatory Drawing of Ninety-Three- Year-Old Man, 184, 184, fig. 177 Diirer, Albrecht, paintings by Virgin and Child with the Pear, 184, 184, fig. 178

Giocondo, Fra, 34 Grovanni Antomo da Brescia

Portrait of a Man (Léal Souvenir), 256 Portrait of Giovanni(?) Arolfini and His Wife, 83 Virgin in the Church, 140, 142, fig. 144

Holy Family with Saint Elizabeth and the Infant Saint

Even or Yden, Jan (son-in-law of Gossart), 22 Eynde, Jan van den, 16, 101n52

John the Baptist, after Mantegna, 172

Giuhano da Maano

418, 352. 40. 91. 74. 14, 08, Durer, Albrecht, prints by Adam and Eve, 80,92, 103,

114, 114, 118,

220,

fig. 117 The Adoration ofthe Magi, from the Life of the Virgin (ca. 1503), 330. 330, fig. 265 The Adoration of the Magi (1511). 330, fig. 267

356,

358, fig. 286 Apocalypse series, 348, The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, 346, 148,

fig. 277 Christ Croumed with Thorns, from the Engraved Passion, 106, 412, 412, fig. 314 The Four Avenging Angels (detail), from the Apocalypse series, 93, 93, fig. 95 The Glerification of the Virgin, 318, 320, fig. 263 Hercules at the Crossroad, 346, 148, fig. 278 Knight, Death, and the Devil, 105 The Lamentation, from the Small Passion

The Lamentation, from the Large Passion, 335, 332 fig. 270 Landscape with a Cannon, 110 The Man Sorrows, from the Large Passion, 208, 208,

of

fig. 192 The Man of Sorrows Seated (1515), 109, 110, figs. 112, 113, 114

The Man of Sorrows by the Column, 208, 208, fig. 193 The Martyrdom of Saint Catherine, 358 The Martyrdom of Saint John the Evangelist, from the 356,

358, fig. 286

Melencolia 1, 105, 184 Saint Eustace, 143, 146

Saint John the Baptist and Saint Onuphrius (detail), 93, 93, fig. 95 Samson Rending the Lion, 420, 420, fig. 316 Small Passion series, 316, 342, 342, fig. 274 Studies of Five Figures (“The Desperate Man), 89, 91, fig. 03

Virgin and Child by a Tree, 105, 106, 322, fig. 105 Virgin and Child on a Grassy Bench, 105, 106, 106, 108, 408, fig. 106 Virgin on a Crescent with a Starry Crown, 410, 410,

fig. 312 Duurstede castle (Philip Duurstede castle

of Burgundy).

See Wijk by

Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, Paris, cat. 84 Eleanor of Austria, 12, 28n21 Eleanor of Austria(?) (follower of Gossart), 30s, fig. 250 Enschedé, Johannes, 262 Erasmus, Desiderius (probably 1466-1536), 18, 51, 218 Evelyn, John, 118 Eyck, Hubert van, 14 The Adoration of the Lamb (Ghent Altarpiece), s5n12, 213

Ghent Altarpiece, 46, 48, ssn12,

213, 216-17, fig. 50

42,

Eyck, Jan van (ca.1390—1441), 14, 16, 376 Adam and Eve (Ghent Altarpiece), 218, 220 The Adoration of the Lamb (Ghent Altarpiece), s5n12, 250,

213 Ghent Altarpiece, 46, 48, s5n12, 213, 216-17, 218, 220, 366, 420, fig. 50

influence on Gossart, 18, 82-83

476

Farnese, Odoardo, 378 Fazio, Bartolomeo (before 1410-1457), 16 Ferdinand of Aragon, Duke of Calabria and Mencia de Mendoza (wife), 212 Ferdinand II of Aragon (Ferdinand the Catholic, 1452-1510), 11-12, 36, 95, 152, 300 Filarete (Antonio di Pietro Averlino)

fig. 44 Goes, Hugo van der (ca. 1440-1482), 83, 192 The Adoration of the Kings (Montforte Altarpiece), 145, 146, 148, fig. 151 Gos, Damiao de, 206

Goltzius, Hendrick (1558-1617), 98, 381 Gossart, Gertruyd (daughter), 11, 20n81 marriage to Van der Heyden, 29n81 (see alse Van der Heyden, Hendrik [son-in-law of Gossart]) Gossart, Jan (ca. 1472-1532) Antwerp Mannerist period, 27-28, 374, cats. 69, 70,

Trattato di architettura, 37

The Fitzwilham Museum, Cambridge, cat. 97

Flamboyant architecture, 38, 42 Flamboyant Gothic style, 152, 153. 188, 215—16, 232 Flanders (region), 97 Florence, Italy, 16, 33, 41 Bonfire of the Vanities (Savonarola), 16 Doubting of Thomas (Verrocchio), 11 Gossart’s visit to, 11 Palazzo Pazzi-Quaratesi, 41 Folkema, Jacob, 262 Francis, Duke of Lorraine, 272 Francis

(ca. 1509-10), 342. 342, fig. 274

Apocalypse series, 352,

capital, Palazzo Pazzi-Quaratesy, Florence, 41, 41, 324,

1,

91

as “the Apelles

apprentices, 9, 22, 24 as architect, 31—43 arustic influences, 11, 13-14, 17, 26, 83.92, 94. 243 and art market, 99 art training, 9 and assistants, 12, 20, 21 birth of (ca. 1478), 9. 48 children, 11, 29n81 collaborations, 6, 12-15, 15, 20 (see also David, Gerard) and copyists, 99—100 death of (1532), 20, 22, 290n78 decorative-art projects, 95, 06 distinctive style traits of, 9—29, 38, 69—87, 91, 108,

Frederick 11, Elector Palatine (1482-1556), 272, 288 “French style” architecture (opere Francigeno), 37 Friedlander, Max (1867-1958),

89,

Die altniederlindische Malerei, 100 Frisius, Simon (ca. 1580-1629) The Mass of Saint Gregory, 93. 112, 426, fig. 324 Frits Lugt Collection, Paris, cats. 94, 95, 111

Fruytiers, Philip, 366

150-52, 243, 392 and estate dispersal, 22, 99 and Eyckian phase, 6, 214 family relatives, 6, 11, 14, 22, 29n81, 87n30, 99, 128 family residence (Middelburg), 11. 16, 22, 24 first exhibition devoted to (Rotterdam, Bruges, 1965), 6, 28n9, 89, 264, 268, 279, 283, 294, 303, 380, 411 glass designs, 93, cats. 84-86, 94-97 Gothic flourishes, 93 in Guild of Sant Luke, 9, 15, 40, 89, 3162 known as “Mabuse,” 47-48 marriage (to Margret 's Molders), 11, 128 mature and late-works style, 26, 27, 91-99, 281, 286

¢ Stampe degh Uffizi, Florence,

cats. 86, 109

Galle, Philips, 296 Galleria Doria Pamphil), Rome, cat. 7a.8 Galleria Regionale della Siciha, Palazzo Abatellss, Palermo, cat. 6 Gallerie dell’ Accademia, Venice, cat. 99 Garemiyn, Jan Antoon, 200, 202 Geldenhouwer, Gerard (1482-1542), 3, 416 on architectural discourse, 32 biography of Philip of Burgundy (see Phihp of Burgundy, Geldenhouwer’s biography of) description of Philip, 59

297

mythological nudes and erotic imagery, 6, 9, §7-67,

Epistola de Zelandiae situ, 218

on Gossart on Gossart on Gossart

6601

27,

as architect, 101n35$

as printmaker, 105, 110

“the Apelles of our age,” 3, 54, ssn31 as Phabip’s humanist court poet and historiographer, on Philip's identifying with Neptune, 57, 64, 66n2, as

11

218

on Philip's knowledge of the ancients, 62 on Philip's love of eroticism, 63, 66 on Philips painting “versifiers,” 62, 70

on Philip's reputation as a womanizer, 65 on Philip's trip to Rome (1508-9), 313-34. 51, 52, 53. 90 poem written for Philip, 53 Vita clarissimi principis Philippi a Burgundia (Life of the Celebrated Ruler Philip of Burgundy), 51,52, 53 Genius Populi Romani (ancient Roman statue), 45, §5n7 Geraardsbergen (Belgium), 1

Ghent

Sint-Pietersabdiy church, 272 Ghent Altarpiece (Saint Bavo’s Cathedral), 77. 83, 216—17, 218, 220, 366, 420

3, 54,

s5n31

40

Gabinetto Disegni

of our age” (Geldenhouwer),

46, s5n12,

42, 79, 135. 235, 206-97, 402 (see also patrons, Philip of Burgundy, as Gossart’s patron) patrons’ tastes, artistic style adapted to, 214 physical appearance, 3-4, 260 as portraitist, 9, 17-18, 78-79, 85, portraits of, 4, 5, 24, 108, figs. 2,4 prestige collaboration with Dawid, 13-15, 20,

89.

3,

90,

148

and printmaking, 10§-12 “Romanist” style, 25-26 Rome, trip to (1508-9), 11, 45-55, 383, 386 as “sculptural painter,” 17-18, 26 and self-portraits, 4, 251, 256 106, signature of,4, 9,10, 21-22, fig. 6a=1

83, 99,

spelling variant of name, 4 working locations, 20 working methods, 69-87 and workshop, 12, 20-22, 72,99 See also specific art form below

Gossart, Jan, circle of, 242, 316

JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

tri

r Lopvyrigniega matena {

NN

/

y

Gossart, Jan, copies after, 29n73 Floris van Egmond (possible copy after), 82, 85, fig. 82 Henry III of Nassau-Breda, 265, 297, 297, fig. 234 Virgin and Child (Vienna), 21, 22, 81, 173, 174, 177-79,

The Virgin and Child Seated on a Throne (unknown Netherlandish arust), 99, 405, 405, fig. 300 The Virgin and Child with Angels Playing Music

A King or Emperor at a Banquet, 95, 98, 146, 348, 369, 372, 374-75, cat. 96 The Lamentation, 73, 73, 93, 93, 99, 101n48, 335, 337,

222, 310, 341, 193, 118, 383, 367, 394, 333, 406, 405, 337, 314, 337 332 84, 95, 96, 93, 95. 92, 99, 9s. 128, 179,

cat. 17A, figs. 170, 173.174

fig. 301

Virgin and Child (London), 112, 173, 175, 177-79, 178, 179, cat. 178, fig. 175

Virgin and Child (Munich), 81, 176, 177-79, 179,

cat. 17¢, fig. 176

Gossart, Jan, drawings after Adam and Eve (unknown Netherlandish artist) (Frankfurt), 77, 91-92. 99, 118, 222, 308, 310, 314, 314-15, 315, 367, 368, 405, 410, cat. 67 Adam and Eve (unknown Netherlandish artist) (Providence), 72, 91-92, 97. 99, 212,222,

308, 313, 316—18, 317, 324, 368, 383, 405, cat. 68 The Lamentation, 93, 95. 99 ~100, 10148, 330,

315.

342, 405, fig. 268 The Martyrdom of Saint Cyriacus and His Companions(?) (unknown Netherlandish artist), 356, 356, 405, fig. 285 The Presentation in the Temple, 99, 335. 337, 405, fig. 269 Virgin and Child with Putti Playing Music (unknown Netherlandish artist), 74, 77, 136, fig. 71

Gossart, Jan, drawings attributed to The Adoration of the Holy Lamb and the Crowning of the Virgin, 93.

94-95, 326, 358, 364-66, 365,

cat. 92 The Adoration of the Magi (retouched by an unknown hand), 95, 328, 330, 331-33, 332, 357 386,

cat. 76 Bust of a Warrior in Fantastic Armor in Profile, 91, 383, 388, 302, 392-93, cat. 10§ A Running Man and Other Figures (Fragment of a

Composition Depicting Christ Carrying the Cross), 394, cat. 81 340, A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor, 91,

341,

393,

cat, 106

Gossart, Jan, drawings attributed to followers of Adam and Eve (unknown Netherlandish artist) (Frankfurt), 77, 91-92, 99, 118, 314, 314-15, 315, 367, 368, 405, 410, cat. 67 Adam and Eve (unknown Netherlandish artist) (Providence), 72, 91-92, 97, 99, 118, 212,222,

308,

308, 313, 316—18, 317, 324, 368, 383, 405, cat. G8 Allegory of Fortune, circle of Gossart, 369, 406, 406, fig. 305 Allegory ofJustice, circle fig. 306

of Gossart,

369, 406, 406,

Design for a Monstrance, circle of Gossart, 96, 406, 406, fig. 307 The Judgment of Paris, circle of Gossart, 369, 406, 406, fig. 304 The Judgment of Paris in an Ornamental Frame, circle of

Gossart, 406, 406, fig. 308

335,

The Lamentation, 93, 95, 99-100, 101048, 330, 342, 405, fig. 268 The Lamentation (unknown artist, after Gossart [?]),

405, 405-6, fig. 303 The Martyrdom of Saint Cyriacus and His Companions(?) (unknown Netherlandish arust), 356, 356, 403, fig. 285 The Mocking of Christ (unknown arust), fig. 302 The Presentation in the Temple, 99, 405, fig. 269

405, 405,

(unknown Netherlandish artist),

405, 335.

Virgin and Child with Putti Playing Music (unknown

Netherlandish artist), 74, 77. 99, 136. 405, 405, fig. 71, fig. 299

Gossart, Jan, drawings by, 45-53, 89-103, 103n79 Adam Accuses Eve before God (after Baldassare Peruza, retouched by Peter Paul Rubens), 91, 92, 118, 308, 310, 312—14, 313, 316, 357, cat. 66 Adam and Eve (Chatsworth), 118, 222, 308-10,

98,

309, 310, 374, cat. 64 Adam and Eve (Vienna), 77, 89, 91, 92—93, 118, 205, 210, 222,242, 308, 310-12, 311, 312, 314, 316, 338, 342, cat. 350, 351, 353. 358, 367, 375. 304, The Adoration of the Magi, 93, 95, 323, 328-31, 329, 331,

418, 395.

6

341, 345, 348, 350, 358, 364, 386, 393, 394, 414, cat. 75 The Adoration of the Shepherds, 333—34, 335.

96, |

367 396, cat. 77

Aegisthus Killing Agamemnon nestra,

98,

101n506,

in the Presence of Clytem308, 324, 346, 348, 357.

369, 370, 374-75, 396, cat. 94 The Apollo Citharoedus of the Casa Sassi, 50, 51-52, 90, 98, 116, 220, 2206, 362, 378-80, 379, 381, 383, cat. gy, fig. 52 The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, 10, 73, 89. 91,

95, 124, 125, 142, 324. 331 334. 345, 346-48, 347, 348, 368, 360, 374, 393, cat. 124 Christian II of Denmark, 79, 89. 97, 98, 99, 100, 103n80,

fig.

111,

258, 265, 374. 396, 398, 401—4, 403, 413, 423,

cat. 111

The Circumcision of Christ(?), 96, 334. 334, 338, 374, 396, cat. 78 The Conversion of Saul, 89, 93, 94, 95, 330, 333. 335. 341, 350, 352, 35355, 354, 355, 356. 357. 358. 364, 366, 367, 374. 396, 404, 414, cat. 87, fig. 284 The Crowning with Thorns, 98, 333. 338. 338,

94,

338-40, 339, 341, cat. 80, fig. 271 Design for a Ceiling with Nine Angels Carrying Instruments of the Passion, 93, 96, 98, 99, 326, 330, 340, 342, 350, 352. 353, 361, 374. 396, 398-400, 3909, 401,404, cat. 109 Design for a Glass Window with Scenes from the Life of Saint John the Evangelist, 93, 95, 98, 308, 330, 135. 341, 342, 348, 350-53, 351, 361, 366, 394. 396, cat. 86

Design for a Iriptych with Scenes from the Life of Saint Leonard, 93, 94. 95. 98. 99, 331, 333, 335. 342, 352. 353. 156, 358,

360-62, 361, 367, 374, 195, 396,

401, 404, cat. 90 Design for the Tomb of Isabella of Austria (Elizabeth of Denmark), 93, 96, 98, 99, 217, 326, 335, 150, 353,

374, 386, 394, 395-98, 397, 402, 425, cat, 108 The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, 10, 73, 890-90, 102177, 124, 125, 128, 129, 318,

04,

320, 14S, 346, 362-64, 363,

fig. 350. cat.

91,

122

3184, 388,

401, 416,

98,

A Grotesque with Tivo Sirens, 72, 99, 335, 345. 394-95, 395, 196, cat, 107 Hercules Killing Cacus, 77, 03, 9s, 98, 314, 316, 326, 313, 337. 352, 353, 358, 361, 364,

cat. 93

366-68, 404,

The Hercules of the Forum Boarium Seen from the Back,

52, 53, 81, 90, 95, 153, 308, 316, 378, 380-82, 381, 100, fig. 54 The Holy Family Seated at the Foot of a Tree, 82, 322-23,

cat.

323, cat. 71 The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Another Female Saint, 82, 89, 90, 91, 102n77, 318, 320-22, 321, 322-23, 324, 334. 348, 374. 388, cat. 70

349, 342744, 343, 344, 344, 350, 352, 353, 361, 393, 396, cat. 82, figs. 70, 93, 276 The Martyrdom of Saint Cyriacus and His Companions(?),

395,

93, 95, 330, 331, 353, 356-58, 357 cat, 88 The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine,

358,

10,

405,

52, 82, 89,

03, 128, 318-20, 319, 320, 324, 362, 378, 388, cat, 69 The Presentation in the Temple, 93, 94. 95, 99, 109, 333, 334. 335-38, 336, 340, 342, 352, 353, 358, 360, 364. 374. 396, 405, cat. 79

A Religuary, 96, 334, 359, 366, 400, 400—401, cat. 110 Saint John the Evangelist on Patmos, 3148-50, 349, cat, 85 Scenes from the Life of Saint Giles, 90, 93, 93, 324,

94.

330, 335. 337, 341, 353, 358-60, 359, 361, 374,

fig. 95after the Sheet with cat.

89,

a Study

“Spinario” and Other

Sculptures, 45, 46, 49, $56, 90, 91, 100, 10I1N 56, 222, 316, 331, 3157, 375, 378, 380, 382,

383,

383-84, 385, 388, 302, 414, cat. 101, figs. 47, 201 stained-glass roundels, designs for, 369-75, 370-73,

cats. 94-97 A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor, 47, 49, 91,99, 331, 183, 388-89, 380, 390, 392. 393, 401, cat. 103, figs. 51,203 A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor with a Halberd, 91,

99, 383, 388-80,

392, 393, cat. 104 Tive Kings and a Woman(?) Leaving a Palace (The Idolatry of King Solomon?), 124, 323, 328, 330, 344745, 345, 393, 401, cat, §3 391,

96,

View of the Colosseum Seen from the West, 44, 435. 47-49. 90, 93, 330, 331, 345, 338, 378, 3180, 383, 386-87,

387 414. cat. 102, fig. 46 Virgin and Child with Saint John the Baptist, 93, 97, 322,

327, 328, 340, 353, 336, 366, 367, 410, 326,

cat. 73 Virgin and Child with Saints Catherine and Barbara, 72,

73.82, 90,91,

903,97,

108, 124, 128, 129, 316, 318,

320, 322, 324-25, 325, 331, 334, 343, 343, 386, cat, 72 Virgin of Humility, 73, 73, 97, 322, 326, 327, 328, 375, 410, cat. 74, fig. 69 A Woman and Her Handmaid in a Bedroom with a

Resting Man, 95, 98, 346, 348, 356, 369, 373. 174-75. 378. 396, cat. 97 A Woman Killing Three Sleeping Men, 95, 08, 346, 348, 374—75, Cat. 93 A Women's Bath, 6041, 76, 77-78, 93, 326, 1328, 338, 375-77. 372 383, 394, 395, cat. 98, fig. 77

369,

98.

371,

Gossart, Jan, drawings by circle of Allegory of Fortune, 369, 406, fig. 305 fig. 306 Allegory ofJustice, Design for a Monstrance, 96, 4006, fig. 307 The Judgment of Paris, 369, 406, fig. 304 The Judgment of Paris in an Ornamental Frame, 406,

369,

fig. 308 Gossart(?), Jan, medal after

medal with portrait of Pope Adrian VI (unknown Netherlandish artist, first quarter of 16th century, after Gossart[?]), 9s, 0s, fig. 97 Gossart, Jan, paintings after The Deposition (ca. 1525-30), 204, 204, fig. 189 The Deposition (16th century?), 204, 204, fig. 190

Virgin and Child (unknown Netherlandish artist), 20, 21, 81, 85, 86n1, 87n32, 238-40, 239, 242, 248,

274, cat. 37

Index

477

Copyrighted atti ica Of yy HOU material

88 1, Virgin and Child with the Vail (ca. 1525-30), 156, 157,

fig. 159 Virgin and Child with the Veil (1531 or 1551), 156, fig. 160

157,

The Deposition, 94, 101139, 195, 200-204, 201, 205, 337, cat. 25

The Doria Pamphil) Diprych, 13-14.

74, 83,cat.130,

135, 140—41, 140—45, 144, 148, 192, 350, 7A,B, fig. 148 Francisco de los Cobos y Molina, 292, 300,

Gossart, Jan, paintings attributed to followers of Adam and Eve (ca. 1530), 27, 303, figs. 30, 237

Portrait of an Old Couple, 69, 78, 268, 276, 276-79, 277, 278, 292, cat. §3, figs. 225, 227, 228 Portrait of a Woman, 69, 254. 255, 268, 274, cat. 43 Saint Jerome Penitent, 82,93, 130, 137, 189-01, 190, 194,

215, 200, 196, 396, 367. 326, 194, 157, 242, 237, 288, 199, 180, 395, 256, 268, 284, 111, 222, 422, 401, 210, 187, 258, 277, 424, 395. 181 82, 22, 83, 18, 70, 91, 38, 21, 81, 15, 78, The Crucifixion, 304, fig. 246 Cybele Beseeching Saturn to Spare Her Child(?), 27, 423, fig. 29 The Deposition (ca. 1525-30), 204, 204, fig. 189 The Deposition (16th century?), 204, 204, fig. 190

Eleanor of Austria(?), 30s, fig. 250 Floris van Egmond, 82, 8s, 305, figs.

251

Hercules and Antaeus, 304, 423, fig. 247 The Holy Family, 303, fig. 239

Madonna and Child with Saints Catherine and Agnes, 198, 198, fig. 183 Peleus, Thetis, and Achilles(?), 30s, fig. 249 Portrait of a Man (Copenhagen), 306, fig. 255 Portrait of a Man (Geneva), 306, fig. 256 Portrait of a Woman, 306, fig. 258 Virgin and Child (Brussels), 304, fig. 242 Virgin and Child (Lisbon), 304, fig. 243 Virgin and Child (location unknown), jo4, fig. 245 Virgin and Child (Panis), 304, fig. 244 Virgin and Child (unknown Netherlandish artist), 20,

252,

300, 300-302, 301, cat. 63, fig. 236 Henry III, Count of Nassau-Breda, 20, 206—98,

cat. 61A Hercules and Deianira, 77, 790-80, 91, 208, 221-24, 223, 226, 352, 396, 417, 422, cat. 31 Hermaphroditus and Salmacis, 70, 77, 221, 222, 224-26, 225, 346, 378, cat. 32 The Holy Family (Bilbao), 69, 83, 8s, 158, 172, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 186, 188, 242, 285, cat. 18, figs. 84,

8s, 172 The Holy Family (Los Angeles), 122-25, 123-25, 148, 158, 343, cat. 4, figs. 121,123 Jean Carondelet, 236, 243. 243, 243-45, 244, 245, 2§2, cat. 39, fig. 215 The Juan de Zumiga Diptych, 166, 168, 170, 298, 299, cat. 62AB

78,

The Malvagna Triptych,

11,

13-14,

15,

70, 40, 129,

36,

129, 130, 73, 74, 79, 80, 82, 99, 117, 126, 128, 131-39, 131-39, 142, 144. 148, 192, 194, 214, 401, cat. 6, figs. 120, 133, 135-37, 140-142 A Man Holding a Glove, 204-96, 295, cat. 60 Mary Magdalen (Boston), 22,85, 180, 240-42, 241, 285, cat. 38 Mary Magdalen (London), 245, cat. 36 Mencia de Mendoza, 20, 206-98, cat. 618 Neptune and Amphitrite, 10, 16, 34-153, 56, 57. 59, 39, 61,

3s8, cat. 22 Saint John the Baptist, left wing, interior, from the so-called Salamanca Triptych, 195-99, 197,

cat. 24A Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (Prague), 11, 13, 14, 24, 206, 30, 31, 40-41, 42, 72, 73,79. 88, 89, 98, 117,

cat. 9, figs. 8, 32, 67,01, 157

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (Vienna), 4, 8, 9, 24, 41-42, 72, 73. 75, 77.79. 93, 98, 99, 152, 161, 161=63, 164, 198, cat. 12, figs. 5,73, 74, 162-67 Saint Peter, ght wing, interior, from the so-called Salamanca Triptych, 73, 73, 195-99, 197, 199,

393.

cat. 248, fig. 68

Salamanca Triptych, two wings from the so-called, 4. 10, 42,73. 73, 93, 164, 168, 195-99, 196-97, 200, cats. 24A,B, figs. 68, 215, 215, 326, 367,

390,

199

The Three Children of Christian II of Denmark, 238, 265, 267,270, 272-73, 273, 274, 288, 396, 402, cat. 51 Venus, 63, 64-065, 66, 80, 229-32, 231, 378, cat. 34,

195—99, 21.81,

85,

86n1, 87n32, 238-40, 239, 242, 248,

274, cat. 37 Virgin and Child with the

Veil (ca.

1525-30), 156,

fig. 159 Virgin and Child with the Veil (1531 or 1551), fig. 160

157,

156,

Gossart, Jan, paintings attributed to followers of (Jan Cornehisz. Vermeyen?)

Jean Carondelet, 22, 83, 84, 86, 170, 243. figs. 87, 89 Saint Donatian, 86, 87n62, 170, figs. Gossart, Jan, paintings by, 9-29, 28n2 Adam and Eve (Berlin), 69, 69, 92, 118, 120-22, 121,

84,

86,

fig. 65 368, cat. 308, Adam and Eve (London), 20, 69, 3,

76,

77-78, 92,

118-20, 119, 120, 222, 308, 375. 418, cat, 2,

figs. 75.78

Adam and Eve (Madrid), 80, 114-17, 115—17, 116, 118, 148, 230, 236, 308, cat. figs. 118-20 The Adoration of the Kings, 10, 12, 13—14. 14, 15.70, 71, 139, 144, 14550, 147, 149, 153, 192, 330, 358, 401, cat. 8, figs. 7, 66,

72,73. 74.79. 81,93,

1316,

215,

236,

118,

66n6, 69, 70, 77. 80, 153. 217-21, 218, 218, 219, 386, 396, cat. 30, figs. 56, 58,

346,

245.

59, 203

The Norfolk Triptych, 6g, 78, 180,

268,

281-85, 282-85, 285, 292, 300, 410, cat.

figs.

$SA—-C,

229, 230

Portrait of a Female Donor (The Norfolk Triptych), 6g, 78, 180, 216, 242, 258, 268, 281-85, 282, 283, 292. 300, cat. $C Portrait of a Male Donor (The Norfolk Triptych), 6g,

83, 180, 242, 248, 268, 276, 277, 281-85, 81, cat. figs. 81,224, 282, 284,

292, 300,

229

§5B,

Portrait of a Man (Antwerp), 19, 69, 81, 82, 85, 86, 86n1, 87n61, 260, 262-64, 263, cat. 47 figs. 17, 83

so-called Salamanca Triptych, 4, 73, 93, 164, 168,

Portrait of a Man (Brusscls), 252, 256, 267-70, 268, 269, cat. 49, figs. 220, 221 Portrait of a Man (Manchester, N.H ), 4, 260-62, 261,

cat. 244, fig. 199

264, cat. 46 Portrait of a Man (New York),

153—36

The Angel Gabriel, left wing, exterior, from

the

10,

69,70, 81, 86n1, 252,

Anna van Bergen, 238, 248, 274, 275, cat. 52 The Carondelet Diptych, 12, 70, 86n2, 154, 166, 168, 202, 24549, 296—48, 265, 298, cat. 40 Christ Carrying the Cross, 205-7, 206, 207, cat. 26, fig. 191 Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, 82, 130, 137, 189, cat. 23, figs. 192-95, 193, Christ on the Cold Stone (Budapest), 21, 81, 86n1, 186, 205, 207-10, 209, 210, 212, 338, 412,

cat. 44 Portrait of a Man (Vienna), 252, 253, 256, 268, cat. 42 Portrait of a Man (Charles of Burgundy?), 85, 256, 264, 28586, 287, 294, cat. $6 Portrait of a Man (Henry III of Nassau-Breda?), 238, 252, 265-67, 266, 270, cat. 48 Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?), 69, 252, 256, 277, 278, 285, 286, 200-92, 291, 292, 292, 302,

413, cat. 27 Christ on the Cold Stone (Valencia), 20, 205, 210-13, 211, 338, cat. 28

cat. 58, figs. 226, 231 Portrait of a Man (Janus Secundus?), 292-94, 293, cat. $9 Portrait of a Man (Philip of Burgundy?), 238, 25860, 259, cat. 45 Portrait of a Man (Self-Portrait?), 4, 4, 78, 250, 251, 252, cat. 41, fig. 3 Portrait of a Man with a Rosary, 172, 252, 279-81, 280,

194,

180,

70,

Danae, 10, 35-36, 37, 69. 76, 77, 80, 81-82, 182, 188, 210,232—134, 233, 234, 234, 279, 386, cat. 35,

figs. 40.76, 213,214 Deesis ( Virgin Mary, Christ Blessing, and Saint John the

Baptist), 68, 69,77, 81-82, 83, 118, 213-17, —16 215, 210, 366, cat. 29, figs. 64, 198, 21410, 201, 202

478

420,

25058,

257, 268,

fig. 63 Venus and Cupid, 16, 17, 60, 61, 62, 64. 66, 70, 77, 80, 226-29, 227, 230, 231, 242, 352, 400, cat. 33, figs. 12, 60, 61, 62

Virgin and Child (Berlin), 158, 168-70, 169, 172, 177, 178, 182, 186, 248, 284, 285, 208, cat. 15, fig. 171 Virgin and Child (Chicago), 81,

cat. 54 Portrait of a Monk, 166, 270-72, 271, cat. $0

186,

242,248, 284, 285, 298, 401, cat. I4 Virgin and Child (England), 182, 183, cat. 19 Virgin and Child (London, on loan), 70, 164-66, 165, 182, 27 0, 281, 208, cat. 13 Virgin and Child (Madnid), 17, 17, 21, 22, 26, 77, 85, 124, 158,166, 170-73,

171,

fig. 13

Virgin and Child

242, 279, cat, 16,

(Minster), 70,

158, 150, 172, 248,

cat. IT Virgin and Child (The Norfolk Triptych), 180, 281-85, 283, 285, 285, 300, 410, cat. §5A, fig. 230 Virgin and Child (Washington, D.C), 21, 22, 27, 177,

186-88, 328, cat. 21

Virgin and Child in a Landscape, 20, 70, 170, 182, cat. 20 184-86, 185, Virgin and Child with Musical Angels, 11, 13-14,

208,

73,

74. 82,99, 126—31, 127-30, 128, 129, 136, 137, 144. 192, cat. 5, figs. 127, 128, 131 Virgin and Child with the Veil, 154-57, 158 155, 156, 156, 410, cat.

22, 85,

fig.

10,

|

260,

166-68, 170, 172,

Virgin Mary,

right wing, exterior, from the so-called

Salamanca Triptych, 195-99, 196, cat. 248 A Young Princess (Dorothea of Denmark?), 238, 245, 274, cat. 57 Gossart, Jan, portraits by and working method, 78-79 Gossart, Jan, prints after Cain Killing Abel (unknown Netherlandish arust), 77, 111, 310, 312, 418-21, 419, 423, cat. 117 Christian II of Denmark (Jakob Binck), 111,

289,

425, cat. 121 Christian II of Denmark (Jakob Binck),

425,

111,

401,

425, fig. 321 Hercules and Deianira (unknown Netherlandish artist), 106, 422-23, cat. 118 Isabella of Austria (Jakob Binck), 111, 401. 424, 425,

208,

417,

fig. 322

JAN GOSSART’S RENAISSANCE

Copyrighted atti ica Of yy HOU material

9, King Christian II of Denmark (unknown 16th-century artist), 111-12, 390, 423-25, 424, cat. 119 Queen Isabella of Austria (Elizabeth of Denmark)

(unknown 16th-century artist), 111-12, 396,

Hall, Burchard von, 37 Hamburger Kunsthalle, cat. 79 Heemskerck, Maarten van (1498-1574), 26, 55n7 The Garden of the Villa Madama, 383, 384, fig. 292 The Herailes of the Forum Boarium and Fragments of the Colossus of Constantine on the Capitoline, 381, 382, fig. 290

Italian Mannerist style, 264 [taly, Gossart's trip to. See Rome, Gossart in (1508-9)

Jabach, Everard, 272 Jacoba (daughter of Adolf of Burgundy), 288 Jagdschloss Grunewald, Berlin, 26

272. 306, 110, 106, 105, 208 93. 98, 27, 11, 32, 397, 423-25, 424, cat. 120 Gossart, Jan, prints by, 105-12

Charles

V,

105, 106, 108, 110, 260, 413,

41417, 415,

418,

cat. 11§ The Mocking of Christ or The Man Sorrows, 93, 104, 203, 208, 212, 338, 341, 412-14, 413, cat. 114, figs. 104, 115 Virgin and Child Seated at the Foot of a Tree, 10, 97, 105, 106, 158, 168, 172, 322, 328, 408-9, 409, 416, 418,

of

110,

cat. 112 Virgin and Child Seated on a Bank, 97, 10s, 106, 108, 154, 322, 328, 410-11, 411, 418, cat. 113 Gossart(?), Jan, prints by Hercules and Deianira, 110, 417, 417-18, cat. 116 Gossart, Jan, prints said to be after

The Mass of Saint Gregory (Stmon Frisius), 93, 112, 335, 426, 426, fig. 324 Pieta (Johannes Wierix), 112, 426, 426, fig. 326 Virgin and Child with Fruits (unknown Netherlandish artist, late 16th century), 112, 426, 426, fig. 323 Virgin with the Infant Christ (Crispyn de Passe 1), 112,

426, 426, fig. 325 Gossart(?), Jan, sculpture after columns in Renaissance style (Haarlem or Utrecht?, unknown artist), 93, 396, 396, fig. 294 medal with portrait of Pope Adrian VI (unknown

Netherlandish artist), 9s, 95, fig. 97 Virgin and Child on the Crescent Moon (unknown artist [Haarlem or Utrecht?]), after Gossart(?), 9s, 96, fig. 99 Virgin and Child en the Crescent Moon between Columns (unknown artist [Haarlem or Utrecht?]), after Gossart(?), 95, 96, fig. 08

Gossart, Jan, stamed-glass design after The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (unknown Netherlandish artist, after Gossart), 346, 348, 374, fig. 279 Gossart, Nicastus (brother), 11, 38, 99, 102n75, 102177 Gossart, Pieter (son), 11, 20n81, 99 Graf, Urs, Lio Grapheus, Cornelius, 32 Grimani, Domenico (cardinal), 15, 144, 314 Grimam Breviary (Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice), 14-15, 40, 91, 138, 142

the

Breviary of Cardinal Mary Magdalen Penitent, from Domenico Grimani, 135, 136, 142, fig. 132 Saint Catherine Disputing with the Philosophers, 15, 15,

40,91,

124, figs.

Guas, Juan

10

Royal Gallery, Monasterio de San Juan de los Reyes, Toledo, fig. 41

37, Lodovico 36,

Guicaiardini, Guild of Saint Luke

(1521-1589), 3, s5n1

14, 89,

in Antwerp, 9, 94,139, 362 in Brussels, 152 in Mechelen, 11, 15, 40—41, 142, 150, 153

regulations of,

15

Haarlem and Enschedé (town printer), 262 Haarlem or Utrecht?, unknown artist, after Jan Gossart(?) columns in Renaissance style, 95, 306, 306, fig. 204 Virgin and Child on the Crescent Moon, 953, 96, fig. 99 Virgin and Child on the Crescent Moon between Columns,

9s, 96, fig. 98 Hackeney, Georg and Nicasius, 32

26,

Saint Luke Painting the Virgin, fig. 31 The Sculpture Court of the Casa Sassi in Rome, 378, 378, fig. 288

trip to Rome,

and Christian II (father), 272

portrait of (The Three Children of Christian

John of Brabant-Glymes, Lord of Bergen-op-Zoom, 274 John of Caulibus Meditationes vitae Christi (Meditations on the Life of Christ), 192, Joos van Cleve (d. 1540/41), 21,122, 124

205,

296—98, cat. 61A

Henry III of Nassau-Breda, from the Recueil d’ Arras (unknown artist), 265, 265, fig. 219 Henry 111 of Nassau-Breda (Gossart, copies after), 265, 297, 297, fig. 234

and Mencia de Mendoza (third wife), 267, 296 (see also Mendoza, Mencia de) polincal power of, 296 Portrait of a Man (Henry III of Nassau-Breda?) (Gossart), 238, 252, 265-67, 266, 270, cat. 48 Henry VIII of England, Whitehall residence of, 272 Hercules (Hellenistic, Muser Capitolim, Palazzo der Conservatori, Rome), 41, $3. 53, 380, fig. $5 Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, cat. 115 Heyden, Hendrik van der (son-in-law of Gossart), 6, 22, 29n81, 99 Heydenreich, Erhard, 43n8 Hogenberg, Nicolas (ca. 1500-before 1539), 105, 110 Virgin and Child, 10s, 107, 409, fig. 109 Holbein the Younger, Hans (1497/98-1543). 97, 245, 268, 272

Hopfer, Daniel, 110 Horace Ars poetica, 62

of Austria (1501-1526)

288,

402,

11

cat.

217, 326, 90, 96, 374. 386, 304, 395-98, 402, 425,

Denmark) (Gossart),

335,

397, 350, 353, cat. 108 The Epitaph of Isabella of Austria in the Abbey Church of Saint Peter, Ghent (unknown artist, Belgium, after Arent van Wynendaele), 96, 396,306, fig. 205 and Gossart, 20, 9s, 96, 111-12, 390, 425 Isabella of Austria (Jakob Binck, after Gossart), 111, 401, 424, 423. hig. 322

and portrait-depiction style, 242 Queen Isabella of Austria (Elizabeth of Denmark) (unknown 16th-century artist), 111-12, 396, 307, 42325, 424, cat. 120 Isabella of Portugal, 288 Isenbrant, Adriaen (ca. 1500-before 1551), 40, 74 Isenbrant, Adriaen, workshop of, 189

of

402,

fig. 232 Henry 111, Count of Nassau-Breda (Gossart), 20,

and Binck, 111 and Charles V (brother), gs, 306 children, portrait of (The Three Children of Christian of Denmark [Gossart]), 238, 265, 267, 270, $I 272-73.273, 274.288, and Christian II (husband), 20, 95, 272. 396 death of (1526), 272, 288, 396-97, 423, 425 Design for the Tomb of Isabella of Austria (Elizabeth of

11

Denmark [Gossart]), 238, 265, 267, 270, 272-73, cat. 51 273, 274.288, 396,

91

and underpaintings, 86 Hemessen, Jan Sanders van (ca. 1500—ca. 1575), 20, 27 Hendrik (Adolf of Burgundy's son), 20 Henry III, Count of Nassau-Breda (1483-1538), 31 death of (1538), 2908 and Gossart, 206—97 Henry III, Count of Nassau-Breda (Bening), 265, 297,

Isabella

John, prince of Denmark, 272

Joos van Cleve, workshop of, 122 The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, cats. 4, 63 Juan, Infante (Margaret of Austria’s first husband), 36 Julius IT (pope, 1443-1513), 11, 40, 50, §5n20, 368 and Philip's diplomatic mission to Rome (1508-9), 45, 5T1,52,53-54

Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von Von

Abtuhung der Bilder (Concerning the Abolishing of Pictures), 160

Keldermans, Rombout II, 36, 42 Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, cat. 48 Kleinberger Galleries exhibition, New York (1929), 188 Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Copenhagen, cat. 120 Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, cat. 47 Kulmbach, Hans Suss von (ca. 1485-1522), 341 Nude Woman with a Mirror, 230, 230, fig. 212

Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemaldegalerie, Vienna, cats. 12, 17A, 42

Lalaing, Antoine de, 38

La Marck, Erard de (prince-bishop), 24

Lampsonius, Dominicus (1532-1599), 3, 69 Landesmuseum, Minster, cat. 11 Lanier, Nicholas, 3180 Late Gothic style, 36-38 and Gossart, 6, 14, 32, 36 Netherlandish variations in, 36 and Van Eyck, 36 and Van Orley, 32 Leiden and Cornehs Dircksz. Boissens. 99 Lemaire de Belges, Jean Concorde des deux langages (Union of the Tivo Languages), 40 Leonard, Sant, 360 Design for a Triptych with Scenes from the Life ofSaint Leonard (Gossart), 93. 94, 95. 98. 99, 331, 333, 335,

342. 352, 353. 350, 358, 360-62, 361, 367, 374. 395, 396, 401, 404, cat. 90 Leonardo da Vina (1452-1519), 290n76

Leo X (pope, 1475-1521), 54. 65, 77 Leuven (Belgium), 51 and Hendrik van der Heyden, 22 Sint-Jacobskerk tabernacle, 41, 42, fig. 45 Leyden, Lucas van (ca. 1494-1533), 395 and Diirer, 97, 105 and Gossart, 4, 24, 108, 392 metalpoint techmque, 98 and printmaking, 105, 110 Leyden, Lucas van, drawing by Portrait of a Man, 79,97. 252, fig. 100 Leyden, Lucas van, prints by Cain Killing Abel (1520), 420, 421, fig. 318 Cain Killing Abel (1524), 420, 421, fig. 319

97,

Index

479

tri

r Lopvyrigniega matena {

NN

/

y

Emperor Maximilian, 108, 108, 416, fig. 111 The Poet Virgil Suspended in a Basket, 4, 5, 24, 108, 251, 260, fig. 4 The Suicide of Lucretia, 228, 228, fig. 209 Virgin and Child, 10s, 107, 409. fig. 110

Master W with the Key The Large Virgin and Child with an Apple in the Window, 128, 128, fig. 126

Maubeuge (France), 9, 48 Mauch, Daniel, 29ns8 The Mauritshuis, The Hague, cat. 10 Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (1450-1519), 80,

Middelburg Altarpiece (Gossart), 3, 12, 13, 20, 22, 28n26, 99, 10IN52 Middelburg (The Netherlands) Brotherhood of Our Lady in Middelburg, Gossart admutted to, Gossart’s residence 1n, 11, 16, 22, 24 Gossart’s workshop, questioned existence of, 12 Moderno (1467-1528), attributed to

20

276, 106, 17, 38, 27, 25, 25. 11, 31. 20, 14, 33, 26, 32, Liédet, Loyset, and David Aubert The Scribe’s Workshop, from L’Histoire de Charles Martel, 218, 218,

fig. 204

Lille, Alain de, 37 A Lion Attacking a Horse (Hellenistic, Palazzo dex Conser-

vatori, Rome), §5n8 Lipp1, Filippino (ca. 1457-1504), 395 Annunaation, 160 Lombard, Lambert (1506-1566), 22, 24, 364 Lous XII of France, 36 Lugt, Frits, 20, 99, 103n80 Luther, Marun, 160

21,

324 Den grondt der edel vry schilder-const (The Foundations of the Noble and Free Art of Painting), 71, 72

Het Schilder-Boeck, 262 Mantegna, Andrea (ca. 1431-1506)

Holy Fanuly with Saint Elizabeth and the Infant Saint John the Baptist (Grovanm Antomo da Brescia, 410,

fig. 311

and printmaking, 105, 108 San Zeno Altarpiece, central panel, 11, 126, 126, fig. 125 Virgin and Child,

Marco da

328, Ravenna, after Raphael (or Giuho Romano?) 410,

410,

fig. 311

The Birth of Venus, 368, 375, 376, fig. 287

215

Margaret of Austria (1480-1530), Antomo Sicihano’s diplomatic mussion to (1513), 11 and Charles of Burgundy, 286 and Christian II (nephew), 272 and de’ Barban, 16, 290n46, 80 and Diirer, 105 and Gossart, 9, 11, 16, 20, 22, 83, 264 and Infante Juan (first husband), 36 ventory of art, 70, 226, 220n14 and Meit, 17, 18, 66n6, 85, 216 and Mostaert, 13, 270 and Philibert II (second husband), 16, 16 Philibert of Savoy and Margaret of Austria (Mei), 19, 264, fig. 18A.B and Philip of Burgundy (cousin), 16-17, 50-51, 54, 70,

220

of,

political power 50 and portrait-depiction style, 242 and Secundus, 292 tomb of, 215, 216, figs. 43. 197, 200 and Van Eyck, 83 and Van Orley, 26, 32, 77, 203 and Van Roome, 150 and Vermeyen, 22, 86 Margaret of Bourbon, 397 Master of the Amsterdam Death of the Virgin, 276 Master of the Embroidered Foliage, 14 Master of the Female Half~Lengths, 186 Master of the Lille Adoration, 25, 29n90 Master of the Lille Adoration(?) The Holy Family with the Coats of Arms of Charles V and Isabella of Portugal, 25, 25, 285, 303, figs. 26,

36, 39,

240

305, figs. 248 25, Portrait of a Man, 78, 79, figs. 79, 80, 257 Lucretia,

3006,

480

JAN GOSSART'S RENAISSANCE

Maximilian of Burgundy (Philips nephew, d. 1535), 12-13, 80, 105 Mechelen as

Magnus, Jacob Simonsz., 204 Mander, Karel van (1548-1606) 22, 69, 85, 97, 99, 2034, 316, on Gossart, 3, 4,

after Mantegna), 106, 328, 410,

105, 22017, 267, 416, 417 Emperor Maximilian (Van Leyden), 108, 108, 416, fig. 111

canvas-paintng center, 22

Molder,Jan de, 87n30 Molders, Margriet (Gossart’s wife), 11, 87n30, 128 Molder (’s Molders), Jeanne de, 87n30 Monogrammust 1G, 395 The Morgan Library and Museum, New York, cat. 110 Mostaert, Jan (ca. 1475—1555/ 36), 13, 20, 262 and Margaret of Austria, 279 Portrait of an African Gentleman, 268, 270, fig. 222 Musée du Louvre, Paris, cats. 40, 50, 75 Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels, 5s

Guild of Saint Luke, 11, 15, 40—41, 142, 150, 153 and Jean Carondelet, 12 Margaret of Austria's court at (see Margaret of Austria) and Meir (see Meit, Conrad) Sint-Romboutskerk church, 150 and Van den Eynde, 16 and Van Scorel, 22 and Vermeyen, 22 Medic, Leopoldo de’ (cardinal), 351 Meit, Conrad (ca. 1480—ca. 1550), 344 and Gossart, 16—19, §7—59, 85, 216, 264 and Margaret of Austria, 17, 18—19, 85. 216, 397 and Margaret of Bourbon, 397 and Philibert II of Savoy, 397 and Philip of Burgundy, 66n6, 216

tomb

The Infant Hercules Strangling Tivo Serpents, 188, 188, fig. 179 Molanus, Johannes (1533-1585), 3

comnmussions, 397

Meit, Conrad, sculptures by the Antique Manner (Possibly a Portrait Head of a Man of Cicero, 106 — 43 B.C.), 19, 264, fig. 16 Lucretia, 16, 29058, 229, fig. 11

in

|

49, Musco de Bellas Artes de Bilbao, cat. cats.

§5B.C

18

Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, cats. 16, 29 Musco Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madnd, cat. 1 Muscum Borymans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, cats. 32,

92,96

Muscumlandschaft Hessen, Kassel, cat. 59 Muscum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, cat. 68 Muscum of Fine Arts, Boston, cats. 38, 118 Musi, Agostino, 352

Mars and Venus, 58, 50, fig. 57 Philibert of Savoy and Margaret of Austria, 19, 264, fig. 18,8 Virgin and Child, 17, 17, 172, fig. 14 Melozzo da Forli and workshop

Narodni Galerie, Prague, cat. 9 The National Gallery, London, cats. 2, 8, 13, 178, 36, 53, $4. 57.60 National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C, cats. 21, 22,

cupola decoration (detail), 399, 399, fig. 206 Memling, Hans (1430/ 40-1494), 18, 256 and Gossart, 243, 245

Nonnenmacher, Bernard, 43n8 Noorde, C. van, 262 Noort, Lambert van, 92 Northern Mannerism, 6

Maria Maddalena Baroncelli, 18, 18, 238, fig. 15 Portrait of Benedetto Portinari(?), 243, 243, fig. 216 Portrait of an Elderly Couple, 276 Portrait of Tommaso Portinari, 256

Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, 21 Mendoza, Mencia de (1508-1554) as art collector, 186, 186n12, 296 death of (1554), 212 and Ferdinand II of Aragon (second husband), ssni12, 212 as Gossart’s patron, 20, 70, 186, 206—97 and Henry III (first husband), 267, 296 (see also

Henry III, Count of Nassau-Breda)

and Zuniga, 298 Mendoza y Pimentel, Dona Maria de, 300 Mertens, Hennen (perhaps Jan Mertens [Van Dornicke)),

9 Mertens, Jan (Van Dornicke), 9 Metropolitan Chapter of Saint Vitus, Prague, cat. ¢ The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, cats. 37,

44, 71,76, 112, 121 Metsys, Quinten (1466-1530), Michaels, Ipolito, 368 Michelangelo (1475-1564), 26,

21,

277

The Bruges Madonna, The Madonna of the Steps, 106, 408, 409, fig. 300 Sistine Chapel, 316, 368

Michiel, Marcantonio Notizie d’opere del disegno,

141

Orley, Bernard van (ca. 1492—ca. 1541), 22, 25-26, 43n8 and Gossart, 26, 77, 87030, 94 and Margaret of Austria, 26, 32, 77, 203 and Mencia de Mendoza, 296 Orley, Bernard van, circle of, 242, 412, 413 Orley, Bernard van, drawing by Romulus Offers the Head of Amulius to Numitor, 94, 04, fig. 96 Orley, Bernard van, paintings by Holy Family, 77

The Job Triptych, central panel, Virgin and Child,

28 26, fig.series,

33, figs. 34,

35

Orley, Bernard van, tapestry 203 The Crucifixion, from the Alba tapestry series, 203, 203, fig. 186 Departure for the Hunt, from the Hunts

of Maximilian

tapestry series, 122

The Descent from the Cross, from the “Square™ Passion

tapestry series, 202, 202, fig.

381 74, 166, 172, 172, fig. 168 |

58, 83

185

Ovid

Metamorphoses, 86n19, 221, 224 Owide moralisé, 226

Oy, Jan van, 93

Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome, 45, s5n6, 91, 180, 383 Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome, 92 Papenbroeck, Marten van, 122

Passe I, Crispin de (ca. 1565-1637), 177 Virgin with the Infant Christ, 112, 426, fig. 325 Patinir, Joachim (ca. 1480—before 1524), 14, 142

Porunari brothers, 245

and Bening, 144 and Master of the Female Half-Lengths (follower of Patinir), 186 Perréal, Jean, 36 Peruzzi, Baldassare (1481-1536), 91, 100n30 and Raphael, 312 Peruzzi, Baldassare, and workshop Adam Accuses Eve before God, from the Volta Dorata,

Rombouts, Jan

Premonstratensian Abbey, Middelburg. See Middelburg Altarpiece (Gossart) Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, cat. 41

| (formerly identified as Jan van

Rillaer),

94

Rome, Gossart mn (1508-9) antiquity sketches, 45-55, 383, 386 duration and purpose of trip, 11, 45 influence on Netherlandish art, 13 Roome, Jan van, 43n8, 101n47, 150 Roome, Jan van, and Loys van Boghem tomb of Margaret of Austria, 16, 38, 39, 215, 216, figs. 43, 197, 200 The Royal Collection, Windsor Castle, cats. 2, 51 Royal Picture Gallery, Mauritshuis, The Hague, cat. 10 Rubens, Peter Paul (1577-1640), 14, 15, 92 Adam Accuses Eve before God (Gossart, after Baldassare Peruzzi, retouched by Rubens), 91, 92, 118, 308, 310, 312-14, 313, 316, 357, cat. 66

375, 198, 97. 92,

Peruzzi, Baldassare, Jan Gossart after

Adam Accuses Eve before God, retouched by Peter Paul 312-14,

313,

316,

Philibert 11 of Savoy, 3197 death of (1504), 215 and Margaret of Austria (wife), 16, 36, 66n6 (see also Margaret of Austria) Philibert of Savoy and Margaret of Austria (Met), 19, 204, fig. 184.8 sepulchral church of (Brou), 17, 36 Philip II of Spain, 215, 217 Philip of Burgundy (1464-1524) and Adolf of Burgundy (great-nephew), 1, 19 ambassadorial mission to Rome (1508-9), 11, 33-34.

50-54

artist commussions, 86 (see also Philip of Burgundy, as Gossart’s patron) as bishop of Utrecht, and clerical celibacy views, 65, 66 and Charles V, 416 and David of Burgundy (half-brother), 258 death of (1524), 19,99, 235. 279 and dec’ Barbar, 20n46, 218 Geldenhouwer’s biography of, 11, 16, 59, 62, 66, 70, 90, 242 lineage, 11, 45 love of antiquity, 32, 51, §5n25, 62 love of erotic imagery, §7, 61, 65, 66 and Margaret of Austria (cous), 16-17, 50-51, §4, 70, 226 and Maximilian | (nephew), 12-13, 80, 105 and Meit, 66n6, 216 memorial plaque design (Gossart), 95 mistress and children of, 242 nobility and clerical tides, 11, 57, 65 panting gifts, 66, 70 and Philip of Cleves, friendship with, 235 physical appearance of, 59 residences (see Souburg; Wijk bi) Duurstede) Philip of Burgundy, as Gossart’s patron Gossart’s employment with, 11, 16, 57, 218 mission to Rome (1508-9), 14, 50-54, 90-91, 383 Philip of Burgundy, portraits of Philip of Burgundy, from the Recueil d’ Aras (unknown artist), 258, 260, fig. 217 Portrait of a Man (Philip of Burgundy?) (Gossart), 238, 258-060, 259, cat. 45

The Apollo Citharoedus of the Casa Sassi, 378, 378, fig. 289 Judgment of Paris, after Raphael, 314, 375 Mars, Venus, and Eros, 106, 212, 212, 412, 412, figs. 195, 313 Massacre of the Innocents, 120

and printmaking, 108, 110

Venus and Cupid, 228, 228, fig. 208

312, 312, fig. 261

Rubens, 91, 92, 118, 308, 310, 357, cat. 66

Raimond, Marcantonio (ca. 1470/82—-1527/34), 326

Philip of Cleves (1456-1528), 66, 235 Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy (1306-1467), 221, 286 and Charles of Burgundy (grandson), 286 Pinacoteca dell’Accademia der Concord, Rovigo, cat. 34 Pliny the Elder (A.n. 23-79), 53 Natural History, 18, 85, 116, 217 Ploos van Amstel, Cornelis, 102n74 Portinari, Tommaso, 238, 245 Portrait of Tommaso Portinari (Memhing), 256

Raimondi, Marcantonio, after Raphael, 308, 314, 375 Raimondi, Marcantonio, copy after Female Satyr with a Statue of Priapus, 112n12 Raphael (1483-1520) as architect, 31

bathhouse paintings, 66 influence on Gossart, 94, 314, 316 influence on Van Orley, 25, 26 and Peruzzi (assistant), 312 and underdrawings, 71 and use of cartoons, for figures, 74, 77 and use of perspective, 79 Raphael, engraving after The Birth of Venus (Marco da Ravenna |or Giulio fig. 287 Romano?]), 368, Raphacl, Marcantonio Raimond, after, 308, 314, 375 Raphael, paintings by

376,

La Belle Jardiniére, 172 The Death of Ananias, 353, 354, fig. 282 The Marriage of the Virgin, 31, 31, fig. 13 Tempi Madonna, 160

The Transfiguration (detail), 203, 203, fig. 188 Raphacl, tapestry designs by Acts of the Apostles series, 25, 202, 203, 203, fig. 187 The Stoning of Saint Stephen (detail), from the Acts of

the Apostles tapestry series, 25, 203, 203, fig. 187

Raphael, workshop of, 77 Real Colegio del Corpus Christi, Valencia, cat. 28 Recueil d’ Arras (Arras Codex), 238, 258, 260, 263, 265, 274. 274, 286, figs. 217,219, 223 Reymerswaele, Marinus van, 290 Ribera, Juan de (archbishop of the diocese of Valencia), 212 Riccio, Andrea, attributed to Venus,

230, 230, fig, 210

Ried, Benedike, 43n8 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, cat. 10 Rijksmuseum, Ryksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, cats. 66, 72,93 Rillacr, Jan van (Jan I Rombouts [formerly identified as Jan van Rillaer]), 94 Ripanda, Jacopo (active ca. 1500-1516), 91, 383 Neptune and Amphitrite from the Sala di Annabale, 220, 222, 222,

418, fig. 207

Robbia, Luca della

Virgin and Child in a Niche, 172, 172, fig. 169

Rogier van der Weyden (ca. 1399-1464), 16, 42, 46, Braque Triptych, 214 Columba Altarpiece, 335

141

Saint Luke Dravang the Virgin, 160

Rogier van der Weyden, copy after Study with John the Baptist, 45, 48, 49 “Romanist” style, 25-26 Romano, Giulio (probably 1499-1546), 26

fig.

Woman with a Mirror, 67135

Romano (?), Giulio The Birth of Venus (Marco da Ravenna, after Raphael [or Giulio Romano?]), 368, 375, 376, fig. 287

Samnt-Nicolas-de-Tolentino (Brou), 17, 16, 18, 215 Salamanca, Francisco de (brother of Pedro), 202 Salamanca, Pedro de, 42, 195, Sandelin, Jerome or Jerommus, 290 Sanderus, Antonius (1586-1664), 200

200

Flandria illustrata, 195

Sandrart, Joachim von (1606-1688), 4 San Juan de los Reyes, Toledo, 36, 37, fig. 41 Sankt Maria im Kapitol, Cologne, 12, 34, figs. 36, 37 Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome (Bramante), 42 Sanudo, Marino, 11, 126 Sassi, Decidio and Fabio, 378 Savonarola, Girolamo, 16 Schongauer, Martin (ca. 1430-1491), 94

The Adoration of the Kings, 145, 146 The Adoration of the Magi, 330, 330, 331, 358, fig. 266 Schoonhoven, Agatha van, 254 Schwarz(?), Hans medallion with portrait of Gossart, 3, 4, 198, 251, 260, fig. 2

Scorel, Jan van (1495-1562), 292 and Gossart, 22 Portrait of a Man, 21, 22, fig. 198 and underdrawings, 71, 86 and Van Heemskerck, 22 Virgin and Child, 21, 22, fig. 19a Scorel, Jan van, workshop of, 72 Secundus, Janus, 292 Portrait of a Man (Janus Secundus?) (Gossart), 292-94, 293, cat. 59 Segard, Achulle, 4 Sforza, Francesco Maria, Duke of Milan, 272 Sforza, Massimiliano, Duke of Milan, 11, 141 Siciliano, Antonio, 11, 15, 135, 141 Signorelli, Luca, 381 Sint-Adrnaansabdij, Geraardsbergen, 11, 146 Sint-Romboutskerk, Mechelen, 11, 40-41. 150 Sixtus IV (pope), 50, §5n27, 124 Smcken, Jan, 80-81 Smytere, Jan de, 306 Snellenberg, Maria van, 276 Snocck, Jan Jacobsz., 290 Portrait of a Man (Jan Jacobsz. Snoeck?) (Gossart), 69. 252, 256, 277, 278, 283, 286, 200-92, 291, 292, 292, 302, cat. $8, figs. 226, 231 Snoy, Remier (d. 1537). 79, 97, 99 Soderini, Piero, 11 Souburg castle (Philp of Burgundy), Gossart at, 11, 16, 57,218 Philip's move from, to Wik bij Duurstede, 222, 399 Spinario (Late Hellemstic, Muser Capitolim, Rome), 45, 46, 47, $516, 316, 375, 383, fig. 48 Staathche Graphische Sammlung, Munich, cat. 74

Index

481

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, KupferstichKabinett, cats. 104, 105 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie, cats. 3,

unknown Netherlandish artists, drawings 15,

23,30. 43, 56 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kunstbibliothek, cat. 107 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, cats. 77. 80, 81, 82, 87,90, 91, 102, 108, 114, 116 Stadel Museum, Frankfurt, cats. 67, 103 Stadel Museum, Graphische Sammlung, Frankfurt,

by, after Gossart

The Martyrdom of Saint Cyriacus and His Companions(?), 356, 356, 405, fig. 285 Virgin and Child with Putti Playing Music, 74, 77. 99, 136, gos, figs. 71, 299 The Virgin and Child with Angels Playing Music,

and Mencia de Mendoza, 296 Portrait of Erard de la Marck, 86

Vermeyen(?), Jan Cornelisz. Jean Carondelet (1525-30), 22, 83, 84, 86, 170, 243,

16, 93, 99, cat. 119

The State Hermitage Muscum, Saint Petersburg, cat. 25 Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, cats. 69, 88, 89

Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Willhamstown, Massachusetts, cats. 45, §2 Suyker, Nicolas, 262 Swaenken, Machiel int, 9 Swart, Jan (ca. 1500~ca. 1560), 335 Swart, Jan, woodcut after John the Baptist or the Apostle Philip Preaching, 111, 111,

405,

fig. 301

unknown Netherlandish artists, drawings

by, after

Gossart(?) The Lamentation, gos, fig. 303 The Virgin and Child Seated on a Throne, 99, 405, fig. 300

unknown Netherlandish artist, medal by, after Gossart(?) medal with portrait of Pope Adnan VI, gs, 95, fig. 97 unknown Netherlandish arust, painting by

Triptych with the Holy Family, Music-Making Angels, and

Saints Catherine and Barbara, 28n9, 191, 321, 322, fig. 264 unknown Netherlandish artist, print by, said to be after

Gossart

421, fig. 116

Szépmuveszett Mazeum, Budapest, cat. 27

Virgin and Child with Fruits (published by

unknown Netherlandish artist, stained-glass design, after

Universiteitsbibliotheck Leiden, Prentenkabinet, cat. 101 University of Birmingham, cat. 31 unknown Antwerp artist, drawing by The Presentation of the Virgin, go, 92, fig. 94 unknown artists, drawings by Anna van Bergen, from the Recueil d' Anas, 238, 274,

unknown Netherlandish artist, woodcut by

Philip of Burgundy, from the Recueil d’Amas, 258, 260, fig. 217

unknown artist, drawing

by, after Gossart

The Mocking of Christ, 405, fig. 302

unknown Belgian artist, drawing

by, after Arent van

Wynendaele The Epitaph of Isabella of Austria in the Abbey Church of Saint Peter, Ghent, 96, 396, 396, fig. 205 unknown (Haarlem or Utrecht?) artists, sculptures, after Gossart(?)

two columns in Renaissance style, 95, 396, 306, fig. 204 Virgin and Child on the Crescent Moon, fig. 99 Virgin and Child on the Crescent Moon between Columns,

06,

9s, 96, fig. 98 unknown Italian arust, woodcut by The Conversion of Saul, 353, 354, fig. 281

482

fig. 253 Portrait of a Man with Gloves, 22, 23, 306, figs. 22, 254 Lucretia, 306 Saint Donatian (diptych with Jean Carondelet), 83, 84,

170, 305, figs. 86, 88, fig. 252

86,

Verrocchio, Andrea del (1435-1488) The Doubting of Thomas, 199, 199, fig. 184 Vertue, George, 272 Vincaidor, Tommaso (d. 1536), 20, 26, 31, 77. 267 Vitruvius (1st century 8.C.), 32, 34 canon of proportions, 52, §7. 80 influence on Durer, 80 Voragine, Jacobus

de

Georg

Temple of Vesta, Forum Romanum, Rome, 35. 234 Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio, cats. 24A.B, 39 Tons, Jan 11, 122

Henry HI of Nassau-Breda, from the Recueil d’ Arras, 265, 265, fig. 219

Jean Carondelet (diptych with Saint Donatian), 243, 305,

Golden Legend, 357, 360, 362

Wyns), 112, 426, 426, fig. 323

274, fig. 223

figs. 87, 89

Gossart

The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, 346, 348, 374. fig. 279

The Martyrdom of Saint John the Evangelist, from

Jacobus de Voragine, Hier beghit tsomer stuc vande passiole, 352. 352, fig. 280

Utrecht, 16, 32 cathedral, 95, 96, 101n52 See also Haarlem or Utrecht?, unknown artist

12,

Vaernewjck, Marcus van (1518-1569), 3, 366

Den spieghel der Nederlandscher audtheyt (The Mirror of

Netherlandish Antiquity), 83 Vasari, Giorgio (1562-1625), Veere (The Netherlands), 19-20

3

Vellert, Dirk Jacobsz. (1480/85-1547), 94, 95, 341, 394, 395

and Durer, 175 and Gossart, 24-25 and printmaking, 105, 110

Saint Bernard Adoring the Christ Child, 24, 24, fig. 24 Saint Luke Painting the Virgin, 24, 24, fig. 25 Venus Felix (Museo Pio-Clementino, Vatican), 65

Vermeyen, Jan Cornelisz. (ca. 1500—ca. 1559) and Gossart, 22-24

The Holy Family, 22, 23, fig. 23 Jean Carondelet (ca. 1530), 85, 86, fig. go Judith with the Head of Holofernes, 22, 23, figs. 20, 21

and Margaret of Austria, 86

Weiditz, Christoph

Portrait Medal of Francisco de los Cobos y Molina, 300, 300, fig. 235

Weiditz, Hans, 416 Wellemans, Gregorius, 16, 101n52 Wierix, Johannes (1549—ca. 1618) Mabuse, from Dominicus Lampsonius, Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germamiae inferions effigies, 2, 3, 4, 198, 251, 256, 260, fig. 1 Pieta, 326, 426, fig. 326 Wijk bi) Duurstede castle (Philip of Burgundy) chapel projects, 96, 99 and erotic imagery, 61-62, 64—6s, 228 Gossart's accommodations at, 16 inventory

of

art at, 61, 66, 228, 229n5, 242, 330,

383, g00n§

Philip's move to, from Souburg (1517), 222, 399 and Vermeyen, 22 Wilham of Nassau-Iillenburg (1487-1559), 297 Wolffort, Artus, 3176 Wynendaele, Arent van, unknown artist (Belgium) after The Epitaph of Isabella of Austria in the Abbey Church of Saint Peter, Ghent, 96, 396. 196, fig. 295 Wynendacle castle (Philip of Cleves), 66 Wyns, Georg, 112 Wyntgis, Melchior, 229 Zumga y Avellaneda, Juan de, 166, 298 The Juan de Zanmiga Diptych (Gossart), 166, 168, 170, 298, 299, cat. 62A.8 Zwart, Hendrick de, 101ns2

JAN GOssART'S RENAISSANCE

tri

r Lopvyrigniega matena {

NN

/

y

Photograph Credits

86, 73, Unless otherwise specified, all photographs were supplied by the owners of the works of art, who hold the copyright thereto, and are reproduced with permission. We have made every effort to obtain permissions for all copyright-protected images. If you have copyrightprotected work in this publication and you have not given us pernmussion, please contact the Metropolitan Museum’ Editorial Department. Photographs of works in the Metropolitan Museum’s collection are by the Photograph Studio, The Metropolitan Museum of Art; new photography is by Juan Trujillo and Mark

© M. Faries; digital composite: Catharina van Daalen (Mitsubishi IR-M700 focal plane array camera, PtSi-FPA Sor x 512 pixel detector and RS 170 video output Nikon + 3.5, ssmm lens): figs. 129, 133, 135, 140, 141

Morosse.

fig. 221

Additional photograph credits are as follows:

Albertina, Vienna: cats. 65, 70, 113; figs. 177, 306, 307, 308

Alinari/ Art Resource, NY: cat.

Joerg

P.

74,

162, 163, 164

© Hamburger Kunsthalle/bpk. Photo: Christoph Irrgang: cat. 79; figs. 134, 300, 305

© Bayerische Staatsgemaldegaleriesammlungen, Doerner Institute (IRR camera Sensors Unlimited, SU 320, InGaAs-CCD Sensor): figs. 76, 213, 214

Belkin, Kristin Lohse, Rubens Copies and Adaptations from Renaissance and Later Artists: German and Netherlandish Artists (London, 2009, fig. 295): fig. 261

18;

figs. 84. 85

© Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz/ Art Resource, NY: cats. 3, 15, 17, 23, 35, 43, 56. 77, 80, 81, 82,

90, 232,213, 87,

198, 65,

91,

298,

© Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas/ Art Resource, NY: cat. 48

322

© Sterling and Francine Clark Art Insttute, Wilhamstown, Massachusetts: cats. 45, 52; figs. 22, 254

© The Cleveland Museum of Art; cat. 20

© Comune di Roma—Sovraintendenza Bem Culturali—Muser Capitolini, Archivo Fotografico: fig. 207

© Devonshire Collection, Chatsworth. Reproduced by permussion of Chatsworth Settlement Trust: cat. 64

De Vos, Dirk, Hans Memling: The Complete Works (Ghent, 1994, p. 224. cat, 57): fig. 216 Elsig, Frédéric, La naissance des genres: La peinture des anciens Pays-Bas (avant 1620) au Musée d'art et d'histoire de Genéve (Paris and Geneva, 2003, p. 127, cat. 34): fig. 256

© Kupferstichkabinett-Sammlung der Zeichnungen und Druckgraphik: fig. 147 174,

30, 42

LWL~Landesmuscum fur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte/ Dauerleihgabe des Westfalischen Kunstvereins, Munster:

cat.

11

IRR Freya Maes, © MRBAB-KMSKB (Osiris InGaAs camera [1-1.7 microns|): figs. 220, 224

© The Metropolitan Chapter/ Photo: Adam Pokorny, Narodni Galerie v Praze (Hamamatsu C 2400-03C goo-2200nm; IR HOYA filter Rgoo): figs. 67, 157

Jamison Miller/ The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri: figs, 87, 252

Collection Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Tourna:

figs.

figs. 118, 119

Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design/ Photography by Erik Gould: cat. 68

of Fine Arts, Boston: cats. 38, 118;

figs. 115, 126, 193

© Naunonal Gallery, London: cats. 8, $7. 60

13, 178,

36, $3, 54,

© Nauonal Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY: fig. 152

© Nauonal Gallery, London (Hamamatsu C2400, N2606 vidicom, 36mm lens, Kodak 87A Wraltan filter; vips-1p software): fig. 175

© Nauonal Gallery, London (OSIRIS digital IR scanning camera, InGaAs sensor): figs. 66, 75, 78, 153, 135, 225, 227 © Naunonal Gallery, Prague 2008:

cat.

© Nauonal Gallery of Art, Washington (FLIR/Indigo VisGaAs camera, H filter 0.5—1.7 microns, ssmm lens |2.8 aperture]): figs. 226. 230, 231

© Nauonal Gallery of Canada, Ottowa: fig. so

Kupferstich-Kabinett, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden/ Photo: Herbert Boswank: cats. 104, 105

© Erich Lessing/ Art Resource, NY: cats. 12,

© Museo Thyssen-Bornennsza, Madrid/Photograph: Héleéne Desplechmn (IRR, Osiris InGaAs camera):

211, 235

147,

© Trustees of the British Museum, London: cats. 73, 98, 117; figs. 18A,B, 04, 101,108, 116, 206, 268, 269, 277, 283, 321,

© KIK-IRPA, Brussels: cat. 78; figs. 14, 182

© Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Michael Eder, Ingrid Hopfner (Alpha NIR InGaAs Detecktor, goo—1700nm; NI-MAQ PCI 1422 framegraber; IR Vista Software): figs. 173, 174, 175. 176

© Bibhothéque Royale de Belgique: fig. 204

1

© 2010 Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington: cats. 21, 22, $8, 83; figs. 97, 130, 138, 186, 205,

fig. 33

no. M487): cat. 84

Bilbao Fine Arts Museum Photograph Archive: cat.

Herzog Anton Ulrich—Museums Braunschweig, Kunstmuscum des Landes Niedersachsen: cat. 115

Itahan Ministry for Cultural Goods and Activities, Milan:

Beaux-Arts de Paris, 'Ecole Nationale Supérieure (inv.

107, 144, 102, 107, 108, 114, 116; figs. 241, 246, 259, 288, 290, 292, 303, 310

fig. 98

York: fig. 273

© The Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham: cat. 31

285, 287,

Friedlander, Max |., Die Altniederlandische Malerei (Berlin, 1924-37, ps. 31, 74): figs. 245, 250

Graham Haber/ The Pierpont Morgan Library, New

© The Art Institute of Chicago: cat. 14

© Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madnd: cat,

© 2010 Museum

Tom Haartsen, Fotografie Beeldende Kunst, Beverwijk:

151

© Art Innovation, Ingrid Hopfner: figs.

289,

X-radiography Catherine Fondaire © KIK-IRPA:

© Calouste Gulbenkian Foundauon, Lisbon/ Photo: Catarina Gomes Ferreira: fig. 243

7A,8; figs. 53, 184, 187

Anders/ Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz/

Art Resource, NY: fig.

© Prof. dr. Molly Faries/Suchting RKD; digital composite: Alison Gilchrest. Indiana University (Grundig 70H camera [875 lines] w/ Hamamatsu N214 IR vidicon, TV Macromar 1:2.8/36mm lens, Kodak 87A filter, Grundig BG12 monitor): figs. 68, 215

© Department of Technical Documentation, Museo Nacional del Prado (Daihio Bertani prototype IRR CCD InGaAs digital camera): figs. 64, 201, 202

252

© Musée du Louvre/M. Beck-Coppola: fig. 190

Photo courtesy of Petria Noble, Mauritshuis, The Hague /Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (Osiris A1, Opus Instruments camera to 1700nm): fig. 158

René-Gabriel Ojéda/Réunion des Musées Nationaux/ Art Resource, NY: fig. 102

© Paintungs Conservation Department, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Hamamatsu IR vidicon 2606-06, C 2741 controller, $7A wraltan filter, Nikon

Micro-Nikkon

§§

mm lens): figs. 80,

127,

128, 131

© Paintings Conservation Department, National Gallery of Art, Washington (InSb camera, ssmm lens, aperture 2.0, H filter): figs. 146, 148 © Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid: figs. 149, 185

Pauwels, Henri; Hoetink, Hendrik Richard; and Herzog, Sadja, Jean Gosseart dit Mabuse (Bruges, 1965, p. 227,

fig. 41): fig. 234

Luis Pavio/ Instituto dos Muscus ¢ da Conservagio, 1.P, Lisbon: figs. 238, 264

Private European collection, courtesy of Michel

Ceuterick: fig. 28

PUNCTUM/ Bertram Kober,

Leipzig: fig. 301

© Réumon des Musées Nationaux/ Art Resource, NY:

cats. 40, $0, 75; figs. 31, 103, 150, 244

Photograph Credits

483

Photo courtesy of Sotheby's Picture Library:

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam: fig. 325

The Royal Collection © 2009, Her Majesty Queen Ehzabeth II, London: cats. 2, 51 Royal Museum VZW: fig. 218

of Antwerp © Lukas-Art

in Flanders

Royal Picture Gallery, Mauritshuis, The Hague: cat. 10; fig. 251

Scala/ Art Resource, NY: cat. 25; figs.

123,

168, 188, 206,

309

Scala/ Ministero per 1 Beni e le Atavita culturah/ Art Resource, NY: cats. 86, 99, 109 © SMK Foto, Copenhagen: cats. 69, 88, 89; fig. 255

484

JAN GOssSART'S RENAISSANCE

figs. 160,

247, 258

Gary Spearin/ McMaster University Collection, Hamilton, Ontario: figs. 79, 257

© Suchting

RK, The Hague: cats.

624.8, 100; figs. 54, 302

Suftung Preussische Schlosser und Garten BerhnBrandenburg (SPSG/ 1999): figs. 30, 2317

© Yvonne Szafran, Paintings Conservation, The

© Staatliche Graphische Sammlung Munchen: cat. 74; fig. 96

J. Paul Getty Museum (IRR, Osiris InGaAs camera [1-1.7 microns|): figs. 121, 236

Stadel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, © Ursula Edelmann:

V&A Images, London/ Art Resource, NY: fig. 282

cat. 103

© Stadsarchief Gent—De Zwarte Doos, Fotografie Storm Calle: fig. 295 © The State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow: cat. 41

Vanni/ Art Resource, NY: fig.

55

© The Wernher Foundation, English Heritage Photo Library: fig. 272

Jn

78035 >

166576