Technical Studies of Paintings: Problems of Attribution (15th-17th Centuries): Papers Presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of ... Painting Held in Bruges, 11-13 September 2014 9789042935327, 9789042937192, 9042935324

Citation preview

TECHNICAL STUDIES OF PAINTINGS: PROBLEMS OF ATTRIBUTION (15th-17th CENTURIES) Papers Presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting

PEETERS

TECHNICAL STUDIES OF PAINTINGS: PROBLEMS OF ATTRIBUTION (15th-17th CENTURIES)

UNDERDRAWING AND TECHNOLOGY IN PAINTING SYMPOSIUM XIX

The Symposium XIX for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting has been organized by: Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve Musée L de Louvain-la-Neuve, Laboratoire d’étude des oeuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques Musea Brugge

in collaboration with KIK-IRPA, Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage Illuminare - Centre for Study of Medieval Art - KULeuven - University of Leuven

TECHNICAL STUDIES OF PAINTINGS: PROBLEMS OF ATTRIBUTION (15th-17th CENTURIES) Papers Presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting held in Bruges, 11-13 September 2014

Edited by Anne Dubois, Jacqueline Couvert and Till-Holger Borchert

PEETERS PARIS – LEUVEN – BRISTOL, CT

2018

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © Peeters Leuven, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form or by any means, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the Publisher. ISBN: 978-90-429-3532-7 eISBN: 978-90-429-3719-2 D/2018/0602/81

front cover: Hans Memling, centre panel of the Moreel Triptych, Bruges, Groeningemuseum, assembly of the IRR and colour photograph © kik-irpa.

Table of Contents Editors’ Preface In Memoriam Roger Van Schoute 1

2 3 4 5 6

7

8 9

10

11 12

VII IX

KEYNOTE LECTURE – Willem van Aelst and the Market for Still-life Painting in Paris. Reattribution of an Early Work Melanie Gifford

1

The Beaune Last Judgement. Sorting out Rogier van der Weyden and his Assistants Griet Steyaert and Rachel Billinge

26

Philip the Good Bare-headed. In Search for Original and Copy Stephan Kemperdick

50

The Middendorf Altarpiece by a Follower of Hugo van der Goes Maryan W. Ainsworth

60

Albrecht Bouts in Sibiu: a Unique Self-portrait in ‘Memento Mori’ Valentine Henderiks

74

Le Triptyque de l’Adoration des Mages (Turin-Gênes) et le mécénat d’Hendrik Keddekin, abbé de Ter Doest Véronique Bücken

86

Revising Friedländer. The ‘Underdrawing Connoisseurship’ and the Master of the Turin Adoration Maria Clelia Galassi

98

A New Virgo Lactans of the Gold Brocade Group Caterina Virdis Limentani

112

The Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin in the Museu Frederic Marés. An Unusual Altarpiece Carmen Sandalinas Linares, Bart Fransen and Elisabeth Van Eyck

122

XRF Analysis of Pigments in the Donne Hours (Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms. A2) Anne Dubois

138

The Saint Michael Altarpiece in Spišská Kapitula. A Preliminary Report Ingrid Ciulisová

150

The Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg, c. 1420. New Findings about Painting Process and Characteristics Babette Hartwieg

160

13 14 15

16

17

Master or Assistant? Painted Alterations in the Pleydenwurff Workshop Dagmar Hirschfelder, Beate Fücker, Katja von Baum, Lisa Eckstein and Joshua P. Waterman

178

The Painted Wings of the Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow. A Vast Collective Enterprise Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren

196

Reading between the Lines… Attribution Problems regarding Early Sixteenth Century Louvain Painters Marjan Debaene and David Lainé

210

The Triptych of the True Cross in Veurne in Connection to a Drawing in Rotterdam. Working Process and Attribution Judith Niessen and Margreet Wolters

224

The Contribution of Technical Art History to the Reconstruction of the Oeuvre of Pieter I Claeissens Anne van Oosterwijk

238

18

Two ‘New’ Paintings by Jan de Beer. Technical Studies, Connoisseurship and Provenance Research Peter van den Brink and Dan Ewing 250

19

The Calling of Saint Matthew attributed to the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem Nicola Christie and Lucy Whitaker

268

The Oeuvre of Jan Swart van Groningen Reconsidered Katrin Dyballa

284

Identifying Two Family Members in Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam Workshop: Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz Molly Faries and Daantje Meuwissen

298

Who is the Man in Red and Who Painted Him? Mary Kempski and Lucy Whitaker

310

Hans Holbein Hans of Antwerp. Findings from the Recent Examination, Cleaning and Restoration Claire Chorley

326

A Case of Mistaken Identity. A Version of the Good Shepherd by Pieter Brueghel the Younger Dominique Allart, Christina Currie, Pascale Fraiture and Steven Saverwyns

338

20 21

22 23

24

Bibliography

351

List and biographies of contributors

371

Photo Credits

374

Editors’ Preface Le présent volume est consacré à la publication des communications présentées lors du dix-neuvième colloque pour l’étude du dessin sous-jacent et de la technologie dans la peinture qui s’est déroulé du 11 au 13 septembre 2014 à Bruges. Le sujet principal du colloque – Technical studies of paintings : problems of attribution (15th-17th centuries) – a été choisi car la question de l’attribution est centrale dans l’histoire de l’art. Depuis l’introduction des techniques scientifiques d’examen – radiographie, photographie et réflectographie infrarouge, analyses de pigments diverses – l’histoire de l’art traditionnelle a subi des changements majeurs. Les examens techniques procurent ainsi des informations qui contribuent à l’attribution d’œuvres à des artistes ou des ateliers. Ils révèlent également des méthodes de travail complexes de la part des artistes, données dont les historiens d’art doivent tenir compte. Les nouvelles imageries appliquées aux œuvres d’art peuvent également forcer à reconsidérer les attributions généralement admises. Les communications données au cours de ce colloque se sont donc focalisées, pour la plupart, sur les différentes façons d’apporter, grâce aux études techniques, des réponses au problème souvent complexe de l’attribution. Le cycle des colloques pour l’étude du dessin sous-jacent et de la technologie dans la peinture a été initié en 1975 par le Prof. Roger Van Schoute, fondateur et directeur du Laboratoire d’étude des œuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques de l’Université catholique de Louvain à Louvain-la-Neuve. Cette première rencontre réunissait treize participants dont les organisateurs. Quel chemin parcouru depuis lors puisque maintenant ces réunions accueillent régulièrement plus de 150 participants! Ce dix-neuvième colloque est le fruit d’une collaboration enrichissante entre l’Université catholique de Louvain à Louvain-la-Neuve (UCL), le Laboratoire d’étude des œuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques (Musée de Louvain-la-Neuve) et les musées de Bruges (Musea Brugge). La collaboration entre l’UCL et Bruges ne date pas d’hier ! En 1994, les musées brugeois en la personne de Hilde Lobelle-Caluwe firent appel au Laboratoire d’étude des œuvres d’art dirigé par les Prof. Roger Van Schoute et Hélène Verougstraete afin de mettre sur pied un colloque consacré à Hans Memling. Cette collaboration fut tellement fructueuse qu’il fut décidé, entre 1997 et 2006, d’organiser conjointement les colloques pour l’étude du dessin sous-jacent. Cinq éditions virent ainsi le jour. Cette collaboration nous a mené, Jacqueline Couvert et moi-même, à renouveler cette merveilleuse expérience. Manfred Sellink et Till Borchert ont accepté notre offre avec beaucoup d’enthousiasme… Nous tenons d’ailleurs à remercier Vanessa Paumen et Anne Van Oosterwijk pour leur aide précieuse durant toute la préparation du colloque. Leur efficacité fut exemplaire! Depuis 2009, l’organisation du colloque pour l’étude du dessin sous-jacent et de la technologie dans la peinture, devenue une entreprise chronophage, est organisée à tour de rôle par l’Université catholique de Louvain, la Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KULeuven) et son centre Illuminare, qui étaient des partenaires de longue date (depuis 1981), et l’Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique (KIK/IRPA) de Bruxelles et son Centre pour l’Étude des Primitifs flamands. En 2009, Illuminare accueillit le dix-septièmee colloque consacré à Rogier Van der Weyden tandis qu’en 2012, ce fut le tour de l’Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique avec pour thème Jan Van Eyck. Les actes de ce dix-neuvième colloque comportent vingt-quatre articles. Nous vous en souhaitons bonne lecture ! Anne Dubois

In Memoriam Roger Van Schoute 1930-2017 Alors que les actes de ce XIXe colloque pour l’étude du dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture venaient d’être envoyés chez l’éditeur, nous avons eu la grande tristesse d’apprendre le décès de Roger Van Schoute, chercheur renommé qui avait été l’instigateur et l’organisateur de ces colloques. Les éditeurs du volume, Anne Dubois, Jacqueline Couvert et Till-Holger Borchert, ont donc voulu honorer ici sa mémoire. Roger Van Schoute est né le 16 février 1930 à Tervueren (Belgique). Après des études en histoire et histoire de l’art à l’Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), il entra en tant qu’assistant au Département d’histoire de l’art de l’UCL en 1957. Après avoir défendu sa thèse de doctorat en 1961 (titre: Tableaux flamands du XVe siècle de la collection d’Isabelle la Catholique conservés à la Capilla Real de Grenade: Historique de la collection et étude des œuvres envisagée particulièrement sous l’angle de l’exécution picturale), il devint chargé de cours puis professeur (1965) et professeur ordinaire (1967) dans ce même département. Il fut également professeur à l’Institut Supérieur d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie à Bruxelles (1968-2008). Ses cours furent suivis par de très nombreux étudiants. Il fut d’ailleurs le promoteur de plus de 270 mémoires et doctorats. Roger Van Schoute a fondé au tout début des années 1960, avec peu de moyens, le Laboratoire d’étude des œuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques afin de soutenir la formation des étudiants en histoire de l’art après la création, en 1959, d’un cours de technologie de la peinture en relation avec les méthodes de laboratoire, une première dans une université belge. Le laboratoire s’est développé autour de ses recherches sur la technique picturale, et surtout du dessin sous-jacent, chez les Primitifs flamands, comme Jheronimus Bosch, Rogier van der Weyden, le Maître de Flémalle, Hugo van der Goes, Dirk et Aelbrecht Bouts. Il ne manquait d’ailleurs aucune opportunité d’étudier des œuvres des Primitifs flamands, comme lors de l’exposition “Dirk Bouts en zijn tijd” qui eut lieu à Louvain en 1975. Il aimait à raconter la course contre la montre pour réaliser, de nuit, les documents techniques des tableaux exposés. Son implication dans la recherche l’a amené à mettre sur pied en 1975 un premier colloque consacré à l’étude du dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture, qui se pérennisera et s’étendra à la technologie dans la peinture au cours des années, ce présent volume étant consacré à la publication des actes de la XIXe édition de ces rencontres. N’assistèrent à ce premier colloque que treize participants dont les organisateurs! Les actes ne furent publiés qu’avec ceux du second colloque (1977) en 1979. Par la suite, les colloques eurent lieu tous les deux ans. Roger Van Schoute les organisa, en compagnie de son équipe, jusqu’en 2006 (Le problème Maître de Flémalle-Van der Weyden (1979), Le problème de l’auteur de l’œuvre de peinture. Contribution de l’étude du dessin sous-jacent à la question des attributions (1981), Dessin sous-jacent et autres techniques graphiques (1983), Infrarouge et autres techniques d’examen (1985), Géographie et chronologie du dessin sousjacent (1987), Dessin sous-jacent et copies (1989), Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’atelier (1991), Le dessin sous-jacent dans le processus de création (1993), Dessin sous-jacent et technologie de la peinture. Perspective (1995), La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation (1997), La peinture et le laboratoire. Procédés. Méthodologie. Applications (1999), Jérôme Bosch et son

X

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

entourage et autres études (2001), La peinture ancienne et ses procédés. Copies, répliques, pastiches (2003), The Quest for the Original (2006)). Dans le cadre de ses recherches, ses collaborations furent nombreuses, notamment avec J.R.J. Van Asperen de Boer, qui, dans les années 1960, mit au point la réflectographie à l’infrarouge, Hélène Verougstraete, dont il fut le directeur de thèse, ou encore Carmen Garrido, avec laquelle il étudia de nombreuses œuvres de Jheronimus Bosch, notamment celles du Musée du Prado à Madrid. Pour son apport à l’étude technique des Primitifs flamands, pour ses qualités de professeur, nous tenons à lui dédier ce volume! BIBLIOGRAPHIE DE ROGER VAN SCHOUTE Le patriciat nivellois. Travaux d’approche, dans Annales de la Fédération archéologique et historique de Belgique, 36, 1956, pp. 245-252. En collaboration avec R. Hanon Louvet, Le fief de Rognon à Nivelles. Seigneurs et échevins, dans Tablettes du Brabant, 2, 1957, pp. 367-382. Rentiers de Nivelles à la fin du Moyen Âge, dans Tablettes du Brabant, 3, 1958, pp. 202-228. Le portement de croix de Jérôme Bosch au Musée de Gand. Considérations sur l’exécution picturale, dans Bulletin de l’Institut royal du patrimoine artistique, 2, 1959, pp. 47-58. La chapelle royale de Grenade, Les Primitifs Flamands. 1. Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, 6, Bruxelles, 1963. Over de techniek van Jeroen Bosch, dans Jheronimus Bosch. Bijdragen bij de gelegenheid van de herdenkingstentoonstelling te ’s Hertogenbosch 1967, catalogue d’exposition, ’s Hertogenbosch, 1967, pp. 72-79. Illustratie, dans Moderne Encyclopedie der Wereldliteratuur, vol. 4, Gand, 1967. Aspects de l’œuvre de trois maîtres de l’architecture religieuse contemporaine en Allemagne: O. Bartning, D. Böhm et R. Schwartz, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 2, 1969, pp. 17-19. Améliorations des procédés radiographiques pour l’étude des peintures: radiographie par émission d’électrons, stratiradiographie et tirage par tube cathodique, dans Revue des archéologues et des historiens d’art de Louvain, 3, 1970, pp. 185-195. Direction en collaboration avec Robert Didier et Luc Francis Génicot, Dictionnaire des églises. Vc. BelgiqueLuxembourg, Paris, 1970. Le dessin de peintre chez Thierry Bouts, dans Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art offerts au professeur Jacques Lavalleye, Louvain, 1970, pp. 327-333. En collaboration avec Josette Pirard-Schoutteten, À propos de l’exposition “Peintres expressionnistes de Belgique - Expressionnistische Schilders van België”. Une expérience d’exercices pratiques à l’Université catholique de Louvain, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 4, 1971, pp. 302-305. Instruments et centres de documentation pour l’histoire de l’art en Belgique. Introduction. Numéro spécial du Bulletin d’information de l’Association des historiens d’art et des archéologues diplômés des Universités, 1972, pp. 4-7. La radiographie en couleurs appliquée à l’étude des œuvres d’art, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 3rd Triennial Meeting, Madrid, 2-8 October 1972. Preprints. Le dessin de peintre chez Hugo van der Goes. La Mort de la Vierge du musée Groeninge de Bruges. L’Adoration des Mages de la Victoria Art Gallery de Bath, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 5, 1972, pp. 59-66.

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

XI

Jheronimus Bosch: Tentagões de Santo Antão/Jheronimus Bosch: Tentation de Saint Antoine/ Jheronimus Bosch: Temptation of Saint Anthony, catalogue d’exposition, Lisbonne (Museu nacional de Arte Antiga), 1972. Situation de l’histoire de l’art et de l’esthétique dans l’Enseignement secondaire rénové. Secteur: Enseignement libre, dans Bulletin d’information de l’Association des historiens d’art et archéologues diplômés des Universités, 12, 1972, pp. 15-18. À propos de la bibliographie de l’histoire de l’art, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 6, 1973, pp. 4-7. Le dessin de peintre chez Jérôme Bosch: la Tentation de Saint Antoine du Musée national d’art ancien de Lisbonne, dans Occidente. Rivista Portuguesa de Cultura, 84, 1973, pp. 358-362. L’enseignement de l’archéologie et de l’histoire de l’art dans les Universités belges. introduction, dans Numéro spécial du Bulletin d’information de l’Association des historiens de l’art et archéologues diplômés des Universités, 13, 1973, pp. I-VIII. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Les anges thuriféraires d’Alsemberg. État matériel et exécution picturale au stade du dessin de peintre et de la couleur, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 2, 1973, pp. 167-178. En collaboration avec Andrée de Chamiec, Situation de l’histoire de l’art et de l’esthétique dans l’enseignement secondaire rénové (mai 1973), dans Bulletin d’information de l’Association des histoirens de l’art et archéologues diplômés des Universités, 13, 1973, pp. 3-6. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Muriel Liétaert-Parmentier et Hélène VerougstraeteMarcq, Une Sainte Famille attribuée à Pierre Coeck d’Alost au Musée communal de Louvain, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 3, 1975, pp. 135-167. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Muriel Liétaert-Parmentier et Hélène VerougstraeteMarcq, Photographie à l’infrarouge et réflectographie à l’infrarouge, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 4th Triennial Meeting, Venice, 13-18 October 1975. Preprints. La connaissance des Primitifs flamands par l’étude du dessin de peintre, dans Fédération archéologique, historique et folklorique de Belgique. XLIIIe congrès, Malmédy (1972), 1975, pp. 97-113. En collaboration avec J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, A note on the examination with infrared reflectography of some paintings of the group Van der Weyden-Flémalle, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 4th Triennial Meeting, Venice, 13-18 October 1975. Preprints. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Le dessin de peintre chez Pierre Bruegel. L’Adoration des Mages de la National Gallery de Londres, dans Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 26, 1975, pp. 259-267. Les méthodes de laboratoire au service de l’étude de l’histoire de la peinture flamande au XVe siècle, dans Dirk Bouts en zijn tijd, catalogue d’exposition, Louvain (Sint-Pieterkerk), 1975, pp. 381-385. En collaboration avec J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Het Laatste Avondmall van Dirk Bouts. Een onderzoek met infraroot reflectografie, dans Dirk Bouts en zijn tijd, catalogue d’exposition, Louvain (Sint-Pieterkerk), 1975, pp. 388-393. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, État matériel des œuvres, dans Dirk Bouts en zijn tijd, catalogue d’exposition, Louvain (Sint-Pieterkerk), 1975, pp. 394-444. En collaboration avec Nadine Cherpion, Opération Akhénaton. Des élèves de l’école primaire à la rencontre de l’art égyptien, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 8, 1975, pp. 223-235. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Le Speculum Humanae Salvationis considéré dans ses rapports avec la Biblia Pauperum et le Canticum canticorum, dans De Gulden Passer, 53, 1975, pp. 363379.

XII

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

En collaboration avec Andrée de Chamiec, L’histoire de l’art et l’esthétique dans l’enseignement secondaire rénové, dans Annales de la Fédération des cercles d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art de Belgique, 43, 1974, pp. 344-347. Het Laboratorium onderzoek ten dienste van de studie der schilderkunst, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 4, 1975, pp. 33-38. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Muriel Liétaert-Parmentier et Hélène VerougstraeteMarcq, Le dessin sous-jacent chez Albert Bouts, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 4, 1975, pp. 41-55. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Ecce Homo attribués à Albert Bouts. Considérations sur l’état matériel, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 4, 1975, pp. 57-65. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Edia Levy et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Scènes de la Passion du Christ attribuées à Albert Bouts, Paris, Musée Marmottan. Étude de l’exécution picturale et de l’iconographie en relation avec les panneaux de l’abbaye cistercienne de Mehrerau, Bregenz, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 4, 1975, pp. 82-135. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Het Laboratoriumonderzoek ten dienste van de studie der schilderijen. Aanwending ter kennis van de materiele toestand en van de technologie der kunstwerken, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 4, 1975, pp. 136-219. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Icônes slovaques. Étude des supports, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 9, 1976, pp. 232-237. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Cadres et supports dans l’école troyenne de peinture au XVIe siècle, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 10, 1977, pp. 26-68. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Amélioration des techniques radiographiques. Le scanning, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 5th Triennial Meeting, Zagreb, 1-8 October 1978. Preprints. En collaboration avec Ingrid Alexander et Franz Mairinger, Le dessin sous-jacent chez Van der Goes. Le Diptyque du Péché originel et de la Déploration du Kunsthistorisches Museum de Vienne, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 11, 1978, pp. 73-83. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Kijk op Kunst. Schilderijen onderzocht met natuurwetenschappelijke methoden (Kunst en oudheden in Limburg, 21), catalogue d’exposition, Hasselt, 1979. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Regard sur l’art I et II. Réflexions sur les expositions de Hasselt et de Bokrijk, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 12, 1979, pp. 271-275. Éditeur en collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloques I & II, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1979. Le Diptyque du Péché originel et la Déploration de Hugo van der Goes au Kunsthistorisches Museum de Vienne. Étude du dessin sous-jacent, dans Dominique Hollanders-Favart et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloques I & II, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1979, p. 60. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Bibliographie de l’infrarouge et du dessin sous-jacent 1975-1978, dans Dominique Hollanders-Favart et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloques I & II, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1979, pp. 69-143. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Radiografie van voorwerpen in drie dimensies, dans Het Laatgotische beeldsnijcentrum Leuven, catalogue d’exposition., Louvain (Stedelijk Museum), 1979, pp. 436-451.

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

XIII

En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Een doordringende Kijk op Kunst. Laboratoriumtechnieken voor het onderzoek van schilderijen, dans Natuur en techniek. Natuurwetenschappelijke en technisch Maandblad, 1980, no. 4, pp. 246-265; no. 10, pp. 790-807. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Tine Stynen et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Tableaux anciens au laboratoire, dans Arts, Sciences et Techniques. I, catalogue d’exposition, Louvain-laNeuve, 1980, pp. 119-143. Éditeur en collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque III. Le problème Maître de Flémalle-Van der Weyden, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Le Triptyque Edelheer. Étude technologique et relation avec la Descente de croix du Prado à Madrid, dans Dominique HollandersFavart et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque III. Le problème Maître de Flémalle-Van der Weyden, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981, pp. 119-129. En collaboration avec P. Eich, W.J. Engelsman et J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Les panneaux de Francfort, dans Dominique Hollanders-Favart et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque III. Le problème Maître de Flémalle-Van der Weyden, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981, pp. 101-117. En collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, La conservation des radiographies, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 6th Triennial Meeting, Ottawa, 21-25 September 1981. Preprints. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Méthodologie de l’étude des icônes: les supports et les cadres. L’exemple des icônes bulgares, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 6th Triennial Meeting, Ottawa, 21-25 September 1981. Preprints, pp. 307-317. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Maurits Smeyers, Usages relatifs aux volets de triptyques flamands au XVIe siècle. Quelques exemples pris dans l’œuvre de Pierre Coeck d’Alost, dans Archivum Artis Lovaniense. Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de kunst der Nederlanden opgedragen aan Prof. Em. Dr. J.K. Steppe, Louvain, 1981, pp. 307-317. Méthodes de laboratoire et histoire de l’art. Considérations générales, dans Fonds national de la recherche scientifique. Groupe de contact Physique, Chimie, Géophysique et Sciences de la terre, Bruxelles, 1981, pp. 255-264. Éditeur en collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IV. Le problème de l’auteur de l’œuvre de peinture. Contribution de l’étude du dessin sous-jacent à la question des attributions, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, À propos d’une nouvelle méthode de critique des copies, dans Roger Van Schoute et Dominique Hollanders-Favart (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IV. Le problème de l’auteur de l’œuvre de peinture. Contribution de l’étude du dessin sous-jacent à la question des attributions, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982, pp. 169-172. En collaboration avec J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, W.J. Engelsman et Jan Piet Filedt Kok, A progress report on the investigation of the underdrawing in the paintings of the group Van der Weyden-Flémalle, dans Roger Van Schoute et Dominique Hollanders-Favart (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IV. Le problème de l’auteur de l’œuvre de peinture. Contribution de l’étude du dessin sous-jacent à la question des attributions, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982, pp. 98-102. Hugo van der Goes. Apport du dessin sous-jacent pour la connaissance de son œuvre, dans Hugo van der Goes (1430/40-1482). L’homme et son œuvre, catalogue d’exposition, Bruxelles, 1982, pp. 48-52. En collaboration avec Monique Van Schoute-Verboomen, Bosch, Milan, 1982. En collaboration avec J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Maria del Carmen Garrido et J.M. Cabrera, Algunas cuestiones técnicas sul “Descendimiento de la Cruz” de Rogier van der Weyden, dans Boletin del Museo del Prado, 4, 1983, pp. 39-50.

XIV

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

En collaboration avec Monique Van Schoute-Verboomen, Bosch (Jérôme), dans Biographie Nationale, t. 43, Bruxelles, 1983, cols. 100-123. En collaboration avec Maria del Carmen Garrido, Note sur l’utilisation des méthodes de laboratoire pour l’étude des peintures, dans Bosch. Prado: photos en couleurs, grandeur nature, de la collection H. Bosch au Prado, catalogue d’exposition, Bruxelles (Europalia 85 España), 1984-1985, pp. 12, 20, 28, 36, 44-72. Éditeur en collaboration avec Dominique Hollanders-Favart, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque V. Dessin sous-jacent et autres techniques graphiques, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985. En collaboration avec J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, C.M.A. Dalderup, Jellie Dijkstra et Jan-Piet Filedt Kok, A progress report (II) on the investigation of underdrawing in the painting of the group Van der WeydenFlémalle, dans Roger Van Schoute et Dominique Hollanders-Favart (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque V. Dessin sous-jacent et autres techniques graphiques, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985, pp. 208210. En collaboration avec Maria del Carmen Garrido et J.M. Cabrera, Le dessin sous-jacent chez Jérôme Bosch. L’Adoration des Mages du Musée du Prado à Madrid, dans Roger Van Schoute et Dominique HollandersFavart (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque V. Dessin sous-jacent et autres techniques graphiques, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1985, pp. 211-215. En collaboration avec Maria del Carmen Garrido, El triptico de la Adoracion de los Magos de Hieronymus van Aeken Bosch: estudio técnico, dans Boletin del Museo del Prado, 6, 1985, pp. 59-77. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Art History and Laboratory. Scientific Examination of Easel Paintings (PACT 13), Strasbourg, 1986. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Radiography, dans Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Art History and laboratory. Scientific Examination of Easel Paintings (PACT 13), Strasbourg, 1986, pp. 131-154. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Painting Technique: support and frames, dans Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Art History and laboratory. Scientific Examination of Easel Paintings (PACT 13), Strasbourg, 1986, pp. 13-34. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VI. Infrarouge et autres techniques d’examen, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987. En collaboration avec Maria del Carmen Garrido, Les Péchés capitaux de Jérôme Bosch au Musée du Prado à Madrid. Étude technologique. Premières considérations, dans Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VI. Infrarouge et autres techniques d’examen, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987, pp. 103-107. En collaboration avec Anne Philippart, Molly Faries et L. Williams, Bibliographie de l’infrarouge et du dessin sous-jacent. 1979-1985, dans Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sousjacent dans la peinture. Colloque VI. Infrarouge et autres techniques d’examen, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1987, pp. 113-190. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Vénus dans la Forge de Vulcain de P.P. Rubens, dans Bulletin des Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique (Miscellanea P. Roberts-Jones), 1985-1988/1-3, pp. 149-160. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Les cadres de l’Agneau mystique de Van Eyck, dans Revue de l’art, 77, 1987, pp. 73-76. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Het doek als drager in de schilderkunst, dans Schatten der armen. Het artistiek bezit van het OCMW-Leuven, catalogue d’exposition, Louvain (Stedelijk Museum Vanderkelen-Mertens), 1988-1989, pp. 472-480.

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

XV

XVI

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989. En collaboration avec Maria del Carmen Garrido, Brèves observations sur les “petits Bosch” du Prado, dans Roger Van Schoute et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989, pp. 159-162. En collaboration avec Anne Philippart, Bibliographie de l’infrarouge et du dessin sous-jacent. 1986-1988, dans Roger Van Schoute et Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989, pp. 175-210. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Cadres et supports dans la peinture des Pays-Bas méridionaux aux 15e et 16e siècles, Heure-le-Romain, 1989. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Une déploration du Christ attribuée à Quentin Metsys et son atelier. Étude du dessin sous-jacent, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 18, 1989, pp. 259-272. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Aspects technologiques de l’histoire de la peinture flamande: cadres et supports aux 15e et 16e siècles, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 9th Triennial Meeting, Dresden, 26-31 August 1990. Preprints, vol. 2, pp. 659-662. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Marques de menuisiers de Bruxelles sur les cadres des peintures aux XVe et XVIe siècles, dans C. Van Vlierden et Maurits Smeyers, Merken Opmerken. Merk- en meestertekens op kunstwerken in de zuidelijke Nederlanden en het Prinsbisdom Luik. Typologie en methode, Louvain, 1990, pp. 185-200. En collaboration avec Monique Van Schoute-Verboomen, Faïences imprimées de Jemappes. Motifs et décors. 1847-1894, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 23, 1990, pp. 117-132. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VIII. Dessin sous-jacent et copies, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1991. En collaboration avec Anna Henrard-Trobec, Le triptyque Edelheer, dans Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VIII. Dessin sous-jacent et copies, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1991, pp. 123-126. En collaboration avec Maria del Carmen Garrido-Perez, Le dessin sous-jacent dans le Chariot de foin de Jérôme Bosch conservé au Musée du Prado à Madrid, dans Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VIII. Dessin sous-jacent et copies, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1991, pp. 177-180. En collaboration avec Anne Dubois, Molly Faries et Catherine Metzger, Bibliographie de l’infrarouge et du dessin sous-jacent. 1989-1990, dans Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VIII. Dessin sous-jacent et copies, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1991, pp. 189264. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, L’exécution picturale chez Quentin Metsys: considérations sur deux de ses œuvres aux Musées royaux (inv. 2784 et 1497), dans Bulletin des Musées royaux des BeauxArts de Belgique (Miscellanea Henri Pauwels), 1989-1991/1-3, pp. 205-216. En collaboration avec Monique Van Schoute-Verboomen, L’opera di Jheronimus Bosch: estudio tecnico sella base dei designi soggiacenti, dans Le Delizie dell’Inferno dipinti di Jheronimus Bosch e altri Fiamminghi restaurati, catalogue d’exposition, Venise (Palazzo Ducale), 1992, pp. 51-60. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, Le opere di Jheronimus Bosch in Palazzo Ducale: considerazionni sull’esecuzione pittorica, dans Le Delizie dell’Inferno dipinti di Jheronimus Bosch e altri Fiamminghi restaurati, catalogue d’exposition, Venise (Palazzo Ducale), 1992, pp. 179-192.

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

XVII

En collaboration avec J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer et Jeltje Dijkstra, avec l’assistance de C.M.A. Dalderup et Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Underdrawings in Paintings of the Rogier Van der Weyden and Master of Flémalle Groups (Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 41, 1990), Zwolle, 1992. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, La ’Trinité’ du Musée communal de Louvain. Un état de la question, dans Arca Lovaniensis: Artes Atque Historiae Reserans Documenta. Jaarboek, 21, 1992, pp. 47-62. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, The Triumph of Death by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger, dans The Triumph of Death by Pieter Brueghel the Younger, catalogue d’exposition, Anvers (Museum Mayer van den Bergh), 1993, pp. 35-53. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Retables sculptés et volets peints: examen de la menuiserie, des profils et de la polychromie des cadres du retable d’Herbais sous Piétrain, dans ICOM Committee for Conservation, 10th Triennial Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 22-27 August 1993, Preprints, vol. 2, pp. 693696. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’atelier, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993. En collaboration avec Maria del Carmen Garrido, Considérations sur le dessin sous-jacent du Triptyque du Jardin des Délices de Jérôme Bosch, dans Roger Van Schoute et Hélène Verougstraete (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’atelier, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993, pp. 199-203. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, The ‘Triumph of Death’ by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger. Intellegetur plus semper quam pingitur, dans Roger Van Schoute et Hélène Verougstraete (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’atelier, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993, pp. 213-241. Directeur en collaboration avec Brigitte De Patoul, Les Primitifs flamands et leur temps, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994. L’étude des Primitifs flamands. Essai d’historiographie, dans Roger Van Schoute et Brigitte De Patoul (dir.), Les Primitifs flamands et leur temps, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, pp. 5-8. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Christine Deschamps, Les petits maîtres de la fin du 15e s. à Louvain. Albert Bouts, dans Roger Van Schoute et Brigitte De Patoul (dir.), Les Primitifs flamands et leur temps, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, pp. 562-567. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Le peintre et son métier. La réalisation matérielle du tableau, dans Roger Van Schoute et Brigitte De Patoul (dir.), Les Primitifs flamands et leur temps, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, p. 101-116. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Cadres et supports dans la peinture flamande aux 15e et 16e siècles. Organisation du travail et contexte socio-économique, dans Pascale Lambrechts et Jean-Pierre Sosson (éds.), Les métiers au moyen âge. Aspects économique et sociaux. Actes du Colloque international de Louvain-laNeuve 7-9 octobre 1993, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, pp. 349-360. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, dans Uwe Beckmann et Birgit Freese (éds.), Hölzerne Zeiten. Die unendliche Karriere eines Naturstoffes, catalogue d’exposition, Hagen (Westfälische Freilichtmuseums Hagen-Landesmuseum für Handwerk und Technik), 1994, pp. 209-212. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque X. Le dessin sous-jacent dans le processus de création, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1995. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Maria del Carmen Garrido, La Dulle Griet et le Triomphe de la mort de Pierre Bruegel. Observations d’ordre technologique, dans Hélène Verougstraete et Roger Van

XVIII

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque X. Le dessin sous-jacent dans le processus de création, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1995, pp. 7-12. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, À propos de la bibliographie d’histoire de l’art II, dans Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, 28, 1995, pp. 103-106. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, La lamentation de Petrus Christus, dans Maryan W. Ainsworth (éd.), Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges. An Interdisciplinary Approach, New York-Turnhout, 1995, pp. 193-204. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, La radiologie appliquée à l’étude des peintures, dans R. Van Tiggelen et J. Pringot (sous la direction de), 100 Years of Radiology 1895-1995 (Honderd jaar X-stralen in België. Cent ans de rayons X en Belgique), Bruxelles, 1995 pp. 425-430. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Technology of Frames and Supports in Flemish Panel Painting Around 1400, dans Maurits Smeyers et Bert Cardon (éds.), Flanders in a European Perspective. Manuscript Illumination around 1400 in Flanders and Abroad, Proceedings of the International Colloquium. Leuven, 7-10 September 1993 (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, 8. Low Countries Series, 5), Louvain, 1995, pp. 371-384. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Duitse school (?), 1497. Epitaaf van Kanunnik Art Van Pyringen. École allemande (?), 1497. Épitaphe du chanoine Art van Pyringe, dans S.O.S. Oude Schilderijen. Redding en behoud van 20 werken op paneel. S.O.S. Peintures anciennes, Sauvegarde de 20 œuvres sur panneau, catalogue d’exposition, Bruxelles (Musée d’Art ancien), 1996, pp. 64-66. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, À propos du triptyque (?) de Benedetto Portinari de Hans Memling, dans Art & Fact. Revue des historiens de l’art, des archéologues, des musicologues et des orientalistes de l’Université de Liège, 15, 1996, pp. 65-66. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Frames and Supports in Campin’s Time, dans Susan Foister et Susie Nash (éds.), Robert Campin. New Directions in Scholarship, Londres-Turnhout, 1996, pp. 87-94. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Pieter Breugel d. J. Triumph des Todes, 1626, dans Jan Brueghel der Ältere. Pieter Brueghel der Jüngere. Flämische Malerei um 1600. Tradition und Fortschritt, catalogue d’exposition, Essen (Kulturstiftung Ruhr) - Vienne (Kunsthistorisches Museum) - Anvers (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), Lingen, 1997, pp. 106-111. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Maurits Smeyers, Memling Studies, Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Bruges, 10-12 November 1994), Louvain, 1997. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Cadres et supports chez Memling, dans Hélène Verougstraete, Roger Van Schoute et Maurits Smeyers (éds.), Memling Studies, Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Bruges, 10-12 November 1994), Louvain, 1997, pp. 269-286. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Les petites Pietàs du groupe van der Weyden: mécanismes d’une production en série, dans Technè. Vers une science de l’héritage culturel: quelques exemples de laboratoires étrangers, 5, 1997, pp. 21-27. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Retarder le moment du choix des études universitaires? L’avis d’étudiants en archéologie et histoire de l’art (1984-1996), dans Revue des archéologues et historiens de l’art de Louvain, 29, 1996-1997, pp. 109-112. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XI. Dessin sous-jacent et technologie de la peinture. Perspective, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Diane de Crombrugghe, Les ‘Chefs de Saint Jean-Baptiste sur un plat’ attribués à l’entourage de Bouts. Considérations sur la datation à partir de l’état matériel, dans Dirk Bouts (ca. 1410-1475), een Vlaams primitief te Leuven, catalogue d’exposition, Louvain (Sint-Pieterskerk et Predikherenkerk), 1998, pp. 277-280.

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

XIX

En collaboration avec Pascale Syfer-d’Olne et Hélène Verougstraete, La ’Justice d’Othon’ de Dirk Bouts. Panneaux et cadres, dans Dirk Bouts (ca. 1410-1475), een Vlaams primitief te Leuven, catalogue d’exposition, Louvain (Sint-Pieterskerk et Predikherenkerk), 1998, pp. 267-277. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, The Significance of Marblings and Other Decorative Paintings on Reverses in Early Netherlandish Painting, dans Painting Techniques. History, Materials and Studio Practice. IIC. Contributions to the Dublin Congress, 7-11 September 1998, Dublin, 1998, pp. 98-100. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Guide pratique de l’historien de l’art débutant, Louvain-laNeuve, 1998. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Pieter Breugel le Jeune. Le Triomphe de la Mort, 1626, dans Pieter Breughel le Jeune - Jan Brueghel l’Ancien. Une famille de peintres flamands vers 1600, catalogue d’exposition, Essen (Kulturstiftung Ruhr)-Anvers (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), Lingen, 1998, pp. 70-75. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, La peinture dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux dans la première moitié du 16e siècle, dans Estudo da Pintura Portuguesa. Officina de Gregorio Lopes, Instituto José de Figueiredo 11-12 Fevereiro 1999, Lisbonne, 1999, pp. 29-38. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Bruegel et Pétrarque: une évocation de Laure dans Le Triomphe de la Mort de Pierre Bruegel l’Ancien, dans Studi di Storia del’arte in onore di Maria Luisa Gatti Perer, Milan, 1999, pp. 247-251. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation, Louvain, 1999. En collaboration avec Carmen Garrido, Panneaux attribués à Ambroise Benson en provenance de Ségovie, dans Hélène Verougstraete et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation, Louvain, 1999, pp. 137-146. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Françoise Baligand, Le Polyptyque d’Anchin de Jean Bellegambe. Histoire. Supports, cadres et articulation, dans Hélène Verougstraete et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation, Louvain, 1999, pp. 155-168. En collaboration avec Alain Arnould, Rogier de le Pasture-Van der Weyden 1399-1999. Guide du visiteur d’une exposition documentaire, Tournai, 1999. Sous sa direction: Élisabeth Dhanens et Jellie Dijkstra, Rogier de la Pasture Van der Weyden. Introduction à l’œuvre. Relecture des sources, Tournai, 1999. En collaboration avec Carmen Garrido, El estudio tecnico de El Jardin de las delicias, dans El jardin de las delicias de El Bosco: copias, estudio technico y restauracion, catalogue d’exposition, Madrid (Museo del Prado), 2000, pp. 71-97. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Christian Bodiaux, Examen technologique des œuvres de Bles et de son entourage conservées au Musée des Arts Anciens du Namurois, dans Jacques Toussaint (sous la direction de), Autour de Henri Bles, Namur, 2000, pp. 31-61. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, A Painted Wooden Roundel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, dans The Burlington Magazine, 142/1164, mars 2000, pp. 140-146. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Monique Verboomen, Le frontispice des Chroniques de Hainaut. Examen en laboratoire, dans Pierre Cockshaw (dir.), Christiane Van den Bergen-Pantens (éd.), Les Chroniques de Hainaut ou les Ambitions d’un Prince Bourguignon, Bruxelles, 2000, pp. 274-282.

XX

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Frames and supports of some Eyckian Paintings, dans Susan Foister, Sue Jones et Delphine Cool (éds.), Investigating Jan van Eyck, Londres-Turnhout, 2000, pp. 107117. En collaboration avec Rachel Billinge et Hélène Verougstraete, The Saint Barbara, dans Susan Foister, Sue Jones et Delphine Cool (éds.), Investigating Jan van Eyck, Londres-Turnhout, 2000, pp. 41-48. Éditeur en collaboration avec Bert Cardon, Maurits Smeyers et Hélène Verougstraete, Bouts Studies. Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Leuven, 26-28 november 1998), Louvain, 2001. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, La construccion de soportes y marcos en la pintura flamenca de los siglos XV y XVI, dans J. M. Iglesias Gil (éd.), Actas de los XI Cursos monograficos sobre el patrimonio historico (Reinosa, julio 2000), Reinosa, 2001, pp. 221-236. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La peinture et le laboratoire. Procédés. Méthodologie. Applications, Louvain-Paris-Sterling, 2001. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, La Madone Renders et sa restauration par Joseph Van der Veken (1872-1964), dans Roger Van Schoute et Hélène Verougstraete (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La peinture et le laboratoire. Procédés. Méthodologie. Applications, Louvain-Paris-Sterling, 2001, pp. 7-28. En collaboration avec Monique Van Schoute-Verboomen, Jérôme Bosch, Tournai, 2001. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Carmen Garrido, Bosch and his Sphere. Technique, dans Jos Koldeweij, Bernard Vermet et Barbara Van Kooij (éds.), Hieronymus Bosch. New insights into his Life and Work, Rotterdam, 2001, pp. 103-120. En collaboration avec Carmen Garrido, El Bosco en el Museo del Prado. Estudio tecnico, Madrid, 2001. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Soportes y marcos, dans Carmen Garrido et Roger Van Schoute, El Bosco en el Museo del Prado. Estudio tecnico, Madrid, 2001, pp. 211-214. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Des portraits dans l’œuvre de Bruegel l’Ancien?, dans Bert Cardon, Jan Van der Stock and Dominique Vanwijnsberghe (éds.), “Als Ich Can”. Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, 12. Low Countries Series 9), Paris-Louvain-Dudley, 2002, pp. 1579-1595. Éditeur en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et autres études, Louvain-Paris-Dudley, 2003. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Carmen Garrido, Couronnements d’épines. Escorial-ValenciaMadrid (Lazaro Galdiano), dans Hélène Verougstraete et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et autres études, LouvainParis-Dudley, 2003, pp. 45-57. Enfer. Vision de Tondale. Porto. Fondation Guerra-Junqueiro, dans Hélène Verougstraete et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et autres études, Louvain-Paris-Dudley, 2003, pp. 81-83. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Un ‘dessin mécanique’ au ‘pantographe’ pour reproduire plus vite une composition? Le dessin sous-jacent d’un Triomphe de la Mort de Pierre Breughel le Jeune, dans Hélène Verougstraete et Roger Van Schoute (éds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et autres études, Louvain-Paris-Dudley, 2003, pp. 298-309. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, 2001. Année Bosch, dans Revue des archéologues et des historiens d’art et musicologues de l’UCL, 1, 2003, pp. 125-131. Direction en collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete et Till-Holger Borchert, avec la contribution de Élisabeth Bruyns, Jacqueline Couvert, Rudy Pieters et Jean-Luc Pypaert, Restaurateurs ou faussaires des

roger van schoute (1930-2017)

XXI

primitifs flamands. [Het verhaal van de restauratie van de Vlaamse primitieven], catalogue d’exposition, Bruges (Groeningemuseum), Gand, 2004. En collaboration avec Hélène Verougstraete, Copies, pastiches and forgeries after Bosch, dans Molly Faries (éd.), Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops, Turnhout, 2006, pp. 143-154. En collaboration avec Monique Verboomen, Dictionnaire des motifs de la faïence fine imprimée en Belgique, Bruxelles, 2006. Stained glass windows of the 13th century cathedral of Troyes and 50 years of Corpus vitrearum medii aevi, dans Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 103/1, 2008, pp. 176-179. En collaboration avec Carmen Garrido et Duilio Bertani, Le dessin sous-jacent du Triptyque de la Rédemption de Vrancke Van der Stockt (Madrid, Musée du Prado), dans Hélène Verougstraete et Colombe Janssens de Bisthoven (éds.), Underdrawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVI. The Quest for the Original, Louvain-Paris-Walpole, 2009, pp. 34-41.

Ill. 1.1. Willem van Aelst, Large Still Life with Armor, c. 1651, canvas, 200 x 170 cm, Le Mans, Musée de Tessé, inv. 10.90

1 Keynote Lecture

Willem van Aelst and the Market for Still-life Painting in Paris Reattribution of an Early Work E. Melanie Gifford

ABSTRACT: The Large Still Life with Armor in Le Mans, traditionally attributed to Willem Kalf, is here reattributed to Willem van Aelst on the basis of striking similarities to Van Aelst’s technique, as well as a previously unrecognized partial monogram. This paper explores the artistic environment in Paris where both Kalf and Van Aelst worked during their formative years. In Paris popular design elements were repeated through studio studies and compositions were replicated by multiple artists in studios specializing in copies; here the use of widelyshared painting conventions gave works by entirely different artists the appearance of a consistent style. This paper compares technical studies of the Large Still Life and very similar works by other Paris-based painters. Technical study clarifies the authorship of superficially similar paintings, by distinguishing how different artists bring recognizable personal painting practices to the artistic conventions that they all shared.

—o— Introduction This paper considers an important painting, the Large Still Life with Armor at the Musée de Tessé in Le Mans (ill. 1.1). This imposing work (fully two meters high) brings together costly metalwork, exotic arms and armor, and rich fabrics in a luxurious display of studied disorder. This painting has traditionally been attributed to the Dutch still-life painter Willem Kalf (1619-1693) and assigned to Kalf’s early years working in Paris. In 2012, how-

ever, technical research prompted a change of attribution to Willem van Aelst (1627-1683), another Dutch still-life specialist who also worked in Paris.1 When drawing on technical studies to inform questions of attribution, scholars often are limited by the nature of previous research. Technical research, like much art historical inquiry, has typically addressed a limited number of well-known artists rather than a broad cross section of any artistic community. Furthermore, traditional preconceptions of national boundaries can limit considerations of artists who may have moved freely. Questions of attribution are both more complicated and more intriguing when considering not only the question of which individual created a work but also the context within which a work of art was created: how that work functioned and the artist’s goals for it. This paper considers the reattribution of the Le Mans painting more deeply by exploring the artistic circle in mid-seventeenth century Paris in which the painting originated. The reattribution grew out of technical research for the exhibition Elegance and Refinement: the Stilllife Paintings of Willem van Aelst which was organized jointly by the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and the National Gallery of Art, Washington.2 Researchers from the two museums travelled to collections in the United States and Europe to

2

e. melanie gifford

analyze about one fifth of Van Aelst’s surviving work (works representative of all stages of Van Aelst’s career and all subjects he painted).3 In that study we compared Van Aelst’s work during his early years in Paris to the work of Willem Kalf, his compatriot who had worked in Paris shortly before. As we explored Kalf’s Paris still lifes, the Large Still Life with Armor stood out as an anomaly and study of this painting revealed striking similarities to Van Aelst’s technique. At that time our research focused on whether the painting should be attributed to Kalf or to Van Aelst. New technical research undertaken in 2014 has expanded the frame of reference by juxtaposing the painting to the work of other artists active in Paris at the same time as Kalf and Van Aelst. Close, magnified examination of the handling of paint has made it possible to distinguish individual artists’ traits from more widely shared artistic conventions.4 This study not only reaffirmed Van Aelst’s authorship of the Large Still Life with Armor, it also yielded new insights into the importance of this artistic environment to Van Aelst’s development as one of the leading elite painters of the seventeenth century. This paper begins with a brief review of Van Aelst’s development drawn from the 2012 technical research. We then explore the artistic environment in Paris where he came of age: painters with whom he worked, the evolving demands of the Paris art market, and widespread artistic conventions that complicate efforts to attribute paintings created in this circle. Finally, we compare the Large Still Life with Armor to several works originating in Paris at the same time. A brief survey of Van Aelst’s techniques through his career Willem van Aelst was famous during his lifetime – and after – for his luxurious paintings, known by the term pronk (or ostentatious) still lifes. His rapid evolution from a young painter of small, modest still lifes to one of Amsterdam’s most sought-after painters serving the highest levels of the art market was spectacular. The findings of the 2012 study,

showing the evolution of his painting practices throughout his career, underscored how Van Aelst was attuned to the expectations of elite collectors and how responsive he was to changes in market conditions. Van Aelst trained with his uncle in Delft, but the young artist soon left the Netherlands to start his career in Paris, where he joined an artistic community of French, Dutch and Flemish painters and art dealers in the Saint-Germain-des-Prés neighborhood. Peaches, Grapes, and a Plum on a Ledge (New York, private collection) (ill. 1.2), dated 1646, is probably one of Van Aelst’s first Parisian works. It serves here as an example of his work before he had been transformed by his stay in Paris. This little painting is a modest composition that depicts just a few pieces of fruit on a bare stone table. Van Aelst signed the tiny copper panel in sober block letters, ‘W.V.Aelst’, a contrast to the flamboyant Italianized signature, ‘Guillelmo van Aelst’, that he used on his mature paintings. Van Aelst underwent a remarkable development over the next three years in Paris. Fruit Still Life with a Snail (Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof) (ill. 1.3a), dated 1649, is a far more complex composition than the small work of 1646. Here he tumbled heaps of peaches, plums and foliage on a table of polished stone with a tablecloth edged in gold. While the 1646 painting cautiously depicted individual fruits in profile with uniformly soft surfaces, by 1649 Van Aelst depicted some with a foreshortened view of the crease and stem and his varied handling contrasted the gleam of smooth plums to the downy surface of peaches marred by tiny imperfections. While the earlier painting used a limited palette that included just traces of ultramarine blue, this work flaunted an extravagant use of the costly pigment, thickly applied to suggest the rich, blue velvet tablecloth. This painting also incorporated a detail that became virtually a trademark of Van Aelst’s mature work: the gold fringe on the tablecloth, which he painted with a remarkable evocation of springy, wiry texture. The distinctive handling of this detail includes a few brown strokes

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

3

Ill. 1.2. Willem van Aelst, Peaches, Grapes, and a Plum on a Ledge, 1646, copper, 17 x 22.6 cm, New York, Private Collection

that suggest threads and shadows and quickly touched, tiny dots in two colors of paint (lead-tin yellow and yellow earth) that form lines of gold highlights (ill. 1.3b). The lively highlights, however, are not perfectly round dots; Van Aelst quickly dabbed the brush at an angle in a gesture that pushed and pulled the paint to create lines of tiny chevrons.5 Van Aelst’s years in Paris launched him on a brilliant career at the highest levels of the art market. In 1651 he left Paris for Florence where he painted imposing still-life works for the palazzi of the Medici court. The scale of Van Aelst’s Florentine paintings is astonishing when contrasted to the paintings previously known from his Paris period. It is hard to imagine how the painter of small, precious still-life paintings in Paris could

have secured commissions to create imposing works such the Pronk Still Life with Fruit and Game (Florence, Galleria Palatina) of 1654 (ill. 1.4), with its wealth of precious objects alluding to the collections and interests of his patron, Leopoldo de’ Medici. Nonetheless, Van Aelst seemed comfortable working on this large scale and easily adapted his technique, working loosely in secondary passages but bringing his refined touch to now-familiar features such as the rich blue tablecloth with sparkling gold fringe and the contrast of velvety peaches to polished surfaces with dotted highlights. In 1656 Van Aelst left Florence, returning to the Netherlands where he capitalized on his years at the Medici court to establish himself in Amsterdam as a painter for the highest levels of society. In Amsterdam Van Aelst marketed himself as an

4

e. melanie gifford

A.

B.

Ill. 1.3. A: Willem van Aelst, Fruit Still Life with a Snail, 1649, canvas, 53.6 x 65 cm, Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof, inv. PDS 216. B: Detail of gold fringe: highlights with varied touches, some in a ‘chevron’ pattern

exotic court artist, signing his paintings with his Italianized name in elegant script and boasting of his aristocratic connections.6 He continued to paint elite subjects, which had been his specialty in Florence, depicting flowers and precious objects or elegant game pieces (ills. 1.5a, 1.6a), but he now worked on a more intimate scale better suited to the elegant town houses of art lovers at the upper echelons of Dutch society. In fact, in creating smaller-format paintings Van Aelst refined his technique to a spectacular degree.7 His signature gold fringe now was worked with dotted highlights on an almost microscopic scale and when he painted a falcon’s hood he described the fluff of feathers on such a fine scale that one almost needs a lens to see the paint strokes (ill. 1.5b). Such handling shows that Van Aelst’s goal was not to create paintings as quickly as possible, but to astonish the viewer with his virtuosity. Van Aelst’s mature works exemplify a refined, subtle use of painting materials that must have

appealed to Dutch buyers of luxury goods. By this point he consistently prepared his designs with a complete underpainting in gray and brown that lent his paintings an elegant, cool tonality.8 In Amsterdam Van Aelst adopted a deep crimson red lake pigment that was richer in color than those he had previously used in France or Italy and analysis confirmed that it was made with a different formula.9 Analysis also revealed Van Aelst’s extravagant use of ultramarine, not only for rich blue colors, but mixed with other pigments or modified by colored glazes. To render the play of light on leaves, for example, he laid in an underpaint in multicolored zones, mixing precious ultramarine with yellow pigments; in a final stage he unified these zones with subtle variations of green and yellow-green glazes (ill. 1.6b). Van Aelst did not paint white flowers or butterflies simply with white lead paint, but instead modulated tones of white on white: toning his white lead paint in the coolest whites with minute traces of finely ground ultra-

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

Ill. 1.4. Willem van Aelst, Pronk Still Life with Fruit and Game, 1654, canvas, 195.5 x 136.9 cm, Florence, Galleria Palatina, inv. Oggetti d’arte n. 561

5

6

e. melanie gifford

B.

A.

Ill. 1.5. A: Willem van Aelst, Hunt Still Life with Velvet Bag on a Marble Ledge, c. 1665, canvas, 65.5 x 52.6 cm, Houston, Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation, inv. BF.2002.3. B: photomacrograph of feathers on falcon hood with minute brushstrokes

marine blue, imperceptible to the naked eye. To the modern mind the idea of diluting the beautiful blue of costly ultramarine seems counterintuitive, but this off-hand use of a costly pigment seems entirely appropriate in Van Aelst’s case. Paintings like these were small gems and fetched extraordinary prices based on the cost of fine materials and a labor-intensive painting process as well as the cachet of the artist’s reputation and the subject matter. Van Aelst’s attention to the art market was underscored yet again in his late career. In the third quarter of the seventeenth century he was one of a small group of high-end Dutch painters who were well-attuned to the expectations of an elite clientele.10 For many this flourishing was ended by

the so-called ‘disaster year’ of 1672, which capped a ruinous downturn in the art market.11 Van Aelst, however, thrived. The technical study in 2012 revealed that he did this through strategic changes to his painting practices. By simplifying his compositions and streamlining his technique he could execute paintings more quickly. At the same time he replaced his most costly pigments with lessexpensive alternatives: he abandoned the deepcolored red lake pigment and he replaced ultramarine blue with far less-expensive synthetic alternatives such as verditer and smalt.12 He continued to produce paintings in his recognizable, luxurious style but his reduced costs must have allowed him to ask lower prices of newly straitened collectors.

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

7

B.

A.

Ill. 1.6. A: Willem van Aelst, Flower Still Life with a Watch, 1663, canvas, 62.3 x 48.5 cm, The Hague, Mauritshuis, inv. 02. B: detail of leaf with zones of colored underpaint and varied glaze

The decisive role of the Paris years in Van Aelst’s artistic development To understand Van Aelst as an artist, it is essential to understand a particular talent that shaped his career: his ability to meet the expectations of the most discerning art collectors. His years in Paris have been cited as crucial to this young, ambitious painter’s development, because it was in Paris that Van Aelst transformed himself from a cautious novice into an accomplished court artist. Technical study has now provided tangible documentation of Van Aelst’s close relationships with artists who were central to the production of still-life paintings in mid-seventeenth-century Paris. Moreover, technical study provides new evidence of how Van Aelst drew inspiration from this environment.

He absorbed more than high-style subjects and a repertoire of elegant motifs, although these were essential. His materials and techniques throughout his later career reflect the choices he made in Paris as he refined his painting practices to suit a demanding clientele. When Van Aelst arrived in Paris in 1645 or 1646, he found a multinational artistic community of painters and art dealers based in the SaintGermain-des-Prés suburb of Paris. The annual Saint-Germain art fair, with a focus on luxury goods and fine arts, was the heart of the Paris art trade. In the early part of the seventeenth century Antwerp dealers dominated the sale of paintings at the fair; by mid-century many Flemish artistdealers had established year-round businesses.13

8

e. melanie gifford

In Saint-Germain-des-Prés Van Aelst would have found a vigorous art community where French, Flemish and Dutch painters and dealers worked side by side. Some of the foreign-born artists in this constantly changing population made only a short stay; others made their careers in France. Paul Liégeois (active mid-seventeenth century), probably a Flemish immigrant, spent his working life in France. His paintings appeared in important collections including those of the Medici in Florence,14 French aristocratic collections and that of Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) (another Flemish emigre who became one of the most important painters at the courts of Louis XIII and Louis  XIV).15 The Flemish-born Jean-Michel Picart (1600-1682) was both an art dealer and a sought-after painter who settled in Paris. Picart had moved from Antwerp to Paris by 1634 and worked with both French and Netherlandish artists to produce opulent still-life paintings for the exclusive Paris art market. Willem Kalf, originally of Rotterdam, is today the best known of all the painters in this circle. He was in Paris from 1642 until 1645 or 1646, and seems to have worked with the French painter and art dealer Jacques Linard (15971645).16 Soon after Linard’s death (and about the time Van Aelst arrived) Kalf returned to the Netherlands to make an independent career.17 Kalf was instrumental in the development of the pronk style of still life in the Netherlands. But before he left Paris his impact on French still-life painting was substantial and his works were highly prized.18 This tight-knit community is vividly evoked in a well-known memoir by Nicolas Vleughels, who tells how his father, Phillipe Vleughels, found his way in Paris as a young artist arriving from Antwerp in 1643.19 Philippe and his travelling companion arrived penniless, having been robbed on their journey. As they asked their way, a series of artists passed them from one to another until they found themselves dining at an inn in SaintGermain-des-Prés with a welcoming group of Netherlandish painters including Willem Kalf.

Kalf took Vleughels under his wing, paying for his dinner, and lending him clean clothes. The next day the group of new friends toured the artistic sights of Paris, then Kalf introduced Vleughels to Picart, who inaugurated Philippe’s career in France by hiring him to work in his studio. Although there is no direct written documentation of the relationships Van Aelst established in Saint-Germain-des-Prés, the paintings themselves document his association with this environment. Van Aelst’s compositions demonstrate his links to artists in this circle, including Picart and Liégeois. There is evidence (discussed below) that Van Aelst’s compositions were reproduced by means of tangible records such as tracings. Such evidence suggests close contact and, along with Vleughels’s testimony that Picart was happy to take talented new arrivals into his studio, makes it plausible that Van Aelst himself worked in Picart’s busy enterprise for at least some of his time in Paris. Van Aelst also used at least one art material specifically associated with this artistic community: his wood panel supports. A large part of the output of Antwerp panelmaker Melchior de Bout seems to have supplied the Paris market. Anna Koopstra has identified thirty-two panels with De Bout’s mark, many of which were used by artists based in Saint-Germain-des-Prés: seven each by Kalf and Lubin Baugin, two by Sebastian Stosskopf and one by Linard. Five of Van Aelst’s Paris works – at least half of all his Paris panel paintings – are known to have been painted on these De Bout panels.20 A transitional moment for still-life painting in Paris In the first half of the seventeenth century the French still-life painters that Michel Faré called the peintres de la réalité favored modest subjects, such as rustic tables with fruit or simple bouquets. With the rise of salon and court society at mid-century, however, still-life painters turned to opulent compositions depicting costly objects (peintres de l’Académie et les décorateurs).21 Both

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

styles continued into the second half of the century, serving different markets at least to some degree, but tension between these two approaches also appeared in the competing claims of two artists’ organizations. In 1639 the Guild of Saint Luke, or Maîtrise, passed protectionist regulations that allowed only its members to sell through Paris shops.22 Not long after, in 1648, the founding of the Royal Academy of painting and sculpture, whose members were exempt from regulation by the Maîtrise, exemplified a new anti-mercantile approach in which painting and sculpture were seen as liberal arts. Although the two groups joined briefly from 1651-1654 the Royal Academy had different aspirations than those of the Maîtrise. Academy members were prohibited from selling paintings from their homes or shops; instead, academicians sold directly to courtly customers.23 This express prohibition of the previously established practice documents is a turn away from an open, more bourgeois, art market. As the context of art-making changed in Paris, a few artists did not adhere exclusively to either the sober or to the lush styles of still-life painting. Some well-established still-life specialists in Paris, including Linard, Liégeois and Picart, personally participated in this stylistic evolution. Because his business dealings are particularly well documented, Jean-Michel Picart is an intriguing exemplar. Picart’s professional affiliations reflected his business acumen. In 1640, the year after the Maîtrise had passed new restrictions on marketing art in Paris, he became a member, which must have protected his access to the market; in 1651 he was a signatory to the short-lived agreement between the Maîtrise and the Academy, which would have facilitated his access to court commissions.24 As a painter he was attentive to the increasingly refined taste of art buyers in Paris. His own paintings evolved from modest compositions that showed simple bouquets or a single basket with fruits, to sumptuous works such as Flowers in a Basket with Fruit on a Draped Table (Hof bei Salzburg, Schloss

9

Fuschl Collection) (ill. 1.7).25 His flower pieces – often including luxurious vases – appeared in royal inventories,26 and archival records reflect his increasingly illustrious social standing.27 Picart’s sensitivity to nuances of style is also clear in his role as an art dealer. In letters to his Antwerp colleague he ordered Flemish paintings for resale in Paris and he was exacting as he described the style expectations of the Paris art market: he disparaged what he saw as plump, unrefined figures in the paintings by Antwerp artist Abraham Willemsen that he had received in previous orders.28 He must have been equally clear in the expectations he set out for the Paris-based artists whose work he sold. It is striking that both Kalf and Van Aelst came of age at this transitional moment in Paris and both followed a similar stylistic evolution. Just as Van Aelst first painted small-scale paintings depicting limited still-life groupings, then moved to more sumptuous and complex compositions, Kalf painted small-scaled rural interiors when he first arrived in Paris, before he developed his more ambitious pronk still lifes.29 With few dated works, it is difficult to prove who introduced specific innovations but it seems clear that in their interactions with established French artists, the two young Dutch painters not only learned to tailor their art to an art market that was turning toward ever more elegant paintings, their innovations contributed to the new refinements in Paris still life.30 The later works of Kalf’s colleague, Jacques Linard, are infused with an elegance that probably reflect his close association with his younger Dutch associate – at his death Linard owned ten original works by Kalf and seven copies after his paintings – and Kalf had a recognizable impact on the older artist’s late work.31 Similarly, the works of Paul Liégeois, who specialized in fruit still life, evolved from spare compositions to more lush works that are distinctly reminiscent of Van Aelst’s.32 If, as seems likely, Van Aelst was employed in Picart’s studio, the master’s use of the younger artist’s composition (described below) suggests a mutual exchange between the two.

10

e. melanie gifford

Ill. 1.7. Jean-Michel Picart, Flowers in a Basket with Fruit on a Draped Table, early 1650s, canvas, 115 x 159.8 cm, Hof bei Salzburg (Austria), Schloss Fuschl Collection

Artistic conventions in the production of Paris still-life paintings The similarities among many still-life paintings produced for the Paris market underscore the network of tightly-woven artistic relationships in this environment. Designs were shared among artists: it is not uncommon to find different versions of an object depicted in several different paintings, or to find more than one version of the same still-life composition. Certain painting practices also were widespread, creating visual consistency in the work of different painters. It seems unlikely that these artists personally owned examples of all the precious objects they depicted. Ingvar Bergström established that Willem Kalf appropriated a published design by Polidoro da Caravaggio for a ewer in one of his

earliest pronk still lifes.33 But in most cases the evidence suggests that studio patterns for fashionable objects (whether drawn from real objects or imagined) were copied and circulated from one workshop to another. Precious objects such as ewers or chargers can be found in paintings by different painters, where they have similar, but not identical, forms. Painters also seem to have varied the objects they depicted, often as part of their creative process. Meiffren Conte (c. 1630-1705) specialized in still lifes with tightly packed compositions of fine metalwork vessels. A handle in the form of a drinking dog, which was a signature feature of his paintings, reappears in different orientations and on many different objects, suggesting that Conte varied his compositions by recombining a stock of studio patterns to invent new objects.34

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

Repetition was so common in Paris still lifes that it must have been an accepted part of the production of paintings for various levels of the art market. Picart’s business, in fact, was known for the production of high-quality copies. His employees replicated fine paintings: either works from his inventory as an art dealer or works that he kept specifically for copies.35 On at least one occasion Picart also incorporated another artist’s design into his own painting. His large and imposing work, Flowers in a Basket with Fruit on a Draped Table (ill. 1.7), is dominated by an opulent floral arrangement. As a secondary motif set off to the side he also included an almost exact replica of Van Aelst’s Fruit Still Life with a Snail in Delft (ill. 1.3a).36 Because Picart’s handling of the fruit still life is more summary, without the tiny flaws that Van Aelst painted in the skin of the peaches or his crisp textural rendering of the leaves, Van Aelst’s more finished painting must have been the source which Picart appropriated.37 The same composition by Van Aelst, Fruit Still Life with a Snail, played an important role in at least one other painter’s work. As mentioned above, authors have previously noted extensive similarities between works by Van Aelst and Paul Liégeois.38 But at least one still life by Liégeois shares more than similarities of style and motif: it was entirely copied from the exact composition by Van Aelst that Picart used.39 Liégeois used a more summary paint handling, but Van Aelst’s compositional model clearly lent this work a more rhythmic grouping, with a deep, expansive space that is more sophisticated than Liégeois’s typical compositions.40 Michel Faré suggested that the work of Liégeois marked an important transition from the more sober peintres de la réalité to the more decorative style of still life in the second half of the seventeenth century.41 It seems possible that there was a direct association between Van Aelst and Liégeois, and that Van Aelst was an important impetus for this transition in Liégeois’s style. The relationships between these three paintings by Van Aelst, Picart and Liégeois offer intriguing

11

evidence of a studio practice that would have facilitated such sharing of compositions. Preliminary measurements using reproductions of these paintings suggest that for the fruit grouping in both works – the secondary still life in Picart’s large painting and the central still life in the much smaller work by Liégeois – the copyists reproduced Van Aelst’s composition at exactly the original scale.42 This observation would have to be confirmed with direct measurements on the original paintings, but it seems that rather than making their copies freehand or from smaller sketches, Picart and Liégeois may each have made use of some form of reproductive transfer design. It seems likely that Van Aelst’s composition circulated among this group of artists in the form of a direct tracing made from Fruit Still Life with a Snail. In addition to the widespread compositional similarities outlined above, still-life painters in Paris seem to have shared specific painting practices that also gave their paintings a striking consistency of style. Through close examination of a number of these works it has become clear that certain painting techniques that had already been observed in Willem van Aelst’s paintings during the technical study in 2012, are actually found more widely in paintings produced in Paris. These practices were not unique to one artist but instead represent a set of shared artistic conventions. In order to distinguish between such shared conventions and more personal painting practices, a fruit still life by Liégeois (Rouen, Musée des Beaux-Arts) (ill. 1.8a) is useful to illustrate the conventions that reappear in most Paris paintings examined in this study.43 Works by Liégeois appear frequently in archival records of important collections, yet despite this illustrious patronage, he seems to have used a comparatively simple painting process which lays out these widely used conventions in an easily recognized form. Two examples illustrate the basic elements. Liégeois first modeled the leaves in this painting with zones of light and shadow in the underpaint in schematic shadows and highlights of sharply contrasted colors,

12

e. melanie gifford

A.

B.

Ill. 1.8. A: Paul Liégeois, Still Life with Fruits, mid-seventeenth century, canvas, 31 x 47 cm, Rouen, Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. 1818.1.11. B: detail of leaf, with Liégeois’s schematic handling. C: detail of gold lace, executed in a convention of dotted highlights in just three colors

C.

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

followed by a final transparent glaze that scarcely muted the color contrasts (ill. 1.8b). Van Aelst’s technique of painting leaves (ill. 1.6b) was far more subtle, but it fundamentally was based on the same convention, which he may originally have adopted in Paris. Liégeois laid out the gold lace edging of the blue tablecloth in a shorthand as efficient as his painting of leaves. He laid in a solid ochre-colored underpaint, then described the lace pattern in a schematic convention that dotted paint in just three colors: yellow-white highlights, peachcolored mid-tones, and black dots as a form of ‘negative highlight’ representing shadows in the holes of the lace (ill. 1.8c). This convention of highlights as dots in three colors also appears repeatedly in Paris paintings. Every artist adapts such conventions within a personal approach; the spare efficiency of Liégeois’s technique makes this painting an exemplar of these shared conventions. Testing the attribution of the Large Still Life with Armor When we looked for artistic examples that the young Van Aelst must have followed in Paris during our research for the 2012 Van Aelst exhibition, we focused primarily on the relationship between Van Aelst and Kalf. However, resuming this research with a broader exploration of the environment of still-life painting in mid-seventeenthcentury Paris has offered a richer context in which to consider the Large Still Life with Armor. During this research the Large Still Life with Armor in Le Mans (ill. 1.1) stood out as an anomaly: far larger than Kalf’s other works, more brightly colored and with an ostentatious excess of decoration. Detailed research by Katja Brunnenkant on the technique of Kalf’s paintings during his years in Paris was crucial for an initial comparison of the two artists’ working methods.44 Intriguingly, a number of Brunnenkant’s close images of the Le Mans painting seemed to show striking similarities to characteristic paint handling that we had previously identified in Van Aelst’s paintings. Late in the preparation of the Van Aelst exhibition it

13

was possible to examine the Large Still Life with Armor. Based on the results of that initial examination, the painting was included in the exhibition with a proposed attribution to Willem van Aelst.45 Subsequent study during the exhibition confirmed the similarity to Van Aelst’s handling of paint during his Paris period and established that the materials of the painting also are consistent with his materials in these years.46 The initial impulse to compare the works that Willem van Aelst painted in Paris with the paintings that his Dutch compatriot, Willem Kalf, had produced there shortly before is still appropriate. The two painters moved in the same artistic circle in Paris and there are affinities between their paintings. Nonetheless, the tendency to consider artists by nationality – comparing Dutch artists primarily to other Dutch artists – limits our understanding when considering artists who lived and worked for years outside their native country. In Paris Kalf and Van Aelst catered to the artistic tastes of French, rather than Dutch, art collectors. Although Jean-Michel Picart managed an active business importing Netherlandish paintings into France, there is little evidence that works painted in France, even by Dutch painters, were exported in the other direction, to the Netherlands.47 They worked beside – and competed with – French painters as well as Dutch and Flemish artists. A thorough consideration of the Large Still Life with Armor requires detailed comparisons to works by other artists as well as Kalf and Van Aelst. More recently, the author was able to build on the Van Aelst research with a number of new examinations of paintings by other artists who worked in Paris during the 1640s and 1650s.48 This preliminary study is not extensive, but it offers intriguing evidence of widespread painting practices that challenge easy assumptions about personal style among still-life painters in midseventeenth-century Paris. The following discussion of the attribution of the Large Still Life with Armor is divided into two stages. The first part of the discussion compares this

14

e. melanie gifford

painting to the work of Kalf and Van Aelst during their Paris years. The second part of the discussion considers the question in a wider perspective, comparing the Large Still Life with Armor to the work of other artists active in Paris at this time. Willem Kalf or Willem van Aelst? Kalf’s earliest pronk still lifes (the first examples are dated 1643) must have been an essential model as the young Van Aelst’s confidence – and ambitions – grew. Kalf was important for the growing focus on luxurious still-life subjects in Paris, in particular for the play of light on precious objects, but where the young Van Aelst was already drawn to bright, showy colors, Kalf’s early paintings show the dark tonality with deep colors and subtle reflections that he explored through much of his career. Still Life with Nautilus Shell (Le Mans, Musée de Tessé) (ill. 1.9) is a characteristic work by Kalf from 1643. In this restrained composition Kalf informally grouped beautiful objects – a pilgrim flask, glassware, a Chinese blue and white bowl, a nautilus shell – on a stone table partly covered with a deep green cloth edged with silky fringe. He relieved his palette of dark colors with subtle, restrained accents: red wine and orange gourd, each of which appears in a darker reflection echoed in the pewter flask, and blue undertones in the iridescent shell. Kalf’s highlights are more descriptive than decorative. In this example, the rounded surface of the flask shines with a single broad highlight and he shaped the rest of the objects with individual points of highlight. He placed only one cluster of dotted highlights, logically, on the knobby prunts of the upended glass. The Large Still Life with Armor in Le Mans depicts a jumble of luxurious objects: exotic arms and armor and jewel-toned drapery, tablecloth and upholstery. The painting is unsigned but the attribution to Kalf has been generally accepted since the mid-nineteenth century.49 A handful of Kalf’s Paris paintings depict similar precious metalwork and he focused on such objects in one of his larger paintings (discussed in the following section of this

paper). However, the Le Mans painting is enormous by comparison with any other work attributed to Kalf, and far more colorful than any of Kalf’s early works. By comparison with the subtle description of the play of light in Still Life with Nautilus Shell the much larger Le Mans painting glitters with highlights used for decorative effect. Dotted lights in profusion sparkle on denselyworked gilded vessels, metallic braid, embroidery and fringe, and are strewn along the fluid fringe of a white silk cloth. This play of light seems far more reminiscent of Willem van Aelst than of Willem Kalf. Our technical study underscored the artist’s use of dotted highlights, particularly on metallic fringe, as one of several features that Van Aelst seems to have adopted as personal trademarks. The exaggeration of this feature seems plausible as an early exercise by an artist finding his voice. Close examination of the painting technique in the Large Still Life with Armor revealed a strong resemblance to Van Aelst’s early works. In the blue velvet tablecloth, for example, angular whitish highlights and blackish shadows were dragged over the almost-complete blue surface as they were in the Paris-period Fruit Still Life with a Snail in Delft (ill. 1.3a). With close magnification it is clear that there is more than a superficial resemblance between the metallic trims in the two paintings. The brushwork of the Le Mans painting was more broadly handled to accommodate its large scale, yet the springy gold fringe on the chair was painted in the same way as in the Delft painting: the threads were suggested with some faint brown lines then detailed with winding lines of highlights. As in the Delft painting, these highlights were quickly painted, with varied touches of lead-tin yellow and yellow earth (ills. 1.3b, 1.10b). The gilded surfaces in the Le Mans painting also share Van Aelst’s characteristic handling of metalwork. As in the metal objects of the Italian Pronk Still Life with Fruit and Game in Florence (ill. 1.4), the cool tonality was based on gray underlayers and dotted highlights appear on decorative metal surfaces. Van Aelst’s Pronk Still Life with Medallion (State chateau

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

Ill. 1.9. Willem Kalf, Still Life with Nautilus Shell, 1643, canvas, 73 x 58 cm, Le Mans, Musée de Tessé, inv. 10.89

15

16

e. melanie gifford

Vizovice) (ill. 1.11a)50 has a more sober palette but its metalwork, too, was depicted with the same handling as in the Le Mans painting; in both paintings the convention of three-color highlights (also seen in Liégeois’s lace) was personalized as a range of whitish highlights (some dotted), pink midtones and dark lines defining the forms.51 Although there is no exact equivalent among either Kalf’s or Van Aelst’s works for the composition of the Large Still Life with Armor, it bears similarities to works by both artists. Precious objects such as the gold ewer, charger and nautilus cup in the Large Still Life with Armor are similar to objects depicted by both Kalf and Van Aelst. Kalf included similar chargers and gold ewers in some of his works (ill. 1.12).52 Van Aelst’s Italian Pronk Still Life with

Fruit and Game in Florence (ill. 1.4) has a similar ewer and nautilus cup. These paintings, however, do not repeat the identical objects; such similarities seem typical of the taste for luxurious still life in Paris more than a diagnostic feature indicating the work of a specific artist. The enormous scale of the Large Still Life with Armor is also of interest. Kalf seems never to have painted on such a large scale, whereas Van Aelst’s Italian Pronk Still Life with Fruit and Game is fully as large as the monumental Le Mans work, and the composition is remarkably similar, including the gold-fringed blue tablecloth found is several of Van Aelst’s Paris works. The most intriguing compositional relationship to Van Aelst’s work is a medal hanging from the table (ill. 1.10c). The medal depicted is a work by

B.

A.

C.

Ill. 1.10. A: Willem van Aelst, Large Still Life with Armor (ill. 1.1). B: detail of gold fringe on red chair: dotted highlights applied with a varied touch. C: detail of medal: a partial monogram ‘…VA’ at lower edge

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

17

B.

A.

Ill. 1.11. A: Willem van Aelst, Pronk Still Life with Medallion, 1651, panel, 45.5 x 32 cm, National Heritage Institute, Regional Historic Sites Management in Kroměříž, State chateau Vizovice, inv. VI 2238a. B: Detail, medallion of Louis XIV, with monogram and date ‘WvA 1651’

Jean Warin, which was struck in 1643 to commemorate the accession of the young Louis XIV to the throne, and so provides a terminus post quem for the painting.53 Van Aelst placed the identical medal ostentatiously at the center of his Pronk Still Life with Medallion in Vizovice (ill. 1.11b), closely reproducing the profile portrait and the inscription along the upper edge. But in one exception Van Aelst, who was not known for his modesty, replaced the sculptor’s inscription along the lower edge (‘warin 1643’) with his own monogram and date: ‘WvA 1651’.54 The examination of the Le Mans painting in 2011 offered the opportunity for

close study of that representation of the Warin medal. The scale of the medal and its role within the entire composition is much smaller than in the Vizovice painting. This comparatively small medal was more summarily painted and was depicted hanging at an angle, foreshortened and unevenly lit. The surface of this painting also has suffered damage.55 But with magnification the profile of Louis XIV and the inscription along the upper edge can clearly be seen emerging from the shadowed left side of the medal. And along the lower right edge, also emerging from shadows, appears an incomplete monogram: ‘[…]va’.

18

e. melanie gifford

Ill. 1.13. After Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels, signed ‘W Kalf ’ and dated 1643, canvas, 114.5 x 85.5 cm, Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, inv. WRM 2598

Ill. 1.12. Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels, c. 1643, canvas, 132.5 x 71 cm, Rouen, Musée des BeauxArts, inv. 1833.5

Physical and archival evidence also sheds light on the painting’s origins. The large size and unusual square format may have resulted from a commission for a particular function. Archival records as early as the mid-eighteenth century all document the painting in the dining room of the Hôtel de Tessé, purchased in 1705 by René III Froulay, Comte de Tessé.56 Structural details of the frame suggest it was custom designed to fit into a paneled interior57 and remnants of a heavy strap hinge on the reverse sug-

gest specifically that it may have served as the door for a vault or storage in the dining room.58 The style of the frame dates to around 1710,59 which suggests that the painting was reframed and reinstalled during redecoration of the hôtel. While it is possible that René III purchased a still life with military theme that had been commissioned earlier by another aristocratic family, it seems most likely that the painting was commissioned directly by his father, René II, Lieutenant général des armées du Roi.60

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

Such evidence makes a compelling argument that by the time he left Paris Van Aelst’s résumé included at least one aristocratic commission for a monumental painting which would have recommended him to the Medici. Shared convention and personal style in three Paris paintings As discussed above, certain painting techniques that were widespread in Paris served as shared artistic conventions that contributed to a shared style, and do not seem to be characteristic of specific painters. The presence of similar objects also does not establish common authorship between paintings: different painters did not use the same object as a model but worked from sketches that were shared and copied. At other times entire compositions were repeated, sometimes in successive generations of designs whose details became less distinct with repetition. Close comparison of paintings in which the handling of paint seems (on a superficial level) to be almost identical shows that individual artists adapted these artistic conventions to the requirements of their personal artistic style. Such comparison can be particularly telling when paintings depicting similar objects or materials are juxtaposed. There exist several versions of a large composition attributed to Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels, and variations of small details between these suggest that more than one model was in circulation. This group of paintings includes an unsigned version in Rouen (ill. 1.12), a painting in Cologne signed and dated 1643 (ill. 1.13), and paintings in a private collection and in London.61 All of these have been attributed to Kalf in the past, but recent scholarship, including technical research, offers a more nuanced view based on more than the presence or absence of a signature. It seems most likely that the (unsigned) Rouen version was painted by Kalf himself. 62 Judging from differences in handling, it seems to this author most likely that the other versions were copied by different painters.

19

Of the several versions, the Cologne painting most closely followed the details of the original composition in Rouen (although it also expanded the narrow format of the original by adding still-life elements and a swag of drapery at the left). The Cologne version accurately reproduced the handle of the fallen ewer (in the form of a female nude), while simplifying the volute decoration on the handle of the standing ewer.63 This composition may have existed in more than one workshop model, however, because the versions in London and a private collection seem to be still further removed from the Rouen source. Both used the expanded composition of the Cologne version but details such as the handles of the ewers were still more simplified: the handle showing a female nude was reduced to generic curves, while the spiral flourishes on the handle of the standing ewer became rudimentary knobs. In 2015 the author examined two of the versions of Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels: the Rouen painting now accepted as Willem Kalf’s original and the copy in Cologne. With new examination of the Large Still Life with Armor in Le Mans, it was possible to make a detailed, three-way comparison of the Le Mans painting to the Rouen and Cologne paintings, the works that have most often been cited to support its attribution to Willem Kalf (it should be noted that there also are alternate versions of the Large Still Life with Armor, but because the other versions are not currently available for examination, the present study addresses only the Le Mans painting).64 Although the two versions of Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels share almost the same composition and appear to share similar visual effects, technical study reveals distinct differences in the layering and the handling of paint which allow us to tease apart the artistic personalities of two different painters: Willem Kalf and a copyist in the Paris circle of still-life specialists. And as this distinction is clarified, comparison of the paint handling in these two paintings and the Large Still Life with Armor allows us to consider whether the large Le Mans work was painted by

20

e. melanie gifford

A.

B.

C.

Ill. 1.14. Details of ewers. A: Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels (ill. 1.12). B: After Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels (ill. 1.13). C: Willem van Aelst, Large Still Life with Armor (ill. 1.1)

Willem Kalf, by an anonymous copyist in the Paris circle, or by Willem van Aelst. Differences in the various artists’ underpainting procedures contribute to noticeable differences in the overall tonality of the paintings. Kalf worked thinly as he underpainted gold vessels, leaving the gray exposed in the shadows and laying in a translucent golden-yellow over his gray ground to prepare lighted areas on these vessels, a procedure that lends the painting depth (ill. 1.14a). By contrast the copyist prepared the gold vessels with a solid ochre-toned underpaint (similar to Liégeois’s preparation for gold lace) (ill. 1.14b). Kalf’s use of the gray ground contributed to the cool tonality of the Rouen painting while the copyist’s golden-yellow underpaint gives the Cologne painting its distinctive ruddy tone. In the Large Still Life with Armor the gold ewer was prepared with an opaque ochrebrown (ill. 1.14c), part of a complete preparatory design painted in a range of grays and browns, Van Aelst’s typical procedure.65 This opaque underpaint gives the metalwork in the Le Mans painting a hard, reflective quality that contrasts with depth of tone in Kalf’s metal vessels. A close comparison of the ewers in all three paintings reveals three personal variations on the

convention of metal highlights seen in the gold lace by Liégeois. The copyist used a fairly mechanical repetition of almost identical dots: yellowwhite highlights, peach midtones and brown-black dots for ‘negative highlights’. The Le Mans painting shows a more varied touch, with both dots and more suggestive strokes in the highlights and midtones and clusters of larger dark touches where shadows would naturally fall on the underside of the ewer. Kalf’s play of light on metalwork uses the same color range but the handling is more varied than either of the other two paintings, with scarcely any dotted highlights or shadows. Kalf’s interest in subtle reflections was manifested in painting the ewer reflected in the pilgrim flask behind; he evoked the reflected tone of ewer with impressionistic touches of peach half-lights. By comparison the copyist painted the identical yellow and peach spots for a literal recreation of the ewer. Although at first glance the white fabric at the center of the two versions of Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels looks similar, the fold patterns are more summary in the Cologne painting, and with close examination it is evident that the two artists built up their images with very different painting procedures. Kalf first modeled the folds with under-

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

A.

B.

21

C.

Ill. 1.15. Details of white fabric. A: Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels (ill. 1.12). B: After Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels (ill. 1.13). C: Willem van Aelst, Large Still Life with Armor (ill. 1.1)

paint in yellow-gray and cool gray tones (ill. 1.15a), while the copyist used an exaggerated yellow-gray underpaint (ill. 1.15b). Kalf softened the already subtle tonal variations of the underpaint with a whisper-thin intermediate layer of cool gray, then built the folds of the fabric with final highlights applied in a creamy, wet-in-wet handling. The copyist applied his final highlights directly on the underpaint, leaving much of the yellowish tone visible, and with thick highlights dabbed as a jumble of overlapping oval pats of paint. The handling of the white fabric in the Large Still Life with Armor (ill. 1.15c) is unlike either of these paintings. The underpaint is cool gray and the final white highlights are more angular than in the other two paintings, explicitly tracing the folds of fabric. One specific gesture of the brush is of interest. In painting the white highlights, the artist enlivened the surface by pushing and pulling as he dragged the brush to create lines of chevrons: the same gesture that Van Aelst used in Fruit Still Life with a Snail on a small scale as he stabbed the brush, creating lines of chevrons in the fringe (ill. 1.3b). In the handling of fringed fabric, each of these three painters also brings a different approach. The only fringe in the paintings of Still Life with Flask

and Gold Vessels is on the red stool in the foreground. Here Kalf’s handling is restrained, with scarcely a highlight (ill. 1.16a), while in this same feature the copyist dragged yellow highlights along the threads in long drips and lines of skipping drybrush strokes (ill. 1.16b). By contrast, the Large Still Life with Armor is extraordinary for the fringe lavished throughout the composition, and its handling is distinctly reminiscent of Van Aelst’s, with painted lines for shadows and threads, and a profusion of lines of highlight dots handled in quick, stabbed strokes (ill. 1.16c). Conclusion The Large Still Life with Armor was first studied by the author during the final preparations for the exhibition Elegance and Refinement: the Still-life Paintings of Willem van Aelst. On the basis of striking similarities to Van Aelst’s technique, as well as the previously unrecognized partial monogram, the organizers added the Large Still Life with Armor to the exhibition. The placement of this work as the centerpiece of the early works in the Van Aelst exhibition revealed its close relationship to other works that Van Aelst painted during his years in Paris and in Florence. Since the

22

e. melanie gifford

A.

B.

C.

Ill. 1.16. Details of fringe. A: Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels (ill. 1.12). B: After Willem Kalf, Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels (ill. 1.13). C: Willem van Aelst, Large Still Life with Armor (ill. 1.1)

exhibition, scholarly discussions of the attribution have continued.66 The invitation to consider this attribution in this publication further offered a new opportunity to explore the Paris environment in which Van Aelst worked during his formative years, and to carry out additional technical study of several paintings by different painters working in Paris. This new research, although limited, has revealed an artistic environment in Paris where popular design elements were repeated through studio studies and entire compositions were replicated by different artists in studios like Picart’s; where the use of widely-shared painting conventions, such as gold reflections in three colors, gave works by entirely different artists the appearance of a consistent style. Close comparison of the Large Still Life with Armor in Le Mans to two versions of Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels (by Kalf and a Paris copyist) revealed the work of three different painters, despite similarities of the compositions. The three works differ at the level of fundamental painting practices: Kalf’s thin, sometimes translucent underpaint, the copyist’s solid colored underpaint, and

in the large Le Mans painting a brown-to-gray underpaint (Van Aelst’s typical practice), which gives the painting a cold tonality. The three paintings also manifest different artistic concerns: the extravagant showmanship of the Le Mans composition contrasts with Kalf’s interest in subtle reflections and the copyist’s sparkle executed in conventionalized dots. Perhaps most telling are the differences in personal painting gestures. Kalf’s loose strokes in varied orientations evoke a softly shimmering surface (ill. 1.14a); by comparison solid underpainting and high-contrast highlights give the large Le Mans painting a hard-edged definition (ill. 1.14c); while the masses of dotted highlights in the copy seem more mechanical than either (ill. 1.14b). In addition, the large Le Mans painting shows personal quirks such as stabbed strokes of paint that create repeated chevron textures similar to those observed in works by Van Aelst. Together with the identification of the partial monogram on the medal, ‘[…]va’, these features support an attribution of the Large Still Life with Armor to Willem van Aelst. The use of familiar compositional elements such as a fallen gilt ewer, and general painting

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

conventions such as dotted highlights in three colors are general traits of the Paris market within which Van Aelst painted the Large Still Life with Armor. While these traits cannot be used to document specific authorship, they are compelling evidence of the painter’s close association with this artistic environment. On a practical level this painting, when seen in the context of his career, is evidence that Van Aelst had at least one largescale, aristocratic commission which would have strengthened his credentials as he sought employment in Florence with the Medici. Features that became attributes of Van Aelst’s elegant paintings can be traced to his years in Paris: rich blue cloths on stone tables, the play of light on precious objects and dotted highlights on gold fringe became as easily recognizable as his Italianate signature, ‘Guillelmo van Aelst’.67 On a fundamental level this painting documents Willem van Aelst’s exquisite attunement to the taste of the rapidly-changing Paris art market, an awareness that guided his entire career. NOTES 1 For their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper I am grateful to Barbara Berrie, Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., Lisha Glinsman, Michael Palmer, Alexandra Libby and Lydia Bedford. On the reattribution of the Large Still Life with Armor, see: Gifford et al. 2012, p. 71; Gifford, Paul 2012. 2 Houston/Washington 2012. The dissertation of Tanya Paul, one of the authors of the exhibition catalogue, was essential for the exhibition research (Paul 2008). 3 Gifford et al. 2012. I am grateful to my coauthors: Lisha Glinsman (National Gallery of Art, Washington), Anikó Bezur and Andrea Guidi di Bagno (Museum of Fine Arts, Houston). Our work together was fundamental to the research presented here. The 2012 technical study traced Van Aelst’s choices throughout his career. The build-up of the paintings and Van Aelst’s personal handling of paint were examined at magnifications up to 50x. Pigments were analyzed largely without taking paint samples. Pigment compositions were inferred from elemental data obtained by X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) informed by magnified examination of the paint surfaces. In-depth analysis of a small number of samples taken from paintings in the collections of the National Gallery of Art and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, informed interpretation of the XRF analysis. For analytical conditions, see: Gifford et al. 2012, p. 87, note 5. 4 This study is based on magnified examination of the paint surfaces to determine the structure of the paintings and the various artists’ personal handling of paint. Because pigment analysis for the most of the paintings discussed in this paper was not possible – and virtually no published analyses are available – this contribution will not compare these artists’ choices of pigments to Van Aelst’s works. 5 Gifford et al. 2012, pp. 69-70. 6 Houbraken 1976, pp. 228-230.

23

7 Gifford et al. 2012, pp. 74-78. 8 Gifford et al. 2012, pp. 72, 74. 9 Gifford et al. 2012, pp. 76-77, 84. 10 John Loughman (1999, pp. 94, 102) found that during Van Aelst’s years in Amsterdam and in the decades after his death, his paintings’ inventory evaluations and the prices realized at auction were higher than for any other Dutch still-life specialist studied. 11 In 1672 naval war with England and invasion by France led to economic collapse; Houbraken (1976, pp. 295-297) cites the failure of the art dealer Gerrit Uylenburgh. But overproduction and the long life of paintings in inherited collections also had already put pressure on prices (Bok 1994, pp. 120-127). I am grateful to Henriette Rahusen for discussion of these economic issues. 12 Gifford et al. 2012, pp. 80-84. 13 Although the Faubourg Saint-Germain was technically not subject to the regulations of the Paris guild, there were nonetheless regulatory hurdles. Szanto (2006) outlines how a number of Flemish art dealers navigated these challenges in making the transition from an annual presence at the art fair to a year-round business. 14 Chiarini 1997, pp. 145-147. 15 Faré 1974, pp. 72-74. 16 Szanto 2001, pp. 33-37. 17 Lammertse, Szanto 2007, p. 14. 18 Several paintings by Kalf in Linard’s estate inventory had remarkably high evaluations: Szanto 2001, pp. 52-57. 19 Nicolas Vleughels’s memoir (originally published by Dussieux et al. 1854, vol. 1, pp. 355-357) is reproduced in slightly different excerpts by Faré (1957, pp. 93-95) and in an appendix by Grisebach (1974, pp. 197-198). 20 Koopstra (2010, p. 123) published four works; Paul (2008, p. 58) also identified the mark on Flowers in a Basket with Fruit on a Draped Table (Austria, Hof bei Salzburg, Schloss Fuschl Collection) (ill. 1.7) discussed below. 21 Faré 1974, p. 183. 22 Goldfarb 2014, pp. 20-21, 28. 23 Faré 1974, pp. 8, 90, 183-184. 24 Faré 1957, pp. 92, 97. 25 For an early work, see: Basket of Fruit, monogrammed, Karlsruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle, inv. 494. 26 Faré 1957, p. 98; Salvi 2000, p. 101. 27 Faré 1957, pp. 96-97; Faré 1974, pp. 89-90. 28 De Marchi, Van Miegroet 1998, p. 223. 29 Grisebach 1974, pp. 39-82; Giltaij 2007. 30 Giltaij and Meijer (2007, p. 71), however, suggest that Kalf’s work shows little influence by his French contemporaries. 31 Linard’s estate inventory included eight paintings by Kalf, as well as eight copies after Kalf’s work. Szanto 2001, pp. 33, 36, 52-57; Lammertse, Szanto 2007, p. 13. 32 Faré 1974, p. 80; Salvi 2000, pp. 13, 81-82; Paul 2008, p. 56. 33 Bergström 1956, pp. 271-272, figs. 224, 225. 34 See, for example, pairs of paintings with the same handle on ewers with different bodies: Faré 1974, pp. 224-225, 231-232. 35 Nicolas Vleughels (see note 19) describes how his father, Philippe Vleughels, was employed by Picart to make copies: ‘Il reçut mon père, le logea et lui donna à travailler. Mon père se fortifia, fit de bonne copies, car ce M. Picard avait de belles choses chez lui’. This passage of the memoir is transcribed by Faré (1957, p. 95), but not by Grisebach (1974). Such a level of cooperative work, almost on a level of mass production, might have surprised a young painter trained in the Netherlands, where individuality seems to have been prized. I am grateful to Arthur K. Wheelock for this observation. 36 Fred G. Meijer, unpublished report dated 7 September 2000 on Flowers in a Basket with Fruit on a Draped Table by Jean-Michel Picart (https://rkd.nl/explore/images/71903 document U00-2037); discussed in Paul (2008) and by Paul in Houston/Washington (2012, pp. 96-97, nr. 3). I am grateful to Fred Meijer, Senior Curator of Old Dutch and

24

e. melanie gifford

Flemish Painting, Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (RKD), The Hague, for the opportunity to consult his unpublished report. 37 Meijer (2000) recognized Van Aelst’s painting in Delft as the source for the composition of the fruit still life in Picart’s painting but was clear that both the flower still life and the fruit grouping are entirely consistent with Picart’s style and handling of paint. A catalogue for the Richard Green at Three London Galleries, London, reflects this attribution (Morris 2002, pp. 48-49), as does Tanya Paul. Auction catalogues (London, Christie’s, 7 July 2000, lot 45; New York, Sotheby’s, 24 January 2008, lot 55) and Salvi (2000, pp. 104-105) reported in error that Meijer believed this work to be a joint production by Picart and Van Aelst. 38 Faré 1974, p. 80; Salvi (2000, pp. 13, 81-82) sees this as a mutual exchange. Tanya Paul (2008, p. 56) also noted similarities between the two artists but suggested that Van Aelst was following Liégeois’s example. 39 Faré 1974, p. 74. 40 See, for example: Faré 1974, pp. 72-77; Salvi 2000, pp. 81-85. 41 Faré 1974, p. 77. 42 Picart’s grouping is truncated at the right but the elements reproduced closely match the scale of those elements in Van Aelst’s painting. The composition of the Liégeois version appears to have been slightly trimmed at the upper and lower edges and this observation is consistent with the paintings’ dimensions (Van Aelst: 53.6 cm ≈ 65 cm; Liégeois: 51.8 cm ≈ 65.3 cm). The horizontal dimensions are virtually identical while the vertical dimension of the now-truncated copy is slightly smaller than Van Aelst’s painting. 43 This work, like the majority of French still lifes, is not signed. 44 Katja von Baum (née Brunnenkant) studied a number of works by or attributed to Kalf during his Paris years and compared these findings to her technical study of Still Life with Flask and Gold Vessels in Cologne. For a report on the Large Still Life with Armor in Le Mans, see: Brunnenkant 1997, pp. 147-157. For details and photomicrographs, see: Brunnenkant 1997, pp. 156-157, figs. 96-100; Brunnenkant 1999, pp. 261-262, figs. 22, 23, 24, 28. 45 I am grateful to Françoise Froger, Curator of the Ville du Mans, for her generous support of my examination at the Musée de Tessé in 2011 and for permission to carry out further analysis while the painting was in Washington in 2012. 46 Lisha Glinsman, who carried out XRF analysis, found that the gold metallic fringe was painted with lead-tin yellow and yellow earth. The red lake used, as in Van Aelst’s other paintings from the Paris period, did not show the high potassium component that marks the red lake he used at the height of his career in Amsterdam. The blue tablecloth was glazed overall with ultramarine, Van Aelst’s characteristic blue pigment. The tablecloth was prepared with a base layer of the less expensive blue pigment, smalt; although smalt has not been identified to date in Van Aelst’s other smaller Paris paintings, its use would be a logical economy in such a large painting with a wide expanse of blue. Because the paint surface is now quite worn, the tablecloth is now a gray-blue typical of smalt, having lost most of the deep blue color of the final ultramarine layer. 47 Lucius Grisebach (1974, p. 112) notes that Kalf’s Paris paintings seem to have been little known in the Netherlands. By contrast, he sees substantial mutual influence between Kalf and his French contemporaries. 48 I am grateful to the colleagues who made these examinations possible in 2015, and with whom I have had very fruitful discussions: at the Musée de Tessé, Le Mans, Françoise Froger, Curator, Ville du Mans and Françoise Chaserant, Director of the Musées du Mans; at the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Rouen, Diederik Bakhuÿs, Curator; at the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Cologne, Anja K. Ševčík, Head of the Department of Baroque Painting and Iris Schaefer, Head of Art Technology and Conservation. I am also grateful for a very helpful discussion

of this research with Jeroen Giltaij, formerly Senior Curator of Old Master paintings, and Friso Lammertse, Curator of Old Master paintings, at the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam and authors of the Kalf exhibition catalogue (Rotterdam/Aachen 2006). 49 The painting was listed as an anonymous work in the museum’s records from 1799 until 1841, when it was attributed to Jan Davidsz de Heem; the attribution to Kalf was proposed in 1845 and has generally been accepted since then. See: Chaserant et al. 2000, p. 11. Bergström (1956, p. 226) described this painting as signed and dated 1643, apparently confusing this work with the other painting by Kalf at the Musée de Tessé, Still Life with Nautilus Shell. 50 Paul 2008, pp. 58-60, 150-152; Paul 2012, p. 14. Van Aelst’s authorship was recognized by Fred Meijer (entry in RKD database: https://rkd.nl/explore/images/17370). 51 Although it was not possible to examine this work in person, these features are clearly visible in high-quality digital images. 52 This similarity has been cited in support of an attribution to Kalf (Grisebach 1974, p. 108; Rotterdam/Aachen 2006, p. 88, nr. 20). As discussed below, similar objects are not necessarily evidence of shared authorship. 53 Grisebach 1974, pp. 108-109. 54 It is striking that Houbraken (1976, p. 229) reports Van Aelst to have boastfully displayed a medal he had received during his years abroad. 55 The surface is quite worn and is broken by lumps typical of lead soap degradation. 56 Chaserant et al. 2000, p. 7. 57 These observations were made during restoration of the frame in 1999, see: Chaserant et al. 2000, p. 9. 58 I am grateful for this observation to the National Gallery art installation team and Arthur Wheelock. 59 Chaserant et al. 2000, p. 9. 60 Moreri 1732, vol. 3, p. 751. 61 Rouen, Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. 833.5 (unsigned); Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum & Fundation Corboud, inv. WRM 2598 (signed and dated ‘w. kalf 1643’); private collection (signed ‘W. Kalf’; see Rotterdam/Aachen 2006, pp. 84-85, nr. 18); London, Victoria & Albert Museum, inv. P.6-1939 (unsigned). Grisebach (1974, p. 237, nr. 64c) did not catalogue the signed version in a private collection, but did record another variant in Stockholm in 1953 and Segal (Delft/Cambridge/Fort Worth 1988, p. 220, note 14) mentioned the existence of other copies. 62 The organizers of the recent Kalf exhibition exhibited three versions of the composition, also concluding that the Rouen version was Kalf’s original, the (signed) Cologne version was a copy; they attributed authorship of the privately owned version either to Kalf or to his circle (Rotterdam/Aachen 2006, pp. 82-87, nrs. 17, 18, 19). Through extensive comparative technical study of the Cologne painting and of five other paintings attributed to Kalf’s Paris years, including the privately owned version of this composition, Brunnenkant (1997; 1999) established that the Cologne version was not consistent with the other works. She did not examine the Rouen painting. Segal (Delft/ Cambridge/Fort Worth 1988, pp. 178, 185, 188, p. 247, nr. 53; Madrid 1998, pp. 34-43, nrs. 1, 2; Segal 2007) believes the privately owned painting to be Kalf’s original. Grisebach (1974, pp. 236-237, nr. 64) believed the signed version in Cologne to be the original composition. 63 Such workshop variations have not always been recognized. In earlier discussions of the attribution of the Large Still Life with Armor in Le Mans it has been suggested that depictions of three different ewers of different designs (the ewer in the Le Mans painting and the two ewers in the Rouen and Cologne paintings) all represent the same object, see: Rotterdam/Aachen 2006, p. 88, nr. 20. 64 Two smaller versions of the Large Still Life with Armor are known, each of which includes portrait of a painter at work – presumably a self-portrait of the artist – reflected in the mirror, a feature that

willem van aelst and the market for still-life painting in paris

does not appear in the Le Mans version. The depiction of the possible self-portrait seems too summary to make an identification. One version (sold at Sotheby’s, New York, 16 May 1996, lot 89), whose composition is truncated at the top and bottom, is close in scale to the Le Mans painting. A much smaller version was sold at Bonhams, London (22 April 1982, lot 107). I have not had access to good photographs of the version sold at Bonhams, but this has been described as a much less skilled painting (Chaserant et al. 2000, p. 9). Judging from reproductions the version sold at Sotheby’s is of high quality. The handling seems close enough to the Le Mans work that is possible that they were painted by the same artist. At the National Gallery of Art John Delaney carried out a brief examination of the Le Mans painting by infrared reflectography (IRR). This showed no evidence that the painting had ever included a self-portrait in the mirror. This examination

25

did, however, show evidence of compositional experimentation that is not typical of a direct copy: the artist revised the mirror, experimenting with several different designs for the frame. Chaserant also notes that a crack in the flagstone appears only in the Le Mans version. It is not impossible that the same painter made both the Le Mans and the Sotheby’s versions, the larger Le Mans painting being a commission for a specific location. 65 This gray-brown underpaint is also described by Brunnenkant (1997, pp. 151-152). 66 Some scholars have expressed doubts (Meijer 2013, p. 105; Jeroen Giltaij, personal communication, 3/10/2015). The attribution has been accepted by others (Merle du Bourg 2014, pp. 363, 371). 67 On Van Aelst’s upwardly mobile persona after his return to Amsterdam, see: Wheelock 2012.

Ill. 2.1. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych, 1443-1451, oil on panels, 220 x 547.6 cm (open), Beaune, Musée de l’Hôtel Dieu

2

The Beaune Last Judgement Sorting out Rogier van der Weyden and his Assistants Griet Steyaert and Rachel Billinge

ABSTRACT: In January 2012 a team from the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium in collaboration with the National Gallery, London (Rachel Billinge, Véronique Bücken, Lorne Campbell, Freya Maes, Catherine Reynolds and Griet Steyaert) was given the opportunity to examine the Beaune Last Judgement as part of the research project The Heritage of Rogier van der Weyden. Part of this study involved the recording by Freya Maes of a comprehensive set of new infrared reflectograms. It is generally accepted that the Last Judgement (1443-1451) can be attributed to Rogier in collaboration with other painters. The improved clarity of the new infrared images allowed us to make refinements to the current proposals about the share of work in the planning and layout of the polyptych.  In painting the Last Judgment Rogier van der Weyden worked with the same two assistants with whom he painted the Seven Sacraments (1440-1445) in Antwerp.The division of work appears to be comparable.

—o— In January 2012 a team from the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSB/MRBAB) in collaboration with the National Gallery, London (Rachel Billinge, Véronique Bücken, Lorne Campbell, Freya Maes, Catherine Reynolds and Griet Steyaert) was given the opportunity to examine the Beaune Last Judgement as part of the research project The Heritage of Rogier van der Weyden: Painting in Brussels 1450-1520.1 The Beaune polyptych, painted between 1443 and 1451, measures 220 ≈ 547.6 cm.2 It consists of fifteen painted surfaces (ill. 2.1). The six visible when it is closed show Saint Sebastian, Saint

Anthony and the Annunciation as uncoloured stone statues in trompe-l’œil. Flanking the saints are, on the left, a panel showing the donor – Nicolas Rolin – kneeling at prayer, and on the right his wife Guigone de Salins. When this was opened the relatively somber greys and blacks (albeit with red and gold brocade hangings behind the donors) were replaced by a spectacular depiction of the Last Judgement. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, all the naked bodies were concealed by overpainting them with garments or flames.3 By 1875-1878 the paintings, which showed many losses in the paint layer, were restored. The overpaint was removed, the double-sided panels were split so that both sides could be on display and six of the fifteen painted surfaces were transferred to canvas.4 These transferred parts now look significantly different to the rest of the altarpiece, being more badly damaged and showing the pattern of the canvas weave.5 Nowadays the polyptych is no longer in the chapel it was painted for but has been moved to a larger space within the Hospice where it is shown, open on one wall, with the outer sides of the shutters displayed on an adjacent wall. Part of our work in 2012 involved the recording by Freya Maes of a comprehensive set of new infrared reflectograms using the Brussels Museum’s Osiris system. We had only a couple of days and had to work in situ, the paintings behind solid

28

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

metal barriers and the room open to the public, although fortunately the number of tourists in Burgundy in January was relatively small. The central panel is 212 cm high by 101 cm wide and the total surface area of the polyptych is 11.76 m2, and so, even with the relatively rapid nature of the capture using Osiris, we had to be selective about which areas could be recorded. The resulting body of infrared reflectograms recorded include most of panel 1, the bottom 2/3 of the central panel and representative details from all other panels except 8 and 11. As we were particularly interested in trying to identify the other artists working with Rogier we did not record the figure of Christ – the one part of the painting which everybody writing about it seem to agree is by Rogier himself. Before elaborating on the results of our new study, it is worth reviewing what has been published up to now about the collaboration of Rogier van der Weyden with other painters in this altarpiece. Although the Beaune polyptych is not signed and there are no contemporary documents – a contract or a payment – nor a tradition connected to it, it is clear it was painted for the Hospice of Beaune that was founded on 4th August 1443.6 The iconography of the altarpiece is clearly related to the location. On the closed altarpiece, the founders of the hospice – Nicolas Rolin and his wife Guigone de Salins – are portrayed as donors. The first patron of the Hospice, Saint Anthony is represented next to Saint Sebastian. Both saints are invoked against epidemic illnesses. The opened altarpiece depicts the Last Judgement, an appropriate subject for a hospital. The polyptych is first mentioned in 1501 in an inventory of the hospital. This document gives a description of the subject and the donors and specifies that the polyptych was placed on the High Altar of the Hospice chapel. No word is said, however, about its author or place of origin.7 In 1843, Passavant attributed the polyptych to ‘Roger of Bruges’.8 He introduced the idea that the master did not work alone but with the help of his workshop. He gave the Saint Sebastian and Saint

Anthony on the closed altarpiece to an apprentice. Since then, the attribution to Rogier and his workshop has been generally accepted, however, opinions differ in determining which parts of the polyptych were painted by the master and which by apprentices or collaborators. After Passavant, most authors gave the central, or principal part to Rogier and recognized he got help from collaborators, without being more specific.9 In 1916, Max J. Friedländer expressed hesitation in the attribution of the Beaune altarpiece to Rogier.10 He laconically stated that maybe the attribution had never been questioned because only a few scholars had actually seen the altarpiece. In 1924 he classified the altarpiece as a work by Rogier, while emphasizing that particular caution is needed when making a stylistic judgement about the Beaune altarpiece because of its condition, with some paint layers transferred to canvas and all the old damages rendered invisible by the restoration treatment.11 Friedländer does not say anything about collaboration. In the first major study dedicated exclusively to the Beaune polyptych, the corpus volume of 1973, Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen focused on the collaboration of Rogier with his workshop.12 She took the underdrawing into account to try to understand the work division and considered certain infrared photographs very revelatory in this context.13 She believed that the underdrawing of the transferred paint layers was almost completely lost. Veronee-Verhaegen distinguished different hands, Rogier and some assistants, at the level of both the underdrawing and the paint layers. She suggested that in certain places, different painters might have executed the underdrawing, the paint layers above or the final glazes on top and describes this as ‘horizontal collaboration’. Whereas in other places she finds ‘vertical collaboration’, when two or more painters have worked alongside one another on different figures or motifs. So in her opinion the creation of the Beaune polyptych is complex, with horizontal and vertical collaboration of the master and his workshop.14

the beaune last judgement

Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen assumed that Rogier would have designed the whole composition in the form of one or more drawings which are now lost and that Rolin probably approved one of these drawings. She accepted Micheline Sonkes’ conjecture that the underdrawing of Rogier van der Weyden is strictly linear.15 On this basis she attributed certain parts of the underdrawing to Rogier. She pointed out that in certain areas the underdrawing is clearly visible in the infrared photographs, whereas in other areas it can hardly be discerned. In Christ, the Virgin, Saint John the Baptist, the Archangel Michael, most of the resurrected figures, and the donors on the closed altarpiece the underdrawing is hardly visible in the infrared photographs and hatching is lacking. She concluded that these parts of the underdrawing must be attributed to Rogier. She noticed some hatching in the Archangel Michael and the resurrected figures and stated that an assistant could have added these. Other parts of the underdrawing, which are easily visible in the infrared photographs, are very elaborate and include hatching and must therefore, according to her, be attributed to an assistant. These parts are the trumpeting angels, Saints Peter, Paul and John the Evangelist, certain apostles and Saints Anthony and Sebastian on the closed altarpiece. Veronee-Verhaegen found yet another kind of underdrawing in the angels carrying the passion instruments. She believed this could be the work of an apprentice with, perhaps, corrections by the master. Discussing the paint layers Veronee-Verhaegen stated that Rogier painted the most important figures: Christ, the Virgin, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Michael, most of the resurrected figures and the donors and the statues on the closed altarpiece (ill. 2.2a). In her opinion, Rogier also painted most of the heavenly figures that are seated in the front: Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint John the Evangelist and some of the male and female saints. Other parts of the altarpiece are, in her opinion, entirely painted by the workshop: the trumpeting angels,

29

the angel that accompanies the resurrected figures to the gate of Heaven, the other apostles, some of the resurrected figures on the panels at the extremities of the altarpiece, the male and female saints that were added behind the other figures in panel 2 and 6,16 the panels with the angels carrying the passion instruments,17 the architecture and the landscape and a part of the accessories of the donor portraits. Veronee-Verhaegen concluded that Rogier van der Weyden painted the most important figures and the ones in the foreground (the front row in Heaven and the resurrected figures) whereas those more in the background should be attributed to assistants. In his review of Veronee-Verhaegen, Josua Bruyn doubted that Rogier – for whom the geometrical construction of the composition is so important – would have left the underdrawing, with all the indications of the motifs at the correct scale, to assistants.18 He argued that certain parts of the underdrawing might be elaborated more with hatching because Rogier wanted to entrust these parts to assistants to paint. Concerning the paint layers, Bruyn accepted most of the division of hands proposed by Veronee-Verhaegen (ill. 2.2b). However, he did not believe that all the naked figures are painted by Rogier van der Weyden because he noticed a clear difference in quality between the man and the woman under the scales on the central panel. He disagreed with Veronee-Verhaegen about other figures, which are painted, in his opinion, by a skilful assistant and not by Rogier: Saints Peter, Paul, John the Evangelist and the three male saints to the left as well as the two female saints furthest to the right. Jan Piet Filedt Kok recognized that the pictorial quality tends to support Veronee-Verhaegen’s idea that the central figures are autograph, while those on the wings were painted in part or completely by assistants.19 However, he questioned her means of distinguishing hands by the style of the underdrawing: strictly linear or with hatching. Filedt Kok agreed with Bruyn that the hatching might have been done by Rogier, as an aid for the assistants,

30

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

Ill. 2.2. Diagram representing different opinions on the work division in the workshop of Rogier van der Weyden when painting the Beaune polyptych

the beaune last judgement

although he stressed this is difficult to prove. He pointed out that differences in what can be seen in infrared photographs can occur due to varying thickness of the paint layers and whether the pigments can be penetrated by infrared rays. Filedt Kok attributed the entire middle panel to Rogier as well as the Virgin, Saint John and all the naked figures of the resurrected (ill. 2.2c). He disagreed with Veronee-Verhaegen and Bruyn concerning the trumpeting angels, which are in his opinion painted by Rogier. He did not accept the figures to the left of the Virgin and to the right of Saint John as being by Rogier: ‘The differences in painting style are not pronounced: in the autograph sections the paint is handled with somewhat greater fluency and virtuosity and in the other sections with more care, more effort’.20 He regarded the donors on the outer wings as by Rogier, Saints Anthony and Sebastian close to autograph quality and the Annunciation as weak. In two subsequent articles,21 Veronee-Verhaegen reacted to the reviews by Bruyn and Filedt Kok and focused again on the collaboration of Rogier’s workshop. In her opinion, the modifications which are found in the underdrawing should also be attributed to Rogier, the creator of the altarpiece.22 Such modifications can be seen in the bodies of the resurrected, the statues on the outer panels and the donor portraits. Most significantly there are two important changes to the general composition of the middle panel: the vertical axis was emphasized by shifting Christ and the rainbow upwards and elongating the archangel at the bottom; and the bar of the scales was tilted in the other direction. In 1973, Veronee-Verhaegen believed that both the underdrawing and the painting of the trumpeting angels were by an assistant. In these later articles, she changed her mind and argued that Rogier painted the trumpeting angels on top of a drawing by an assistant (ill. 2.2d).23 In 1973, she attributed Saints Peter, Paul, John the Evangelist and the saints seated in Heaven on the first row to Rogier himself. In the early eighties, she nuanced this idea, she hesitated whether they should be partly

31

attributed to Rogier or to an assistant who was very close to the master.24 She also suggested that the altarpiece was created in two phases: a first phase under the supervision of the master, and a second, hurried phase in his absence. This would explain certain mediocre aspects in the execution in paint, like the two awkward heads that were added behind the apostles. She believed that this addition should be attributed entirely to the workshop, possibly after Rogier left for Italy in 1450. Without being comprehensive, Odile Delenda expressed some thoughts on the work division.25 She gave the two principal figures in the central panel to Rogier, whereas she believed the trumpeting angels must have been painted with some participation of the workshop and the assistants have painted the doors of Heaven. On the closed altarpiece, she thought the faces of the donors were painted by Rogier. The rest was done by his assistants. In 1982, J.R.J. Van Asperen de Boer and his team examined the Beaune altarpiece with infrared reflectography.26 The results of this research were published ten years later in a major study on the underdrawing of Van der Weyden and the Master of Flémalle. Van Asperen de Boer’s discussion of the underdrawing of the altarpiece is based on VeroneeVerhaegen’s division of hands. He accepted her idea that the creation of the Beaune altarpiece involved horizontal and vertical collaboration between Rogier and several assistants. As we have seen, Veronee-Verhaegen’s division is mainly based on the presence or absence of hatching. For Van Asperen de Boer this, however, is not a criterion. He distinguished at least four, perhaps five different hands in the underdrawing of the Beaune polyptych.27 The underdrawing of the most important figures was probably done by Rogier himself. These include Christ and the archangel, the Virgin, Saint John the Baptist, the pope on the second panel and the donors. Van Asperen argued that, although there are no immediate parallels in other paintings of the Van der Weyden group, there are similarities with the underdrawing in the Philadelphia Crucifix-

32

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

ion which is, in his opinion, the work of Rogier van der Weyden.28 He also saw some similarities between the underdrawing of the donor panels and the donor of the Bladelin Triptych in Berlin.29 Van Asperen de Boer was less sure about the underdrawing of the trumpeting angels of the central panel and the ones with the passion instruments on the small top panels. These could be the work of Rogier van der Weyden or not. Here he made comparisons with the underdrawing of the Uffizi Lamentation in Florence, the shutters of the Vienna Crucifixion and of the angels in the Antwerp Seven Sacraments.30 He also believed there are similarities with the fold lines in the Berlin Saint John Altarpiece and the Frankfurt Medici Madonna.31 He saw comb-like hatchings and ‘rapid’, rather imprecise modelling with hatching as common features. Van Asperen de Boer distinguished a further three different hands. In his opinion, the saints, with exception of the pope in the second panel, and the apostles are underdrawn with hatching too abundant to be drawn by Rogier. Another hand would have drawn the resurrected figures and maybe also the Annunciation panels on the closed altarpiece. Van Asperen de Boer argued that this type of underdrawing consists only of contours and little, if any, hatching. He suggested that this might be the draughtsman of the central panel of the Cambrai Altarpiece (the Prado Redemption Triptych), the presumed Vrancke van der Stockt.32 Yet, another artist would have done the underdrawing of Saint Anthony and possibly Saint Sebastian. The fanshaped hatchings that are found here, have, according to Van Asperen de Boer, no parallel in the works of the Van der Weyden group. Van Asperen de Boer noticed that all changes in the composition (apart from the position of the arm of the scales) occurred in a first stage of the underpainting, since only the forms visible at the surface can be seen on the X-radiographs. He described this as a recurrent phenomenon in the Van der Weyden group. Although he recognized that it could be a general hallmark of workshop practice, he prefers another hypothesis:

in the Beaune altarpiece, Rogier himself would have executed the underpainting, on top of the underdrawing which was mainly done by assistants. The master would have further supervised the work. The weaker aspects of the altarpiece may be explained by the collaboration of assistants painting out the master’s underpainting. An artist who otherwise did not work in Rogier’s workshop may have painted, according to Van Asperen de Boer, the panels with the angels with passion instruments.33 He argued that the infrared reflectograms show that a carbon containing pigment must have been used in one of the paint layers beneath the surface of the angels’ robes, and this is a technical aspect that was not encountered elsewhere in the Van der Weyden/Flémalle groups. Like Van Asperen de Boer, Jellie Dijkstra gave the underdrawing to Rogier and four assistants of his.34 In her opinion, however, the underdrawing of most of the apostles and saints should be attributed to Rogier and not to an assistant. Dirk De Vos recognized that the underdrawing is very disparate and he repeated that half of it is lost.35 He did not want to exclude that there could have been a complicated interaction between different assistants, however, he preferred Bruyn’s idea that the master would have included more hatching in the areas that were to be painted by assistants. In his opinion most of the underdrawing fits with drawing found in other works by Rogier van der Weyden.36 Only the underdrawing of Saints Sebastian and Anthony, which he describes as rather dry and mechanical, is clearly by another hand. According to De Vos the following figures are painted by Rogier: Christ, the Virgin, Saints John and Michael, the two female saints on the far right, most of the damned and also the clouds and the stippling on the golden background but not the stippling on the small wing panels (ill. 2.2e). All the other heavenly figures and the blessed are completely or in part painted by assistants. He described the angels with the passion tools as particularly different. In his opinion the earth that bursts open, the rocks in the Hell and the plants are

the beaune last judgement

painted by a very weak assistant. All the figures on the closed altarpiece, including the donors, should be attributed to the workshop.37 Lorne Campbell also attributes the altarpiece to Rogier van der Weyden, working with his assistants.38 Several scholars have attempted to put names to assistants who collaborated with Rogier to paint the Beaune altarpiece. It has been proposed that Memling could be one of the collaborators. Alphonse Wauters, in 1855, was the first to suggest this. He does not specify which parts of the altarpiece would be by Memling.39 The idea seems only to be based on the fact that Memling’s Gdansk Last Judgement is reminiscent of the Beaune composition.40 When Friedländer wrote about the Gdansk Last Judgement, he noted that Memling only copied the figure of Christ from the Beaune altarpiece.41 He believed Memling must have owned a drawing, which he might have drawn or copied himself and wondered whether Memling could have been present in Rogier’s workshop at the time the altarpiece was painted. He did not express any thoughts on an eventual collaboration by Memling in the Beaune altarpiece. Jules Destrée rejected the idea that Memling could be a collaborator.42 To Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen, it also seemed very unlikely that Memling, who probably did spend several years in Rogier’s workshop, could be one of the collaborators.43 She argued that no part of the underdrawing or the paint layers can be convincingly attributed to him and that Memling’s Gdansk Last Judgement is profoundly different. Van Asperen de Boer said clearly that none of the underdrawing is like Memling.44 He did not exclude however that Memling could have participated in painting parts of the Beaune polyptych. Although in more recent publications on Memling and the Gdansk Last Judgement, it has been recognized that Memling must have seen the Beaune altarpiece or preparatory drawings of the composition, the idea that Memling would have actually helped painting the Beaune altarpiece was not repeated.45 A second name that has been proposed as a collaborator on the Beaune altarpiece is Vrancke van

33

der Stockt. As we know from a document, Vrancke van der Stockt was a Brussels painter who was present at the signing of a notarial deed, together with two other witnesses, in the dining room of Rogier van der Weyden on September 6, 1453.46 This fact gave rise to the surmise that Vrancke was a close collaborator with Rogier van der Weyden. On the basis of this premise, Georges Hulin de Loo proposed that the follower of Rogier who painted the Redemption Triptych, now in the Prado, was Vrancke van der Stockt.47 Actually, the name ‘Vrancke van der Stockt’ can not be linked to any painting. Most scholars have recognized this, but despite this fact, they have persisted in identifying the Master of the Redemption of the Prado as Vrancke van der Stockt.48 It was Veronee-Verhaegen who suggested that maybe one of the collaborators of the Beaune altarpiece might have been Vrancke van der Stockt.49 Veronee-Verhaegen argued that certain stylistic elements in the Beaune polyptych, such as the hard contour lines in the faces of the apostles or the angels, show similarities to the Last Judgement in Valencia by Vrancke van der Stockt (the Master of the Redemption of the Prado).50 This is another composition that is inspired by the Beaune polyptych. Bruyn agreed with Veronee-Verhaegen that the presumed Vrancke van der Stockt could have been one of the assistants. In 1986, Sonkes repeated that Vrancke van der Stockt (the Master of the Redemption of the Prado) might be one of the collaborators who have worked on the Beaune polyptych.51 Her arguments focused mainly on a comparison of the underdrawing with that of the Annunciation by Vrancke van der Stockt (the Master of the Redemption of the Prado) in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Dijon.52 She saw a lot of similarities between the underdrawing of the Dijon Annunciation and the panel with Saint Peter in the Beaune altarpiece in which the hands and the clothes are elaborately underdrawn. In her opinion, the underdrawing of two or three of the trumpeting angels can also be attributed to the same hand. She further made one comparison of the painted figures and saw similarities between the modelling of the

34

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

blessed man that is guided to Heaven by the angel in the Beaune altarpiece and the monster in the Valencia Last Judgement.53 Van Asperen de Boer suggested that the underdrawing of the resurrected figures and maybe also of the Annunciation of the Beaune polyptych could have been done by Vrancke van der Stockt (the Master of the Redemption of the Prado), who drew also the central panel of the Redemption Triptych in the Prado.54 For Dijkstra it was very probable that the Master of the Redemption of the Prado was one of the assistants who worked on the Beaune Last Judgement.55 She argued that there are striking similarities between the underdrawing of certain heads of saints in the Beaune Last Judgement56 and the underdrawing of the head of the angel in the Dijon Annunciation, which she accepts as a characteristic work of the group Van der Stockt. Veronee-Verhaegen suggested that the Master of the Legend of Saint Catherine, who has often been identified as Rogier’s son, Pieter van der Weyden, should also be examined further in this context.57 She argued that the angel leading the blessed to Paradise in the Beaune altarpiece is reminiscent of the style of the Master of the Legend of Saint Catherine. Some scholars have pointed out that one or more of the painters of the Saint Hubert panels, now in the National Gallery, London,58 and Getty Museum, Los Angeles59 might have worked also on the Beaune polyptych. Bruyn60 is the first to suggest this. He writes that the painters (in plural) of both Saint Hubert panels could have been among the Beaune collaborators, without further specifications. Campbell attributed the Exhumation of Saint Hubert in the National Gallery to Rogier van der Weyden in collaboration with several assistants.61 He believes that at least one of them might also have contributed to the Beaune Last Judgement. He compared the head of the acolyte next to Saint Hubert, seen from above and ambitiously foreshortened, with some of the foreshortened heads, seen from below in the Beaune Last Judgement and found them to some extent similar.

He also compared the lost profile of the youth on the right and his foreshortened ear with the falling female nude of the Beaune altarpiece. Campbell attributed the head of the acolyte and the youth to a gifted assistant of Rogier van der Weyden. In his opinion Louis the Pious and his attendant resemble in style some of the secondary figures in the Beaune altarpiece and may be by a less competent assistant. De Vos believed that the assistant who painted some of the apostles in the Beaune altarpiece also painted several figures in the Exhumation of Saint Hubert, a very large part of the Lamentation in the Mauritshuis in The Hague and maybe the wing panels of the Seven Sacraments in Antwerp.62 Veronee-Verhaegen emphasized that Rogier was running a large workshop and believed that this workshop also helped to paint other works of the mid 1450’s, such as the Antwerp Seven Sacraments.63 She thought that about fifteen male heads in the Seven Sacraments, identified because they are in worse condition than the rest of the painting, could be the work of assistants.64 Bruyn agreed that in the Seven Sacraments a similar collaboration between Rogier and assistants as had been identified in the Beaune altarpiece might be found, however he thought that the heads in poor condition in the Seven Sacraments could not be attributed to a painter from Rogier’s workshop. Other names have also been proposed in attempting to identify collaborators of Rogier van der Weyden in the Beaune altarpiece. Lafond wrote that Dirk Bouts might have worked on the altarpiece.65 Destrée refuted this.66 Bruyn67 enumerated further possible candidates: the painter of the Riggisberg Abegg Triptych,68 the painter of Saints Apollonia and Margareth in the Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,69 and the painter of the Nativity Polyptych in the Cloisters, New York70 considered by Bruyn as a very poor, possibly northern French artist. All this summarizes what has been said in the art historical literature about the collaboration of Rogier van der Weyden and his workshop on the Beaune altarpiece.

the beaune last judgement

Grateful for the exceptional opportunity we had to examine the Beaune polyptych in January 2012, in what follows, we would like to present our conclusions on the question of the collaboration in the Beaune altarpiece. First Rachel Billinge will focus on the underdrawing as it is documented in the set of new infrared reflectograms, recorded by Freya Maes using the Brussels Museum’s Osiris system. After that, Griet Steyaert, who was able to scrutinize the panels during the three days we were working in Beaune, will concentrate on the paint layer. Her intimate knowledge of the Antwerp Seven Sacraments, which she restored in 2006-2009, is particularly useful in making the comparison between the two altarpieces. The underdrawing made visible by infrared reflectography is bold, free-hand, in a liquid medium, made using a brush (ill. 2.3). It typically consists of simple outlines often, but not always, elaborated with hatching for shadows. Probably the most noticeable feature across the panels is the extent to which this underdrawing is not followed in the paint layers. One of the most radical changes in the whole design occurs in the central panel, which one might expect to be the one most likely to have been planned in advance and possibly even agreed with the donor, and therefore the least likely to show large changes. Saint Michael was underdrawn holding the scales of justice tipped so that the pan on his right (our left) was below that on his left (ill. 2.4). The pans are quite carefully underdrawn with cross-hatching for the deep shadow inside and parallel hatching outside, but no resurrected soul is drawn in either pan. This orientation, with the soul destined for Heaven being heavier than the one headed for hell was the traditional way of depicting the scene and continued to be the most usual (as in Memling’s Last Judgement in Gdansk, painted about twenty years later). By reversing the scales Rogier has set up a rhythm and pattern across the central panels so that Michael’s hands and the position of the scales echo Christ’s hands above, and further out, the cross held by the angel in the

35

Ill. 2.3. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR: detail from panel 4 showing angel on right blowing trumpet

top left is at the same angle and this angle is echoed again in the diagonals of the arms of the figures heading for Hell.71 The figure of Christ was not studied in our new work but we did get to the top of Michael’s head (ill. 2.5). The globe was lower, so the top of Michael’s head as painted touches the underdrawn globe. Michael’s eyes are underdrawn lower than they were painted although the mouth and chin have not moved. It is also possible to see that Christ’s drapery and foot were lower to match the lower position of the globe (with drawing for a fold of drapery covering and hiding his left foot). Fewer changes were made to the angels blowing trumpets (ill. 2.3) although the painted folds in their draperies do not exactly follow the underdrawing. The man in the lower left corner of this panel is, of course, a later addition since he is painted where the pan of the scales was to be (ill. 2.6). It is difficult to make out underdrawing for this painted figure partly because of the use of dark lines as part of the final painting, but below his right hand are

36

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

Ill. 2.4. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR: detail from panel 4 showing the bottom half of Saint Michael and the scales

the beaune last judgement

37

Ill. 2.5. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR: detail from panel 4 showing Christ’s feet, the globe and the head of Saint Michael

38

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

Ill. 2.6. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR: detail from panel 4 showing resurrected man in lower left corner

the beaune last judgement

lines that appear to be underdrawing for his fingers extending over the edge of the grave. There wasn’t a lot of room in the bottom left corner, below the pan of the scales but Rogier is not the kind of artist to leave it blank and there is indeed underdrawing in this corner. The infrared image is confused by dark lines of paint of the rocks and plants but clear is a left arm and hand, and a right hand and shoulder. There must have been a head but its exact position is more difficult to determine. Here was drawn another resurrected figure emerging from the earth, looking directly out at the viewer. In the first panel the gilding of the architecture obscures any drawing there might have been but where the billowing heavenly clouds are painted it is possible to see some lines continuing the pinnacles of the architecture, replicating the pinnacles on the left of the gateway. The top of the righthand pinnacle does emerge from behind the cloud so this may just be a practical way of making sure it lines up, but there is slightly more detail than is strictly necessary, suggesting that the whole gateway may have been drawn before the clouds were added. In this panel all three of the resurrected figures have changes to their heads, arms and legs, resulting in a real flurry of hands and eyes (ill. 2.7). The angel too has been changed. In all these figures the heads were painted slightly larger than the underdrawing. Most of the other resurrected figures have been changed somewhat, for example the man to the right of panel 2 was underdrawn in a much tighter, more twisted pose (ill. 2.8). Even the little angels bearing the symbols of the passion are extensively underdrawn and have been changed. In the right hand panel (which is the one we imaged) the angels were drawn looking towards Christ but now look downwards (ill. 2.9). The same story of bold, freehand underdrawing and changes made between underdrawing and paint is true of the outside panels of the polyptych. The changes are, perhaps, less dramatic, the most major being in the two parts of the Annunciation where the vase with the lilies was painted lower

39

ll. 2.7. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR: detail from panel 1 showing the resurrected figures at the gates of Heaven

than it was drawn, and both figures had more extensive draperies (ill. 2.10). Looking at all the new infrared reflectograms it is hard to accept that the differences discussed by Veronee-Verhaegen and Van Asperen de Boer really are differences resulting from a different artist making the underdrawing. In my opinion (Billinge) the basic approach to what is being drawn is consistent across all fifteen panels. It is true that some figures are more fully hatched than others, or show more detail in the drawing of their eyes, but there are many possible reasons why an artist might include more or less detail in his underdrawing, as others such as Bruyn and Filedt Kok have already proposed.72 For an artist like Rogier van der Weyden, where pattern making is very important, if the pattern is being made by the overall shapes of the figures then outlines are all that is required but if the fall of shadows, or roundness of forms, are part of the pattern then they need to be part of the underdrawing.

40

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

Ill. 2.8. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR: detail from panel 2 showing the resurrected man at the right of the panel

the beaune last judgement

It is generally accepted that most of the central part, Christ, the Virgin, Saint John the Baptist and Saint Michael were painted by Rogier himself (ill. 2.2). In my opinion (Steyaert) the master also painted the trumpeting angels (ill. 2.2f). Contrary to Veronee-Verhaegen and in accordance with Van Asperen de Boer, I do not believe that Rogier van der Weyden painted all the figures in the foreground. He only painted the most important figures, that are the most sacred, and the commissioners of the altarpiece. I agree with VeroneeVerhaegen that the donors are painted by Rogier and think that Saint Sebastian, Saint Anthony and the Annunciation were painted by a very skilful, first assistant. Most of the elect and damned figures must be attributed to the same assistant. The figures that are tumbling in Hell on the extreme right panel are painted by another assistant that is clearly less skilful. This might very well be the same assistant who painted the small panels depicting the angels with the passion instruments. For some parts I hesitate whether they should be attributed to Rogier van der Weyden or to his first assistant. This is the case for the man that stands up from his grave in the bottom left corner of the middle panel and for the two souls in the pans of the balance. To demonstrate that the elect and damned figures are painted by an assistant we can juxtapose the face of the Virgin73 with the head of the blessed woman74 on the same panel. Although specific elements of the saved woman are well painted, the ensemble gives the impression of a doll. Her mouth appears to be stuck on, whereas in the Virgin the modelling is very fluid. To illustrate that not all the apostles in the foreground were painted by Rogier, as Veronee-Verhaegen thought, a similar comparison can be made between the head of Saint John the Baptist (ill. 2.11) and the one of Saint Paul (ill. 2.12). The modelling of the face of Saint John is dynamic. One senses the bone structure under the skin and the tension of the skin over the bone. The face seems to be alive whereas in the face of Saint Paul we recognize the puppet-like aspect. The difference can also be clearly seen when we

41

Ill. 2.9. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR: detail from panel 9 showing changes to the head of an angel with symbols of the Passion

compare the feet of Christ75 with the feet of Saint Peter.76 In the first mentioned, Rogier painted a convincing rendition of a physical foot, in the latter the assistant paints a more schematic foot with rather wooden toes. A fourth comparison illustrating that not all the apostles on the foreground are painted by Rogier can be made by looking at the morse fastening the cope of the archangel77 and the one of the pope sitting behind Saint Peter.78 In the archangel’s morse Rogier captures the hard crispness of the metal and the three dimensional aspect of the red stone at its centre, whereas the highlights on the Pope’s morse are schematically applied by the assistant, one doesn’t have the sensation of metal, and the translucency of the stones is not nearly so well rendered. It is generally accepted that the damned tumbling in Hell on the extreme right panel are painted by a less skilful assistant. The difference in quality can be noticed if we compare, for example, the damned man who bites on his hand which is painted by the better assistant (ill. 2.13) and the man that tumbles into the flames while a woman is

42

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

Ill. 2.10. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). IRR of panel 15, Virgin Annunciate

the beaune last judgement

grasping his leg and his hair, painted by the less skilful assistant (ill. 2.14). In the latter, the creases around the mouth and the frown lines on the brows are just indicated without rendering the volume. The same lack of volume can be noticed in the hands. One hand shows rather crude and systematically applied highlights between each finger. It is clear Rogier painted only the most important figures, other parts were left to assistants. So the question arises again: can we identify these assistants? Although the Master of the Redemption of the Prado clearly knew several compositions of Rogier van der Weyden, including the Beaune altarpiece, he did not help to paint the Beaune altarpiece.79 A comparison between Saint John the Evangelist80 in the latter with the same saint in the key-work of the Master of the Redemption of the Prado81 clearly illustrates this. A signature feature of the Master of the Redemption of the Prado, when painting at a certain scale, is the systematically applied hatching brushstrokes, as seen along the bridge of the nose and around the contours of the mouth of Saint John. This signature feature is not found in any of the Beaune altarpiece heads. The hand of the Master of the Legend of Saint Catherine can not be found back in the Beaune altarpiece82 and there is no indication that Rogier’s son, Pieter van der Weyden, would have collaborated here. Pieter was six to fourteen years old in the period that the polyptych was painted.83 Steyaert has argued that the Antwerp Seven Sacraments was also painted by Rogier van der Weyden, collaborating with two assistants (ill. 2.15)84 and she suggested that the same two assistants collaborated with Rogier to paint the Beaune polyptych.85 The central panel of the Seven Sacraments is entirely by Rogier, with the exception of the face and the hands of the third Mary whose body is on the left panel. Rogier also painted the angels on the side panels. It appears that the master continued painting the left panel, building up the composition from the background towards the front, until

43

Ill. 2.11. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). Detail of panel 5, Saint John the Baptist

Ill. 2.12. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). Detail of panel 6 by the first assistant, Saint Paul

44

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

Ill. 2.13. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). Detail of panel 5 by the first assistant, the damned man who bites on his hand

Ill. 2.14. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). Detail of panel 7 by the second assistant, man that tumbles into the flames

he had completed the portrait of the commissioner. Clearly of his hand are the Holy Communion taking place in the background, the scene of Confession and part of the Confirmation: Chevrot who is the donor of the altarpiece, the man on his left and the children in front of them. Rogier often applied the paint wet in wet with the same astounding conviction and proficiency that is found in the Prado Descent from the Cross, the Escorial Crucifixion and the Berlin Miraflores Altarpiece.86 After Rogier had finished the portrait of the donor his assistant completed the left panel. It is the assistant who painted the man in black who partially hides Chevrot’s cope,87 as well as the scene of Baptism. He was also responsible for the greater part of the three sacraments represented on the right panel, the reading woman and the inserted portrait heads painted on tin leaf.88 Although this assistant’s technique is closely related to his master’s, he was less skilful, he delineated faces and hands with hard, dark lines,

made bodies and folds look wooden and lacking in volume, did not always show mastery of anatomy, was sometimes not convincing in foreshortening and his achievements are not always consistent.89 This difference in quality is for instance visible if one compares the face of the third Mary with the face of the Mary kneeling at the cross.90 A second assistant has worked in the lower right corner of the Seven Sacraments. In the scene of Extreme Unction, the kneeling clergyman and the lower part of the priest’s garment are distinctly inferior in execution and rendering of volume.91 In painting the Beaune Last Judgement Rogier van der Weyden worked with the same two assistants. Both altarpieces were painted in the same decade, the Beaune altarpiece was painted between 1443 and 1451 and the Seven Sacraments can be dated c. 14401445. The first assistant, who was very skilful, painted most of the apostles, the saints and the blessed and damned figures in the Beaune polyptych.

the beaune last judgement

45

Ill. 2.15. Diagram representing the work division in the workshop of Rogier van der Weyden when painting the Seven Sacraments (c. 1440-1445, oil on panels, 200 x 97 cm (central panel), 119 x 63 cm (wings), Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 393-395)

On the closed altarpiece, he painted Saint Sebastian, Saint Anthony and the Annunciation. Some comparisons between details of both masterpieces support this idea. The head of the blessed men who kneels below Saint Peter in the Beaune Altarpiece92 can be compared with that of the man in black next to Chevrot in the Seven Sacraments.93 Both look a bit wooden, their eyes are not convincingly rendered

and their ears lack volume. Another comparison can be made between the third female saint (ill. 2.16) in the Beaune altarpiece and one of the ladies of the Baptism in the Seven Sacraments (ill. 2.17). Both heads have a similar doll like aspect.94 The second assistant painted the figures that are tumbling in Hell on the extreme right panel and maybe also the small panels depicting angels with

46

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

Ill. 2.16. Rogier van der Weyden, Last Judgement Polyptych (ill. 2.1). Detail of panel 6 by the first assistant, the third female saint

the passion instruments in the Beaune polyptych. The same lack of volume that can be noticed in the man that tumbles into the flames while a woman is grasping his leg and his hair95 is found in the head and hand of the kneeling clergyman in the scene of Extreme Unction in the Seven Sacraments.96 In the clergyman the frown lines, the hand and the shoulder are lacking volume. The distinctly inferior execution of the lower part of the garments of the priest and the kneeling clergyman can be compared with the quality of the right panel of the Beaune polyptych.

Not only the same painters have been at work in both the Beaune altarpiece and the Seven Sacraments, but also the work division appears to be comparable (ills. 2.2f, 2.15). The master, Rogier van der Weyden, painted the central, most sacred parts and he portrayed the donors, most other work was left to his first assistant and some parts were painted by a less skilful or maybe less experienced painter (an apprentice?). It is interesting to note that the less skilful assistant was allowed to work on the right part of both altarpieces. To us, who are so used to read from left to right and maybe expect a crescendo with a

the beaune last judgement

47

Ill. 2.17. Rogier van der Weyden, Seven Sacraments Altarpiece, c. 1440-1445, oil on panels, 200 x 97 cm (central panel), 119 x 63 cm (wings), Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 393-395. Detail by the first assistant, one of the ladies of the Baptism

climax at the end, this might seem strange. In the fifteenth century, the right side is in fact the left hand side of God, the side of the damned, the bad side. It is tempting to think that maybe in a fifteenth century workshop, this ‘bad side’ would be assigned to the one that is the lowest in the workshop hierarchy. We may conclude that the Beaune Last Judgement can be attributed to Rogier van der Weyden in collaboration with other painters of his workshop. Rogier designed and oversaw the whole

commission but the painting was shared between himself and two assistants in the same way as he worked on other commissions at this time. The Master of the Redemption of the Prado was not one of these collaborators. Rogier van der Weyden worked with one or maybe both assistants with whom he painted the Seven Sacraments. In addition, the division of work appears to be comparable. The master painted only the most important parts that are the most sacred parts and the commissioners, the rest was left to the assistants.

48

griet steyaert and rachel billinge

NOTES 1 The research project The Heritage of Rogier van der Weyden: Painting in Brussels 1450-1520 was conducted by Véronique Bücken and Griet Steyaert from 2009 to 2013. It resulted in an exhibition that tragically had to be closed three weeks after opening because of water infiltration in the Galleries. Fortunately their work is reflected in the book that accompanied the exhibition. We are extremely grateful to Bruno François who is responsible for the collections in the Hospice of Beaune and who allowed us to examine the Last Judgement during three days in situ and who helped us in so many ways. 2 This is in the open position. For detailed measurements and dating, see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pp. 3, 70-75. 3 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, p. 78, pls. 221-232. 4 The numbering of the fifteen painted surfaces used in this article follows that used by Veronee-Verhaegen: numbering from left to right, bottom to top, across the inside before the outside. VeroneeVerhaegen 1973, p. 2. The painted surfaces that were transferred to canvas are the following: 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13. 5 When comparing details, it is particularly important to take into account the differences in the condition of the panels of the Beaune altarpiece. It is equally important to consider and respect the proportional size of the compared elements. 6 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, p. 62. 7 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pp. 62, 63, 109, pl. 239. 8 Passavant 1843, pp. 245-246, 249. At that time a distinction was made between a ‘Rogier from Bruges’ and another one from Brussels, a confusion which was spread by Van Manders’ Schilder-boeck, see: Dhanens 1995, pp. 26-29. Waagen (1856, pp. 239-240) expresses the same idea as Passavant. For a full overview of the early literature on the Beaune polyptych, see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973. 9 Esdouhard d’Anisy 1916, p. 57; Conway 1921, p. 146; Destrée 1930, pp. 154-155; Schöne 1938, p. 61; Mather 1946, pp. 276-277; Christ 1949, p. 32. Davies (1972, p. 199) attributes the interior and the donor portraits to Rogier, the rest of the closed altarpiece might have been painted by the workshop. 10 Friedländer 1916, p. 32. 11 Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 2, pp. 95-96, nr. 14; Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 2, pp. 62-63, nr. 14. 12 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pp. 88-92. 13 Veronee-Verhaegen (1973, p. 90) regretted that there were no infrared reflectograms of the Beaune polyptych available at that time. Hours (Faillant, Hours, Quarré 1954, p. 6; Hours 1957, pp. 23, 30-33, 40) compared the X-radiographs with the ones from the Braque Triptych (Paris, Musée du Louvre) and came to the conclusion that both were by the same hand, except for the figures in panels 2 and 6. 14 Veronee-Verhaegen (1973) does not use the terms ‘horizontal and vertical collaboration’ in the corpus. She introduces these terms in her later articles (Veronee-Verhaegen 1981; Veronee-Verhaegen 1983). 15 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pp. 90-91; Sonkes 1970, pp. 202207, 223; Sonkes 1971-1972. 16 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pp. 21-22. 17 Veronee-Verhaegen (1973, p. 90) points out that there is a striking difference in quality of the red dots that are applied on the gilded background: they are very mechanically executed in the angel panels and extremely lively and varied in the central panel. 18 Bruyn 1975, pp. 290-292. 19 Filedt Kok 1975-1976. 20 Filedt Kok 1975-1976, p. 189, note 4. 21 Veronee-Verhaegen 1981; Veronee-Verhaegen 1983. 22 Veronee-Verhaegen 1983, p. 11. 23 Veronee-Verhaegen 1981, p. 176; Veronee-Verhaegen 1983, p. 14. 24 Veronee-Verhaegen 1983. 25 Delenda 1987, pp. 64-70.

26 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 26-29, 181-201. They examined the polyptych over three days with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon. For technical details about the research, see: Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 52-53, note 27. The underdrawing could not be revealed satisfactorily in the panels that were transferred to canvas. 27 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 29, 198-200. 28 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 25-26, 40, 152-158, 198. About the Philadelphia Crucifixion, see: Steyaert, Tucker 2014. 29 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 25-26, 29, 31, 163, 199. 30 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, p. 199. 31 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, p. 199. 32 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 29, 40, 42. About the Prado Redemption Triptych, see: Campbell 2015, pp. 120127. About Vrancke van der Stockt and the Master of the Redemption of the Prado, see further in this text. 33 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 28-29. 34 Van Schoute, De Patoul 1994, p. 349. 35 De Vos 1999, pp. 252-265, see p. 263. 36 De Vos 1999, p. 253. 37 Beenken (1951, pp. 63, 67) believed the altarpiece, inside and outside, was painted with the help of collaborators. In his opinion certain heads on the inside of the altarpiece are more round and broad than what we are used to see with Rogier, he does not specify which heads. He was convinced the closed altarpiece was painted almost entirely by assistants. Musper (1968, p. 20) also believed the closed altarpiece was painted almost entirely by assistants. 38 Campbell 1994, p. 9; Campbell 2009a, p. 55; Campbell 2009b, p. 113. 39 Wauters 1855, p. 68. 40 About the Gdansk Last Judgement, see: Faries 1997. Lafond (1912, pp. 52-53) repeated that Memling would have worked on the altarpiece. 41 Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 4, pp. 15-16, 115-116; Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 6a, p. 14. 42 Destrée 1930, pp. 154-155. 43 Veronee-Verhaegen 1981, p. 176. In 1973 Veronee-Verhaegen (1973, p. 91) wrote that the underdrawing of the trumpeting angels reminds her of Memling. She also described traces of a coomblike tool that are found in the Beaune polyptych. She observed similar traces in Memlings’ Gdansk Last Judgement and in the Antwerp Seven Sacraments by Rogier van der Weyden. She suggested a coomblike tool might have been used in the workshop as a scraping instrument to make corrections. Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, p. 13. About these traces, see: Postec 2012, pp. 148-149. 44 Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 29, 198-201. 45 Lane 1991; Faries 1997; Bruges 1994a, p. 36; De Vos 1994, p. 361; De Vos 1999, pp. 84, 89, 163. 46 Hulin de Loo 1926-1929, col. 67. 47 Hulin de Loo 1926-1929. 48 See: Steyaert 2013b; Steyaert 2013e. 49 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, p. 92. 50 About the Last Judgement of Valencia, see: Valencia 2010, pp. 108-119. Veronee-Verhaegen (1973, p. 92) remains, however, cautious about the identification, because only a limited amount of the paintings attributed to the presumed Vrancke van der Stockt were scientifically documented at that time. 51 Comblen-Sonkes 1986, p. 216. 52 She did this in her Corpus-notition about the Annunciation from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Dijon (inv.1.290) a painting that was attributed to Vrancke van der Stockt by Hulin de Loo in 1926-1929 (col. 73). On this Annunciation, see: Steyaert, Tucker 2014.

the beaune last judgement

53 In my opinion, these details are hard to compare, and I see no particular similarities in the modelling. We have to take into account that when Sonkes made her study, no good photographs of the Valencia Triptych were available. 54 Van Asperen de Boer argues that this type of underdrawing consists only of contours and none, or very little hatching. See: note 32. 55 Van Schoute, De Patoul 1994, pp. 527, 528. 56 Dijkstra (1994, pp. 527, 528) believes other heads are underdrawn by Rogier, but she does not specify which. 57 Veronée-Verhaegen 1983, p. 15. 58 Campbell 1998a, pp. 407-427. 59 Wolfthal, Metzger 2014, pp. 140-167. 60 Bruyn 1975. 61 Campbell 1998a, pp. 422-425. 62 De Vos (1999, pp. 160, 411, 403, ills. 240-242) illustrates this with a detail of each of the three paintings. 63 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, p. 92; Veronee-Verhaegen 1983, p. 12. 64 Nowadays we know these heads are in fact painted on tin foil which has degraded over time. See: Steyaert 2012, pp. 124-132. In the Beaune altarpiece the differences in condition are mainly due to the transfer to canvas of certain panels and the removal of overpaint 65 Lafond 1912, pp. 52-53. 66 Destrée 1930, pp. 154-155. 67 Bruyn 1975. 68 Frankfurt/Berlin 2008, pp. 328-333. 69 De Vos 1999, pp. 266-267. 70 New York 1998, pp. 212-216. 71 In the Last Judgement (Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB) of Colijn de Coter, the position of the scales follows the pattern of Rogier van der Weyden’s Last Judgement Altarpiece in Beaune. See: Dubois, Slachmuylders 2001, p. 300. 72 Bruyn 1975; Filedt Kok 1975-1976. 73 For an illustration see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 34 (scale 1/1); KIK/IRPA database, negative nr. B211367; Gondinet-Wallstein 1990, p. 77. 74 For an illustration see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 41 (scale 1/1); KIK/IRPA database, negative nr. B211371; Gondinet-Wallstein 1990, p. 131. 75 For an illustration see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 62; KIK/ IRPA database, negative nr. B211401; Gondinet-Wallstein 1990, p. 140. 76 For an illustration see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 22; KIK/ IRPA database, negative nr. B211347.

49

77 For an illustration see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 92; KIK/ IRPA database, negative nr. B211434; Gondinet-Wallstein 1990, p. 117. 78 For an illustration see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 27; KIK/ IRPA database, negative nr. B211352; Gondinet-Wallstein 1990, p. 94. 79 Steyaert (2013b, p. 149) expressed this idea before. 80 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 15; KIK/IRPA database, negative nr. B211336; Gondinet-Wallstein 1990, p. 84. 81 Campbell 2015, pp. 124-125, fig. 71. 82 Steyaert 2013c. 83 Steyaert 2013d. 84 Steyaert 2012, pp. 121-122, ill. 9. 2. 85 Steyaert 2013b, p. 149. 86 De Vos 1999, pp. 185-188, 291-294, 226-233. 87 For an illustration, see: Campbell 2012, p. 138, ill. III.10.2.; see: http://www.lukasweb.be, image nr. 0030448016. 88 Steyaert 2012, pp. 124-132. 89 Compare, for instance, the bride in the Marriage with the older lady who is standing behind her (see: http://www.lukasweb.be, image nr. 0030448032) the painter succeeded in placing the eyes of the former correctly, but in the latter he was less successful. 90 See: Steyaert 2012, p. 122, ill. III.9.2. Panofsky (1953, pp. 298-302) erroneously attributed both the Riggisberg Abegg Triptych (Frankfurt/Berlin 2008, p. 332, fig. 57) and the Berlin Calvary (De Vos 1999, pp. 175-178) to an artist that had been working on the Seven Sacraments under the supervision of Rogier van der Weyden. See also: Steyaert 2012, p. 134, note 15. 91 For a reproduction see: http://www.lukasweb.be, image nr. 0030448002. 92 Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pls. 20, 41; KIK/IRPA database, negative nrs. B211335, B211371. 93 See note 87. 94 In my view, this first assistant also painted the Frankfurt Medici Madonna and the Berlin panel representing Saints Margareth and Appolonia. Steyaert 2012, p. 121. 95 For an illustration see: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, pl. 135; KIK/IRPA database, negative nr. B211508; Gondinet-Wallstein 1990, p. 129. 96 The difference in quality can be clearly seen when one compares the shoes of these figures with the shoes of other figures in the panel. The difference in quality of these details is not linked to condition of the paint layer. For a good reproduction, see: http://www. lukasweb.be, image nr. 0030448002.

Ill. 3.1. After Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Philip the Good, c. 1500, oil on panel, 52.7 x 38.8 cm, Gotha, Schlossmuseum, inv. SG 1423

3

Philip the Good Bare-headed In Search for Original and Copy Stephan Kemperdick

ABSTRACT: Only four painted portraits of Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy without headgear are known today, and two of them, in Madrid and Gotha, are extremely similar to each other. The Madrid version is often judged superior and has recently even been attributed to the workshop of Rogier van der Weyden and dated around 1450, while the other one is generally called a later copy. However, a close comparison of the two panels shows a number of obviously intentional variations between them that rather suggest a common origin. Most important among them is the exchange of a painted fly, on the Gotha panel, for a woodlouse, a unique feature on the Madrid version. These exchanges as well as some other aspects suggest that both paintings were made in the early sixteenth century.

—o— Portraits of Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy (1396-1467) still exist in a considerable number, although the vast majority of them were made long after the death of the sitter, mostly in the early sixteenth century. These posthumous likenesses were all ultimately based on a very small number of models that probably originated from the workshop of Rogier van der Weyden around the middle of the fifteenth century.1 While in most of the surviving portraits Philip sports a headgear, a chaperon, there are no more than four paintings known today that show him bare-headed. One of them was in the Schlossmuseum Gotha until 1946 when it was – illegally – brought to the art market. It is known to have been in the Fodor

Collection in Paris in the 1970s,2 but during the last five decades no scholar seems to have known it other than by age-old black and white photographs. Fortunately, in 2008 the Gotha Museum was able to retrieve the panel for their collection.3 Now I would like to re-introduce it to the scholarly community (ill. 3.1). The panel and its integrated frame were made from a single board of oak. By its overall dimensions it is 52.7 cm high, 38.8 cm wide and 4 cm thick. The painted surface measures 42.5 ≈ 27.2 cm. On the reverse there are incised lines indicating the outlines of a frame (ill. 3.2) which correspond roughly to the carved frame on the front. This design was obviously abandoned and the panel turned to be worked on the other side. The bust-length portrait of the Duke shows him without hands, his head turned slightly to the right. As usual, he wears a black robe with fur collar over a white shirt. Hanging around his neck is the heavy collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece, the grand collier (ill. 3.3), and a likewise heavy golden cross studded with stones and pearls. Immediately behind the figure appears to be a wall with oak panelling that displays two simulated joints, one on the left, another to the right of the sitter’s head. At the top of the rounded picture surface one reads the inscription ‘le • dvck • phylipe/ de • bovrgvnge’. Next to the sitter, on the left, there is a painted life-size fly, which appears to sit on the surface of the painting

52

stephan kemperdick

Ill. 3.3. After Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Philip the Good (ill. 3.1), detail: collier of the Golden Fleece

Ill. 3.2. After Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Philip the Good (ill. 3.1), reverse

rather than on the painted back wall inside the picture space. The painting is in fair condition, but the halfshades especially seem to be partially abraded and retouched. The drawing of the features and the painterly execution of the face are rather hard and graphic with details not wholly integrated into the overall plasticity of the head. The fur and the jewellery, however, are rendered with some precision and represent the different materials in a convincing way. Infrared reflectography (IRR) (ill. 3.4) does not reveal much underdrawing; there are thin contour lines visible along the chin, in the lower lid of the near eye and the upper lid of the far eye. Some hatching are discernible on the sitter’s proper right cheek which mark the concavity between cheekbone and jaw. No traces of a mechanical transfer of the outlines onto the ground can be recognized.

The head of Philip is extremely close to the other three painted portraits of the Duke without headgear, such as the copy in Berlin (Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 545A), made only after c. 1520, and another one of similar date in Antwerp (Museum voor Schone Kunsten) (ill. 3.5).4 The entire Gotha panel, however, is almost identical to the better known version in the Palacio Real in Madrid (Patrimonio Nacional, inv. 10010172) (ill. 3.6) which was present, for instance, in the Rogier van der Weyden exhibition in Louvain in 2009.5 The whole composition, including facial features, cloths and illusionistic oak-panelled background is almost identical. The same applies to the moulding of the frame, which in Madrid is also carved from the same piece of wood as the panel, and the dimensions – the Madrid version being slightly smaller, measuring 51 to 36.8 cm, than the one in Gotha with 52.7 ≈ 38.8 cm. A comparison of underdrawings is presently not possible as nothing is visible on the IRR image published by Madrid.6 The inscriptions on both panels are also very similar too; the one in Gotha was executed in

philip the good bare-headed

53

Ill. 3.4. After Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Philip the Good (ill. 3.1), IRR

mordant gilding and the same seems to be true for the version in the Palacio Real. The somewhat peculiar spelling and the shapes of the letters, including the inverted ‘n’ in ‘bovrgvnge’, are nearly identical and thus a direct relationship between the two inscriptions must exist. It was recently proposed that the inscription on the Madrid panel is a product of the late sixteenth or the early seventeenth century.7 If this was true, we would have to assume that the two, nearly identical portraits were still together around 1600 so that the same inscriptions could be added to both. As this seems highly unlikely, the similarity of the inscriptions rather suggests that they were already added in the course of the execution of the portraits – or at least when the younger of the two, if there is a difference at all, was made. In scholarly literature, the two versions of Philip’s portrait are often judged differently, which to

Ill. 3.5. After Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Philip the Good, c. 1530, oil on panel, 21 x 30 cm, Antwerp, Koninklijke Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 397

some extent might be due to the fact that the Gotha panel was not accessible for sixty years. Starting with Hulin de Loo and Friedrich Winkler,8 the Madrid version has regularly been accepted as the superior painting and sometimes even been seen as the model for the other one. For Winkler, it was an autograph work by Rogier van der Weyden, but it had been called a copy after Rogier by Max J. Friedländer, Erwin Panofsky, Dirk De Vos and others.9 Recently, the Palacio Real panel has been attributed once again to either the master of Brussels himself or to one of his best assistants in the studio and dated around 1450.10 However, the confrontation of the Madrid Philip with an undisputed portrait by Rogier, like his Antoine, Grand Bâtard de Bourgogne (Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of

54

stephan kemperdick

Ill. 3.6. After Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Philip the Good, c. 1500, oil on panel, 51 x 36.8 cm, Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional, Palacio Real, inv. 10010172

philip the good bare-headed

Belgium (KMSKB/MRBAB), inv. 1449) (ill. 3.7), is not very favourable for the former. The portrait of the Duke looks hard and stiff, the features appear lifeless in comparison. Details like the mouth are drawn sharply as if cut into the surface. The eyes, with their exaggerated greyish modelling, resemble painted wooden beads. A further and most striking difference lies in the way the collar of the Golden Fleece and the heavy cross are rendered. There is a stark contrast of dark, almost black shaded zones and sparkling highlights in the jewels of the Madrid portrait. In contrast, the Grand Bâtard’s chain looks evenly lit; it possesses a middle-tone ‘gold’ colour which is typical for all the representations of golden objects in the Rogier van der Weyden group.11 The rendering of the collar in the Madrid painting may be of high quality, as has been stated,12 but it is decidedly un-Rogerian in character! Even in comparison to the Berlin and Antwerp portraits of Duke Philip (ill. 3.5) that were made many decades after the sitter’s death, the features of the Madrid likeness look extremely hard. The Antwerp portrait, except for the retouched far eye, comes even closer to the impression of flesh that is conveyed in Rogier’s painting of the Grand Bâtard. The same applies to the Gotha version of Philip without headgear. It may even look harder than the one in Madrid, which is certainly the reason why the latter was generally seen as superior. However, the state of preservation of the Madrid painting seems to play a decisive role for its perception. In large areas, the paint surface is much abraded and the white ground is visible nearly everywhere where there should be half-shades – in places like the temples or along the edge of the jawbone the flesh tones just remain as islands on top of the whitish ground.13 To some extent, the softer appearance of the Madrid version in comparison to Gotha derives from those damages. The hard drawing and the schematic execution are otherwise fairly similar in both paintings, and the eyes for example show the same grey modelling already described in the Gotha version. The most interesting aspects of the two likenesses, however, are three differences that were

55

consciously introduced into both versions. First, there is the placement of the figure’s shadow; it is cast to the right in Gotha and to the left in Madrid. The painter, or painters, assumed two different directions of light in each respective picture. None of them is totally consistent with the way the face is lit. Generally the lighting appears more plausible in the Madrid version, where the light comes from the right and falls frontally onto the face of the sitter. Nevertheless, there are inconsistencies. The Adam’s apple is not lit from the right but from the left. The reflections in the eyes are placed to the left of the pupil and would thus indicate that the light comes from the left. Furthermore, the joints of the simulated panels behind the figure in Madrid are rendered as if lit from the left and are thus again inconsistent with the shadow of the figure cast in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the shadow cast by the golden cross on the Duke’s shirt falls in both versions to our left, which contradicts the assumed direction of light in the Gotha painting. The second difference is to be found in the Duke’s garment. In Gotha, his robe is tied at the neck with two red strings, while the heavy cross hangs from a black string. It is exactly the other way round in the Madrid painting. The third and most interesting difference regards the little animal to the left of the bust of the sitter. In Gotha, we see an ordinary fly but in Madrid there is a woodlouse and this is, to my knowledge, the only example of this species in all early Netherlandish painting. The systematic variation of the three details mentioned speaks in favour of the assumption that both the Gotha and the Madrid painting were made in the same workshop and around the same time. It would not make much sense to introduce such variations if you have to paint a copy of an existing earlier painting. Instead, it is a phenomenon found in other instances of ‘serial’ production, for example the devotional panels with the Man of Sorrows and the Mourning Virgin from the workshop of Albrecht Bouts. In these panels, the garments of Mary can differ with respect to hems and colour but not in terms of the basic design.14 The

56

stephan kemperdick

assumption that the two portraits of Duke Philip were made in the same workshop is further corroborated by the above-mentioned similarities in drawing and execution and the matching inscriptions. Certainly, there must have been a model for the likeness of the Duke. Whether this model looked more or less like the two paintings preserved remains a matter of speculation. However, from the observations made on the two versions in question we can at least conclude that the Madrid painting could not have been the model for the one in Gotha. This conclusion is based on the small but obviously intentional variations we have discussed. To exchange the colour of the strings on the sitter’s neck seems arbitrary and without much significance.15 To exchange the fly for the woodlouse, however, tells us something about the relationship of both motifs. The fly is a well-known requisite in the art of painting which goes back to an anecdote conveyed by Pliny and others. A famous painter painted a fly in such a life-like way, that another painter tried to chase it off.16 Flies are therefore found here and there in fifteenth century paintings, especially in portraits like for instance Petrus Christus’ Portrait of a Carthusian Lay Brother (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) of 1446 or in Hans Memling’s Portrait of a Man with an Arrow (Washington, National Gallery of Art), c. 1475, or in the Swabian Portrait of a Woman of the Hofer Family (London, National Gallery), c. 1470.17 In these as well as in most other examples the flies are represented in natural size, mostly much larger in scale than the sitter himself. The sense of this discrepancy in scale is clear: the insect is supposed to sit on the surface of the painting itself as a trompel’œil, intended to fool the beholder until he realizes that his eyes have been deceived and he has to acknowledge the painter’s skill. This easily applies to the Gotha painting. As mentioned above, the life-size fly seems to sit on the panel, and the painter may have subtly underlined this idea by lighting the insect from the right, which casts its little shadow in the opposite direction of the

shadow of the sitter on the inside of the pictorial space. As a crawling crustacean, a woodlouse, however, does not make any sense in this respect as it cannot fly onto and off the painting. It is remarkable and even logical in this respect that the painter of the Madrid panel did not conceive the animal as sitting on the painted surface but rather on the panelled wall inside the picture. The shadow cast by Philip’s head seems to fall upon the woodlouse which is lit, just like the sitter himself, from the right. Two possible explanations for this difference come to mind: either the painter of the Madrid panel did not understand the ‘art-theoretical’ reference of the painted fly and exchanged it without much thinking for another small animal, simply as a further variation. In this case he would not have realized that the insect was supposed to sit on the surface of the picture. Or, as a much more sophisticated possibility, he was well aware of the significance of the fly but tried a playful variation with a crawling animal which he would have placed logically inside the pictorial space – this would amount to a conscious, ironic commentary on the worn topos of the painted fly! In both cases, the two extant likenesses of the Duke could have been produced in the same workshop. If the first assumption was correct, the motif of the painted fly must have been taken over from the model that was used, i.e. an older portrait of Philip. In the second case, both animals could have been newly introduced as clever variations. In any case, the woodlouse probably was not as misplaced as it might appear to a modern viewer. In folklore belief of the late Middle Ages, a woodlouse was not so much a disgusting creature but was associated with healing powers, a means against fever, spasms and other maladies if consumed from time to time.18 Thus it would certainly not have mocked the Duke behind whose likeness it appears. Concerning the relationship of the two paintings, the Madrid version with the singular motif of the woodlouse can hardly have been the model for the one in Gotha with the standard painted fly. Given the general similarities in painterly execu-

philip the good bare-headed

57

Ill. 3.7. Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Antoine, Grand Bâtard de Bourgogne, c. 1460, oil on panel, 38.4 x 28 cm, Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 1449

58

stephan kemperdick

Ill. 3.8. Pieter Soutman, Jacob Louys, Philippus Dictus Bonus Dux Burgundiae et Belgarum Princeps Potentissimus et Serenissimus, in Duces Burgundiae, Haarlem, 1643-1644, engraving, 40.5 x 27.4 cm, London, British Museum, inv. 1876,0708.85

tion and the above-mentioned systematic variations, it seems more than likely that both originated in the same context. The youngest heartwood ring present in the oak panel in Gotha can be dated to the year 1480, suggesting a creation of the work around 1500 or shortly afterwards.19 Unfortunately, it has not been possible to apply dendrochronology to the Madrid panel whose integrated frame is completely gilded. Nevertheless, in my eyes there can hardly be any doubt that this portrait also was painted around the beginning of the sixteenth century. The overall shape of the panel with its rounded top and the integrated frame with heavy moulding are a further argument in favour of such a date. While it is true that rounded tops already occur in Rogier van der Weyden’s time, examples in portrait

paintings are only found from around 1500 onwards.20 By the bye we might also note a minor difference in Philip’s dress between the two portraits in Madrid and Gotha. In the Madrid panel, the black collar of his robe is a little bit lighter on its inside as if there is a greyish lining, while in Gotha it is black both on the inside and outside. When we look at original portraits by Rogier or from his time, like the above mentioned Grand Bâtard, the Duke himself in Rogier’s miniature, Charles the Bold and others,21 we will find that collars are always black on both sides like in the Gotha painting. Even this tiny detail thus betrays a deviation of the Madrid portrait from works of the middle of the fifteenth century. In contrast to the Madrid portrait, the Gotha likeness of Philip – or an extremely similar version – had an afterlife in the iconography of the Duke. Both an engraving published in 1688 by Nicolas de Larmessin in Paris and another one by Pieter Soutman in Haarlem (1643-1644),22 show Philip the Good corresponding to the Gotha painting (ill. 3.8): the strings which tie his robe at the neck are of a lighter colour (red in the painting) than the string for the golden cross which is black. While the De Larmessin print is more generalized, the engraving of 1643-1644 seems to be a very minute reproduction – except for the background – of a painting that must have looked exactly like the Gotha portrait. Inverted, due to the printing process, it repeats all the details of Philip’s face, including the vein on his temple or the wart below his jawbone, and also of his dress down to the folds in his shirt. Even more revealing might be that the individual shapes of the flint stones of his collar (which are more uniform in the Madrid version) are also reproduced. While the first stone to the left of the pendant in the painting is a flat one, its counterpart on the right is wider and marked by a kind of diagonal crack – they are faithfully, only in mirror-image, reproduced in the print. Accordingly, the model for this engraving must have been the Gotha panel or an almost identical version of it – but this was definitely not the painting in

philip the good bare-headed

Madrid. It might well be that the panel which is first recorded in the possession of Duke August von Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg (1772-1822) had already been in a well-known collection in the seventeenth century where it was studied and copied as an authentic likeness of the grand Duke of Burgundy.

NOTES 1 On the different types, see recently: De Zutter 2014. 2 It was acquired in the time of Duke August von SachsenGotha-Altenburg (1772-1822); Collection Frankhauser, Basel in 1954; afterwards in the Collection G. Fodor, Paris. 3 In 2008 it was acquired by the Ernst von Siemens Kunststiftung, Munich, at an auction at Christie’s, Paris, and given as permanent loan to the Schlossmuseum Gotha (inv. SG 1423). 4 Jochen Sander in Frankfurt/Berlin 2008, nr. 43. Vandenbroeck 1985, pp. 164-166. 5 Châtelet 1999b, pp. 215-216; Lorne Campbell in Louvain 2009, pp. 294-296, nr. 14; García-Frías Checa 2012. After the 2014 Bruges Symposium, the panel was again discussed by Lorne Campbell in Madrid 2015, pp. 122-127, nr. 1. 6 See: García-Frías Checa 2012, p. 172, fig. III.13.3. 7 Lorne Campbell in Louvain 2009, p. 294; García-Frías Checa 2012, p. 175. 8 Bruges 1902, nr. 108; Winkler 1913, pp. 120, 171f. 9 Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 2, p. 39, nr. 125a; Panofsky 1953, pp. 294, 479; De Vos 1999, nr. B13; he dates it to the sixteenth century. 10 Lorne Campbell in Louvain 2009, pp. 294-296, nr. 14; GarcíaFrías Checa 2012; Lorne Campbell in Madrid 2015, pp. 122-127. 11 Like e.g. the small chain and hanger of the Golden Fleece in the portrait of Charles the Bold (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie), or the golden vessels and belts in his Columba Altarpiece (Munich); Frankfurt/Berlin 2008, nr. 42; De Vos 1999, nr. 21. De Zutter (2014, pp. 32-35) has already remarked that the collar in the two versions discussed here differs considerably from its representation in other works attributed to Rogier. However, she is trying a makeshift explana-

59

tion as she follows the catalogue of the Louvain exhibition (2009) with regard to the attribution of the Madrid panel. 12 García-Frías Checa 2012, p. 175; Lorne Campbell in Madrid 2015, p. 126. 13 It is called ‘fairly well preserved’ in recent literature, but that description hardly corresponds to what shows up in the original as well as in the large reproduction: García-Frías Checa 2012, p. 166, fig. III.13.1. 14 See e.g. the different versions in: Henderiks 2011, esp. figs. 226, 227, 233, 234, 238, 239. 15 However, according to other likenesses of the Duke, including his miniature portrait on the dedication page of the Chroniques de Hainaut (Brussels, KBR, ms. 9242, fol. 1), probably painted around 1447 by Rogier van der Weyden himself, the heavy cross at his neck seems to have been fixed to the strings of his robe instead of hanging from an extra string. Thus this little detail might be a later variation, not based on the actual attire of the Duke. For the miniature, see: De Vos 1999, nr. 16; Louvain 2009, pp. 280-282, nr. 9. 16 E.g. Madrid/Bruges/New York 2005, p. 163; Kemp 2003. 17 New York 1994, pp. 92-95, nr. 5; Madrid/Bruges/New York 2005, p. 163, nr. 13; Dunkerton, Foister, Gordon, Penny 1991, pp. 300301, nr. 34. 18 Handwörterbuch 1927, cols. 626-628. 19 Report by Peter Klein of June 4, 2010 to the Gotha Museum; the panel has a total of 352 annual rings. 20 This argument has already been put forward by De Vos (1999, p. 372), but was rejected subsequently by Campbell (in Louvain 2009, p. 294), with reference to Rogier’s Medici Madonna (Frankfurt, Städel Museum), with a rounded top (Louvain 2009, nr. 59). For portrait panels of this shape and with integrated frames similar to the one in Madrid and Gotha, see e.g.: Washington/Antwerp 2006, pp. 206-209, nr. 30 (Netherlandish, c. 1500-1510); Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 2797, Southern Netherlands, Portrait of a Man, c. 1520; Brussels, KMSKB/ MRBAB, inv. 3607 (Netherlandish, Portrait of Philip of Cleves, Seigneur de Ravenstein, c. 1500); Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 2596 (Antwerp, Portrait of the Wife of Willem de Meulenaere, c. 1500). See: Catalogue-Brussels 1984, pp. 377, 390-391. 21 For the miniature see above, note 15; for Charles: Frankfurt/ Berlin 2008, nr. 42. 22 For De Larmessin, see: Dhanens 1980, p. 139 (as copy after Jan van Eyck); Jacob Louys, Pieter Soutman (ed.), Philippus Dictus Bonus Dux Burgundiae et Belgarum Princeps Potentissimus et Serenissimus, in Duces Burgundiae, London, British Museum, inv. nr. 1876,0708.85.

Ill. 4.1. Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Middendorf Altarpiece, c. 1480, oil on panel, 110.7 x 124.8 cm on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

4

The Middendorf Altarpiece by a Follower of Hugo van der Goes Maryan W. Ainsworth

ABSTRACT: Dating from the last quarter of the fifteenth century, the Middendorf Altarpiece, on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art since 1998, represents the Virgin and Child surrounded by Saints Thomas, John the Baptist, Jerome and Louis. It is remarkable not only for its beauty but also for its unusual state of preservation. Sometime in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, the central portion of the painting was scraped away and it was repainted as the marriage of Henry VII to Elisabeth of York. In 1983-1984 the repainted areas were removed to reveal the striking underdrawing of the original composition. The more recent technical investigation of the painting now allows for the reconsideration of the attribution and dating of the work, which previously has been assigned to Hugo van der Goes or a follower, and to the Master of Moulins.

—o— This splendid painting, which is on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art from the collection of Ambassador J. William Middendorf II, is as remarkable for its beauty as for its unusual state of preservation (ill. 4.1). It represents the Virgin and Child surrounded by Saints Thomas, John the Baptist, Jerome, and Louis. This group occupies a rather fanciful space, a church-like porch set before appealing views of a distant landscape. Originally painted in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, the work underwent a significant alteration in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century.1 This second state of the painting is known from photographs previous to its modern

cleaning and restoration, and from an engraving (once thought to be after Jan Gossart),2 which was made when the painting was in the collection of the famous writer and collector Horace Walpole, who installed it in his great Gothic-revival ‘Long Gallery’ at Strawberry Hill (ill. 4.2).3 Walpole had purchased it in 1753 from the estate sale of Lord Pomfret, who had acquired it from an art dealer named Sykes (c. 1659-1724). Previous to that time, the paint in the central portion of the panel had been scraped off and this area as well as portions elsewhere were repainted to make a new composition representing the Marriage of Henry VII and Elisabeth of York before a deeply receding church nave. Saint John’s position was taken over by Elisabeth of York, and Saint Louis was converted into Henry VII. In order to accommodate the new composition, a plank of around fifteen centimeters wide was inserted at the center of the panel, just to the left of the seated Virgin, in order to provide additional space for the deep perspective view of the church. Early on, the distinguished connoisseur and advisor to Walpole, George Vertue, as well as Walpole himself, had recognized the modern additions to an older painting.4 When Ambassador Middendorf acquired the work, he decided to have the painting restored to its original state, and during 1983-1984 he engaged the conservator David Bull to remove the wood plank addition and the modern overpaint. This revealed the complete

62

maryan w. ainsworth

Ill. 4.2. H. Cook (active 1826), after Jan Gossar t, dated Februar y 15, 1826, etching and engraving on chine collé, sheet: 19 x 28 cm, plate: 13.7 x 21.3 cm, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Ar t, Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, acc. 17.3.1483

surface of the original painted surface as well as the significant portion that had been formerly scraped down, unveiling to the naked eye the very fine underdrawing for the Virgin and Child as well as Saint John the Baptist. Although the underdrawing in the scraped-off portion has been visible to the naked eye for some time, it has only been recently that infrared reflectography has been carried out on the entire panel in order to make available the complete underdrawing for study purposes (ill. 4.3a, ill. 4.3b detail of the figure of Saint Jerome). It is an extraordinarily fully worked up and meticulously rendered underdrawing in brush (and possibly pen) that establishes the position and detailed modeling of the figures in a highly structured manner. This

preliminary design shows very little change from the underdrawing to the painted forms. There is also a free sketch for the features of the landscape, and the architectural setting is carefully detailed – the acanthus leaves of the tracery are even more lively in execution in the underdrawing than in the painted version, portions of which were painted wet-in-wet. A close look shows that the artist of the second painted composition also made an underdrawing, and this can be seen in some areas, for example to the right and left of the Virgin’s head where the pointed arches of the structure of the revised architecture can be seen, and at the lower right of the Virgin’s robe where the ruled lines of a second column are apparent. There are also hori-

the middendorf altarpiece by a follower of hugo van der goes

A.

63

B.

Ill. 4.3. A: Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Middendorf Altarpiece (ill. 4.1), IRR. B: detail of IRR, Saint Jerome

zontal ruled lines made at regular intervals to aid in establishing the perspective system for the long view of the church nave. Under the microscope, the brush underdrawing of the first composition and the grittier, dry-appearing drawing material of the superimposed composition can be differentiated. Various scholars over the years have speculated about the authorship of the original painting. The names of Hugo van der Goes or a follower, or the Master of Moulins (Jean Hey) have been most prominently mentioned. It is justifiably identified as an early Netherlandish painting. In terms of composition, one thinks straight away of Saint Anne with the Virgin, the Child and Saints (including Saint Louis; Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts (KMSKB/MRBAB)), attributed to a Bruges Master (formerly called the Master of the Legend of Saint Ursula),5 or the Virgin and Child with Saints Augus-

tine, John the Baptist, Monica, and Nicolas of Tolentino (Urbana-Champagne, Ill., Krannert Art Museum) by the Master of the Legend of Saint Ursula.6 But the painting also has a certain French essence to it derived from its formal presentation of the figures across the frontal plane before a hilly landscape that recalls the famous Crucifixion of the Parlement de Paris of c. 1450 attributed to the Master of Dreux Budé (André d’Ypres).7 The Gothic porch in which the figures are arranged in the Middendorf painting is a peculiar space of oddly conflated architectural features, not easily placed in terms of its specific geographic location. According to Ethan Matt Kavaler, the architectural features date to c. 1480-1520 (more likely current c. 1490-1500), and the arches with filler tracery are found in the Netherlands around this time. The pendant keystone in the choir is an often repeated

64

maryan w. ainsworth

motif of the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century across France and the Low Countries. One example is in the choir of the Church of Saint-Nicholas-de-Tolentino at the royal monastery of Brou, Bourg-en-Bresse.8 It is important to recognize the current condition of the painting in order to reconstruct its original appearance. While most of the painting is in remarkably fine condition, there are areas that have been seriously compromised. The scraping off of the paint layers in the central portion damaged more of the underdrawing of the figure of Saint John the Baptist than of the Virgin and Child, where, except for the face of the Christ Child it remains largely intact. It appears that solvent action caused damage to the green cloak of Saint Thomas, where finishing glazes were lost and this area was repainted. When Saint Louis was converted into Henry VII, portions of his brocade robe as well as the fleurs-de-lis decorations of his cloak were overpainted. While the overpaint on the robe seems to have been fairly easily removed, portions at the lower left of the cloak must have been too tenacious, and damage occurred on the fleurs-de-lis which were then restored. The crown of King Henry was altered from that of Saint Louis by an added red velvet top and crosses (still partially visible in the infrared reflectogram), some of which must have been too difficult to remove and were simply over-painted. Saint Louis’s poulaines were also added over the floor tiles, altering what were the more conservative shoes initially painted. Fortunately, the overpaint of Saint Jerome’s cardinal’s hat and lion could be removed without significant damage, and these areas were once again revealed by the cleaning. The glass vase with leaves at the lower left is extremely fragmentary and originally may have been another shape of vessel, as the underdrawing in this area indicates; the current vase appears to be mostly of modern manufacture. Considering what the painting has endured, the remaining original part is quite well preserved, and the artist’s execution and handling are of marvelous quality.

Hugo van der Goes – Claus Grimm theory (1988) The first suggestion of the attribution for the Middendorf Altarpiece was put forward by Claus Grimm in an article of 1988 in the Journal of the Walters Art Gallery.9 There he perceptively noted the ‘psychological urgency, the pensiveness, and the spatial unity’ in the painting as characteristics that make one think of Hugo van der Goes, especially in paintings like the Berlin Gemäldegalerie Monforte Altarpiece and the Nativity, and the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Donor with Saint John the Baptist, which has also been attributed to Hugo.10 Another reason that drew Grimm to this suggestion was the result of Peter Klein’s dendrochronology of the planks making up the Middendorf panel.11 The earliest felling date for the trees from which the panels came (five out of the six planks are from the same tree) can be established as 1458, more plausible being between 1462… 1464… 1468. Considering a minimum of two years for seasoning, Klein estimated the earliest creation time of the painting to be upwards of 1460. With an assumption of a median of fifteent sapwood rings and two years for seasoning of the wood, a creation time for the painting is more plausible from 1466 upwards. Boards I-V have a high similarity in the ring structure – but are not identical with – two boards from two of Hugo van der Goes’s other paintings, namely the Fall of Man Diptych from Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, and the Berlin, Gemäldegalerie Monforte Altarpiece (or Adoration of the Kings). As Peter Klein has noted, however, ‘…the statistical values and the visual comparison on a light table [of the ring structure of these planks] are not sufficient to prove that all boards were made from the same tree’.12 At least these results could possibly place the production of the Middendorf Altarpiece in close proximity to that of the Van der Goes workshop. This information led Grimm to make comparisons with painted surface details from the Vienna and the Berlin paintings by Hugo, both then visible before their more recent cleaning and restoration.

the middendorf altarpiece by a follower of hugo van der goes

He concluded that the Middendorf painting ‘must be dated shortly after the earliest works by Hugo van der Goes, which he listed as the Virgin and Child in Frankfurt, the Fall of Man Diptych in Vienna, and the Virgin and Child with Saint Anne in Brussels, but before the Monforte Altarpiece in Berlin’.13 Since Grimm’s article there have been further discussions about the chronology of Hugo’s paintings and there have been additional technical studies of them.14 In terms of the comparisons that Grimm made of the heads of figures from Hugo’s Monforte Adoration and the ‘attributed to Hugo’ Saint John the Baptist (Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery) with the Middendorf painting heads, there are disctinct differences in terms of quality and execution. These are in the structure of the heads and faces, the extraordinarily sculptural lighting on Hugo’s male heads as opposed to the softer, more general illumination of the Middendorf painting heads, and the greater achievement in descriptive subtleties of the physiognomy of Hugo’s heads that produces a more life-like appearance. In my opinion, although Hugo’s influence may be recognized in the Middendorf Altarpiece figures, the latter cannot be by Hugo himself. Furthermore, if we compare the underdrawing results from Hugo’s paintings with those of the Middendorf panel, we encounter an even greater disparity in the execution at this preliminary stage. In Hugo’s Adoration of the Magi (Monforte Altarpiece), an early work, the artist worked up the underdrawing in two stages, one in black chalk and one in brush.15 The numerous changes in the underdrawing stage and the very bold and sketchy nature of it indicates an evolving design.16 In a comparison of details of the underdrawing from the Vienna Fall of Man Diptych with the figure of Saint Jerome from the Middendorf painting, the differences in the approach are also clear.17 Hugo’s underdrawing is a more or less free sketch that reveals an exploratory stage, while the Saint Jerome shows a fixed pattern of a design that could well have been previously worked out on paper. Even in Hugo’s figure of Mary Magdalen,18 where the under-

65

drawing is tighter and more schematic than elsewhere in the Fall of Man Diptych, possibly referring to a pre-existing workshop pattern, there is an assured spontaneity to it that is not as evident in the meticulous handling of the underdrawing in the Middendorf panel figures of the Virgin and Child and Saint Jerome. Compared to the underdrawing of the figure of Joseph or of the shepherd from Hugo’s Berlin Adoration of the Shepherds, c. 1480-1482, the differences again are readily discernible.19 Hugo is principally interested in mapping out the general tonal transitions from darkest to the lightest zones with broad areas of dense parallel hatching and cross-hatching in his figures, while in the Saint Jerome, there is far greater attention to the specific determination of the three-dimensional aspect of the folds of the garments as well as the fall of light on the draperies. By comparison, the underdrawing in the Saint Jerome in the Middendorf Altarpiece appears highly specific and structured in the organization of its strokes towards the build-up of the volume of the forms of the draperies and the clear definition of the structure of the faces. What is significant here is that the style of the underdrawing in the Middendorf painting is far closer to Hugo’s underdrawings of his late phase, with its greater precision and even parallel hatching, than it is to the very sketchy nature of the underdrawings in Hugo’s early works. This may well suggest a connection of the Middendorf painting master with Hugo’s workshop in the late 1470s or beginning of the 1480s. Master of Moulins (Jean Hey) – Jochen Sander theory (1992) Because of the depiction of the French King Louis in the Middendorf Altarpiece, Claus Grimm also mentioned the possibility of a connection with Jean Hey (the Master of Moulins).20 Hey’s earliest known painting of c. 1475-1480, the Nativity with Cardinal Rolin (Autun, Musée Rolin), is also the one that is most influenced by Hugo van der Goes, giving rise to the generally accepted theory that Hey worked with Hugo in Ghent early on in his

66

maryan w. ainsworth

career. The types of the Virgin, Joseph, and the shepherds in the background in particular are reminiscent of Hugo’s figures, and even the underdrawing in this early work by Hey has a general connection to Hugo’s manner of execution. However, Claus Grimm eliminated this possibility of identifying Hey with the painter of the Middendorf Altarpiece because of differences between the Middendorf painting’s and Hey’s delicate, pale color palette, the lighter modeling of the faces of Hey’s figures, and the overall cooler effect, even in the heads that appear to have a certain generic similarity in the two paintings. However, in his 1992 book on Hugo van der Goes, Jochen Sander briefly discussed the Middendorf panel, once more raising the possibility of the Master of Moulins.21 It is worth briefly considering this question, as the works of Jean Hey also have received more attention in recent years with technical studies of some of his paintings by J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, published in a monograph by Albert Châtelet,22 and a discussion of the creative process and the underdrawings in his works by Martha Wolff.23 Wolff’s description of the underdrawing in the face of Cardinal Rolin in the Nativity with Cardinal Rolin might well be used to describe that in the head of Saint Jerome in the Middendorf panel, even taking into account the thinner, more sharply defined structure of the face of the latter. Both show a ‘…web of soft, parallel hatching that establishes the shadows on the jowl and flesh around the ear … Strokes of varying length are used for this modeling, overlapping to form cross-hatching in areas of the deepest shadow, with the direction of the hatching subtly varied to suggest the way the [cardinal’s bulging] jowls catch the light’.24 Likewise, the underdrawing in Saint Jerome’s garments in the Middendorf painting may be similarly described as those discussed by Wolff in Joseph’s garments. She noted: ‘…in the Nativity the fall of light on the figures is carefully rendered through layers of parallel hatching. The length and direction of hatchings are varied to suggest the disposition of light and shade. In the figure of Joseph, for

instance, long parallel strokes indicate the shadow cast by his hands, while overlapping but not obscuring other hatched marks that give form to the folds of his robe. Blunter strokes mark troughs in the drapery, short staggered strokes suggest the curve of fabric from light into dark, and unbroken parallel strokes make broad areas recede into shadow… For this range of strokes and emphasis on light and shade, Hugo van der Goes’ early underdrawing process as discernible in the Monforte Altarpiece may have provided a model. In the Nativity, however, the Master of Moulins’ underdrawing is tighter and more disciplined than that of Hugo, at least in his early works’.25 In the comparison of the underdrawing of Joseph in Jean Hey’s painting with that of Jerome in the Middendorf panel, although there is a certain similarity in the even parallel hatching of the underdrawing strokes to achieve the system of lighting in each figure, the emphasis on variation in direction of the strokes to describe the folds of the draperies is quite different. The artist of the Middendorf panel is more concerned with the specific three-dimensional approach to the draperies than is Jean Hey. We can see this as well in a comparison of the underdrawing in the figures of the Virgin in both paintings. However, what the two artists have in common is their dependence upon even, parallel strokes in the underdrawing to suggest a system of lighting and modeling the forms, as was Hugo’s practice in his late works. As Wolff points out, this style of underdrawing changed in Hey’s later works, when he was employed by Cardinal Charles de Bourbon and Pierre II de Bourbon.26 One might conclude, therefore, that Jean Hey as well as the painter of the Middendorf Altarpiece were both working in the circle of Hugo van der Goes in c. 1475-1480 and came to know and were influenced by that master’s working methods. The Herreros de Tajada Crucifixion – Lorne Campbell suggestion (1993-1994) Before leaving this topic, we must consider one further suggestion of an attribution for the painter

the middendorf altarpiece by a follower of hugo van der goes

67

Ill. 4.4. Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Crucifixion with Saints and Donors, c. 1475-1480, oil on panel, 122 x 134 cm, formerly Herreros de Tajada Collection

of the Middendorf Altarpiece, namely another of the artists who falls in the group surrounding Hugo van der Goes and Justus of Ghent. In his review of Jochen Sander’s 1992 book on Hugo van der Goes, Lorne Campbell rejected the theories of the attribution of the Middendorf painting to Hugo van der Goes or to the Master of Moulins, instead relating it to a Crucifixion with Saints and Donors in a Madrid collection (ill. 4.4), which has been attributed to Justus of Ghent or to a follower of van der Goes.27 This work has proven to be fairly inaccessible to scholars, only having been studied in situ by

Matthias Weniger, who some twenty years ago gained access to the private collection and was given permission to take photographs of the painting, which he kindly shared with me for this lecture in 2014. More recently (June 2015), the painting resurfaced and I was able to study it at the Museo del Prado in Madrid where technical examination of it was undertaken.28 A close comparison of the Herreros de Tajada Crucifixion and the Middendorf panel shows that the two are not by the same hand, but share the influence of contemporary Ghent painting that reminds one of the works of Hugo

68

maryan w. ainsworth

A.

B.

Ill. 4.5. A-B: Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Crucifixion with Saints and Donors (ill. 4.4), details of heads of Saints Mar y Magdalen and Catherine. C: Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Middendorf Altarpiece (ill. 4.1), detail of head of the Virgin

the middendorf altarpiece by a follower of hugo van der goes

69

C.

70

maryan w. ainsworth

A.

B.

Ill. 4.6. A: Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Crucifixion with Saints and Donors (ill. 4.4), IRR: detail of head of Saint Jerome. B: Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Middendorf Altarpiece (ill. 4.1), IRR: detail of head of Saint Jerome

van der Goes. While the types of the female saints, Mary Magdalen and Catherine, in the De Tajada Collection work have a rather close connection with the physiognomy of the underdrawn Virgin in the Middendorf painting (ill. 4.5a-c), a comparison of the male saints in both paintings shows the significant differences in the painting style and technique. A comparison of Saint James (in the former) with Saint Thomas (in the latter), or of the two Saint Jerome figures reveals the more refined handling and execution of the Middendorf painting than that of the De Tajada Collection work, which by comparison appears less sophisticated in its modeling of form (ill. 4.6a-b). The painter of the De Tajada Collection work is also less adept at understanding and reproducing the way in which light models form, as the comparison of examples of the brocades in the two paintings and the two staff crosses of the Saints Jerome readily demonstrate. The possibility to compare the underdrawing in both paintings confirms the observations about

the surface characteristics of both. They are generally rather close to each other in their strict linear graphic style that depends upon very even parallel and cross-hatching to describe form and to indicate the modeling by light. The modulation of the density of the hatching from long whispy strokes in shallow folds of the garments to more tightly arranged crosshatching is similar. However, the master of the Herreros de Tajada painting reinforces the main folds of the draperies with broad brushstrokes not encountered in the underdrawing of the Middendorf painting (compare ill. 4.3b and ill. 4.7). Furthermore, the former shows a more general and overall flatter description of form than the highly specific and clearly articulated rendering of the features of the faces and sculptural definition of the draperies. Even in the handling of the landscape features – summary though they are – there is a greater sense of spontaneity and directness, even confidence, in the underdrawing of the Middendorf Altarpiece than in the Herreros de Tajada panel. Although one may well ask whether the artist is the same person whose

the middendorf altarpiece by a follower of hugo van der goes

71

Crucifixion in the Herreros de Tajada Collection is earlier than the more sophisticated handling and execution evident in the Middendorf Altarpiece, I find it more likely that we are encountering here two individual artists who worked at the same time, possibly in close proximity among the followers of Hugo van der Goes. Drawing and underdrawing In my 2003 review of Early Netherlandish Drawings from Jan van Eyck to Hieronymus Bosch by Fritz Koreny with Erwin Pokorny and Georg Zeman, I suggested that a close comparison could be made between the underdrawing in the Middendorf painting and a Virgin and Child drawing in the Dresden Kupferstichkabinett, attributed to the circle of Hugo van der Goes.29 This was subsequently supported by other scholars.30 Although that general connection still stands – both, after all, are by artists working in the orbit of Hugo van der Goes – I find that my first proposal can be superseded by another, more convincing example. The emphasis on a sculptural approach to the definition of draperies found in the figures of the Middendorf panel is more readily apparent in other drawings within the Hugo van der Goes group, especially the sheet of Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen) (ill. 4.8), which is after the Lisbon painting (Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga) attributed to Hugo.31 Here the parallels between the underdrawing of the Middendorf Virgin and the drawing after the Saint Luke painting are more direct and the similarities in draftsmanship closer. The variety and manner of parallel and cross-hatching gives a highly refined sense of the supple movement and draping of the folds of the garments in each. Furthermore, both strongly emphasize extremely dense parallel and cross-hatching, thus bringing the Middendorf painting even closer into the orbit of Hugo’s close followers and workshop. Conclusion In this study of the splendid Middendorf Altarpiece, I have reached negative conclusions – that is, more

Ill. 4.7. Follower of Hugo van der Goes, Crucifixion with Saints and Donors (ill. 4.4), IRR: detail of Mar y Magdalen

72

maryan w. ainsworth

Ill. 4.8. Anonymous, after Hugo van der Goes, Saint Luke, c. 1480-1500, black chalk, pen and two shades of brown ink, indented, 200 x 125 mm, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, N 94 (PK)

clearly defining who did not paint it, rather than who did paint it. Though a specific artist cannot at present be named, the Middendorf Altarpiece Master most certainly worked among the close followers of Hugo van der Goes. The further study of this panel would be enriched by a complete technical study of the paintings in the Hugo van der Goes

group as well as those of associated artists, such as Justus of Ghent. Perhaps this could be a collaborative effort of a group of scholars who could pool resources and technical findings. I urge attention to this important study, which in a way has already begun, due to the generous sharing of technical material by those listed here.32

the middendorf altarpiece by a follower of hugo van der goes

NOTES 1 For the early history of this painting and the first discussion of its attribution, see: Grimm 1988, pp. 77-88. 2 H. Cook (active 1826), after Jan Gossart, dated February 15, 1826; Etching and engraving on chine collé, sheet: 19 ≈ 28 cm, plate: 13.7 ≈ 21.3 cm, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1917, acc. 17.3.1483. 3 New Haven/London 2010, pp. 24-25, fig. 31. 4 Grimm 1988, pp. 78-79. 5 Syfer-d’Olne et al. 2006, pp. 338-360, nr. 17. 6 Rome 2015, pp. 184-185, nr. 34, ill. 7 On this work and its connection with Rogerian painting, see: Lorentz 2004. 8 Email communication between Ethan Matt Kavaler and Maryan Ainsworth on 7/11/15. 9 Grimm 1988. 10 For the Walters Art Gallery fragment, see: Gordon 1988, pp. 92-97. 11 Grimm 1988, p. 86. Peter Klein’s letter to Claus Grimm of June 22, 1987. 12 A revision of this earlier report was sent by Peter Klein on March 26, 2013 to Maryan Ainsworth (files of the European Paintings Department). 13 Grimm 1988, p. 86. 14 See especially: Grosshans 2003, pp. 235-249; Koster 2008, pp. 79-105; Stroltz 2011, pp. 118-131. 15 Grosshans 2003, pp. 242-243. 16 Grosshans 2003, figs. 2-5. 17 Strolz 2011, figs. 54-57, 59. 18 Strolz 2011, fig. 54. 19 Grosshans 2003, figs. 7, 8. 20 Grimm 1988, p. 83. 21 Sander 1992, p. 28, note 69. 22 Châtelet 2001, p. 52, fig. 22, pp. 55-56, figs. 24-25, p. 115, figs. 68, 70, 72, pp. 118, 120, figs. 75-77. 23 Wolff 2008b, pp. 137-151; Wolff 2011, pp. 195-213. 24 Wolff 2008b, p. 138. 25 Wolff 2008b, pp. 141-142. 26 Wolff 2008b; Wolff 2011. 27 Campbell 1993-1994. This painting was first published in Friedländer (1967-1976, vol. 3, pl. 127 (Add. 132)) and Bermejo Martínez (1982, vol. 2, pp. 65-66, figs. 65-69). See also earlier assessments: Gerstenberg 1954, pp. 237-238, ill. p. 245; Pauwels 1959, pp. 43-50. Despite the early consideration of Justus of Ghent as the artist of this painting, comparisons with the Metropolitan Museum Adoration of the Magi and the Saint Bavo’s Cathedral Crucifixion Triptych in Ghent instead show considerable stylistic differences. 28 I am most grateful to José Juan Pérez Preciado and Alejandro Vergara for the opportunity to study this painting and the results of its technical investigation at the Prado. 29 Ainsworth 2003, especially pp. 312-313, figs. 6, 7. Further on Hugo van der Goes drawings, see: Buck 2003, pp. 228-239. 30 Thomas Ketelsen in Dresden 2005, p. 76, nr. 18, ill. p. 77. 31 Niesen, Boymans van Beuningen on-line catalogue, Netherlandish Drawings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Artists before 1581, N94 (PK), originally from the F.W. Koenigs Collection. For the painting, see: Beaumont et al. 1981. 32 My sincere thanks to the following colleagues for sharing with me technical documentation of paintings: Till-Holger Borchert, Groeningemuseum, Bruges; Christina Currie, KIK/IRPA, Brussels; John Delaney, National Gallery of Art, Washington; Eric Gordon, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore; Stephan Kemperdick, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin; J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Margreet Wolters, RKD Archive, The Hague; Matthias Weniger, Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich; and special thanks also to my colleagues at the Metropolitan Museum

73

of Art: Christine Seidel, Slifka Fellow, European Paintings Department; Sophie Scully, Mellon Fellow, Paintings Conservation Department; Michael Gallagher, Conservator-in-Charge, Paintings Conservation Department.

POSTSCRIPT Since the delivery of this conference paper in 2014, there have been some developments of note concerning the paintings discussed in the text above. Most notably, the Middendorf Altarpiece was reclaimed by its owner, Ambassador J. William Middendorf II, from loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and sold at Christie’s New York on 27 April 2017. Listed there as ‘Attributed to Hugo van der Goes’, reflecting the prevailing scholarly opinion that it is by a follower of Hugo, the writer of the catalogue entry, Peter van den Brink, nonetheless affirmed the authorship of Hugo. The painting sold for 7.8 million dollars (hammer price), reportedly to the Belgian businessman Fernand Huts. For the lengthy discussion of provenance issues and attribution of the painting, see Van den Brink’s entry in Christie’s Old Masters, New York, Thursday 27 April 2017, lot 8. The Crucifixion in the Herreros de Tajada Collection, Madrid, also discussed in the article above, was featured in my presentation at the ‘Utopia Conference’ (Imaging Utopia. New Perspectives on Northern Renaissance Art. XXth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting), in Leuven on January 12, 2017 in a talk entitled Justus van Ghent, a Reconsideration of the Early Works. The recent technical re-examination of Justus’s Crucifixion Triptych in Saint Bavo’s Cathedral, Ghent, allowed for a direct comparison of its painting technique and execution with the Herreros de Tajada Crucifixion to which it bears striking similarities. A further discussion of this material will appear in my forthcoming publication. mwa

Ill. 5.1. Albrecht Bouts, Self-Portrait Holding a Skull, c. 1523, oil on panel, 42.6 x 33 cm, Sibiu, Brukenthal National Museum, inv. 3183

5

Albrecht Bouts in Sibiu: a Unique Self-portrait in ‘Memento Mori’ Valentine Henderiks

ABSTRACT: In 2011, during an interdisciplinary excursion in Transylvania, we recognized the self-portrait of an aged Albrecht Bouts (Louvain 1451/55-1549) in a painting from the Brukenthal Collection in Sibiu. In 2012, we had the opportunity to examine the Sibiu panel, exhibited in the Villa Vauban in Luxembourg, and to make scientific investigations with our colleagues from the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA). Both the painting technique and the results of the X-radiography and infrared reflectography confirm the Albrecht Bouts attribution, insofar as there is no comparable painting conserved within his oeuvre today. Nonetheless, if the stylistic comparisons and the technological examinations of the Sibiu painting confirm the hypothesis of a late Albrecht Bouts self-portrait, neither is yet to solve the case of such a representation. Indeed, the Portrait of a Man with a Skull would be the only known Flemish painting from the first half of the sixteenth century representing the selfportrait of a painter in Memento Mori.

—o— The Portrait of a Man Holding a Skull in the Brukenthal Collection in Sibiu (ill. 5.1) shows an elderly man, turned to the right and set against a dark green background. The man wears a black hat, a voluminous gown lined with fur, a black doublet laced at the neck and, below this, a white shirt. In his right hand he holds a skull, towards which he points with his left hand in a gesture of Memento Mori. The painting was executed on an oak panel consisting of a single board and has unpainted edges and a barbe on all four sides. The current attribution at the Sibiu Museum is to the Master of the Legend of Saint Augustine, an anonymous

painter active in Bruges in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Those who have had the courage to read the monograph on Albrecht Bouts1 until the final page will already know that I consider the Sibiu painting to be a self-portrait of the master. This discovery was made at the last minute, on an interdisciplinary study trip to Transylvania, only few weeks before the publication of the monograph. During my visit to the museum, in the manner of Max Friedländer, it was my first impression that suggested an attribution. After only a few seconds of examination, the physiognomy of the sitter appeared familiar to me and the portrait presented itself to me as a self-portrait of Albrecht Bouts as an old man. It was impossible at that time to make an in-depth study of the painting, while constraints of time and the layout of the book prevented me from adding illustrations or developing an argument. Now the time has come to fill that gap. The Portrait of a Man Holding a Skull is first mentioned in 1893 in the catalogue of the Brukenthal collection2 as a work by Dieric of Haarlem, based on an inscription on the reverse which has now disappeared, but which described the painting as ‘Le pourtraict de Maistre Rogier Van der Weyden, faict de Maistre Dirick van Haerlem’. In 1894, Théodore von Frimmel3 attributed the painting to a follower of Barthel Bruyn. In 1901, Michael Csaki supported this idea, but subsequently he returned to an attribution to Dirk Bouts.4 Karl Voll5 considered it

76

valentine henderiks

to be from the circle of the master and compared the face of the man with the hypothetical self-portrait of Rogier van der Weyden in the Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin in Munich, which was at that time considered to be the original by Rogier. Paul Lafond, Paul Rolland and Hippolyte FierensGevaert6 agreed with this proposal. Friedrich Winkler, however, believed that the face in Sibiu was copied from that of Saint Luke, whilst Martin Conway regarded it as a work of the sixeenth century, unrelated to Bouts and questioned the authority of the inscription on the reverse.7 In 1922, Max J. Friedländer8 attributed it to the Master of the Legend of Saint Augustine on the basis of the eponymous work, the centre panel of which is preserved in New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters, inv. 1961.61.9).9 For me, however, the morphology of the faces painted by this master is much more stylised and hieratic than that of the Sibiu painter (ill. 5.2). Nevertheless Friedländer’s attribution has remained unchanged to the present day.10 In 2009, Jan de Maere11 questioned this hypothesis by underlining certain similarities between the painting and the oeuvre of Michael Sittow, but I don’t share his opinion, mainly because the painting technique is very different. In 2012, in the catalogue of the exhibition Art Treasures from the Brukenthal Collection at the Villa Vauban in Luxembourg,12 the portrait was still attributed to the Master of the Legend of Saint Augustine. Making use of the unique opportunity provided by the painting’s presence in Luxembourg, shortly after my discovery in Sibiu, I presented my hypotheses to the curators of the two museums, who agreed to exhibit it as a work by Albrecht Bouts. During the same exhibition I was able to go on a study trip with the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA) to examine the painting with ultraviolet radiation, infrared reflectography and X-radiography, the results of which I will present for the first time. With regard to the physiognomy of the sitter, the most logical comparison to make was with the self-portrait of Albrecht (ill. 5.3a-b) on the right

wing panel of the authenticated Triptych of the Assumption of the Virgin (Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts (KMSKB/MRBAB), inv. 574), painted around 1495-1500.13 This comparison confirms the similarity between the faces, although in the triptych Albrecht is represented more in profile and his face is turned in the opposite direction to that in the Sibiu panel. In the altarpiece, moreover, his features are those of a mature man, approaching his fifties, while in the autonomous portrait he shows the physical signs of old age and must be at least fifty years or so older. Nevertheless we find here the same wrinkles, the same chin with a small, clearly marked dimple in the centre, and identical creases above the lips. In both portraits, the man’s gaze is steady and the eyes are blue with dark circles below. The rather short eyebrows are arched and have an identical crease in the centre. Finally, the position of the right hand holding the skull, with the rigidly straight thumb forming almost a right angle to the forefinger, clearly evokes the gesture in the selfportrait in the Brussels triptych. The most striking differences are the mouth that is more pinched, the chin that sags more and the nose that is slightly larger in the Brukenthal portrait. These differences, however, can be explained easily. On the one hand, those concerning the mouth and the chin can be accounted for by the natural aging of the skin. The slight difference in the shape of the nose can be explained by the more frontal view of the face and certainly also by the fact that the painter would take more meticulous care with the exact representation of his physiognomy in a self-portrait in half-length. The different sizes and formats of the paintings justify these differences in physiognomy, but also in painterly execution. The Sibiu painting is a closeup self-portrait measuring 42.6 ≈ 33 cm, while on the wing panel of the triptych, which measures 205 ≈ 67.6 cm, the painter represented himself in full-length and his face takes up only a few square centimetres. The difference in the style of the man’s hair offers another feature for comparison. Indeed, the

albrecht bouts in sibiu: a unique self-portrait in ‘memento mori’

Ill. 5.2. Master of the Legend of Saint Augustine, Saint Augustine and Saint Paul, c. 1490, oil on panel, 99 x 66.5 cm, Aachen, Suermondt-Ludwig Museum, inv. GK 303

77

78

valentine henderiks

B.

A.

Ill. 5.3. A: Albrecht Bouts, Self-Portrait Holding a Skull (ill. 5.1). Detail of the face. B: Albrecht Bouts, Triptych of the Assumption of the Virgin, c. 1495-1500, oil on panel, 206.7 x 135.2 cm (centre panel), 205.1 x 67.6 cm (wings), Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 574, left wing, detail of Albrecht Bouts’ face

hairstyle in the Sibiu painting, covering the ear but leaving the earlobe visible, is identical to that of the figure seated at the extreme left in the painting of the Last Supper (Brussels, KMSK/ MRBAB, inv. 2589) (ills. 5.3a, 5.4).14 This man has already been recognised as a portrait of Albrecht Bouts by Hulin de Loo15 in 1902 and today the painting is considered to be a product of his workshop dating around 1525-1530. In this painting, we thus find the same hairstyle and the same physiognomy and in each portrait Albrecht also has stubble on his chin. The self-portrait in the Brukenthal Collection probably dates from around the same time. The painting technique of the Sibiu portrait can be compared to that of Albrecht Bouts’ autographic works and in particular with his paintings

for private devotion, which have similar dimensions and are executed with particular care. As such, the smooth modelling of the face with fluid transitions between the areas of shadow and light, the rendering of the clearly marked circles below the eyes, enlivened by white highlights, the execution of the eyebrows, at once graphic and soft, the short, stiff eyelashes, and the pale line near the right-hand contour of the face which makes it stand out against the dark background, are all characteristic elements of Albrecht’s style. The slightly schematic rendering of the hands in which the bone structure is clearly defined with white impasto, and their morphology, with bent and slightly podgy fingers, and the ends of the fingernails demarcated by a dark line, is moreover entirely analogous to those of the Ecce Homo paintings in

albrecht bouts in sibiu: a unique self-portrait in ‘memento mori’

Ill. 5.4. Workshop of Albrecht Bouts, Last Supper, c. 15251530, oil on panel, 102.5 x 72 cm, Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 2589, detail of the portrait of Albrecht Bouts

Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig Museum, inv. GK 57) and La Cambre (Brussels, Our Lady of La Cambre) (ill. 5.5a-b).16 Examination with infrared reflectography revealed an abundant underdrawing (ill. 5.6), carried out with a liquid medium, with great freedom and numerous modifications. The most important ones are the position of the face, which was originally lower, the hat, which was a different type, and especially the folds of the gown, which indicate that the painter did not originally plan to include either the skull or the hands. Unfortunately, only a small number of autograph paintings by Albrecht Bouts have been studied scientifically, and only parts of the Triptych of the Assumption of the Virgin have been examined with X-radiography and infrared reflectography. In several parts of the triptych, however, similar freedom of handling can be observed, along with numerous changes and lines abandoned during the painting stage. It is a painting for private devotion, however, the Ecce

79

Homot in Aachen, which is closest to the underdrawing of the Sibiu painting. In the face we find an identical way of indicating shadow using dense, nervous networks of parallel hatchings and crosshatchings. The X-radiograph reveals the presence of an imprimatura (ill. 5.7), as in most of the autograph paintings of the master, including some parts of the Triptych of the Assumption of the Virgin. As is often the case with Albrecht, we observe a quite abundant use of lead white in the background and a characteristic way of positioning the highlights in the modelling of the flesh tones in a clearly defined way, which is similar to the figures in the centre panel of the Brussels triptych. We have seen that, with regard to its physiognomy, the self-portrait of Sibiu is most probably contemporary with, or slightly earlier than the portrait of the master painted by a member of his workshop in the Last Supper panel, which presumably dates from around 1525. This date is confirmed by stylistic and iconographic study of the Sibiu painting. The garments worn by the sitter are similar to those in several portraits of Erasmus, the oldest of which was painted in 1517 by Quinten Massys (Roma, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica, Palazzo Barberini) and another, by Hans Holbein, painted in 1523 (London, National Gallery, inv. L658).17 A meticulous study of the Sibiu panel reveals that the painter wears two different kinds of headgear : a black fur hat is worn over a barette, the sides of which are folded upwards above the ears. The same type of barette, but with the sides folded downwards, is seen on both portraits of Erasmus. In the painting of 1523 the humanist moreover wears a black coat lined with red squirrel fur which is similar to that in the Brukenthal portrait. In addition, a green background like that in the Sibiu panel can be found in several portraits painted by Massys in the beginning of the sixteenth century, such as the Pilgrim at Winterthur (Oskar Reinhardt Collection).18 The same colour appears in the background of numerous sixteenth-century portraits as well.

80

valentine henderiks

A.

B.

Ill. 5.5. A: Albrecht Bouts, Self-Portrait Holding a Skull (ill. 5.1), detail of the hands. B: Albrecht Bouts, Ecce Homo, c. 1500-1505, oil on panel, 46 x 30.7 cm, Brussels, Our Lady Church of La Cambre, detail of the hands

albrecht bouts in sibiu: a unique self-portrait in ‘memento mori’

Ill. 5.6. Albrecht Bouts, Self-Portrait Holding a Skull (ill. 5.1). IRR

81

82

valentine henderiks

Ill. 5.7. Albrecht Bouts, Self-Portrait Holding a Skull (ill. 5.1). X-radiograph

albrecht bouts in sibiu: a unique self-portrait in ‘memento mori’

The second element is the iconography of the panel of Sibiu, namely a portrait in Memento Mori. Here, this genre combines the dual functions of Memoria, more particularly the individualised effigy that keeps a living person in memory, and of Vanitas, which refers to the ephemeral character of the earthly existence symbolised by the skull. The genre of Memento Mori is not completely absent from fifteenth-century Netherlandish painting, as a skull symbolising Vanity appears around 1451-1452, perhaps for the first time, on the reverse of the Braque Triptych (Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. R.F.2063) by Van der Weyden,19 and would later be taken up by Hans Memling. In portraits, however, it is only found from the beginning of the sixteenth century onwards. In the Sibiu painting the skull is partly covered by the painter’s gown. The man holds it in his right hand while he points towards it with the forefinger of his left. As Eva Michel20 remarked in her recent review of the monograph on Albrecht Bouts, this gesture and the position of the skull may derive from an engraved Young Man Holding a Skull of Lucas van Leyden (ill. 5.8), made around 1521.21 The Dutch master, for his part, was directly influenced by Albrecht Dürer’s Saint Jerome (Lisbon, Museu Nacional d’Arte Antiga, inv. 828) painted in 1521.22 Dürer’s diary of his journey to the Netherlands informs us that the two men met in Antwerp in 1521. It was probably then that Lucas van Leyden saw the Saint Jerome, imitating the pose later that year in a signed and dated drawing of the same saint (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, inv. WA1953.119).23 The painting by Dürer circulated widely in Antwerp, where it met with great success for a long time. In one way or the other, therefore, Albrecht Bouts knew one or both of these works, the Saint Jerome by Dürer or the engraving by Lucas van Leyden, making the date 1521 a terminus post quem for the execution of the Sibiu self-portrait. This hypothesis is supported by the interpretation of archival documents. Indeed, documentary evidence informs us that Albrecht and his wife, Elisabeth Nausnyders, left Louvain for Overijse in 1519, probably because of Elisabeth’s poor health. In

83

1520, the couple dictated their testament to the notary and priest of the parish of Huldenberg. Elisabeth died before 7 January 1522. That same year, Albrecht took on several people to manage his affairs in Louvain. In 1524 Albrecht returned to Louvain where he still held the position of dean of the cloth makers guild and remained active until his death in 1549, at around ninety-five years of age.24 This period between 1519 and 1524 thus corresponds to a sombre period of Albrecht’s life during which he was no doubt confronted with illness and certainly with the death of his wife in 1522. These ordeals may have led him to reflect on his own mortality and to translate those thoughts into a self-portrait in Memento Mori, painted around 1523, after he had seen the engraving by Lucas van Leyden and perhaps also the Saint Jerome by Dürer. The master was still active in this period and it is possible that he returned to Antwerp. In my monograph on Albrecht I showed that he maintained contact with Antwerp and in particular with Quinten Massys,25 whose influence on the Sibiu painting I have stressed more than once. In 1523, Albrecht was between sixty-eight and seventy-two years old, an advanced age reflected in the facial features of the Sibiu painting, even if the painter has probably idealised them a little. If our hypothesis concerning the Portrait of a Man Holding a Skull in the Brukenthal Collection is correct, the panel is the only known sixteenth-century painted selfportrait of a painter in Memento Mori. It should also be noted that Albrecht didn’t choose to represent himself as a painter, but as a prosperous ‘bourgeois’, as shown by his expensive clothing. Although numerous questions about this portrait must remain unanswered, it could have been a kind of swan song and may perhaps be connected with the words of Jan Molanus who tells us, concerning Dirk Bouts, that ‘the portraits of himself and of his sons Dieric and Albrecht are still with the friar minors, facing the pulpit’.26 Subsequently, the accidents of history preserved this painting across the centuries, allowing it finally to reveal itself to us in an unexpected encounter.

84

valentine henderiks

Ill. 5.8. Lucas van Leyden, Young Man Holding a Skull, c. 1521, engraving, 18.4 x 14.5 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksprintenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, inv. RP-P-OB-1773

albrecht bouts in sibiu: a unique self-portrait in ‘memento mori’

NOTES 1 Henderiks 2011. 2 Brukenthal 1893, nr. 12. 3 Von Frimmel 1894, p. 14. 4 Csaki 1901; Csaki 1909, nr. 100. 5 Voll 1906, pp. 79-80. 6 Lafond 1912, pp. 84-85; Rolland 1913, p. 160; Fierens-Gevaert 1928, p. 42, note 1. 7 Winkler 1913, p. 63, note 1; Conway 1921, pp. 132-133. 8 Friedländer 1922, pp. 813-814; Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 6b, p. 116, add. 290. 9 Master of the Legend of Saint Augustine, Scenes from the Life of Saint Augustine, c. 1475, oil on panel, 137.8 ≈ 149.9 cm. See: New York 1998, pp. 128-132, nr. 16. 10 Ionescu 1964, p. 9; Munich 2003, pp. 140-141. 11 Paris 2009, pp. 68-69. 12 Luxembourg 2012, pp. 128-129. 13 c. 1495-1500, oil on panel, 206.7 ≈ 135.2 cm (centre panel), 205.1 ≈ 67.6 cm (wings). See: Henderiks 2011, pp. 45-71, pp. 348-389, nr. 12. 14 c. 1525-1530, oil on panel, 102.5 ≈ 72 cm. See: Henderiks 2011, pp. 178-181, pp. 362-363, nr. 32.

85

15 Bruges 1902, p. 22. 16 Aachen: c. 1500, oil on panel, 45.5 ≈ 31 cm; La Cambre: c. 1500-1505, oil on panel, 46 ≈ 30.7 cm. See: Henderiks 2011, pp. 263277, pp. 349-350, nr. 13, pp. 350-351, nr.14. 17 Quinten Massys: c. 1517, oil on panel, 58.4 ≈ 46 cm; Hans Holbein the Younger: 1523, oil on panel, 73.6 ≈ 51.4 cm. 18 c. 1509-1512, oil on panel, 46 ≈ 33 cm. 19 c. 1452, oil on panel, 40 ≈ 60 cm. 20 Michel 2013, p. 471. 21 c. 1521, engraving, 18.4 ≈ 14.5 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, Rijksmuseum, inv. RP-P-OB-1773. 22 Albrecht Dürer, Saint Jerome, 1521, oil on panel, 59.5 ≈ 48.5 cm. See: Veldman 2011; Filedt Kok 2011, pp. 104-106. 23 c. 1521, ink pen and brush drawing on paper in brown and grey over black chalk with white highlights, 40 ≈ 27.3 cm. See: Kloek 2011. 24 Henderiks 2011, pp. 24-25. 25 Henderiks 2011, pp. 202-203. 26 Périer-D’Ieteren 2005, p. 18.

1a

1c

1d

1b

1e

Ill. 6.1. Maître de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin et anonyme bruxellois, Triptyque de l’Adoration des Mages (ouvert), reconstitution selon Friedländer, vers 1490, huile sur chêne, 156.2 x 214.3 cm, Turin, Galleria Sabauda (panneau central);  74 x 99/106 cm, Gênes, Museo di Palazzo reale (parties supérieures des volets); 79 x 101 cm, Strasbourg, Musée des Beaux-Arts (parties inférieures des volets)

2a

2c

2b

2d

Ill. 6.2. Maître de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin et anonyme bruxellois, Triptyque de l’Adoration des Mages (fermé), reconstitution selon Friedländer, vers 1490, huile sur chêne, 74 x 99/106 cm, Gênes, Museo di Palazzo Reale (parties supérieures des volets); 79 x 101 cm, Strasbourg, Musée des Beaux-Arts (parties inférieures des volets)

6

Le Triptyque de l’Adoration des Mages (Turin-Gênes) et le mécénat d’Hendrik Keddekin, abbé de Ter Doest Véronique Bücken*

ABSTRACT : Dès 1907, Friedländer avait rapproché une Adoration des Mages conservée à Turin et quatre panneaux illustrant les légendes des saintes Catherine et Agnès, répartis entre les Musées de Gênes et de Strasbourg. Ces panneaux seraient les volets de l’Adoration de Turin. Dans l’abondante littérature consacrée au triptyque, trois questions sont récurrentes. La première concerne son attribution, la seconde, le lieu de création de l’ensemble et la troisième, la pertinence de la reconstitution de Friedländer. Grâce à l’identification du commanditaire avec Hendrik Keddekin, 27e abbé de Ter Doest, on peut affirmer que l’œuvre n’a pas été exécutée en Italie, ni à la demande d’un client italien, comme souvent avancé. Elle a été créée pour une abbaye proche de Bruges, pour un abbé cistercien connu comme bibliophile mais dont on ignorait l’intérêt pour la peinture. Keddekin, qui s’inscrit dans la tradition de Jan Crabbe ou Christiaan de Hondt, a pu s’adresser à un peintre brugeois ou à un Bruxellois travaillant à Bruges ou à Bruxelles. À ce jour, la reconstitution de Friedländer reste hypothétique.

—o— En 1907, Franz Dülberg publia les photographies de deux panneaux, conservés alors au palais royal de Gênes (inv. 945-946), illustrant les légendes de Sainte Catherine d’Alexandrie et de Sainte Agnès. Dülberg les tenait pour l’œuvre d’un peintre hollandais et signalait que des copies de ces panneaux étaient conservées au Musée de Strasbourg (inv. 445-446).1 La même année, dans sa recension du livre de Dülberg, Max Friedländer y reconnaît deux

fragments d’un triptyque démembré et précise que les panneaux de Strasbourg (qui seront fort endommagés dans un incendie en 1947) ne sont pas des copies mais les parties inférieures des panneaux de Gênes.2 Ces quatre fragments formaient les volets d’un triptyque dont la partie centrale était, selon lui, une Adoration des Mages conservée à Turin (Galleria Sabauda, inv. 312). Friedländer développa cette idée dans un article publié en 1927 et dans le supplément du volume XII de Die Altniedeländische Malerei, en 1937.3 Il baptisa l’artiste anonyme responsable de tous ces panneaux du nom de convention ‘Maître de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin’, un peintre dont il situe l’origine dans un premier temps plutôt à Anvers avant de l’inclure parmi les contemporains de Memling à Bruges. Tel que reconstitué par Friedländer (ill. 6.1), le triptyque ouvert présente sur le volet gauche neuf épisodes de la légende de Sainte Catherine, organisés en deux registres séparés autrefois par un cadre peint en trompe-l’œil, et sur le volet droit, dix épisodes de la légende de Sainte Agnès, aussi sur deux registres. Les deux cycles suivent les récits de la Légende dorée.4 Lisons-les rapidement : le registre supérieur du volet dédié à Sainte Catherine montre l’empereur Maxence et Catherine qui refuse de sacrifier aux idoles, la dispute entre Catherine et les philosophes et le bûcher des philosophes. Au

88

véronique bücken

registre inférieur, on distingue encore malgré les dégâts du feu, à l’arrière-plan à gauche, Catherine dénudée et battue, Catherine en prison recevant la visite de ses parents Faustine et Porfirio, la décollation de Faustine et au premier plan, Maxence entouré de ses dignitaires, Catherine échappant au supplice de la roue et la décollation de Catherine. Le cycle se clôt sur la translation du corps de la sainte emporté par deux anges, dans le fond à droite. Sur le volet droit, dédié à Sainte Agnès, on reconnaît, en haut à gauche la rencontre d’Agnès avec le fils du gouverneur de Rome qui tombe malade après avoir été éconduit. Au centre, dans un parallèle évident avec le volet gauche, le gouverneur de Rome incite Agnès à sacrifier aux idoles et, devant son refus, il l’envoie au lupanar où elle est conduite nue. La sainte est protégée d’abord par ses cheveux qui poussent miraculeusement et ensuite par un manteau déposé sur ses épaules par un ange. Dans le registre inférieur, le fils du gouverneur est étendu mort alors qu’Agnès prie pour sa résurrection. Celle-ci survient à l’arrière-plan au centre. Accusée de sorcellerie, Agnès est condamnée au bûcher mais les flammes se divisent pour l’épargner. La dernière scène est celle de son martyre. Sur le panneau central, on trouve un cycle de l’enfance du Christ qui, outre l’Adoration des Mages au centre, comprend une Annonce aux bergers, une Nativité, l’Avertissement aux Mages, les Préparatifs de leur départ, le Massacre des innocents et la Fuite en Égypte avec le miracle du champ de blé. Une fois les volets fermés (ill. 6.2), on voit de gauche à droite, les Saints Georges, Cécile, Sébastien et Ursule, représentés en grisaille sur un fonds rouge vif et identifiés par une inscription apposée dans le bas, sur le bord du socle en pierre sur lequel ils se tiennent. Si tous les épisodes des différentes histoires sont assez conventionnels, on a déjà relevé à plusieurs reprises que l’association des cycles de Sainte Catherine et Sainte Agnès à une Adoration des Mages est unique : on n’en connaît pas d’autres exemples dans la peinture flamande du XVe siècle.5 On notera aussi la manière très inhabituelle de représenter Saint Sébastien,

vêtu d’une armure et protégeant ses compagnons de son manteau dans une sorte de mimétisme avec Sainte Ursule. L’abondante littérature consacrée au triptyque depuis les publications de Friedländer a été résumée à plusieurs reprises par Luca Leoncini, conservateur au Palazzo Reale de Gênes.6 Nous ne l’évoquerons ici que pour revenir sur trois questions qui n’ont cessé de se poser à propos de ce retable. La première concerne son attribution, la seconde, le lieu de création de cet ensemble et la troisième, la pertinence de la reconstitution de Friedländer. Attribution En créant le Maître de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin, Friedländer affirmait implicitement que les différents panneaux du groupe constituaient une production à part, qui ne pouvait être rattachée à aucun artiste connu ni à aucun des nombreux peintres anonymes qu’il avait identifiés sous divers noms de convention. Cette proposition a généralement été acceptée par les auteurs à deux exceptions près : l’hypothèse d’un peintre hollandais, avancée par Dülberg a été défendue par Winkler en 1924, Hoogewerff en 1936 et Morassi en 1946 et 1951.7 D’autre part, en 1949, Carlo Ragghianti a proposé de reconnaître dans le Maître de l’Adoration de Turin le même anonyme que celui qui se cache derrière le Maître des Scènes de la Passion de Bruges, une suggestion qui ne sera guère suivie que par Lucia Collobi Ragghianti en 1990.8 Localisation La question du lieu de création des panneaux a été davantage débattue : Friedländer proposait d’y voir le travail d’un artiste flamand actif en Italie. Il appuyait sa conviction sur le fait que tous les panneaux du groupe qu’il avait formé se trouvaient ou s’étaient trouvés en Italie. Concernant l’origine du peintre, Friedländer a hésité entre Anvers et Bruges, optant finalement pour cette deuxième solution.9 De son côté, Hoogewerff inclut le maître parmi les artistes originaires des Pays-Bas septentrionaux, tout en soulignant l’influence de Gerard

le triptyque de l’adoration des mages (turin-gênes)

David et en rapprochant les volets de la production du Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe.10 À la suite de Friedländer, l’origine brugeoise de l’artiste va prévaloir dans la littérature, les auteurs se divisant en deux groupes : ceux qui pensent, comme Friedländer, que l’anonyme brugeois devait être actif à Gênes : c’est ce qu’on peut lire entre autres dans la notice du Thieme et Becker,11 dans le livre Les Primitifs Flamands et leur temps rédigé sous la direction de Roger Van Schoute et Brigitte de Patoul en 1994,12 ainsi que dans le Dictionnaire des peintres belges.13 D’autres auteurs en revanche défendent l’idée que l’anonyme brugeois était actif dans les Flandres et non pas en Italie : c’est le cas de Ragghianti, d’Aru et De Geradon dans le Corpus dédié à la Galleria Sabauda en 1952 ou encore de Guiliana Algeri en 1997.14 À partir de 1996 et à plusieurs reprises par la suite, Luca Leoncini consacrera des notices détaillées au triptyque : il reprend la première idée de Friedländer et voit dans l’auteur du triptyque un artiste probablement anversois.15 Pertinence de la reconstitution La pertinence de la reconstitution proposée par Friedländer a également été mise en question. Friedländer appuyait sa reconstitution du triptyque sur la concordance des dimensions du panneau de Turin et des volets avant que ces derniers n’aient été découpés en quatre fragments.16 Il relevait cependant une différence de style entre le panneau central et les volets mais il la justifiait par le mauvais état de conservation de l’Adoration des Mages et les nombreux surpeints qui l’altéraient. La disparité de main entre le panneau central et les volets a aussi été soulignée par Aru et De Geradon et par d’autres auteurs par la suite sans pour autant remettre en cause la reconstitution de Friedländer. Récemment encore, Luca Leoncini a estimé, à juste titre selon moi, que le triptyque a dû être réalisé par deux artistes différents. Il publie les fragments des volets tantôt sous une attribution au Maître de l’Adoration de Turin, tantôt comme ‘artiste flamand anversois (?)’.17 L’argument de la disparité de style entre les différents fragments a été utilisé pour

89

réfuter la reconstitution de Friedländer entre autres par Licia Collobi Ragghianti et Maria Fontana Amoretti.18 Lors de l’exposition Mostra dell’arte fiamminga e olandese, qui s’est tenue à Florence en 1947, les fragments de Gênes et l’Adoration des Mages de Turin étaient d’ailleurs exposés séparément, dans deux salles différentes.19 En 1936, Hoogewerff avait déjà rejeté la reconstitution de Friedländer, lui objectant l’incohérence du programme iconographique, une objection reprise et développée par Castelnovi en 1970.20 Grâce à un document, on sait que les cinq fragments proviennent tous de la Collection Balbi à Gênes où ils se trouvaient dès le milieu du XVIIe siècle,21 ce qui constitue un argument fort en faveur de la proposition de Friedländer. Pourtant, non seulement les panneaux ne sont pas mentionnés ensemble dans ce document mais en outre, celui-ci permet d’établir avec certitude que le triptyque était déjà démembré au XVIIe siècle. Pour l’exposition L’Héritage de Rogier van der Weyden, Maria Galassi et moi-même nous étions rangées à l’idée qui prévaut actuellement, à savoir que les cinq fragments forment bien un triptyque, mais qu’ils ont été réalisés par deux artistes au moins.22 Le panneau central est exécuté par un artiste plus habile, imprégné par Van der Goes, et présente des personnages plus solides et plus individualisés que ceux des volets. En me basant sur la manière d’insérer les différents épisodes légendaires dans des éléments d’architecture ainsi que sur le fond rouge des grisailles aux revers des volets, j’ai proposé de voir dans ces panneaux la production d’un artiste anonyme bruxellois, proche du groupe Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe, comme suggéré autrefois par Hoogewerff.23 La confrontation des deux panneaux de Gênes avec des œuvres de ce groupe rassemblées à l’occasion de l’exposition a confirmé que l’artiste responsable des volets de Gênes ne correspond à aucune des différentes mains identifiées dans ce groupe, même s’il n’en est jamais très loin. La comparaison d’un détail du panneau génois de Sainte Catherine avec des détails du panneau éponyme du Maître de la

90

véronique bücken

A.

C.

Ill. 6.3. A: Anonyme bruxellois, Scènes de la Légende de Sainte Catherine, vers 1490, huile sur chêne, 74 x 99/106 cm, Gênes, Museo di Palazzo Reale, inv. 945, détail du volet gauche. B: Maître de la Légende de sainte Barbe, Scènes de la Légende de Sainte Barbe, huile sur chêne, 73,2 x 124 cm, Bruxelles, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 6149, détail de la Main A. C: Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe, Scènes de la légende de Sainte Barbe, détail de la main B

B.

Légende de Sainte Barbe, conservé à Bruxelles, tant la main A que la main B, montre que l’on est proche mais que ce ne sont pas les mêmes artistes (ill. 6.3a-c).24 La comparaison des volets de Gênes avec les volets du Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe conservés à New York, qui présentent à première vue une mise en page et des personnages similaires, n’est pas non plus concluante en ce qui concerne l’écriture picturale (ill. 6.4).25 Nouveaux éléments La restauration du panneau de Turin ainsi que l’étude des panneaux en réflectographie infrarouge a permis d’avancer sur certaines des questions

ouvertes. Lors de la restauration du panneau de Turin, le surpeint de la robe de l’homme agenouillé au premier plan à gauche a été enlevé (ill. 6.5), révélant un berger. On se trouve donc en présence d’un berger agenouillé, ‘présenté’ par un autre berger, une situation pour le moins incongrue qui n’est certainement pas originale (ill. 6.6). Tout aussi incongrus sont le drap blanc sur lequel il est agenouillé, le drapelet de crosse abbatiale accroché à sa houlette de pâtre, et la base orfévrée et enrichie de perles de ce bâton et de celui de son compagnon. Tels qu’ils se présentent actuellement, ces deux personnages sont incohérents et résultent clairement eux aussi d’une modification. L’étude du panneau en réflectographie infrarouge (IRR) réalisée par Maria Clelia Galassi26 a révélé la présence d’un blason au-dessus du ‘berger’ agenouillé, blason qui a lui aussi été surpeint (ill. 6.7).

le triptyque de l’adoration des mages (turin-gênes)

91

B. A.

Ill. 6.4. A: Anonyme bruxellois, Scènes de la Légende de Sainte Agnès, vers 1490, huile sur chêne, 74 x 99/106 cm, Gênes, Museo di Palazzo Reale, inv. 946, détail du volet droit. B: Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe, Le roi David reçoit le messager d’Abner (?), vers 1480, huile sur chêne, 93,3 x 44,8 cm, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 32.100.56a, détail

Ill. 6.5. Maître de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin, Adoration des Mages, vers 1490, huile sur chêne, 156.2 x 214.3 cm, Turin, Galleria Sabauda, inv. 312, état avant restauration

92

véronique bücken

Ill. 6.6. Maître de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin, Adoration des Mages (ill. 6.1), détail

Publié dans le catalogue de l’exposition L’Héritage de Rogier van der Weyden,27 ce blason a été identifié par Monsieur Goddeeris,28 un lecteur éclairé, connaisseur de l’héraldique de sa région, qui y a reconnu les armoiries de Hendrik Keddekin, 27e abbé de Ter Doest. Cette abbaye cistercienne, filiale de l’Abbaye des Dunes, située à Lissewege à quelques kilomètres au nord de Bruges, fut fondée en 1175. Elle connut une grande prospérité comme en témoigne l’unique bâtiment qui subsiste aujourd’hui : une remarquable grange dîmiaire qui conserve sa charpente d’origine datée par dendrochronologie de la fin du XIVe siècle, témoignant de la richesse de cette institution à cette époque. Tout aussi exemplaire était l’église à trois nefs, édifiée au milieu du XIIIe siècle, qui mesurait 123 m de long sur 68 m de large et dont les voûtes étaient supportées par vingt piliers. Ter Doest comportait aussi une bibliothèque et un scriptorium très actif dès la fin du XIIIe siècle. L’abbaye semble avoir connu des difficultés financières dès le XVe siècle et le pillage de l’église par les iconoclastes en 1570 lui

porta un coup fatal. Ter Doest fut incorporée à l’Abbaye des Dunes en 1624 et ses bâtiments, alors en ruine, furent définitivement détruits, à l’exception de la grange.29 Originaire de Wesel, Hendrik Keddekin fut nommé abbé de Ter Doest le 27 juillet 1478 et le resta jusqu’en 1491, année où il résigna sa charge sans doute en raison de problèmes de santé. Il mourut à Krabbendijk le 14 mars 1492.30 Sa famille était établie à Bruges où son frère Burchard Keddekin était chanoine à Saint-Donatien, tout comme l’avait été son oncle Franco Keddekin quelques années plus tôt.31 Hendrik est surtout connu comme bibliophile. Sous son abbatiat, la riche bibliothèque de Ter Doest s’est enrichie de nombreux livres, manuscrits ou imprimés, dont plusieurs portent ses armoiries. On peut citer entre autres l’Explanatio super Ysaim de Saint Jérôme, un manuscrit daté de 1484, exécuté à la demande de Keddekin par le frère Antoine de Dekker dans le scriptorium de Ter Doest même, et conservé aujourd’hui à la bibliothèque de la ville de Bruges (ms. St. 35). Le fol. 2 porte par deux fois le blason de Keddekin, une première fois dans le V initial, et encore au centre du décor marginal inférieur, où l’on voit en outre l’abbé agenouillé en prière (ill. 6.8).32 Le Missel de Ter Doest, conservé au grand Séminaire de Bruges (ms. Sem. 49/18), offre un autre exemple. Commandé par le prédécesseur de Keddekin, l’abbé Laurent de Vriendt, il fut adapté par Keddekin qui y a fait placer un hymne à Saint Bernard et ses armoiries au fol. 9 (ill. 6.9). Par la suite, le missel a encore été enrichi, entre autres par Christiaan de Hondt et Robrecht de Clercq, tous deux abbés de l’Abbaye des Dunes.33 Keddekin blasonnait d’or, un symbole d’azur en forme d’église à trois nefs, chef d’azur à trois étoiles d’or, sommé de la crosse abbatiale.34 La réflectographie infrarouge (ill. 6.7) ne permet pas de voir les couleurs du blason sur le panneau de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin, cependant son identification avec celui de Hendrik Keddekin ne laisse place à aucun doute. C’était donc Hendrik Keddekin vêtu de l’habit blanc des cisterciens, muni de sa crosse d’abbé et présenté très vraisem-

le triptyque de l’adoration des mages (turin-gênes)

93

Ill. 6.7. Maître de l’Adoration des Mages de Turin, Adoration des Mages (ill. 6.1), détail du blason en IRR

blablement par Saint Bernard de Clairvaux qui était représenté à l’origine au premier plan du panneau de l’Adoration des Mages conservé à Turin. Ce donateur a été modifié à deux reprises : dans un premier temps, il a été transformé en berger, tel qu’on le voit actuellement, et ensuite, à une date inconnue, sans doute pour corriger cette bizarrerie iconographique, le ‘berger’ a été revêtu d’une sorte de bure vert foncé, un surpeint aujourd’hui enlevé. Ces découvertes permettent de progresser sur certaines questions soulevées par le triptyque. Le commanditaire, pour le panneau central du moins, étant Hendrick Keddekin abbé cistercien de Ter Doest, certaines hypothèses souvent avancées peuvent être définitivement écartées. On a acquis la certitude que le panneau n’a pas été peint à la demande d’un commanditaire italien. On sait aussi

que l’artiste flamand qui l’a réalisé n’était pas actif en Italie. Dans l’état actuel de la recherche, on ne peut pas déterminer, en revanche, quand les panneaux sont passés en Italie. Plusieurs hypothèses peuvent être proposées. Soit le panneau central commandé par Keddekin a été terminé avant la mort de l’abbé et placé dans l’église de Ter Doest. Il pourrait avoir été vendu très vite après la mort de l’abbé dont on aurait surpeint le portrait.35 Il se pourrait aussi que le panneau soit resté dans l’église jusqu’au pillage de 1570 et n’ait été vendu qu’à cette époque. Ces hypothèses n’offrent aucune explication au programme iconographique très particulier du triptyque. À ce jour, il n’a pas été possible de trouver un lien entre Keddekin et les Saintes Catherine et Agnès ou les quatre saints des revers, ni entre Ter Doest et les saints du trip-

94

véronique bücken

tyque.36 Dans l’état actuel des recherches, aucune des rares mentions d’archives concernant des tableaux dont on peut affirmer qu’ils proviennent de Ter Doest ne peut être mise en relation avec le panneau de Keddekin.37 Au XVIe siècle, les Balbi possédaient d’importants comptoirs à Anvers et ils peuvent avoir acheté sur le marché anversois un lot de panneaux dans lequel figuraient soit séparément déjà, soit ensemble, l’Adoration des Mages et les volets de Sainte Catherine et Sainte Barbe. Après les destructions et les pillages consécutifs à l’iconoclasme, des tableaux et morceaux de tableaux cherchant acquéreurs se trouvaient en quantité à Anvers et il était aisé pour de riches clients qui voulaient rapidement enrichir une collection d’acheter des lots de tableaux regroupés par les vendeurs et n’ayant pas forcément de rapports entre eux. La première transformation du commanditaire et de son saint patron en bergers pourrait avoir été motivée par une démarche mercantile, dans le but de cacher la provenance de l’œuvre et sa présence sur le marché à la suite d’un pillage. Il est possible aussi que le tableau n’ait pas été achevé en 1492, à la mort de Keddekin, ou que ce dernier ait renoncé à sa commande en 1491, lorsqu’il abandonna sa charge d’abbé. Le tableau presque achevé serait alors resté dans l’atelier du peintre qui l’aurait utilisé pour une autre commande, modifiant l’aspect originel du premier commanditaire et de son protecteur et ajoutant des volets selon les instructions précises du nouveau client. Cette hypothèse permettrait d’expliquer les différences de style et de conception entre le panneau central et les volets. Cependant, il paraît étrange que l’acheteur d’une œuvre au programme si spécifique n’ait pas voulu figurer d’une manière ou d’une autre sur le grand retable et ait accepté l’image incongrue d’un berger présenté par un autre berger au premier plan de son triptyque. Le deuxième surpeint, non daté et aujourd’hui enlevé, devait avoir pour but de corriger quelque peu cette anomalie à une époque ultérieure. La validité de la reconstitution de Friedländer reste, à ce stade de la recherche, une question

Ill. 6.8. Hieronymus, Explanatio super Ysaiam, 1484, Bruges, Stadsbibliotheek, St. 35, fol. 2r, Incipit avec Keddekin dans la marge et son blason, dans la marge et dans la majuscule V

ouverte. À l’instar de Jan Crabbe et Christiaan de Hondt, abbés de l’Abbaye des Dunes, on peut affirmer que Hendrik Keddekin n’a pas limité son mécénat aux livres et aux manuscrits, mais qu’il a lui aussi commandé un tableau. Il a pris soin de s’y faire représenter avec Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, s’inscrivant ainsi dans une tradition bien établie. L’artiste qui a réalisé sa commande ne peut à ce jour être tiré de l’anonymat. On peut penser en toute logique que, comme ses collègues de l’Abbaye des Dunes, Keddekin s’est probablement adressé à un atelier brugeois. Pourtant, en raison du style des volets, proche du groupe ‘Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe’, on ne peut exclure qu’il ait sollicité un atelier bruxellois. Une telle démarche n’a rien d’étrange quand on sait que Keddekin achetait des

le triptyque de l’adoration des mages (turin-gênes)

95

Ill. 6.9. Missel de Ter Doest, Bruges, Groot Seminarie, Sem. 49/18, fols. 9v-10, Hymne à Saint Bernard avec le blason d’Hendrik Keddekin dans la marge

livres et des manuscrits à Paris.38 Noël Geirnaert a montré que l’Abbaye des Dunes, maison mère de Ter Doest, entretenait des relations avec l’Abbaye du Rouge Cloître. Ainsi, Jan Gilemans, le célèbre hagiographe du Rouge Cloître, avait utilisé le manuscrit d’un moine de l’Abbaye des Dunes afin de glaner des renseignements indispensables à la rédaction du Sanctilogium. On sait aussi que la Mort de la Vierge, considérée comme une des dernières œuvres de Hugo van der Goes, peinte alors que l’artiste était établit à l’Abbaye du Rouge Cloître, se trouvait au XVIIIe siècle dans le refuge brugeois de Ter Doest, où avait été rassemblés les biens et les archives des Abbayes des Dunes et de Ter Doest. Il n’est pas exclu que ce tableau ait été commandé pour une de ces deux maisons religieuses.39 Ces liens pourraient expliquer que Keddekin se soit

adressé à un artiste formé dans l’entourage de Van der Goes et du groupe ‘Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe’, qui aurait pu travailler soit à Bruxelles, soit à Bruges, soit dans les deux villes à l’exemple du peintre Aert van den Bossche.40 L’étude du dessin sous-jacent réalisée par Maria Clelia Galassi et publiée dans ce volume peut apporter de nouveaux éléments de réponse. NOTES * Que tous ceux qui m’ont aidée dans cette recherche soient ici remerciés. Je suis redevable à Maria Clelia Galassi et Griet Steyaert pour leurs suggestions lors de discussions stimulantes. Mon collègue Dominique Maréchal m’a indiqué la bonne direction. Jan van Acker, Kurt Priem, Ludo Vandamme et Noël Geirnaert ont généreusement partagé leurs connaissances des abbayes des Dunes et de Ter Doest ainsi que de leurs archives. 1 Dülberg 1907, p. 11, ills. XI-XII. 2 Friedländer 1907, p. 79.

96

véronique bücken

3 Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 14, pp. 105-106 ; Friedländer 1927-1928, p. 279. 4 Pour une étude détaillée de l’iconographie, voir : Genoa 1996, pp. 9-11. 5 Hoogewerff 1936a, p. 512. 6 Leoncini 2003, pp. 138-140, nr. 31 ; Genoa 2004, pp. 210-215 ; Leoncini 2008, pp. 180-185. 7 Winkler 1924, pp. 223, 378 ; Hoogewerff 1936a, pp. 510-514 ; Genoa 1946, pp. 42-43, nr. 18-19 ; Morassi 1951, p. 71, ills. 140-141. 8 Ragghianti 1949 ; Collobi Ragghianti 1990, pp. 82-84. 9 Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 14, pp. 105-106. 10 Hoogewerff 1936a, pp. 510-514. 11 Vollmer 1950, p. 331. 12 Toussaint 1994, p. 511. 13 De Patoul, Rossi 1995. 14 Ragghianti 1949 ; Aru, De Geradon 1951 ; Algeri 1997, p. 50. 15 Leoncini 2008. 16 Le panneau de Turin mesure 156.2 ≈ 214.3 cm. Les fragments de Strasbourg mesurent 79 ≈ 101 cm. Les fragments de Gênes mesurent 74 cm de haut et leur largeur varie entre 99 et 106 cm selon les auteurs. Lors de leur dernière restauration peu avant 1996, on a enlevé les lattes qui avaient été ajoutées sur les petits côtés pour élargir les panneaux d’environ 10 cm afin de pouvoir les insérer dans des cadres XIXe siècle. Voir : Genoa 1996, p. 12. 17 Genoa 2004, p. 210 ; Leoncini 2008. 18 Collobi Ragghianti 1990, p. 152 ; Fontana Amoretti, Plomp 1998, p. 171. 19 Florence 1947, pp. 3-4, 6. 20 Castelnovi 1970, pp. 173-174. 21 Voir la contribution de Maria Clelia Galassi dans ce volume. 22 Brussels 2013, pp. 276-279. 23 Hoogewerff 1936a, p. 511. 24 La plus récente mise au point concernant le problème complexe des différentes ‘mains’ identifiées dans le groupe ‘Maître de la Légende de Sainte Barbe’ a été proposée par Griet Steyaert (2013a). Pour le panneau de Bruxelles, voir spécialement : pp. 270-271. 25 Comme dans les volets de Gênes, les architectures des volets de New York présentent des lignes de fuites qui ne convergent pas vers le panneau central. Sur les volets de New York, voir : New York 1998, pp. 120-122. 26 Voir la contribution de Maria Clelia Galassi dans ce volume.

27 Brussels 2013, p. 279. 28 Théodore Goddeeris est docteur en médecine, passionné d’histoire, d’héraldique et d’histoire de l’art. 29 Sur l’abbaye de Ter Doest et son histoire, voir : Huyghebaert 1966 ; Van Royen, Van de Cruys, Cheron 2011, pp. 3-11 ; Hoste 1993. La datation de la charpente par dendrochronologie a été réalisée par Jérome Eeckhout et David Houbrechts, Université de Liège. Voir : Nuytten 2005. Pour la bibliothèque et le scriptorium, voir : Bruges 1994b, pp. 5-11. 30 Sur Hendrik Keddekin, voir : Huyghebaert 1966, pp. 345346 ; Van Royen, Van de Cruys, Cheron 2011, p. 29. 31 Voir : Callewier 2014, pp. 194, 349-350 pour des précisions sur Franco Keddekin, son activité au service de la Hanse et les nombreux déplacements qu’elle impliquait. Je remercie Ludo Vandamme et Kurt Priem qui m’ont indiqué cette référence. 32 Bruges, Stadsbibliotheek, St 35. Voir : Hoste 1993, pp. 37-39, 98. 33 Bruges, Grootseminarie, Sem. 49/18. Voir : Hoste 1993, p. 238 ; Hissette, Van Parys 1987. 34 Van Royen, Van de Cruys, Cheron 2011, p. 29. 35 Dirk de Vos (1994, p. 216) a démontré qu’un surpeint a transformé le donateur, probablement Jan Crabbe, du Triptyque de la Vierge à l’Enfant et les deux Saints Jean de Memling (Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 939) en un jeune homme laïc, et ce, dès le début du XVIe siècle. Je remercie Jan van Acker qui a attiré mon attention sur cette similitude avec le surpeint de l’abbé Keddekin sur le panneau de Turin. 36 Il ne semble exister ni description ni document susceptibles de fournir des informations sur l’intérieur de l’église abbatiale et les autels qu’elle contenait, une situation normale pour une église abbatiale cistercienne, fermée au public. Je remercie Kurt Priem et Jan van Acker pour les informations et les références qu’ils ont bien voulu me communiquer à ce sujet. 37 Jan van Acker, collaborateur scientifique au Abdijmuseum Ten Duinen, m’a généreusement communiqué la liste des tableaux provenant de Ter Doest, dont il a trouvé des mentions dans les archives lors de ses recherches qui sont toujours en cours. Espérons que la poursuite de ses travaux mettra d’autres informations au jour. 38 Bruges 2002, p. 70. 39 Geirnaert 2002. 40 Steyaert 2013a, p. 249.

Ill. 7.1. Brussels Anonymous (Workshop of the Master of the Turin Adoration?), Scenes from the Life of Saint Agnes, Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Reale, inv. 946 (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: heads of figures in the centre

7

Revising Friedländer The ‘Underdrawing Connoisseurship’ and the Master of the Turin Adoration Maria Clelia Galassi

ABSTRACT: Friedländer proposed that the panels with the Scenes from the Lives of Saint Catherine and Saint Agnes (Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Reale; Strasbourg, Musée des Beaux-arts) and the Adoration of the Magi (Turin, Galleria Sabauda) originally formed an altarpiece and attributed it to the conventional Master of the Turin Adoration. So far, and on the basis of traditional connoisseurship, Friedländer’s hypothesis has not been unanimously accepted, the Genoese panels also suggested to have created the ad hoc Master of the Scenes from the Lives of Saint Agnes and Saint Catherine. The paper presents the result of the IR examination conducted on the panels in Turin and Genoa. Applying a method of ‘underdrawing connoisseurship’, the paper discusses how, and to what extent, analogies in underdrawing might support Friedländer’s proposal or whether they must merely be regarded as proof that the panels were executed in the same workshop.

—o— Introduction In his 1942 essay On Art and Connoisseurship, Max Friedländer shortly discussed the utility that scientific methods recently introduced to the investigations of paintings could offer to the art historian in connoisseur practices. As we know, the German scholar never benefited – even late in his career – from the application of these new technologies that he considered to help refine observations concerning the ‘question of the actual materials’, but were inadequate ‘when it is a question of artis-

tic effects’. According to Friedländer, analytical examinations with X-rays, quartz lamp irradiations, significant enlargements, and photography with powerful side-lighting (without mention of infrared photography) could supplement naked eye observations concerning the physical consistency of the artefact. However, at the same time, such techniques could potentially cause the scholar to ‘lose the capacity to receive an impression of that is visible’.1 However and despite Friedländer’s opinions, the possibilities offered by such scientific investigations in examining working steps in painting and technical features that are not perceptible to the naked eye have significantly expanded the field of the connoisseurship. This is even more true thanks to the gradual accumulation of this kind of information which, over time, has produced systematic material that can be compared. Therefore, the main focus of connoisseurship – namely ‘attributing’ and creating corpora of consistent paintings – can now benefit from new elements upon which criticism can in turn be based. In addition, these new perspectives of study can be applied to recently restored paintings, which often after having been cleaned, can have their actual pictorial qualities and stylistic aspects identified more accurately. In his Art Criticism from the Laboratory (1938), Allan Burroughs highlighted how technological

100

maria clelia galassi

connoisseurship based on the examination of the X-rays ‘shadowgraphs’ can be applied to review problematic corpora in early Netherlandish painting.2 Since the late 1960s, the application of infrared reflectography in the examination of underdrawing has come to be regarded as an imaging technique that can extend the field of the traditional connoisseurship further than others. Using this technique, the identities of several provisional named masters, particularly those suggested by Max Friedländer, have been exposed to new scrutiny. The aim of this paper is to discuss the difficulties of connoisseurship and the problems encountered in attributing when our judgment is based on the examination of the underdrawing style. The object of the study is the so-called Triptych of the Turin Adoration. This piece is a good example of a work, or more specifically of a group of panels – the Adoration in Turin (Galleria Sabauda, inv. 312, 156.2 ≈ 214.3 cm) and the four panels with the Scenes from the Life of Saint Catherine and Saint Agnes divided among Strasbourg (Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. 445-446, 79 ≈ 101 cm) and Genoa (Galleria di Palazzo Reale, inv. 945-946, 74 ≈ 99 cm) – that were executed in the same workshop or in different workshops sharing the same artistic legacy in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Therefore, the challenge of this research was to verify the presence, or absence, of particular and individual graphic idiosyncrasies in underdrawing that could be regarded as specific signs of autography, rather than simply workshop conventions. The more workshop conventions were shared and spread, the more underdrawing connoisseurship is difficult. When I began this research for the exhibition the Heritage of Rogier van der Weyden, I came to the conclusion that the same hand had executed the underdrawing of all the panels. Therefore, although the paint handling is very different when we compare the Turin Adoration with the StrasbourgGenoa panels, in the entry of the Brussels catalogue that I wrote with Véronique Bücken, I supported the hypothesis that all the underdrawings were consistent in style and function.3 This statement

led to the conclusion that the panels together originally formed a triptych that, although painted by two different hands, was underdrawn by one single master. However, returning to this subject, I feel that my arguments were perhaps not so definite and concrete, and that my analyses needed to be developed in a deeper way. The Friedländer ‘Master of the Turin Adoration’ In 1927-1928, developing his suggestions made in 1907, Friedländer suggested a connection between the panels with the Scenes from the Lives of Saint Catherine and Saint Agnes housed in the Palazzo Reale of Genoa, the two panels with the same subject acquired by Bode in Florence for the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg, and the Adoration of the Kings in the Galleria Sabauda, Turin.4 The latter, traditionally attributed to Lucas van Leyden and then to Hieronymus Bosch,5 had been given some years before to a Dutch painter by Winckler,6 while the Genoese panels – traditionally referred to Lucas van Leyden and Albrecht Altdorfer7 – had been attributed to the ‘Flemish School’ by Wilhelm Suida8 and to the ‘German School’ by Franz Dülberg.9 Noting that each Strasbourg panel had a grisaille on the reverse depicting the lower part of two full-length figures – and therefore that they must have been the lower part of two wings – Friedländer proposed that the five panels originally formed part of a dismantled Adoration of the Magi Triptych, which he attributed to an anonymous master provisionally named the Master of the Turin Adoration (ills. 6.1-6.2). He also attributed a panel depicting Christ Carrying the Cross now in the Johnson Collection of Philadelphia (formerly in a private Florentine collection) to this painter, thought to have moved from Flanders to Genoa. Concerning the provenance of the master, Friedländer was doubtful and suggested between Bruges and Antwerp, finally opting for the latter, not because of stylistic reasons, but also because of the close economic relations between the Genoese merchants and the city on the Scheldt.10 He did not extensively discuss what led him to group these

revising friedländer

paintings under the same provisional name. His comments mostly concern generic pictorial features, identifying particular visual characteristics such as the ability to depict powerful architecture in the background and languid expressions of feeling, particularly evident in the small dark eyes gazing upwards from below. Whilst remarking that the ‘mediocre restoration’ had affected the quality of the Turin panel, the German scholar had no doubt in proposing it as the central panel of the hypothetical triptych and in attributing the whole altarpiece to the same one hand. A first confirmation of Friedländer’s brilliant skill in connecting paintings around the world and in providing attributions based on the sensitivity to deduce information by reading the paintings themselves came from the observation of the back of the Genoese panels. Here, the presence of a grisaille depicting two paired half figures (upper part) that perfectly match with the half figures present on the reverse of the Strasbourg panels is sure proof that the two Scenes from the Life of Saint Catherine and the two Scenes from the Life of Saint Agnes were originally superimposed and that they belonged to the same two wings.11 Other support in favour of Friedländer’s proposal arrived in 1987 with the publication of the inventory of Giovanni Battista Balbi’s collection. Giovanni Battista Balbi (16171657) lived in what is now called Palazzo Reale, built by his father Stefano between 1650 and 1657. Balbi was one of the richest businessmen at his time in Genoa, thanks to the trade in the mercury extracted from the mines of Idria, Western Slovenia, the monopoly of which was granted to him by the Emperor Ferdinand the Third of Augsburg. He collected a wonderful collection of paintings in the palace before dying of plague aged only forty.12 The 1658 inventory of his gallery lists an ‘Adoration of the Magi’ by the Master ‘Quintino Fiammingo’ – the attribution to Quentin Massys is recurrent in Genoese sources and generally refers to paintings of the Flemish School – as well as four unattributed panels depicting the ‘Martyrdom of Saint Catherine’. Later and more detailed descrip-

101

tions of this Adoration allow us to certainly connect and identify it with the panel that is now in Turin. Therefore, thanks to this document, we know that in the mid-seventeenth century, whilst separately hung, all five panels were housed in the same collection.13 We have no specific proof concerning the interrelationship between the Genoa-Strasbourg wings and the Turin Adoration. If we accept the hypothesis that they were originally part of the same altarpiece, we can assume that the triptych could have been dismembered and reframed when it was housed in Balbi’s palace, so as to be consistent with the display of a Baroque gallery. We do not know when the panels, or the triptych when it was still intact, entered Giovanni Battista’s collection. Studies on Genoese collecting have demonstrated that Giovanni Battista collected his picture gallery in a very short time. He mainly bought paintings on the Venetian market, but we cannot ignore the fact that he also acquired works of art in the Netherlands, since we know that in his youth he often travelled to Antwerp. It is also possible that he inherited it from his grandfather Giovanni Francesco, who lived in Antwerp since 1559. Other Flemish paintings were listed in the collection, both ancient and contemporary – such as the Rubens’ Juno and Argus now in Cologne (Wallraf-Richartz Museum) – as well as a cityscape of Antwerp.14 Following Giovanni Battista’s death, his collection was sold at auction and only few paintings, including our panels, remained in the palace, the property of which succeeded to the Durazzo family through the marriage of Clelia, Giovanni Battista’s daughter. When Genoa was annexed to the Kingdom of Piedmont at the beginning of nineteenth century, the Royal House of Savoia bought the palace – hence the present name ‘Palazzo Reale’ – so as to have an official residence in the city. At that time, the two panels now found in Strasbourg were already missing. In 1837, Carlo Alberto of Savoia decided to move the Adoration, at that time believed to be by Lucas van Leyden, to the Galleria Sabauda in Turin.15

102

maria clelia galassi

Given that the five panels share a common provenance history, at least from mid-seventeenth century, Friedländer’s statement has been generally accepted.16 During this time, some panels have been introduced to the art market with the attribution to the master thereby increasing his corpus.17 Nevertheless, some scholars were, and are, sceptical about the idea that the Turin and Genoa/Strasbourg panels were part of the same triptych; for iconographic reasons – in fact the Adoration has no logical connection with the subject of the supposed wings18 – and because of stylistic factors.19 In particular the existence of a painter who could be identified with the master created by Friedländer has been questioned after the modern cleaning of the Adoration, which was heavily repainted in the past. In fact, after the 1992-1993 treatment, although very badly preserved, the Turin painting exhibits a paint handling which is very different when compared with that shown in the Genoese panels.20 Underdrawing The panels in Turin and Genoa were examined by infrared digital photography (IR). In the Turin Adoration – the paint surface of which appeared to be more damaged than it seems visibly – the examination revealed a number of changes introduced during the painting stage. The more interesting modifications were connected with an early change in the painting patronage and mainly concerned the covering of the coat of arms of the Keddekin family, and the change of the identity of the first donor, Hendrik Keddekin, Abbot of Ter Doest, and his saint patron, Bernard of Clairvaux (ill. 6.7).21 On the reverse of the Genoese panel with Saint Sebastian and Saint Ursula, the IR revealed that the paired saints, set against a flat orange background, were originally placed within an elegant arch adorned with crockets. Thanks to the great transparency of the paint layers, a copious and very typified underdrawing is clearly evident everywhere. On the basis of the IR results, the aim was to verify whether and to what extent the method of the connoisseurship of the

drawings on paper could be applied to the domain of underdrawing. The intention of doing so was to establish whether it was possible to recognize graphic idiosyncrasies in underdrawing that would allow us to identify whether or not they were produced by the same hand. In order to do this, I identified and compared materials and instruments used to underdraw, methods followed in laying out the composition, style in depicting figures, draperies and architectures, logics followed in shifting figures and graphic mannerisms in outlining and hatching. Freehand brush and ink underdrawing were found in all of the examined panels. A shared peculiarity in all panels is the variety in size of the brushes used to underdraw. Therefore, variations in the quantity of the ink applied were noted everywhere, from fine and sharp marks to bold strokes of a more or less dilute liquid. It is possible that the different brushes were used following the steps of the design, starting with the largest ones, and going ahead with the finest. However, in many cases it seems that the selection of the tool did not follow a precise planning. All the panels shared a complex composition, with large and small figures distributed from the foreground to the mid and background, and architectural elements used to organize space. The general composition was initially sketched freehand, so as to distribute the many scenes that cohabit in the same panel in the space. Buildings and figures are edged by soft and quite large outlines, particularly evident where the final contour does not coincide with the underdrawing or where pentimenti are present. Occasionally, the outlines are very synthetic, only setting the shape of figures (ill. 7.1) and animals, and sometimes they are more copious and detailed, as shown in the Life of Saint Catherine, where a sculpture in the interior of the church was carefully drawn, but never painted (ill. 7.2). The features of the figures, draperies and buildings were depicted with brush and ink, in a style that can be described as Rogerian. Details of physiognomies were shortly and somehow ‘arbitrarily’ portrayed by free and fluent brushstrokes (ill. 7.3).

revising friedländer

103

Ill. 7.2. Brussels Anonymous (Workshop of the Master of the Turin Adoration?), Scenes from the Life of Saint Agnes (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: building

The variation in the thickness of the brushes persists, and sometimes the lines are exceptionally bold. A variety of hatching is found in all panels and no unique system of shading can be found. The faces, as well as the muzzles of the animals (ill. 7.4), are only summarily shadowed with small bands of parallel and short hatching which are variously

oriented. In the draperies, the hatching is more compact, variable in length and sometimes crossed, so as to create the shape of the folds. A meticulous texture of short diagonal hatching creates the planes of shadows in the buildings. In addition to the previously mentioned modifications connected to the change of the donor

104

maria clelia galassi

Ill. 7.3. Brussels Anonymous (Workshop of the Master of the Turin Adoration?), Scenes from the Life of Saint Agnes (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: Governor of Rome

identity, many changes concerning the underdrawing stage were revealed throughout the Turin Adoration as well as in the Genoese panels. It is possible to distinguish compositional changes involving more or less important shifts in the position of the figures, and also drastic alterations in the architecture, with buildings having either been discarded or heavily changed. The position of the heads was systematically shifted. An identical process seems to have guided these changes, since all the shifting was affected by rotation around a

fixed axis. We find horizontal rotation, where the three-quarter view was turned to the other side, keeping the central eye as a pivot, and vertical rotation, rotating the head forward or backward, having a fixed mouth and moved eyes and noses (ill. 7.5a-b) Possibilities and limits of underdrawing connoisseurship At this point, it is important to address and determine whether the underdrawing features described

revising friedländer

105

Ill. 7.4. Master of the Turin Adoration, Adoration of the Magi, Turin, Galleria Sabauda, inv. 312 (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: figures in the right background

so far are sufficient enough to establish that the same master was responsible for underdrawing the Turin Adoration and the Genoese panels. In other words, it is important to consider whether demarcation lines allow us to distinguish among workshop practice and individual features. In my opinion, the manner used to lay out the composition of the panels and to depict the figures could be

regarded as the result of shared workshop procedures rather than of individual choices. However, on the other hand, the particular mode in which the heads were shifted could be regarded as an indication of the same hand at work, although we cannot consider this recurrence as concrete evidence. To find more convincing evidence it is necessary to discern highly distinctive idiosyncrasies in the

106

maria clelia galassi

A.

B.

Ill. 7.5. A: Master of the Turin Adoration, Adoration of the Magi (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: angel. B: Brussels Anonymous (Workshop of the Master of the Turin Adoration?), Scenes from the Life of Saint Catherine, Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Reale, inv. 945 (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: head of Saint Catherine

drawing. The more particular mannerisms are found, the more scope we have to refer them to the hand of one master. In other words, we have to use criteria normally used in the field of the connoisseurship of drawings on paper, thereby making our examination more analytic. A deeper look at the underdrawing shows that the Turin and Genoa paintings share graphic mannerisms in outlining that can meet drawings connoisseurship criteria. For instance, the way in which the female faces were portrayed shows idiosyncratic traits in the soft and aqueous brushstrokes that define the hair on the face, in the round line that divides the neck from the bust, in some occasional long lines that cross the face vertically, with no specific function. Other very distinct lines occur in all panels, consisting of very large and dark brushstrokes that sketch some physiognomy of an elderly male, emphasizing the folds in skin of the cheeks, noses, chins and foreheads in a very expressionistic way (ill. 7.6a-b). Based on these elements, I have in the past inferred that the same hand had to have underdrawn all the panels.

This statement is crucial, since it would be the only proof we have to demonstrate that the Friedländer triptych (and its master) really existed. However, other observations can be added that disclose a different scenario, particularly those regarding the use of hatching in portraying the faces and in the shadowing of the draperies. The

A.

B.

Ill. 7.6. A: Brussels Anonymous (Workshop of the Master of the Turin Adoration?), Scenes from the Life of Saint Agnes (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: head of a man at right. B: Master of the Turin Adoration, Adoration of the Magi (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: head of a shepherd

revising friedländer

107

Ill. 7.7. Master of the Turin Adoration, Adoration of the Magi (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: head of Joseph

male faces in the Turin Adoration present a small group of systematic, short, parallel lines, that highlight the prominence of the cheekbones in a simple but effective way (ill. 7.7). On the other hand, the corresponding hatching in the Genoese faces is more copious and free. They cross the cheeks only to suggest the physiognomy without showing real interest in the modelling of the volume (ill. 7.8). Also the fact that the hatching of some draperies seems to have been inspired by a different aim, that whilst not always occurring, is very evident when compared to the draperies of the angels in the Turin Adoration (ill. 7.9a) and that of Saint Agnes in the Genoese panel (ill. 7.9b). In the first case, the hatching is very regular and methodically applied

on the depressions of the folds so as to model them. In the second example, the hatching is freer and with less regular traits, frequently overlapping the shape of the folds so as to suggest the planes of the shadows, rather than the volumes. Conclusion In conclusion, the IR examination of the Turin Adoration and the two Genoese Scenes from the Lives of Saint Catherine and Saint Agnes – the upper part of the wings to which the two panels now in the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Strasbourg also belonged – revealed a Rogerian underdrawing that exhibits very close similarities, namely in the method of laying out the composition, in the style

108

maria clelia galassi

Ill. 7.8. Brussels Anonymous (Workshop of the Master of the Turin Adoration?), Scenes from the Life of Saint Agnes (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: head of a man in red

in depicting figures, draperies and architectures, and in the way many of the heads were shifted. At the same time, slight but significant differences in the performing and use of the hatching suggest that we should be cautious in attributing the underdrawing of all panels to the same hand. It could be suggested that the panels were underdrawn by two different masters who shared the same training, probably working in the same workshop; or, that the one master produced the whole work, but at two different times of his career and, therefore, in a somewhat different style. In any case, the IR examination does not provide new firm evidence for Friedländer’s statement that the triptych was conceived as a unique and consistent altarpiece. Merging these results with Véronique Bücken’s reconstruction of the Turin Adoration patronage,22 it could be suggested that the wings were added to the Adoration sometime after Hendrik Keddekin’s

death, by the will of a new donor who could have given the commission to the same master or to the same workshop. A second possibility is that the triptych never existed and that the panels entered the Balbi Collection separately. That is also possible, although less convincing. In fact, it would be surprising if Giovanni Balbi at the beginning of the seventeenth century – or one of his relatives in the late sixteenth century – could have bought on the Flemish market two wings and a central panel executed in the late fifteenth century by the same workshop for two different dismembered triptychs. In addition, it is important to underline that the dimensions of the Genoa-Strasbourg wings coincide perfectly with half of those of the Adoration, reinforcing the idea they were painted to be placed at the side of the latter. Likely, we can suppose that Giovanni Francesco Balbi, Giovanni Battista’s grandfather, bought the altarpiece during his many

revising friedländer

109

Ill. 7.9. A: Master of the Turin Adoration, Adoration of the Magi (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: draperies of an angel. B: Brussels Anonymous (Workshop of the Master of the Turin Adoration?), Scenes from the Life of Saint Agnes (ill. 6.1), IR digital photography, detail: draperies of Saint Agnes at right

and prolonged stays in Flanders, with the two wings added after Hendrik Keddekin’s death following the looting of the church of Ter Doest in 1570. In any case, whether the wings were added to complete the Adoration in the form of a triptych, or whether they belonged to another altarpiece, their underdrawing suggests they originated from the same workshop where the Adoration was also executed, although some years later. So, if we extend

the concept of ‘individual master’ to a wider idea of ‘workshop’, Friedländer’s proposal can be accepted. The examination of the underdrawing showed patterns that can be connected with Brussels and Rogier’s legacy there. For instance, a comparison with the underdrawing of paintings referred to the questioned Master of the Legend of Saint Barbara (Aert van den Bossche/Hand A and Hand B) shows some similarities. In particular, some comparable

110

maria clelia galassi

feature in underdrawing can be found in the Job Altarpiece in Cologne, in the rather schematic way some of the faces were depicted and in some of the hatching.23 These similarities are too generic to suggest that the group of our panels could be associated to the group of the Master of the Legend of Saint Barbara, since they must be regarded as the mere result of a common artistic legacy.24 Therefore the workshop where the Turin Adoration and the Genoa-Strasbourg wings were created must be considered as an autonomous artistic centre, that for the moment remains anonymous. Further examination of the other paintings attributed to the Friedländer master, in particular the panel now in Philadelphia, could add interesting information to better state the personalities working there at the time. NOTES 1 Friedländer 1942, pp. 188-189. On Friedländer’s method, see: Borchert 2004-2005. 2 Burroughs 1938. 3 Brussels 2013, pp. 276-279, nr. 65. 4 Friedländer 1907, p. 79; Friedländer 1927-1928. 5 Leoncini 2008, pp. 180-185 with previous bibliography; Meijer, Sluiter, Squellati Brizio 2011, nr. 553.

6 Winkler 1924, pp. 223, 378. 7 Leoncini 2003 with previous bibliography; Genoa 2004, pp. 210-215; Leoncini 2008, pp. 180-185. 8 Suida 1906, p. 203. 9 Dülberg 1907. 10 Going back to this subject later, in his Altniederländish Malerei, the German scholar changed his mind, anchoring the master provenance in Bruges, among the followers of Memling: Friedländer 19241937, vol. 14, pp. 105-106; Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 6.1, p. 44; vol. 6.2, pp. 111, 125. 11 A detailed description of the reverses is in: Leoncini 1997. 12 Grendi 1997, pp. 128-129. 13 Boccardo, Magnani 1987, pp. 81-83. 14 Boccardo 2004. 15 Leoncini 2008, pp. 17-49. 16 See for instance: Algeri 1997, pp. 49-51. Leoncini (2008, p. 182), who, although noting a kind of ‘squilibrio stilistico’, thinks it could have been the result a long execution time. 17 I am referring to the couple of panels with the Betrayal of Christ and Christ before Pilate (London, Sotheby’s, Important Old Master Paintings, 16 March 1966, lot 70) and to the paintings with Emperor Heraclius Bearing the True Cross denied Entry to Jerusalem (London, Christie’s, Old Master and British Pictures, 7 December 2007, lot 172). 18 Hoogewerff 1936b, p. 135; Castelnovi 1970, pp. 173-174. 19 Aru, De Geradon 1952, p. 31. 20 Fontana Amoretti and Plomp (1998, pp. 171-172, nrs. 226227), who introduced the provisional name of the Master of the Scenes from the Lives of Saint Agnes and Saint Catherine for the Genoese panels. On this issue, see Véronique Bücken’s essay, in this volume. 21 This matter is discussed by Véronique Bücken in this volume. 22 See her essay in this volume. 23 Faries 2012b. 24 For the connection with the Master of the Legend of Saint Barbara, see also: Brussels 2013, pp. 276-279, nr. 65.

Ill. 8.1. Group of the Master of Gold Brocade, Virgo Lactans, end of the fifteenth century, oil on oak panel, 27.3 x 17 cm , Italy, Private Collection

8

A New Virgo Lactans of the Gold Brocade Group Caterina Virdis Limentani

ABSTRACT: This paper will focus on a painting that could be inserted within the range of works attributed to the Master of Gold Brocade and more precisely among the small devotional images showing a Virgo Lactans painted on a background of gold brocade or decorated with golden foliage, such as the panel preserved at the Musée Grobet-Labadié in Marseille. The corpus of this anonymous master of the late fifteenth century, which must remain provisional, contains paintings that are stylistically very different. The iconography of the Virgo Lactans of the Gold Brocade Group is also varied. In order to establish the place of this panel within the series, it has been useful to detect the level of originality of his underdrawing with infrared imaging. The analysis shows that a first general draft of the image has been executed employing a mechanical medium, after which the artist has enriched and revised the pattern.

—o— This paper will focus on a painting (ill. 8.1) which could be inserted within the range of works attributed to the Master of Gold Brocade and his group, and more precisely among the small devotional images showing a Virgo Lactans painted on a background of gold brocade or decorated with golden foliage.1 Most of the paintings of the Gold Brocade Group depicting the Virgo Lactans belong to private collections, whereas others have made their way through the art market to public ones such as the Musée Grobet-Labadié in Marseille, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Dijon and the Musée des BeauxArts in Lille.2

The oeuvre of the Master of the Gold Brocade3 consists of different paintings. The corpus includes an Annunciation (Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga) and some other works now mostly in private collections, presenting compositions with saints and angels.4 The Gold Brocade Group’s peculiar production is a large number of small panels depicting the lactating Virgin. However, this group shows stylistic differences, even concerning the brocade background, which is considered by R. Duits as an important feature informing us about the great diffusion of silk fabrics woven with gold thread, frequently depicted in European Renaissance painting.5 In the Gold Brocade Group the background is sometimes a single panel, sometimes shaped like a window, most often it takes the function of a drap d’honneur behind the Virgin and Child, and other times it only presents some golden branches.6 The iconography of the Virgo Lactans of the Gold Brocade Group is varied as well. The small panels derive from different models. The most important one is close to Rogier van der Weyden’s influence: the Medici Madonna (Frankfurt, Städel Museum),7 or the Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts).8 From the Medici Madonna derives the well known Tournai panel (Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. 481) – almost totally overpainted by Van der Veken9 – and a fine painting by a follower of Van der Weyden, preserved at

114

caterina virdis limentani

the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 330) in Brussels.10 A precious variation painted by Memling, now in Brussels (KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 3560), can be added. This painting has been proposed by Albert Châtelet as a model of the iconography of a similar Virgo Lactans preserved in Douai (Musée de la Chartreuse).11 All the quoted paintings are close to the Gold Brocade Group’s development.12 It must be pointed out that the Virgo Lactans depictions of the Gold Brocade provisional corpus are very similar in iconography but often very different in style and execution, and were probably painted between the last decade of the fifteenth century and the first two decades of the sixteenth century. The place of production of the series is probably Brussels, where in the second half of the fifteenth century the taste was strongly influenced by the sophisticated and tender painting of Rogier van der Weyden.13 Among the anonymous followers of Van der Weyden who spread devotional images in a very sentimental taste, one is known as the Master of the Magdalene Legend, active between the last quarter of the fifteenth century until the 1530s. Since 1929 Jeanne Tombu attributed to him a group of paintings representing the Virgin and Child, which is just as rich and varied as the group of the Master of the Gold Brocade.14 Several paintings assigned to the Master of the Magdalene Legend, such as among others the ones in Antwerpen (Museum Mayer van den Bergh ) and Amsterdam (private collection), show a tender iconography of the Virgo Lactans, characterized by a curved line that includes mother and child in a composition that is rather compressed. The bodies of the Child and the Virgin are manifestly disproportionate and the type of the Madonna has been rightly defined by the literature as chubby.15 Some devotional images attributed to the Gold Brocade Group seem to refer to Van der Weyden, with some suggestions coming from the Master of the Magdalene Legend as well: the paintings of Dijon and Lille (according to Châtelet assigned to

the Gold Brocade Master by Guy Stein), of Marseille (Musée Grobet-Labadié), Cassel (Musée Départemental de Flandre), and others belonging to private collections, including the here presented panel. In this painting the combination of the two different models – the Van der Weyden composition and the Magdalene Master archaic mood – is suggested by several details, such as the small hands, the small features and the slightly more sentimental curve of the Virgin’s head. The iconography of all these Lactating Madonnas is a sort of compromise between the Panagia Glykophilousa and the Galaktotrophousa. The former, the Glycophilousa, is a young and tender Mary embracing her Child; the latter is the Galaktotrophousa Mary nursing, who in the Byzantine tradition holds her head erect and looks in front of her. Both are medieval models known to Van der Weyden himself. The contamination between the two models, in fact, is generally assigned to Van der Weyden, although some scholars date it back to the Master of Flémalle.16 Returning to the Virgo Lactans series, their sentimentalism and pleasantness account for their success. The very small size of nearly all the copies of the Magdalene and Gold Brocade groups known to me suggest an almost serial production, addressed to the market of private devotion. This is of great interest from an economic and sociologic point of view, whereas, as far as history of forms is concerned, it is a very explicit proof of a phenomenon well known to art historians, being middle-class people of that time quite indifferent to any problems of autography of the paintings in their property. It is curious that some small paintings very close to the corpus of the anonymous master, still present on the art market, look painted or heavily retouched by Van der Veken17: it means that the indifference to the autography can arrive up our time. At any rate, to the critics who examine the works of art many centuries later, placing any single piece within the mentioned wide range of production is a problem to be solved with the utmost attention to the quality of the execution, to the

a new virgo lactans of the gold brocade group

slightest variation of iconography and style, and to both painting and graphic methods. The Virgo Lactans here proposed (Italy, private collection) (ill. 8.1) could be added to the complex series of paintings of the group, keeping in mind that the prototype, or prototypes, of their varied iconographies are yet not defined. This painting, possibly painted at the end of the fifteenth century, has something to do with the Cassel Virgin and with some other panels we are informed of thanks to the RKD database, or which have recently appeared in the art market. However, it has more to do with the Marseille Virgin. At any rate, as we will later see, the artist who painted the Virgo Lactans under examination proves rather skilled, thus showing a good knowledge of the best examples of the series. The small panel (27.3 ≈ 17 cm) is in good condition, bearing little signs of later interventions in non-critical parts of the paint layer. As we said, it refers to a group of devotional paintings that revolve around a model. In order to assess this panel from a technical point of view and find its consequent place within the series, it has proved worthwhile to carefully observe the painted surface and to analyse it with the help of infrared imaging. The painting was executed on a very thick oak plank which is in very good condition, sound and solid, showing no problematic traces of wood-eating insects. There are also small but legible letters engraved on the back, which is gloss-coated and shows only a few minor holes and scratches. A frame was nailed directly to the support, leaving noticeable marks along the verticals and upper horizontals, probably original. The lower horizontal edge was almost certainly replaced. By observing the panel for the first time, there were noticed a number of small, refilled areas across the surface where paint had detached. A loss of coating and underlying preparation along the bottom edge is also evident. The thin layers covering the Virgin’s face and part of the draperies are well preserved, while the white layer of the Child’s clothes appears to have grown clear and much

115

yellowed, possibly due to overpainting (ill. 8.2). The cause of the thin, zigzagging scratch visible at the top left corner is unknown. Photographs of the surface illuminated under oblique light and with a range of different lighting angles have not given useful information, as the effectiveness of this procedure was reduced by the frame thickness. A Wood’s lamp has instead confirmed the good condition of the painting and shown the presence of minor but extended adjustments, mainly on the vertical brown strips flanking the Virgin. The small losses located on the faces did not prevent the original texture of the composition from being appreciated. Infrared photographic analysis has been carried out by Maddalena Bellavitis in order to detect the underdrawing and to help guess what tools were used to make it, with the additional purpose of eventually relating it to the existing painted versions of the same composition (ills. 8.3, 8.4). By knowing how the model was transposed onto the panel and what personal additions to the sketch were drawn on the preparatory layer, it has been made possible to assess the degree to which the artist knew and mastered the prototype. The analysis shows that the painter began by outlining the figures and the drapery, shaping and defining all forms, from the folds of fabric to the structure of bodies, faces and limbs. This was probably performed with a dry medium and a mechanical tool of reproduction, but it was subsequently retraced almost everywhere with a brush and a liquid medium. This second drawing is responsible for the thicker lines, quite visible and following the contours, sometimes correcting and slightly modifying the previous sketch – for example, the Child’s and Virgin’s hands. The Virgin’s face and hair – almost every strand of it – were also traced by the brush. As a final stage, shadows and chiaroscuro enhanced the surface’s values, with strong strokes sometimes curved but mainly straight and parallel. It remains to note some pentimenti of little importance, such as the blue mantle partly covering the left corner of the Virgin’s veil.

116

caterina virdis limentani

Ill. 8.2. Group of the Master of Gold Brocade, Virgo Lactans (ill. 8.1), detail: Child

a new virgo lactans of the gold brocade group

Ill. 8.3. Group of the Master of Gold Brocade, Virgo Lactans (ill. 8.1), IR

117

118

caterina virdis limentani

Ill. 8.4. Group of the Master of Gold Brocade, Virgo Lactans (ill. 8.1), IR detail: head of the Virgin

After applying the paint layers, the faces, the hands and the Child’s cloth were retraced with brown lines that follow the underdrawing but correct small defects or inaccuracies – although the lines for the Child’s cloth have possibly been traced later in time (ill. 8.5). We can appreciate the subtle grace of our Virgo Lactans through a comparison with the Marseille painting – almost identical, though not of excellent quality (unfortunately, it was impossible to obtain a good image by the Musée Grobet-Labadié). We can notice that in the Marseille panel

the Child is not wearing any clothes, but is partially covered by a simple cloth. This detail suggests – or rather confirms – that the layer and contours of the Child’s garment in our painting are not original. Finally, despite the copy of the model was certainly done with mechanical tools, the final look of this painting is rather accurate and fine. Our artist demonstrates technical practice in his composition, which is very pleasant thanks to the balance of colours together with the carefulness in applying the layers and retracing the contours. In that way,

a new virgo lactans of the gold brocade group

119

Ill. 8.5. Group of the Master of Gold Brocade, Virgo Lactans (ill. 8.1), IR detail showing the brown lines retracing the Child’s cloth

what is certainly a serial work becomes a quality product. Let me add a last note. On the back of the panel – on the back of the painting that is – several weakly incised marks are visible, the first of which possibly can be read as the letters will in Gothic calligraphy, followed by other indistinguishable letters. This inscription has almost certainly nothing to do with the author, considering where it is located and the unclear writing (ill. 8.6). In fact, it appears to be a note written to recognize the property or the origin of the panel, hastily cut on the

plank while making an inventory. The letters will would agree, perhaps coincidentally, with the first letters of the name of an interesting personage, Willem Bibaut van Tielt, a Carthusian, contemporary of Erasmus, Abbot of the Grande Chartreuse in Grenoble in 1521. This abbot has recently appeared in the art literature18 because of an odd episode. Indeed he possessed a Virgo Lactans painted by the Magdalene Master, and it is now part of a fake diptych, for which purpose he commissioned his own portrait to another artist, who was working in France during the 1530s.

120

caterina virdis limentani

Ill. 8.6. Group of the Master of Gold Brocade, Virgo Lactans (ill. 8.1), back of the panel showing an inscription with letters WILL […]

Why was his name recorded – if that is the case – by the hasty hand which left a faint inscription on the back of the small panel I presented? Was it because it represents a Virgo Lactans and it recalls the painting owned by Bibaut? Was it because the devotional painting I presented was owned by the same owner? It is difficult to answer. This problem will take much longer to be solved. N OTES 1 Goddard 1984, p. 41. 2 Schöne 1937, pp. 167-178; Van Schoute, De Patoul 1994, p. 546. 3 Syfer d’Olne et al. 2006, p. 158. 4 The Hague, Rijksbureau voor Kusthistorische Documentatie (RKD), database, object nrs 35772, 55670, 58025, 62394, 62395, 62403, 62407, 62409, 62495. 5 Duits 2008.

6 Lille 2005, p. 47: ‘Il se rencontre, par exemple, pour le Maître au brocart d’or dont le “style” se définit presque uniquement par la présence d’un drap brodé…’ 7 Châtelet, Goetghebeur 2006, p. 93. An important model could be the Virgin of the Jean Gros Dyptich (Tournai, Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. 481). See: Washington/Antwerp 2006, pp. 246-251, nr. 37. 8 Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 2, pp. 131-133. 9 Verougstraete, Van Schoute 2001, pp. 137-148; Bruges 2004, pp. 62-77. 10 Washington/Antwerp 2006, pp. 164-169, nr. 24. 11 Châtelet, Goetghebeur 2006, pp. 93, 98. 12 Duits 2008. 13 Comblen-Sonkes 1986, pp. 95-99. 14 Tombu 1929. 15 De Vrij 1994, figs. 1, 4; De Vrij 1998. 16 Mohr 1995; De Vos 1999, p. 358. 17 Such as the Madonna and Child attributed to an anonymous painter (fifteenth century) and Joseph van der Veken, presented by Decq (2009, pp. 102-106, figs. 1-2). 18 De Vrij 1998; Washington/Antwerp 2006, pp. 156-163, nr. 23.

Ill. 9.1. Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, 1520-1530, oil on panel, 93 x 402 x 40 cm (open without modern frame), 93 x 193.7 x 40 cm (closed without modern frame), Barcelona, Museu Frederic Marès, inv. MFM 1612. A: closed. B: open

9

The Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin in the Museu Frederic Marès An Unusual Altarpiece Carmen Sandalinas Linares, Bart Fransen and Elisabeth Van Eyck*

ABSTRACT: The Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (Museu Frederic Marès, Barcelona), dated 1520-1530, is a unique artwork in many ways and has been largely neglected in art history. The altarpiece, measuring 93 x 402 x 40 cm (open), was purchased in 1951 by Frederic Marès from an art dealer. There is no surviving documentation regarding its provenance, its commission or its authorship. On the occasion of the conservation/ restoration treatment, new technical analysis and scientific imagery (infrared reflectography and X-radiography) have been made by the Conservation-Restoration Department of the Museu Frederic Marès (2007). This paper presents new discoveries from this research as well as a critical art historical study of the altarpiece, dealing with the iconography and the style of the painting. This interdisciplinary approach has led us to reject the current attribution to the Bruges Master of the Holy Blood and given us better insight into the style and techniques of the artist, his creative processes, his pictorial techniques, the underdrawn inscriptions and his workshop practices.

—o— The altarpiece dedicated to the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1) has barely received any attention in the art historical literature. Acquired on the art market in 1951 by the sculptor-collector Frederic Marès Deulovol (1893-1991), the polyptych was donated by him to the city of Barcelona in 1977 and became part of the municipal Museu Frederic Marès, which houses his collection of

medieval sculptures, paintings, stamps, bicycles, pipes and other remarkable objects.1 The origin of the polyptych is unknown but in the museum files and in the photo library of the Archivo Mas2 (housed in the Institut d’Art Hispànic Amatller, Barcelona) it is stated that the altarpiece was bought from or via Ignacio Martínez (1888-1956), an art dealer from Zamora who was first established in Madrid and later in Barcelona and whose fame is mainly related to the sale of art works from Spanish churches and convents, including Salamanca, Burgos and León.3 Unfortunately it is not known how or where Martínez purchased the Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin. Shortly after the altarpiece entered the collection of the Barcelona museum, the Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1978) reproduced the central panels and designated the altarpiece ‘Flemish, around 1500’.4 While the 1979 museum catalogue repeated this attribution and date,5 Elisa Bermejo, in the 1996 catalogue, identified the painter with the Master of the Holy Blood, who was active in Bruges, dating the painting c. 1520-1525.6 In 2000 the museum started a technical study of the altarpiece and initiated conservation treatment (2000-2007). The first results of this technical research were presented in the 2002 exhibition The Polyptych of the Master of the Holy Blood. A

124

carmen sandalinas linares, bart fransen and elisabeth van eyck

Discovery. In 2013 an interdisciplinary collaboration project between the Museu Frederic Marès and the Centre for the Study of the Flemish Primitives of the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/ IRPA), Brussels was established, of which the findings are presented in this article. One of the most remarkable characteristics of the altarpiece is its unusual format, with a middle part being convex. The wings of the altarpiece have the same convex surface. This form is typical for pillar paintings, several examples of which are still conserved in Germany, including two in the Frauenkirche in Nuremberg, dating from the fifteenth century and eight in the cathedral of Erfurt, dating between c. 1500 and c. 1535.7 Pillar paintings were also in use in the Low Countries, as shown by the sixteenth-century votive painting of canon Jean de Facuwez in the Church of Saints Peter and Guy in Anderlecht (now lost). None of these pillar paintings, however, have wings. Most of them served as epitaphs or votive objects rather than altarpieces. The rare altarpieces with curved wings typically have a concave central panel, creating an open space in which a sculpture or another object could be placed, as is the case, for example, in the Spanish Oratory of Saint Roch conserved in Fécamp (Palais de la Bénédictine).8 This is fundamentally different from the Barcelona painting, in which the convex form is not meant to house anything. From the large size of the Barcelona polyptych (93 ≈ 402 ≈ 40 cm when open), we can infer that it was designed to be fixed not to an independent pillar but to a half-column attached to a wall. Up to date no other examples of this practice are known to us.9 The Seven Sorrows of the Virgin The polyptych is dedicated to the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, a cult that became very popular in the Low Countries beginning in the 1490s. In 1492, Jan van Coudenberghe (†1521), secretary to Philip the Fair (1478-1506), founded the first confraternities of the Virgin of Seven Sorrows in Reimerswaal, Bruges and Abbenbroek.10 In 1495 the new cult was

approved by the pope. It was used strategically by the Habsburgs for purposes of propaganda, creating a sense of spiritual unity which, following the death of Mary of Burgundy in 1482, would contribute to a sense of territorial unity. The Emperor Charles V (1500-1558) promoted the cult strongly and commissioned Jan van Coudenberghe to write an official history of the confraternity. It is therefore no coincidence that the Barcelona polyptych includes references to the Habsburgs, such as the imperial eagle and the device of a rider on the cloth of honour in the scene of Christ among the Doctors. These appear respectively on Charles’ coat of arms, after his coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in 1519, and on his seal.11 In the course of the sixteenth century, the iconography of the Virgin of Seven Sorrows became very popular in a standardised formula, disseminated by means of engravings and woodcuts such as the Antwerp prototype printed by Jost de Negker sometime before 1503. In it, the seated Virgin of Sorrows is impaled with seven swords and surrounded by seven roundels containing the scenes of sorrow.12 However, in the first painted altarpieces dedicated to the Virgin of the Seven Sorrows, artists seem to have experimented with different iconographical formulae, situating the Seven Sorrows in roundels,13 as in Negker’s print, as well as in architectural settings,14 in a landscape,15 or on separately-framed panels.16 The cult of the Virgin of the Seven Sorrows was exported to the Iberian peninsula by the early sixteenth century, as exemplified by two documented altarpieces: the first ordered in Brussels in 1505 by the bishop Juan de Fonseca (1451-1524) for the cathedral of Palencia, where it is still conserved, and the second ordered in the period c. 1509-1513 from Quinten Metsys (c. 1466-1530) for the main altar of the Convent of the Madre de Deus in Xabregas, Portugal.17 The structure of both altarpieces follows a formula typical of Iberia, in which the Seven Sorrows are represented in separate compartments situated at the left, upper and right sides of the central panel of the Virgin.

the polyptych of the seven sorrows of the virgin in the museu frederic marès

The Barcelona polyptych is atypical in that four sorrows are represented on one side of the Virgin Mary and three on the other. The first two sorrows (the Circumcision of the Infant Christ and the Flight into Egypt) are introduced by the Prophet Jeremiah, identified by a banderole with the inscription ‘Egressus est a filia Syon omn[i]s decor ei[us]/ trenor primo’ (‘And from the daughter of Zion all her beauty is departed / First Lamentation’).18 In the central panel, the Virgin is flanked by two sorrows at each side, two in an architectural setting (Christ among the Doctors and Carrying of the Cross) and two in a landscape (the Crucifixion and the Lamentation). On the right wing is the last sorrow, the Deposition, followed by a single panel dedicated to Saint John the Evangelist who shares the same space as prophet Solomon, also identified by the text on the banderol: ‘Aq[uae] m[u]lt[ae] no[n] potueru[n]t exti[n]guere caritatem filie Jh[e]r[usa] l[e]m/ca[n]ti[cum] 8°’ (‘Many waters cannot quench love, daughters of Jerusalem. Song 8’).19 The setting of both figures in an arcade is repeated on the exterior of the wings. When closed, five figures are represented as semi-grisailles: the kneeling donor with Saint John the Evangelist, the Man of Sorrows, the Mourning Virgin and Mary Magdalen. The two central figures are represented on trefoil pedestals that seem to protrude into the space of the viewer. The white and black habit of the donor identifies him as a Carmelite (ill. 9.2); surprisingly his hands in prayer are covered by a cap, which might refer to his function as prior of a convent.20 In the right hand corner, at the place where one would expect a coat of arms is painted a trefoil displaying the letters ‘m i r’. This pseudo-coat of arms very probably alludes to the identity of the donor, whose name was perhaps John, but at present his identity remains uncertain. Form, material and technique Technical study of the work, done by applying technical and scientific methods of examination and analysis, has enabled us to obtain invaluable

125

Ill. 9.2. Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1), Donor with Saint John the Evangelist

126

carmen sandalinas linares, bart fransen and elisabeth van eyck

information on the process of execution, the changes made in the composition and the materials and techniques.21 In this article we will limit ourselves to discussing the particularities of the underdrawing and the most relevant changes in the composition. The polyptych, with its convex form, presents an unusual architectural structure. The piece consists of three elements, the central part and the two wings, which are attached to a modern frame that allows it to be hung on a wall. The wings are attached to the modern frame by hinges; part of the original support has been lost. The central panel as well as the wings display a structural reinforcement consisting of an original iron splint that is held in place by wrought iron nails on the top and bottom. Each of the panels consists of one or more planks of oak assembled with butt joints, vertically, following the grain of the oak wood. Each joint is reinforced internally with three wooden dowels, even in the curved areas.22 The original frame, which is superimposed over the panels, is also attached to the support by dowels. It is important to point out that the entire structure was assembled and framed before the panels were prepared and painted, as is typical of Flemish painting. Underdrawing23 is visible in all of the paintings in the polyptych, and it was made with a dry medium based on fine charcoal lines. The semigrisailles display an underdrawing with free, quick strokes in some areas, such as the face of the Man of Sorrows and in Mary Magdalen (ill. 9.3a-b). The clothing presents detailed and finely executed work, as in the sleeves of the dress of Mary Magdalen, as well as highly schematic drawing in the folds of other pieces of clothing, consisting of parallel linear hatching. A number of small modifications are apparent in the underdrawing, such as the medallion of Mary Magdalen, which was originally drawn in two positions, one with a longer chain and another with a shorter one, as it appears in the painting. Furthermore, among others, we note the detail of the ringlet of the Man of Sorrows, which

was originally displayed falling onto his neck but which was ultimately not included in the painting. Nevertheless, when it comes to the pictorial layer, the most significant modifications in the semi-grisailles are displayed in the face and hands of the donor (ill. 9.3c-d). The digital infrared images reveal underdrawing and modifications in the pictorial layer in the eyes, nose and mouth of the figure, as well as in the hair, which was originally longer, with a shorter hood. Furthermore, the hands, which are represented as being joined in a gesture of prayer, are covered by a bonnet. A number of black spots on the fingers are also displayed in the digital infrared image, though their exact purpose is unknown. From their position it is possible to infer that they were rings on the man’ fingers, which were later covered by the bonnet. The stratigraphic analyses carried out in this area confirm that the bonnet, which is violet or dark grey in tone, was added shortly after the completion of the work.24 It is also worth pointing out that the hands were drawn with schematic, quick strokes, and that the thumbs appear crossed in the underdrawing but not in the painting (ill. 9.3d). In the inscription ‘m i r’, painted on a trefoil in the lower right corner of the scene, no changes were detected. With regard to the modifications carried out in the figure of the donor, these may correspond to two different donors or to changes made to the initial portrait. The examination of the polyptych, once open, reveals a number of important changes in composition, especially in the pictorial layer. In the scene of the Circumcision, digital IR and X-ray images reveal a hanging basket of sorts above the head of Saint Joseph, which may have held the turtle doves related to the offering for the purification of the Virgin. This iconographic change in composition was carried out at the level of the pictorial layer, and the relief of the underlying basket is therefore also apparent under raking light. In the Flight into Egypt, changes in composition also appear, among other modifications. The digital IR image (ill. 9.5a) displays an earlier representation of Saint Joseph as a young man, which

the polyptych of the seven sorrows of the virgin in the museu frederic marès

127

A.

B.

C.

D.

Ill. 9.3. Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1), Digital IR photography: details of the underlying grisaille drawings. A: Man of Sorrows. B: Mary Magdalen. C-D: Donor, modifications in the face and hands

128

carmen sandalinas linares, bart fransen and elisabeth van eyck

A.

B.

C.

D.

Ill. 9.4. Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1), A: Digital IR photography, Crucifixion. B: X-ray, Crucifixion. C: Digital IR photography, Lamentation. D: X-ray, Lamentation

was already painted. The figure was shown turning back towards the Virgin. However, the final representation shows Saint Joseph as an elderly figure, with a white beard, looking straight ahead. The first version has become visible through the paint layer of the bundle carried by Saint Joseph. This initial representation of Saint Joseph as a young man is also found in the scenes of the Circumcision and Christ among the Doctors, in which it was not subsequently modified. The decision to show the

figure of Saint Joseph as an old man in this particular scene suggests a return to a more traditional iconographic model. The central representation of the Virgin of Sorrows also displays modifications in the paint layer. The digital IR image (ill. 9.5b) reveals that the bearing and inclination of her head have changed. The original representation was more dramatic, with her head less tilted, her eyes almost closed and the corners of her mouth arching

the polyptych of the seven sorrows of the virgin in the museu frederic marès

A.

B.

129

D.

C.

E.

Ill. 9.5. Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1), digital IR photography, details. A: Flight into Egypt. B: Virgin of Sorrows. C: Deposition. D-E: Saint John the Evangelist

downwards. The veil originally displayed two peaks on its upper part, similar to the one represented in the scene of the Flight into Egypt, making her face appear longer. Moreover, her hands were initially clenched tighter, displaying a higher degree of pain and tension. Important changes in the paint layer also appear in the Crucifixion. Information provided by digital IR and X-ray images25 enables us to reconstruct the original composition (ill. 9.4a-b). The use of raking light also allowed us to study the underlying brushstrokes. Initially, the figure of Saint John displayed a dramatic expression of pain, with his head raised, gazing towards the face of Christ, his eyes and mouth open and his left arm raised above his head and before the knees of Christ. The sky was also

modified, with the removal of the clouds above the figure of Saint John. The head of Christ was originally positioned higher, his eyes almost closed. Some of the brushstrokes from this initial paint layer are still visible in some areas. Thus, the painting still displays some of the curly locks of the original Saint John, which were more elaborate than the hair in the second layer. Likewise, a number of loose strokes related to the crown of thorns of Christ are also visible. The X-ray image reveals the strong contrast between the two representations of Saint John, with the first version showing detailed work of a higher quality in the hair, face, clothing and hand. With respect to the superposition of paint layers in the scene of the Crucifixion, it is important to

130

carmen sandalinas linares, bart fransen and elisabeth van eyck

point out that the analyses carried out on a sample with a stratigraphic preparation drawn from the double blue layer of the sky confirms that both layers are contemporaneous and that they display the same composition.26 We may therefore assume that it was a touch-up or pentimento carried out in the workshop, perhaps to make the work less dramatic, as in other scenes, or perhaps even to recover the complete figure of Christ, which was partially covered by the arm of Saint John. In the scene of the Lamentation, digital IR and X-ray images (ill. 9.4c-d.) have also allowed us to discover changes in composition at the level of the paint layer. The figure of Saint John was initially more dramatic, with his head less tilted and his face turned towards the sky, his eyes wide open and his mouth curled downwards in a frown of pain. It is important to point out that, in this scene, the X-ray image (ill. 9.4d) does not display any contrast in the area of the saint’s hair, as in the Crucifixion (ill. 9.4b), in which, as we mentioned above, a Saint John with highly detailed curly hair can be seen. The Deposition also reveals an iconographical change carried out in the painting stage. Initially, the sepulchre was not represented. In the digital IR image (ill. 9.5c), in the area below the sepulchre, one can observe the legs of Nicodemus as well as some variations in the disposition of the holy shroud. With the addition of the sepulchre, the scene corresponds to the traditional iconographic representation of the Entombment of Christ. Also noteworthy are the corrections in the underdrawing found in the representation of Saint John the Evangelist (inner panel), more precisely in the foreshortening of the hand holding the chalice and in the right foot (ill. 9.5d-e), which reveal a high degree of technical skill. The drawing of the hands of the figures in semi-grisaille is more schematic and does not seem to match the mastery of the Saint John the Evangelist. With regard to the other scenes in the polyptych, a comparison with the Deposition (ill. 9.5c) reveals that the hands of Mary Magdalen and Nicodemus, as well as

the feet of Christ, do not display the level of technical quality described above. The differences in technique, both in the underdrawing and in the painting stage, suggest the participation of different hands in the execution of the fifteen panels. In four of these panels (the Flight into Egypt, Christ among the Doctors, the Carrying of the Cross and the Lamentation), the IR images revealed underdrawn inscriptions in the upper part. These inscriptions, all written in French, served without doubt as an indication of the iconography: ‘disputation’ (ill. 9.6), ‘en eg[y] pt[e]’, ‘por[t] croix’ and another unreadable inscription which may be a reference to the Lamentation. The practice of making iconographic notations in the underdrawing has been studied by Molly Faries.27 She detected similar underdrawn inscriptions in Dutch in Antwerp mannerist paintings, and came to the conclusion that this practice was related to the delegation of work in the studio, more precisely in the production of altarpieces with multiple wings and a complex iconographic program, where the panels were painted by different assistants.28 The Barcelona polyptych was indeed created in a workshop with several members, at least three or four. The heads of Saint John (in the scenes of the Carrying of the Cross, the Crucifixion and the Lamentation) and of the Virgin (in the Circumcision and the Flight into Egypt) are different in the execution of hair, eyebrows and eyes. Also the different faces of Christ, showing important differences in quality (in the Carrying of the Cross, the Deposition, the Lamentation and the Man of Sorrows), confirm that this altarpiece was made by several hands. In other respects however, the altarpiece reflects a certain stylistic homogeneity. On the exterior of the wings, for example, we can recognize, despite its state of conservation, the hand of a well-trained master, who took care of the portrait of the donor, making modifications during execution (ill. 9.3c), who succeeded in giving a charming impression of the Magdalen, painted with much care and precision, and who developed a uniform projection of shadows, suggesting one

the polyptych of the seven sorrows of the virgin in the museu frederic marès

131

Ill. 9.6. Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1), IRR, Deposition

and the same light source. Also when the altarpiece is open, we can observe a certain homogeneity, for example in the standardised way of representing the landscape in the Flight into Egypt, the Crucifixion and the Lamentation. Merging Late Gothic, Romanism and Early Mannerism Regarding the iconography, we can distinguish two different working methods. On one hand, the altarpiece reveals very standardised formulae, such as the Virgin of Sorrows and the crossed position of her hands, which go back to the fifteenth century,29 or the position of the arms of the Magdalen in the Deposition, which recalls the famous gesture by Rogier van der Weyden in the Prado Descent from the Cross.30 On the other hand there is a variety of

Italian Renaissance elements, as can be observed in the grotesque architectural ornament as well as in the iconography. An example is the angel on the central throne of the Virgin, similar to a cherub designed by Lancelot Blondeel and Guyot de Beaugrant in 1525-1529 for the carved chimneypiece of the Emperor Charles V (Bruges, Palace of the Brugse Vrije) (ill. 9.7). This combination of styles, in our view, is not due to the involvement of different hands. The religious scenes were based principally on existing compositions popularised by prints.31 It is therefore not surprising that in a book on the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, printed in Antwerp in 1492,32 some woodcuts seem to have been a source of inspiration. The Flight into Egypt, the Circumcision, the Christ among the Doctors and the Carrying of the Cross

132

carmen sandalinas linares, bart fransen and elisabeth van eyck

A.

B.

Ill. 9.7. A: Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1), Angel on the central throne of the Virgin. B: Lanceloot Blondeel and Guyot de Beaugrant, detail of an angel of the Emperor Charles Fireplace, 1525-1529, Bruges, Palace of the Brugse Vrije

have similar compositions and a similarly tight framing. The limited number of figures and the simple compositions of these scenes make the iconography easy to read, though unfortunately our painter misunderstood, in the scene of the Flight into Egypt, the broken pagan statue and converted it into a mannerist sculpture. The technical study, more precisely the infrared images, reveal that in the few cases in which the painter tried a more ‘modern’ approach, as for example in the position of the arm of Saint John, very close to that in a Crucifixion by a Gossaert follower,33 it seems that he regretted the change or was prevented from making it and went back to a more traditional formula. Another example occurs in the Carrying of the Cross: Saint John’s head was positioned in profile and his open mouth suggested

a gesture of despair. For the architecture, the sculptural decoration and the clothing, the author of the polyptych clearly took inspiration from Italian Renaissance and classical models, as for example for the sculpted man in the spandrel in the panel with Jeremiah, that clearly derives from Michelangelo’s composition in the Sistine Chapel.34 However, our painter’s repertory seems to be copied not directly from Italian sources, but from other Flemish artists, active in Brussels, Antwerp and Bruges. The numerous representations of bucrania, for example, could have been copied from works by Jan Gossaert35 who was among the first painters to introduce this ancient motif to the Low Countries, after his trip to Rome in 1508-1509 with Philip of Burgundy.36 Also the dolphins integrated in the grotesque architectural decoration, derive from

the polyptych of the seven sorrows of the virgin in the museu frederic marès

A.

Ill. 9.8. A: Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin (ill. 9.1), Circumcision. B: Master of 1518 (follower), Circumcision, right wing of Triptych of the Adoration of the Magi, Antwerp, Mayer van den Bergh Museum, inv. 0033

133

B.

134

carmen sandalinas linares, bart fransen and elisabeth van eyck

the œuvre of ‘Romanists’ like Gossaert.37 Finally the clothing of some figures, such as the ‘Italian burgonet’ of the soldier in the Carrying of the Cross, shows evidence of the artists’s profound knowledge of the work of Italianate painters active in the Low Countries in the 1520s.38 The neckline of the robe and the double collar are reminiscent of the works of the Master of the Mansi Magdalen (active in Antwerp between 1510 and 1525).39 Whereas some motifs are borrowed from Italianate painters, the banderoles of the prophets correspond again to a traditional iconography as used for example in the Triptych of the Seven Sorrows by Bernard van Orley and Peter de Kempeneer,40 with the striking difference that the latter have classical Roman letters whereas the painter of the polyptych still used Gothic minuscule. Other borrowings derive from Bruges artists, such as the grotesque figure in the spandrel, which also appears in the work of Lancelot Blondeel.41 And among the Antwerp mannerists, the author seems to have taken inspiration from the Master of 1518, whose composition of the Circumcision42 is quite similar (ill. 9.8). In both cases, the figures of the Virgin Mary and the High Priest are positioned to either side of the altar, while Joseph stands in the centre in the background, flanked by two women on the left, and two men on the right. Another feature in common is the pose of the Priest, who is shown in profile leaning towards the Infant Christ, his hands spread out. The painter was also interested in the work of the Master of the von Groote Adoration, particularly the pose and drapery of Saint John in a Lamentation in Lille,43 which are relatively close to our composition in Barcelona. The figure, holding the body of Christ in the image in Barcelona, and that of the Virgin in the image in Lille, leans to one side with his head tilted in the other direction, and wears a mantle which lifts up in the air. The particular style of our painter clearly corresponds to a combination of different sources from different centres, rather than following one artist or one school. Though rooted in late Gothic iconography, the author of the polyptych demonstrates

a wide variety of ancient motifs and accumulates these in a sort of horror vacui. It is remarkable, with respect to this, that the two capitals flanking the Virgin’s throne on the central panel have different features and that the monumental column in the scene of Christ among the Doctors exhibits an accumulation of different Italianate motifs. This approach also appears in the oeuvre of Bernard van Orley, as for example in the central panel of the Job and Lazarus Polyptych,44 though the quality of execution is very different. Where do all these comparisons lead us in terms of dating and attributing the Barcelona altarpiece? Based on iconographical and stylistical grounds, the period in which the polyptych was made seems to be between 1520 and 1530. The identity of the artist to whom we can attribute this painting is still an enigma. A comparison with his eponymous work45 is enough to reject the attribution to the Master of the Holy Blood, as proposed by Elisa Bermejo.46 From technical analysis we know that our painter had several workshop assistants and from the iconographic notations we know that he was French speaking. The changes in composition observed in the technical study correspond to contemporary modifications, according to the stratigraphic analyses carried out by the Department of Conservation and Restoration of the Museu Frederic Marès. From the iconographic modifications in different stages of execution, between the underdrawing and the finale paint layer, the author seems to have been hesitant in exploring new compositions and returned to traditional iconography in many cases. Stylistically he is balanced on the border between the old and the new style, exactly like other painters of the period, such as the Master of 1518 or the Master of the von Groote Adoration. Although both masters are no candidates for attributing the Barcelona polyptych, their approach to late Gothic formulae and Italianate motifs helps us to reconstruct the context and the spirit in which the Barcelona altarpiece was created.

the polyptych of the seven sorrows of the virgin in the museu frederic marès

NOTES * This paper is a collaboration between Bart Fransen, Elisabeth Van Eyck (KIK/IRPA, Brussels) and Carmen Sandalinas (Museu Frederic Marès, Barcelona) who was responsible for the technical and scientific research (in the central section). The authors are very grateful to the scholars and institutions who have helped in the research: Carles Aymerich, Till-Holger Borchert, Annick Born, Dagmar Eichberger, Guillém Fernández Huerta, Valentine Henderiks, Samantha Heringuez, Ramon Maroto, Vicenç Martí, Ma José Martínez Ruiz, Susie Nash, Anne van Oosterwijk, Enrique Parra, Natasja Peeters, SGS Technos. We are also thank Sue Jones for helping with the English text. 1 Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin, currently attributed to the Master of the Holy Blood, Bruges, 1520, oil on panel, 93 ≈ 402 ≈ 40 cm (open without modern frame) and 93 ≈ 193.7 ≈ 40 cm (closed without modern frame), Barcelona, Museu Frederic Marès, inv. MFM 1612. For the history of the collection, see: Marès Deulovol 2006. 2 Instituto Amatller d’Art Hispanic, Barcelona, Archivo Mas, photos Z-4670-4695 (1951). 3 Merino de Cáceres, Martínez Ruiz 2012, pp. 173-177. Another painting sold by him is the Altarpiece of the Life of the Virgin and Saint Francis by Nicolas Francés, now in the Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid (inv. P02545). 4 Principales acquisitions 1978, p. 36. 5 Museu Frederic Marès 1979, p. 47, nr. 1536. 6 Bermejo Martínez 1996. 7 Van Dorst 2013. 8 Spanish anonymous, Oratory of Saint Roch, sixteenth century, polychromed and gilded wood, 80 ≈ 49 cm, Fécamp, Palais de la Bénédictine, inv. A-1-a17. 9 Although the convex form is not explicitly mentioned, Kroesen (2010) argues that it was very common for a variety of adjustments to be made to the shape of altarpieces in order to make them fit in the place they were designed for. 10 Schuler 1987, p. 244; Delfosse 2009, pp. 129-135. 11 Laurent 1997, pp. 34-36. 12 Schuler 1992, p. 17; Eichberger 2015, fig. 11. 13 Bernard van Orley and Peeter de Kempeneer, Altarpiece of the Virgin of Seven Sorrows, 200 ≈ 142.5 cm, Besançon, Musée des BeauxArts, inv. D.799.1.17. 14 Adriaen Isenbrant, Diptych of the Virgin of Seven Sorrows, 1521, c. 139 ≈ 137.5 cm, Bruges, Church of Our Lady. 15 Master of the Magdalen Legend, Ashwellthorpe Triptych, 82 ≈ 64 cm (central panel), 82 ≈ 26 cm (wings), Norwich, Castle Museum. 16 Master of Hoogstraten, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 383-389. 17 The panels of the latter are now located in Lisbon (Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, inv. 1275 Pint, 1830 Pint, 1692 Pint, 1821 Pint, 1705 Pint, 1829 Pint), Worcester (Worcester Art Museum, acc. nr. 1937.4) and Rio de Janeiro (Museu da Escola de Belas Artes D. João VI). See: Martens 2010, pp. 218-224. 18 Lamentations of Jeremiah 1:6 (King James Version). These texts tell of the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC) and have been attributed to Jeremiah late on. 19 Song of Solomon 8:7 (King James Version). The last two words of the inscription ‘filie Jherusalem’ are additions to the Biblical text. 20 A similar cap is worn by the Carmelite prior represented in the painting by the Master of the Life of Mary, The Virgin of Mercy, c. 1480, Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. 156. See: Végh 1967, nr. 21. 21 The Department of Conservation and Restoration of the Museu Frederic Marès under the direction of Dr Carmen Sandalinas carried out the technical study of this work from 2000-2007 (during the first phase of treatment); it was completed in 2014. The technical documentation presented in this study belongs to the Department of the museum.

135

22 The panels in the central part have a thickness of 16 mm, whereas the wings have a thickness of 11 mm. 23 The underdrawing was studied through a number of techniques, beginning with IR film photography (black/white and colour) and IR reflectography, and finally by digital IR photography, which provided us with high-resolution details and pictures of complete scenes. The digital IR photography images were obtained thanks to the collaboration established with the Centre de Restauració de Béns Mobles de Catalunya and were produced by Carles Aymerich and Ramón Maroto (Camera Fujifilm Is Pro and optics Nikon AF-S DX NiKKOR 18-105 mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED VR). 24 The bonnet was painted with a blend of azurite and red lake. Analysis by Dr. Enrique Parra Crego, Larco Química y Arte S.L. 25 The X-ray images were produced by SGS Technos S.A., and were scanned thanks to the collaboration established with the Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya. 26 The sky displays two superimposed layers with the same composition of azurite and lead white, with the second layer containing coarser azurite grains. Analysis by Dr. Enrique Parra Crego, Larco Química y Arte S.L. 27 Faries 1989. 28 Faries 1989, pp. 145-146. Other publications dealing with this phenomenon are: Van den Brink 1997, pp. 27-35; Faries, Spronk 2003, pp. 23, 126; Leeflang 2004-2005, pp. 252-253. Some examples: Wings of the Passion Altarpiece, Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, inv. 439-440; Antwerp School, Arrest of Christ, Harvard University, Busch-Reisinger Museum, inv. BR52.15; Master of the Antwerp Adoration, Holy Family, 1530, Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof (in deposit in the Instituut Collectie Nederland, Amsterdam, inv. nr. NK1412); Joos van Cleve and workshop, Reinhold Altarpiece, c. 1516, Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe, inv. 185 007; Antwerp School, Saint Anthony Altarpiece, Kempen, Propsteikirche St. Mariae Geburt. 29 We refer to: Virgin of Sorrows, Brussels Master (Simon Marmion?), c. 1460, Strasbourg, Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. MBA 513 (b) ; Virgin of Sorrows, end of the fifteenth century, Bruges, Groeningemuseum, inv. 0000.GRO0202.I. Certain pictorial features were circulated by means of prayerbooks: the Hortulus animae was printed in 103 editions between 1498 and 1523 (see: Oldenbourg 1973, p. 5; Schuler 1992, p. 14). See for example: Hortulus anime, 1519, Nürnberg, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Ms. Rar. 1622. 30 Rogier van der Weyden, Descent from the Cross, 200 ≈ 263 cm, c. 1435, Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. P02825. 31 As for example, the Carrying of the Cross derives from a wood engraving of Albrecht Dürer in the Great Passion, 39 ≈ 28.5 cm, Vienna, Grafische Sammlung Albertina, inv. DG1934/194. 32 Van de seven droefheden ofte weeden O.L.V., Antwerp, Gerard Leeu, 1492, The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek. 33 110.5 ≈ 78 cm, Hamburg, Kunsthalle, cat. 377. 34 Michelangelo, ‘bronze’ nude in the eighth bay of the ceiling in the spandrel above the lunette of Jesse and his ancestors, 1510-1512, Vatican, Sistine Chapel. We are grateful to Natasja Peeters for this comparison. 35 For example, Neptune and Amphitrite, 1516, 191 ≈ 128.4 cm, Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 648. 36 Thanks to Samantha Heringuez. 37 For example, Jan Gossaert, wings of the Salamanca Triptych, 120 ≈ 47 cm (each wing), 1521, Ohio, Toledo Museum of Art, inv. 1952.85A, B. 38 Such fantastical headgear also appears in drawings by Jan Gossaert (A Standing Warrior in Fantastic Armor with a Halberd, 28 ≈ 16.9 cm, Dresden, Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, inv. C790) or Jan Rombouts (The Conversion of Saint Paul, wing of a Saints Peter and Paul Altarpiece, Leuven, M-Museum, inv. S/14/R). 39 Master of the Mansi Magdalen, Mary Magdalen, 56 ≈ 37.5 cm, Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum, inv. 76.

136

carmen sandalinas linares, bart fransen and elisabeth van eyck

40 Bernard van Orley and Peeter de Kempeneer, Altarpiece of the Virgin of Seven Sorrows, 200 ≈ 142.5 cm, Besançon, Musée des BeauxArts, inv. D.799.1.17. 41 Such as Saints Cosmas and Damian Triptych, 150 ≈ 240 cm, 1523, Bruges, Sint-Jakobskerk. 42 Master of 1518 (follower), Circumcision, right wing of Triptych of the Adoration of the Magi, Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh, inv. 0033. 43 Master of the von Groote Adoration, Lamentation, 86 ≈ 60 cm, Lille, Palais des Beaux-Arts, inv. nr. P1784.

44 Bernard van Orley, Job and Lazarus Polyptych, 176 ≈ 184 (central panel), 174 ≈ 80 (each wing), 1521, Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 1822. 45 Master of the Holy Blood, Triptych of the Deposition, c. 15101520, Bruges, Museum of the Confraternity of the Holy Blood. 46 Bermejo Martínez 1996, p. 285.

Ill. 10.1. Simon Marmion, Annunciation to the Shepherds, c. 1480, fol. 58 of the Donne Hours, Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms A2

10

XRF Analysis of Pigments in the Donne Hours (Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms. A2) Anne Dubois

ABSTRACT: The Donne Hours (Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms. A2), produced for Sir John Donne, were illustrated by Simon Marmion and the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook. A technical study of this manuscript was undertaken including examination by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF). This analysis made it possible to determine the similarities or differences in pigments used by the two artists. But above all it has identified a quite unusual pigment, copper filings, used by Simon Marmion.

—o— A book of hours preserved in the archives of the University in Louvain-la-Neuve (ms A2)1 is well known to art historians under the name of the Louthe Hours. The arms of the man commissioning it appear twice in the volume (fols. 13 and 100v). In 1921, he was identified as Thomas Louthe.2 However, in 1998, Lorne Campbell pointed out that the Louthe family coat of arms was ‘sable, a wolf salient argent’ accompanied by a ‘crescent argent’ and that the latter item is missing on the shields painted in the book of hours.3 It also turned out that the sable field of the shield was painted over a blue (‘azure’) layer. The original coats of arms –‘azure, a wolf salient argent’ – are in fact those of Sir John Donne, as they appear on a triptych painted for him by Hans Memling (London, National Gallery, inv. NG 6275).4

Two illuminators produced the illustrations for this volume.5 The majority of the miniatures were attributed in 1923 to Simon Marmion (ills. 10.1, 10.2).6 They show features found in works attributed to this artist, particularly two leaves that may have belonged to a breviary made for Philip the Good, the only illuminated work by Marmion to be documented.7 The faces of the figures, with forms characteristic for Marmion, are modelled on top of a middle shade base tone using light-coloured highlights placed essentially on the forehead, the nose, and the cheekbones, and reddish brown hatchings in the lower face. The highlights modelling the garments, applied with great freedom and considerable mastery, demonstrate the genuine virtuosity of an artist who also practised easel painting. The scenes are placed in broad landscapes with low skies, seen from high vantage points. The collaboration of a second artist in the calendar and in ten miniatures of the Donne Hours was observed only in 1959 by Léon Delaissé,8 who placed this artist in the circle of the Master of Mary of Burgundy. Later, this ascription was narrowed down by Antoine De Schryver, who identified him as the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook,9 an attribution that has remained unchallenged ever since.10 One finds indeed the hand of the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook in these miniatures’ rather squat figures

140

anne dubois

Ill. 10.2. Simon Marmion, Saint John the Evangelist, c. 1480, fol. 96v of the Donne Hours, Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms A2

xrf analysis of pigments in the donne hours

with their well-rounded faces, their garments modelled with large amounts of very precisely applied hatchings (ill. 10.3). Saint Christopher’s bare legs on fol. 105v also reveal this master’s use of grey hatching to model the flesh tones. During our research project a thorough examination of the Donne Hours was undertaken using scientific methods (microscopy, transmitted light, ultraviolet light, infrared reflectography, X-ray fluorescence).11 The X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) examination was performed on different areas of the miniatures at the Laboratoire d’étude des oeuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques (Louvain-la-Neuve, Université catholique de Louvain, Musée) with the help of Jacqueline Couvert.12 This analysis on the miniatures of the Donne Hours made it possible to identify the use of certain pigments, even if the results obtained using XRF are of only limited use, as this method cannot identify, for example, the organic pigments that are more often used by illuminators than by easel painters and are made of light elements that cannot be detected.13 Given the thinness of the paint layer, the XRF analysis can also show the constituent elements of the support or even writing on the reverse of the parchment. To determine the influence of these factors on the results, various measurements were carried out on the naked parchment and on the ink with which the text was transcribed. The ink of the folios painted by Marmion and the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook contains iron, copper and zinc, with traces of potassium and manganese. In other words it is a metallo-tannic ink. The presence of iron, copper and zinc reflects the composition of the materials used in the production of inks in the fifteenth century. Metallotannic inks are created from a tannin and a sulphate salt. The latter is found naturally, particularly in the form of an ore called chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), mined since the early Middle Ages at Rammelsberg near Goslar in Germany, where it is associated with sphalerite (ZnS).14 The two illuminators use different palettes. Marmion prefers soft tones, subtly modelled. The

141

Master of the Dresden Prayerbook uses harsher tones, and his draperies are modelled much more schematically. All the blue pigments analysed include copper, indicating that only azurite was used by both painters, even in very light blue garments where it was mixed with lead white, as in the cloak of a shepherd in the Annunciation to the Shepherds on fol. 58 (ill. 10.1). The presence of copper in the blues appears to indicate that lapis lazuli, an expensive pigment, was not used in the Donne Hours.15 The reds are more varied. In fact, Simon Marmion does not use red in his miniatures, preferring a very pale pink (ill. 10.2). Analysis of this pinkish tone reveals the presence of only lead. This seems to rather indicate the use of a little lead white mixed with an organic pink dye. Red flowers do appear, however, in the margins surrounding Marmion’s miniatures. In some of them (fol. 26 for example), a large amount of lead can be detected. The orangey-red tone of these flowers could indicate that lead red is used, also known as minium. The Master of the Dresden Prayerbook uses two types of red. The orangey-reds are probably produced using lead red, given the presence of a large quantity of lead, as in the garment of the peasant in the roundel illustrating the month of February in the calendar (fol. 2). The darker shades of red, like the reverse of Gabriel’s mantle in fol. 109v, contain mercury, identifying it with vermilion. Organic red pigments are probably used also, both in the miniatures of the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook and in the margins around Marmion’s miniatures, but cannot be detected by XRF. The pinkish tones used by the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook are less pale than Marmion’s, as shown in the garment of Saint Christopher in fol. 105v (ill. 10.3). They are probably composed of an organic dye mixed with lead white as suggested by the presence of lead peaks. Greens are all based on copper, in the form of an opaque, bright and saturated green, or as a translucent lake. Opaque green, probably with a little lead white added, is used, for example, as base tone

142

anne dubois

Ill. 10.3. Master of the Dresden Prayerbook, Saint Christopher, c. 1480, fol. 105v of the Donne Hours, Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms A2

xrf analysis of pigments in the donne hours

Ill. 10.4. Simon Marmion, Nativity, c. 1480, detail of fol. 91v of the Donne Hours, Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms A2

143

144

anne dubois

for the trees in the background of Saint John the Evangelist (fol. 96v) (ill. 10.2). Translucent green is then used to model this base tone. A few yellow elements are found in miniatures painted by the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook, as in the shirt of the executioner in the miniature representing Saint Sebastian (fol. 103v). These have been done in lead-tin yellow. Marmion, meanwhile, uses ochre rather than yellow, but there is a yellow flower in the margins around the composition depicting the Annunciation to the Shepherds (fol. 58), which is also done with leadtin yellow (ill. 10.1). Other colours are present in the miniatures produced by Simon Marmion and the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook, but the results of the XRF examination do not provide decisive answers as to their composition. The earth-based pigments, such ochre that Marmion uses abundantly (ill. 10.1), exhibit the presence of iron, but we cannot be more specific. Both artists also make abundant use of metallic pigments. Shell gold is systematically used for the background of the margins, except for the calendar, where ochre and grey layers are also used. In these margins the layer of gold is very thin,16 with dots or very short hatchings in denser gold creating modelling around the plants (ill. 10.1). However, they have not all been done by the same hand. Thus, the margins around the ten miniatures by the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook attempt to achieve the same effect as those surrounding the scenes painted by Marmion, but more crudely.17 Simon Marmion also makes extensive use of shell gold to model his fabrics (ill. 10.2) or to produce the rich brocades with which he likes to adorn his compositions, as well as to paint much wider areas, like the imposing thrones in the two compositions representing the Coronation of the Virgin (fols. 76 and 94v) and that of the Trinity (fol. 89). The Master of the Dresden Prayerbook has used shell gold hatching much less systematically than Marmion (ill. 10.3). But many decorative elements are also produced in this material on fabrics, armour, furniture or brocades made by this master.

Both illuminators also use silver. Marmion often sprinkles his skies with silver clouds, most of which have corroded and turned black (ill. 10.2). But he also uses this material for the reflections of water (fol. 96v), as does the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook in his composition of Saint Christopher (fol. 105v) (ill. 10.3). A third and very unusual metallic pigment can be detected only in the compositions by Simon Marmion: some areas show a reddish-brown paint layer partially impaired by wear (ill. 10.4). Under the microscope a whitish underlayer heavily stained with greenish material on the surface can be seen (ill. 10.5). Above, a paint layer composed of large grains of red-brown colour has been applied. It is this pigment that has corroded and dirtied the surface of the white underlayer. The grains of the matter have come away in places, revealing the underlayer. The XRF analysis of these parts shows two main peaks: one of lead and a second and larger one of copper. This analysis combined with examination under the microscope enables us to identifies the two superimposed layers. On top of an underlayer of lead white, Marmion has placed a layer of copper filings (red-brown). The size of the copper grains, and probably the use of a rather weak binder,

Ill. 10.5. Simon Marmion, Nativity, c. 1480, detail under microscope of fol. 91v of the Donne Hours, Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms A2

xrf analysis of pigments in the donne hours

involves that these have come away in certain places, perhaps owing to wear, revealing the layer underneath. The latter appears stained by the oxidation of the copper covering it. The function of this lead white layer may be to provide a protective underlayer. However, even with this intermediate layer, the oxidation has reached the parchment and is visible from the reverse (ill. 10.6). It changes our vision of those areas where it seems that Marmion wanted to use a coloured metallic pigment that could be the pendant of shell gold and silver used as highlights in the miniatures. Marmion has used this copper filings-based pigment to render architectural details, such as the imposing wall of the stable located behind the Virgin in the Nativity on fol. 91v (ill. 10.4). This pigment has also been used for other details like the armour worn by the soldiers present at the Resurrection (fol. 92v) or even the eagle of Saint John the Evangelist (fol. 96v) (ill. 10.2). The use of copper filings is frequently mentioned in medieval technical treatises. However, in the recipes, this material is only used before processing, usually to produce green pigments (verdigris).18 The use of pure copper filings as a pigment features nowhere in these treatises. Only that of Jean Lebègue entitled Tabula vocabulis sinonimis and equivocis colorum (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF), lat. 6741), dated 1431, mentions a somewhat similar technique: ‘Pour escrire de laton et pareillement dor et dargent. Limez très subtilement laton de très pure couleur et puis le molez soutiliment sur le porphire qui est pierre très seure, puis le mettez en un net vaisel et le laissiez asseoir, puis ostez leaue et ayez vostre détrempe de gomme arabiche, et len destrempez puis en ouvrez de vostre pincel, et quant ce sera fait et sech, si le frotez et burnissez très bien, d’une pierre qui est nommée ametiste et ainsi povez vous escrire dor et dargent’.19 Brass filings, which is an alloy of copper and zinc with a golden appearance, are used in this case solely as an alternative to gold for writing, and not as a pigment for miniatures. Nor is any underlayer recommended here, which is logical as the material is intended as golden ink.

145

Ill. 10.6. Donne Hours, fol. 91, Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms A2

After consulting many studies which examine the pigments used by various illuminators, I have found no mention of analyses pointing to the use of copper filings as a pigment. This makes it at least a rare technique. In a symposium focusing on the issue of attributions, I wondered whether it was possible to link this unusual pigment to the production of Simon Marmion. To answer this question, I examined a large number of manuscripts attributed to this painter. This pigment, which is recognizable to the naked eye when you know what you are looking for, is not found in Marmion’s early works, from the 1450s to the 1470s.20 However, the miniatures in other manuscripts dating from the end of his career and contemporary with the Donne Hours, that can be dated from the late 1470s or early 1480s, do show this pigment. It is used

146

anne dubois

Ill. 10.7. Rambures Master, Siege of Jerusalem by Titus, 1455-1460, fol. 319 of Jean Mansel, Histoires romaines, Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, ms. 5088

abundantly in the Huth Hours (London, British Library, Add. ms. 38126).21 Marmion is the main artist of this manuscript, painting almost all the major miniatures as well as the majority of the small miniatures that serve as initials. The Master of the Houghton Miniatures produced two large miniatures while the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook, who worked regularly on books of hours where Marmion’s hand appears, illustrated the calendar. The filings appear only in the large miniatures done by Marmion where it is used to render architectural details, as well as garments and various objects. Thus, in the Annunciation to the Shepherds (fol. 79v), the shirt of the shepherd on the left is painted with this pigment and then embellished with gold hatching. The worn areas reveal greenish tone due to the corrosion of the copper. This garment is also clearly visible on the reverse of the parchment. In the miniature depicting Saint George and the Dragon (fol. 139v), the monster is largely modelled with this pigment. This is evident on the reverse of the folio where the

greenish colour from the corrosion of the copper differentiates clearly from the blackish colour of the silver oxidation of the saint’s armour. Around 1480, Simon Marmion produced other books of hours in collaboration with other artists. In the Voustre Demeure Hours, a manuscript divided between Berlin (Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, ms. 78 B 13), Madrid (Biblioteca nacional, Vitr/25/5) and Philadelphia (Philadelphia Museum of Art, nr. 343), Marmion, working with the Vienna Master of Mary of Burgundy, Lievin van Lathem and the Master of the Dresden Prayerbook, painted just five miniatures.22 I have not examined the illuminations in situ but colour documents of the miniatures may indicate that the garment worn by a man just behind Christ in the Resurrection of Lazarus could be painted with copper filings. This needs, however, to be confirmed by direct visual examination. Other manuscripts were produced at that time. The Emerson White Hours (Cambridge (MA), Houghton Library, Typ. 443.1), have, however, lost most of their full-page miniatures. Only three of those that have been preserved can be attributed to Marmion,23 but none of them contains the unusual pigment. This is not to say, however, that the missing miniatures that may have been produced by Marmion did not use it. The research into the use of copper filings by Marmion around 1480 needs to be complemented by the study of manuscripts to which I have not yet had access.24 In these examples, copper filings were used by Simon Marmion but not by the other illuminators working with him, all of them active in Bruges or Ghent. This indicates that this pigment should be associated with Marmion’s workshop in Valenciennes. I therefore examined the productions of the main illuminators working in Northern France during the second half of the fifteenth century in order to determine whether the pigment could have been something of a local tradition among the illuminators of this region. This research, most of the time unfruitful, brought to light, however, the extensive use of copper filings by the Rambures

xrf analysis of pigments in the donne hours

Master. This artist, who was active in the North of France, is difficult to locate more accurately. He worked on manuscripts produced in Hesdin but some scholars think that he may have been active in Amiens,25 with no certainty. In 1460, Loyset Liédet was paid for producing a two-volume copy of the Histoires romaines by Jean Mansel (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, ms. 5087-5088).26 Five of these miniatures were done by the Rambures Master. This is the oldest production that can be attributed to this artist. In these five miniatures, copper filings are used extensively to colour architectural elements, rocks in the landscape and various different ornaments. Thus, in the composition representing the siege of Jerusalem by Titus (fol. 319) (ill. 10.7), several buildings of the city in the background, the rocky outcrop in the centre of the composition, the rocks in the foreground, the cannon, various pieces of armour of the soldiers and Titus’ drum-shaped headware, have all been produced using copper filings. Filings are also used in at least two other manuscripts on which the Rambures Master worked, both dating from the 1460s. The manuscript from which the master takes his name is a book of hours produced for Jacques de Rambures (Amiens, Bibliothèque d’Amiens-Métropole, ms. 200A). It is in this manuscript that the pigment is used most intensively, both in the miniatures and in the decoration of the margins, where the Rambures Master painted the droleries incorporated into them. In the miniatures, copper filings are used, as in the manuscript of the Histoires romaines, in the architecture, in the imposing rocks in the landscape and in various ornamental elements (ill. 10.8), as well as also for certain animals like Saint John the Evangelist’s eagle (fol. 13) or Saint Hubert’s stag (fol. 159v). In the margins, it is used for animals, such as a stag on fol. 15 (ill. 10.8), but also for hybrids, whether completely covered with filings as in fol. 146, or partly, as in fol. 159v. Observation with the naked eye of the miniatures of Jean Mansel’s Histoires Romaines and of the Rambures Hours has not, however, enabled us to determine

147

Ill. 10.8. Rambures Master, Saint Luke, c. 1465, fol. 15 of the Hours of Jacques de Rambures, Amiens, Bibliothèque d’Amiens-Métropole, ms 200A

whether a lead white underlayer is present under the copper filings as in the Donne Hours. The third example painted by the Rambures Master which shows copper filings is a copy of the Histoires des nobles princes de Hainaut by Jacques de Guise, translated by Jean Wauquelin (Boulogne, Bibliothèque Municipale, ms. 149). The two volumes were produced for Jean V, Lord of Créquy and Canaples.27 The Thérouanne Master and the Master of the Aristotle Ethics began decorating the first volume, quite likely in the 1450s. It was completed, probably in the 1460s, by the Rambures Master, who also painted all the miniatures of the second volume. In miniatures produced by this master, filings are also used abundantly for the same elements as in the Histoires romaines in the Arsenal. In the late 1460s or in the very early 1470s, the Rambures Master settled for a time in Bruges28 where he seems to abandon the use of copper filings

148

anne dubois

as a pigment. On his return to Northern France, the quality of his miniatures appears to collapse to the point that might suggest that it is no longer the master himself who painted these manuscripts. Nor are filings used there any more. The presence of copper filings as a pigment in miniatures produced by both Simon Marmion and the Rambures Master indicates a strong link between these two artists. However, it is the Rambures Master who first used the pigment in the 1460s, which appears in Marmion’s workshop only on around 1480. Why did Marmion use this pigment so late? Why this period of more than ten years in which the pigment was apparently not used? Was it because Marmion encountered the Rambures Master, or a member of his workshop, or one of his works only late in his career? Many questions are raised by this use of a rare pigment. These relationships should be studied in greater detail in the future. NOTES 1 The study of the Donne Hours is part of a research project undertaken by myself between 2010 and 2014 as a research fellow of the Belgian ‘Fonds National de la Recherche scientifique’ (FRS-FNRS). This project was entitled: The painting technique of easel paintings and miniatures in the second half of the fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth century. Interrelationships and contribution of scientific methods. 2 Casier, Bergmans 1921, vol. 2, pp. 67-75. 3 Campbell 1998a, pp. 382, 390, note 25. See also: Backhouse 2001, pp. 158-159. 4 The crest above the coats of arms on fol. 100v, the lambrequin of which was originally blue and also overpainted in black, consists of a helmet crowned by a knot of five snakes. John Donne’s son, Edward, used this type of helmet, leading Lorne Campbell to assume that the son had inherited it from his father. See: Campbell 1998a, p. 382. 5 For a recent study, see: Dubois 2014. 6 Winkler 1923, p. 255, note 1. In 1925, in his reference work, Friedrich Winkler (1925, p. 182) attributed them to Simon Marmion’s workshop. 7 Hindman 1992. Sandra Hindman admits in her article that her hypothesis needs to be confirmed. This attribution is, however, plausible and has been accepted by most scholars. 8 Brussels 1959, pp. 191-192, nr. 271. 9 De Schryver 1975, pp. 375-376, nr. 612. 10 Brinkmann 1997, pp. 153-159. 11 I am grateful to the Archives de l’Université, especially Françoise Mirguet, for their provision of the manuscript and their enthusiasm for my research.

12 I would also like to thank Jacqueline Couvert for making available the instruments of the Laboratoire d’étude des oeuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques (Musée de Louvain-la-Neuve) and for her help with the XRF analysis. 13 Clarke 2001, p. 10; Clarke 2002, pp. 41-42. 14 Wouters, Banik 2000, pp. 141-142. 15 Despite its great cost, other illuminators made greater use of lapis lazuli. One of them is the Boucicaut Master, working in Paris at the turn of the fifteenth century, who systematically used this pigment without recourse to azurite. The only other blue pigment used is indigo. See: Guineau, Villela-Petit 2002, pp. 29-30; Villela-Petit 2003, pp. 124-128. In the Flemish area, analysis of the Mayer van den Bergh Breviary (Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh, inv.  MMB0618) has shown that the painters used lapis lazuli only for the blue garments of the Virgin, pointing in this case to a real hierarchy of pigments. See: Dekeyzer, Vandenabeele, Moens, Cardon 1999; Vandenabeele, Moens 2002. 16 Analysis under ultraviolet light shows that the gold layer used as a background for the margins is so thin that the fluorescence of the parchment it covers is perfectly visible. This fluorescence of the parchment also enables us to determine that the gold layer was applied with wide brushstrokes. 17 See: Dubois 2014. 18 For example, see: Clarke 2011, p. 113 (§1.16.8). 19 Merrifield 1967, p. 299, nr. 312. 20 Brussels, Royal Library of Belgium (KBR), ms. 9231-9232, Jean Mansel, Fleur des Histoires; Brussels, KBR, ms. 9047, Sept Ages du Monde; Brussels, KBR, ms. 9215, Sens Pontifical; Brussels, KBR, ms. 9510, Martin le Franc, L’Estrif de Fortune et de Vertu; The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, ms. SMC1, Trivulzio Hours; Los Angeles, J.P. Getty Museum, ms. 30-31, Vision de l’âme de Guy de Thurno and Visions du chevalier Tondal; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. nr. 1975.1.2477, sheet from the Breviary of Philip the Good; Cleveland Museum of Art, John L. Severance Fund 2005.55, sheet from the Breviary of Philip the Good; Paris, BNF, NAF 16428, Prayerbook of Philip the Good; Paris, BNF, NAF 28650, Listoire de Madame Sainte Katherine; Saint Petersbourg, Publ. Libr. Saltykov Sedrin, Erm. fr. 88, Grandes Chroniques de France. 21 The Huth Hours are reproduced in full on the British Library website (http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_ MS_38126). The data given below can be checked on this facsimile. On this manuscript, see also: Los Angeles/London 2003, pp. 174-176, nr. 33. 22 Los Angeles/London 2003, pp. 142-146, nr. 20. 23 Los Angeles/London 2003, pp. 169-173, nr. 32. Two of the large miniatures of the volume, cut out of it, are conserved, one at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles (ms. 60, Annunciation to the Shepherds) and the other in the KBR in Brussels (ms. II 3634-3636, Mass of Saint Gregory). 24 London, Victoria and Albert Museum, L2384-1910, Salting Hours; Alnwick Castle, Duke of Northumberland, nr. 482, Hours of Charlotte de Bourbon-Montpensier; Private collection, Hours (Los Angeles/London 2003, pp. 199-202, nr. 37); Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, IB51, La Flora Hours; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, ms clm 28345, Hours. 25 Nash 1999, pp. 195-200; Brussels/Paris 2011, pp. 404-406. 26 Brussels/Paris 2011, p. 269, nr. 57, pp. 406-408, nr. 115. 27 The original text was contained in three volumes. The second volume is now lost. 28 Brussels/Paris 2011, pp. 404-406.

Ill. 11.1. Altarpiece of Saint Michael, c. 1478, redesigned in 1889, 150 x 73 cm, Spišská Kapitula, Church of Saint Martin

11

The Saint Michael Altarpiece in Spišská Kapitula A Preliminary Report Ingrid Ciulisová*

ABSTRACT: The article discusses the recent findings of the UV and IRR examinations of the Saint Michael Altarpiece documented in 1478 in Saint Martin Cathedral in Spišská Kapitula (Slovakia). It focuses on the centre panel depicting the Archangel Michael weighting souls that bears close resemblance to Saint Michael presented in the Last Judgement Polyptych in the Hôtel-Dieu in Beaune associated with Rogier van der Weyden and his workshop. The free but at the same time controlled underdrawing of the figure in Kapitula reveals that an anonymous artist may have had access to copies (or its variants) created after Rogier’s models.

—o— In 1936 Hungarian art historian László Éber devoted a monographic study to the Saint Michael Altarpiece in the former collegiate church in Spišská Kapitula in what is now Slovakia. In his text he called attention to the fact that the figure of Saint Michael weighting souls displayed at the centre altar panel of the triptych (ill. 11.1) bears close resemblance to that presented in the Last Judgement Polyptych in the Hôtel-Dieu in Beaune associated with Rogier van der Weyden.1 Indeed the painting presents a nearly literal copy of the theme from Van der Weyden altarpiece.2 Available documentary materials give pitifully little information on this work. Presumably the earliest archival document pointing out the Saint Michael Altarpiece is a report on the consecration of the Saint Martin Church written in 1478 by Nicolai, who served as a canonist and lector in Kapitula.3 From his text

we learn that the church was consecrated on 25th October 1478 and on this occasion eleven altars, including the one dedicated to Saint Michael, were installed and consecrated. In 1634 the altarpiece was considerably redesigned following Baroque fashion and in 1889 the retabulum was incorporated in a new Neo-Gothic shrine. On this occasion the altar paintings underwent a restoration.4 Despite all interventions, examinations of the centre panel by means of ultraviolet light (ill. 11.2) revealed that the painting is in good condition, though old overpaints and secondary varnishes are visible. The frontally positioned Michael with outspread wings holds balance scales in his right hand while his left hand is raised in a gesture of noninvolvement (ill. 11.3). He performs the weighting of the souls in a space half heavenly and half earthly, dressed as a deacon at High Mass assisting Christ. The archangel wears a liturgical vestment: an alb, a stole crossed on his breast, and an elaborate cope of red and gold brocade. He wears a pearl diadem on his head. Michael is taking a small step forward to the viewer as he looks up at Christ in Heaven who will decide the final destination of each soul. Michael’s physiognomy, pose, attire and attributes are very similar to that of the soulweigher of Beaune. A closer look, however, reveals that the Kapitula painting also significantly differs from the prototype in several important details.

152

ingrid ciulisová

Ill. 11.3. Altarpiece of Saint Michael (ill. 11.1), centre panel Ill. 11.2. Altarpiece of Saint Michael (ill. 11.1), ultraviolet (UV), centre panel

For instance, the act of weighting takes place in an interior instead of a naturalistic landscape setting as painted in Beaune. In contrast to Rogier, the anonymous master depicted the early stage of the weighting: in his picture the balance pan with a praying human form is only slightly heavier than the one carrying a devil which is completely omitted in Rogier’s depiction of Hell. He also used a slightly different type of scales and the circular

collar of the ring from which the scales are suspended is strung on his thumb. The archangel’s silhouette is clearly derived from that of Van der Weyden’s prototype but his head is too small in proportion to the body and his tall, ascetic figure is more vertically composed. The archangel stands on a decorative tiled pavement in front of the wainscoting that is missing in Beaune. The gold ‘Pressbrokat’ (or applied brocade) then occupies an upper part of the painting.

the saint michael altarpiece in spišská kapitula

Both works also differ in the interpretation of the Psychostasia. The Kapitula Master reversed Rogier’s model: in his picture virtue weights heavier than sin and the balance pan with a praying little figure is sinking to the ground. He also replaced the human form expressing the idea of sin in Beaune with a devilish monster. In addition, Michael’s wings are not that of a peacock and there are also various changes in the form and position of his hands and fingers. Although the copyist made efforts to approximate the visual effects achieved by Netherlandish masters, his work is marked by the traditional methods to which he was attached. For instance, Michael’s face is modelled on Rogier’s example but the flesh and facial features lack his sense of reality. Also decoratively treated curly blond hairs falling on his shoulders contribute to the idealized impression (ill. 11.4). In contrast, the wainscoting with a realistically painted structure imitating marble surface reinforces the sense of physical presence as do the jewelled details of Michael’s brocade garment. They are rendered with full attention on reflection and lustre displaying highlights and reflected shadows on the surfaces of gems and pearls. The oval fastening of Michael’s cope is proving that the anonymous master adopted the practice of using yellow and brown for simulating gold. He also made efforts to emulate tonal effects. As demonstrated by Michael’s alb he addressed the issue of tonality and down-modelling using greyish tone to intensify modelling of the vestment. Yet his deep and schematically clustered drapery folds possess a strong graphic vigour. The IRR examinations of the centre panel of the Saint Michael Altarpiece (150 × 74 cm) have revealed that the figure of the archangel is underdrawn. The character of the lines made visible by the infrared reflectography suggests that the composition is sketched out on the panel in a freehand but controlled underdrawing, applied with a brush in a liquid medium. Overall volume of the figure is carefully suggested: the drawing is simple and linear without modelling and hatching. The position of Saint Michael’s facial features, such as his eyes,

153

nose, mouth, and chin are sketchily indicated and the facial contours suggest that archangel’s face was formerly intended to be thinner (ill. 11.5). His hands and fingers are carefully outlined within their painted contours (ill. 11.6). This also seems to be the case with the eyes and eyebrows. In some places it is impossible to distinguish lines of underdrawing from lines painted on the surface. A praying figure kneeling in the sinking pan was also underdrawn (ill. 11.7). Eyes were formerly positioned slightly lower and the raised right hand was shifted in the underdrawing. Archangel’s cope proved difficult to penetrate, but his tunic was underdrawn. Because the paint has become more transparent with age, some of the underdrawing is now visible to the naked eye. A good example is Saint Michael’s nose and chin. There are no major alterations detected, either in the drawing or in the painting stage. It may be assumed that the composition was established from the very start and that a drawing model incorporating the motifs present in the Kapitula painting might have already been prepared before the underdrawing stage. We know that Van der Weyden ran a busy workshop where many pictures seem to have been painted by his assistants following his instructions and using his models. The master himself seemed to have reworked some of his ideas to create patterns which could be easily reproduced or adapted to suit the requirements of different clients. As his second son Pieter, his grandson Goossen and his great grand-son Rogier were all painters, his stock of patterns probably remained in circulation in their workshop at Brussels and Antwerp until the mid-sixteenth century.5 Among the reference material of the workshop might have also been a number of drawings related to the figures displayed at the centre panel of the Beaune altarpiece. That a pattern for Christ might have existed is suggested by two fifteenth-century copies of the figure of Christ in Judgement. The Paris drawing (Musée du Louvre, inv. 18785) bears monogram of Martin Schongauer and a date 1469 while the drawing preserved in Karlsruhe (Staatliche Kunsthalle,

154

ingrid ciulisová

Ill. 11.4. Altarpiece of Saint Michael (ill. 11.1), centre panel, detail of the bust of Saint Michael

inv. VIII2686) is considered to be a copy of 1493 by an anonymous German master.6 Fritz Koreny has convincingly revealed that both drawings are based not directly on the Beaune polyptych but rather go back to another drawn version of the figure originated in Rogier’s workshop, a drawing that was available to Memling when he painted his Last Judgement, now in Gdańsk (Muzeum Narodowe, inv. SD/413/M).7 The drawings presenting the Virgin Praying (Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. E17-3a) and John the Baptist (Oxford, Ash-

molean Museum, inv. WA 1863.388) of around 1460 referring to the Rogier’s Deësis group in Beaune testifies that the altarpiece was a work of intense study and that the models showing principal figures from Van der Weyden altarpiece circulated in the contemporary workshops. Both drawings have been recently ascribed by Robert Suckale to the assistants of Hans Pleydenwurff, a master documented in Bamberg and later on in Nuremberg where he lived and worked until his death in 1472.8

the saint michael altarpiece in spišská kapitula

155

Ill. 11.5. Altarpiece of Saint Michael (ill. 11.1), IRR, centre panel, detail of the bust of Saint Michael

The Kapitula painting implies a close familiarity not only with Rogier’s composition, but in part also with its colour, an element which is less easily recorded in a drawing. Also in Kapitula Saint Michael is garbed in three colours: red and white in combination with green. One could speculate whether the anonymous master might have seen the original or its painted copy. On the other hand, we know that it was standard practise in the workshops of Netherlandish and German fifteenthcentury masters to supply their drawings with

notations indicating the colours, and material textures of objects, as an aide when a need to paint the recorded picture appeared. One cannot exclude the possibility that the anonymous painter might have had access precisely to such a model. Examinations of the Beaune altarpiece with infrared photography, reflectography and X-radiography revealed that the figure of Saint Michael was underdrawn and that significant changes were made at the painting stage, including the different position of the bar of the scales clearly visible both

156

ingrid ciulisová

Ill. 11.6. Altarpiece of Saint Michael (ill. 11.1), IRR, centre panel, detail of the left hand of Saint Michael

the saint michael altarpiece in spišská kapitula

157

Ill. 11.7. Altarpiece of Saint Michael (ill. 11.1), IRR, centre panel, detail of a praying figure kneeling in the sinking pan

on the radiographs and the infrared reflectograms.9 And though it is common to discover that a version of a well-known composition is closer to the underdrawing than to the finished original, the Kapitula painting does not seem to prove it. Comparison between Rogier’s painting of Saint Michael, his underdrawing and the Kapitula copy seems to indicate that the latter corresponds more with the finished original. As far as we know no documentary evidence related to its author survived. But it seems to be that the anonymous painter was a fully competent and mature master well supplied with his own stock of designs. For instance, for his devilish monster in the raising scale-pan he presumably used Martin Schongauer’s print presenting Temptation of Saint Anthony (1470-1475, nr. L.54). During his Wander-

jahre, or as a journeyman, he might have had an access to the copy of the Beaune Saint Michael. The intermediary drawing then might have served as a presentation sketch while he discussed the details of his commission with local authorities in Kapitula. The early long-distance transfer of the Rogierian motif and its acceptation by local community was certainly about a transmission of respected artistic authority. It was not only about showing respect, however. The Kapitula copy of the Beaune Saint Michael created in the 1470s and situated in a non-central faraway place of Europe was also a manifestation of social and cultural aspirations of the contemporary local elites.10 Finally it should be noted that the Beaune prototype on which the Kapitula master based his work has not lost its attraction even in the follow-

158

ingrid ciulisová

Ill. 11.8. Altarpiece of Saint Michael (ill. 11.1), IRR, centre panel, detail of a devilish monster in the pan

ing years. This can be testified by the painting presenting Saint Michael Weighting Souls that once formed part of the monumental Last Judgement produced presumably for Cologne (Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSKB/ MRBAB), inv. 8515). Painted at the beginning of the sixteenth century by one of the leading Brussels painters of the time, Colijn de Coter, the work

once again recalled Rogier van der Weyden and his work.11 As far as we know the Kapitula painting is presumably the only surviving fifteenth-century copy of the Beaune Saint Michael and as such it possesses a special historic value. There is no doubt that further research on this little studied work merits greater attention in the future.

the saint michael altarpiece in spišská kapitula

NOTES * My research on the Saint Michael Altarpiece in Spišská Kapitula was supported by a grant agency of the Ministry of Education and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA (Nr. 2/0053/13). The fellowship from the Research Foundation/Flanders (FWO) offered me an opportunity to consult essential visual and written materials preserved at the Centre for the Study of the Flemish Primitives in Brussels (KIK/ IRPA) in 2014. Here my thanks go especially to Bart Fransen and Jana Sanyová. Also, I would like to thank Fritz Koreny for discussing the altar painting with me and for his valuable remarks and advices. I am grateful to Miroslav Hain (Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Measurement Science in Bratislava) who inspected the panel with UV rays, made the reflectograms and helped me to interpret the images. The images were taken in situ using SONY F717 camera, near infrared 800-1100 nm, with filter Schott RG8. Finally my thanks are directed to Roman Catholic Church, Bishopric Spišské Podhradie, for allowing me to study this altarpiece. 1 Éber 1906, pp. 193-202. His text is not mentioned in Veronee-Verhaegen 1973. Notable literature on the Saint Michael Altarpiece includes: Schürer, Wiese 1938, p. 223, nr. 356; Végh 2010, pp. 457-468 (with a survey of art-historical opinions on the earlier literature).

159

2 On Rogier van der Weyden and the Beaune Altarpiece, see: Panofsky 1964, esp. pp. 268-272; Veronee-Verhaegen 1973 (with a very extensive bibliography); Campbell 1996, pp. 117-128; Pächt 1997, pp. 40-49; De Vos 1999, pp. 252-265; Châtelet 1999a; Kemperdick 1999; Campbell 2004; Ziemba 2011, esp. pp. 230-305, 292-295. 3 Wagner 1774. 4 Chalupecký 2007, vol. 3, p. 9; Hanula 1940, pp. 135-144. 5 On Rogier van der Weyden and his workshop, see: Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 2, p. 28; Dijkstra 1989; Campbell 1981; Campbell 1994; Campbell 1998a, pp. 27-28; Kemperdick 2008; Kemperdick 2012. 6 Comblen-Sonkes 1969, pp. 64-68, nr. B15, pl. XIVb, pp. 68-69, nr. B16, pl. XVb; Davies 1972, p. 199; Bruges 2010, pp. 309-310, nrs. 143, 144. 7 Koreny 1996, p. 125, nr. 3; see also: Lane 2009, pp. 21-22. 8 Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 123-124, figs. 184-185. 9 See: Veronee-Verhaegen 1973, esp. pp. 7-9; Veronee-Verhaegen 1983; Van Asperen de Boer, Dijkstra, Van Schoute 1990, pp. 26-29, 181-199. The X-radiographs of Saint Michael are preserved at the KIK/ IRPA archives in Brussels (L5768D/25, L5769D/26). 10 On the historical context of the painting, see: Ciulisová 2014, pp. 187-198. 11 Périer-D’Ieteren 1985, pp. 50, 101-106, 149; Bruges 2010, p. 136, nr. 11.

Ill. 12.1. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg, outside of left outer wing, Moses with the Bronze Snake, c. 1420, 232 x 184 cm, Landesmuseum Hannover

12

The Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg, c. 1420 New Findings about Painting Process and Characteristics Babette Hartwieg*

ABSTRACT: From 2012 to 2016 an interdisciplinary research project was conducted in the Landesmuseum Hannover on one of its major pieces, the so called Goldene Tafel from the Benedictine Abbey of Saint Michael in Lüneburg. The project comprised detailed historical, technical and stylistic investigations on the four large wings still preserved as well as a concept for the subsequent conservation treatment. The wings show on each side polychrome sculptures and painting of extraordinary quality. First results of the technical examinations are presented here especially with regard to the dating, the underdrawings and the decoration of metal leaves with punch marks on the painted sides. They provide new clues on the structure of the workshop or working-team which was commissioned to construct the Goldene Tafel.

—o— The Goldene Tafel (Golden Panel) at the Landesmuseum Hannover is considered one of the most important works from the period of the International Gothic style in Northern Germany, dating from the early fifteenth century. It once served as the High Altarpiece of the Benedictine Abbey of Saint Michael in Lüneburg south of Hamburg. Originally it was a pentaptych with two wings on each side of a shrine. The altarpiece received its name from the large tabula aurea, a goldsmith’s work probably from the twelfth century. This was integrated into the shrine in the middle of a precious collection of reliquiaries, shown in twentytwo compartments under canopies and rich tracery work. Many of the reliquiaries were lost due to

theft in the seventeenth century (1644 and 1698) and sales in the eighteenth century. The framed case itself and most of the tracery boards are no longer present. However, the appearance of the retable as presented on high holidays with wings open was handed down to us from a copperplate print from 1700.1 The reliquiaries preserved are on display in the Museum August Kestner Hannover.2 In the collection of the Landesmuseum in Hanover are a double canopy, two wooden head reliquiaries from the inner shrine and another polychromed head reliquiary from the predella as well as the four large wings, about 232 cm high and 184 cm wide, with six sides painted and two showing sculptures. The paintings visible when the wings are closed show Moses with the Brazen Serpent against the Crucifixion as the Old Testament’s type and New Testament’s anti-type (ill. 12.1). When the outer wings are opened, a cycle of thirty-six scenes from the lives of the Virgin Mary and Christ are visible on the two outer and the two inner wings with a width of almost 7.5 m (ills. 12.2, 12.3).3 The narrative cycle starts on the upper left with the Annunciation and tells the story of Christ’s birth and childhood in ten scenes in the upper register. The Wedding of Cana and Baptism of Christ are shown on the upper right. In the tiers below Christ’s Passion is depicted across 21 scenes: beginning with the Resurrection of Lazarus on the middle register on the far left,

162

babette hartwieg

Ill. 12.2. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg, inner side of left outer wing, nine scenes from the lives of Mary and Christ, c. 1420, 232 x 184 cm, Landesmuseum Hannover

the goldene tafel from lüneburg

Ill. 12.3. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg, inner side of right inner wing, nine scenes from the lives of Mary and Christ, c. 1420, 232 x 184 cm, Landesmuseum Hannover

163

164

babette hartwieg

including the unusual scene of Christ Waking up the Sleeping Followers in the middle, to the Mocking of Christ on the far right. On the lower tier Christ Carrying the Cross is shown as well as another Crucifixion on the far left wing (ill. 12.2), followed by the Descent from the Cross to the Limbo on the left inner wing. On the right inner wing the Resurrection of Christ, the Three Marys at the Empty Tomb and the Ascension are presented at the end of the Passion cycle (ill. 12.3). The last three scenes on the right outer wing are devoted to Mary, showing Pentecost, Death and Coronation of the Virgin. The scenes are divided with finely designed decorative borders (ill. 12.9b-c). When the inner wings were opened, polychrome sculptures within an elaborately worked architecture come to light: twenty saints under canopies, two feet high, are accompanied by smaller female saints on the canopy tier in the middle, just about one foot high, based on the foot dimensions of 29.125 cm.4 Thanks to the detailed documentation by Ludwig Albrecht Gebhardi from 1792 we know about the complete original appearance of the retable: the double-winged altarpiece rested on a predella of about 70 cm in height.5 Among some other fragments preserved in the Museum Lüneburg is a large rectangular tracery board from the predella, again about two feet high.6 Two of those tracery boards on both sides of a smaller double arch in the centre, which added to the full length of 276 cm, originally hid a number of reliquiaries in a long case in the predella. However, the prints in Hosmann from 1700 and in Gebhardi from 1792 present a predella with a curved shape at each side and a painted front showing three prophets on both sides of Christ as Judge of the World. Hence the predella must have had painted wings which covered the reliquiary case. As to the image in Gebhardi the altarpiece was crowned by an impressive frieze of leaves, which was about 1.2 m high. This adds to a total height of approximately 4.2 m on top of the altar table. When the wings were opened, the width of the retable corresponded with the dimen-

sions of the three choir-loft windows behind the altarpiece. One of the small female saints from the sculpted wings reappeared for sale at the TEFAF in Maastricht in 2006 and was acquired for the Landesmuseum Hannover. Relocated on its original place in the left inner wing, its exceptionally good condition becomes apparent in comparison with the present condition of the other sculptures, especially in comparison with the figure of Saint Odilia from the same tier which has suffered from a different object and restoration history.7 The new acquisition was the spur to focus again on the art historical and technical research of the altarpiece. The cooperation of the Landesmuseum Hannover and the Gemäldegalerie of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin led to an interdisciplinary project which should add to our knowledge of the altarpiece but also prepare for planned conservation-restoration measures. Later Prof. Dr. Jochen Sander, Städel-Professorate in the Goethe-University of Frankfurt on the Main, and Prof. Dr. Hendrik Schulz for the scientific analyses, University for Applied Arts and Science in Hildesheim, joined us. Among some other sponsors it is the VolkswagenStiftung which has generously supported the project under the title The Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg: Research on Technique, Context and Meaning of a Major Northern German Altarpiece from around 1420 with a contribution of €540,000. They made it possible for a group of art historians, historians, conservators and scientists to study the object and its context from September 2012 to February 2016.8 The approach of this undertaking is to study the work thoroughly from both art historical and technical aspects, to generate high resolution photographs in visible and UV radiation as well as digital X-ray and IRR images and to discuss all the results in a wider context. Also the concept for the subsequent conservation-restoration project should be developed. The four wings are temporarily de-installed for the technical examination in its former gallery room in the Landesmuseum Hannover. In the course of the project other institutions

the goldene tafel from lüneburg

were asked to participate, such as the Academy of Fine Arts in Dresden to record the high resolution photographs and the digital X-ray images,9 the Doerner-Institute Munich and the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA) in Brussels to conduct pigment and media analyses,10 Prof. Dr. Peter Klein for the dendrochronological measurements and the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM) in Berlin11 for the identification of metal alloys. An international symposium was held in spring of 2016, a comprehensive publication of results in German is prepared.12 Since I am responsible for the examination of the paintings of the altarpiece, I will demonstrate here some of the findings of the technical research focusing on the painting process and characteristics. First results concerning dating and provenance will be presented and the following questions explored in particular: – What characteristics of the painter’s workshop techniques are identifiable? – How many hands were involved to produce this altarpiece? – Which results of our technical examination provide evidence of the provenance of sculpture and painting? – Are there influences and traditions apparent in the painting of the Goldene Tafel which the craftsmen that were involved contributed from their training and background? Concerning the dating and attribution of the altarpiece many diverse theories have been discussed.13 The sculptures and the architecture are very much linked to Lübeck. Jan Richter recently gave reasons to put the architecture close to the few fragments that are preserved from the High Altarpiece from the Church of Saint Mary in Lübeck, assuming that they were produced by the same master.14 Other scholars supported the thesis that the sculptures more likely were imported from Flanders or Burgundy.15 The proposed time of origin ranges between the date of the foundation of the new Church of Saint Michael in 1376 (14 July), the date of the consecration of the church

165

in 1418 (11 July) and 1432, when Duke Bernhard from Brunswick-Lüneburg made a major donation to the church including further relics.16 All parts of the altarpiece are made from oak. However, dendrochronological results were difficult to obtain from the panels because they are still surrounded by their original frames. Only few boards could be measured from the X-ray images. The dendrochronological examinations Peter Klein executed were more successfully applied at the pedestals and the wooden sculptures themselves. The last year ring he found dates to 1403, with the presence of two year rings of sapwood this date is pretty reliable. The earliest felling date of the tree might have been 1410. However, if one adds the average of 17 annual rings of sapwood and 2 years for drying, the year of origin is more likely 1422 or later.17 Recently the above-mentioned fragments from the predella that are preserved in the Museum Lüneburg were analysed too. Here the last annual year ring dates from 1400, which led to the assumption that these parts could not have been produced earlier than 1417. These results disprove all the earlier dating theories. In addition the reference curves clearly point to the Hellweg area in the West.18 This result is most interesting, but has to be questioned: the provenance of the wood does not correspond with the stylistic attribution and the proximity to the fragments of the High Altarpiece of Saint Mary in Lübeck. This issue has to be examined further as we hope to obtain clearer results towards the location and background of the workshop. Several findings refute the thesis that the sculptures could have been executed in a workshop in Flanders or Burgundy, delivered and inserted into the prepared wings. The framed panels, the interior architecture and the sculptures are perfectly matched to one another. The sophisticated construction and the manufacturing details will be discussed in the forthcoming publication.19 It is more likely that a group of carpenters and wood-carvers produced these wooden elements together in one place. They were assisted by a blacksmith who provided the iron elements such as hinges, hooks and locks.

166

babette hartwieg

The whole construction of the retable seems to have been assembled, the sculptures being exactly positioned and fixed with iron eyes on hooks. Obviously there has been a drying period after carving and before the sculptures and framed panels were passed from the carpenter’s workshop to the Zubereiter in the painter’s workshop. At this point all elements were taken apart again. It is still a research goal to find out whether the polychromy and the painting were executed in the same workshop. Apparently there has been a division of labour for the manufacture of the polychromy. Basically, the sculptures ought to be gilded. However, a head responsible for the colour design decided on the colours of the underdresses and noted these on the reverse of the sculptures. We find inscriptions such as: gron, ghelgron, purpur, brasylie, psylie. These colour designations are compared with the respective paint applications with the help of scientific analyses as part of the current project. We did not find those colour indications in the IRR images of the painting fields. In the following the painters’ work that we are able to study on six sides of the four wings will be dealt with specifically. The entire surface of the wooden panels and of the frames was covered with fabric. Only the red frames surrounding the scenes with the Brazen Serpent and the Crucifixion on the outside of the closed retable do not have this underlayer. This served to reduce the effect of panel movements and resulting cracking and to establish a flexible base for polishing gilded areas. As far as the X-ray images reveal, horizontal pieces of fabric were laminated above and below the hooks that were inserted to hold the sculptures.20 Then, a white chalk ground layer was applied and smoothed with a plane knife or scraper.21 Its usage is commonly demonstrated with series of parallel notches. On the Goldene Tafel these tool marks are very prominent in many places. They prove that the surface of the ground was not smoothened thoroughly with horse tail or similar afterwards.

Underdrawing Based on a few infrared photographs of some details from the first opening of the altarpiece and on his stylistic analyses already in 1978 Rainer Blaschke distinguished two painters: (1) the older one responsible for the complete underdrawing of the so-called ‘Sunday-side’ and for the painting on the leftmost wing as well as for the execution of two or three scenes on the upper tier of the right outer wing; (2) the younger painter, who finished the painting on this wing and would have been responsible for underdrawing and painting the large paintings on the outside of these wings. These paintings became visible when the altarpiece was completely closed. The younger painter would have also painted the scenes on the two inner wings of the so-called ‘Sunday-side’ which carry the series of sculptures on the reverse. As to Blaschke the older master appears to be more influenced by Conrad von Soest whereas the younger one possibly trained in Cologne.22 In the frame of this project, an Osiris infrared reflectography camera could be purchased, which provides new high resolution digital images of the underdrawings. However, not all the preparatory steps for the painting could be made visible. On the outside of the closed wings the IRR only reveals dark lines drawn along a ruler; they mark the construction of the crosses on both panels. The red lines of the underdrawing applied with a wide brush disappear on the IRR images; they are much more noticeable in normal light, but only within thinly painted pale areas that have become more transparent over time (ill. 12.4). The drawing shows quickly painted, primarily straight lines without many details, which are not followed strictly by the subsequent paint application. On the sides presenting the thirty-six scenes from the lives of Mary and Christ, after the first opening, the preparation of the design is completely different, the underdrawing is complex in its development process and very detailed. At first, construction lines were ruled to divide each large

the goldene tafel from lüneburg

Ill. 12.4. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg (ill. 12.1), detail, red underdrawing visible in white-pinkish dress

167

168

babette hartwieg

panel in nine image fields and to mark the borders between the scenes. In addition some fields show vertical lines exactly in the middle. Visible in raking light all of these lines might be incisions. However, they show up in the IRR with dark lines in some areas. Therefore, it is likely they were executed with metal points. Ingo Sandner stated in his study on underdrawings in the work of Conrad von Soest and his circle: ‘A smooth transition between incisions with a metal thorn and underdrawing with a metal point could never be observed’.23 From my findings on the IRR images of the Goldene Tafel I would question this. In some scenes showing architecture there are other lines executed with thicker drawing tool and dry medium along a ruler. In the Presentation in the Temple on the left inner wing quite a lot of those dry lines could be distinguished. Even the use of a compass not only for the haloes, but also for architectural details could be determined. Fine dark circle lines are noticeable for example on the quatrefoil decoration at the tomb in the Resurrection of Christ. A tiny hole in the centre indicates the use of a compass. However, it is necessary to differ the fine lines according to their production technique and chronological order: the incised lines which divide the surface as described above, the fine lines of a dry drawing material or metal point, incised lines that were executed following the underdrawing before painting to mark the areas to be gilded, and those that were executed during the painting process. Incisions might look dark on the IRR images if they are filled with paint or dirt containing charcoal. Lines incised into the paint layers are very obvious in the tile construction of the floors. All these phenomena can be found. In recent years the interpretation of IRR images with the advanced camera technique brought to light that often a drawing with a dry medium preceded the underdrawing with a brush and a darker fluid medium. The brush lines then functioned just to accentuate the main lines of the drawing and to make them discernible through the imprimatura. On the Göttingen Barfüßer Altarpiece (Landes-

museum Hannover) from 1424 for example the underdrawing with a brush is very sketchy, the painted faces however match closely, a dry drawing could not definitely be verified but could have been dusted off.24 On the painting of the Goldene Tafel the tools used are difficult to determine. I could find dry lines in the face of an old man on the scene presenting the Resurrection of Lazarus. In some other areas very fine lines stand against the wide brushstrokes of the underdrawing, the lines could also be produced with charcoal, which subsequently was smudged during the application of an intermediate size or a partial underpaint. The extensive underdrawing that is most prominent in the IRR images defines the design in detail and models the figures with hatching and cross hatching, which create the shadows. This drawing was apparently executed only as the third step in the preparation of the design. The width of the lines varies. From the appearance of swelling and decreasing lines we assume that brushes of different size were used to apply a very fluid ink or paint containing carbon black. During the drying process the pigments accumulated along the borders of the brushstrokes and formed dark contour lines.25 Several angular starting points of some lines raise the question whether also a quill could have produced this appearance. This needs to be investigated further. Both concave and convex curved lines exist next to each other on all wings; the question of whether a left- or a right-hander executed the drawings, must remain unanswered. The hypothesis by Blaschke that the first painter would have been right-hander whereas the second painter was a left-hander, could not be confirmed at least with regard to the underdrawing.26 It is apparent that the drawing is executed steadily and with a lot of practice, without searching for the form. The proportions of the figures are kept consistent throughout the painting on the thirtysix scenes. In the close-up of the Three Marys at the Empty Tomb the IRR image shows the free, sketchy style of the underdrawing that reflects a lot of experience (ill. 12.5). Here – as in many other faces on

the goldene tafel from lüneburg

169

Ill. 12.5. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg (ill. 12.3), IRR, detail, Three Marys at the Empty Tomb

the scenes of the first opening – the eyes were sketched higher than they were painted. The viewing directions are much more focused on the angel in the underdrawing than in the painting. The series of parallel lines through the eyes and along the forehead is a characteristic feature. Afterwards during the painting process the faces were much more stereotyped. There are some pentimenti, however they mostly concern smaller details. Major alterations were carried out within the architectural representations: in the Circumcision, for example, the niche behind the altar was changed by the painter improving the perspective; in the Limbo – both scenes on the left inner wing – the battlementcrowned architecture was changed into a straight architrave with a decorative frieze across the gateway. In the scene showing the Murder of the

Innocents in Bethlehem on the right inner wing, however, we observe a much more refined composition in the underdrawing. The painter later decided to execute a more unfortunate alteration (ill. 12.6a-b). In some places within the underdrawing with the brush the participation of at least two painters is obvious. In the Resurrection of Lazarus on the left outer wing someone apparently corrected the drawing by adding dark lines with a wide brush (ill. 12.7). An interesting detail could be observed in the scene with the Wedding in Cana: on Mary’s dress lines from the underdrawing show up on top of a layer of underpaint and remain uncovered by later paint layers. This indicates that different steps of the production may have flowed into one another much more than interpretations of underdrawing practices have allowed up to now.

170

babette hartwieg

A.

Ill. 12.6. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg (ill. 12.3), detail, Murder of the Innocents, A: children at corner right below. B: IRR, same detail

Ill. 12.7. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg (ill. 12.2), IRR, detail, Resurrection of Lazarus, men at right side

B.

the goldene tafel from lüneburg

Although the research on the Goldene Tafel is not yet finished, these findings already facilitate new discussions of the very valuable hypotheses by Blaschke. His interpretation seems to be simplified. As we could see, there are also corrections executed by a different hand on the left wing, which, according to Blaschke, was entirely the work of the first master. It is also not possible to attribute the corrections present on the inner wings with certainty to the second painter who brought influences from Cologne. Interestingly though the underdrawing lines that are not covered show up in the wedding-scene, which Blaschke defines as the moment where the work was handed over to the second painter (ill. 12.8). Apparently more people than previously assumed have collaborated during the preparation of the

171

design. However, it is hard to decide whether a different, third master executed the underdrawing of the large paintings on the closed retable side, which differ significantly both in material and characteristics. The different scale of the design has to be brought into account here. Use of models The free underdrawing of many faces is obvious even in the few IRR details shown here (ills. 12.5, 12.7). Contrary to these images many of the painted faces look uniform. The question whether templates or cartoons were used needs to be raised. On the so-called Göttingen Barfüßer Altarpiece from 1424, also part of the collection of the Landesmuseum in Hanover, I was able to prove that the painted contour lines of the faces perfectly match

Ill. 12.8. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg, inner side of far right wing, nine scenes from the lives of Mary and Christ, c. 1420, 232 x 184 cm, Landesmuseum Hannover, detail from the Wedding of Cana, Christ’s gown and Mary’s underdress, underdrawing in visible light

172

babette hartwieg

despite a free underdrawing. One cartoon or template with a prefigured face must have been used by shifting, rotating or inverting.27 On the Goldene Tafel the correspondence of faces is not as striking at first sight. For a more systematic review I produced tracings of different faces on a transparent foil. It is not surprising that Christ’s face from the Entrance to Jerusalem on the leftmost wing perfectly matches with his face in the next two scenes as well as inverted in the Crucifixion on the same wing by the assumed ‘Master 1’ (ill. 12.2). But it is astonishing that this design of the face is also – though inverted and turned – consistent with the face of Christ on the Resurrection, the last scene on the right inner wing (ill. 12.3). Whereas the stylistic differences in painting and paint application are obvious, the form of the contours, the position of the eyes, nose and mouth match perfectly. Only the forehead is painted considerably higher which creates a different facial expression. In the underdrawing however the face originally was positioned significantly higher. Once again the underdrawing shows the characteristic parallel lines over the eyes and the forehead. If we look at the group of figures that are joining the Resurrection, similar observations can be made. Starting with the tracing of Mary and an elderly man, the model seems to have been reused several times. Even Mary’s face design reappears right next to her, although both faces were drawn on the ground with clear differences

A.

(ill. 12.9a-c). Face models developed in the workshop were evidently used no matter which biblical figure was to be represented. In the underdrawing there is no evidence of this transfer process. The cartoons, possibly made from transparent paper, must have been used separate from the underdrawing in the first steps of the application of paint. The set of prepared models was reapplied on all thirtysix scenes of the first opening regardless of the attribution to ‘Master 1’ or ‘Master 2’. The use of those auxiliary tools is plausible and efficient. It helps to keep the figures in scale and to standardize the individual hands, when several painters are involved in working on large commissions. These observations cast some light on the structure of the workshop or working team. Gold tooling The documentation and comparative study of punch marks is extremely helpful for questions of attribution in Southern Europe, where different motive punches can serve as fingerprints of a certain workshop. In Northern Europe this is more difficult, as very simple tools were in common use. On the Goldene Tafel most of the elaborate gold decorations are produced with just two simple dot punches, one with a diameter of approximately 1 mm, the other of 0.2 to 0.5 mm (ill. 12.10). Variations are gained by applying more or less pressure. The arrangement of one halo behind the other is a

B.

Ill. 12.9. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg (ill. 12.3), detail, Ascension of Christ, group to the left. A: IRR. B: masks shifted from right to left. C: mask shifted to left below

C.

the goldene tafel from lüneburg

173

Ill. 12.10. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg (ill. 12.2), detail, Christ Carrying the Cross, left edge, gold-tooling at halo of Mary

characteristic feature on the Goldene Tafel. The spatial impression of depth is reinforced by the more gentle use of fine punch points which resulted in gradually thinner points for the haloes in the background (ill. 12.10). Other tools which were used to decorate the gilded areas are: a serrated semi-circle, the cogwheel and – just for the brocade imitations – a flat-headed point. The semi-circle is distinguishable from garlands of singular points on the basis of the following features: consistently it has 12 square points and a diameter of 8-9 mm, often one side of the semi-circle is impressed deeper than the other (ill. 12.10). Given the small number of characteristic punch tools it is more important to look at the design of the haloes. In my research on the Barfüßer Altarpiece I succeeded in tracing back the design of the punched haloes. Close similarities are evident with

the gold-tooling of works of the Master of Saint Veronica/Master of the Saint Laurenz Group. The main features are: the flower motifs between words and the representation of the inscriptions on the haloes with alternating positive and negative letters, i.e. even letters in front of a granulated or stippled background alternating with stippled letters in front of an even background.28 It is obvious that the specialist who was responsible for the gold tooling on the Göttingen Barfüßer Altarpiece brought traditions from Cologne. The style of the painting however can hardly be connected with Cologne and there are certainly other influences for instance from Bohemia. Blaschke already analyzed the design and the making of the haloes of Christ on the Goldene Tafel. They are decorated with cross-shaped motifs of flowers and leaves. The punch-work of Christ’s

174

babette hartwieg

Ill. 12.11. Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg (ill. 12.3), detail, Murder of the Innocents, detail from brocade gown of Herode

haloes differ on the wings: on the scenes of the two outer wings the design appears to be much finer, with more variations in the application technique and detailed patterns. On the two inner wings the forms are bigger and the punch marks were applied more evenly and stiffer. These differences in ‘handwriting’ provided Blaschke with another argument for his proposed division in the attribution of the two masters.29 Only on the right outer wing are scenes which show the very fine punchwork next to the smooth application of thin paint which is typical for the second master. It seems to be more likely that two experienced assistants were involved to execute the punchwork on the large retable. The design of these haloes with their tripartite flower motifs again points to Cologne.30 The scenes of the first opening are richly decorated with brocade dresses. More than thirty figures exhibit the imitation of brocades which are typi-

cally made as follows: a silver or golden (gold or Zwischgold) leaf was applied to a thin tinted adhesive layer on top of which the pattern must have been drawn or otherwise transferred. Afterwards line punches were hammered with a flat-headed point within the pattern to imitate the golden threads of the cloth. The patterns were then painted with bright opaque colours, these flat areas representing the velvet. Finally the shadows were painted mostly with semi-transparent colours such as red lakes to create the modulation of the dresses. Very few cloth patterns are rendered just with paint and without gold and punch marks. The punch marks on the brocades do not convey the ‘handwriting’ of different working team members. Compared to other brocade imitations of that time they show an unusual appearance: the short punch tool marks differ a lot from each other even within small areas. On the detail shown from the dress of Herode

the goldene tafel from lüneburg

in the Murder of the Innocents they are straight and long on the left; on the right however there are uneven imprints possibly from a damaged tool tip (ill. 12.11). I assume that simple metal strips were irregularly cut, used as the punch tool for a short time and then thrown away. Some patterns show close similarities to the brocade decorations which were added around 1410 to the Claren Retable, which has been located in the cathedral in Cologne for more than 200 years. This observation reinforces the suggestion that one of the painters from the team of the Goldene Tafel was probably trained in Cologne. Paint material and paint application are still in the process of being analyzed and interpreted within the ongoing project. The results will give us more answers regarding the materials used, especially whether painting and polychromy were prepared in the same workshop. The findings will be presented in the upcoming publication. Conclusion At this point the results of the investigation can be summarized as follows. In addition some questions which arose during our studies will be presented as well but which will need further research. According to the results of the dendrochronological analysis the time for the origin of the Goldene Tafel is very unlikely to pre-date the 1420s. In regard to the underdrawing Blaschke’s thesis that the same painter executed the drawings on the inner wings as well as on the outside of the outer wings cannot be confirmed. Both underdrawings differ significantly in material and characteristic. Of course the different scale of the design has to be considered. The underdrawing that could be made visible with digital IRR imaging on the thirty-six scenes of the so-called ‘Sunday-side’ is impressively elaborate and complex. However, obviously more than one painter was involved in the execution of this preparatory step. Surprisingly work steps flow into one another, underdrawing lines could be found on top of a layer of underpainting and remained uncovered by later paint layers.

175

The theory by Blaschke that two painters were involved can be confirmed from the stylistic differences within the painting on the so-called ‘Sunday-side’. However regarding the structure of the workshop or working team which was commissioned this statement is misleading. Within the underdrawing characteristics for two painters could not be distinguished. Researchers from the project on paintings from Cologne assumed that two or three punch specialists and two painters worked together to produce a small triptych of about 60 to 80 cm with opened wings that is attributed to the Master of Saint Veronica.31 For the Goldene Tafel carpenters, wood carvers, metal workers, Zubereiter, gold-tooling specialists and painters worked together. Moreover there have been cast metal applications, made from a lead tin alloy, which decorate and complete the architecture of the shrine. We are not sure who prepared and gilded them within the workshop or who delivered them. At this point it is possible to count around twelve individuals that were involved, without taking the suppliers into account, for example those who may have delivered the wood from the Hellweg region. N OTES

* This contribution is based on technical examinations by the author who cooperated closely with Dipl. Rest. Eliza Reichel and Dipl. Rest. Dr. Bernadett Freysoldt of the project team. I would like to thank them both a lot for sharing findings, for joint photo campaigns and general help. I thank Dr. Peter Knüvener for interesting discussions. All other contributors to this big project are mentioned in notes 8-11. 1 Copperplate print by Johann Christoph Böcklin from Sigismund Hosmann, Fürtreffliches Denck-Mahl Der Göttlichen Regierung: Bewiesen an der uhralten höchst-berühmten Antiquität des Klosters zu S. Michaelis in Lüneburg, der in dem hohen Altar daselbst gestandenen Güldenen Taffel[…], Brunswick/Hamburg, 1700, see: Heiligenfigur 2007, p. 22, fig. 9. 2 Marth 1994; Marth 2007. 3 The total width of the opened retable is 7.36 m. See also: Wolfson 1992, pp. 118-129. 4 Most of the sculptures are 58 to 58.5 cm high, the small sculptures have a height of 28-29 cm with (partly reconstructed) crowns. The foot measurements were not handed down. However, they could be determined from sources in comparison with archaeological excavations of the Cloisters of Saint Michael in Lüneburg. Accordingly one foot has the dimensions of 29.125 cm (Plath 1980, p. 51). The foot dimension in Brunswick, through dynastic relations closely connected with Lüneburg, had been 28.54 cm, in Hanover 29.21 cm. See: Klimpert 1896, p. 156. 5 A drawing from 1789 shows the closed altarpiece in the choir of Saint Michael. See: Ludwig Albrecht Gebhardi, Collectanea Gebhardi, 1792, fol. 453. Gebhardi also documented all parts of the altar-

176

babette hartwieg

piece, still preserved after the robberies in detailed maps with measurements. 6 Tracery board: 58.5 cm high, 110.4-110.6 cm wide. The fragment with two arches, originally positioned directly adjacent on the right side, is 56 cm wide. Both in Museum Lüneburg, formerly Museum für das Fürstentum Lüneburg. 7 This sculpture is part of the ensemble since about 15 years on permanent loan from the Ludwig Roselius Haus in Bremen. The polychromy is extremely reduced, the red colour of the bole is prominent within the originally gilded areas. See: Heiligenfigur 2007, pp. 72, 75, figs. 52c, 55. 8 The directors of the Landesmuseum Hannover and the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin, Dr. Katja Lembke and Prof. Dr. Bernd W. Lindemann initially acted as proposers. As mentioned above the technical examinations are being executed mainly by the conservators Bernadett Freysoldt, Eliza Reichel and myself as well as Iris Herpers and Ramona Roth. Dr. Antje Köllermann was acting as art historian in the project, but now she is the curator of the Old Master collection of the Landesmuseum Hannover and became manager of the project. The art historian Dr. Peter Knüvener followed her as project member. Lukas Weichert M.A. has been responsible for historical research on the object. The Gemäldegalerie is supporting the project aside from its director Bernd Lindemann, in persona of the curator Dr. Stephan Kemperdick and the author Dr. Babette Hartwieg. 9 Prof. Dr. Ivo Mohrmann, Dipl. Des. Kerstin Risse, Dipl. Rest. Monika Kammer, Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden. 10 Dr. Heike Stege, Dr. Patrick Dietemann, Dr. Ursula Baumer, Dr. Christoph Steuer, Doerner-Institute Munich, Dr. Jana Sanyova from KIK/IRPA, Brussels. 11 Dr. Jochen Vogl, BAM Berlin. 12 The publication is planned as vol. 2 of the series Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte N.F. 2/2016 (new edition). 13 Blaschke 1978; Krohm 2007. 14 Richter 2014, pp. 14-19. 15 Krohm 2007, pp. 97-100. 16 Steckhan 2007. 17 ‘Unter Voraussetzung der Splintholzstatistik für Westeuropa ergibt sich ein frühestes Fälldatum der verwendeten Bäume ab 1410, eher wahrscheinlich ist jedoch ein Fälldatum zwischen 1416….1420….1426. […]’, Peter Klein, Bericht über die dendrochronologischen Untersuchungen von verschiedenen Teilen der Goldenen Tafel, report from 13/04/2014, unpublished, Landesmuseum Hannover, archive.

18 Here sapwood could not be found. Peter Klein, Bericht über die dendrochronologische Untersuchung von 2 Reliefs des Museums Lüneburg (Ms. der Goldenen Tafel), report from 20/06/2014, unpublished, Landesmuseum Hannover, archive. The Hellweg, an old trade road, passes towns as for example Essen, Dortmund, Soest. 19 Bernadett Freysoldt examined the sculptures, Eliza Reichel the wood construction, they will report their results in the upcoming publication, see note 12. 20 The application of horizontal fabric sheets is quite common and could be discovered in the Göttingen Barfüßer Altarpiece from 1424, in wings of the Darmstädter Passion in the Gemäldegalerie Berlin and others; examples are mentioned in: Hartwieg 2015; Gallagher, Reimelt 2000, p. 72, fig. 55. 21 As to the analyses by the scientific laboratory Jägers, Bornheim, at seven cross sections calcium carbonate with proteinous medium could be determined. Report from 21/01/2008, Landesmuseum Hannover, archive. 22 Blaschke 1978, pp. 79-85. 23 Sandner 2010, p. 223 (English translation, given here by the author). 24 Hartwieg 2010, pp. 116-117; Aman, Hartwieg 2015, pp. 339343, 96-97, figs. 13b, 14b. 25 The paint used for the underdrawing of the Ghent Altarpiece shows a medium as fluid for example in the panel with the music making angels, see: www.closertovaneyck.be (02/03/2015). 26 According to the author the younger second painter also ought to be responsible for some corrections in the underdrawing on the inner wings. Blaschke 1978, pp. 79-80. 27 In the frame of a PhD project the use of templates on Northern German altarpiece in the early fifteenth century was investigated and discussed: Hartwieg 2010, pp. 118-121, 194-198, 381-386, figs. 57-75. 28 Hartwieg 2012, pp. 214-215. 29 Blaschke 1978, pp. 65-66. 30 Compared to the tracings of punched haloes Annette Willberg published, Christ’s halo on the large panel by the Veronica Master, c. 1420, with Christ, Mary, Saint John and seven other saints (Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, WRM 14), shows close similarities, see: Willberg 1997, fig. 61. However, the tradition seems to be not as close as it could be made evident between the punched haloes on just the same panel and those on the Göttingen Barfüßer Altarpiece. See: Hartwieg 2012, pp. 214-215. 31 Gabler, Schaible, Krekel 2012, p. 53.

Ill. 13.1. Hans Pleydenwurff, Deposition, fragment of the former high altarpiece of the Church of Saint Elizabeth in Wrocław, 1462, linden panel, 286.3 x 142.2 cm, Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, inv. Gm 1127

13

Master or Assistant? Painted Alterations in the Pleydenwurff Workshop Dagmar Hirschfelder, Beate Fücker, Katja von Baum, Lisa Eckstein and Joshua P. Waterman*

ABSTRACT: This paper aims to offer a nuanced consideration of the varieties of alteration, correction, and addition found in paintings from the workshop of the important Franconian artist Hans Pleydenwurff (c. 1420-1472, Nuremberg). Typical of these works is the presence of numerous changes and revisions that diverge from the underdrawing. Not only do the nature and quality of these alterations vary significantly from painting to painting, but also the stages at which the changes were made. Understanding these differences may well be crucial to the question of whether an assistant or the master himself executed a painting. The authors suggest that Pleydenwurff himself developed his paintings in an ongoing process of alteration and improvement, departing from the underdrawing already at the very beginning. In contrast, his workshop assistants appear to have adhered closely to the underdrawing in the first stage of painted execution, with corrections following only later in the process.

—o— Hans Pleydenwurff was one of the most innovative artists in southern Germany in the fifteenth century and counts among the most important forerunners of Albrecht Dürer. Primarily through his extensive adaptation of motifs from early Netherlandish painting, he revitalized not only the art of Nuremberg but also of central and southern Germany in general; his influence reached even as far as Bohemia and Austria. The problems of distinguishing between paintings by workshop assistants (or even followers) and autograph works by the master are many. It

remains difficult to draw a clear line between the categories. Because there is only one work whose authorship by the Pleydenwurff workshop is secured by documents, scholarship has had to rely mainly on stylistic analysis to assemble the oeuvre. That has left questions of collaboration and the division of labor within the workshop largely unresolved. The Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg holds one of the largest collections of works by Hans Pleydenwurff and his workshop. As part of a project to catalogue the late medieval paintings at the Museum, the Pleydenwurff group has been newly examined by the authors of this essay, which offers an interpretation of recent findings. We have observed that most of the paintings of Pleydenwurff and his assistants show substantial deviations from the underdrawing. One could assume, as art historical scholarship occasionally does, that major differences between design and execution are signs of the master’s authorship. That notion proceeds from the assumption that whereas the master was free to change his initial design, assistants had to adhere faithfully to his specifications. Our examinations suggest, however, that the case of Pleydenwurff and his workshop is more complex. Changes and reworkings appear to have been fundamental to the shop’s process, no matter whether they were carried out by the master or his assistants. However, paintings that are probably by the master

180

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

seem to show a different approach to corrections and alterations than those paintings which can be attributed to assistants. Our hypothesis is that the stages at which changes were made and the nature of the changes are crucial to the question of authorship in the Pleydenwurff workshop. Hans Pleydenwurff was born about 1420, possibly in Bamberg, where he was active until 1457.1 That year he obtained citizenship in Nuremberg and initially settled outside the city walls.2 By the fall of 1457 he received permission to move to the center, the precondition for which being the purchase of a house of at least 50 florins (Gulden) in value.3 That Pleydenwurff had such considerable means at his disposal suggests that he had been a successful painter in Bamberg before he moved to Nuremberg. Until his death in 1472 he headed a thriving workshop in the imperial city. On the basis of the numerous Netherlandish motifs present in his work, it is assumed that Pleydenwurff spent his journeyman years in the Low Countries.4 Among the innovations he brought to Bamberg and Nuremberg were a consistent representation of spatial depth, an advanced depiction of landscape and atmospheric effects, the individualization of figures, and the convincing portrayal of gestures, facial expressions and interactions. The successful workshop produced several large retables with double sets of wings, as well as numerous epitaphs and small altarpieces.5 Pleydenwurff’s patrons were not just from Bamberg and Nuremberg; he also exported to other cities. For example, he carried out an altarpiece, inscribed with the date 1465, for the Church of Saint Michael in Hof in Upper Franconia.6 His most prominent commission was the monumental high altarpiece for the Church of Saint Elizabeth in distant Wrocław (Breslau).7 The Deposition of the Wrocław Altarpiece The fragments of the Wrocław altarpiece are the only surviving documented paintings by Pleydenwurff. The large Deposition in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum formed the outside of an inner wing of that altarpiece (ill. 13.1).8 A document

issued by the Wrocław city council in late August of 1462 mentions a payment to Pleydenwurff two months previous for the retable set up in the Church of Saint Elizabeth.9 That altarpiece – or rather what remains of it – forms the basis for the attribution and dating of the entire Pleydenwurff oeuvre. As far as can be seen with infrared reflectography (IRR), the sketchy underdrawing of the Deposition is reduced to the essentials (ills. 13.2, 13.3, 13.4).10 It was executed in a black, probably liquid medium, and is characterized by straight strokes that roughly mark the shapes of the figures and the folds of the draperies, whose lines often end in small hooks. The faces are implied with only a few strokes. There appears to be no use of hatching to indicate shading. The process of correction and searching for the final composition appears to have been fairly limited in the underdrawing stage. Large changes, however, are evident in the painting, which diverges significantly from the drawn design: whole figures were omitted or added, significant portions of the landscape overlap the original gilding, and many elements already present in the underdrawing were changed markedly in form or position. In the group of figures on the right, for example, the underdrawing shows the summarily sketched outline of a woman in profile with her hands folded in prayer (ill. 13.2). The figure was not executed in paint, but was replaced by an elderly man with a violet turban, who apparently was not planned in the initial design. Similarly, the small figures in the background do not exhibit any visible underdrawing and are painted on top of the finished landscape. In addition, the gilding of the sky was not marked off with an incision, with the result that the uppermost zone of the landscape overlaps the gold by up to 20 cm. The most dramatic case of an underdrawn element undergoing a revision in the paint stage is the billowing coat of Nicodemus. Whereas in the drawing the mass of drapery falls downward on both sides, in the painting the folds on the left extend upward, creating a dynamic S-curve across the center of the work (ill. 13.3).

master or assistant?

181

A.

B.

Ill. 13.2. Hans Pleydenwurff, Deposition (ill. 13.1), detail, A: IRR. B: IRR, with a diagram indicating the outline of a woman in profile not executed in paint but replaced by the man in a turban. Note also that the painted execution of the sleeve of Saint John left only his face, not his hair, in reserve

The artist continued to develop the composition while painting. In the successive paint layers one finds countless corrections of form and frequent overlapping of painted motifs.11 Reserve areas were placed without precision or not used at all. This can be seen, for example, in the figure of Saint John the Evangelist, whose right sleeve was already finished before the back of his head and hair were painted on top. Only the face was left in reserve (ill. 13.2). Extensive overlapping is also present in Christ’s loincloth; most or possibly even all of it lies on top of the finished flesh color. The tree trunk in the foreground also covers sections already worked up in paint. Apparently the artist completed many areas before deciding how he wished to depict overlying elements.

An example of a painted correction is apparent in the ladder that leans against the back of the cross. There, the artist was faced with the difficult task of making the base of the ladder conform to the rise of the grassy hill on which it stands. In the first stage of the painting, the ladder ends are horizontal and thus do not account for the hill. In the pentimento, the artist tried to correct the perspective by slanting the base of the ladder upward. All in all, the artist appears to have proceeded without a full plan of the individual motifs of the composition. As is evident in the discrepancies between the painting and the underdrawing and in the vague definition of the reserve areas, the pictorial arrangement was in no way completed with the drawn design. Instead, the painter improved

182

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

A.

B.

Ill. 13.3. Hans Pleydenwurff, Deposition (ill. 13.1), detail, A: visible light. B: IRR, with a diagram of the portion of the drapery folds not envisaged in the underdrawing

elements of the composition while painting and developed new ones only during execution. The changes in the paint layers are therefore not final revisions, but part of a continuous creative process. Because these extensive changes began occurring in the first stage of the painting, it was probably the master himself who was responsible for them. An assistant would likely have adhered more closely to the compositional guidelines of the master – assuming, of course, that Pleydenwurff executed the underdrawing. But regardless of the underdrawing’s authorship, it is difficult to imagine that the draftsman and the painter of this work were not the same person. In the underdrawing, the lines of the draperies often seem to lack a logical organization. They form almost abstract accumulations of triangles, hooks and single straight lines (ill. 13.4). To understand the drawing – at least the one visible to us by infrared reflectography – the artist must have known how to interpret these very rough and sketchy indications of folds. One may therefore deduce that the drawing and most of the

painting were by the master himself, or by a very talented assistant who was allowed to design, paint, and change the composition on his own. The high quality of the Deposition indeed speaks for Pleydenwurff as the painter. Despite major losses in the painted surface, particularly in the lower third, one can observe a very thorough modelling of the flesh tones and folds of the garments, with smoothly blended highlights. The painter avoided extensive representation of brocade patterns and other embellishments of the clothing. Nevertheless, he demonstrated his abilities in virtuosic details such as the complicated folds of Nicodemus’s coat, the coat lining interwoven with gold, the meticulously depicted buildings in the background and Christ’s sculpturally modeled crown of thorns. The rendition of space and landscape, and also the interactions of the figures, follow recent developments in Netherlandish painting. Yet the artist did not copy these innovations; instead he used them as a starting point for his own inventions, thereby adapting Nether-

master or assistant?

A.

183

B.

Ill. 13.4. Hans Pleydenwurff, Deposition (ill. 13.1), detail, A: IRR. B: idem with a diagram of the underdrawing

landish prototypes in a masterly way. In particular the Nuremberg panel was inspired by Rogier van der Weyden’s Deposition in Madrid (Museo del Prado) of about 1435, originally made for the chapel of the archers’ guild in Louvain, and Dieric Bouts’s Deposition of the Passion Triptych in Granada (Capilla Real) of about 1450-1458.12 The Löwenstein Crucifixion In our opinion, the same hand mainly responsible for the Deposition also painted the Crucifixion of the Bamberg canon Georg Graf von Löwenstein now in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum (ill. 13.5). Current research conjectures that the wealthy canon ordered the painting while drafting his last will in 1456 as a means of securing his salvation.13 Thus it might have been intended to serve as an epitaph, in which case an inscription with name and date of death would have been displayed on

the former frame, a dust guard, or a supplementary panel after the donor’s passing.14 Ultimately, the original location and function of the Löwenstein Crucifixion remain unknown.15 Although the composition of the Crucifixion is rather traditional and, unlike the Deposition, does not show an elaborate landscape inspired by Netherlandish examples, the execution of the figures is of the highest quality.16 In terms of formal language and painting technique, the Löwenstein Crucifixion and the Deposition are closely related. For example, the two female figures that support the Virgin Mary not only display similar traits in physiognomy, but are also distinguished by the same treatment of the flesh tones. Although in this comparison one notes the greater surface refinement in the Crucifixion, the modelling technique is essentially the same in both works. The stronger contours in the Deposition were probably intended

184

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

Ill. 13.5. Hans Pleydenwurff, Crucifixion for Georg Graf von Löwenstein, c. 1456, fir panel, 173.2 x 166 cm, Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, inv. Gm 131

to facilitate viewing from a distance. The great affinity between the works is also apparent in the heads of Christ, which are similar in position, physiognomy and modelling. In the Löwenstein Crucifixion the underdrawing is only faintly visible with infrared reflectography and only in restricted areas of the composition. For

that reason, significant deviations of the painting from the drawn design are possibly not discernible. In addition to general contours, the swift underdrawing indicates drapery folds with angles as well as straight and jagged strokes which often end in little hooks or loops. As is best seen in the alb of the donor, the framework of lines in some places

master or assistant?

185

Ill. 13.6. Hans Pleydenwurff, Crucifixion (ill. 13.5), details: IRR. Incised lines visible with X-radiography established the original posture of the thieves (blue lines); initially those indications were followed in paint (blue shading). Diagrammed in orange are painted heads that were covered later in the painting process by changes in the thieves

appears as if constructed of geometric shapes. In that way, as well as in its sparing character, it is similar to the underdrawing of the Deposition. Whereas divergences of the painting from the underdrawing are difficult to recognize in the Crucifixion, marked discrepancies are found in connection with incised lines in the ground layer. In addition, it can be observed that many areas already executed in paint were subsequently changed during the painting process. Important alterations are particularly discernible in the figures of the crucified thieves Dismas and Gestas. As X-radiography reveals, the contours of the figures were incised into the ground layer to establish the boundaries of

the gold background (ill. 13.6). In the incisions and the initial paint layers, the thieves were not originally positioned in the middle of the crowd; they were behind it. Furthermore, the thief on the left appeared with his head more inclined and his body turned more in profile; the one on the right was more slender. The legs of both figures originally extended downward. Compared with this initial design, the final painted version differs significantly. Most importantly, the legs of Dismas and Gestas are bent upward, and the bases of the crosses are moved forward in the picture plane and placed within the crowd. As a consequence, some already finished heads in the back row were painted over

186

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

(ill. 13.6). Overall these changes lent the scene greater intensity and drama. There are further additions and corrections from one stage of painting to the next: for example, the initially open but then closed eyes of the thief on the right; the striking yellow headdress of one of the women on the left, which in the first stage had upturned lappets (in the manner of a Flügelhaube) and a pattern of black arches; and the landscape, which was added over the gilding. In the Löwenstein Crucifixion and in the Deposition, the painting technique retains a consistent character from the first stages up through the subsequent development of the composition. The brushwork is homogeneous, and revisions were made throughout the process, not as a final measure. The genesis of both paintings is thus marked by continuous artistic development and improvement within the general framework of the original design. These observations support the notion that it was mainly Hans Pleydenwurff who executed both works.17 The Virgin Annunciate in Nuremberg With the Deposition and the Crucifixion – among the most outstanding extant Pleydenwurff paintings – we have two works that show extensive alterations and revisions during the painting process. Yet even in works of lesser quality which can be attributed to assistants, we find not only deviations from the underdrawing but also alterations in the paint layers. One example is the Virgin Annunciate also at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, which is the former exterior of an altarpiece wing (ill. 13.7). The original inside of the panel, also preserved in the museum, depicts the Adoration of the Magi; its underdrawing is invisible to IRR.18 By contrast, the underdrawing of the Virgin Annunciate is clearly discernible. It lays out the composition with quick, firm strokes and marks some areas of shade with hatching. The visible surface of the painting, however, departs from the underdrawing in many significant details (ill. 13.8). Whereas in the drawn draft the Virgin Mary holds

the book before her body, in the finished picture it is placed on the prie-dieu. Also, the white mantle was drawn differently than painted, especially on the proper left side of Mary’s body: as drawn, the portion draped over her arm reaches straight down to the floor, but in the painting it was considerably shortened to make room for her proper left leg and blue dress. In addition, the lower edges of her garments were extended. Furthermore, the prie-dieu was changed several times, both in the drawing and in the process of painting. While the style and quality of the Adoration of the Magi, the former inside of the panel, speak for an attribution to Pleydenwurff himself, qualitative differences in the Virgin Annunciate suggest the hand of an assistant.19 Although parts of the painting are poorly preserved, condition alone does not account for several apparent weaknesses. For example, the forms and surface handling of the garments, which are in fact well preserved, are much less sophisticated and detailed than those in the Adoration. Especially unsatisfactory are the flatness of the white cloth covering the Virgin’s proper right leg and left arm and the excessive length of her left thigh. It is noteworthy that these areas were rendered more convincingly in the underdrawing, which works out all the drapery in greater detail and indicates a more nuanced modelling of the white mantle. The drawn guidelines were not realized in the painting; instead, the painter opted for a simpler representation. Moreover, in substituting the white mantle near the prie-dieu with the left thigh, he failed in properly placing the left knee, which appears to float above the pillow upon which it is meant to rest. These changes do not have the character of corrective improvements; rather, they seem to have resulted from an insufficient understanding of the underdrawing or possibly an inability to correctly implement the design. It is therefore difficult to ascribe these painted shortcomings to the same person who initially laid out the design. Comparison of the underdrawing of the Virgin Annunciate with that of the Deposition suggests that

master or assistant?

Ill. 13.7. Workshop of Hans Pleydenwurff, Virgin Annunciate, former exterior of an altarpiece wing, c. 1455-1460, fir panel, 151 x 71.4 cm, Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, inv. Gm 133

187

188

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

A.

B.

Ill. 13.8. Workshop of Hans Pleydenwurff, Virgin Annunciate (ill. 13.7), detail, A: IRR. B: idem with a diagram indicating the underdrawn specifications that were diverged from in the painted execution

the draftsman was the same for both: probably Pleydenwurff himself (ill. 13.10). The proficiently and apparently quickly drawn folds in the Virgin Annunciate consist of angular forms built up with strokes ending in hooks and loops. Hatching was applied very economically. The rendition of the folds is closely comparable in character to the sparing underdrawing of the garments in the Deposition. In contrast to the confident drawing of the Virgin Annunciate, the painted execution is more rigid and introduces simplifications and apparent misunderstandings. It should therefore be ascribed to an assistant rather than to the master himself. Examination of subsequent stages of painting of the Virgin Annunciate sheds further light on the situation. In fact, in the first stage of the painting

the artist adhered quite closely to the underdrawing. As is revealed in X-ray images and raking light, he initially painted the book, the hands of the Virgin, parts of her mantle and the prie-dieu as foreseen in the drawn design. Only in a final stage of painting were these motifs fundamentally revised. The example of the Virgin Annunciate suggests that even large differences between the underdrawing and the finished work do not necessarily point to Pleydenwurff himself as the painter. The deciding factors instead appear to be the stage, or stages, at which alterations were made and the overall character and quality of the changes. Those changes may not always represent improvements; they can also have resulted from misunderstandings or from an assistant’s insufficient skill in translating the design

master or assistant?

Ill. 13.9. Workshop of Hans Pleydenwurff, Resurrection, interior of the right outer wing (first opening) from the former high altarpiece of the Church of Saint Michael in Hof, 1465, fir panel, 177 x 112 cm, Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 666

189

190

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

A.

B.

C.

Ill. 13.10. A: workshop of Hans Pleydenwurff, Resurrection (ill. 13.9). B: Hans Pleydenwurff, Deposition (ill. 13.1). C: workshop of Hans Pleydenwurff, Virgin Annunciate (ill. 13.7), details: IRR

into paint. In the Virgin Annunciate, the fact that the painting initially followed the underdrawing is suggestive of an assistant adhering to the drawn guidelines of his master. Once the initial stage of this painting was in place, possibly Pleydenwurff (or the patron) requested revisions. Those were probably carried out again by the assistant, with less-thanconvincing results. In contrast, the Deposition underwent a distinctly different process of alteration. In that work, the painter revised extensively from the beginning and continued to do so throughout the painting process, apparently with improvement constantly in mind. From that distinction in the nature of the changes in the Virgin Annunciate and the Deposition, we can infer that Pleydenwurff himself was responsible for the execution of works whose first stage of painting already shows fundamental deviations from the underdrawing.20 The Resurrection of the Hof Altarpiece Another altarpiece that is convincingly attributed to Pleydenwurff and his workshop was installed in 1465 on the high altar of the Church of Saint Michael in Hof.21 Today the painted wings of that retable are preserved in the Alte Pinakothek in

Munich. In 2014 we carried out infrared reflectography of the Resurrection on the interior of the right outer wing (ill. 13.9). Compared with the underdrawing of the Deposition in Nuremberg, that of the Hof Resurrection is at once both similar and different: as in Nuremberg, the drawing is reduced to the outlines of the figures and their inner contours, and no hatching is visible. The depths of folds are indicated with single strokes that are often broken by an angle and terminated with a hook or a small arc. The angular network of lines as well as the little hook forms are also present in the underdrawings of the Nuremberg Deposition and Virgin Annunciate (ill. 13.10). However, the underdrawing of the Resurrection in Munich is much more carefully and precisely executed than that of the Deposition. With its clearly indicated drapery folds and easily understandable structure, it is closer to the underdrawing of the Virgin Annunciate. The draftsman of the Resurrection avoided the chaotic jumble of lines characteristic of some areas of the Deposition. The only substantial correction within the drawing is limited to the outward-facing soldier at the lower right. There the draftsman changed the fall of the drapery across the proper right knee.

master or assistant?

In contrast to the painter of the Nuremberg Deposition, the artist who painted the Resurrection closely followed the specifications of the underdrawing – from the drapery folds all the way to the small figures in the background. Only later in the painting process were relatively limited corrections made to completed areas. For example, the original gabled form of the gateway was changed to an arch, the base of the sarcophagus was lengthened at the back, and Christ’s mantle was correctively overpainted on the left side beneath the bare arm and extended downward in two places. The greater control and precision of the underdrawing of the Resurrection as compared with that of the Deposition does not necessarily mean it is by a different artist. Possibly Pleydenwurff simply used an alternative manner of drawing in the Resurrection, one that more clearly defines the forms, so as to give his assistants explicit instructions for painting. Indeed the painting style of the Resurrection suggests that significant parts of it were carried out by Hans Schüchlin, whose presence in the Pleydenwurff workshop in the 1460s has been substantiated by Stefan Roller.22 Particularly the soldier figures, but also the landscape and the use of color are strikingly similar to paintings on the wing interiors of the high altarpiece of the Church of Mary Magdalene in Tiefenbronn, which Schüchlin and his workshop completed in 1469.23 Saint Thomas Aquinas from the Altarpiece of the Three Kings Examinations of two other paintings from the Pleydenwurff workshop, the Saint Dominic and Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum (ill. 13.11), have yielded findings whose interpretation is more problematic than those of the previous cases.24 That is primarily because the question of attribution of these panels to an assistant or to Pleydenwurff himself is especially difficult to answer. The panels originally formed the outside of the wings of the altarpiece which was commissioned for Nuremberg’s Dominican Church but is now in the Church of Saint

191

Laurence. In 2009 Suckale attributed the central panel and the wing interiors mainly to assistants in the Pleydenwurff workshop, while he considered the panels with the Dominican saints to be largely by Pleydenwurff himself.25 However, at that time Suckale was unaware that the wing panels in fact belonged to the Altarpiece of the Three Kings, something that was confirmed only in 2010.26 The faces of the Dominican saints indeed show characteristic traits of figure types commonly used by the Pleydenwurff workshop. At the same time, they do not display the soft transitions found, for example, in the Löwenstein Crucifixion, which can be considered the work of Pleydenwurff himself. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that Pleydenwurff appears to have commanded a broad formal repertoire, so that this comparison need not exclude his authorship of the pair of Dominican saints. If one does assume that Saint Dominic and Saint Thomas Aquinas are by a workshop assistant, the stage at which many of the observable changes were made would fit our hypothesis about the practice of painted alterations in the Pleydenwurff studio.27 Although the underdrawing of the figures is discernable only in a few places, major pentimenti are visible, especially in the lower zones of the paintings (ill. 13.11). Initially a tiled floor was planned. As can be seen with X-radiography, the orthogonals of the tile pattern were scored into the ground layer with the help of a straightedge; additionally, both the orthogonals and the transversals were marked with drawn lines which can be seen with IRR. The tiled floor was executed in the first stage of the painting. Later, however, it was painted over with the soil and plants that are visible today. Evidently the painter first followed the instructions of the design, which was completely reworked later within the Pleydenwurff workshop. Furthermore, a dove on the shoulder of Saint Thomas was scraped off, painted over and replaced with a smaller one. The hand and sleeve of the saint were finished before the book was added on top. The high quality of the blue iris in the Saint Thomas Aquinas has prompted scholars to ascribe

192

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

A.

B.

Ill. 13.11. Hans Pleydenwurff and workshop, Saint Thomas Aquinas, former exterior of the right wing of the Altarpiece of the Three Kings from the demolished Dominican Monastery Church of Saint Mary in Nuremberg, c. 1460-1465, fir panel, 167 x 52.5 cm, Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, inv. Gm 130. A: visible light. B: IRR

master or assistant?

the addition of the plants to Pleydenwurff himself.28 If that was the case, the Saint Dominic and Saint Thomas might be an example of the master revising an assistant, possibly following the wishes of the patron. However, the hypotheses developed in the present paper do not as easily explain certain other changes in the Saint Thomas panel. The saint was meant to hold a lily, which was indicated with incisions but not executed, in his right hand. Also, the open book may originally have been designed closed, as is suggested by lines scored in the ground layer. Does the non-execution of those parts of the initial design support the conclusion that the master himself painted Saint Thomas? Or could an assistant have diverged so distinctly from the instructions of the master and changed the design on his own authority? An equally valid explanation could be that iconographic considerations forced a change at an early stage. The lily is a standard attribute of Saint Dominic,29 and he is shown on the left wing holding one; yet a lily would also have been appropriate for Thomas.30 Possibly the artist or patron recognized that the repeated attribute could be confusing and therefore the lily incised into the ground of the Thomas panel was abandoned. Or perhaps the artist first meant for Dominic to be on the right wing, but later realized that, as the founder and most important patron saint of the Dominican Order (for whose church the altarpiece was intended), Dominic should appear on the left – that is, the superior heraldic right – where we see him now.31 A change of that sort, motivated by iconographical – not formal or aesthetic – considerations, says very little about authorship. It speaks neither for nor against execution by an assistant, and it neither supports nor disproves the idea that Pleydenwurff himself could have been responsible for the initial execution as well as the later reworkings. This example emphasizes the complexity of the phenomenon of painted changes in the practice of the Pleydenwurff workshop. Their analysis does not always offer clear points of reference for distinguishing between the master and his assistants.

193

Conclusion Many of the problems raised here cannot be solved conclusively. A chief question is whether substantial deviations from the underdrawing in the first stage of painting can reliably be attributed to the master. Probably not always. Because one finds many different hands in works attributed to the Pleydenwurff workshop, there were possibly assistants who proceeded autonomously and might have made extensive, independent corrections to their own designs.32 That, in turn, raises the question of how much leeway existed in the Pleydenwurff workshop for autonomous decision-making among assistants. Furthermore it must be asked if Pleydenwurff himself carried out corrections on paintings by his assistants, or if he simply gave instructions for corrections, or – which seems most likely – both. Despite these questions, we can draw the following conclusions. First, Pleydenwurff himself appears to have developed his paintings in an ongoing process of alteration and improvement. Second, no matter whether executed by the master or assistants, paintings from the Pleydenwurff workshop are usually characterized by many changes and revisions in the successive paint layers, which means that significant deviations of the finished painting from the underdrawing do not automatically point to the master himself as the painter. Third, it was probably common practice that paintings by workshop assistants were corrected after a first ‘painted’ draft which adhered closely to the underdrawing. Finally, a strong departure from the underdrawing and well-executed corrections in the first stage of painting are indications that the draftsman also carried out the painting; in many cases that may have been Pleydenwurff himself. Particularly the last point could be refined with further examinations of a broader sampling of paintings by Pleydenwurff and his workshop. The interpretations of this paper are meant to offer a nuanced consideration of the varieties of alteration, correction and addition that took place during the creation of these works.

194

dagmar hirschfelder et al.

NOTES * We would like to thank Martin Schawe (Munich, Alte Pinakothek), Ulrike Fischer and Jan Schmidt (both Munich, Doerner Institut) for the opportunity to carry out infrared reflectography on the Resurrection of the Hof Altarpiece in the Alte Pinakothek. Our thanks go also to Eliza Reichel (Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum, Hanover) for her documentation of the examination of the Deposition (Gm 1127) in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg. For further help and support we are grateful to colleagues at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, in particular Judith Hentschel, Jacqueline Klusik, Oliver Mack, and Martin Tischler. The infrared images and diagrams illustrated in this essay were produced by Katja von Baum, Lisa Eckstein, Beate Fücker, and, in the case of the Deposition, Eliza Reichel. 1 On Pleydenwurff’s biography, see most recently: Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 103-104; Hirschfelder 2013; Hirschfelder 2017. 2 See: Gümbel 1906-1907, p. 336; Grieb 2007, vol. 3, p. 1156. 3 According to tax records, in 1458 Pleydenwurff resided in the Lorenz district (south of the Pegnitz River), one year later in the Sebald district (north of the Pegnitz). See: Von Murr 1801, p. 677. 4 On the presumed stay in the Netherlands, see: Strieder 1993, p. 54; Kemperdick 2004, pp. 232-234; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 136, 138. 5 See: Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 455-457. 6 On the Hof Altarpiece, see for example: Strieder 1993, pp. 56-59, pp. 194-197, nr. 40; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 159-165, vol. 2, pp. 95-106, nr. 33 . 7 For Pleydenwurff’s Wrocław Altarpiece, see, with references to earlier literature: Knötel 1928; Lutze, Wiegand 1936-1937, vol. 1, p. 150, nr. 1127, vol. 2, ill. 36; Stange 1958, pp. 41-43; Suckale 1984, pp. 424-425, 434, 437; Strieder 1993, pp. 52-54, 192, nr. 38; Roller, Weilandt 2004, p. 41; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 48-53, 104-106, vol. 2, pp. 24-29, nr. 10; Patała 2015, pp. 260-272. 8 Further parts: fragment of the Presentation in the Temple, Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe (inv. 186174 resp. nr. 79, formerly Wrocław, Schlesisches Museum der Bildenden Künste, inv. 832), see: Bruges 2010, p. 397, nr. 212; fragment of the Adoration of the Magi (Virgin and Child), whereabouts unknown, formerly Wrocław, Schlesisches Museum der Bildenden Künste, inv. 4436, see: Knötel 1928, p. 65, fig. 3; fragment of the Crucifixion, destroyed in 1945, formerly Wrocław, Schlesisches Museum der Bildenden Künste, inv. 842, see: Knötel 1928, p. 61, fig. 1; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, p. 48, fig. 42. Ranke (1861, unpaginated) mentions two further paintings showing Saint Jerome and Saint Vincent Ferrer, whereabouts unknown. 9 Document dated 27 August 1462. Former archive of the Church of Saint Elizabeth in Wrocław, nr. 78. Published in: Luchs 1863, p. 6; Abraham 1912, pp. 13-14; Suckale 2009, vol. 2, p. 26. 10 On the reduced character of Pleydenwurff’s underdrawings, see also: Roller 2001, p. 29. 11 Roller (2001, p. 29) describes ‘corrective, partial overpaints’ as typical of works from the Pleydenwurff workshop. 12 On the Madrid Deposition, see for example: De Vos 1999, pp. 10-41, pp. 184-188, nr. 4; Sander 2008, pp. 76-78; Campbell 2009a, pp. 32-61. For Bouts’s Deposition in Granada, see for example: PérierD’leteren 2006, pp. 240-250, nr. 6. 13 Suckale 2009, vol. 2, p. 133, nr. 42. On the donations of Löwenstein in connection with his testament, see: Buchheit 1919, p. 28; Fritz 1986, pp. 206-207; Bamberg 1987, pp. 51-57; DenglerSchreiber 2007, p. 194. 14 On the form and function of painted epitaphs, see: Schoenen 1967, esp. cols. 872-882; Wohlfeil 1985; Weilandt 2007, pp. 246-273, on epitaphs of the clergy esp. pp. 252, 256-259. 15 Early scholarship surmises that the panel was intended for the burial chamber of Bamberg Cathedral or for the Church of Saint James in Bamberg: Lutze, Wiegand 1936-1937, vol. 1, p. 149, nr. 131; Heß 1955, p. 2; Stange 1958, p. 88; Stange 1978, p. 108, nr. 247. See also:

Schmidt 2006, p. 20. Dengler-Schreiber (2007, p. 192) proposes as the original location the Cunegunda Chapel of the cathedral canons’ curia (Domherrnkurie), which was erected by Löwenstein in 1423 adjoining the west choir of the cathedral. 16 For assessments of the painting’s quality, see: Roller 2000, p. 11; Suckale 1984, p. 434; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 110-111, ills. 157, 158. 17 The presence of Dismas and Gestas in the incised lines of the Löwenstein Crucifixion disproves the suggestion of Suckale (2009, vol. 1, pp. 111, 113, vol. 2, p. 132, nr. 42) that they were absent from the original design. The extremely fine incisions were only made visible in X-ray images produced for the present research project and thus were unknown to him. Therefore Suckale proposed that the painting was initially executed by an assistant and only in a second stage newly conceived and reworked by Pleydenwurff, who added the two thieves and altered the foreground figures, among other changes. 18 Fir panel, 150 ≈ 71.2 cm, inv. 132. On these paintings, see most recently: Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 110, 128-134, 456, 457, vol. 2, pp. 67-70, nr. 25; Weniger 2014, pp. 128-131, nr. 44. 19 See also: Suckale 2009, vol. 1, p. 134. 20 This of course would not mean that a painting without many early deviations could not also be by the master himself. 21 See note 6. 22 Roller 2001, esp. pp. 26-30. See also: Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 166-173. 23 Connections between the Hof and Tiefenbronn Retables have also been noted by Friedländer (1916-1917, p. 58), Roller (2001, p. 30) and Suckale (2009, vol. 1, p. 173). 24 Saint Dominic: 166.5 ≈ 52.5 cm, inv.  129; Saint Thomas Aquinas: see: ill. 13.11. On these, see: Strieder 1993, pp. 59-60, p. 197, nr. 42; Roller, Weilandt 2004, pp. 36, 42-43; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 138-153, 165-166, 362, 365; Suckale 2009, vol. 2, pp. 130131, nr. 41, pp. 144-148, nr. 47; Hess 2012b, p. 383, p. 386, nr. 84. 25 Respectively: Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 138-153, vol. 2, pp. 146, 148, nr. 47; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 165-166, vol. 2, pp. 130131, nr. 41. 26 An examination of the Saint Dominic panel in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum and the left wing of the Altarpiece of the Three Kings in the Church of Saint Laurence in Nuremberg by Lisa Eckstein, Beate Fücker, Anja Maisel and Ingo Trüper on 18 October 2010 proved that the museum’s two panels were originally part of that retable. Four of the knots visible on the backs of the panels were found to correspond precisely in form, size, and position. See: Hess 2012b, p. 383. 27 In contrast, Suckale (2009, vol. 1, p. 165) assumes that the change in plan supports Pleydenwurff’s authorship. 28 Suckale 2009, vol. 1, p. 166; Hess 2012a, p. 119. 29 See: Frank 1974, cols. 72-74. 30 See: Lechner 1976, cols. 476-477. 31 For this, see: Suckale 2009, vol. 1, p. 165. 32 Aside from Hans Schüchlin, the painter of the so-called Landauer Altarpiece (c. 1465, Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, inv. Gm 880-883) may be another example of a highly independent collaborator of Pleydenwurff. Despite his distinct personal formal language, his activity for Pleydenwurff is supported by similarities to the working methods and workshop style of the Pleydenwurff studio. Close familiarity with various motifs and the use of the same Netherlandish prototypes suggest a reliance on the same workshop models. According to the technical findings of the current research project being carried out at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, the underdrawing and painting of the Landauer Altarpiece, including corrections and changes in the paint layers, appear to be the work of a single artist. On the Landauer Altarpiece, see most recently: Strieder 1993, pp. 61-64, p. 198, nr. 43; Weilandt 2003, pp. 160-171, 176; Suckale 2009, vol. 1, pp. 52-54, 159-160, 454, 456, 457, vol. 2, pp. 136-141, nr. 45; Northemann 2011, pp. 182-183.

Ill. 14.1. Passion Altarpiece, c. 1520-1522, Güstrow, Pfarrkirche Sankt Marien. Colour diagram of the whole altarpiece

14

The Painted Wings of the Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow A Vast Collective Enterprise Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren*

ABSTRACT: The Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow (c. 1522), from the Brussels workshop of Borman, was a large-scale collaborative enterprise between sculptors and painters. A scientific program of investigation was developed in 2009 by the Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden during the restoration of the painted shutters, traditionally attributed to the circle of Bernard van Orley. The research brought to light new data, and we propose to present that relating to the underdrawing. A thorough comparative examination of the underdrawing in the six shutters facilitated a better understanding of the genesis of their composition in relation to the rest of the altarpiece. Our study also distinguished the intervention of different hands through the characterisation of style. Finally, comparison of the underdrawing and painting technique makes it possible to reflect upon the problems of attribution in this kind of work.

—o— The restoration of the Passion Altarpiece, which began in Güstrow in 2009, was the ideal opportunity to carry out a thorough study of the work. A resulting monograph is the culmination of interdisciplinary collaboration between Belgian and German art historians and conservators.1 The book was published in February 2015. This paper will therefore only present the key elements emerging from this research, which led to a number of working hypotheses and will certainly arouse controversy and debate. It will concentrate on the study of the underdrawings, on the basis

of which possible coherent stylistic groups will be formed. The altarpiece The Güstrow Retable (ill. 14.1) is a sculpted and painted altarpiece with double shutters, in which the case and interior wings are sculpted and the exterior wings and reverses are painted. This typology was developed in the Low Countries in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries from German models initially in the workshops of Brussels and then in those of Antwerp.2 Twelve Brabantine altarpieces of this typology are currently known to have survived. Showcases of Brussels expertise, they were intended to establish the reputation of a specific painting and sculpture workshop in order to conquer a particular market. The majority of these altarpieces was intended for export and commissioned by the representative members, religious or secular, of Swedish or German society. The Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow, currently dated c. 1520-1522,3 by the Brussels master Jan Borman and his workshop, was a large-scale collaborative work between sculptors and painters. Since Schlie in 1883,4 the painted shutters have traditionally been attributed to Bernard van Orley or his entourage. Friedländer gave them to the Master of Güstrow.5

198

catheline périer-d ’ ieteren

A.

Ill. 14.2. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), A: Painted wings of the altarpiece, closed. B: Painted wings of the altarpiece, first opening

the painted wings of the passion altarpiece of güstrow

199

B.

200

catheline périer-d ’ ieteren

At first glance (ill. 14.2a-b), the six painted wings give the impression of a balanced unit in terms of its composition and harmonious colour palette. However, careful examination shows a lack of continuity from one panel to another. There are significant differences in the spatial rendering of the landscape, in the spirit of the illustrated scenes, as well as in the pictorial style and execution. This finding, based on the observation of the painted surfaces, was confirmed by the study of the underdrawing and technical execution. Examination of the stylistic groups proposed on the basis of characteristics of their underdrawings The Annunciation The first group includes the underdrawing of the Annunciation, whose high degree of finish suggests that it may have been a vidimus for the painting’s patron (ill. 14.3). It is vigorously drawn and outlines almost all the elements of the composition. There were significant changes, however, during the pictorial execution. The most spectacular of these relates to the Virgin’s face, which was initially turned towards the angel and was at a later date oriented towards the book of hours on the prie-dieu. The hands, however, were not adjusted therefore producing a unique final composition. The most plausible explanation for the change in position of the face may have been to fulfil the wish of the patron who may have found the Virgin’s gaze too direct and her expression not humble enough in respect to traditional iconography. The Virgin and Child The underdrawing showing the most similarities to that of the Annunciation, taking into account the degree of development and draughtsmanship involved, is that of the Virgin and Child. The drapery is heavily worked. It shows multiple hatched planes and wide lines executed with a wash. In many places the hatching crosses or fills in the shapes and forms in a flat manner thus indicating the areas in which to create shade without really

modelling the forms. The Virgin’s face (ill. 14.4a), on the other hand, is worked on with an emphasis on volume, which is assured by a series of curved lines forming her cheek and marking the gradual intensity of shade. The face of Jesus (ill. 14.4b) is executed with passion and focuses especially on his eyes and cheeks. It presents various types of hatching – flattened, crossed, curved or zigzagged – executed in one continuous movement without lifting the hand. The area of transition between the head and neck has been heavily worked with numerous superposed lines, the painter thus giving the impression that he is searching for the form and modelling of the figure. The painted face of the Christ Child (ill. 14.4c) carefully follows the indications for the placing of the shadows, all the while maintaining a smooth passage from darkness to light that the heavy cross-hatching would not have predicted. Saints Peter and Paul The Saint Peter panel on the Virgin and Child reverse also belongs to this first group. The underdrawing of his face (ill. 14.5b), both spontaneous and expressive, is directly comparable to that of the Christ Child (ill. 14.4b). The treatment of the folds of his dress, filled with hatching, is similar to that of the Virgin but differs significantly from that of Saint Paul which is less meticulous in the drapery’s execution and far more rushed in the preparation of its modelling. In the face (ill. 14.5a) of Saint Paul, the underdrawing is made up of a series of less assertive hatched planes, which overlap one another and cover the right side of the face. Sequences of short parallel lines are completely flattened on both sides of the lips and mark the left side of his nose. These differences can be explained by the collaboration of two artists. ‘Master A’ would have drawn and painted Saint Peter and subcontracted the Saint Paul panel to ‘Master B’. A close associate of the latter would likely have drawn the figure without relying on the initial drawing since he had the Saint Peter panel to hand. The master would then have carried out the pictorial execution.

the painted wings of the passion altarpiece of güstrow

Ill. 14.3. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), IRR, Annunciation

201

202

catheline périer-d ’ ieteren

A.

B.

Ill. 14.4. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), A: IRR, Virgin and Child, detail of the head of Mary. B: IRR, Virgin and Child, detail of the head of the Child. C: Virgin and Child, detail of the head of the Child

C.

the painted wings of the passion altarpiece of güstrow

203

B.

A.

Ill. 14.5. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), A: IRR, Saint Paul, detail of the head of Saint Paul. B: IRR, Saint Peter, detail of the head of Saint Peter

The underdrawing in both panels represents the general outline of the composition and demonstrates a commitment to unity. It is symmetrical and presents the standing saints in an identical setting and at the same height. An underdrawn cross on the ground layer determines the place to be occupied by the head of Saint Paul in reference to that of Saint Peter, who had therefore been executed first (ill. 14.5a). Continuous lines mark the landscape features, the space to be filled with flowers and the wall itself, the latter connecting the two panels. The underdrawn and painted stone seats extend from one panel to another (ill. 14.2a). The examination of the painting technique confirms the hypothesis of two hands. Thus, Peter’s heavy, lapidary drapery contrasts with Paul’s lighter drapery, the long folds of his green gown serving to emphasize the verticality of the figure rather than

its volume. While the modelling of Peter’s face is shown by a series of well-defined highlights marked with scratches to the surface carried out using the handle of the brush, the second is painted in a more developed manner and the highlights are betterintegrated, thus creating a more unified modelling (ill. 14.2a). Saint Catherine This panel alone comprises a third group although the composition and part of the pictorial execution are of the same hand as that of the Virgin and Child (ill. 14.2b). The underdrawing of this panel is not comparable to those of the other painted panels. Indeed, it seems to be partly achieved by mechanical means of reproduction and partly by freehand, and is distinguished by a less researched appearance and restrained, consistent drawing notations. Thus,

204

catheline périer-d ’ ieteren

Ill. 14.6. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), IRR, Saint Catherine, detail of the head of Saint Catherine

the hatching planes locating the areas of shading for the red coat are reduced to series of carefully spaced out oblique parallel lines. The pomegranate motif on the brocade dress is probably carried out with a stencil on the ochre shaded background. Here, there is very little hatching to indicate shade. The saint’s face (ill. 14.6), with its sparsely worked underdrawing and awkward distribution of evenly spaced small hatches to mark the shadows, is certainly the result of a model being reused. Beheading of Saint Catherine The style of this central panel is markedly different from that of the other panels. The hands of two different painters are clearly visible. The first probably underdrew and painted three of the figures: the husband, the Emperor and the saint. He may have asked an assistant to paint the group of men, whose initial underdrawing is much less confident, as well as the group of characters attending the execution of the philosophers. The second painter

probably carried out the figure of the executioner (ill. 14.7) and the small highly dynamic narrative scenes. The latter are freely underdrawn, and establish the shadows on the ground directly behind the figures. These details, part of the first creative phase, are exceptionally bold and remarkably modern in the freedom of their execution. It is to be noted that the underdrawing of the man with a turban is much weaker than that of the king and refers directly to that of Saint Paul. By comparing the painted head of Saint Catherine to its underdrawing, interesting modifications made during the pictorial execution can be noted (ill. 14.8). Initially, the head and ears of the saint were visible, with her hair falling freely over her face.6 A heavy turban, on which the executioner’s hand rests, now masks these parts. The reason for this addition could be to establish a better connection between the executioner and the saint at the time of the handover of the composition to the second artist (Master B). The underdrawing of the secondary scenes of each panel shows a clear connection from one to the other even though they are the result of collaboration between two individuals. The author of the first group (Master A) is represented by a restrained style of execution. Small tight planes of oblique hatching cross through faces and several brushstrokes outline their features. In contrast, the second group (Master B) is characterised by its great freedom and flexibility of line and there are many modifications in the placement of elements during the painting phase. Several forms were abandoned, including a group of figures, landscape details such as trees and decorative motives such as banners. Finally, the drawing of the landscapes in the background also differs from one panel to another. The first type of landscape, executed with a dry medium, probably a silver point, is delicate and neat. This master’s tight execution is identical on the three panels. A second type, executed with a brush, is characterised by wide brushstrokes and has been rapidly applied. Both styles are present in the

the painted wings of the passion altarpiece of güstrow

205

Ill. 14.7. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), IRR, Martyrdom of Saint Catherine, detail of the executioner’s head

landscape of the Saint Paul panel (ill. 14.9), which indicates two separate creative phases. Thus, the initial composition of the city, executed with a silver point, was later abandoned and replaced by the current landscape. This has been freely executed with wash drawing, and only outlines some of the features. Two hypotheses can be put forward as to the authorship of the landscape underdrawing. It could either have been carried out by Master A, who conceived the design of the six wings and could have corrected it in a second creative phase, or, as the present author believes, it could have

been drawn in by one of his associates, in a complex division of labour hardly surprising in a collective work such as the Passion Altarpiece. In addition, an assistant would have helped the two main painters in the drawing of the tiling on the three panels. These were drawn in with a ruler once the figures were placed and the drapery was painted. Another assistant would have painted the plants, which were executed directly without the aid of an underdrawing. It is not the intention here to develop hypotheses as to attribution but to briefly summarize those

206

catheline périer-d ’ ieteren

Ill. 14.8. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), IRR, Martyrdom of Saint Catherine, detail of the head of Saint Catherine

that were outlined before. The painted wings of the Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow show the direct influence of Van Orley, as well as particular stylistic analogies with the works of three masters from his entourage: the Master of Saint Michael, Colyn de Coter and Jan Rombouts.7 Other sources of inspiration include Dürer for the executioner and Jan van Roome for the composition of the Virgin and Child. The three main characters provide a striking example of the analogies between the Güstrow paintings of the Beheading of Saint Catherine, here attributed to the Master of Saint Michael. These figures were later used as models by the painter or by one of his assistants in the Wedding of Emerentia, a panel from the Saint Anne Altarpiece (Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSK/MRBAB), inv. 1433-1434). The face in profile of the young woman (ill. 14.10a-b) and the lynx collar of her husband are true quotations. The slight modification of style is due to a later date of execution: 1528.8 The painting technique of the fur collar best illustrates this evolution by its more natural appearance and the realistic

Ill. 14.9. Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), IRR, comparison between the landscape in Saint Catherine and in Saint Paul (insert)

the painted wings of the passion altarpiece of güstrow

A.

207

B.

Ill. 14.10. A: Follower of Bernard van Orley, Saint Anna Altarpiece, Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, detail: female head in the Wedding of Emerentia (reverse). B: Passion Altarpiece (ill. 14.1), detail, head of Saint Catherine

distribution of the black spots on the white background. Summary of the working hypothesis regarding phases of execution and collaborations The Virgin and Child can therefore be seen as the first panel drawn and painted by a master, Master A, whom we identify as the Master of Saint Michael. In addition, he would have designed the overall composition, including the first version of the landscape, and painted the figure of Saint Catherine on the right wing. He would have delegated the basic mechanical phase of his underdrawing to an assistant. This panel displays a more archaic style, which is also shared with the Virgin and Child and the Saint Peter on its reverse. Saint

Peter, however, presents a unified composition with Saint Paul, and may have been conceived by Master B, the latter possibly Jan Rombouts. Master B painted the saint on an underdrawing carried out by his assistant. This assistant appears to be the same artist who drew both Maxentius’s face and the group of men attending the martyrdom. Master A would then have continued his work in a more dynamic manner on the Annunciation and its secondary scenes. An even closer cooperation and distribution of work would have developed during the work on the Beheading of Saint Catherine in the main composition but also for the secondary scenes, which play an essential role. Finally, assistants helped the two main painters in the design of the tiles and the depiction of the plants.

208

catheline périer-d ’ ieteren

The construction of the Annunciation and Beheading central panels is most unusual. Instead of being inserted into the frames in a traditional manner, they were nailed into the carved compartments of the altarpiece. This allows us to raise the hypothesis that they were integrated into the altarpiece at a later date, hence their more ‘modern’ style. One reason for this time lag could lie in the underdrawing of the Annunciation panel. When it was initially presented to the patron for his approval, it was rejected, forcing the artist to rethink his composition. He would have then hastily corrected the position of the Virgin’s head by tracing out that of Mary in the left panel as shown by the exact superposition of the faces. The delay in the execution of the panels would explain the use of a mechanical means of reproduction to accelerate the completion of the work and the collaboration of an assistant in the Beheading panel. For the painted panels we unfortunately do not have dendrochronological data, which makes it impossible to ascertain their dates of execution and to integrate them into the entire altarpiece. However, it is clear that some of them could very well have been executed at a later date, as it has been suggested by the recent dendrochronological study of certain sculptures, including the soldier signed by Jan III Borman.9 These are working hypotheses, which remain open for discussion. In conclusion, I reject the traditional attribution to Van Orley as the painter of the wings of the Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow and propose that it was the result of the collaboration of different painters working within Van Orley’s circle, all heavily influenced by his style.10 This hypothesis was already noted by several authors, but here I support it with new data. Amongst the artists contributing to the altarpiece, I would suggest the Master of Saint Michael. He may have been both ‘inventor’ of the painted ensemble and contractor,

which would have been typical for the period. He would have shared this function with Jan Borman, the sculptor responsible for the woodcarving and delivery of the entire altarpiece. Borman could have ensured the participation of Jan Rombouts of Louvain, as Rombouts probably came to work in Brussels and could have collaborated with the Borman dynasty of sculptors. The Borman sculptors were accustomed to working with renowned Brussels painters such as Colyn de Coter or members of the Van Orley dynasty such as Valentin, the latter the possible author of the painted wings of the Altarpiece of Saluzzo (Brussels, Maison du roi). The panels of the Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow have so far delivered little of their mystery11 and revealed only parts of the complexity of the working organisation taking place in such important workshops as these of Jan Borman and Van Orley. N OTES * I would like to express my gratitude to Hannah Richard for the English translation of the text, to Christina Currie (IRPA) for the review, and to Sacha Zdanov for his critical reading. My thanks also go to the pictures owners who allowed me to published them: Ivo Mohrmann and Kirsten Risse of the Hochschule für Bildende Künste of Dresden, Véronique Bücken (KMSKB/MRBAB) and Frank Hösel (Güstrow Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landesdenkmalpflege). 1 Périer-D’Ieteren, Mohrmann 2015. 2 The German altarpiece of Heinrik Boremann conserved in the cathedral of Güstrow is a good example. 3 Schöfbeck, Heussner 2015, pp. 87-93. 4 Schlie 1883. 5 Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 8, p. 89. 6 Sacha Zdanov pointed out that a drawing attributed to the Pseudo-Bles, now at the State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, shows an execution directly parented to the one in Güstrow, revealing the existence of a common shared prototype. 7 On Bernard van Orley, see: Farmer 1981; on the Master of Saint Michael, see: Bruijnen 2001-2002; on Colyn de Coter: PérierD’Ieteren 1985; and on Jan Rombouts: Bruijnen 2011. 8 The date 1528 is found on the Birth of the Virgin panel which presents of the reverse the Wedding of Emerentia. See: Galand 2013, p. 344, fig. 305. 9 Schöfbeck, Heussner 2015, pp. 88-89. 10 Périer-D’Ieteren 2015, pp. 105-133. 11 Sacha Zdanov wrote an article about stylistic and morphological similarities shared by the Güstrow altarpiece and other works – paintings or tapestries – executed by the workshop of Bernard van Orley. These similarities are probably due to the circulation of patterns. Zdanov 2017.

Ill. 15.1. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Miraculous Catch of Fish and Beheading of Saint Catherine, oil on panels, 227 x 119 cm each, Louvain, M-Museum

15

Reading between the Lines… Attribution Problems regarding Early Sixteenth Century Louvain Painters Marjan Debaene and David Lainé

ABSTRACT: The research underpinning the 2012 exhibition Signed, Jan R. The Rediscovery of a Renaissance Master changed our knowledge of early sixteenth-century Louvain painting. Jan Rombouts (c. 1475/1535) was rediscovered as a master of the city of Louvain, to the disadvantage of Jan Van Rillaer. To date almost no names can be linked to the other painters active in Louvain. Infrared reflectography (IRR) however shows several distinct personalities. This paper presents two cases: the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych and the unknown painter of the Fall of the Rebel Angels and the Beheading of John the Baptist in Saint Peter’s Church.

—o— In 2012 M-Museum Louvain introduced the public to the rediscovered sixteenth-century Louvainbased painter Jan Rombouts in the exhibition Signed, Jan R., following the publication in 2011 of art historian Dr. Yvette Bruijnen’s research into his work.1 The oeuvre of this highly talented exponent of mannerism was once attributed to Jan Van Rillaer, who now, rather unfortunately, is left with zero identified work to his name. In her 1999 doctoral thesis on sixteenth-century painting in Louvain, Bruijnen (and before her Reekmans in 1963) had already separated the wheat from the chaff in a very diverse group of panel paintings from the first half of the century that were previously attributed to Van Rillaer.2 She identified a coherent group of quality paintings by the skilled

painter now known as Rombouts and a second, diverse group of panels. The diversity is apparent both in artistic personality and in pictorial quality. Even though the story of Rombouts and his rediscovery is a fascinating one, it will not be the topic of this contribution. Besides, Yvette Bruijnen tells the story much better. In this paper we will be focusing on the remaining paintings that – once dismissed from Van Rillaer’s oeuvre in 1999 – seemed doomed to remain mere footnotes of art history. A few of them are in fact very interesting from an underdrawing point of view. This paper aims to shift the focal point from the now identified master, Rombouts, to the ones that remain as yet unidentified. The main issue with these paintings is that there are no names, signatures or dates to start from. Attribution-wise, most of the works in this second group practically remain blank pages. After a brief status quaestionis of the research so far and comparison of the recent infrared reflectographs (IRR) made by David Lainé,3 we will suggest new angles to refuel the research into these attributions, picking up where Bruijnen left off. In doing so, we hope this paper might generate new impulses for the art historical community. We will present two cases: firstly, the oeuvre of the so-called Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych and, secondly, two

212

marjan debaene and david lainé

anonymous triptych wings depicting the Fall of the Rebel Angels and the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist. Case 1. The Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych Bruijnen introduced this name for the painter of a group of panels dating from the mid-sixteenth century, that are related to each other and to a Saint Nicholas Triptych in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium in Brussels (KMSKB/MRBAB). The group consists of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, the Offering of the Mass both from the KMSKB/ MRBAB4 and two large wings in M-Museum Louvain representing the Miraculous Catch of Fish (front), Christ Carrying the Cross (back), the Beheading of Saint Catherine (front) and the Calvary (back) (ills. 15.1, 15.2).5 Two smaller wings with the Legend of Saint Roch are also kept in M-Museum Louvain (ill. 15.3).6 Attributed to the same master are the Saint Barbara Triptych in the Church of Our Lady in Aarschot and two wings depicting donors with their patron saints and a fronton with the Holy Father in the collection of the Provincialaat van de Broeders van Liefde in Ghent and, lastly, an Ordination of Saint Evortius, once in Saint Peter’s Church in Louvain. The latter was destroyed during World War I in the fire of August 1914. It is only known today from an old black and white picture. We will limit ourselves here to the paintings for which new IRR images are available. Therefore, at present the panels in Brussels and Ghent will be excluded from this case study. Yvette Bruijnen described the relation between these works extensively in her thesis.7 It is clear that the paintings are closely related to each other in style and composition. The way in which facial features, fingers and hands are drawn and painted allows to conclude that they stem from one master who, according to Bruijnen, was greatly influenced and perhaps trained even by Jan II van Coninxloo (born in Brussels in 1489). This is most visible in his compositions with horizontally arranged groups of figures in front of the back-

ground scenes placed higher up in the picture. This system can be seen, for instance, in Van Coninxloo’s Triptych of Saint Anne in the KMSKB/ MRBAB.8 The similar clothing, facial types, hairstyles and folds in fabric, fluently executed using broad paint strokes, are other similarities between the two artists. The Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych wasn’t very original or inspired when it came to execution. He often used stereotypical figures, typically dressed in clothing inspired by Antiquity, that were placed in standardized landscapes or interiors. He obviously used model drawings for the repetition of motifs and figures in the scenery. A clear example is the soldier leaning on his shield in the Martyrdom of Saint Catherine (ill. 15.1), which seems to be modelled directly on a similar figure in the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist in Louvain’s Saint-Peter’s Church. That painting features in the second case study further in the article. There are also noticeable stylistic links with the oeuvre of Jan Rombouts, which the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych undoubtedly saw in Louvain, but the pictorial execution is distinctly different. A closer look Whether these hypotheses remain intact when the underdrawings are compared certainly merits a closer look. Whereas Rombouts almost maniacally drew his composition on the panel to the last detail before painting it and almost never made changes in the underdrawing, the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych used his panel as a sketching pad, constantly changing the position of heads, feet and hands, using his brush in a spontaneous way. Lines were drawn and redrawn over or near other lines, and even then many elements in the underdrawing never made it into painted form. The painter adjusted many poses and even entire figures during the painting stage (ill. 15.4). The underdrawing also proves that the panels were never drastically shortened even though the strange positions of God in the Catherine painting or the crucified prisoner in the Crucifixion seem to suggest other-

reading between the lines…

213

Ill. 15.2. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Christ Bearing the Cross and Calvary, oil on panels, 227 x 119 cm each, Louvain, M-Museum

wise. The murderer is completely drawn in the underdrawing and his body is well positioned within the frame. In the painted version, however, the painter moved the figure upward, cutting his body in half, depicting it without torso, head or

arms. Thus it appears the panel was shortened. Although the frames are not original and the wings probably have been slightly adjusted in the nineteenth century – around the same time that the Rombouts wings were adjusted (they have the

214

marjan debaene and david lainé

Ill. 15.3. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, two wings depicting scenes from the life of Saint Roch, oil on panels, 122 x 60 cm, Louvain, M-Museum

exact same shape and frame type) – it is possible that they all originally had more of an accolade shape instead of the rounded ogive form they have nowadays (ill. 15.5). The Saint Roch panels appear to be wings of a triptych since they are composed almost identically to the wings of the Saint Nicholas Triptych. Especially the back of Scenes from the Life of Saint Roch, with the saint placed in a niche, is very similar to the backs of the wings of the Saint Nicholas Triptych.

It looks like the chaplains of the chapel of Saint Nicholas ordered two similar triptychs from the same master. The wings have been adjusted (as were the wings of the Saint Nicholas Triptych). It was not until recently that representative IRR pictures could be taken of these paintings because in the past they had been coated in a thick layer of wax due to fixation problems of the paint layer.9 Both in the underdrawing and in the paint layer there are stylistic and compositional similarities

reading between the lines…

Ill. 15.4. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Miraculous Catch of Fish (ill. 15.1), detail, IRR

Ill. 15.5. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Calvary (ill. 15.2), detail, IRR

215

216

marjan debaene and david lainé

A.

B.

Ill. 15.6. A: Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Miraculous Catch of Fish (ill. 15.1), detail of Christ. B: Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, two wings depicting scenes from the life of Saint Roch (ill. 15.3), detail, Saint Roch

between the two Saint Roch panels and the two large wings with the Miraculous Catch of Fish (front), Christ Carrying the Cross (back), the Beheading of Saint Catherine (front) and the Calvary (back). For instance, the likeness between Christ in the Miraculous Catch of Fish and Saint Roch in Scenes of the Life of Saint Roch is remarkable (ill. 15.6). Also the painting technique is similar with a smooth paint layer for the flesh tones, superposed with almost identical light accents with white pigment and with fine brown lines for hair and facial hair. The underdrawing is somewhat more difficult to compare because there the face of Saint Roch is much smaller than the face of Christ. But in general the underdrawings of the Saint Roch panels are as sketchy as those of the larger wings. The numerous changes to the composition in the underdrawing as well as during the painting stage is something they all share. The painter hardly used

hatching in his underdrawing except for the occasional erratic hatching to indicate shadow. Recently IRR detail shots were made of the Saint Barbara Triptych in the Church of Our Lady in Aarschot. The conditions on the site were not ideal but in general the IRR shows the same underdrawing techniques. The painting technique is equally quite similar, the re-use of forms and figures is very clear in this painting. An obvious comparison can be made between the figure standing on the right side in the Scenes from the Life of Saint Roch panel and the figure standing on the right side in the Saint Barbara Triptych. These two figures are definitely the same and give a good indication of the use of stereotypical figures throughout the painter’s body of work (ill. 15.7). Another example is Saint Barbara herself: her face resembles that of Saint Catherine on the Louvain panels. More extensive research into the painting

reading between the lines…

A.

217

B.

Ill. 15.7. A: Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, two wings depicting scenes from the life of Saint Roch (ill. 15.3), detail. B: Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Saint Barbara Triptych, Aarschot, Church of Our Lady, oil on panel, 212 x 192 cm, detail

218

marjan debaene and david lainé

technique must be conducted on the Saint Barbara Triptych as well. A comparison with the underdrawing of a small panel showing the Third Apparition of Christ at Lake Tiberias in the M-Museum Collection shows surprising similarities.10 The same jagged lines can be seen. The way the hands are sketched with a few rapid straight lines without any form of anatomical correctness is characteristic. An attribution of this panel to the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych would nonetheless be premature. New questions Does the exploration of the underdrawings of these paintings raise new questions regarding the identity of the painter? The municipal archives of Louvain have not yet revealed a name that could be linked without doubt to one of these works. Bruijnen does mention that the painter might be identified as Karel de Cuypere, who was active around 1550 in Louvain and received some commissions for altarpieces and other panels. As long as the paintings linked to this artist in the archives cannot be positively identified, any attempt of attribution remains a long shot. The painter could equally be Jan Van der Biest or Jan Ymants, two other painters whose names feature in the Louvain archives of the period. Perhaps the panels should be dated slightly earlier, say in the second quarter of the sixteenth century or around 1550. That might provide us with more candidates, such as students or workshop collaborators of Albrecht Bouts, who worked for a very long time and had a very successful workshop. Since the paintings show some affinity with Jan Rombouts senior’s style, we could even suggest Jan Rombouts the Younger, who is mentioned as a painter in the archives and lived from c. 1505 till 1559. Another possibility is that the painter did not originate from Louvain at all. The above-mentioned De Cuypere hypothesis starts from the premise that the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych was a Louvain-based painter; based on the fact

that his style is reminiscent of Rombouts and since most of the works attributed to the unknown master have a Louvain provenance. On the other hand, one of the works attributed to the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych is located in the Church of Our Lady in Aarschot. Two of the panels in M-Museum in Louvain depict the legend of Saint Roch, a saint that was worshipped far more in Aarschot than in Louvain. Even though they once adorned the walls of the Saint Nicholas Chapel in Saint Peter’s Church together with the Saint Nicholas Triptych, these panels were only installed there in the eighteenth century. And whereas the panels show similarities to the wings of the Saint Nicholas Triptych in their composition and shape, we mustn’t overlook that the origin of the large wings remains only a hypothesis. The wings are mentioned for the first time in the City of Louvain’s collection archives in 1846 and there is no trace of them in Louvain before that date. Could it be that the paintings and the painter were actually from Aarschot or Brussels? This line of thinking requires in-depth research of the Aarschot archives and the town’s painting tradition, as well as further research into the workshops of Albrecht Bouts and Jan  II van Coninxloo. To get the full picture, new IRR images should be made for the Brussels and Ghent paintings. While this remains for the time being a speculative hypothesis, we feel these possibilities should at least be considered, just like the existing Louvain and De Cuypere hypotheses should. There is still a lot of room – and a need – for further research from archival, art historical and technical points of view. It would certainly be a valuable enrichment for Louvain art history to one day be able to identify this painter. Case 2. The anonymous panels from Saint Peter’s Church The two triptych wings represent the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (front), Saint John the Baptist (back), the Fall of the Rebel Angels (front) and Saint Michael (back) (ills. 15.8, 15.9). They were once thought to have been painted by the

reading between the lines…

Ill. 15.8. Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, oil on panel, 165 x 70 cm, Louvain, Saint Peter’s Church

219

220

marjan debaene and david lainé

Ill. 15.9. Anonymous, Fall of the Rebel Angels (front), oil on panel, 165 x 68 cm, Louvain, Saint Peter’s Church

reading between the lines…

221

Ill. 15.10. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Beheading of Saint Catherine (ill. 15.1), IRR, detail

same hand as two other paintings in Louvain’s Saint Peter’s Church attributed to Jan Rombouts (formerly to Jan Van Rillaer): the Martyrdom of Saint Clemens and the Martyrdom of Saint Catherine. It is now believed that these panels were originally the wings of an altarpiece and that they should be attributed to a different painter.11 The motivation in the past to attribute these four paintings to one master lay mostly in their similar sizes, the fact that they were displayed in the same chapel until 2012 and that they all share a similar Renaissance style. The execution of architectural motifs is reminiscent of Antwerp Mannerism, whereas Rom-

bouts’ more monumental, Roman approach is more closely related to Bernard Van Orley’s style. The cut-off scene at the top of the Fall of the Rebel Angels demonstrates that at some point the works deliberately were sawn back to match in size. Furthermore, they were shortened on the sides. All panels would originally have had an accolade or ogive shape on the top. This can be seen in the beard, which shows a bent shape to the left and right of the middle. It is not clear when the works were modified. According to nineteenth-century Louvain archivist Edward Van Even the paintings were hung in the Chapel of Proud Margaret in 1812.

222

marjan debaene and david lainé

Ill. 15.11. Anonymous, Fall of the Rebel Angels (ill. 15.9), IRR, detail

He wrote that they were salvaged from destroyed sixteenth-century altarpieces.12 Thus it is possible that they were modified around this date as well. A closer look Compared to the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, the underdrawing is less visible due to a different kind of application and the use of a dry method. The lines are more precise, with fewer changes in both the drawing and the painting stages. This painter used more hatching and crosshatching in the underdrawing to indicate shadow (ill. 15.10). Nonetheless, there are some compositional similarities, as pointed earlier. A very distinct characteristic of the underdrawing of these two paintings is the enhanced contour lines added in the painting stage. These lines do not stand out when you look at the paintings at first glance, but

when you look at the reflectograms the black lines are very prominent (ill. 15.11). The painting technique is also very different, especially in the flesh tones. This is clear where the Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych painted the flesh tones based on the superposition of glazes, rather flat with very little paint. The painter of the two side panels, on the other hand, used more paint and the flesh tones are built up with alternating lines of different colours. The faces are more expressive because of the vigorous technique with visible brushstrokes. It seems highly likely that these panels originally were part of a triptych combining scenes around the central theme of Good defeating Evil. Continued research based on this new hypothesis might shed more light on the origin question, and maybe even provide us with information regarding the painter of these wings.13

reading between the lines…

NOTES 1 Bruijnen 2011; Louvain 2012; Bruijnen 2012. 2 See: Reekmans 1963; Bruijnen 1999. 3 All infrared reflectography was realised using the IPARC digital infrared camera, a Xenixs Xeva (InGaAs 900–1700 nm); the images have been stitched by David Lainé using Panavue and Adobe Photoshop. 4 Bruijnen 1999, pp. 75-92. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Saint Nicholas Triptych, first half of sixteenth century, oil on panel, 127 ≈ 139 cm (center panel), 125 ≈ 66 cm (wings), Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 339, 340, 366. 5 Debaene 2012b. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, Miraculous Catch of Fish (front), Christ Carrying the Cross (back), Beheading of Saint Catherine (front) and Calvary (back), first half of sixteenth century, oil on panel, 228 ≈ 120 cm each, Louvain, M-Museum, inv. S/12/R, S/13/R. 6 Debaene 2012c. Master of the Saint Nicholas Triptych, two wings depicting the Legend of Saint Roch, first half of sixteenth century, oil on panel, 126.5 ≈ 64 cm and 126.5 ≈ 63.5 cm, Louvain, M-Museum, inv. S/19/O, S/20/O. 7 See: Bruijnen 1999, pp. 75-92.

223

8 Jan II van Coninxloo, Triptych of Saint Anne, 1546, oil on panel, 149 ≈ 162 cm (center panel), 115 ≈ 74 cm (right wing), 114.5 ≈ 74 cm (left wing), Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 338. 9 This wax layer has now been removed during a conservation treatment. Debaene 2013. Unknown painter, Third Apparition of Christ 10 at Lake Tiberias, c. 1500, oil on panel, 65 ≈ 51 cm, Louvain, M-Museum, inv. S/20/R. 11 Debaene 2012a. Anonymous, Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (front), Saint John the Baptist (back), Fall of the Rebel Angels (front), Saint Michael (back), first half of the sixteenth century, oil on panel, 167 ≈ 70 cm and 166 ≈ 70 cm, Louvain, M-Museum, inv. S/87/V, S/11/R. 12 Whether they originated from Saint Peter’s Church or another church in or outside of Louvain is not clear. For references and extended bibliography on these panels, see: Bruijnen 1999, pp. 29-34. 13 One hypothesis is that the centerpiece showed a scene from the apocryphal legend of Saint James the Greater in which he defeats the Saracens as ‘Santiago Matamoros’ in the battle near Clavijo in 834 on a white steed. For an elaborated argumentation on this hypothesis, see: Debaene 2012a, p. 103.

A.

B.

Ill. 16.1. A: Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion, c. 1534, pen and brush brown and grey ink, 176 x 297 mm, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. N 84. B: Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion, central panel of a triptych (wings of ill. 16.3a-b), 1534, oil on panel, 89.5 x 158 cm, Veurne, Church of Saint Nicholas

16

The Triptych of the True Cross in Veurne in Connection to a Drawing in Rotterdam Working Process and Attribution Judith Niessen and Margreet Wolters*

ABSTRACT: An inscription on the reverse of a drawing with a Crucifixion scene (Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen) identifies it as a pattern for a painting in the city of Veurne. A candidate for this painting is the central panel of a Triptych of the True Cross (dated 1534) in Veurne’s Church of Saint Nicholas. To explore the possible relationship between the two works, the triptych was examined with IRR and analysis of the underdrawing led to the conclusion that they are indeed connected. Differences between the two can be explained as a result of turning the composition of the small-scale drawing into the painted composition, intended for a specific location. Stylistic examination of drawing, underdrawing and painted surface also sheds new light on the triptych’s problematic attribution. It shows that it was executed by various hands in a workshop, here identified as from the circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, in which a leading artist was overseeing the work with some distance.

—o— Introduction In the 2012 collection catalogue of early Netherlandish drawings of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam, a partly damaged sixteenth century inscription on the reverse of a large Crucifixion scene was published for the first time (ills. 16.1a, 16.2).1 This text, with a signature underneath, suggests that the drawing served as a preliminary design for a painting in Veurne. In this catalogue it was argued that the painting could be identified with the central panel of the Triptych

with Scenes of the Legend of the True Cross in the Church of Saint Nicholas in Veurne (West Flanders), which is dated 1534 (ill. 16.1b).2 Although both compositions have several points in common, there are also notable differences. To better understand the connection between the two works and to explain these differences, infrared reflectography was used to document the extensive underdrawing, which was already partly visible to the naked eye. The remarkable results of this research, published here for the first time, confirmed the relationship between the two works and led to a clear insight into the working process. It also offered an opportunity to reconsider the problematic attribution of the triptych. Furthermore, in the build up to this article, the transcription of the text was improved with the help of others, and the signature underneath the inscription was identified, helping to clarify the earliest provenance of the triptych. The tradition of the True Cross in Veurne and the provenance of the triptych It was never doubted that the triptych (ills. 16.1b, 16.3a-b) was originally intended for a location within the city of Veurne, as the Veneration of the Cross was very active in this town. Since the twelfth century, a relic of the True Cross, probably

226

judith niessen and margreet wolters

Ill. 16.2. Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion (ill. 16.1a), text on the reverse

presented to Veurne by Diederik van Elzas, Count of Flanders, had been preserved in the Church of Saint Walburga. Until early in the twenthieth century, a procession in honor of the relic was annually held on Kruisvindingsdag, which took place on the 3rd of May.3 This was organized by the Brotherhood of the True Cross, who had its own chapel in the Church of Saint Walburga, for which the confraternity commissioned in 1515 an altarpiece from Bernard van Orley, which was delivered in 1520. Although this commission is well documented, the altarpiece itself is now unfortunately lost.4 Other churches in Veurne joined in the Veneration of the Cross and raised altars for it, including the Church of Saint Nicholas. An inventory of 19 March 1629 mentions an altar of the True Cross, which was, according to this document, situated in the so-called voorkerk, the west side of the church.5 However, no painting on that altar is documented, although it may have been part of

the 33 tafereelen which were present in the voorkerk. The first record of a painting on that altar is in the contractor’s conditions for the renovation of the Altar of the True Cross, then also known as the Altar of Saint Peter, in 1734, where, under nrs. 6 and 7, the care for the painting (schilderije) on the altar is specifically indicated.6 It is however not until 1824 that the first description appears in an inventory. Still situated above the Altar of Saint Peter, the three panels were by then detached, with the central panel hanging above the two wings, these two set in one frame.7 Sometime before 1915 they were apparently joined again in their present form.8 The recently refined transcription of the text on the reverse of the drawing reads ‘Patroon vande tafele vand[en] […] vanden heilighen cruuce binnen […] der stede van Veurne S. De rupl[..]’ (ill. 16.2).9

the triptych of the true cross in veurne in connection to a drawing

As Jan van Acker noted, the signature S. De rupl is most likely that of Simon de Ruple. De Ruple was a pharmacist who lived on the south side of the market square in Veurne and was a member of the Parish of Saint Nicholas, where he was active in 1532 as a board member (dismeester) of the armendis, an institution within the parish led by laymen that provided food and goods for the poor.10 He also contributed the considerable amount of 8 £ par to a collection meant for repair work on the Saint Nicholas Church.11 After his death in early 1537, he was also buried there, in the voorkerk, with an expensive service.12 Although we do not have any information about the circumstances of the commission of this altarpiece, it seems highly likely that with the involvement of Simon de Ruple, the triptych was indeed intended for the Saint Nicholas Church and not for any of the other churches in Veurne, as suggested in the past.13

227

The triptych and its underdrawing All three panels of the triptych in Veurne show episodes from the Legend of the True Cross (ills. 16.1b, 16.3a-b). The legend consists of several prefigurations and rediscovery stories, brought together in Jacobus de Voragine’s thirteenth century Legenda Aurea.14 The central panel shows an elaborate Crucifixion scene that is flanked on the left wing with one of the prefigurations of the True Cross: the story of the Queen of Sheba, who, during her visit to King Solomon in Jerusalem, refused to tread on the wood serving as a bridge and walked through the water instead, as she had seen in a vision that the wood was to be the future cross of Christ (ill. 16.3a). The right wing represents the finding of the cross by Constantine’s mother Helena, and shows the moment the cross revealed its true nature by miraculously restoring a dead man to life (ill. 16.3b). In the background of this scene we see

A.

Ill. 16.3. Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, A: The Queen of Sheba Visiting King Solomon. B: The Finding of the True Cross, wings of a triptych (central panel ill. 16.1b), 1534, oil on panel, 89.5 x 69 cm, Veurne, Church of Saint Nicholas

B.

228

judith niessen and margreet wolters

Judas Cyriacus, who had knowledge of the whereabouts of the cross, but was earlier unwilling to share this with Helena. As a punishment he was thrown in an empty well, where he was only pulled out after hunger persuaded him to reveal the location, which is seen here. When the triptych is closed, the Emperors Heraclius and Constantine, both also related to the story of the True Cross, are shown on one wing, and Saint James the Greater and Saint James the Less adorn the other wing. The attribution of the altarpiece has always been subject to debate and several suggestions for the maker’s identification have been put forward, such as Bernard van Orley, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Jan van Amstel, the French painter Leonard Thiry and Lancelot Blondeel.15 None of these names are however entirely satisfactory, which is a result of the ambiguous character of the triptych. As often noted, it shows the use of several existing motifs and influences from various sources.16 To name a few: the man with the turban on the left wing (representing King Solomon) goes back to one of the Magi from an Adoration scene, invented by the Master of 1518, also identified with Jan Mertens van Dornicke.17 The Deposition in the right background of the central panel is almost literally taken from an invention by Raphael, known in Flanders through prints by Ugo da Carpi and Marcantonio Raimondi.18 The painted horse in the left foreground is a mirror image of the horse in an engraving of 1505 by Albrecht Dürer, and the crouching man lower right is inspired by a figure of Bernard van Orley used in his design for the Crucifixion tapestry, part of the so-called Alba Passion series from 1520-1528.19 In this context it is interesting that there is a great variety in the underdrawing on all three panels. The triptych was examined with infrared reflectography revealing an extensive underdrawing, executed in a dry medium – most likely black chalk – as well as a liquid material applied with a pen or brush.20 Except for the horse on the left of the central panel, where only chalk can be observed, the dry medium is primarily visible in

areas that were altered in a subsequent stage of the underdrawing (ill. 16.4). This leads to the assumption that a first outlining of the composition was done in chalk that was reinforced and changed with a liquid medium during the working process. Because of this, the lines executed in the dry medium are visible only where they are left uncovered during a second drawing phase. The underdrawing consists mainly of contour lines. There is very little hatching present in the central panel only. It concerns parallel hatching only, cross-hatching is not visible. Since it appears to have been done in the liquid medium, the hatching must have been applied in the second stage of the underdrawing. The preparatory layout in each of the panels reveals strong differences in approach, which may point towards an execution by different hands working together in the same workshop. For instance, the thin, chalky lines are detectable to a far lesser degree in the left and right wing than in the central panel. The underdrawing in the liquid medium shows diversity as well. In the left wing a quite precisely executed underdrawing with rather fine lines is present, while the right wing reveals contours that are heavy, thick and rather rough. Furthermore, in the right wing parts of the light/ dark modelling in the underdrawing were applied with a broad brush resembling washes. This aspect is absent in the central panel and the other wing. Two other features are only visible on the left wing, further emphasizing the differences between the panels of the triptych. Firstly, the presence of colour notations should be discussed.21 Five letters or letter combinations were detected. Four of them were found in the group of the male figures on the left. On the shoulder of the man holding his hat an ‘r’ and a ‘p’ were inscribed, abbreviations for red and purple, indicating the colours for the man’s cloak.22 In his hat another ‘r’ for red is visible next to an illegible letter. On the same figure’s upper right leg the word ‘gron’ indicates the colour green. The fact that three out of five notations were found in this figure may be related to his central location

the triptych of the true cross in veurne in connection to a drawing

229

Ill. 16.4. Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion (ill. 16.1b), IRR of the group on the left

within the composition. Two further colour indications are to be found in the central figures of this group: an ‘r’ for red on the upper right leg of King Solomon and a ‘p’ for purple in the undergarment of the Queen of Sheba. As is the case with the other notations, the paint layers were executed in the colour as indicated. Secondly, it should be noted that pouncing can be observed, but in the left wing only. It is present in the group of the Queen of Sheba and her ladies, indicating the use of a perforated cartoon for this part of the composition (ill. 16.5). Most likely the re-use of an existing model drawing was the reason for this local application of the pouncing technique.23 The IRR assembly shows that the pounced design was applied on top of the already underdrawn architecture behind the three women. This can be seen, for instance, in the woman next to the Queen of Sheba (ill. 16.5), where the lines of the ruinous arch are clearly visible underneath the paint layers defining her head.

While applying the pictorial layers the underdrawing on the wings served as a firm guideline, although some deviation does occur. For example, the Queen of Sheba and her company were not painted entirely in accordance with the pounced compositional elements. Most obvious is the change in the Queen’s headdress, which protrudes beyond her face in the pounced underdrawing, but was painted on the back of her head only. The figure of the girl next to the queen shows a minor adjustment of her necklace, with a slightly lower placement in paint. In the group with King Solomon, elements are visible that were not laid out in the underdrawing. This can be seen, for instance, in the knot of fabric of the King’s turban. The architectural elements in the foreground were added at a later stage too. The pedestal covers the front part of the underdrawn right foot belonging to the man holding his hat, while painted vegetation and dark shapes which are difficult to interpret are fully obscured by the wall below.

230

judith niessen and margreet wolters

A.

B.

Ill. 16.5. Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, The Queen of Sheba Visiting King Solomon (ill. 16.3a), head of the woman next to the Queen of Sheba. A: IRR. B: visible light

Adjustments were also made in the background. For example, the summit of the large temple was higher in the underdrawing than in the actual painted surface. Furthermore, the pointed bay windows in the second story of the roof were not planned in the underdrawing, while an underdrawn slender column didn’t make it to the painting stage. The building in the right not only shows changes in relation to the underdrawing, it was altered in shape once more during the application of the paint layers. The windows shifted position, more decoration was added and pinnacles were included. A large tree placed in between both architectural structures was meticulously underdrawn but not executed in the pictorial layers, although the increased transparency of the light paint for the sky makes it visible to the naked eye.24 The underdrawing on the right wing was more closely followed during the application of the paint layers. Only minor changes can be seen. These

include the addition of a hat covering the hair of the man directly to the right of Christ and the slight shift of the shadow on the hat of the figure seen from behind in the foreground. The scene with Judas Cyriacus pulled out of the well in the background was added on top of the paint layers, indicating that not all compositional elements were foreseen in the underdrawing.25 The working method on the central panel is entirely different. Here, an ongoing process of changes in the underdrawing and painting can be observed. This process is closely connected to the use of the Rotterdam drawing as a model for the painting (ill. 16.1a-b). The relation between drawing, underdrawing and painting The composition of the Crucifixion in Rotterdam (ill. 16.1a) is partly similar to the central panel of the triptych. Not only is the narrative style of both

the triptych of the true cross in veurne in connection to a drawing

A.

B.

231

C.

Ill. 16.6. A: Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion (ill. 16.1a), detail: head of the sponge-bearer. B: Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion (ill. 16.1b), soldier, IRR. C: same detail in visible light

works alike, they also feature comparable motifs and stylistic elements, such as the gateway with the Carrying of the Cross in the left background, the horseman with the raised arm to the left, the ground structure with the scattered stones, the edges of the folds where the drapery touches the ground, and the faces of both Mary Magdalenes. However, there are differences that need explaining. The painted Crucifixion (ill. 16.1b) is clearly wider in composition and has a greater emphasis on the diagonal as a result of the changed position of the crosses. The scene also shows a higher and more expansive horizon as opposed to the closer and more frontal disposition of the figures in the drawing. There is further variation in individual motifs. For example, the mourning group with John and the Maries was not only changed in its arrangement, but also traded places with the horseman. These changes can be explained when taking the function of the drawing into consideration. The Rotterdam drawing is a pattern for a painting, as stated on the reverse. More specifically, it may be seen as a preliminary design, in which the artist only worked out the placement and interaction of the figures, in order to give the patron a general idea of what to expect.26 The signature underneath the text on the reverse indicates that the assignment was agreed upon, after which the composition was changed, probably due to the demands of the planned location of the triptych. So the fact

that the viewer was standing below the triptych and had to look up, instead of seeing the scene at eye level, as is the case with the drawing, resulted in the high horizon and the lifting of the three crosses far above the group of soldiers and mourners underneath. Furthermore the triptych may have been located in such a way that it was first encountered by the viewer coming from the right. This is indicated by the changed position of the three crosses in relation to one another and by the horseman to the left and the gateway in the left background, which visually close off the composition. Another motive for change may have been that the central panel is slightly more elongated than the drawing sheet, which may have forced the artist to stretch out the original scene somewhat.27 All these circumstances seemed to have led up to the reshuffling and alterations from drawing to painting. The crucified men are now not only raised higher, they are also relatively closer to one another. As a result the foreground had to be re-organised to fill in the vacant space. On the left this was done by moving the horseman with his raised right arm to the foreground. The group with John and the Maries was then relocated closer to the centre, to stay connected with Christ’s cross. The sponge bearer was transferred to the foreground where he became a plain soldier with a lance. He has taken the place of the crouching executioner grabbing his tools, who moved further to the right. Both figures

232

judith niessen and margreet wolters

in their own right are now working as a repoussoir. Finally, the group of horsemen to the right of Christ has been shifted further to the right. This entire process becomes even clearer when taking the underdrawing of the central panel into account. The IRR assemblies show that some of the figures executed in chalk in the first phase of the underdrawing are much closer to the drawing. Their gradual change towards the actual forms as visible on the painted surface can be understood only when their new position within the composition is also considered. Analysis of the standing soldier seen from behind illustrates this process. In the drawing, standing near the cross, the figure grasps the staff with both hands to offer the sponge with vinegar to Christ. His original function is lost by repositioning him in the foreground of the painting. There, he has become merely a spectator, standing at ease holding a lance with one hand. By looking and extending his left hand towards Christ he now leads the onlooker into the scene. The IRR assembly shows that at first the figure closely followed the drawing. As in the drawing, the helmet in the underdrawing has curled shapes

A.

at the top (ill. 16.6), the soldier holds his lance with both hands (ill. 16.7), he stands with his two feet firmly on the ground and the drapery around his hips and left shoulder is absent.28 Some of these features show lines executed in chalk, thus belonging to the very first phase of the underdrawing. Others are done in the liquid medium, perhaps in part covering the layout in chalk. Deviating from the drawing are the face of the soldier that was underdrawn looking out of the composition over his right shoulder (ill. 16.6), and his left hand placed on the lance in a lower position (ill. 16.7).29 Both are executed in the liquid medium and seem to belong to a second stage. However, chalk lines for a first layout according to the drawing cannot be observed. Therefore, one might assume that the figure was not copied literally from the model on paper.30 Next, the altered appearance of the soldier was further developed. The depiction of the profile, visible in the final painting, was not foreseen in the underdrawing and added in paint only (ill. 16.6ac). Since the representation in profile is comparable with the figure on the model on paper, it can be

B.

C.

Ill. 16.7. A: Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion (ill. 16.1a), detail: body of the sponge-bearer. B: Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion (ill. 16.1b), body of a soldier, IRR. C: same detail in visible light.

the triptych of the true cross in veurne in connection to a drawing

surmised that the drawing (or a derivative of it) was kept at hand during the working process allowing a return to the initial design. The soldier’s pointing left hand was added in paint only as well and gaze and gesture strengthen each other in the way they draw our attention to the savior (ill. 16.6). Since the left hand is now placed next to the soldier’s face, the underdrawn hand on the lance has become superfluous and is not executed in paint (ill. 16.7). In this way the soldier holds the lance with only one hand, which is sufficient since he no longer needs to offer the sponge to Christ as in the drawing. The right arm and hand that were underdrawn in chalk in a lower position, according to the model on paper, are not executed in paint. Probably for a better grip on the weapon the hand was redrawn in the liquid medium higher up on the lance. In this position it was executed in paint (ill. 16.7). The change in appearance of the soldier was further emphasized by placing his left foot on the stone with the date 1534. The firm stance, copied from the model on paper in the first underdrawing stage, had become redundant because the soldier stands at ease now and was therefore not followed. This analysis shows that the steps in the process from the drawing, via the underdrawing to the final paint layers were not clearly defined. During this ongoing creative process the figure was developed gradually, taking into account his new function within the scene. Although less complex, similar procedures can be observed in other figures as well. For example, to the left of the painted head of the man on horseback in the foreground an underdrawn circular shape is visible. It was executed in chalk, and therefore belongs to the first phase of the underdrawing. Also, the fingers of the man’s right hand were spread in the underdrawing while the painted surface shows a pointed index finger with the adjacent fingers curled up. In comparison, it is clear that the first outlining of this figure is closer to the drawing than to its final appearance. Again, these changes can be linked to the man’s new role

233

within the composition. Since he is no longer close to the cross pointing to the Saviour above him, his raised head has become irrelevant and was lowered in order to look towards the group with Mary and John instead. Another significant example of this working process can be found in the horsemen on the right. In the drawing, they point towards the crucified Christ with raised arms and extended fingers. Because they are shifted further to the right in the painting, their gestures would have wrongly focused on the thief and are therefore changed. The IRR image shows that the underdrawing was closer to the drawing here as well. Next to the vertical beam of the cross an arm is visible with extended fingers. The arm seems to be floating and is not attached to one of the figures. This indicates that already in a very early stage of applying the underdrawing, it was realised that the pointing gestures of the men had become irrelevant. Such abrupt interferences may be the result of a leading artist within the workshop, who stepped in at certain moments during the working process, correcting and adjusting the work of assistants. The ongoing working process was not limited to stances and gestures, but also involved a major change in the composition itself. This is visible in the lower right corner, the new position for the crouching man. The IRR assembly shows that this figure was not planned in the first stage of the underdrawing, because the underdrawn hind-legs of the horse are visible underneath the man’s head and arm (ill. 16.8). Since the grey paint for the horse stops at the contour of the man, it is obvious that adding him certainly was not an afterthought. Given the strong differences in approach between the three panels one may conclude that the underdrawing was executed by different hands working together in the same workshop.31 The changes seem to point towards a leading artist in a workshop who was overseeing the work with some distance.

234

judith niessen and margreet wolters

A.

B.

Ill. 16.8. Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion (ill. 16.1b), detail, crouching man. A: IRR. B: same detail in visible light

Attribution The drawing in Rotterdam and the underdrawing of the triptych shed new light on the long standing discussion about the attribution of the altarpiece, whose most recent attribution to Lancelot Blondeel (1496-1561) was mainly done on the basis of a similar use of colours and comparable landscapes.32 This is, however, unconvincing, when comparing the triptych with two signed and dated works on canvas by this artist, the Triptych with Saints Cosmas and Damian (Bruges, Saint James Church) of 1523 and Saint Luke Painting the Virgin (Bruges, Groeningemuseum, inv. O.18) of 1545.33 Blondeel’s handling of figures in both works is more frivolous and detailed, whereas the artist of the Veurne altarpiece painted his characters in a more straightforward manner. The compositional arrangement of the drawing in Rotterdam also evokes memories of some works belonging to the Blondeel-group of drawings. A good example is the Martyrdom of Saint George in London, which is

much larger in size but shows a comparable composition and similar motifs, such as the soldier seen from the back. Without knowing the Rotterdam drawing, Jansen already noted a close connection between the Martyrdom of Saint George (London, British Museum, inv. 1863,0110.3) and the triptych in Veurne.34 However, the similarities here seem to be equally minor. Further scrutiny of both drawings shows that the draughtsman of the Saint George-sheet is far more confident. His vibrant line of pen and predilection for fine and secure hatching is lacking in the Rotterdam drawing, which has a less careful approach. The comparison of the triptych’s underdrawing with IRR assemblies of paintings by Lancelot Blondeel cannot confirm an identification of the maker with Blondeel either. The underdrawing in Blondeel’s works has a very different character. In the Triptych with Saints Cosmas and Damian for instance, an abundance of hatching is present, which is completely absent in the Veurne triptych.35 Taking

the triptych of the true cross in veurne in connection to a drawing

drawing, triptych and underdrawing all into consideration, it seems unlikely that the Bruges artist Lancelot Blondeel, or a workshop from his circle was responsible for the altarpiece. Once ascribed to Bernard van Orley (c. 1491/14921542), the drawing in Rotterdam was attributed in 2012 to an artist in the circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst (1502-1550).36 Although Coecke is a much better and more refined artist, the influence on the draughtsman of the Rotterdam sheet is obvious, if we take Coecke’s well-defined oeuvre in this medium as a starting point for comparison.37 The Crucifixion shows for example a similar rendering of line with hooks and curls accentuating folds and movements, comparing it to drawings by Coecke such as his Carrying of the Cross, also in Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. MB 1958/ T9).38 The broad floating of garments and the facial types are related as well. Likewise, the triptych brings to mind elements from the work of Pieter Coecke van Aelst. The earlier mentioned king Solomon on the left panel is a figure type invented by the Master of 1518, but one that was also used by Coecke and his workshop.39 The soldier with a lance, seen from the back, is reminiscent of Joshua in Joshua’s Victory over Ai (Paris, Fondation Custodia, Coll. Frits Lugt, inv. 4818), a signed design for a tapestry by Coecke, where he is not only depicted at the same position but also in a similar pose.40 The facial types also look back to Coecke; see, for example, the figure of Helena depicted on the right wing, which can be compared to one of the Maries to the right of the cross in Coecke’s Deposition Triptych in Lisbon (Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, inv. 112).41 It seems that the workshop responsible for the Veurne triptych at least had knowledge of works or designs by Coecke and was aware of his working methods, as can be also seen with IRR. Similarities exist with the underdrawing in paintings by Pieter Coecke van Aelst as well, for instance in comparable long lines executed in a liquid medium, ending in hooks and curved shapes.42 This influence of Pieter Coecke

235

van Aelst, that can be observed in the Rotterdam drawing, as well as in the underdrawing and in the final painting, makes it likely that the triptych was made by a workshop led by an anonymous artist from the circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst. N OTES * English editing Claire van den Donk, RKD, The Hague and Richard Charlton Jones, Sotheby’s, London. We are grateful to Prof. Dr. J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer and Dr. Yvette Bruijnen for their comments. The historian Jan van Acker kindly shared his extensive archival knowledge on Veurne in an e-mail correspondence during the Fall of 2014. All references to archival documents in this article are taken from this. 1 Pen and brush in brown and grey ink, washed in grey, brown and ochre (partly of later date), frame lines in grey, 176 ≈ 297 mm. See: Bleyerveld, Elen, Niessen 2012, inv. N 84. 2 Measurements: central panel: 89.5 ≈ 158 cm; wings: 89.5 ≈ 69 cm. 3 Van de Velde 1855, pp. 143-228; De Potter, Ronse, Borre 18731875, vol. 2, pp. 203-222; Provoost 2006; Van Acker 2008. Diederik’s brother Boudewijn was provost of the chapter of Veurne: Provoost 2006, pp. 451-452. 4 For a full transcription of the documents concerning this commission, see: Carton, Van de Putte 1861-1863. For a summary of the commission and further references, see: Galand 2013, pp. 53-56. The most likely candidates, Orley’s Saint Helena Before the Pope in Brussels (Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSKB/MRBAB), inv. 4999) and Charlemagne Depositing the Relics of the Passion in Turin (Galleria Sabauda, inv. 317), have recently been rejected as such by both Hendrikman and Galand for different reasons: Hendrikman 2001, pp. 30-38; Galand 2013, pp. 194-195, ill. p. 172, fig. 141, p. 178, fig. 146. For the historiography of these two panels, with further references, see: Galand 2013, pp. 173-184. 5 A full transcription can be found in: Duclos 1879, pp. 335-355, specifically p. 354. The document could not be traced by Judith Niessen, probably a result of the reclassification of the entire city archives after the First World War, when it was also partly transferred to the State Archives Bruges (SAB). The location of the voorkerk was discussed with Dr. Merlijn Hurx, Utrecht University in an e-mail correspondence with Judith Niessen, February 2015. 6 De Potter, Ronse, Borre 1873-1875, vol. 2, p. 270. They are the first to mention this source, but without reference. This source was identified by Jan van Acker: Dean’s Archives Veurne (DAV), inv. 133, 09.10.1734. 7 The inventory was part of a large inventory of monuments in West-Flanders: Devliegher 1968, p. 142, nr. 2, p. 145, nr. 8. It was also mentioned in an inventory of 1858, apparently in the same state as in 1824: the Inventaris van de Kerkfabriek van den Heiligen Nicolaes binnen de Stad Veurne toebehooren, 1 april 1858, section 6 (‘en eene schilderie verbeeldende de Kruising van Christus en de kruisvinding dragende het Jaerletter 1534’). DAV 17. Also mentioned by: Bergmans 1971, p. 40, note 5. 8 The triptych was at least in its current state when exhibited in Paris in 1915: Mesnil 1915, p. 46. After the restoration of 1975 it was placed on the High Altar, until c. 2000. Gyselen 1976, p. 122; remark Jan van Acker. 9 Pattern of the painting of the […]/of the holy cross within […]/the city of Veurne/S. De rupl[..]: This text is transcribed with the kind help of Yvette Bruijnen, Marten Jan Bok and Jan van Acker. Van Acker was able to transcribe and identify the signature. 10 State Archives Bruges (SAB), Veurne registers 558, fol. 31v, 22.09.1525. Dismeester: Dean’s Archives Veurne (DAV), 35-36, unfol.,

236

judith niessen and margreet wolters

01.06.1531-09.03.1533 ns, 09.03.1533 ns-14.03.1535 ns. On the armendis, see: Zevenbergen 2012-2013, pp. 7-8 (consulted online 16.03.2015). De Ruple is also mentioned as a bailiff of a seignourie belonging to the Groeninge Abbey of Kortrijk, in 1535. State Archives Kortrijk (SAK), Archief Abdij Groeninge, 381, 1535. 11 DAV 127. 12 Burial: DAV, 37, unfol., 21.01.1537 ns-12.01.1539 ns. 13 In our lecture on 13 September and before the identification of the signature, Judith Niessen suggested that the painting may have come from the Saint Denis Church after this church was closed down and its contents were transferred to the Saint Nicholas Church in 1706-1707. Dewilde, Van Acker 1996, pp. 244, 248; De Potter, Ronse, Borre 1873-1875, vol. 2, pp. 292, 294. E-mail correspondence Jan van Acker 13.11.2014. In 1704-1705 payments were made for the compilation of a list of objects that were to be moved from the Saint Denis Church to the Saint Nicholas Church. This list however is lost. 14 Jacobus de Voragine 1993, vol. 1, pp. 277-284, vol. 2, pp. 168173. Baert (2001, specifically pp. 13, 15-49, 254-268) provides a thorough discussion of the traditional representation of the legend. 15 De Potter, Ronse, Borre 1873-1875, vol. 2, p. 270 (Van Orley); Hymans 1883, pp. 250-253; Mesnil 1915, pp. 46-49 (student Van Orley); Krönig 1936, pp. 17, 48, 91-92, 124-125 (Coecke van Aelst); Marlier 1966, pp. 396-397 (student Van Orley/ not Coecke); Bergmans 1971 (Van Amstel); Gyselen 1976, pp. 125-128 (Van Amstel); Hoogewerff 1954, p. 413 (Studio Coecke van Aelst); Dacos 2012, p. 80 (Thiry). 16 For an overview with references, see: Jansen in Bruges 1998b, p. 110. 17 See for example the version (in reverse) in Vittoria-Gasteiz, Museo de Bellas Artes de Alava, inv. 33, reproduced in Marlier 1966, p. 131, fig. 55. 18 On Da Carpi: Illustrated Bartsch 1978-, vol. 48, nr. 22 (43), ill. On Raimondi, see: Illustrated Bartsch 1978-, vol. 26, nr. 32 (37), ill. 19 On Dürer, see: Illustrated Bartsch 1978-, vol. 10, nr. 97 (106); For the design by Van Orley, see: Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, Graphische Sammlung, inv. 1720, ill. in Ainsworth 1990, p. 58, fig. 23. For Van Orley’s tapestry, see: ill. in Galand 2013, p. 70, fig. 47. 20 The triptych was examined on 28.11.2013 and 15.05.2014 with an Osiris Camera. The research team consisted of Alice Taatgen, Micha Leeflang and both authors. The entire inside of the triptych was documented while some parts were taken in detail as well. Given the situation in the church it was not possible to examine the outer wings. Although the dry material for the underdrawing has not been analyzed, visually, it appears to be black chalk. For the difficulties in identifying underdrawing materials, see: Kirby, Roy, Spring 2002, pp. 26-27. 21 For an overview of the use of colour notations, see: Wolters 2011, pp. 209-217.

22 The ‘r’ is written as a ‘z’, the sixteenth century orthography for the letter ‘r’. 23 This group follows the Netherlandish convention of ‘presentation’-scenes, see for example the correspondence with Saint Helena before the Pope by Bernard van Orley in Brussels, referred to in note 4. 24 For the increasing transparency of paint layers, see: Wolters, Wallert 1999, p. 43. 25 Most of the small-scale scenes on the central panel were added on top of the paint layers as well. 26 On the function and variations of the pattern: Robinson, Wolff 1986, p. 26; Helmus 2010, pp. 125-132. On preliminary design, see also: Alsteens in New York 2014, pp. 114-115, nrs. 25-26. 27 The length/height ratio is 1.77 for the panel and 1.69 for the drawing sheet. 28 The addition of drapery in a later stage of the working process is visible in other places as well, for instance in the man on horse back on the left. Also, the upper ends of spears and lances were not foreseen in the underdrawing and painted on top of already existing paint layers. 29 Due to the fact that the dark paint of the helmet is impenetrable to IRR, only the lower part of a face with a moustache can be seen. With thanks to Micha Leeflang for this observation. 30 It cannot be excluded that there existed an intervening step between drawing and underdrawing. 31 Further analysis of the pictorial layers will give more thorough information about the division of labor during the execution in paint. This was not possible within the scope of this article. 32 Faggin 1968, pp. 41, 49-51; Boon 1976, pp. 116-117; Jansen in Bruges 1998b, p. 110. 33 Bruges 1998a, nrs. 78, 82. 34 297 ≈ 539 mm. Bruges 1998a, nr. 81; Bruges 1998b, p. 111. 35 For the underdrawing in works by Lancelot Blondeel, see: Jansen in Bruges 1998b, nrs. 78, 82, 83, 92. 36 The drawing was bought by Franz Koenigs in 1927 as Bernard van Orley and subsequently ended up in the museum under this name. Niessen in Bleyerveld, Elen, Niessen 2012, nr. N 84. 37 Alsteens in New York 2014, p. 112; Alsteens 2014. 38 237 ≈ 176 mm. Bleyerveld, Elen, Niessen 2012, nr. MB 1958/ T9; Alsteens 2014, pp. 301, 331-332, nr. A22, repr. p. 304, fig. 36. 39 See for example in reverse in the Adoration of the Magi in Madrid (Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. P02703). See: Marlier 1966, fig. 56. 40 272 ≈ 340 mm. Alsteens 2014, pp. 281, 333, nr. A27, repr. p. 280, fig. 7; New York 2014, nr. 58. 41 New York 2014, nr. 22. 42 See: Jansen 2006, figs. 5-7.

Ill. 17.1. Pieter I Claeissens, Mass of Saint Gregory, oil on panel, after 1540, 66.1 x 77.8 cm, Houston, Texas, Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation, inv. 1963.1

17

The Contribution of Technical Art History to the Reconstruction of the Oeuvre of Pieter I Claeissens Anne van Oosterwijk*

ABSTRACT: For a long time no works could be attributed with certainty to Pieter I Claeissens (Bruges, 1499/15001574). As a result he remained a relatively unknown artist. Pieter I is the pater familias of an artist family that spanned three generations, and his style is often confused with that of his sons and (great-) grandsons. It is particularly difficult to distinguish Pieter I’s style from the styles of his sons Gillis and Pieter II. Moreover, Pieter I’s reputation suffered due to the mediocre quality of work of some of his offspring. As a consequence, the Claeissens name is often used as a generic name for all mediocre art in Bruges during the second half of the sixteenth century. Recently, a latinized signature present on five paintings could be identified as Pieter I Claeissens’ autograph. These five paintings constitute the foundation for further research and reconstruction of his oeuvre. This paper discusses the results of technical research on some of the signed paintings. Specific attention will be paid to the underdrawing, the construction of paint layers and Pieter’s use of paint to achieve certain visual effects. This paper aims to formulate objectives for further attributions so as to distinguish Pieter I’s oeuvre from the oeuvres of his sons and anonymous contemporaries.

—o— By the second half of the sixteenth century, Bruges had lost its leading role in the arts and was no longer the blossoming metropolis the city had been during the fifteenth century. This decline also affected the art trade and production. Few artists remained active in Bruges and only a few apprentices were registered in this period of time.

In contrast to the thoroughly researched art of the ‘Flemish Primitives’, the art production from the 1540s onwards has been mostly studied through the oeuvres of Pieter Pourbus, Marcus Gerards and Johannes Stradanus.1 What has been lacking significantly in this research area is the study of the artist family Claeissens. The significance of Pourbus’ (almost) exact contemporary Pieter I Claeissens has rarely been acknowledged. He has often been regarded as less talented than his well-known contemporaries and predecessors.2 Nevertheless, Pieter I is the father of a family of seven painters who all fulfilled a prominent role and had a large share in the art production in Bruges in the second half of the sixteenth and the early seventeenth century.3 Excluding this family from studies therefore, unavoidably leads to erroneous assumptions and conclusions about the art production in Bruges during the economic recession of the sixteenth century. From documents is known that the family members worked in the father’s workshop for some time after reaching adulthood and even after becoming a master.4 They probably received at least a part of their education in the workshop as well. The eldest son of Pieter Claeissens, named Gillis, made great efforts to continue his father’s workshop by gradually buying out his brothers and mother.5 It is there-

240

anne van oosterwijk

fore not surprising that the similarities in the painting styles of these various painters encumber the study of this painter family. Nevertheless, in order to make further research possible, it is important to be able to distinguish their oeuvres from one another. Not all the family members signed their paintings in a consistent manner.6 The starting point therefore is to disentangle the oeuvre of Pieter I from the other oeuvres of his children and grandchildren, and in the broader scope of that of his contemporaries. To tackle this problem, the works of art by the Claeissens family were examined with technical means for the first time. Recent exploratory research with infrared photography (IR) and reflectography (IRR), X-radiography and the microscope have revealed characteristic working methods that were previously not recognized.7 The results of this technical research on a painting signed by Pieter I now in the Blaffer Collection in Houston, Texas, and the preliminary results of two signed panels in Santoña, Spain, will be discussed here. The aim is to set criteria for further attributions. In the second part of this article, these criteria will be used to make a start in distinguishing Pieter I’s oeuvre from that of his sons and (anonymous) contemporaries. Characteristics of Pieter I Claeissens’ painting style In contrast to his offspring, little is known about Pieter I. Documental sources are scarce and only one archival document can be connected with a work of art that still exists.8 This documented painting – the Resurrection (Bruges, Saint Saviour’s Cathedral) – unfortunately, is not entirely painted by Pieter I alone. From documents is known that in 1573 one of his sons collaborated on this painting and Pieter II restored it in 1585 after the Calvinist regime. Therefore this painting cannot be studied to distinguish and determine Pieter I’s style. For a long time no other paintings could be attributed with certainty to Pieter I. Attributions were done without the benefit of a clear reference

of Pieter I’s style, and were mostly based on knowledge of the art of his offspring.9 Only recently, a latinized signature which has been known since the early twentieth century and reads opus petri nicolai moravli brvgis in flandria in platea q dicit ovde sack was convincingly connected to Pieter I Claeissens by Didier Martens and Barbara Kiss.10 Five paintings bear this autograph with small variations. It was used in the Mass of Saint Gregory, which is currently in the Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation in Houston, Texas (ill. 17.1) and in two paintings depicting Saint Jerome and Saint Sebastian in the altarpiece of the Santa Maria del Puerto Church in Santoña, Spain (ill. 17.2a-b).11 Two paintings depicting the Visitation and Saint John at Patmos also bear the autograph, but their current whereabouts are unknown.12 These five paintings constitute the foundation for the reconstruction of Pieter I’s oeuvre, and are a key element in understanding his work. A close examination of the painting in Houston and the two panels in Santoña provides a lot of information about Pieter I as a painter. The three paintings show a hand characterized by intricate play of light and shadows, care for detail and ornaments and accuracy in the rendering of various fabrics and materials. This interest in detail is also manifestly present in the textures of the textiles that were emphasized by scraping a tool through the wet paint or by hatching meticulously with paint in a light color to mark the folds. The figure types created by Claeissens have long narrow faces with a thin straight nose and prominent cheekbones. The faces are shaped with attention to creases, wrinkles and the softness of the skin. The artist paid close attention to the depiction of hair by rendering individual hairs over a general tone of color. His figures are often moving like wood puppets and the limbs are at times attached to the body in a rather unnatural way. Figures are clustered in groups in the background of a composition and when depicted in group, the figures are often placed in close interaction to one another and do not have any room for movement.

the reconstruction of the oeuvre of pieter i claeissens

241

A.

B.

Ill. 17.2. Pieter I Claeissens, A: Saint Jerome; B: Saint Sebastian, details of the Altarpiece of Saint Bartholomew, 1561, oil on panel, 122 x 108 cm, Santoña, Santa Maria del Puerto Church

Characteristics of Pieter I Claeissens’ working methods Despite the characteristics of the composition and paint layers of the Houston and Santoña panels described, difficulties remain in distinguishing Pieter I’s style of that of his descendants, and sometimes also of his contemporaries, especially Pieter Pourbus and Ambrosius Benson. Maryan Ainsworth explained in her 1989 study that the examination of the first sketch on the grounded panel might be of help in this quest.13 While these socalled underdrawings are often ‘the most spontaneous and personal expression of his [the artist’s] endeavor’, these might be particularly helpful to distinguish the hand of an artist from others also active in the same workshop. The underdrawing was usually not meant to be seen and was covered up by the paint, while the top layers on the other hand were meant to have the same stylistic appearances and thus should show few distinctions. The study of underdrawing may therefore help in defining individual styles, and the characteristics of the working style will consequently further be specified

in this paper by describing the underdrawing of the Mass of Saint Gregory (Houston), signed by Pieter I Claeissens. The Mass of Saint Gregory is underdrawn in a fluent medium. The lines drawn to delineate the shapes are sometimes re-drawn, except for the bigger folds in the textiles; these are drawn in continuous lines.14 The lines that indicate shadows seems to be quickly drawn in long parallel hatching, close to each other. In the Houston panel, the fine play of folds in the textile that touches the ground is drawn with long lines marking the folds and rows of small hatchings drawn criss-cross around it (ill. 17.3). The big shapes of the face, the jaw bone, the bridge of the nose, and the contours of the face are drawn with a single line. The eyebrows, the eye lids and the line of the eyes are all indicated with one short line (ill. 17.4). Finally, in all the faces, the wrinkles which run from the nose to the mouth, the eye bags and the philtrum are indicated with a single line. The ornaments which Pieter I seems so keen on to paint, do not show an underdrawing in the IR photographs and IR reflec-

242

anne van oosterwijk

Ill. 17.3. Pieter I Claeissens, Mass of Saint Gregory (ill. 17.1), IR, detail

Ill. 17.4. Pieter I Claeissens, Mass of Saint Gregory (ill. 17.1), IR, detail

the reconstruction of the oeuvre of pieter i claeissens

243

tograms anywhere. The somewhat untidy underdrawing of Pieter I leaves some room for interpretation and differs in this aspect with the underdrawing of, for example, Pieter Pourbus. Despite the untidiness of the underdrawing, the X-radiographs made of Claeissens’ paintings do not show extensive changes to the compositions. Some profiles were moved, gestures were slightly changed, and less important parts in the background were adapted, but no remarkable adjustments in the composition were made. Besides this, the lines that indicate the folds in the Houston panel, do give the impression that they were traced, which might indicate that a sketch was made with a material that is not detectable by infrared photography (IR), or a transfer technique was used to indicate these folds.15 This leads to the hypothesis that, during the painting process, Pieter I Claeissens relied on drawings on paper. The use of sketches during the painting process, together with the stylistic qualities described above, turn out to be important criteria for attribution as will be discussed now.

have rounded endings, which indicated these were drawn quickly. Cross-hatching is rare in these underdrawings. In contrary, the lines used for the larger shadows are long, often interrupted lines in one direction. The liquid medium causes differentiation in the thickness of the lines. Towards the

New attributions It is on these grounds that two paintings, of which one was previously attributed to Ambrosius Benson and one to Pieter Pourbus or Pieter II Claeissens, were re-attributed to Pieter I Claeissens. The first painting depicts Saint Ursula with the Virgins (Oviedo, Museo de Bellas Artes) and was attributed to Ambrosius Benson by E. Bermejo (ill. 17.5). Ana Diéguez Rodríguez suggested this painting might be by Pieter I Claeissens instead.16 Of the two paintings that will be discussed in this paragraph the structure of the underdrawing of the Ursula panel is the closest in style and appearance to that of the Houston panel. The characteristic contour lines in the faces, clothes and folds are present. Short hatchings are placed in an angle to these long lines, to mark the shadows (ill. 17.6). These lines give again the impression that they are traced, which is less the case for the hatchings, which is depending of the type of shadow, differs in angle compared to the other lines. Often these

Ill. 17.6. Pieter I Claeissens, Saint Ursula (ill. 17.5), IRR, detail

Ill. 17.5. Pieter I Claeissens, Saint Ursula, oil on panel, Oviedo, Museo des Bellas Artes Asturias, inv. 30544

244

anne van oosterwijk

edges of the shadowed areas the structure of lines gets thinner. Less important shapes in the background are only marked with the outlines and sometimes the folds are indicated. The overall underdrawing does indicate a methodical way of working, but not a neat one. The similarities in the underdrawing between the Houston and the Oviedo panels, support the attribution made by Diéguez-Rodríguez. The second painting that will be discussed here are the shutters of a triptych depicting Abbot Antonius Wydoot and Saint Anthony at the inner side and the Lactatio Bernardi on the outside of the shutters.17 The main panel got lost. It was Dirk De Vos who attributed these paintings to Pieter  I Claeissens, based on deduction by chronology. The sons of Pieter I were only registered as free masters in 1566 and the shutters were made before this date.18 The study of the underdrawing of Abbot Antonius Wydoot and Saint Anthony and on the Lactatio Bernardi on the verso supports on the one hand De Vos’ attribution of this painting to Pieter I Claeissens, as well as adds to our knowledge of the underdrawing style and technique of Pieter I.19 In the underdrawing of the Bruges paintings the same approach of delineating the shapes and folds in the clothing can be found. They are accompanied by long hatchings as well as short hatchings in all directions to indicate the shades (ill. 17.7). In the Bruges paintings, Pieter I makes a distinction between the main figures in the composition and the background, which he prepares only in a very sketch-like manner. The underdrawing of the clothes of Saint Bernard, in contrast to these of the verso of the panels, shows besides a deliberate underdrawing for certain parts, also areas where a lot of changes occur (for example in the areas were the folds touch the ground) (ill. 17.8). The character of the underdrawing differs in these areas from these of the Houston and Oviedo panels. These adjustments make clear that Pieter I is in this case still searching for the final composition. A possible explanation for this might be the difference in

scale as the Bruges panels are bigger than the Mass of Saint Gregory and the Ursula-panel and show only one figure per panel. But above all, the Bruges shutters are a unique composition since they were made for a patron who might have influenced the underdrawing process by specifying his demands in the designing stage. Therefore, although the underdrawing of the Bruges shutters show more changes and is even less neat than the underdrawing of the Houston and Oviedo panels, the same characteristics can still be distinguished. This supports the attribution by Dirk De Vos to Pieter I Claeissens. These three paintings constitute a coherent group of paintings, which will therefore all be attributed to the artist of the Houston panel, Pieter I Claeissens. The group of paintings not only shows similarities in the underdrawings, but also in the function the underdrawing must have had in the painting process. Although the degree of elaboration of the underdrawings is not the same in all three paintings, in all cases the underdrawing determines the composition worked out in paint, and shows specific interest in folds, structure of the faces and the shadow areas in the paint. In all three paintings the underdrawing leaves room for interpretation. Together with a study of the paint layers and stylistic features, the underdrawing provides us with a clear lead for future attributions. That is, if it is presumed that the underdrawing always has the same function. Unfortunately, this turned out to not always be the case. Recently, the Ontaneda Triptych of the Royal Museum in Brussels was investigated with IRR (ill. 17.9). For a long time, this triptych was attributed to Antoon Claeissens, Pieter’s second son. However, recently Martens and Kiss convincingly attributed the triptych to his father.20 The scholars pointed out the great similarities in composition, as well as specific shapes and details in the composition with signed works by Pieter I. Most striking is the head of Saint Francis, which is identical to that of one of the monks in the Houston panel (see ills. 17.1, 17.9).21

the reconstruction of the oeuvre of pieter i claeissens

Ill. 17.7. Pieter I Claeissens, Abbot Wydoot, 1557-1561, oil on panel, Bruges, Groeningemuseum, inv. 0000.GRO1654.I, IRR, detail

245

246

anne van oosterwijk

Ill. 17.8. Pieter I Claeissens, Saint Bernard, 1557-1561, oil on panel, Bruges, Groeningemuseum, inv. 0000.GRO1654.I, IRR, detail

the reconstruction of the oeuvre of pieter i claeissens

247

Ill. 17.9. Pieter I Claeissens (?), Ontaneda Triptych, Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 2594

The underdrawing of this painting, detected with IRR in the main panel, is build up in three phases (ill. 17.10). A cartoon with pouncing holes was used to indicate the outlines of this madonna. The underdrawing sketchily traces the lines made by the cartoon. During this process, the composition of the cartoon was changed in some places. In the next phase this underdrawing was worked out with broad lines applied in a fluent medium, marking the shaded areas. These broad lines are the shadows, rather than the indication by hatchings of where the shadow should be painted. They seem to have a function as underpainting, which implies a different way of working. Artists started to use this technique in the late sixteenth century to speed up the process of painting. If the shadows were already worked out in the underdrawing, then fewer layers of paint were needed. So the artist could work more quickly and lower the production costs of the work of art.

What does this finding mean for our understanding of the oeuvre of Pieter I Claeissens? Did he switch between various methods of working, depending on the assignment? Did an employee or one of his sons draw and paint this underdrawing? Or is this painting not a work by Pieter I Claeissens? His sons, three of which were artists themselves, had full access to their father’s models. Did they re-use the models, but switched to other techniques in order to complete the paintings faster? Could one of the sons instead of Pieter I be the artist of this triptych? Further research on the oeuvres of father and sons is needed to answer these questions. Conclusion For now this paper has shown that Pieter I Claeissens has a specific underdrawing style which he used in his signed painting in Houston and which was also used in several other paintings. This type

248

anne van oosterwijk

Ill. 17.10. Pieter I Claeissens (?), Ontaneda Triptych (ill. 17.9), IRR, detail

the reconstruction of the oeuvre of pieter i claeissens

of underdrawing distinguishes itself from that of Pieter’s contemporaries and therefore can be used as a tool for attribution. Whether this was only one of various types of underdrawings Pieter  I Claeissens used, remains a question for now. Further research might answer these questions, and undoubtedly will help to interpret the underdrawing of the Ontaneda Triptych as well. The reconstructed oeuvre of Pieter I Claeissens forms the basis for further research, in which questions about patronage and marketing strategies will be answered. A more thorough knowledge of the underestimated oeuvre of this artist, together with that of his offspring and Pieter Pourbus, is essential in order to be able to draw conclusions about the art market in Bruges in the second half of the sixteenth century. NOTES * Special thanks go to: Till-Holger Borchert, Véronique Bücken, Miriam Bueso, Ana Diéguez-Rodríguez, Clara Gonzalez-Fanjul, Maximiliaan Martens, Vanessa Paumen and Leslie Scattone. 1 Of these artists, only Pourbus remained in Bruges his entire professional life. Gerards and Stradanus left Bruges for England and Italy respectively. 2 For example: Campbell 1998b, p. 851. 3 The family produced seven artists in three generations. The first generation: Pieter I Claeissens (1499/1500-1576); the second generation: Gillis (1536/1537-1605), Antonius (1541/1542-1613), Pieter II (†1623); the third generation: Pieter III († 1612- son of Pieter II), Jan (†1653), and Pieter-Antonius or Pieter IV (†1607-son of Antonius). Only the painters from this family are mentioned here, not the offspring who held other professions. 4 Dewilde 2009, p. 33. 5 Dewilde 2009, p. 42. 6 The art signed by the second and third generation affected the name Claeissens, which became a collective noun for art of mediocre quality from Bruges. It obscured the oeuvre of Pieter I Claeissens and, moreover, caused a depreciation of his art. 7 Anne van Oosterwijk, The Adjustment of a Triptych by Pieter I Claeissens: Exceptional Case or Common Practice?, in Maryan Ainsworth (ed.), Workshop Practice in Early Netherlandish Painting: Case Studies from Van Eyck through Gossart, Turnhout, forthcoming (2017). 8 Documents indicate that in addition to Pieter I, Pieter II also worked extensively on this piece of art. As a consequence, researchers face difficulties in distinguishing the style of Pieter I. See: Eva Tahon in Bruges 1998b, p. 153, nr. 123. 9 See: Eva Tahon in Bruges 1998a, p. 216 and Bruges 1998b, pp. 147-150, nrs. 116-120; De Vos 1979, pp. 99-102. The attributions by De Vos (a triptych with a Crucifixion and two shutters of a triptych with Saint Anthony and Abbot Antonius Wydoot depicted on the inside and the Lactatio Bernardi on the reverse, both Groeningemuseum Bruges) are based on deduction by chronology. The sons of Pieter I were only registered as free masters in 1566. Both paintings were made before this date.

249

10 Martens, Kiss 2003, pp. 122-128; Martens 2004, pp. 117-128. James Weale (1911, p. 172) mentioned as early as 1911 the possibility that the latinized signature could be identified as Pieter I Claeissens. This suggestion was not included in the research until Didier Martens’s publication in 2004. See for example the entries of Eva Tahon in Bruges 1998b, pp. 147-150, nrs. 116-120. Tahon writes that nothing is known with certainty about this artist; the research seems to be stuck. 11 The whole altarpiece and the panel of Saint Jerome are depicted in the article of Martens and Kiss (2003, figs. 7, 10). The signature on the Mass of Saint Gregory reads opus petri nicolai moravli brvgis in flandria in platea q dicit ovde sack. The one on Saint Jerome in Santoña is opus petri nicolai morauli brugis in flandria in platea q dicitr de houde sack and on the Saint Sebastian reads opus petri nicolai. 12 The Visitation is signed opus petri nicolai and measures 122 by 94 cm. It was last seen in 1951 in the collection of Count Bobrinsky in London. See: RKD online image database, artwork nr. 35905 (consulted September 13, 2015). The painting Saint John at Patmos was auctioned from the collection of Baron de Brouwer at R. Keyaerts auctioneers on 6 October 1947 in Brussels (lot 46). This work of art carries the signature o […] nicolai moravli brvgis in flandria in platea q dicit r de ovde[.]ack and measures 68 by 95 cm. This painting was last seen by an art dealer in 2007, but its current whereabouts are unknown. See: RKD online image database, artwork nr. 241703 (consulted September 13, 2015). 13 Ainsworth 1989, p. 6. 14 Infrared reflectographs (IRR) were made with the Artist camera, operating at a wavelengths from 900-1100nm. The photo was made by Maureen Eck and Bert Samples. 15 The Houston panel was investigated with infrared photography (IR), while the Bruges paintings were studied with infrared reflectography (IRR). Since IR works on a lower range of wavelengths than IRR, it might not have registered the full underdrawing. 16 Diéguez Rodríguez 2005, pp. 60-65. See also: Diéguez Rodríguez 2012. The IRR was made on 19 April 2012 by the Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España by Ángeles Anaya, Tomás Antelo, Rocio Bruquetas, Miriam Bueso, Araceli Gabaldón, Ana Garcia and Carmen Vega. A camera with a InGaAs censor was used, operating at a wavelength range of 900 to 1700 nm and registering images of 640 pixels ≈ 512 pixels. The software varim was used to stich the mosaic. I am grateful to Miriam Bueso and Clara Glez-Fanjul for making these IRR documents available to me. 17 An image of the painting can be found at http://www.erfgoedinzicht.be/beeldbank/indeling/detail/form/main/start/6?q_ searchfield=Claeissens (last consulted at 13 September 2015). 18 De Vos 1979, pp. 99-102. The attribution to Pourbus was done during the 1902 exhibition. Hulin de Loo (1902) was the first to suggest the panels were painted by Pieter II Claeissens. 19 Infrared reflectograms (IRR) were made with an osiris infrared camera, operating at wavelengths from 900 to 1700 nm. The prototype of this camera was developed at the scientific department of the National Gallery London, and taken into production by Opus Instruments ltd. The osiris camera has an InGaAs array sensor with an object resolution down to 0.05 mm. The 150 mm lens consists of 6 elements and has a focal length from f/5.6 to f/45. The image size is user selectable horizontally as well as vertically between 512 ≈ 512 to 4096 ≈ 4096 pixels. The legibility of the images is only enhanced by histogram correction and the application of an unsharp mask in Gimp 2.8. The panels were recorded with an f/11 diaphragm and indirectly illuminated at 1000 Lux by reflectors with 2 ≈ 300 W Tungsten Halogen Elinchrom Scanlite 300. The research was performed by Maximiliaan Martens of the Ghent interdisciplinary centre for Art & Science (University of Ghent, Belgium), Guenevere Souffreau and Anne van Oosterwijk. 20 Martens, Kiss 2003, pp. 122-129. 21 Martens, Kiss 2003, pp. 122-129.

Ill. 18.1. Jan de Beer, Flight into Egypt, c. 1516-1518, oil on panel, 62.2 x 22.6 cm, USA, Private Collection

18

Two ‘New’ Paintings by Jan de Beer Technical Studies, Connoisseurship and Provenance Research Peter van den Brink and Dan Ewing

ABSTRACT: This article presents two paintings by Jan de Beer, both today in the same private American collection. They have been examined with infrared reflectography and X-radiography, and with dendrochronological analyses supplied by Peter Klein. The unpublished Flight into Egypt appeared at auction in 2002 in New York as School of Patinir, and was subsequently discovered as a Jan de Beer when Peter van den Brink saw it in the studio of Rhona MacBeth in Boston. The Annunciation, on the other hand, has long been known, published by Max J. Friedländer in 1915. However, it had already disappeared from view by 1910. It resurfaced in a 2005 Amsterdam sale and is finally accessible to scholars. The research on this Annunciation, by both art historians, has uncovered new information on the painting, its provenance history, its place in De Beer’s chronology, its status as a model for other painters, and the way it has been produced.

—o— The oeuvre of the Antwerp painter Jan de Beer (c. 1475-1527/1528), an artist rediscovered by Georges Hulin de Loo in 1902, was defined for the first time by Max J. Friedländer in his publications on Antwerp Mannerism in 1915 and 1933.1 The first serious attempt to restructure the artist’s oeuvre and biography was undertaken by the young Dan Ewing in his 1978 De Beer dissertation.2 However, it was only with the 2005-2006 Antwerp and Maastricht exhibition, organized by Peter van den Brink and Maximiliaan Martens, ExtravagAnt! A Forgotten Chapter of Antwerp Painting, 1500-1530, plus Van den Brink’s intensive research on early Antwerp drawings, that Jan de Beer’s paintings and

drawings became a renewed focus of attention for both art historians.3 Dan Ewing’s recently completed monograph on the artist, published by Brepols in 2016, integrates results from archival and provenance research, connoisseurship, and data from technical examinations, including dendrochronology, infrared reflectography and X-radiography, to redefine comprehensively the oeuvre and career of this important Antwerp artist.4 The present article highlights two ‘new’ paintings by De Beer: an unpublished triptych wing that first came to light in 2002 (ill. 18.1), and an Annunciation known from the literature but hidden from public and scholarly view for well over a century in private German collections, until its 2005 reappearance on the Amsterdam art market (ill. 18.5). Both works, today in the same private American collection, have been studied with the aid of infrared reflectography, X-radiography, and dendrochronology, and these and other findings will be presented here. The Flight into Egypt wing On June 7, 2002, this heretofore unknown panel was auctioned at Christie’s, New York, lot 79, as ‘School of Joachim Patinir’ (ill. 18.1). It was bought in, and then subsequently acquired by the present owner. Shortly after its acquisition it was examined by Peter van den Brink, who immediately – rightly – recognized it as an autograph

252

peter van den brink and dan ewing

De Beer. The panel was cleaned and restored by Rhona MacBeth in 2009,5 at which time IRRs and X-radiography were conducted. In the process, it was revealed that a pieced-in addition had been inserted into the upper left of the panel to make rectangular what had originally been a diagonallytopped panel. It was decided to retain the pieced-in corner. Given the originally shaped top of the panel, its narrow vertical proportions, and its subject, it is clear that the Flight into Egypt is the orphaned right wing from a triptych. Nothing is known of the central panel or left wing, but given the right wing’s subject it can be surmised that the central panel was likely a Nativity or an Adoration of the Magi, since both were common iconographic pairings with Flight into Egypt wings in period triptychs.6 In Jan de Beer’s oeuvre, there is often a significant stylistic difference between works of considerable size and smaller paintings. The best analogies for the Flight are therefore other small works by the artist. The arched foreground opening with loose rocks piled atop is familiar from the artist’s comparable depiction in his Cologne Nativity, and both the Cologne and American paintings feature the rare symbolism of light-seeking lizards situated upon the rocks.7 The silhouetted, airborne flip of Mary’s veil is a decorative motif the artist turned to often.8 Mary’s stylish, country-dweller’s straw hat is similar to Joseph’s hat in the Virgin Triptych, now in the National Gallery, London, as a private loan.9 And the Virgin’s small chin, thin lips, dainty nose and downcast demeanor have counterparts in other De Beer faces, such as that of Saint Anne in Berlin and Saint Anne in Brou.10 The painting has a strong debt to Patinir, already signaled in the 2002 sales catalogue. This suggests that it dates no earlier than 1515, when Patinir joined the Antwerp guild, and likely somewhat afterwards, probably 1516 or later.11 The same dependence upon Patinir’s imagery is evident in the artist’s Milan triptych of c. 1516-1518.12 The sudden appearance after 1515 of Patinir’s distinctive imagery in Antwerp made his motifs novel and

modern, and De Beer took advantage of their modernity by quickly inserting Patinir-derived elements into his work. In this panel, the prominent wicker basket that Saint Joseph carries is a standard prop in Patinir’s Flight into Egypt pictures, while the vertical thrust of the rocky mountains in the rear is generically Patiniresque.13 However, it is in the features of the Egyptian town that the debt to Patinir is most evident. The hill is crowned by a pagan shrine supporting a tall, peculiarly shaped column, topped with a sphere from which an idol has tumbled as the Holy Family passed by. The remnants of the idol were not visible in the painting when it was acquired in 2002, but they partially resurfaced after its cleaning. The arched gateway, framing walking and/or riding figures, is a recurrent Patinir motif. It appears in his earliest extant painting in Karlsruhe, and is repeated in works in Madrid and New York.14 Other elements of the city have counterparts in Patinir’s conception of Heliopolis in his Madrid Rest on the Flight to Egypt. These include the combination of Romanesque and Gothic elements, steps leading up to the pagan idol, a dominant circular structure, and the figure of a pagan with arms upraised, adoring an idol.15 Relative to the scale of the kneeling pagan, the size of the Egyptian column in the Flight panel is immense. Its distinctive shape is an unmistakable reference to the artist’s personal hallmark. On five occasions, De Beer employed a baluster column or a baluster colonette to honor Christ’s Infancy or to evoke the Column of Flagellation.16 In the Flight into Egypt, the absurdly oversized column is transformed into an anti-baluster shape. Instead of the usual baluster form, with its constricted waist and upper and lower halves curving outward, this column is thick waisted and curves inward, above and below. Its anti-baluster profile expresses its association with paganism, in opposition to the baluster shape which De Beer invariably linked to Christ’s sacrifice or Incarnation. Its inverted shape embodies the locus of false religion, an odd columnar support for an idol that once had

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

253

been worshipped by pagan Egyptians. This inverted allusion to De Beer’s hallmark is further evidence of the artist’s authorship of the painting, and a characteristic example of his visual intelligence and wit. The Flight into Egypt. Results of technical studies Dendrochronological analysis of the Flight into Egypt took place in 2010 and was conducted by Peter Klein.17 The oak panel originated from the Baltic region and contains 126 growth rings, the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1488. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 10 years for seasoning a creation is plausible from 1513 upwards. The additional board on the top left dates from the sixteenth century as well. The board contains 135 growth rings, the youngest heartwood ring was formed in 1509. Under the same assumption a creation of the addition is plausible from 1534 upwards and therefore cannot have been added during Jan de Beer’s lifetime. The dendrochronological terminus post quem coincides perfectly fine with the suggested stylistic date somewhere between 1515 and 1520. That the Flight into Egypt is indeed a mature work by the artist can be derived from the recent examination with infrared reflectography.18 The results of the examination are downright spectacular. The underdrawing has been set up in a dry medium, probably bone black. The figures have been prepared with a strong and steady hand, indicating clear, somewhat rigid outlines and folding lines (ill. 18.2). Furthermore parallel hatching has been applied for preparation of the shadowed areas, a very common method, used by almost all Antwerp workshops in the early sixteenth century. These edgy and rigid lines clearly mark the draughtsman, though. The complicated system of lines and hatchings that is visible in the Virgin’s white cloth and blue cloak and in Joseph’s red cloak is very typical. As far as can be judged De Beer did not deviate from the layout in the underdrawing. Only a few corrections

Ill. 18.2. Jan de Beer, Flight into Egypt (ill. 18.1), IRR, detail

can be observed, like the minor shift of the Christ Child’s head or Joseph’s face that shifted upwards a bit. The underdrawing of the background landscape has been set up in a very swift and sketchy hand, leaving the modeling to the painting stage (ill. 18.3). The type of underdrawing fits Jan de Beer like a glove. Although only a few paintings by his hand have been documented with IRR, it is perfectly clear that his underdrawings are stylistically completely unrelated to his drawings on paper.19 The latter display a much more elegant and subtle hand, whereas the former seem to have been strictly functional, as an underdrawing was never meant as a work of art in itself. The underdrawing of the Flight into Egypt is exceptionally close to that of the Crucifixion in Cologne, a painting that must be dated some ten years later. Apparently, Jan de Beer decided to stick to his efficient graphic system. The same rigid T-shaped folding lines are apparent,

254

peter van den brink and dan ewing

Ill. 18.3. Jan de Beer, Flight into Egypt (ill. 18.1), IRR, detail

as can be seen in the fluttering garments of the angels to the left and right (ill. 18.4), Christ’s loincloth or Mary Magdalene’s cloak. When compared to the underdrawing of the garments of Mary and Joseph in the Flight into Egypt, it is apparent that we are dealing with the same steady handwriting. Again, the same kind of underdrawing can be found underneath the paint layers of the two large altarpiece wings in the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection, dated by Dan Ewing to c. 1510-1515,20 or, for that matter, with the Annunciation that is discussed elsewhere in this article (ills. 18.8, 18.9). When compared to the much earlier Adoration of the Shepherds, the center panel of the triptych in the Cologne Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, again a similar handwriting can be detected, especially in the Virgin’s cloak.21 There, however, De Beer’s hand looks less assured in comparison to the underdrawing of the Flight into Egypt or the Crucifixion. This may be in part the result of the use of a different medium, brush in a fluid material, but possibly De Beer’s drawing hand may not have had the decisive steadiness of his later draftsmanship.

Ill. 18.4. Jan de Beer, Crucifixion, c. 1525-1528, oil on panel, 96 x 64 cm, Cologne, Kolumba, inv. M.18, IRR, detail

The Annunciation and its copies and variants As noted, the Annunciation had been hidden from view for more than a century until 2005 (ill. 18.5).22 Peter van den Brink, who will detail its provenance later in this article, has traced its ownership back to 1823 in the collection of Count Ernst Eberhard von Sierstorpff in Bad Driburg. In 2005 it was purchased by New York dealer and collector, Alexan-

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

Ill. 18.5. Jan de Beer, Annunciation, c. 1515, oil on panel, 67 x 52.5 cm, USA, Private Collection, on loan to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

255

256

peter van den brink and dan ewing

der Acevedo, and in 2010 it was acquired by its present American owner. Both American collectors made the work available to scholars for study and technical examination, and the current owner has now enabled its public exhibition by lending it to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The Annunciation is a good example of the novelty of the Antwerp Mannerist mode, evident in its striking contrast to the older, more decorous and earthbound Annunciations of the fifteenth century,23 and the modernized – but still earthbound – Annunciations of De Beer’s contemporaries.24 Its new aerial iconography had been explored in an earlier Annunciation by the artist in Madrid, probably dating c. 1510-1515.25 The Madrid panel shares with the privately-owned painting the drama of Gabriel suspended in mid air, but in the American Annunciation the artist has more radically reconfigured the conception. He adopted the exaggerated verticality of Pseudo-Bles’s paintings and those of other Antwerp Mannerists.26 However, in contrast to Bles, De Beer uses verticality for an expressive, not merely theatrical purpose. It is used to visually isolate Gabriel and thereby draw attention to the excited calligraphic rhythms of his draperies, and also to underscore his descent from on high, into a palatial interior which seems to extend upward without end. De Beer’s two red columns, at the far right and left, behind Gabriel, have no capitals or upper terminations; nor, for that matter, are ceilings visible in three of the five rooms. De Beer’s remarkable conception triggered at least fourteen known copies and variants. In nearly every instance, however, the imitator shrank from fully embracing the hyperbole of the original. In the Munich version, the copyist topped the left and right columns with capitals, terminating their endless upward extension (ill. 18.6). In this regard, a copy in Basel is more faithful to the original (ill. 18.7), except for the omitted cat, but the cat was painted over at a later stage as the IRR mosaics reveal.27 A particularly gorgeous restatement of De Beer’s painting design appears in the Rosenwald Hours (Washington, D.C., Library of Congress,

Medieval and Renaissance ms. bks., 52, Rosenwald ms. 10, fol. 19v),28 a 1524 French manuscript filled with Antwerp Mannerist-derived images.29 The French miniaturist is faithful to De Beer’s five rooms, including the window treatments, the bed chamber, and the endless column at left, but the whorls and figure-eight swirl of Gabriel’s clothes are moderated and partly cut off by the left frame. For his part, the Rosenwald Master is one of four identified artists in the 1520s Hours workshop, traditionally thought to have been centered in Tours, though possibly Paris instead, as elaborated in the publications of the late Myra Orth.30 One of the other hands in the1520s Hours studio was the Master of Jean de Mauléon, who is responsible for an equally impressive Annunciation in a c. 1524 book of hours in the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore (ms. W.449, fol. 32v), which shows a comparably dramatic Gabriel suspended in midair. The De Mauléon angel, however, flies within a lavish classical rotunda, a setting far removed from De Beer’s model, although the Gabriel-Virgin sequence shows a clear debt to De Beer, probably mediated through the Rosenwald Master.31A third Annunciation miniature from the 1520s Hours workshop repeats the De Beer/Rosenwald Master sequence of five rooms and the endless column, but oddly, it represents the room only – devoid of figures!32 The truncation of Gabriel’s flamboyant draperies is taken further in Goossen van der Weyden’s Colibrant Triptych of 1516, in which, although the angel is faithfully copied in flight, pose, the blessing gesture of his right hand, and the swirl of his sleeve ends, he nonetheless is rendered less airborne and not visually isolated like his source.33 In a Cambridge Annunciation perhaps from the circle of Bernard van Orley, the artist retreats altogether from the audacity of the airborne Gabriel, returning him to earth, where, by tradition, he belongs.34 Finally, an entirely different aspect of the Annunciation appealed to Cornelis Engebrechtsz, as Jan Piet Filedt Kok has pointed out. In his Second Visit of Christ to the House of Mary and Martha in the Rijksmuseum, it is the double-

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

257

Ill. 18.6. After Jan de Beer, Annunciation, c. 1520, oil on panel, 66 x 51 cm, Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 34

258

peter van den brink and dan ewing

Ill. 18.7. After Jan de Beer, Annunciation, c.1570-1600 (?), oil on panel, 66 x 50.5 cm, Basle, Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, inv. 1238

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

arched and elegantly compound trumeau of the portal dividing the front rooms from the rear one that the artist has rather literally copied from the Antwerp source.35 If the debt to De Beer of Goossen’s 1516 left wing of the Colibrant Triptych (Annunciation) (Lier, Sint-Gummaruskerk) is accepted, then this provides an upper terminus for dating the privatelyowned Annunciation, resulting in a probable date of around 1515-1516. The provenance history of the Annunciation As we know from previous publications, this Annunciation surfaced February 12-13, 1901 at a sale in Frankfurt at the auction house of Rudolf Bangel. The painting was offered as lot 6, attributed to Herri met de Bles, going back on the forged signature on a picture with the Adoration of the Magi in the Munich Alte Pinakothek.36 It is intriguing, when leafing through this auction catalogue, to find several other early Netherlandish paintings of an extremely high quality, such as the triptych with the Adoration of the Magi from the Joos van Cleve workshop, now in Detroit37 or Bernard van Orley’s Virgin and Child with Singing Angels in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.38 As these two paintings did, the Annunciation ended up in the collection of the Hamburg collector Hermann Emden, a textile merchant.39 Where the painting remained before 1901 and who actually bought the picture at the Frankfurt sale has not yet been revealed. As stated in the 1901 auction catalogue, most of the paintings that were offered for sale came from a recently (e.g. before February 1901) deceased Frankfurt collector. However, another important old master paintings collection is mentioned as a previous whereabouts for some of the paintings on offer. This reference is to Count Ernst of SierstorpffDriburg (1813-1855), whose picture gallery at Driburg Castle, not far from Paderborn, was wellknown and published in several guides at the time, such as the Deutscher Bildersaal by Gustav Parthey in 1863-1864.40

259

The Sierstorpff Collection had been auctioned on April 19-20, 1887, with Lepke in Berlin, when Count Ernst of Sierstorpff had already been dead for thirty-two years.41 After his two sons Bruno (1870) and Ernst (1879) had passed away, the paintings remained with his sole remaining heiress, his daughter Baroness Hedwig of Sierstorpff-Driburg (18481900), who in 1872 had married Aschwin von Cramm (1846-1909). Their youngest daughter Armgard would become the mother of Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, the later Prince consort of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. The Annunciation is mentioned in the 1887 auction catalogue, as lot 107, as Herri met de Bles. The painting entered the picture gallery in Driburg already in 1823. It was purchased in Heidelberg by Ernst’s father, Caspar Heinrich, Freiherr von Sierstorpff (1750-1842), as a painting by Hugo van der Goes. The main body of the collection of paintings in Driburg Castle – no less than 157 pictures were in the 1887 sale – was in fact brought together by Caspar Heinrich, who, after having finished his Grand Tour in Italy in 1774, developed a passionate love for paintings and collecting. In 1817 Caspar Heinrich von Sierstorpff wrote the first and only catalogue of the collection himself, including an addendum with the paintings he acquired between 1821 and 1830. This publication, Für die Kunstfreunde, welche meine kleine Gemälde-Sammlung besuchen wollen, contains a lot of personal and firsthand information, not only on the attributions or the status of many artists at the time, but details on the purchases as well.42 As stated, Caspar Heinrich purchased the Annunciation in 1823 in Heidelberg, together with another painting of the same subject, at the time attributed to Jan van Eyck.43 As he wrote in the epilogue to his catalogue, Caspar Heinrich von Sierstorpff only became interested in early Netherlandish painting at a later age, due to his direct contact with the brothers Sulpice and Melchior Boisserée.44 In fact, he states in the catalogue entry on the attribution of the Annunciation to Hugo van der Goes: ‘Das gegenwärtige Bild, was

260

peter van den brink and dan ewing

nach dem vorgeltenden Ausspruche der Herren Gebrüder Boisserées ein unbezweifeltes und vorzügliches Werk des benannten Künstlers ist […]’.45 It is not known who purchased the Annunciation at the 1887 Sierstorpff Sale, but the picture ended up with the same collector that acquired the Virgin and Child with Singing Angels by Bernard van Orley, now in New York and the Joos van Cleve triptych in Detroit, since all three pictures appeared once again side by side in the 1901 auction in Frankfurt. As could be traced through an annotated copy of the Sierstorpff sale catalogue, the painting by Bernard van Orley was purchased by Riedel as a picture by Jan Gossaert, for 4010 Reichsmark.46 Riedel was a Berlin dealer, who is mentioned in the 1887 auction catalogue as a potential bidder for interested clients. However, it is uncertain who actually bid on the Annunciation and the Adoration Triptych by Joos van Cleve. These two lots (107 and 96) were acquired for 2700 and 3500 Reichsmark, respectively, but the mark that accompanies the price – which is similar in both cases – is not the name of the buyer.47 This buyer must have been the Frankfurt collector who died shortly before 1901, as can be read in the introduction of the auction catalogue from Rudolf Bangel. Hermann Emden probably bought all three paintings directly at the 1901 Frankfurt sale. Max Friedländer’s observation that the Virgin and Child with Singing Angels by Bernard van Orley would have been with Hermann’s brother Jacob Emden in Hamburg in 1909, is no doubt correct. Hermann Emden must have passed away in or shortly before 1908, when the first part of his important collection, porcelain and faience, was auctioned with Lepke in Berlin. That the paintings remained with his brother until they were sold in 1910, one year after Friedländer’s publication, is therefore highly likely.48 The Annunciation and the pictures now in Detroit and New York were auctioned on May 3rd 1910, once again with Rudolph Lepke in Berlin. The Annunciation, still attributed to Herri met de Bles, was sold as lot 88 to an unknown collector, for

4100 Reichsmark. Only 44 years later the picture resurfaced, once again at auction, this time with Lempertz in Cologne, April 30th 1954, as lot 846, this time with an attribution to Jan de Beer, following Max Friedländer’s publications from 1915 and 1933.49 The painting was offered for sale by a lady called Dr. Dolly Marx, from Bielefeld. At the sale the Annunciation was acquired for DM 13.999 by Paul Ludowigs (1884-1968), a German industrialist from the Rhineland area, born in Cologne, but residing in Wülfrath, near Wuppertal.50 After his death in 1968 the painting remained with his family51 until November 15th 2005, when it surfaced with Sotheby’s in Amsterdam,52 where it was sold to Alexander Gallery in New York. Five years later the Annunciation was acquired by its present owner. Results of technical studies for the Annunciation and the Munich and Basel panels Study of the underdrawing of the Annunciation, made visible with the aid of infrared reflectography, clearly confirms the attribution to Jan de Beer.53 The only underdrawing to be read easily on the IRR mosaic, can be found in the two main figures, the Archangel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary (ills. 18.8, 18.9). The typical linear handwriting of Jan de Beer can be recognized in the drawing of the folds of the Virgin’s clothing (ill. 18.8). The strong lines with those curious hooks that were meant to prepare the folds are the hallmark of his underdrawing style and can be found throughout his career, in early paintings as the Cologne triptych with the Adoration of the Shepherds or the somewhat later Flight into Egypt (ill. 18.2) to the late Crucifixion in Cologne (ill. 18.4). The earlier underdrawing, as can be judged from the Cologne triptych, has been applied in a liquid medium with the brush, more careful and less bold. The underdrawing for the Annunciation has been applied with a dry material, probably black chalk, with vigour and assurance, as in the Flight into Egypt or the late Crucifixion. The same energetic approach can be observed in the fluttering garments of the approaching messenger from heaven (ill. 18.9). Unlike the

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

261

Ill. 18.8. Jan de Beer, Annunciation (ill. 18.5), IRR mosaic, detail

underdrawn garments in the Cologne Crucifixion or the Flight into Egypt, only very limited use was made of hatchings for the darker areas of the garments, although there is some parallel hatching to be found for the shadows in the Virgin’s cloak. Apart from the two main characters, De Beer prepared the spacious composition using perspective lines, ending in the vanishing point to the right of the picture in the framed text on the column. However, when the IRR mosaic of the Annunciation is studied in depth, it becomes evident that many details in the painting were clearly not prepared in advance and only added over the painted background. Some of these elements might

be considered as afterthoughts, such as the white cat sitting on the threshold (ill. 18.9), the basket behind the Virgin Mary (ill. 18.8), the chair in front of the canopy or, more important, the two endless columns at the left and right. The round column on the right is clearly painted on the finished pilaster, which marks the entrance of the bed chamber (ill. 18.8). Other elements, like the vase of lilies, the sceptre in Gabriel’s right hand and the archangel’s scroll are all indispensable elements of the Annunciation and could therefore not be omitted (ill. 18.9). Nevertheless there is not a single trace to be found that these elements were prepared in advance, unlike the two actors in the foreground

262

peter van den brink and dan ewing

Ill. 18.9. Jan de Beer, Annunciation (ill. 18.5), IRR mosaic, detail

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

or the pillows in the background. However, as technical research has shown before, it was not unusual within Jan de Beer’s praxis that some details were prepared differently than others. Unlike all the figures in the Cologne Crucifixion, the complete background with the walled city of Jerusalem was not prepared by means of an underdrawing in a black medium. Jan de Beer probably used a model drawing for that cityscape and therefore a detailed underdrawing seemed overdone.54 It was probably easier not to prepare smaller details like the sceptre or the cat in advance, but adding them to the painted background at a later stage, possibly, but not necessarily, with the aid of model drawings. However, some additional underdrawing can be found as preparation for the prie-dieu and, more important, above Gabriel’s head, visible underneath the painted sky (ill. 18.9). Apparently De Beer had planned four smaller Gothic windows, instead of the two larger ones that were ultimately painted. In 1978, when Ewing compared the Annunciation to the two copies in Munich and Basel, he implicitly stated the absence of the scroll in the painting by Jan de Beer, in contrast to the two copies. There, an easily legible text can be deciphered: ‘Ave Maria gratia plena .dominus .tecum’ (ills. 18.6, 18.7). Ewing made use of the best legible photograph known of the Annunciation in the 1970’s: the razor sharp illustration in the 1910 Lepke auction catalogue, where the scroll is indeed fully absent (ill. 18.10). The earliest source on the painting, Count von Sierstorpff’s catalogue entry, describes the painting in full detail, but does not mention the scroll at all. Therefore, in all likelihood, there was none to be seen. The scroll surfaces for the first time in the somewhat fuzzy image in the Lempertz catalogue of 1954. We do not know for certain that the Annunciation remained in the same collection between 1910 and 1954, but there is no doubt that the condition of the picture deteriorated in this period, the scroll (re)appeared and the halo above the head of Gabriel disappeared. Many of the refined details that were still visible in 1910, such

263

Ill. 18.10. Jan de Beer, Annunciation (ill. 18.5), condition in 1910

as the decoration on the square columns in the back, had become less legible 44 years later. The appearance of the scroll in the Annunciation, somewhere between 1910 and 1954, at a time Friedländer connected the Annunciation to two copies with a scroll, is most certainly circumspect and may in fact be a restorer’s invention. A detailed comparison of the Annunciation with the Munich and Basel paintings may perhaps add more confusion to the picture, it does, however, answer some questions. It can be stated with certainty that the two paintings in Munich and Basel are no mere copies after Jan de Beer’s Annunciation. At first glance the Munich painting seems to be a faithful copy, although a few details have been added (the scroll, the fruit drying on the stove), omitted (the mirror) and changed (the two main columns).55 The painting gives the impression of being slightly later than Jan de Beer’s Annunciation, possibly dating from the 1520s.56 The results of IRR

264

peter van den brink and dan ewing

Ill. 18.11. After Jan de Beer, Annunciation (ill. 18.6), IRR mosaic, detail

examination seem to confirm this;57 the painting is fully underdrawn in a drawing style that is related to Jan de Beer’s hand, but most certainly not his own (ill. 18.11). The underdrawing is less daring or outspoken and gives the impression of a hand following a pattern. It is certainly not impossible that the picture originated in Jan de Beer’s workshop, but I do not regard it as very likely. The facial types of the Virgin and the Archangel Gabriel are in my view too far removed from De Beer’s models. It is interesting, however, that the scroll with the text was not prepared in advance and painted over the

already finished background. Furthermore, the mirror is not omitted, as Ewing had thought in 1978, but has been painted over at a later stage. Close comparison of the two versions reveals that they differ immensely, not only stylistically, but in the depiction of details as well. The decorative elements in the Munich Annunciation are simplified in comparison with Jan de Beer’s version of the subject. Moreover, they look fundamentally different, as can be seen in the various sculptures, such as the odd naked figure on the pillar in the window to the left, playing the shawm, whereas the

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

same figure in Jan de Beer’s Annunciation is a knight portrayed in contrapposto, wearing a sword. The same accounts for all architectural elements, columns, friezes, capitals and bases, but for the decorative embroidered pattern of Gabriel’s dalmatic as well. The floor pattern is entirely different, on the Munich version several decorative tiles are present that are lacking in De Beer’s sober presentation. The flasks, goblet and pewter plate on the sideboard in the rear of the bed chamber differ fundamentally from the empty surface on the Munich painting. Instead, that composed still life has much more in common with the set-up in Jan de Beer’s drawing with the Birth of the Virgin in Frankfurt, as Dan Ewing already noted before.58 However, three other differences between the Jan de Beer Annunciation and the Munich version seem to hold even more importance. The columns in the Munich Annunciation are topped by capitals that carry an additional arch, as do the pilasters in the back, of course a much less daring concept in comparison to De Beer’s endless columns. Furthermore, out of the decorative pouch for the book of prayers in the foreground, a second scroll is visible, which is completely lacking in the Munich painting. The Munich Annunciation, however, holds another text that is absent in Jan de Beer’s picture. On the baldachin above the bed a text in golden letters can be made out, but not yet deciphered. Needless to say, I do not think that the Munich Annunciation was directly copied after Jan de Beer; it is more likely that it is based on a drawing, which in its turn may have been copied after the original painting, or perhaps after another drawing, which was the usual practice at the time.59 Unlike the Munich version, the Annunciation in Basel (ill. 18.7) is hardly mentioned in literature at all. Apart from the fact that it lacks the finesse of the other two paintings, the IRR mosaic gives way to the conclusion that it must have been painted much later. No underdrawing could be detected at all, possibly because there isn’t any, or it cannot be detected because the painter made use of a coloured, presumably grey, ground. Such a pigmented

265

layer not only makes detecting an underdrawing more difficult or even impossible, it was only introduced in the Netherlands in the second half of the sixteenth century.60 The Basel Annunciation looks like a late sixteenth- or even early seventeenth-century copy after the Munich version. It follows exactly the same decorative pattern, wholly different from Jan de Beer’s painting, just as the faces of the Virgin and Gabriel are clearly modelled after their Munich counterparts. However, this copyist not only took over De Beer’s ‘endless columns’, but the small scroll appearing out of the pouch in the foreground as well.61 One other change in regard to the Munich picture is the inclusion of the two flasks on the sideboard still life in the back, which again brings to mind Jan de Beer’s Annunciation. How do we account for these anomalies? Since the colour pattern is identical, the Basel copyist must have known the Munich Annunciation or a model closely connected to it. In addition, it would be useful to have the Munich Annunciation fully examined with infrared reflectography and X-radiography, given the fact that the present surface is apparently withholding information to us. NOTES * The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the owner of both paintings, plus Alexander Acevedo, Rhona MacBeth, Shawn Digney-Peer, J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Mar Borobia, Martin Schawe, Peter Klein, Bodo Brinkmann, Henrik Hanstein, Suzanne Laemers, Maryan W. Ainsworth and Till-Holger Borchert. 1 In 1902 Hulin de Loo discovered the Jan de Beer signature on a sketch in the British Museum (Nine Male Heads, brush, ink and chalk on prepared paper, 20.1 ≈ 25.9 cm, inv. 1886.0706.7), but he did not publish his discovery until 1913: Hulin de Loo 1913, p. 71. See also: Friedländer 1915; Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 11. The latter volume has been translated and updated as vol. 11 of Friedländer 1967-1976. For De Beer’s biography, see: Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, pp. 223-224; and for the key archival sources for his life and career, see: Ewing 1983. 2 Ewing 1978. 3 Antwerp/Maastricht 2005; Van den Brink 2004-2005. 4 See: Ewing 2016. 5 At the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 6 For example: Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, pls. 8, 29a, 101, 103; Marlier 1966, pp. 109-218, passim. 7 Cologne: see Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, pp. 59-61, nr. 19; on lizard symbolism: Wiemers 1994. 8 For example, the Magdalene’s scarf in the Swiss Crucifixion: Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, pp. 62-63, nr. 20. 9 Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, nr. 10, pl. 11. 10 Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, nrs. 23, 26, pls. 18, 19.

266

peter van den brink and dan ewing

11 Although Mary’s facial type is analogous to earlier works by the artist, comparison can also be made to mid career works, such as the Turin Lamentation, which probably dates c. 1514-1519. 12 Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, pp. 64-67, nr. 21, Patinir references discussed on p. 66. 13 Madrid 2007. 14 Madrid 2007, nrs. 18, 5, 19. 15 Madrid 2007, pp. 182-193, nr. 5, especially reproduction detail on p. 186. 16 These columns and colonettes appear in the artist’s Cologne Adoration of the Shepherds Triptych (central panel), Milan Adoration, and Écouen Adoration. See: Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, nrs. 19, 21, 22, respectively. They also appear in his Birmingham Night Nativity and the privately-owned Virgin Triptych (central panel); for these, see: Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, nrs. 15, 10, pls. 14, 11. 17 Dendrochronological analysis by Prof. Dr. Peter Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Abteilung Holzbiologie, University of Hamburg. Written report from April 30th, 2010. 18 The Flight into Egypt was examined and documented by Rhona MacBeth in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, May 5th, 2009, using the MFA equipment, a Mitsubishi IR-M700 Thermal Imager with at cut off filter of 1.5 nm-1.8 nm. The lens was a Nikon Nikkor 50mm. The Mitsubishi camera has a range of 0.9-2.4nm. The infrared reflectograms were captured with IP Lab software, and assembled with Photoshop CS3. 19 On Jan de Beer’s drawings, see: Peter van den Brink and Dan Ewing, in Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, pp. 95-117, nrs. 30-43; Van den Brink 2004-2005; Ewing 2016, pp. 89-127, 333-344. 20 Ewing 2016, pp. 130-139, 291-292, nrs. 1-2.The reflectograms are published in Eisler (1989, pp. 196-197). Apparently these infrared reflectograms were simply added to the catalogue text at a later stage, since there is not a single reference to be found in the catalogue entry. Dan Ewing regards the Annunciation as to be by De Beer’s own hand, whereas the Birth of the Virgin was produced with some workshop assistants. The underdrawing certainly points to De Beer as the draughtsman and without doubt he was in charge of the production of the altarpiece of which these paintings formed a part. 21 See: Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, p. 60, fig. 4; Ewing 2016, pp. 166-168, fig. 124. 22 Auctioned at Sotheby’s, Amsterdam, 15 November 2005, lot 42, as Jan de Beer. 23 For example, the Annunciation in New York attributed to the workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1465-1475. See: New York 1998, pp. 112-115, nr. 10. 24 Such as the Annunciation panels in New York from Gerard David’s dismembered Cervara Altarpiece, 1506, and the Annunciation of c. 1525 by Joos van Cleve. See: New York 1998, pp. 296-303, nr. 79, pp. 364-365, nr. 97. 25 Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, nr. 25, pl. 21 (c. 1510-1515); Eisler 1989, pp. 194-203, illustrated on p. 199; Ewing 2016, pp. 134139, 292, nr. 2. 26 For Pseudo-Bles, see: Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, nrs. 1, 2, 3, pls. 1-3; for the Master of the Antwerp Adoration, see: Wolff 2008a, pp. 129-135. 27 Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, 66 ≈ 50.5 cm, inv. nr. 1238. The IRRs have been kindly provided by Dr. Bodo Brinkmann from the Kunstmuseum in Basel. In the Basel painting, as in De Beer’s prototype, the columns do not have any upper termination. 28 A digital facsimile of the manuscript is available at http:// hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rosenwald.0014.2. See: Ewing 2016, fig. 110. 29 Orth 1989; Van den Brink 2004-2005, pp. 189-194; Orth 2015, vol. 2, pp. 152-156, nr. 41; Scailliérez in Paris 2017, pp. 134-135, nr. 41. 30 Orth 1988; Orth 1989. Late in her life, Orth became convinced that the workshop was more likely to have been centered in Paris than in Tours; see remarks in: Van den Brink 2004-2005, p. 189,

note 89; Orth 1988, p. 47; Orth 2015, vol. 1, pp. 48-50; vol. 2, pp. 140202, nrs 37-57. 31 Orth 1989; Randall 1989, pp. 526-535, nr. 209; Orth 2015, vol. 2, pp. 146-150, nr. 39. A color reproduction is available at the museum’s website: http://art.thewalters.org/detail/13014/book-ofhours-13/. It should be noted that the Baltimore classical rotunda was repeated in another Annunciation from the 1520s Hours workshop, a miniature in the Dutuit Hours (Paris, Petit Palais, ms. 37, fol. 31v) by the Doheny Master. In this instance, however, the angel reverts to the conventional earthbound mode, and therefore is completely removed from the De Beer-De Mauléon conception. See: Orth 1988, p. 56, fig. 19. 32 Sold Sotheby’s 21 June 1988, lot 155. See: Orth 1989, pp. 84,89, note 70, fig. 22. 33 Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, p. 22, pl. 26 (reproduction reversed: the Annunciation is the left wing). 34 Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 8, p. 105, nr. 103, pl. 101. 35 Filedt Kok, Gibson, Bruijnen 2014, p. 94, fig. 90. 36 Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 708. 37 Detroit Institute of Arts, inv. 45.420. On this painting: Hand 2004, pp. 81, 151, nr. 61.1. 38 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 14.40.632. See: Mary Sprinson de Jesus, in New York 1998, pp. 342-344, nr. 89. 39 Hardly anything is known of Hermann Emden. Since 1864 he was joint owner of M.J. Emden Söhne, together with his brother Jacob Emden. M.J. Emden Söhne became a hugely important textile firm that would own many large department stores in Hamburg, Munich, Berlin, Budapest and Stockholm. On Hermann Emden and his much betterknown nephew, Max James Emden, see: Luckhardt, Schneede 2001, pp. 221-222. 40 Parthey 1863-1864, vol. 2, p. 856. More than a hundred pictures from the collection were mentioned, but not the Annunciation. 41 The information on the Sierstorpff Sale I could deduce from the pedigree of the Bernard van Orley picture in New York (New York 1998, p. 342). There is an annotated catalogue of this sale in the Philadelphia Museum of Art Library, call nr. 117938. This catalogue is available on-line (http://archive.org/details/dergrflic00rudo). 42 The book can be found on-line: http://archive.org/stream/ frdiekunstfreun00siergoog#page/n4/mode/2up. The addendum is in fact part of the publication itself and starts on page 275 with the line ‘Vom Jahre 1821 bis 1831 ist die Sammlung wieder mit folgenden Stücken vermehrt worden’. 43 Von Sierstorpff 1817, p. 303. 44 Von Sierstorpff 1817, pp. 305-310. 45 Von Sierstorpff 1817, p. 301. 46 See: note 41. The painting is mentioned as lot 4. 47 It seems to be a mark that can be read as ‘Mg’. The mark has been noted down with pencil at least 35 times, accompanied in some cases by a name, as can be seen with lot 2 (David Ryckaert), where the buyer’s name is written down: ‘Mg 1200 Bourgeois’. 48 Friedländer 1909, pp. 9-10, illustrated. 49 The picture may have been with Gallery Rohde in Berlin, in 1932. An image of the painting in the Friedländer-archive – from the 1910 auction catalogue – bears the handwritten note by Friedländer ‘cf. München / frl.Hinze 1932 angeb.’, meaning that the painting was offered to Fräulein Hinze in 1932, but it is not certain that the painting actually ended up with her. Frieda Hinze (1902-1991) was the younger partner of the Berlin art dealer Kurt Rohde. 50 Although Ludowigs was a member of the NSDAP and was even held captive for a short while between 1945 and 1946 by the British, he received the so-called Großes Verdienstkreuz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in 1953 (Baumann 1987). 51 Peter Eikemeier stated in 1983 that the Annunciation remained in a private collection in the Rhineland (Eikemeier et al. 1983, p. 66).

two ‘new’ paintings by jan de beer

52 It was only at this sale that the most recent whereabouts of the Annunciation were revealed. 53 The Annunciation was documented with infrared reflectography by Shawn Digney-Peer at the Conservation Dept. of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, October 21st 2008. More recently, in February 2013, the painting was examined and documented again, by Rhona MacBeth of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. 54 On this late Crucifixion, the underdrawing and the two drawings with the cityscape, see: Dan Ewing in Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, pp. 77-83, nrs. 25-26; Ewing 2016, pp. 224-230, 319, nr. 17. 55 In older publications it had been suggested that the Munich panel consisted of two wings of a triptych, glued together (Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 11, p. 118; Recklinghausen 1954, p. 3). Additionally, the verso would contain a painting with the Ecce Homo (Von Reber 1885, p. 31; Von Wurzbach 1906-1911, vol. 1, p. 106). This is most certainly not the case, at least not anymore. The reverse of the painting does not contain any painted surface whatsoever. 56 The dendrochronological analysis of both boards – from the same tree – points to a possible date of 1507 onwards. The report by Peter Klein is from November 15th 2007. 57 The painting was studied and documented with the aid of infrared reflectography, on November 16th 1992, by Prof. Dr. J.R.J. van

267

Asperen de Boer, Peter van den Brink and Till-Holger Borchert. Use was made of Van Asperen de Boer’s private equipment, a Grundig FA 70 camera, fit with a Hamamatsu N214 infrared vidicon. A Zoomar 1:2.8/4 cm Macro Zoomatar object-lens was used, supplied with a Kodak Wratten 87A filter. The monitor was a Grundig BG 12, for 875 television lines. Images were captured with a Nikon EL 2 photo camera, with a 55 mm macro lens. The film in use was Ilford FP 4 125 ASA. The mosaics were put together by Peter van den Brink, using Adobe Photoshop 2.0 and 2.5. 58 Ewing 1978, vol. 2, p. 270. 59 On the use of drawings in early sixteenth century Netherlandish – and specifically Antwerp – workshops, see: Van den Brink 2004-2005. 60 Wadum 1995, pp. 39-40; Van Hout 1998, pp. 199-225. 61 It is not impossible that in the Munich version this detail was painted over, like the mirror. The pouch looks certainly different and it has a different crackle pattern than the surrounding area, possibly due to a chemical reaction of specific pigments, which in turn may have led to retouching part of the local surface. An X-radiograph of the Munich painting might give additional information.

Ill. 19.1. Master of the Abbey of Dielegem (attributed to), Calling of Saint Matthew, c. 1530-1535, oil on panel, 181.2 x 170.5 cm, The Royal Collection, RCIN 405788

19

The Calling of Saint Matthew attributed to the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem Nicola Christie and Lucy Whitaker*

ABSTRACT: The Calling of Saint Matthew, in the British Royal Collection since the 17th century, was not included by Friedländer in his corpus of Early Netherlandish paintings and has received little critical attention. In 1985 Lorne Campbell attributed it to a Brussels artist, the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem. Recent conservation and technical analysis of the Calling of Saint Matthew have given us more information about the master and workshop responsible for this painting. The style and technique of it and the Life of the Magdalen are compared and infrared reflectograms of the paintings. The authors show that they are not by the same master. The similarities and yet differences between the two paintings raises questions about the way in which workshops related to each other in the same city or in different cities, Antwerp and Brussels.

—o— The Calling of Saint Matthew (Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 405788) is a large painting, measuring about 181 cm high by 170 cm wide (ill. 19.1).1 It has been in the British Royal Collection since the reign of Charles I in the seventeenth century when the painting was given to Charles I by an unnamed donor and hung in Whitehall Palace, London. The first Surveyor of The King’s Pictures, Abraham Van der Doort recorded Charles I’s collection at Whitehall and noted for this painting: ‘Said to be done by Van Aike … a verie ould defaced curious painted alterpeece uppon a thick board where Christ is calling St Mathew out of the Custome house wch Picture was gott in Queene Elizabeths daies. In the takeing of Calus Malus in Spaine painted uppon a board in a guilded arched frame like an alter

peece… Given to the Kinge’.2 In July 1596 the English lead by the Earl of Essex captured Cadiz, the ‘Calus Malus in Spaine’. It was noted that the English ‘damaged’ some churches, but so far no record of the seizure of works of art has come to light.3 We do not know any more about the early history of the Calling of Saint Matthew and hope to collaborate with Spanish colleagues to research this further. When Charles I was executed his collection was sold, but there is no record of the sale of this painting. It was recovered at the Restoration when Charles II came to the throne in 1660 and has been on display in Hampton Court, Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle since that date. In 1819 James Stephanoff recorded the interior of the Queen’s Private Dining Room, Kensington Palace in a watercolour (Royal Collection, inv. 922153). The Calling of Saint Matthew fills the facing wall and on the left the Trinity panels by Hugo van der Goes today on loan to the National Gallery of Scotland are also visible.4 The frame around the Calling of Saint Matthew in the watercolour is clearly not the original frame. There are no indications on the vertical sides of the painting that wings had once been attached to it and therefore it is likely that it was designed without wings. If it did have wings these could have been simply blank, or painted black, or have had inscriptions or heraldry on them. If this was the centre panel of a group of three paintings it is hard to see what other stories from the life of

270

nicola christie and lucy whitaker

Saint Matthew could be placed on either side of it to make a coherent triptych. The story of the Calling of Saint Matthew is told in Matthew IX, 9: ‘and as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him’. The painting shows the moment of Mathew’s calling, with Christ moving to the left with his disciples, his hand raised both inviting Matthew to follow and in benediction, while Matthew eagerly complies, leaving his magnificent tax office and raising his cap as if to show respect for his new master. Christ and the disciples then ate with Matthew and in the background on the right of the painting the feast takes place in an elaborately decorated hall. The view of the busy port beyond is meant to recall the Sea of Galilee. A chained monkey sits between Christ and Matthew, and rejects its food to examine shiny coins which it cannot use. The monkey’s giving up of nourishment for wealth is making a pointed contrast with Saint Matthew, who is leaving the evil of materialistic trappings and a lucrative way of life to follow Christ. Two figures to the right of Saint Matthew persevere with their counting. The scales on the ledge in the foreground illustrate the worthlessness of their work, for the coin weighed is not balanced, bringing to mind words from the Old Testament (Daniel 5: 27): ‘[…] you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting’. 5 The plants in the foreground may symbolize prudence, the marigold, on the left, and the fear of God, the columbine, on the right.6 The large, elaborate clock above Matthew may have been included to show that the time for change had come but as Lorne Campbell points out, it also usefully fills a gap in the composition and is a very good instance of this artist’s preoccupation with ornate and decorative detail. The detail and ornament are extraordinary. There are possibly two hands involved painting the figures and more than one in the meticulously painted architectural features, discussed in more depth below.

The Calling of Saint Matthew and the Magdalen Triptych: history, attribution and date The Calling of Saint Matthew was attributed to Jan van Eyck by Abraham Van der Doort, in his inventory of 1639 and when the painting was recovered for Charles II at the Restoration.7 In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Calling of Saint Matthew was thought to be by Jan Gossaert (‘Mabuse’ in the inventories), for example in an 1818 inventory of pictures at Kensington when the painting hangs in the Queen’s Dining Room: ‘St Matthew called from the seat of Customs, ‘Circular top’. J de Mabuse’.8 In 1819 Pyne ascribes the painting to John de Mabuse, ‘designed in the stiff manner of Albert Durer, with little grace or dignity in the figures, but finished with great care’.9 The following year Faulkner records that ‘it has been attributed to Albert Durer, but more probably was painted by Mabuse’.10 Passavant in 1833 and Mrs Jameson in 1844 both also give the painting to Jan Gossaert,11 whereas Waagen in 1854 attributes it to Van Orley and A.-J. Wauters in 1909 to Cornelis van Coninxloo.12 In the Redgrave inventory the entry dated 2 June 1862 simply has ‘Flemish School’ which has been annotated at a later date to Coninxloo.13 In 1937 in his catalogue of pictures at Windsor Castle Collins Baker catalogues the painting as Antwerp School, noting that ‘Dr Friedlander (verbally) assigns this to one of the Antwerp mannerists not yet (1932) distinguished though recognised’.14 Friedländer did not include the painting in his corpus of early Netherlandish paintings and probably for this reason the painting has not received critical attention. Both Leo van Puyvelde in 1962 and Lorne Campbell in 1985 and 2014 linked the Calling of Saint Matthew with the Triptych of the Life of the Magdalen in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSKB/MRBAB) in Brussels (ill. 19.2).15 In his corpus of Netherlandish paintings Friedländer identified the Life of the Magdalen as the most conspicuous work by the Master of 1518, a master he had created in 1915.16 Puyvelde and Campbell, however, proposed that both the Life of the Magdalen and the Calling of Saint Matthew

the calling of saint matthew

271

Ill. 19.2. Master of the Abbey of Dielegem (attributed to), Triptych of the Life of the Magdalen, c. 1532-1536, oil on oak, central panel: 185 x 150 cm, wings: 185 x 71 cm, Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, inv. 329

were not by the Master of 1518, active in Antwerp, but by the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem, who was possibly active in Antwerp but more probably working in Brussels. Campbell proposed that this master was closer to the Brussels artist Cornelis van Coninxloo and Bernaert van Orley, particularly in the extravagant style of architectural ornamentation than the Antwerp Master of 1518. Van Puyvelde has suggested that Christ Taking Leave of the Virgin (Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preußicher Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie) (ill. 19.3) and Amnon Attacking Tamar (Baltimore, Walters Art Museum) were also by the same Master of Dielegem. On the other hand, Lorne Campbell attributes the two wing panels of saints and donors at Oldenburg (Landsmueum für Kunst- und Kulturegeschichte) to this master, and prefers to keep the Christ Taking Leave of the Virgin as by the Master of 1518.17

The Calling of Saint Matthew, which had last been cleaned and conserved in 1901, was brought into the Royal Collection Trust’s paintings studio for conservation in 2010 in order that it could be included in Royal Collection Trust’s exhibition The Northern Renaissance Dürer to Holbein, The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, London and The Queen’s Gallery, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh 2011-2012.18 Nicola Christie undertook the conservation of the painting and after the exhibition we took the opportunity to do technical analysis and record its underdrawing with infrared reflectography. The authors compared the painting with the Life of the Magdalen Triptych in Brussels and its infrared reflectography and discussed both paintings with Véronique Bücken, Annick Born, who has studied and published on the Master of 1518 in great depth, and Professor Martens.

272

nicola christie and lucy whitaker

Ill. 19.3. Master of 1518, Christ Taking Leave of the Virgin, oil on oak, 81.2 x 57.8 cm, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussicher Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 630B

the calling of saint matthew

Max Friedländer named the Master of 1518 after the painted wing panels of a large altarpiece in the Marienkirche at Lübeck, which has scenes of the lives of the Virgin and her parents Joachim and Anne. The central section of this altarpiece is of carved wood and bears the date 1518 and the Antwerp marks.19 The altarpiece was given to the church in 1522 by Johann Bone, a merchant of Lübeck who had been born in the duchy of Cleves. The painted wing panels of the predella, removed from the Marienkirche, are in the SanktAnnen-Museum in Lübeck, the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart and private collections. Friedländer associated the Master of 1518 with the art being produced in Antwerp between about 1500 and 1530. He misleadingly called the artists ‘Antwerp Mannerists’ in his seminal 1915 article when he attempted to bring order to the large number of anonymous paintings produced in Antwerp in this period. Antwerp Mannerism is unrelated to Italian or Flemish Mannerism being rather an expression of Late Gothic art.20 These often anonymous artists, whose style dominated in Antwerp in the early decades of the sixteenth century, tend to have theatrical compositions with dynamic figural groupings, flamboyant costumes, elegant chromatic effects, technical virtuosity, an integration of architecture with exterior spaces and fantastical architecture freely combining Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance elements. Decorative invention is the key note with the meticulous rendering of textures and detail. Paintings given to the Master of 1518 tend to have a sense of structure underlying the compositions and brilliant colours. The elegant figures, often balanced on tiptoe, have distinctive physiognomies, long thin fingers and well defined and ample drapery falling in a succession of V-shaped folds. In 1915 Friedländer had suggested a relationship between the Master of 1518 and Pieter Coecke van Aelst and reinforced this hypothesis two years later when he linked the Master of 1518’s Christ Taking Leave of the Virgin in Berlin (ill. 19.3) to a painting of the same subject in Glasgow (Kelving-

273

rove Art Gallery and Museum), which he attributed to Coecke’s workshop. He proposed that Coecke might have taken over the workshop of the Master of 1518.21 In 1966 Georges Marlier took this hypothesis a step further and identified the Master of 1518 as Jan Mertens the Younger (Jan Mertens van Dornicke) who was active by 1509 and died in about 1527, and who was Pieter Coecke’s father-inlaw.22 Simone Bergmans had already reconstructed the genealogy of Jan Mertens van Dornicke for whom we have much documentary evidence but no signed painted works.23 His father was the sculptor Jan Mertens the Elder, whose family is thought to have originated in Tournai. Jan Mertens van Dornicke had been apprenticed to Jan Gossaert in 1505 and was a master of the Antwerp guild in 1509-1510. He was a respected member of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke, serving as regent in 1478, 1481 and 1487. He was the father-in-law and perhaps the teacher of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, who married Mertens’s daughter Anna before 1526. His second daughter married first Jan van Amstel, now usually identified with the Brunswick Monogrammist, and subsequently Gillis van Connixloo III.24 Stylistic links between the early work of Pieter Coecke van Aelst and the work given to the Master of 1518 have been used as the basis for the identification of Mertens with the Master of 1518. It is likely that Pieter Coecke worked in Jan Mertens’ studio in the 1520s and took over his father-inlaw’s studio in 1527, the year Jan Mertens died and Pieter Coecke became master in the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke. The identification of Jan Mertens and the Master of 1518 has not been universally accepted. No indisputable link can be made between Jan Mertens van Dornicke, who was clearly an important Antwerp artist, and the Master of 1518 and no painting can be firmly given to Jan Mertens. For these reasons discussion of the relationship between the Master of 1518 and Jan Mertens the Younger will be put to one side in this paper.25 No-one is suggesting that the Calling of Saint Matthew is by the Master of 1518, but the figures

274

nicola christie and lucy whitaker

are elegant with folds of drapery which are well defined and sculptural in appearance. The pose of Christ and the idea of the back view of John are particularly close in both paintings. The light tiptoeing movement of Christ and Saint Peter in the Calling of Saint Matthew, likened to steps of a dance by Van Puyvelde, can be compared with that of Christ and Saint John in the Christ Taking Leave of the Virgin by the Master of 1518 (ill. 19.3). Several recent scholars, including Annick Born, have agreed with Friedländer’s proposal that the Master of 1518 painted the Triptych of the Life of the Magdalen (ill. 19.2).26 The central panel of the triptych measures 185 by 150 cm and shows Mary Magdalen kneeling to wipe Christ’s feet with her hair when he was eating at the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7: 36-50). Standing on the right is Judas Iscariot, the disciple who protested at the waste of the precious ointment (John 12: 4-6). He points at the kneeling Mary, his jewelled purse prominent at his waist. Behind the foreground figures the supper continues at another table set horizontally. Solitary on the tiled floor between the tables is a chained red squirrel. The palace recedes into the far distance but dominating the upper half of the scene is an elaborately carved upper floor reached by a double staircase. The ornament is extremely detailed. Above Christ’s head is a wall clock. The left panel shows Christ raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11: 1-44), Mary standing on the right. The right panel shows the elevation of the Magdalen, who is nude and covered by her long hair and is supported by six angels. According to legends Mary Magdalen passed thirty years in a mountain retreat near Sainte-Baume fasting and in penitence. Seven times a day angels came down and lifted her up to Heaven where she could have a glimpse of the happiness to come. Kneeling at a prie-dieu is the donor of the painting. His coat of arms decorates the cloth of the prie-dieu and in the foreground is an ornate mitre. On the reverse of the wing panels are the figures of Christ as a gardener appearing to the kneeling Magdalen after the Resurrection.

The triptych came from Premonstratensian Abbey of Dielegem at Jette, now part of the western suburbs of Brussels, where it was described in 1659. The donor is a mitred Premonstratensian abbot. His prie-dieu is decorated with his coat of arms (paly of six argent and azure) and his motto, cum moderamine. Troops in the service of William of Orange occupied the abbey between 1578 and 1585. The monks fled and returned in 1585 to find the abbey ruined. Life for the monks at the abbey resumed in about 1594. Lorne Campbell suggests that the fugitive monks were able to escape with the Life of the Magdalen and other works of art and bring them back after 1585.27 The abbot of Dielegem obtained the right to wear the mitre in 1532 and therefore both Alphonse-Jules Wauters and Lorne Campbell have proposed that the altarpiece must date after 1532 and that Jan de Tuegele, who was made abbot in 1536 and died in 1538, is the donor in the painting.28 Though no record of his coat of arms has been found Jan de Tuegele was said to have been of a noble family of Merode. They bore and still bear the paly of six or and gules and the arms on the triptych may perhaps be a variant of that coat. The motto on the triptych, cum moderamine (with control) could be a translation of, or pun upon the name De Tuegele, for teugel means rein or control in Dutch.29 The donor was added to the painting after the rest of the scene had been planned and painting had begun. The Magdalen was first underdrawn on the same scale but at a much lower level parallel with the abbot’s hands. The abbot was painted over the underdrawn angel lower right who supported the Magdalen and part of the landscape which had been partially painted (ill. 19. 4).30 Lorne Campbell concludes that both the Calling of Saint Matthew and the Magdalen Triptych can be dated to the 1530s. The link between the donor’s coat of arms in the Magdalen Triptych and Jan de Tuegele is very strong. The figure of the donor was added at a later stage in the painting process, but it is unlikely that a significant time would have elapsed before he was added. If the abbot is not Jan de Tuegele, who is he? It is unlikely

the calling of saint matthew

that the monks at the Abbey of Dielegem would have acquired the triptych from another Premonstratensian abbey showing an abbot unrelated to their abbey after 1585 when they came to refurnish their own abbey. When Friedländer associated the triptych with the wings of the 1518 altarpiece he argued that the triptych was the earlier of the two works, dating to about 1515.31 In her study of the Master of 1518 Annick Born also gives the Magdalen Triptych to the Master of 1518 and dates the painting to about 1516 to about1518.32 She believes the Calling of Saint Matthew is by a different artist and closer to the Brussels artists such as Bernaert van Orley. She suggests that the donor could have been added later either by the artist or another hand. She has pointed out that the landscape in the right wing records the actual landscape near Sainte-Baume which was a famous place of pilgrimage. The path in the forest with the seven oratories was erected by Jean Ferrer, Archbishop of Arles in 1516, which lead Born to propose that the painting must have been painted after this date, a dating which fits within the period between 1450 and 1520 when the cult of the Mary Magdalen had a revival.33 She believes that the triptych was commissioned by someone very much involved in the theological debate about Mary Magdalen following the publication of a key work on the subject by Lefèvre d’Étaples in 1517.34 There are similarities between the Master of 1518 and the Magdalen Triptych. One example is the slightly bowed pose and facial type of Joachim in the Marriage of Joachim and Anne in the left wing of the Master of 1518 Lübeck altarpiece which is very like that of the figure of Lazarus in the left wing and the figure seated next to Christ in the centre panel of the Magdalen Triptych.35 In both the Life of the Magdalen and the Calling of Saint Matthew the architecture is overladen with decorative detail, spatial recession is abrupt, and incidents take place in far recesses of buildings. There is a chained squirrel in the centre of the Feast at the House of Simon the Pharisee and a chained monkey

275

Ill. 19.4. Master of the Abbey of Dielegem (attributed to), Triptych of the Life of the Magdalen (ill. 19.2), right wing, Elevation of Mary Magdalen, IRR

276

nicola christie and lucy whitaker

in the Calling of Saint Matthew. Both paintings have elaborate clocks which could fill awkward gaps. The figures are artificially elegant and carefully posed. They move on tiptoe, their heads are seen in profile or near profile and their hands are long and thin. The folds of drapery are similar, hanging in sculptural and clinging folds. The trees are painted flat and their leaves fan out. The same small round clouds resembling balls of cotton wool appear in both paintings. Also the overall tonality is cool without strong red or yellow accents in both works and the technique, especially in the ornamental details is extraordinarily meticulous. Yet there are also many differences: the Magdalen Triptych is cooler in colour and tone than our painting; the overwhelming impression given is of blue and white. There is even blue in the whites of Mary Magdalen’s eyes in the central panel and lots of white in the flesh. Fingers tend to be thinner and bonier. It is more thickly painted. The detail of fur and sumptuous drapery is more finely rendered; the faces in both paintings share characteristics such as they usually have wide mouths and small chins but the Magdalen faces tend to be more three-dimensional with a cleft in the centre of the lips. Eyelashes were suggested in black and architecture was carefully outlined. The town behind the Raising of Lazarus is more sophisticated and more modulated than the buildings in the Calling of Saint Matthew. As discussed below, the underdrawing in the two paintings is very different. While the architectural ornament in both paintings can be compared with Gossaert’s style, that in the Magdalen Triptych is closer to Gossaert, for example Déesis in the Prado. Is the architectural ornament in the Calling of Saint Matthew closer to the exuberant decoration in paintings by Brussels masters such as Bernaert van Orley? A good comparison is between the Calling of Saint Matthew architectural ornament and that in the earlier Altarpiece of Saints Thomas and Matthias (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum) (1512). Though indebted to the Master of 1518, on balance the

Calling of Saint Matthew seems to be more closely related to paintings being produced in Brussels. In the Calling of Saint Matthew a statue of a naked winged genius holds the dial of the magnificent clock and a statue of a naked putto is about to strike the largest of the bells that hang from the clock’s base. Other images of playing putti are on and around the base. At the top of the clock in the Magdalen there is also a naked putto about to strike, but the clock itself is a very different creation. Horological specialists have confirmed that the clock in the Calling of Saint Matthew could not have been based on anything we know to have existed in this part of the world at this time. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to organise any sort of drive mechanism from a clock mechanism housed in the main part of the urn to the dial at the front without a drive shaft being visible.36 The clock in the Magdalen painting on the other hand can be related to the Gothic iron clocks of the period and perhaps to the famous and very rare clock made for Philip the Good of Burgundy around 1430.37 Perhaps this is a telling indication that the paintings are by different artists in separate workshops. Workshops in Brussels or Antwerp must have been interconnected and artists in different workshops may have collaborated and exchanged motifs. Is it possible that the two paintings were produced in the same workshop by different masters? Or were they produced in completely different workshops? A closer analysis of the Calling of Saint Matthew helps to clarify these questions. The Calling of Saint Matthew technique and underdrawing The painting is executed on six vertical boards of oak. Joined top and bottom across each join with a circular peg, presumably driven through a dowel set into the thickness of the wood, the effectiveness of this construction method is illustrated by the far right join which shows almost no sign of movement or paint loss. A merchant’s mark survives on the reverse in an unthinned area of wood at the lower

the calling of saint matthew

277

Ill. 19.5. Master of the Abbey of Dielegem (attributed to), Calling of Saint Matthew (ill. 19.1), IRR

right corner. The panel retains its original dimensions, trimmed only minimally around the arched top, and a barbe indicates that it would originally have had an engaged frame. There is no indication from the earliest inventory description that the altarpiece had wings, although this possibility cannot be ruled out.

Infrared reflectography reveals a fully pounced design on top of the chalk ground (ill. 19.5).38 This lays out the architectural setting, the main figures and their drapery and includes even small details such as the wrinkles on Saint Peter’s forehead and individual hair curls. The pouncing varies between areas: the dots in the figures are much broader and

278

nicola christie and lucy whitaker

more widely-spaced than those in the architectural details, suggesting the use of separate cartoons for different parts of the composition. A few features of the architecture are pounced but abandoned at the painting stage, for example arched windows at the upper left but, in general, the painting of the architectural setting appears as it was conceived at this early stage, with small changes confined mainly to the lesser parts of the composition. Adjustments tend to be concerned with positioning rather than with form and have little compositional impact (ruled lines are visible along some orthogonals and generally follow the pouncing closely). There is little discernible evidence of underdrawing in the details of sculptures, the figures and low reliefs, or any of the elaborate carvings and these elements appear to have been painted with no further elaboration at the drawing stage. Other details are added directly over the completed background, some of them compositionally significant such as the monkey and purse, the taxcollectors and scales, with no indication that they were included in the original design. However, given the complexity of many of these details they must have been taken from highly finished drawings. In contrast to the painting of the figures, much concern is shown for depicting materials and textures in the architecture, for example in the highly accomplished rendition of marble. The figures have been developed further at the underdrawing stage. The pounced design is followed by drawn lines, essentially joining the dots, which gives the drawing a stilted and not particularly fluent appearance in passages, for example in some of the folds in Saint Peter’s drapery. This simple line drawing is then developed with more freehand drawing, giving three-dimensional form to some, but by no means all, of the folds by the use of directional hatching and bolder, reinforcing lines within the deeper folds. Adjustments in the drapery, as with the architecture, seem to be mostly concerned with positioning. Hatching is used seldom but is almost invariably employed to describe form within the folds rather than indicate more

general areas of shadow. Some areas, even within individual figures, are not developed beyond the simple line drawing. The figures are left in reserve and at the painting stage, further, but generally minor, adjustments are made. Hem lines are altered, folds made less angular, changes made to contours of drapery and to fingers and toes. Corrections are made to every hand and foot and it appears that the artist had some difficulty with these. Adjustments are made in rather laboured, liquid lines many of which can now be seen through the thin paint layers. They seem mainly concerned with getting the articulation correct, for example at Matthew’s raised hand, although Christ’s hand gesture has been changed from one of surprise or greeting at the drawing stage to benediction in the final painting, a decision surely made by the client or the master of the workshop. In the faces and hair, drawing is sparse without the care taken for some of the drapery or the efforts made over the hands, and is executed freehand, using the pouncing as a guide rather than an exact plan. For example, pouncing at the hair curls of Saint John is elaborated by freely drawn ringlets. Again, the absence of further detail in many of the faces, Christ’s in particular, would be explained by the existence of detailed drawings to follow at the painting stage. The facial types are distinctive and characterised by their high cheekbones, rounded eyes with almost no tear ducts, no eyelashes, and the whites of the eyes a very distinctive blue. The mouths are small and slightly open, the lips full, the chins pronounced and the noses slender. Hands and feet are often outlined in a transparent brown to enhance their three dimensional appearance; the same outlining is used in architectural detail for the same effect. As in the architecture, details are added on top of completed paint layers. The paint is built up simply from transparent shadows to thicker highlights and this can be illustrated by the hair – blocked in with sweeps of body colour over a locally applied, transparent brown, stronger tones added to build

the calling of saint matthew

Ill. 19.6. Master of the Abbey of Dielegem (attributed to), Calling of Saint Matthew (ill. 19.1), detail of hair, left background figure

279

280

nicola christie and lucy whitaker

form, followed by linear, almost white highlights in quite lean, stiff paint, and final touches of single stray hairs (ill. 19.6). It is a fairly formulaic and economical way of painting, a method that could be used by all members of the workshop as there is undoubtedly more than one hand evident. Even in the apparently uniform painting of the architecture, the two pillars are painted in subtly different styles and it is of interest that Christ’s and John’s feet show quite different ways of paint handling but clearly to a degree which could be tolerated within a painting of this size. This large altarpiece is clearly the product of an established workshop. Transferred from cartoons and developed further with freehand drawing and local hatching there are few significant changes from the original design, which is followed faithfully. Much elaborate detail was added over completed areas of the composition and must have been copied from the cartoon itself or from workshop drawings, for underdrawing, beyond the pounced design, is absent in these areas. It is tempting to conclude that this careful planning enabled the workshop to complete the panel with little input required from the master. The central dock scene, the seascape and the landscape beyond are painted directly onto the prepared panel with no indication of preparatory pouncing or drawing: presumably such passages could be painted from the imagination and gave the artist relative freedom in their depiction. The panel has traditionally been identified with the Life of the Magdalen Triptych in Brussels. Our examination of the underdrawing of these two works reveals few similarities. Firstly, the Magdalen Triptych displays a profusion of pentimenti; indeed, in the architecture of the central panel there are few areas which have not been altered during both the underdrawing and the painting stages. Secondly, hatching is used broadly and extensively across areas of shadow, but far less frequently to denote form, and occasionally extends casually across contours. Thirdly, the drawing is freehand, energetic and abbreviated, exemplified in the drapery of Saint

Ill. 19.7. Master of the Abbey of Dielegem (attributed to), Triptych of the Life of the Magdalen (ill. 19.2), left wing, Raising of Lazarus, IRR, detail of drapery of Saint John

John in the Lazarus wing (ill. 19.7). Comparison of this with the carefully drawn drapery folds of Saint John in the Saint Matthew panel (ill. 19.8) suggests strongly that the underdrawing of the Magdalen Triptych is executed by the workshop master, for surely only he could interpret it. Finally, in the painting itself, there is a noticeable coolness to the general tonality and a pallor to the flesh tones, which appear to be a matter of choice rather than

the calling of saint matthew

281

important commission it is almost impossible that the same workshop produced both altarpieces. The authors conclude that this hitherto unidentified Brussels master and workshop are not associated with the Magdalen Triptych other than by their city of origin. There are stylistic similarities between the work of Master of 1518, the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem and the master responsible for the Saint Matthew Altarpiece. Logically this means the workshops were working alongside each other in the same city, Antwerp. Further research on workshop practice in Antwerp and Brussels will hopefully establish if in fact we are looking at successful workshops based in Antwerp and Brussels who shared ideas and practices though divided a distance of about forty-three kilometres. NOTES

Ill. 19.8. Master of the Abbey of Dielegem (attributed to), Calling of Saint Matthew (ill. 19.1), IRR, detail of drapery

the result of pigment alteration. The flesh is very smoothly blended with cool grey midtones and the faces are distinguished by their fine features, furrowed brows and flared nostrils; they have little in common with the Saint Matthew faces. Although the Saint Matthew Altarpiece is clearly the product of an established workshop and an

* The authors would like to thank Annick Born, who generously shared the relevant parts of her doctoral dissertation and for her suggestions. This paper goes to press before the publication of Annick Born’s book on the subject of her thesis: Le Maître de 1518 et le Maniérisme anversois, Turnhout, 2018 (?). The authors are also very grateful to Lorne Campbell for his advice and ideas and his work on the painting has been essential for this paper. They wish to thank Véronique Bücken for enabling them to study the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem Triptych of the Life of the Magdalen in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSKB/MRBAB) so thoroughly and for their helpful discussions with her. The authors wish to thank Maximiliaan Martens for very kindly allowing them to study the infrared reflectograms of this painting. 1 Campbell 1985, pp. 75-77, nr. 45; Edinburgh/London 2011, p. 53, nr. 12 (entry by Jennifer Scott). 2 Millar 1960, p. 10, nr. 13. 3 Campbell 1985, p. 76. 4 The watercolour was published in Pyne (1819, vol. 2, facing p. 56). 5 Edinburgh/London 2011, p. 53 (entry by Jennifer Scott). 6 Campbell 1985, pp. 76-77. 7 Inventory of goods recovered by Colonel William Hawley (1660-1661), London, British Library, Add. ms 17916, fol. 6v; Inventory of Charles II’s pictures etc. at Whitehall and Hampton Court (An Inventory of all his Ma:ties Pictures in White-Hall and An Inventory of all his Ma:ties Pictures in Hampton Court) (c. 1666-1667), London, St James’s Palace, York House Library (RCIN 1112575), nr. 119. 8 Catalogue of the Pictures in the Palace at Kensington (1818), London, St James’s Palace, York House Library (RCIN 1115431), nr. 177. 9 Pyne 1819, vol. 2, p. 61. 10 Faulkner 1820, p. 375. 11 Passavant 1833 p. 49: ‘Joan Mabuse… Christus mit dem reichen Jüngling, ein sehr ausgeführtes Bild mit vielen reichen Nebenwerken, worin sich der Maler so sehr gefallen, dass sie beinahe zur Hauptsache geworden sind’. Recorded when the painting was still in Kensington Palace. Jameson (1844, pp. 27-28) saw the painting in The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace. 12 Waagen 1854, vol. 2, p. 432: ‘Bernhard van Orley – The Calling of St Matthew. The character of the head, the cool tendency of

282

nicola christie and lucy whitaker

the reddish flesh-tones, and the fantastic architecture, all indicate the earlier time of the master. Here erroneously ascribed to Mabuse’. The painting was in the Queen’s Drawing Room in Windsor Castle at this date. 13 Inventory of pictures in the collection of Queen Victoria by Richard Redgrave and J.C. Robinson, London, Saint James’s Palace, York House Library, 1859-1896, 2 June 1862, nr. 129. 14 Collins Baker 1937, p. 8. 15 Van Puyvelde 1962, pp. 306-307; Campbell 1985, pp. 75-77, nr. 45; Campbell 2014, pp. 550-553. 16 Friedländer 1915, pp. 81-82, nr. 47; Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, pp. 29-33, nr. 72. Born (2010) is the most recent and comprehensive study of the Master of 1518 and her forthcoming book, Le Maître de 1518 et le Maniérisme anversois will be published in 2017 (?). 17 Van Puyvelde 1962, p. 307; Campbell 2014, p. 553. On the Oldenburg panels, see: Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, nr. 84. 18 Edinburgh/London 2011, p. 53, nr. 12 (entry by Jennifer Scott). 19 Born 2002, pp. 585-587. 20 Ewing 1996, pp. 204-206; Born 2005, pp. 10-19. 21 Friedländer 1915, p. 86; Friedländer 1917, pp. 81-82, 93-94; Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, pp. 104-105. 22 Marlier 1966, pp. 40-41, 112-115. 23 Bergmans 1957, pp. 25-36. 24 Antwerp/Maastricht 2005, p. 225 (A. Born); Woods 1996 (where Jan Mertens is identified with the Master of 1518 and the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem). 25 See: Born 2010, pp. 131-140; Ainsworth 2014, pp. 22-30. The Calling of Saint Matthew was attributed to Jan Mertens van Dornicke in the exhibition Northern Renaissance (Edinburgh/London 2011). 26 Born 2010, pp. 198-229. 27 Campbell 2014, pp. 552-553.

28 Wauters 1909, p. 108. 29 Campbell 2014, p. 553. 30 Born 1995, pp. 121-131. 31 Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 11, pp. 30-31. 32 There have been other opinions about the artist and the date of the Magdalen Triptych summarised by Born (1995, pp. 121-122; 2010, pp. 200-202). In 1909 Wauters (1909, pp. 99-113) attributed the painting to Cornelis Schernier called Van Coninxloo. In 1966 Marlier (1966, pp. 112-115) believed the triptych was by the Master of 1518 also known as Jan Mertens van Dornicke, but that the architecture in the centre panel was by another artist, a follower of Jean Gossaert, perhaps Cornelis van Coninxloo-Schernier. In 1974 Brouette (1974, pp. 253-260) proposed the artist was Jan van Dornicke and identified the arms as those of Cornelis van der Goes, who preceded Jan de Tuegele as abbot. Van Bellingen (1986, p. 241) agreed but believed that studio assistants were responsible for the wings. De Bruyn in his review of Lorne Campbell (1986) saw three hands in the painting: the Master of 1518 for the main figures, a second responsible for the architectural setting and a third who painted the donor. 33 The forest of Sainte-Baume, the chapel of Saint Pilon and the oratories are so accurately represented in the painting that Born discusses the possibility that the artist visited Sainte-Baume as a pilgrim (Born 2010, pp. 207-208). 34 Born 2010, pp. 208-216. 35 See: Born 2010, pp. 216-229 for a full discussion of the relationship between the Magdalen Triptych and the Master of 1518. 36 The authors are grateful to David Thompson, Curator of Horology at the British Museum, and Cristina Alfonsin for their very helpful advice and suggestions. 37 Fraiture, Rompay 2011, p. 31. 38 Infrared reflectography was undertaken by Tager Stonor Richardson.

Ill. 20.1. Jan Swart van Groningen, Christ Preaching on the Ship, c. 1520-1530, woodcut, 235 x 362 mm, London, British Museum, inv. 1923,0414.2

20

The Oeuvre of Jan Swart van Groningen Reconsidered Katrin Dyballa

ABSTRACT: We do not know much about the painter Jan Swart van Groningen of whom it is said that he was born around 1500 and lived at least until 1562. Even Karel van Mander who published his Schilderboek in 1604, a few decades after Swart’s death, had to admit that he does not know any painting by the artist but at least some woodcuts, which are fortunately known to us. As Swart never signed his pictures these monogrammed prints had served as starting points for the attribution of paintings, for instance Saint John Preaching (Munich) or an Adoration of the Magi (Antwerp). For that reason a publication of Wolfgang Savelsberg in 1989 seemed to mark a turning point. The artist’s name is written on the back of a small triptych. Taking this work as a starting point for research on Jan Swart’s attributed paintings some unexpected observations have been made. This includes even the small triptych but also the recently ascribed triptych in the Städel Museum.

—o— What do we know about the painter Jan Swart van Groningen of whom it is said that he was born around 1500 and lived at least until 1562?1 Well, that’s not a lot indeed. Even Karel van Mander who published his Schilderboek in 1604, a few decades after Swart’s death, didn’t know much about the artist, who was active as a designer for woodcuts and stained glass windows as well. Therefore, it is quite remarkable that Van Mander starts his biographical notice with an unusually flowery opening: ‘[… from Groningen, increasing the growth of her fame, a distinguished shoot and flower of our art could not emerge, one with such a superbly

powerful scent by which it makes its own worth absolutely apparent that I could be charged with stinking neglect if I did not try to spread its lovely, beautiful scent further. He was a crown for our art of painting’.2 A little further in the text, Van Mander has to admit that he does not know a single painting by Jan Swart.3 Nevertheless, he praised the way Swart painted landscapes, the flesh tones and the figures, which, in his eyes, closely resemble those of Jan van Scorel.4 If this is true, his talent might have been the reason why Swart was obviously also a demanded portrait-painter. The estateinventory of the Amsterdam kunstkooper Johannes de Renialme from Amsterdam, dated 27 June 1657, lists eight paintings by Jan Swart of which four were portraits (besides one ‘Tronje’, two Last Judgments and one ‘Vroutge aen de put’).5 In other inventories we can find further listed paintings related to or said to be painted by Jan Swart. For example, ‘Het vroutgen in overspel’6 in the ownership of Gerard Kuysten’s widow was a print ‘Van de onrechtveerdige rentmeester na Zwart Jan’7 and in the end, a retable is also mentioned with wings by Jan Swart.8 Unfortunately, none of these paintings have yet been identified, and it is interesting to note that until now, not a single portrait painting has been attributed to Swart in modern scholarship. Nevertheless the comment of Van Mander helps to get an idea of the works of Jan Swart van Groningen, as he mentioned at least some wood-

286

katrin dyballa

cuts, which are fortunately known to us.9 One shows Christ Preaching on the Ship (ill. 20.1).10 The scene is embedded in a vast and sparse landscape. In the foreground a group of men is wearing turbans and ‘stovepipe hats’. The real subject of the picture is shown in the background: a crowd is gathering at the shore listening to the preaching Christ, who is standing on a boat. The setting resembles in some way to Albrecht Dürer’s Landscape with Gun,11 but also some other details seem to derive from this etching. For instance the headdresses: there is an Oriental with a turban and a man with a ‘stovepipe hat’. These headgears also occur in Dürer’s engraving Lamentation of the Kupferstich-Passion. One of the two men standing in the background is wearing a turban, the other a huge ‘stovepipe hat’. Coming back to Swart’s Christ Preaching on the Ship (ill. 20.1), it is worth mentioning that the artist signed the woodcut with his monogram IS on the lower bottom. In addition to this print, another monogrammed woodcut is known, showing Saint John the Baptist (ill. 20.2).12 Here again the scene is set in a landscape in which a bearded man is sitting on a rock and preaching to a crowd – including once more men wearing turbans and ‘stovepipe hats’. Considering these two woodcuts as authenticated works by Jan Swart, they had served as starting points for the attribution of paintings13 – as there are no signed paintings known by him. Certain motives, for instance the landscape setting or types of figures, recur in the Saint John the Baptist Preaching (Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 741) (ill. 20.3). When comparing it with the woodcut representing John the Baptist (ill. 20.2), we also see women sitting in the foreground who are wearing quite similar bonnets and again men with turbans and ‘stovepipe hats’. Regarding the underdrawing of the picture in Munich we can observe that the artist has a fondness for drawing skinny fingers. This characteristic can as well be found in several drawings attributed to him on stylistic grounds. The British Museum in London preserves a set of designs for stained glass windows illustrating the Old Testament Story of Joseph (London, British Museum,

Ill. 20.2. Jan Swart van Groningen, John the Baptist, c. 1520-1530, woodcut, 133 x 113 mm, London, British Museum, inv. 1909,0729.7

inv. 1923.0113.8).14 Here the drawing Joseph Taken out of the Well and Sold to the Ismaelites shows the same skinny fingers and a comparable modelling of the cheekbones in a form of a ‘w’ (ill. 20.4). The first mentioned woodcut shows not only the same type of bearded man but also how Jan Swart designed the eyes: repeatedly, they are shaped like a triangle. Based on these comparisons, the Munich panel may be attributed with some probability to Jan Swart – as Wilhelm Schmidt15 already did in 1867 – and it thus serves as a starting point for further attributions. However, the wide stylistic range of the paintings that have been given to Jan Swart in the past is quite astonishing. At the same time this width illustrates the difficulty of defining his oeuvre. For instance the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Groninger Museum, inv. 1957.0213), once called a work of Jan Swart, has recently been attributed to an anonymous Antwerp painter,16 and a panel in Utrecht (Centraal Museum, inv. 20808) showing John the Baptist Preaching and once called a Swart is given today to Lambert Sustris.17

the oeuvre of jan swart van groningen reconsidered

287

Ill. 20.3. Jan Swart van Groningen, Saint John the Baptist Preaching, c. 1530-1532, oil on panel, 74.6 x 112.5 cm, München, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 741

Against on this background, the publication of Wolfgang Savelsberg18 in 1989 was warmly welcomed. He published a work that seemed to be the only signed and dated painting by Jan Swart (ill. 20.5): a small triptych, which was formerly in the Archive of Prince Arenberg in Enghien and is today preserved in the Antwerp Capuchin Convent.19 It bears an inscription on the back of the central panel: Jan de Swert alias van Groeningen mefecit A° 1562 (ill. 20.7b). The closed wings show the coat of arms of the donors, who are painted on the inner wings (ill. 20.6): on the left wing Francisco de Verdugo (1531/1537?-1595), announced as a governor of Luxembourg by his future fatherin-law Count Peter Ernst of Mansfeld (1517-1604) in 1547, and his wife Dorothea von Mansfeld (before 1556-1585),20 both accompanied by their patron saints Francis and Dorothy. The central panel represents the Crucifixion with the Virgin

and Saint John. Compared to the Munich panel, the manner of painting is completely different and has almost an early baroque character. But as the triptych was regarded as an authenticated work by our artist, an investigation with infrared reflectography (IRR)21 was necessary in order to compare the style of the underdrawing with that of other works attributed to Jan Swart. The first impression is that the IRR shows almost no visible underdrawing (ill. 20.7a). Instead we can make some other interesting observations. On the IRR of the left wing we can recognize the composition of the painted surface: Francisco de Verdugo is kneeling and looking to the right while his patron, Saint Francis, is standing behind him with opened arms to receive the stigmata from the crucifix. But there are also two overpainted figures visible: Saint Dorothy under the figure of Saint Francis, and with a closer look we can detect Dorothea von Mansfeld

288

katrin dyballa

A.

B.

C.

D.

Ill. 20.4. A-B: Joseph Taken out of the Well, c. 1550, 270 x 169 mm, ink on paper, London, British Museum, inv. 1923,0113,8, details. C-D: Jan Swart van Groningen, Saint John the Baptist Preaching (ill. 20.3), IRR, details

under the painted figure of her husband Francisco. The same can be observed on the right inner wing: we see the female sitter and Saint Dorothy, but underneath the paint layer appears the whole composition of the finished left wing: Saint Francis opens his arms and the donor Francisco de Verdugo kneels in front of him. Thus the compositions of the two donor wings have changed places in the course of the execution of the work. The only reasonable conclusion is that the painter of the triptych painted the wings before fixing them to the central panel. At the time he wanted to join them, he must have realized that he mixed up both sides. He painted the male donor erroneously on the sinister wing and the female donor on the dexter one. After realizing his fault, the artist overpainted the

wings with the correct heraldic position of the two sitters. While there is not any underdrawing visible in the painting of the wings, some can be detected on the central panel. The contours of the figure of Saint John have been prepared with a fluid medium, but no hatching becomes visible. The position of his head, his hands and his coat differs a little from the later executed painting. Additionally, some underdrawings can be observed on the back. The contours of the masque are sketched in a dark, fluid medium. Here the painting follows strictly the underdrawing. Recalling the IRR of Swart’s painting in Munich (ill. 20.4c-d), we observe a completely different underdrawing. Firstly, a dry medium like chalk or charcoal was used. Secondly

the oeuvre of jan swart van groningen reconsidered

289

Ill. 20.5. Jan de Swert alias van Groningen, Triptych of the Crucifixion, 1562, oil on panel, center panel with frame: 21 x 14.7 cm, each wing with frame: 21 x 7.2 cm, Antwerp, Capuchin Convent

the contours of the figures are defined consequently and they do not vary from the later executed painting. Thirdly, there are many parallel wide hatchings describing the shaded parts of both draperies and bodies. All these characteristics cannot be found in the small triptych. Even if we take into account that a gap of almost thirty years separates these two works from each other and the possibility that an artist may undergo a certain development as it was proposed by Wolfgang Savelsberg,22 it is not conceivable that one and the same artist executed both paintings. Neither the style of painting nor the style of underdrawing allows this assumption. This brings us back to the inscription on the back of the panel. The IRR gives a better impression. It reads ‘JAN DE SWERT ALIAS VAN GROENINGEN

MEFECIT A° 1562’ (ill. 20.7b) and not ‘JAN DE SVAERT’,

as Savelsberg proposed when he connected the triptych with Jan Swart of Groningen. Due to the diverse meaning of the two words Swart, which means black, and Swert, which means sword, it is much more likely that the painter of the triptych, who signed with Jan de Swert, is a completely different painter from our Jan Swart, who was called the Black Jan according to Karel van Mander. Therefore this little triptych is certainly not the only authentificated work of Jan Swart, but has to be excluded from his œuvre. In consequence the only painting of reference is still the panel in Munich (ill. 20.3). Among the paintings attributed to Jan Swart van Groningen is also an Adoration of the Magi

290

katrin dyballa

Ill. 20.6. Jan de Swert alias van Groningen, Triptych of the Crucifixion (ill. 20.5), closed

in Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 207) (ill. 20.8).23 The panel shows the Virgin with the Child in an open stable with Joseph, the ox and the donkey. The three kings have just arrived with their gifts. The background shows a wide landscape and, again, men wearing ‘stovepipe hats’ and turbans. The attribution of the Adoration to Jan Swart has never been doubted,24 but what does the underdrawing tell? Having a look on the IRR, a detailed preparatory drawing can be observed. Getting closer one can see that the artist used a dry medium – chalk or charcoal. The contours of every figure are drawn and the folds of the clothes are richly filled with hatchings. Also the faces of the figures show an underdrawing which models the flesh parts. Shades and darker parts are marked with rough and lively hatchings. The similarities with the IRR of the Munich John the Baptist Preaching (ill. 20.4) are striking. Additional to the

fact that both paintings were underdrawn with chalk or charcoal and that all the figures are underdrawn, there are also some very similar details. Firstly, there is a lively hatching in the drapery that indicates the darker parts in the figures of Saint John and Joseph. Secondly, we can see that the faces are modeled in a closely comparable way. The parallel hatchings ignore the lineament of the facial features; they are just going over the nose, cheekbones, forehead and neck. In Joseph’s face we can find the ‘w’ which marks the cheekbones (ill. 20.9). Thirdly, in both paintings the figures in the background are indicated, but in a much more free manner than those in the foreground. The contours are given in a flowing way and the faces are designed rudimentary. A last comparison shows that also the folds of the clothes are similar: a horizontal line marks the bend of the drapery and above it lively hatchings indicating the darker parts. Looking at the painted surfaces of the two pictures, we see similar types of bearded men sporting a long nose and overly lengthened lips, but also the modelling of the faces is in some way comparable: large translucent layers of white paint finish the modelling of the brightest parts. Despite of all the mentioned similarities there are also several differences. For instance, the Antwerp painting and underdrawing are both executed more freely. I would like to suggest that this could be explained by a more developed style, which the artist obtained through the years. Therefore, an attribution of the Antwerp picture, which was probably executed in the late 1530s,25 to Jan Swart is indeed plausible. Last but not least, a fourth painting that was recently discussed as a work by Jan Swart shall be introduced (ill. 20.10). This triptych is a long-term loan of the Evangelische Hoffnungsgemeinde Saint Matthew’s in Frankfurt to the Städel Museum. The central panel shows the Crucifixion in a broad hilly landscape with the city of Jerusalem. This scenery extends to the wings, where, on the left, Saint Christopher accompanies a group of male donors, while the left wing shows the Virgin, the

291

the oeuvre of jan swart van groningen reconsidered

A.

B.

Ill. 20.7. Jan de Swert alias van Groningen, Triptych of the Crucifixion (ill. 20.5), A: IRR. B: IRR, inscription on the back

Child and Saint Anne. Robrecht Janssen could identify the donors as a family from Dordrecht.26 In comparison with the Munich panel, the colour scheme appears much drier. The female flesh tones are very pale, almost white, and the figures are much more lengthened. The result of the IRR, which is better visible in the wings (ill. 20.11), shows an underdrawing. In comparison to the underdrawing of the Munich picture it is executed in a different way. Even though there are also hatchings indicating shaded parts of drapery, they do not occur in every figure’s drapery. The eyes are

often indicated with large, more or less round loops. The right wing with Saint Christopher shows in most parts an underdrawing executed with a liquid medium, and only some heads of the male donors are modeled roughly with a dry medium. Taking these observations into account, the Saint Matthew’s altarpiece in Frankfurt certainly has to be excluded from the oeuvre of Jan Swart. Thus far we can only state that it is a typical work of Netherlandish Mannerism of the 1530s. Jan Piet Filedt Kok and Peter van den Brink both proposed that the Frankfurt Retable might be a work by the young

292

katrin dyballa

Ill. 20.8. Attributed to Jan Swart van Groningen, Adoration of the Magi, c. 1538-1540, oil on panel, 78 x 95 cm, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 207

Pieter Aertsen, while Matthias Ubl additionally takes the circle of Master of Paulus and Barnabas in consideration.27 As there are hardly any early works by Aertsen preserved, it is hard to consider whether this retable is by his hand. Comparing the figures on the wings and the central panel one might even consider the possibility that it is a joint work by two different hands. Especially the sitters’ portraits on the wings are executed in a different painting technique than the faces of the saints. 28 The faces of the male and female commissioners seem to be painted in a translucent rather than in an opaque manner. In addition they are more detailed and

subtly done than for example the flesh tones of Saint Christopher and Saint Anne, which appear quite pale and compact. On the other hand one might think that the artist used different modes of painting to distinguish between humans and holy figures. However, this assumption seems to be unlikely as we can observe that the donors’ little children in the foreground are painted in the same technique as the saints, and they are not individually characterized. Their faces are painted with opaque whitish flesh tones and rough brushstrokes like the figures of the saints, but not like the family portraits. Furthermore, the formula of the daugh-

the oeuvre of jan swart van groningen reconsidered

293

Ill. 20.9. Attributed to Jan Swart van Groningen, Adoration of the Magi (ill. 20.8), IRR

ters’ heads is quite comparable with those of Saint Mary (ill. 20.10). According to these observations it seems likely that the figures of the saints and the little children have been painted by the same artist, while another one – specialized in portraits – executed the commissioners’ male and female portraits, which resemble in some way to those of Lucas van Leyden.29 Unfortunately, the underdrawing cannot confirm this hypothesis. Indeed two different characters of drawing, respectively two different techniques, can be observed, but both do occur in the sitters as well as in the saints. For example, roughly drawn hatchings indicate the faces and figures of three male sitters, the little boys, Saint Anne and Saint Mary with the Christ

Child. It is hard to consider whether the underdrawing was executed by one or by two artists. Furthermore, there is no plausible explanation why this very rough underdrawing executed in chalk or charcoal can only be found in some parts of the painting indicating some figures’ outlines and shades. We just can assume that the Frankfurt retable is obviously a product of a Netherlandish workshop, made in the 1530s.30 To sum up: the Munich panel John the Baptist Preaching (ill. 20.3) stays the only painting of reference for further attributions to Jan Swart van Groningen.31 The artist, who is said to have been active in Gouda and Antwerp32 and is known to have been a designer for woodcuts, for stained glass

294

katrin dyballa

Ill. 20.10. Netherlandish, Triptych of the Adoration of the Magi, c. 1531-1539, oil on panel, unframed center panel: 133.4 x 88.7 cm, unframed left wing: 127 x 33.5 cm, unframed right wing: 127 x 33.5 cm, as a permanent loan from the Evangelische Hoffnungsmeinde Frankfurt am Main to the Städel Museum, Frankfurt, inv. LG

windows and of course a painter still remains elusive.33 Due to the fact that obviously several artists from Groningen were named Jan, with the epithet Swart or Swert van Groningen, it will be even more complicate to figure out documents concerning our Jan Swart van Groningen. Nicolaas Beets and Curt Benedict referred briefly to an article of the Groningsche Volksalmanak of 1899,34 which says that the painter Eppo Rutger Heerkens, also named Jan Swart, married a certain Johanna Canter in Groningen in 1570.35 Nevertheless, due to the fact that the marriage took place in 1570 it seemed most unlikely to Benedict that Jan Swart van Groningen, born around 1500, got married that late. For him it is more plausible that another much younger artist also named Jan Swart married in

1570 instead. Through a poem (1790) by the famous poet Gerard Nicolas Heerkens (1726-1801) we learn a little more about an artist named Jan Swart.36 According to Heerkens the artist’s real name was Eppo Rutger Heerkens, who was born in 1515 and died in 1574 – and he was a forebear of him. Furthermore, we find out that Eppo Heerkens/ Jan Swart went to Italy, where he stayed in Bologna for eight months, then travelled through Upper Italy to reach Rome, where he had to suffer a lot. At the age of 54 Swart felt the need to see his old father again and to get married – this would mean that the 1515 born artist married in 1570. Unfortunately, his wife died in the fourth year of their marriage. The poet also informs us, that according to some biographers, Jan Swart was famous for paint-

the oeuvre of jan swart van groningen reconsidered

295

It remains uncertain whether Gerard Nicolas Heerkens’ information is reliable, as archival documents on Jan Swart van Groningen’s life are still lacking so far. Considered generally, his report on Jan Swart’s life and artistic activity seems to fit – with the exception of his date of birth. For an artist born 1515 it is almost unconceivable that he could have painted the Munich panel Saint John the Baptist Preaching (ill. 20.3), as he would have been only about fifteen years old then. Does this mean that we cannot take the date of birth for serious, or does it mean that two artists with the name Jan Swart have been mixed up already in early historiography? So there is still a lot of work to do for looking for Jan Swart van Groningen. NOTES

Ill. 20.11. Netherlandish, Triptych of the Adoration of the Magi (ill. 20.10), IRR of the right opened wing

ing ‘historia’ and ‘amoena locorum’ (idyllic places). These latter he called also typical for Jan Swart’s stained glass windows, which still can be found in windows of houses in the old towns. Gerard Nicolas Heerkens tells us further that he himself collected works his ancestor had produced in Groningen in the years around 1544 and 1567.

1 Savelsberg 1989, p. 79. 2 Van Mander 1994-1999, vol. 3, pp. 168-169: (fol. 227v) ‘[… of daer en is uyt Groeninge, tot vergroenige haers roems, ontstaen een heerlijcke spruyt en bloem onser Consten, van soo deuchtsaem een cracht der roken, datse de’eygen weerdicheyt haers sels soo heel openbaer maeckt dat ick van stinckende versuymlijckheyt te berispen waer, indien ick harent lieflijcken schooenen geur niet uyt en socht te breyden. Dit is gheweest een Croon onser Schilder-consten […]’. 3 Van Mander 1994-1999, vol. 3, pp. 168-169: (fol. 227v) ‘Sijn wercken weet ick met gheenen vinger t wijsen …’. 4 Van Mander 1994-1999, vol. 3, p. 171: (fol. 227v) ‘Desen Swarte Ian hadde van Landtschap/naeckte(n) en beelden/seer de handelinge van Schoorel’; Buchelius 1928, p. 52: ‘van Groeningen leefede bij tijde van Scorel, dien hij seer volchden’. See: Lamberts 1986, p. 90. 5 Bredius 1915-1922, vol. 1, p. 231, nr. 308 (‘Een schildery van ’t Oordel door Swart Jan f 400.-’), p. 232, nr. 216 (‘Een Conterfeysel van Swart Jan f 150.-’), nr. 215 (‘Een dito portrait van Swart Jan 100.-’), p. 233, nr. 260 (2 conterfeytsels van Swart Jan f 48.-’), p. 234, nr. 230 (‘Een vrougte aen de put fountain Swart Jan f 12.’), p. 235, nr. 302 (‘Het oordeel, van Swart Jan 200.-’), p. 237, nr. 16 (‘Een trony van Swart Jan 10.-’). 6 Bredius 1915-1922, vol. 2, p. 542, nr. 14: ‘Het vroutgen in overspel van Swart Jan van Groningen’ Inventaris der goederen nagelaten door Juffe Chatharina Deyl. Wede van wijlen Nicolaes Rosendael in syn leven Konstschilder. 7 Bredius 1915-1922, vol. 3, p. 856, nr. 9. 8 Bredius 1915-1922, vol. 4, p. 1253: ‘Een autaerstuck van Swart Jan met deuren 24.-’. (Taxation of paintings by Jan Pietersz Zomer, Amsterdam at the instigation of Joan van Waveren’s widow). 9 Van Mander 1994-1999, vol. 3, pp. 168-169 (fol. 227v). Concerning the woodcuts attributed to Jan Swart, see further: Dodgson 1910; Haberditzl 1913; Burchard 1914; Beets 1914; Beets 1915; Hollstein 1949-2007, vol. 29, pp. 107-121. 10 See: Nagler 1848, pp. 54-55; Passavant 1860-1862, vol. 3, p. 14; Le Blanc 1854-1890, vol. 3, p. 623. 11 Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 13, p. 17; Hoß 2007, p. 9. 12 Dodgson (1910, p. 34) named the woodcut Preaching Apostle, instead of Von Wurzbach’s suggestion John the Baptist (Von Wurzbach 1906-1911, vol. 2, p. 683). Dodgson (1911) followed then Von Wurzbach’s proposal.

296

katrin dyballa

13 See: Beets 1914; Von Baldass 1918; Benedict 1924-1925; Friedländer 1948. 14 c. 1550, after 1546 because of a motive taken from a print by Georg Pencz (Selling Joseph to Potiphar). Hoß 2007, p. 389, nr. 102. 15 Schmidt 1867, p. 43; Beets 1914, p. 8. 16 I would like to thank Egge Knol, Groninger Museum, for this information. The painting was firstly attributed to Jan Swart by Beets (1914, p. 8) and Benedict (1924-1925, p. 176). Lamberts (1986) attributed the painting in Groningen strictly to Jan Swart. Marlier (1966, pp. 411-414) instead discusses the painting in Groningen as a work by Pieter Coecke van Aelst. 17 Helmus 1999, nr. 624. 18 Savelsberg 1989. 19 I am most grateful to Robrecht Janssen who rediscovered for me the present location of the triptych. Furthermore I am deeply thankful to Brother Stan Teuns, who warmly welcomed me and Robrecht Janssen to investigate the triptych in the Antwerp Capuchin Convent. 20 Dorothea was an illegitimate child, her mother is unknown. She was born before 1556 and died 1585 in Leeuwaarden in Friesland. Dorothea married Francisco de Verdugo on 28.07.1578. See: Luxembourg 2007, vol. 2, p. 339. 21 2009 Städel-Kooperationsprofessur am Kunstgeschichtlichen Institut der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt. Infrarot-Bildaufnahmesystem Osiris-A1. 22 Savelsberg 1989, p. 86. 23 Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 78 ≈ 95,3 cm. Firstly attributed by Ludwig Scheibler and Gustav Glück to Jan Swart van Groningen and as such the painting was published in: Catalogue-Antwerp 1905, pp. 294-295, nr. 207; Beets 1914, pp. 8-9; Benedict 1924-1925, p. 176; Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 13, p. 21; Friedländer 1967-1976, vol. 13, p. 16. I’m extremely grateful to Nico van Hout, Lizet Klaasen, both KMSK, and Jochen Sander, Städel Museum, for giving me the opportunity to investigate the panel with the Frankfurt Osiris-A1. 24 Exceptional: Lamberts 1986, p. 91. 25 Benedict (1924-1925, p. 176) states that the Adoration must have been executed before the Munich Preaching as the figures are less versed executed, an archaic type of Saint Mary is used and the composition of the figures shows an abrupt manner. 26 Janssen 2008-2009, pp. 8-14. 27 I am grateful to Jan Piet Filedt Kok and Peter van den Brink for their comment during the Symposium on the fact that the Frankfurt

retable might be an early work by Pieter Aertsen and to Matthias Ubl for his estimation. 28 I’d like to thank Christiane Weber (Städel Museum) for her estimation and discussing the work. 29 London, National Gallery, Portrait of a Man Aged 38, c. 1521. 30 Regarding the workshop practices in early sixteenth century in Antwerp, see in general: Jaarboek Antwerpen 2004-2005, esp. Leeflang 2004-2005. Concerning the different types of underdrawing in the oeuvre of Jan van Scorel, see: Utrecht 2000. Regarding painting technique and workshop practice in Northern Netherlandish painting, see: Van Asperen de Boer, Faries, Filedt Kok 1986, pp. 93-94. 31 Recently a painting showing Adam and Eve occurred on the artmarket and is ascribed to Jan Swart on stylistic grounds: London, Christie’s, 04.07.2012, lot 124, oil on panel, 27 ≈ 48 cm. In some way the figures seem to be related to those of the painting in Munich. But as I was not able to investigate Adam and Eve, therefore I’d like to be sparing in any further consideration. 32 Jan Swart van Groningen’s stay in Antwerp mainly goes back to Von Baldass’ 1918 assumption that Jan Swart is identical with Jan de Hollandere, an artist who attained master’s status in 1522 according to the Antwerp Liggeren. See: Rombouts, Van Lerius 1872-1876, vol. 1, p. 99. Hoogewerff (1948, pp. 2-3) rejects Baldass’ thesis. Swart’s stay in Antwerp is further related to the woodcut illustrations for the Vorsterman-Bible which was published in Antwerp between 1528-1529. See: Dodgson 1910; Dodgson 1911; Benedict 1924-1925, p. 182. The activity in Gouda is connected with Van Mander’s remark, see: Van Mander 1994-1999, vol. 3, p. 168 (fol. 227v) . On the assumption that Jan Swart was active as a designer for stained glass windows, see: Friedländer 1924-1937, vol. 13, p. 16. 33 Swart as a designer for stained glass windows, see: Von Baldass 1918; Baumeister 1930. As a graphic artist/designer, see: Hoß 2007. 34 Worp 1898. 35 Beets 1915, p. 12; Benedict 1924-1925, p. 245, note 10; Worp 1898, p. 3. 36 Heerkens 1793, pp. 238-239.

Ill. 21.1. Cornelis Buys II, Rebecca and Eliezer at the Well, c. 1530, oil on panel, 106 x 73 cm, Cologny (Geneva), Fondation Martin Bodmer

21

Identifying Two Family Members in Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam Workshop: Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz Molly Faries and Daantje Meuwissen*

ABSTRACT: The Amsterdam painter, Jacob Cornelisz, established one of the largest and most diversified workshops of his time – as has been made abundantly clear by the exhibitions in Alkmaar and Amsterdam in the spring of 2014. In this paper, the authors build on the research associated with the exhibitions as well as discoveries made by Amsterdam archivist, S.A.C. (Bas) Dudok van Heel, in publishing the genealogy that included Jacob Cornelisz along with other painters known as Cornelis Buys. These insights open up possibilities for new attributions, allowing the identification of one workshop assistant as Cornelis Jacobsz alias Cornelis Buys, Jacob Cornelisz’s eldest son, and the identification of another assistant, the Berlin Sketchbook Master, as Jacob’s grandson, Cornelis Anthonisz. This, in turn, reveals hitherto unknown contributions made to Jacob’s shop by Jan van Scorel after his return from Italy in 1524.

—o— Jacob Cornelisz (c. 1460-1533),1 the first painter in Amsterdam known by name, had one of the largest and most diversified workshops in the early sixteenth-century Netherlands. The wide variety of works issuing from his shop was lavishly illustrated in the recent Jacob Cornelisz exhibition and catalogue, organized by the Stedelijk Museum Alkmaar and the Amsterdam Museum in the spring of 2014.2 The works encompassed large altarpieces, small devotional panels, paintings on canvas, huge church ceiling paintings, monumental and decorative multi-block woodcuts, drawings for stained

glass and designs for liturgical vestments. Like most shops, Jacob’s was a family concern, staffed by the master and his two sons, his two daughters, and his grandson along with other unnamed apprentices and assistants. In addition, Karel van Mander informs us that Jan van Scorel was an assistant in the shop for nearly six years, from 1512 to around 1518. The Amsterdam archivist, S.A.C. (Bas) Dudok van Heel, recently shed more light on the question of the shop’s make-up by publishing the genealogy of the family that included not only Jacob Cornelisz but also a number of individuals called Cornelis Buys. 3 His findings and other research associated with the exhibition have led in turn to further conclusions, specifically, the two new identifications presented in this paper. Jacob Cornelisz had two surviving sons: Cornelis, born c. 1490-1495 (d. 1532), and Dirck, born before 1497 (d. 1567).4 Dirck’s life and works are already well known. He is considered Amsterdam’s first portrait painter, the artist who originated the first group portrait of a company of Amsterdam Kloveniers (Arquebusiers) (Amsterdam Museum) in 1529.5 Until very recently no paintings by Cornelis, the eldest son, were thought to have survived. Dudok van Heel’s research revealed that there were five individuals in the family with the name Cornelis. One was Jacob’s brother, Cornelis

300

molly faries and daantje meuwissen

Buys (also known to Van Mander), who presumably worked in Alkmaar since an individual by this name is mentioned in the Alkmaar archives. This Cornelis Buys had a son, also named Cornelis Buys – known art-historically as Buys II – who died in Alkmaar in 1545. A small but stylistically coherent group of paintings has been attributed to this master, of which the signed Rebecca and Eliezer at the Well (Cologny, Foundation Martin Bodmer) is the key work (ill. 21.1).6 Buys II’s paintings are characterized by glossy, almost enamel-like painted surfaces with compositions, figure types and Renaissance buildings clearly influenced by Jan van Scorel after his return from Italy in 1524. In the Rebecca at the Well, the artist’s signature can be seen in the B, in which the artist’s banderole in the sky: C initials flank the mark used by Jacob Cornelisz, a ‘v’ superimposed on an inverted ‘W’. Precisely because of this, Dudok van Heel has proposed that this C[ornelis] B[uys] must be the artist working in Jacob’s household in Amsterdam, since the monogram should be understood as the trademark of Jacob’s shop.7 His proposal is reinforced by the custom of regularly naming a son after a grandfather, in this case Cornelis Buys, or another important person, as a form of loyalty. In genealogical literature, this phenomenon is called a ‘skip name’, or in Dutch, springnaam. Dudok van Heel thus considers that the signed Rebecca at the Well was not painted in Alkmaar but in Amsterdam by Jacob’s eldest son, Cornelis Jacobsz, called Cornelis Buys (who in the overall genealogy is Cornelis Buys IV).8 Significantly, the other son, Dirk Jacobsz, signed his 1529 group portrait of Amsterdam KloveI (for Dirk Iaconiers in a similar way: with D bsz), indicating that Dirck, like Cornelis, was a fully-grown artist working in the family business, the shop of Jacob Cornelisz.9 A Madonna and Child (ill. 21.2a) that recently appeared on the market and is now in a private collection in Spain is a new addition to the argument. It was sold at Sotheby’s in 2004 as a follower of Jan van Scorel but was attributed by Peter van den Brink to Cornelis Buys II.10 The enamel-like

surface, fresh colors and specific facial types are indeed typical of Buys II, but the composition relates to Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam shop, where it appears in several versions. Madonna and Child compositional replicas in Jacob’s shop Three Madonna and Child compositions, all most likely dating from the second half of the 1520s, encapsulate a turning point in Jacob Cornelisz’s shop (ill. 21.2a-c). The three works are obviously based on the same model, but they exhibit more stylistic individuality than one might expect in a so-called ‘house’ style. The first of the versions is the Madonna that has been attributed to Buys II; the second is the middle panel of a triptych in Stuttgart (Staatsgalerie) which is signed with Jacob’s trademark and initials.11 The third version is a drawing by the master of the famous Berlin Sketchbook (Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 C 2a), long associated with Jacob’s workshop. The Stuttgart triptych provides relative dates for the series, because the inscription on the Virgin’s robe in the middle panel includes the date, 1526, and the wings, with striking portraits by Dirck Jacobsz, are dated 1530.12 In the two paintings, Joseph appears on the left holding the reins of a donkey, indicating that the actual subject of these versions is the Rest on the Flight into Egypt. As such, the paintings represent the reworking of a theme that occupied Jacob Cornelisz and his shop about a decade earlier. The middle panel of a triptych in Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten) with the Virgin and Child and angels dated 1515 has the same subject in the background, although more episodes of the legend have been depicted, such as the Massacre of Innocents, the miraculous wheatfield and the fleeing figures of Mary and Joseph.13 The central figures in the triptych provide the models for the Madonna and Child in the 1520s series. Now knee-length and seated on a bench, the Virgin in the Rest paintings and the Berlin Sketchbook drawing is identical in pose to the Antwerp Virgin, except for her left

identifying two family members in jacob cornelisz’s amsterdam workshop

A.

301

B.

C.

Ill. 21.2. A: Cornelis Buys II (attributed to), Rest on the Flight into Egypt, c. 1525-1530, oil on panel, 88.4 x 69.5 cm, Spain, Private Collection. B: Jacob Cornelisz (workshop), Rest on the Flight into Egypt, 1526, center panel of a triptych, 110 x 68 cm, Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, inv. GVL 61a. C: Berlin Sketchbook Master/Cornelis Anthonisz, Virgin and Child, c. 1520-1535, pen and ink, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 C 2a, fol. 12r

hand which has been added to hold the basket of cherries and her foreground hand which – in the paintings – angles down with two fingers overlapping the Christ Child’s leg. The Child’s pose is also the same as that in the Antwerp triptych, except that his head is now turned in the opposite direction and his far arm is stretched out, resting on his mother’s hand. The two painted versions of the Rest exhibit a greater degree of accuracy than that seen in earlier compositional variants in Jacob’s shop: they are in fact exact, same-size replicas.14 In their execution, both paintings have undergone some degree of compositional change. One change is critical. In both Madonna’s, infrared study has disclosed that the hand of the Virgin was originally held horizontally, with fingers positioned exactly as in the earlier version of the model, Jacob’s Antwerp triptych.15 This indicates not only that the two replicas are linked even more closely to Jacob’s Amsterdam shop but also that the hands were altered in exactly

the same way during the painting process (compare ills. 21.3a and 21.3b). The pen drawing in the Berlin Sketchbook retains the horizontal position of the Madonna’s hand (ill. 21.3c), and in leaving the background blank, the Berlin sketch can be understood as a record of the basic figural model, i.e. a ricordi drawing. The evidence clearly shows how intimately connected these Madonna’s are and suggests that the execution of the paintings most likely occurred in the same setting – that of Jacob’s shop in Amsterdam. Cornelis Buys and Jan van Scorel’s influence The oeuvre of the painter we know as Cornelis Buys II is quite small, consisting of only around six compositions and a few portraits, including several examples of compositional replicas.16 This last detail would seem to imply that the painter worked in a busy, urban workshop rather than a smaller, more provincial center. Buys’s works clearly show the influence of Jan van Scorel, as mentioned

302

molly faries and daantje meuwissen

A.

B.

C.

Ill. 21.3. A: Cornelis Buys II (attributed to), Rest on the Flight into Egypt (ill. 21.2a), IRR, detail. B: Jacob Cornelisz (workshop), Rest on the Flight into Egypt (ill. 21.2b), detail in visible light. C: Berlin Sketchbook Master/Cornelis Anthonisz, Virgin and Child (ill. 21.2c), detail

earlier. If, however, this art-historical evidence can be reconciled with Dudok van Heel’s proposal that this Buys was Jacob’s son, Scorel’s influence must be dated within a short, eight-year period. In other words, the influence must have occurred after Scorel’s return from Italy in 1524 and before Cornelis’s untimely death in 1532. Some dendrochronology exists, but only for three works. When using the formula with longer periods for estimates, the resulting dates for two works fall in the first half of the 1530s.17 Buys’s works are usually dated stylistically to around 1535. The dendrochronological evidence is not conclusive at this point in time, even though it does not automatically rule out a possible earlier chronology for Buys’s activity. Additional estimates must be sought in order to obtain a more representative sample. Telling details in the Rest on the Flight into Egypt paintings discussed above have been ‘modernized’, such as the Virgin’s coiffure, her elegant hand and the striking antique panorama in the background – perhaps the most distinctive new fea-

ture and an obvious sign of Scorel’s influence. Broad vistas with cityscapes are a hallmark of Scorel’s works, appearing as early as the artist’s stay in Venice c. 1520-1522 and repeating throughout his later career, when Scorel added monuments reminiscent of those he saw in Rome.18 It cannot be coincidental that after Scorel’s return north, Maarten van Heemskerck took up this convention almost immediately in a depiction of the Rest on the Flight into Egypt (Washington, National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collection) that is remarkably close in composition to the series from Jacob’s shop (ill. 21.4). Heemskerck was of course Scorel’s assistant sometime during the years 1527 to 1530, and his Rest dates from the period when his works were highly dependent on Scorel.19 His Madonna wears the same hair style, and she assumes a similar pose (although in reverse); Joseph and the donkey are positioned in the middle ground, and antique buildings appear in the distance. Given the similarities in the way this subject has been updated, it is not unreasonable to assume that Scorel was working on an influential prototype related to this

identifying two family members in jacob cornelisz’s amsterdam workshop

303

Ill. 21.4. Maarten van Heemskerck, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, c. 1530, oil on panel, 57.7 x 74.7 cm, Washington (D.C.), National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collection, inv. 1961.9.36

theme and/or that he painted his own version of this subject sometime in the mid- to late 1520s.20 After 1524, Scorel’s influence on all members of Jacob’s shop was so immediate and pervasive it was almost as if Scorel was still working as an assistant – only now in a more leading role.21 The master himself, Jacob Cornelisz, executed several works in which scholars have long recognized Scorel’s influence, and the paintings date from the mid- to late 1520s.22 Cornelis’s brother, Dirck Jacobsz, made advances in portraiture that owe a great deal to Scorel. His first signed and dated group portrait (1529), mentioned above, borrowed from Scorel’s previous arrangement for members of the Utrecht brotherhood of pilgrims to Jerusalem, c. 1525.23 Dirck’s first independent portraits, such

as the Portrait of Pompeius Occo, c. 1531 (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), show the influence of the portrait type Scorel developed in Italy, especially in the lifesize depiction of the sitter.24 Stylistically, the Rest on the Flight into Egypt in a Spanish collection and the much more Italianate Rebecca at the Well, signed with the initials CB and the mark of Jacob’s shop, fit perfectly into this context, adding to the evidence that they are works by the Cornelis Buys who was Jacob Cornelisz’s son. Cornelis Anthonisz alias the Berlin Sketchbook Master The popular Virgin and Child composition appears on fol. 12r of the famous Berlin Sketchbook (ill. 21.2c).25 This sketchbook, made between

304

molly faries and daantje meuwissen

c. 1520 and 1534, is a small, pocket-size booklet containing 51 sheets drawn on both sides. The subjects differ in function and rendering: some train the hand, some record known paintings or designs for now-lost works, and some are quick sketches of buildings and people apparently close to the artist, drawn from life. The overall style of the drawings, mostly in pen, can be typified as staccato, messy, and nervous with small, thin, broken lines, a style that closely resembles that of Jacob Cornelisz, whose drawings and underdrawings are dynamic – almost chaotic – and give the impression the artist could not stop drawing.26 Soon after the Berlin Kupferstichkabinett acquired the sketchbook in 1927, Kurt Steinbart associated it with Jacob Cornelisz but attributed the drawings to an anonymous assistant working in his Amsterdam workshop.27 Although scholars have proposed travels by the Sketchbook Master to Germany and possibly the Southern Netherlands, in her recent facsimile edition of the Sketchbook, Ilona van Tuinen made it clear that the booklet is more about Amsterdam than anyone ever expected.28 The drawings of Amsterdam buildings such as the Schreierstoren, the Heilige Stede Chapel and possibly the Haarlemmerpoort are among the earliest topographical sketches known of the city. Van Tuinen convincingly showed that the Sketchbook Master observed Jacob’s style very closely and must have worked in Jacob’s shop from an early age. Elaborating on this idea, Daantje Meuwissen recently published convincing proof that the master might very well be Jacob’s grandson, Cornelis Anthonisz (c. 1505-1553).29 The drawings not only provide a unique example of how the personal drawing style of the master of a shop can be thoroughly assimilated by his pupils,30 they also show how the artist reused his early drawings in his later career as painter, cartographer and printmaker.31 There are many direct connections with Cornelis Anthonisz’s later works. The calligraphy in exercises on fols. 48r-48v matches perfectly with the calligraphic letters ‘d’ or ‘g’ on the white tablecloth in the foreground of the artist’s earliest known

extant painting, the Banquet for the Civic Guard (Braspenningmaaltijd) (Amsterdam Museum), signed and dated 1533.32 The quick rendering of a pig seen from the front and back on fol. 17r serves as a study for one of Cornelis’s most famous moralizing prints, Winged Pig on a Globe (c. 1541-1545) (ill. 21.5a-b).33 The remarkable drawing of a contorted face on fol. 5r reappears in the large woodcut series, The Flighty Youth, (signed, not dated).34 A skeleton on fol. 5v (ill. 21.6a), probably drawn from life, with pieces of hair still attached to the skull, was used again in the Allegory of Transitoriness dated 1537 (ill. 21.6b), where one sees the skeleton putting his hand on Saturn’s shoulder.35 It is, however, the images of Amsterdam mentioned above that secure the authorship of the sketchbook. In 1538 Cornelis Anthonisz painted a famous city view of Amsterdam in bird’s-eye perspective (ill. 21.7b). It was recently determined that the city view was made by using a compass and measuring from high buildings such as churches and towers.36 The Sketchbook Master prepared his sketches of buildings in Amsterdam in exactly the same way: he climbed on high towers and city walls to study the broad layout of the city (ill. 21.7a).37 Although done by an Amsterdam artist, many of the drawings in the Berlin Sketchbook seem remarkably Italianate. Some depict Renaissance ornament while others refer to Italian publications such as Alberti’s De Pictura, Pacioli’s Divina Proportione and Cesariano’s De Architectura.38 The artist also made drawings after small replicas of antique statues such as Marcus Aurelius on horseback.39 Since the Sketchbook does not contain evidence Cornelis Anthonisz went to Italy, it is tempting to think the draftsman’s Italianate interest is yet another example of Jan van Scorel’s influence. Cornelis Anthonisz was also surely aware of the new directions in his studio co-worker’s style. The figure type in Cornelis Anthonisz’s first dated woodcut, Marcus Mucius Scaevola (1536) (ill. 21.8), could not be closer to the figure of Eliezer in Cornelis Buys’s Rebecca at the Well (ill. 21.1).

identifying two family members in jacob cornelisz’s amsterdam workshop

A.

305

B.

Ill. 21.5. A: Berlin Sketchbook Master/Cornelis Anthonisz., Study of a Pig, c. 1520-1535, pen and ink, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 C 2a, fol. 17r. B: Cornelis Anthonisz, Winged Pig on a Globe, c. 1541-1545, woodcut, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, RP-P-BI-134, Hollstein 41

A.

Ill. 21.6. A: Berlin Sketchbook Master/Cornelis Anthonisz., Studies of a Skeleton, c. 1520-1535, pen and ink, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 C 2a, fol. 5v. B: Cornelis Anthonisz, Allegory of Transitoriness, 1537, woodcut, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, RP-P-1887-A-11567, Hollstein 26

B.

306

molly faries and daantje meuwissen

A.

Ill. 21.7. A: Berlin Sketchbook Master/Cornelis Anthonisz, Sketch of Amsterdam in Bird’s-eye Perspective, c. 1520-1535, pen and ink, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 79 C 2a, fol. 48v. B: Cornelis Anthonisz, Map of Amsterdam, 1538, oil on panel, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum, inv. SA 3009

Ill. 21.8. Cornelis Anthonisz, Marcus Mucius Scaevola, woodcut, Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet, RP-P-1886-A-10297, Hollstein 42

B.

identifying two family members in jacob cornelisz’s amsterdam workshop

Conclusions It is now possible to marshall documentary and arthistorical evidence that leads to the identification of both Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz as practicing artists in Jacob Cornelisz’s shop. Related works, concentrating in the critical period from 1524 to 1532, not only reveal the transformative influence of Jan van Scorel but also clearly tie Cornelis Buys to compositions and models in the Amsterdam workshop, indicating he might indeed be Jacob’s oldest son, as Dudok van Heel has proposed. The new identification of the Master of the Berlin Sketchbook as Cornelis Anthonisz provides physical evidence of the grandson’s activity in the Amsterdam shop and offers an exceptionally rare example of the close relationship between master and pupil. NOTES 1 *The authors would like to thank Bas Dudok van Heel for a critical reading of this text. Jacob’s name and birth date require revision, as shown by Dudok van Heel (2011, pp. 54-55; 2014, pp. 181-182): ‘Van Oostsanen’ should not be used as part of the painter’s name since it cannot be substantiated in any archival records, and c. 1460 is a more plausible birth date than the c. 1475 usually given in the literature. 2 Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014. 3 Dudok van Heel 2011, with additional comments in Dudok van Heel 2014. 4 Dudok van Heel (2014, p. 181) believes that Jacob Cornelisz must have had at least ten children. 5 A Squad of the Amsterdam Arquebusiers Guild, 119.5 ≈ 174.4 cm, 1529 (central panel), Amsterdam Museum (on loan from the city of Amsterdam), inv. nr. SA 7341. 6 Oak panel, 106 ≈ 73 cm, c. 1530, Cologny (Geneva), Fondation Martin Bodmer. For Cornelis Buys I and II, see: Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, pp. 102-103. 7 Dudok van Heel 2011, pp. 58-59. 8 Dudok van Heel 2011, p. 58. 9 Dudok van Heel 2014, p. 184. 10 The authors would like to thank Peter van den Brink for alerting Daantje Meuwissen to the Madonna in Spain and for providing further details as well as IRR (e-mail 19 August 2014). The painting is in a private collection in Spain and was sold at Sotheby’s, London, 8 July 2004, as lot 243, 88.4 ≈ 69.5 cm. 11 Triptych with Virgin and Child (Rest on the Flight into Egypt) and Donor Portraits, 110 ≈ 68 cm (middle panel), 110 ≈ 29.5 cm (wings), Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, inv. nr. GVL 61 a,b,c. See: Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, nr. 56. 12 The signature and date on the middle panel require further study since they have apparently been done in yellow paint, which is not typical of Jacob’s signatures, and are in an unusual position. 13 Norbert Middelkoop in Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, nr. 21: Triptych with Virgin and Child and Angels, Wings with Portraits of Pompeius Occo (1483-1537) and Gerbrich Claesdr (1491-1558), 107 ≈ 72 cm (middle panel), 107 ≈ 30 cm (wings), Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum

307

voor Schone Kunsten, inv. 523, 524 and 525. The foreground figures repeat, although much smaller in size, in Virgin and Child with Musical Angels, 79 ≈ 53.4 cm, private collection, USA. See: Peter van den Brink in Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, nr. 24. 14 Using Adobe Photoshop, Molly Faries scaled images of the paintings to each other and compared them in layers. The images matched exactly. The figures are also close in size to those in the Antwerp triptych (see note 14). Squaring was employed earlier in Jacob’s shop in two related compositions dated c. 1515 and 1518, but the works differ greatly in size and appearance; see: Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, nrs. 25a-b. 15 IRR details provided by Peter van den Brink (see note 11) of the Madonna in Spain were done using an art dealer’s equipment of unknown specifications. They show an outline underdrawing and, with the exception of the hand, only slight modifications along contours. The Staatsgalerie provided IR details of the Madonna in Stuttgart, for which we would like to acknowledge the kind assistance of Dr. Elsbeth Wiemann, Senior Curator of Early German and Netherlandish Painting. The IR images were taken at two different wavelengths, 700-950 and 950-1150 nm. They clearly reveal the Virgin’s fingers positioned horizontally under the proper right elbow of the Christ Child as well as other areas of compositional change, in which the figures and architectural enframement underdrawn in the lower foreground also refer back to the Antwerp model. The authors plan further study using IRR. 16 There are four known versions of the artist’s Last Supper (see: Amsterdam 1986, nr. 123), and at least two of Jacob’s Departure for the Land of Canaan (see: Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, p. 105). 17 The findings, provided by Peter Klein to the organizers of the Jacob Cornelisz exhibition, are complicated by the fact that they derive from works that may be later versions of a composition existing in multiples. For all works (except some possibly added wings), the youngest heartwood rings date 1505, 1510 and 1513, and the dating estimates, with shorter and longer periods for seasoning and transport, range from 1522/1530, 1527/1535 and 1530/1538. 18 Antique buildings appear in the backgrounds of the wings of Scorel’s famous Lokhorst Triptych (Utrecht, Centraal Museum), c. 1526, one of the artist’s first major commissions after his return from Italy, and the only surviving panoramic view from this period occurs in the middle panel, a view of Jerusalem; see: Molly Faries in Faries, Helmus 2011, nr. 22. 19 Oak panel, 57.7 ≈ 74.7 cm, Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, inv. nr. 1961.9.36. See: Hand, Wolff 1986, pp. 110-117, where the painting is dated c. 1530. 20 Scorel’s famous Mary Magdalen may play a role, too, and the artist painted another, probably later version of the Rest, with more abbreviated narrative elements; see: Faries, Helmus 2011, nr. 24, dated c. 1530. Scorel’s now-lost wings for the High Altarpiece of the Mariakerk in Utrecht, most likely begun before Scorel left for the city of Haarlem in 1527, included monumental figures of the Holy Family with a landscape in the background described as ‘outstandingly beautiful’. Judging by Karel van Mander’s description (fol. 236r) as well as the copies and variants of this composition that have come down to us, one of which combines the Holy Family with an impressive antique panorama (Holy Family with a Parrot, oak panel, 80 ≈ 118 cm, New York, Richard L. Feigen & Co.), Scorel’s original may have depicted the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, with the Holy Family in a landscape. 21 Early sources may even provide anecdotal evidence of actual collaboration. As summarized most recently by Dudok van Heel (2011, p. 71), Buchelius reports that just after his return from Italy, Scorel added a landscape background to a memorial painting (also known to Van Mander but attributed to Jacob Cornelisz) that had been left unfinished by his former master, Cornelis Buys in Alkmaar. Buchelius may have mistaken this Cornelis Buys for the one working in Jacob’s shop in Amsterdam (with thanks to Bas Dudok van Heel who discussed this matter with Molly Faries, 2014.05.12).

308

molly faries and daantje meuwissen

22 See Daantje Meuwissen with Matthias Ubl and Alice Taatgen in Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, nrs. 52, 57, 58, dated 1524, 1526 and c. 1525-1530. 23 Twelve Members of the Utrecht Brotherhood of Jerusalem Pilgrims, 2 panels, each c. 46-48.4 ≈ 288.1-288.3 cm, Utrecht, Centraal Museum, inv. 2378 and 2379; see: Molly Faries in Faries, Helmus 2011, nrs. 21a-b. 24 For the Dirck Jacobsz, see: note 5. For Scorel’s portraits done in Italy, see: Faries 2012a. There is clear carry-over of Scorel’s formula in the disposition of the sitters and their outward glances, but it is especially evident in the larger scale of the image, for lifesize depictions were basically unknown in the Netherlands before this date. Scorel’s portraits also served as the prototype for the Portrait of Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), now regarded as a posthumous work rather than a self-portrait; see: Daantje Meuwissen and Matthias Ubl in Alkmaar/Amsterdam 2014, nr. 59. 25 Van Tuinen 2014, p. 71. 26 Meuwissen 2006; Meuwissen 2014. 27 Steinbart 1929, pp. 1-48. Steinbart’s attribution was not only based on the similarities with Jacobs’style, but also on two Sketchbook pages that copy the signed and dated (1523) All Saints Triptych (Kassel, Museums-Landschafts-Hessen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister) by Jacob Cornelisz. 28 Van Tuinen 2014, p. 23.

29 Meuwissen in Van Tuinen 2014, pp. 29-36. Cornelis Anthonisz was the son of Thonis Egbertsz and the oldest daughter of Jacob Cornelisz. 30 An interesting parallel is seen in early work by Jan van Scorel, who also assimilated Jacob Cornelisz drawing style. See: Faries 1993, pp. 101-111. 31 Daantje Meuwissen recently published this attribution in her article: Meuwissen 2017. 32 Oak panel, 130 ≈ 206.5 cm, Amsterdam Museum, inv.  nr. SA 7279. The painting is the earliest banquet-type group portrait of seventeen Amsterdam civic guards, a genre that was extensively followed later on. The letters indicate the division of the Militia Guild the members belonged to. 33 Hollstein 1954-1996, vol. 30, nr. 41; Meuwissen in Van Tuinen 2014, p. 31. The pig in the woodcut is reversed because of the printing process. 34 Hollstein 1954-1996, vol. 30, nr. 27. 35 Hollstein 1954-1996, vol. 30, nr. 26. 36 Niël 2000, pp. 107-113. 37 Van Tuinen 2014, pp. 26, 69, 128-129. 38 Van Tuinen 2014, p. 157. 39 Van Tuinen 2014, pp. 58, 172-173.

Ill. 22.1. Netherlandish or German artist working in England, Portrait of a Man in Red, c. 1540-1550, oil on panel, 190.2 x 105.7 cm, The Royal Collection, RCIN 405752

22

Who is the Man in Red and Who Painted Him? Mary Kempski and Lucy Whitaker*

ABSTRACT: The identity of the artist and sitter of the impressive full-length portrait of a man dressed all in red (Royal Collection) have eluded scholars since the sixteenth century. The man’s clothes and armour and the landscape behind him were analysed and the provenance discussed. Scientific analyses and technical study during conservation added to the corpus of information. The painting presents a ‘northern’ technique. Dendrochronology established a date which fitted well with previous opinions. An infrared reflectograph produced a particularly good underdrawn image. Analysis of the red glaze used in the painting provided an insight into the dye that was used. An interesting discovery was the use of the pigment fluorite. The chalk ground could provide a strong pointer to an English or German origin. Comparison with French, German, English and Netherlandish portraits suggested that the artist was Netherlandish or German working in London and that the sitter was English. Possible sitters are proposed.

—o— The Portrait of a Man in Red is one of the most striking portraits in the Royal Collection standing nearly two metres tall in an imaginary landscape and expensively dressed entirely in red (ill. 22.1). Sixteenth-century portraits showing a sitter dressed all in one bright colour are rare at this date, as are full-length portraits showing the figure in an outdoor setting. The painting has been cleaned and conserved by Mary Kempski at the Hamilton Kerr Institute, where it was thoroughly analysed with a wide range of techniques and we have consulted art historians, dress historians, historians and specialists in arms and armour to find out more about who painted this portrait and who is represented.

All research suggests that the painting was produced between about 1530 and 1550 and most likely in the 1540s. In the first part of the sixteenthcentury red clothes were highly fashionable and traditionally associated with wealth and status.1 What he is wearing was meticulously painted: the foliate blackwork embroidery of his linen shirt, the different sheens of velvet, silk velvet, fabric woven with metal thread and the ornate dagger and sword. He has one hand on his hip and the other on the hilt of his sword so that though he is stationary he seems also ready for action. It is hard to identify the Man in Red from his sword and dagger, both of which are Northern European in style with decoration common to elite armour throughout Europe in this period. The sword hilt has, however, been dated c. 1540 and its very large spherical pommel is characteristically, though not exclusively, English. In the Netherlandish Portrait of Sir William Herbert, First Earl of Pembroke (Cardiff, National Museum of Wales, early 1560) there is a similar sword and sword-belt.2 The finely detailed designs on the dagger are close to designs by Hans Holbein (in fact the dagger design itself is known as ‘Swiss’ or ‘Holbein’).3 These designs, however, were circulating in pattern books and were found across North-Western Europe. Perhaps the size of the large prominent tassel signifies that this man belonged to some society, or organisation similar to the Gentlemen Pensioners in England, who were regrouped in 1539 to act as Henry VIII’s bodyguard.4

312

mary kempski and lucy whitaker

The man stands on a rocky platform and behind him stretches a landscape which is thinly painted and remarkably fluid and suggestive, especially the trees on the right. It has the high quality of landscapes by Netherlandish artists at this time but seems too thinly painted and allusive and lacking the specific details typical of Netherlandish landscapes.5 Behind him and to the right are curious rock formations, which have been read as chalk cliffs or chalk pits. Would it be possible to identify this as a specific landscape? Perhaps this is a view of chalk cliffs in England, but the region of the Rhine near Cologne or the river Danube have also been suggested. The man’s face is rather mask-like with an enamel quality to it. He has dark grey-blue eyes. His lower jaw juts out more than his upper, like the Habsburgs, who had this distinctive feature. He is an adolescent, possibly in his late teens, with red hair and a beard just starting to grow. His elaborate hat badge has jewels, an enamelled figure in armour and a red rose on a shield shape. The man’s clothing has been analysed and reconstructed, its distinctive feature being its colour.6 While portraits of sitters dressed in one colour are unusual, Henry VIII’s wardrobe accounts reveal that he frequently ordered sets of clothes in one colour, with slight variations in fabric type and decoration to create a powerful visual image. He wore traditional scarlet for his coronation and either purple or red for the four major feasts of the year.7 In 1538-1539 Henry VIII ordered a doublet of crimson satin embroidered and slashed, a jacket of crimson damask also embroidered; a stomacher also of crimson satin, a coat of the same fabric and colour but this time edged with crimson velvet and embroidered with gold.8 Wealthy courtiers also wore red such as Sir Richard Whethill who wore a crimson and yellow ensemble in 1536.9 Red dyes and red fabrics were expensive so whoever this sitter is he had a large amount of disposable income to spend on his clothing. He wears four layers of clothing: a linen shirt and tailored hose; probably a doublet, which is not visible, laced to his hose at the waist; over this is

a coat with skirts below the waistline and finally a gown reaching to mid-thigh. Again it is hard to distinguish national differences in dress across Europe during this period, because such high quality clothing styles travelled and were broadly consistent across different countries. The boy dressed in red, in Portrait of a Boy, c. 1545 (London, National Gallery, NG 649) is probably from a wealthy Florentine family and by an Italian artist. The wide-shouldered narrow-legged silhouette of the Man in Red was seen in England during the first half of the sixteenth century, but also in countries such as the Holy Roman Empire. A yellow and black outfit in Dresden, worn by Prince Elector Moritz of Saxony, is very similar in style and dates from c. 1545-1550.10 The German Matthäus Schwarz of Augsburg (1497-1574) was fascinated by clothing and had his appearance documented in watercolours, the majority by Narcissus Renner, between 1520 and 1560. In the portrait dated 4th March 1527, he is all in red with a longer gown and a German style of hose compared to the Man in Red. In the portrait dated 4th August 1534 he is also all in red and stands in a landscape as does our Man in Red.11 The Portrait of a Man in Red was sold to King Charles II in 1660 when he was at Breda before he set out for England and the Restoration of the monarchy. It was part of group of seventy-two paintings purchased from the art dealer William Frizell. The painting was sold to Charles II as a portrait of the young Henry VIII by Hans Holbein.12 Therefore in 1660 this portrait came to England from the continent and we do not know its previous history. It was noted in Frizell’s sale document that eleven paintings, including Bruegel’s Massacre of the Innocents had been in the collections of Rudolph II of Prague and Queen Christina of Sweden but Portrait of a Man in Red is recorded in a different section. The Portrait of a Man in Red has not been traced in Henry VIII’s inventories, though it is possible that previously it was in England, perhaps owned by another English family, before being acquired by Frizell.

who is the man in red and who painted him?

The first inventory of Charles II’s paintings, c. 1666-1667, was carefully compiled and there the portrait is unattributed and described as : ‘A young man in a red garment, red bonnet and white feather with hand on his sworde and a dagger hanging by’.13 Since then it has been given to the School of Holbein and to Guillim or William Scrots, also called Guillim Stretes (active 1537-1553), the artist who had worked for Mary of Hungary, Regent of the Netherlands, and came to London to succeed Holbein as court painter in 1545. More recently it has been suggested that the artist was German, Swiss, Netherlandish, French, North Italian, or English. In the eighteenth century it was suggested that the sitter was Henry VIII, subsequently Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk and more frequently his son, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey.14 Technical aspects The Portrait of a Man in Red (ill. 22.1) arrived at the Hamilton Kerr Institute, Cambridge, to be cleaned and treated structurally before being displayed in the exhibition In Fine Style. The Art of Tudor and Stuart Fashion at The Queen’s Gallery, London in 2013.15 The panel is made up of four boards, three of which are wider than the fourth. Two small later additions are evident, added to each vertical side. They were once much larger, but have been reduced. The manuscript inventory record known as the Redgrave Sheets has a very early photograph of 1866 of this painting. It shows the painting with large extensions on each side which increases the landscape element.16 It seems unlikely that these additions would have replaced original boards. The composition is now cropped to near the edges of the sleeves. Following the present treatment, the additions have been almost framed out with the provision of a new frame. Dendrochronology was undertaken by Ian Tyers.17 There is surviving sapwood at the edge of the second board on the left (as seen from the front). It was therefore possible to calculate a felling date range. The tree rings on this board deter-

313

mine that the tree could not have been cut down earlier than 1527 and from the other tree rings a calculation was made that the wood is likely to pre-date 1543. The four boards have two trees in common. The wood is oak from the Eastern Baltic area.18 Removing the old discoloured varnish revealed a painting of great quality with thinly painted layers and superb red glazes, which do not appear to have faded greatly. Early overpaint had not been removed from the foreground and this was cleaned off during the recent treatment. Unfortunately an artist’s signature or cipher was not found beneath this repaint. The painting technique is unmistakably ‘northern’ in character and yet it is hard to place. It could be a Netherlandish artist painting in England. Or was the painting made on the continent, possibly Germany? There is even an Italianate feel to some aspects of the paint technology. A ‘Bronzino’ style smoothness to the paint finish is evident, not dissimilar to that of a painting by Jan Sanders van Hemessen, Portrait of a Bearded Gentleman, which has recently been on the market at Sotheby’s, London (9 July 2014, lot 41).19 Hemessen was painting in Antwerp between 1524 and 1550. The portrait appears to be set in an Italianate landscape and it is known the artist travelled to Italy in the late 1520s. Some Northern artists were venturing south and may well have brought back new techniques in the handling of materials. Another painting which bears some resemblance to the composition of the Man in Red is attributed to the school of Holbein and is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. It depicts Sir William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton. The figure is seen from a similarly low vantage point and also placed in a landscape, although the figure was originally standing within an arch, as seen in the infrared photograph, which was then subsequently painted out in the eighteenth century. By itemizing the layers, we can look more in depth at the technology to see if any light can be thrown on the origins of the painting. The ground

314

mary kempski and lucy whitaker

is chalk, as would be expected of painting practice in the North.20 A small sample was taken from the ground and sent to Network Stratigraphic Consulting Ltd.21 The sample contains a well preserved nannoplankton assemblage, which allows for a precise age assignment using a biostratigraphic approach. It was dated to the middle to late Santonian period. It was then necessary to find out where such chalks of this date may have been exposed and worked in the sixteenth century. Upper Santonian chalk from the crinoid zones is a soft, very fine nocritic mudstone, ideal for making into soft pastes and pigments. One location possibility is Kent, near London. There are records of chalk pits being worked in the sixteenth century and similarly in East Anglia close to Norwich in England. This type of chalk is also found in the Paris Basin. However, in this region the chalk tended to be gritty and thus less suitable. In northern Europe Santonian chalk was worked in north-eastern Germany, north of Hanover, in Poland and south eastwards into southern Russia. Chalk tended to be a more locally sourced pigment as chalk pits were widespread. However, artists sometimes chose to use better quality chalk, imported from outside their area. The chalk, although tempting to attribute a London origin, could also have had its origins in Germany. Less likely would seem to be Paris, Poland or Russia. The underdrawing is freely executed by the artist with many changes (ill. 22.2).22 It has been made in charcoal, probably with a brush. The marks on the face are sketchy. The artist has changed the length of the nose in the drawing and shifted some of the features at the painting stage keeping the length of the face the same. He has changed the width of the face with broad lines and shaded with various hatching lines. The shadow in the collar of the red coat shows free, almost scribbled lines. The paint of the costume does not follow the outline in the drawing. The drawing is simpler and at the painting stage a more intricate outline has developed as the folds in the textile have been organised. The hands show changes at the drawing

stage, particularly in the sitter’s right hand which was enlarged. The thumb was not drawn in and may not be original, but was not removed during the recent conservation treatment due to lack of absolute proof that it is a later addition. The knee garters have been freely sketched in at the drawing stage with many strong lines defining the shape. They were initially painted, not following the underdrawn lines precisely, but for some reason were then painted over with the blue paint of the sky. It is not known why, but it is possible fashions changed while the portrait was being painted. The pentimenti have now become more visible due to the thinning and increased transparency of the blue paint. The stance has been altered at the drawing-in stage. A pentimento in the underdrawing shows the right leg of the sitter was drawn closer to the left. It must have been changed at an early stage as there is no shading on the first design. The wider stance creates a more powerful stature reminiscent of Holbein’s portraits of Henry VIII (ill. 22.3). Interestingly, the landscape or details in the background have not been drawn in at all. On top of the underdrawing a pink oil priming layer is evident, which prevents the oil from sinking into the chalk ground. The use of pink is an interesting feature of this artist’s technique. It is not unique but also not common amongst portrait painters of this date.23 The contemporary artist, Hans Holbein, sometimes used a pink ground. Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk painted c. 1539 has a pink preparatory layer and Hans of Antwerp, dated 1532, also has a salmon pink priming layer. Both are in the Royal Collection. The English artist John Bettes, a known copyist of Holbein, also used a pink priming on A Man in a Black Cap, from the Tate Gallery, London, dated 1545.24 Pink primings are often associated with Holbein’s drawings, mainly dating to his second English visit from 1532 to 1543. The few portraits of this date from the National Portrait Gallery (London) with pink primings belong to works either by English or Netherlandish artists. The amorphous Portrait of

who is the man in red and who painted him?

315

Ill. 22.2. Netherlandish or German artist working in England, Portrait of a Man in Red (ill. 22.1), IRR, detail of the garters and change in the composition of the leg

Edward VI, thought to be by Scrots, has a pale pink lower layer. In the case of the Man in Red the use of a pink ground not only enhances the thin blue layers of the sky but also gives a warm underlayer to the bright orange and red layers in the costume. This pale pink priming is made from a mixture of lead white, a red lake and the pigment fluorite.25 The red clothes are constructed with an opaque orange underlayer with thick red glazes on top. Occasionally white is mixed in to create the highlights. From analysis made at the National Gallery, London, the red glazes were found to have been formed from two layers, the lower layer of madder red from the madder root with the more expensive

kermes glaze above from the kermes insect.26 Ultraviolet light suggested the madder lake was in the lower layer. This can be seen in the overall lighter appearance of the lower layer with one or two strongly fluorescent particles. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) identified both madder and kermes in large quantities. What is particularly appropriate to this painting is the fact that the red lake has been manufactured from the textiles that also went into the making of the physical costume. The madder lake has been manufactured from the dye-stuff originating from the shearings of dyed wool. Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared

316

mary kempski and lucy whitaker

Ill. 22.3. Hans Holbein the Younger, King Henry VIII, King Henry VII, c. 1536-1537, ink and watercolour on several sheets of paper joined together, 257.8 x 137.2 cm, London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG 4027

who is the man in red and who painted him?

spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) analysis gave a clear indication that the lowest layer of lake contained protein. When madder lake is prepared from dyed wool a strong alkali is often used and protein from the dissolved wool is incorporated into the pigment to greater or lesser extent.27 Kermes was identified by the detection of peaks for kermesic acid with HPLC. This layer did not contain protein and therefore is most likely to have been prepared from the dyed shearings of silk. Sometimes this manufacture can be verified by the detection of ellagic acid which is used in the process. However this was not the case here. Again the silk origin is fitting for a costume also created with silk.28 This result is typical for red lake glazes from the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth centuries. Examples from paintings in the National Gallery, London, where madder glazes with a kermes glaze above include: Workshop of Albrecht Dürer, Virgin and Child, 1500-1510; Gerard David, Virgin and Child with Saints and the Donor, 1510 and Marius van Reymerswaele, Two Tax Gatherers, c. 1540.29 The most unusual pigment used in this painting is the purple mineral fluorite. Cleaning the foreground of dark brown eighteenth century repaint revealed a pale purplish tone (ill. 22.4). Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDX) analysis established that this pigment is purple fluorite. The characteristic cubic shape of the pigment particles is visible. Fluorite is considered to be a localised pigment. It was mined in southern Germany and Austria and is not thought to have been widely exported.30 However, it does not guarantee that the artist of the Portrait of the Man in Red came from this area as fluorite has been found on paintings from other northern regions. Examples of fluorite found in paintings from the National Gallery, London, date from the 1500s to the 1550s and include: Jan Gossaert, A Man Holding a Glove, 1530-1532; Netherlandish School, A Man with a Pansy and a Skull, c. 1535 and Adriaen Ysenbrandt, The Magdalen in a Landscape from the 1520s.31 Fluorite has recently been found in a Portrait of John

317

Ill. 22.4. Netherlandish or German artist working in England, Portrait of a Man in Red (ill. 22.1), cross-section showing purple fluorite pigment particles above an azurite blue layer from the landscape, below a brown layer of the foreground. The white layer on top is a later chalk filler

Bourchier, Second Baron Berners by an unknown Netherlandish artist and again in a Portrait of Sir Thomas Gresham both from the National Portrait Gallery, London. To date these are the only known examples of fluorite on portraits of English sitters. Although Gresham travelled to Antwerp, the artist is thought to be an unknown Netherlandish artist working in England. The painting is dated to 1565.32 The fluorite pigment particles in these Netherlandish paintings have been found to be weaker in colour and smaller than those in the paintings from the Alpine regions, for example in paintings by Michael Pächer and Albrecht Ältdorfer. There is a possibility that mines were worked in other areas, but there is little surviving documentation and additionally it is not known if fluorite was traded from the Alpine area. Artists travelling in this period might have spread the use of fluorite to different geographical areas. The skilful depiction of gold embellishment on the costume, dagger and pommel is made entirely with lead tin yellow and some yellow ochre, rather than any mordant gilded gold leaf.33 The artist has also used lead tin yellow to depict green in the landscape in a mixture with azurite. Technical analysis, although unable to establish a definitive artist or sitter for this unique portrait,

318

mary kempski and lucy whitaker

has been able to add much collaborative evidence to the art historical arguments laid out in this article. The artist and the sitter It is a rarely occurs when trying to establish the artist of a major painting that each specialist of a particular school is so extremely anxious not to own the work and even more enthusiastic about proposing another school instead. Some people have commented that the Man in Red may have been an ambassador or a gentleman on a journey and it seems in a very real sense that he has no home. First we can consider the nationality of the artist. It is agreed that the artist is not Italian (Baltic oak rather than poplar is an important clue) and that the artist must be Northern European. The porcelain-like appearance of the face and the strong red and white colours suggested a French artist among the followers of Jean Clouet or Corneille de Lyon to some scholars but this has been rejected by French specialists: the French did not paint full-lengths before Henry II, who came to throne 1547, and portraits by François Clouet, nor sitters in red from head to foot, nor wearing this type of clothing. Landscape backgrounds were only combined with portraits much later in the century in French painting. Also a white ground was more typical in France rather than the pink priming on the white ground which, as discussed above, is more closely associated with Holbein and his followers and some English and Netherlandish artists.34 Despite the Habsburg face, art historians working on the German School do not believe that the portrait was painted in Germany (even Southern Germany) or by a German artist.35 Only the Cologne area used Baltic oak, the rest preferred lindenwood as for example Jakob Seisenegger for his Portrait of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol, 1548 (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum). Could the artist be English? The portrait has been linked to another full length of about the same date, possibly British School Portrait of a Gentleman, probably of

the West Family, dated 1545-1560 (London, Tate Britain).36 This painting, however, is very different technically and stylistically from the Man in Red. The only link is that both figures take up the pose of Henry VIII in Hans Holbein’s ‘Whitehall Mural’ of 1537 (ill. 22.3). The Man in Red can be compared to the full length Portrait of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, 1546 (London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG 5291) (ill. 22.5) which has previously been given to William Scrots, but now to an unknown artist, possibly English. This again is stylistically very different from our painting.37 Important artists at this date travelled throughout Europe to work in different centres and German and Netherlandish artists flourished in London. Holbein is the obvious example who travelled between Basel and London. By 1536 Holbein had been appointed painter to Henry VIII and went on to have such an important influence on artists working in England. William Scrots, mentioned earlier, and Hans Eworth also moved from the Netherlands to England in the 1540s. The Man in Red has been attributed to William Scrots. The paintings given to him, however, are disputed and the few that are associated with him are very different stylistically and technically from our portrait. Netherlandish specialists have rejected the idea that the artist was Netherlandish, though, as discussed above, Netherlandish qualities have been seen in the portrait.38 There are some parallels with the work of Gerlach Flicke (active 1545-1558). He originated in Northwest Germany, was probably trained close to or in the neighbouring Netherlands and was active in London. In his Portrait of Thomas Cranmer, dated 1545 (London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG 535) (ill. 22.6), one can see the same Holbein-style ornamental forms and skilful imitation of textures and materials, contrasted with stylised face and hands, all tightly painted. But technically the paintings by Flicke are different – there is no pink priming for example – and stylistically they are not close enough to the Man in Red. Someone like Flicke, however, who was born, trained and worked in different countries

who is the man in red and who painted him?

319

Ill. 22.5. Unknown artist, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, c. 1546, oil on canvas, 222.3 x 219.7 cm, London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG 5291, on display at Arundel Castle, West Sussex

would explain the ‘in between Schools’ of the Man in Red artist.39 We propose that the artist was German or Netherlandish and that the portrait is of an English sitter painted in England in the 1540s. Much evidence points to a German/English axis for this painting and to an English context. One is the use of white ground and pink priming particularly favoured by Holbein and his German and English

followers. Another is the way in which the Man in Red takes up so closely the pose of Henry VIII in the Whitehall mural (ill. 22.3). The pose had been used across Europe before and after Holbein, but was particularly favoured by Holbein’s followers in England. Portraits of Henry VIII’s son, Edward VI, repeat the pose. In fact in a copy of the Man in Red sold by Sotheby’s London in 1985 the face was

320

mary kempski and lucy whitaker

Ill. 22.6. Gerlach Flicke, Thomas Cranmer, 1545-1546, oil on panel, 98.4 x 76.2 cm, London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG 535

who is the man in red and who painted him?

subtly altered to more closely resemble Edward VI and the catalogue entry identifies the sitter as Edward VI.40 It is interesting that the legs of the Man in Red were altered to a wider position to more closely resemble that of the Holbein Henry VIII. Another piece of evidence is the fact that the dagger was decorated with designs extremely close to designs by Holbein. The fashionable clothes are found across Europe but seem particularly reminiscent of those worn at the Tudor court. The sword’s pommel is characteristically English. The chalk in the ground could have originated in Germany or London; the fluorite originated in Southern Germany or Austria, and is found in German and Netherlandish paintings and in the work of at least one Netherlandish artist working in England. The hat badge is another interesting aspect of the portrait. It should help us identify the sitter but as jewels were often exchanged as gifts, or bequeathed through the generations, they could be owned by numerous people over the years. One specialist has dated it to 1525-1550, with German influences, possibly Holbein inspired.41 Another has pointed out that the pose of the figure in armour is like that of the enseignes of standing figures of Saint George in diamonds, two recorded by Hans Mielich in his inventory of the jewels of Anna of Habsburg, and two surviving in Dresden.42 It is possible that the figure is that of Saint George and there are similarities with German examples. It seems that hat badges in a shield shape, while not unknown, are rare, in which case it is interesting that the two comparable examples are by Holbein: Sir Henry Guildford, 1527, in the Royal Collection and Sir Nicholas Poyntz after Holbein (London, National Portrait Gallery, c. 1535) both have shield-shape badges. The pose and dress recall another of Holbein’s famous works produced in England The Ambassadors (London, National Gallery) Jean de Dinteville (French ambassador to England in 1533) and Georges de Selve (bishop of Lavaur), which shows that even if the Man in Red was produced in England he could still be a non-English sitter. The full-

321

length format was not exclusively royal, for example the English mercer Thomas Gresham (London, Mercer’s Company) who had himself portrayed on this scale by a Netherlandish artist in 1544. Nonetheless, the full-length pose does suggest that the sitter was probably associated with the highest levels of court. Identifying sitters in portraits painted more than four hundred years ago is difficult because of the scarcity of records and comparable likenesses, but only a few young men in England could have afforded these expensive clothes and have this type of portrait painted. Even though our man has the pose, status and red hair of a young Henry VIII, the King would have been too old for this likeness in the 1540s. The dating also rules out Henry’s son Edward VI who was too young. In the nineteenth century Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was proposed. Surrey (1516/1517-1547) was a childhood friend of Henry VIII’s son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, but was executed on charges of treason in 1547. In 1540 Surrey would be about 24 years old, the right age for the Man in Red. Holbein’s portrait drawing of him (Royal Collection, inv. RCIN 912215) where he is wrongly identified as his father Thomas Howard, is dated c. 1532-1533 (ill. 22.7). Both young men have the same long face and chin. In fact the Man in Red does resemble the Howard family in general which is apparent if one compares him to Surrey’s father Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk (14731554) as portrayed by Holbein (Royal Collection, c. 1539). However, the Man in Red looks very different from other surviving portraits of Henry Howard, for example the full-length in the National Portrait Gallery, London (NPG 5291) (ill. 22.5), and nothing has been found in inventories of the family’s collection. A romantic case could be made for the Man in Red to be Henry VIII’s illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset (1519-1536). There is little material for comparison, only the miniature by Lucas Horenbout, c. 1533-1534 (Royal Collection, RCIN 420019) (ill. 22.8), but a smaller depiction in the Black Book of the Garter

322

mary kempski and lucy whitaker

Ill. 22.7. Hans Holbein the Younger, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, c. 1532-1533, black and coloured chalks and pen and ink on pale pink prepared paper, 25.1 x 20.5 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library, Print Room, RL 12215

who is the man in red and who painted him?

(Dean and Canons of Windsor, MS DOC 163) suggests that he did inherit his father’s red hair. An inventory of his clothes shows that he owned a gown, doublet and hose in crimson.43 He had died at the age of seventeen 22 July 1536 and before the date of this portrait, but there is a tantalising letter from Henry Howard, who was Fitzroy’s closest friend, which refers to Surrey commissioning a portrait of his friend in 1546. 44 Though this letter does not refer to this painting, it is interesting that someone should commission a portrait of Fitzroy in memorial, and the idea of memorialisation might explain some of the unusual characteristics of the Man in Red, in particular the setting, and the marble-like quality of the face. We must conclude however that none of this supposition amounts to enough to identify the sitter as Fitzroy. From his miniature, Henry Fitzroy has similar blue/grey eyes but not the chin of our Man in Red. A final suggestion is Henry Carey, First Baron Hunsdon (1526-1596), courtier and administrator, who was the son of Mary Boleyn, Henry VIII’s official mistress and would have been about nineteen years old in 1545.45 In the portrait attributed to Steven van Herwijck, c. 1561-1563 (private collection, on loan to the Globe Theatre) the shape of the face and blue eyes are comparable to the Man in Red. Research and analysis have clarified much about this imposing portrait. A German or Netherlandish artist who was working in England in the 1540s and in that decade captured the likeness of a wealthy young gentleman who must have been known at the court of Henry VIII. The identity of the artist and sitter still elude us which is all the more tantalising because this portrait is so powerful and memorable. NOTES * The authors would like to thank the many specialists and colleagues who were so generous with their advice and suggestions about the Man in Red. They particularly wish to thank Charlotte Bolland, who researched this painting when working for Royal Collection Trust and kindly shared her ideas about it with the authors. 1 Hayward 2007a.

323

Ill. 22.8. Lucas Horenbout, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, c. 1533-1534, watercolour on vellum laid on card (the ace of hearts); 4.4 cm (sight), The Royal Collection, RCIN 420019

2 Simon Metcalf and Tobias Capwell kindly shared their expertise on the dagger and sword. 3 Hans Holbein, Design for dagger sheath, woodcut, c. 1520-1526, London, British Museum, nr. 1895,0122.841-842; Copy after Hans Holbein, Design for the scabbard, hilt and pommel of a dagger, probably eighteenth century, London, Victoria & Albert Museum, nr. 1543; Hans Holbein, Designs for dagger hilts and pommels, from the ‘Jewellery Book‘, pen, black ink and grey wash, c. 1532-1543, London, British Museum, nr. SL,5308.56, 57-60. See: Hayward 2007b, pp. 116-117. 4 Hayward 2007b, pp. 290-291. 5 The authors thank Véronique Bücken for this point. 6 Anna Reynolds in London 2013, pp. 85-86, 192-193, 254-255, 286-287. The authors are very grateful to Jenny Tiramani, Maria Hayward and Anna Reynolds for their helpful analyses of the man’s clothes. 7 Hayward 2007a, pp.140-142; Hayward 2007b, pp. 97, 121, 130-140. 8 Account of Andrew, Lord Wyndesore, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe, Kew, The National Archives, E101/422/11. The authors are very grateful to Maria Hayward for this reference. 9 Hayward 2007a, p. 143; Hayward 2007b, p. 218. 10 Parade gown of Prince Elector Moritz of Saxony, c. 1545-1550, Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Rüskammer, inv.no.0001.01. See: Hayward 2007b, pp. 99-100. 11 Das Schwarzsche Trachtenbuch, Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Kunstmuseum des Landes Niedersachsen, inv. 1769, 86 and 107. See: Fink 1963, pp. 148, 158-159. 12 ‘One wholle figure of Henry the Eight when he was young of the painting of Holben’: London, British Library, Add. ms. 23199, fol. 28. See: Reade 1947, p. 73. 13 Inventory of Charles II’s pictures etc. at Whitehall and Hampton Court. ‘An Inventory of all his Ma:ties Pictures in White-Hall’ and ‘An Inventory of all his Ma:ties Pictures in Hampton Court’, c. 16661667 (Royal Collection, RCIN 1112575), London, St James’s Palace, York House Library, fol. 72, nr. 24. 14 In the inventory of James II’s pictures in 1688, the portrait is ‘Holbein King Henry the Eighth, when he was prince, at length, in red’ (A Catalogue of the Collection of Pictures belonging to King James the Second, London, 1758, p. 89, nr. 1047). The Redgrave Sheet (Manu-

324

mary kempski and lucy whitaker

script inventory of pictures with photographs in the collection of Queen Victoria by Richard Redgrave and J. C. Robinson, York House Library, St James’s Palace, 1859-1896), dated 1866 (nr. 3853), has ‘School of Holbein, Portrait of the Earl of Surrey’. Law (1898, p. 136, nr. 345) has ‘Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey by Stretes?’. 15 Anna Reynolds in London 2013, pp. 85-86, 192-193, 286. 16 Redgrave Sheets dated 1866, nr.  3853. 17 Ian Tyers, Dendrochronological Consultancy Ltd., Report 407, May 2011. 18 Tyers 2010. 19 London, Sotheby’s, Old Master and British Paintings, 9 July 2014, lot 41: Jan Sanders van Hemessen, Portrait of a Bearded Gentleman, aged 34, before an Extensive Landscape. 20 Stols-Witlox 2012, pp. 162-164. 21 Haydon W. Bailey, Laura Pea and Liam Gallagher, Network Stratigraphic Consulting Ltd., project nr. 1098, January 2013. 22 The infrared image was made by Chris Titmus using an Artscan rig with an InGaAs NIR camera. 23 A pink oil ground or primuursel is characteristic of Netherlandish painting in the sixteenth century. It tended to be flesh coloured and translucent. Vandivere 2012, pp. 63-66. 24 Jones 1995, pp. 231-235. 25 Identified by EDX, by Spike Bucklow, HKI. 26 My thanks to Rachel Morrison of the scientific department, the National Gallery, London, for the analysis of the red glazes. 27 Kirby, Van Bommel, Verhecken 2014, pp. 32-33, 55-59, 74, 81-82. 28 Kirby, Van Bommel, Verhecken 2014, pp. 32-33, 74, 82-83. 29 Kirby, Spring, Higgit 2005, pp. 86-87. 30 Richter, Hahn, Fuchs 2001. 31 Spring 2000. 32 See: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitConservation/mw02737/Sir-Thomas-Gresham?#paintsampling.

33 Foister, Roy, Wyld 1998, pp. 85-86. 34 Law (1908, p. 98, nr. 331) suggested the artist was French School [Jean Clouet?]. The authors are deeply indebted to Cécile Scailliérez for her very useful opinion and suggestions about the Man in Red. Dr Scailliérez suggested the artist was British School. 35 The authors are grateful to Stephan Kemperdick, Bodo Brinkmann, Susan Foister and Stephanie Buck for their suggestions and advice. 36 Holmes 1927; Waterhouse 1953, p. 12. 37 Charlotte Bolland, Tarnya Cooper, Catharine MacLeod and Karen Hearn have all been extremely helpful over the connections with British portraiture. 38 The authors are grateful to Lorne Campbell for his help concerning the attribution and sitter. 39 Bodo Brinkmann made this very interesting suggestion. 40 Sotheby’s sale, The Contents of Littlecote House, Wiltshire, 20-23 November 1985, lot 804, Manner of Hans Holbein, Portrait of a Gentleman, called King Edward VI. 41 The authors are grateful to Natasha Awais-Dean for this opinion. 42 Richard Edgcumbe very generously shared this connection and that of the shape of the hat badge with Holbein. Hans Mielich illustrated the inventory of the jewels of Anna of Habsburg, consort of Duke Albrecht V of Wittelsbach (1552-1555), Codex Monacensis, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, icon. 429). The two detached figures of Saint George, 1555-1560, are in the Grünes Gewölbe, Dresden. See: Hackenbroch 1996, pp. 76-79. 43 Hayward 2007b, p. 208. 44 Kew, The National Archives, TNA, SP 1/223, fol. 36. Charlotte Bolland made this intriguing suggestion that this is Henry Fitzroy memorialised in a posthumous portrait. See: Bolland 2015. 45 The authors are grateful to Patricia Finney for this interesting suggestion.

Ill. 23.1. Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans of Antwerp, oil on panel, 63 x 48.4 cm, The Royal Collection, RCIN 404443

23

Hans Holbein Hans of Antwerp Findings from the Recent Examination, Cleaning and Restoration Claire Chorley*

ABSTRACT: The sitter of the Portrait of Hans of Antwerp (Royal Collection) is a Hanseatic merchant, one of nine such portraits by Holbein. The Hanseatic merchants are identified by inscriptions on the letters or papers in the paintings such as Holbein’s Portraits of Georg Gisze and Dirk Tybis. A worn inscription and merchant’s mark are depicted on the letter in the Royal Collection painting. During the recent cleaning, a damaged but conclusive reversal of the merchant’s mark was found on the seal in the painting. A delightfully lively underdrawing exists on the painting. Tight, inky strokes, dry shading and broad brushwork show the variety of his preparatory work.This essay gives an overview of the history of the painting in the Royal Collection and Holbein’s working methods.

—o— The Royal Collection exhibition The Northern Renaissance: Dürer to Holbein in 2011 was the initial impetus for a re-examination of the Portrait of Hans of Antwerp by Holbein (Royal Collection, RCIN 404443) (ill. 23.1) with a view to possible cleaning and display alongside the Portraits of Sir Henry Guildford (1527), Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk, (1538), Derich Born (1533) and William Reskimer (c. 1533), also in the Royal Collection.1 In the case of Reskimer, the portrait drawing was also displayed.2 The discoloured state of the portrait of Hans of Antwerp before cleaning (ill. 23.2) made it difficult to display alongside pictures in a better state of preservation and so

the picture was subjected to an extensive cleaning and restoration programme. This programme revealed a masterpiece of sixteenth century painting (ill. 23.1). The portrait is of Hans of Antwerp, a Hanseatic merchant, and is one of nine such portraits by Holbein. This group of paintings is characterised by the inscriptions which appear on the letters or papers located within the paintings. The sitters were members of the London Steelyard or ‘Stalhof’, which existed as a centre for trade between London and the Hanseatic ports of Northern Europe and the Baltic. Their trade in elite and expensive goods for the court is reflected in the subtly luxurious clothes of this sitter.3 Provenance In his 1639 inventory of Charles I’s paintings, Abraham Van der Doort describes this painting as being: ‘Done by Holbin…upon a Crackt board…’ indicating an early date for the damages we can see on the X-radiograph. The panel seems to have been split into three pieces at an early date and rejoined (ill. 23.3). The painting was a gift from Sir Henry Vane to Charles I. It was ‘brought by Sir Henry Vaine out of Germanie…’. Sir Henry Vane held high office including that of Secretary of State to Charles I.4

328

claire chorley

Ill. 23.2. Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans of Antwerp (ill. 23.1), before treatment

hans holbein hans of antwerp

Ill. 23.3. Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans of Antwerp (ill. 23.1), X-radiograph

329

330

claire chorley

The painting The portrait shows a man seated at a desk or table which is covered with a green tablecloth. He faces right, his gaze turned away from us. He is in the act of cutting the sealing thread of a letter he holds in his hand. The letter is inscribed with his name and merchant mark. A book with an inscription dating the painting and giving the sitter’s age is on the table, together with a key, seal, quill and coins. The sitter is set against the background of a plain, plaster wall, with a dark interior space beyond. He is dressed in expensive but conservative black garments, with black fur collar and a rust coloured doublet visible beneath his gown. He wears a plain black beret. On his fingers are an elaborate gold seal ring and three further gold rings, one with a red and one with a green gemstone. The painting is dated 26th July 1532, written as if by the sitter, on the papers on the table. The second line reads ‘Aetatis suae 3…’ (‘his age 3…’), the second digit only having a tiny fragment of black remaining, frustratingly next to a paint loss. Many of the sitters portrayed by Holbein are aged 33 or 34. This is one of three Steelyard portraits dated 1532, probably painted after Holbein’s return to England after he had been in Basel. These portraits are of Georg Gisze (Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussicher Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie) and Hermann von Wedigh (New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of Edward S. Harkness). Identification of the sitter has traditionally been difficult. In 1867, R.N. Wornum identified the sitter with ‘Hans’ or ‘John’ of Antwerp, a goldsmith who witnessed Holbein’s will in 1541 and completed his affairs after his death.5 Inscription The sitter is in the act of opening a letter. The worn inscription on the letter continues to vex those trying to decipher it. The most useful comparison is with the Portrait of Georg Gisze, also painted in 1532, which contains a number of letters. It is also delightful to note the artist’s obvious

enjoyment in rendering the different scripts on these letters and other texts in the painting. The first words on the letter in the Hans of Antwerp portrait are ‘Dem ersamen’, the capital ‘D’ being the subject of elaborate flourishes. The next word has an elaborate capital which may be read as an ‘H’. It may read ‘Hans/ Hannse’ with a flourish at the end, or ‘Henricken’. On the next line, there appears to be an abbreviation, possibly of ‘von’, followed by a word which appears to be ‘anwerpen’. The next word is difficult to read as it is obscured by the knife. And on the next line, although much rubbed, is the word ‘Stallhof’, followed by ‘zo’ and another word obscured by the knife. A little cross peeps out from beneath the knife at the point where the sealing thread is attached (ill. 23.4).6 Below the inscription lies the merchant’s mark. Merchant’s marks feature in the portraits of Georg Gisze and Dirk Tybis (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum), both of whom have a seal lying on the table in front of them. It was greatly satisfying, therefore, to find during the cleaning of the Royal Collection painting, a damaged but conclusive reversal of the merchant’s mark on the seal, that appears on the letter. Sadly, it has not been possible so far to identify this merchant’s mark and thus the sitter, but in existing records of Hanseatic merchants, it may be possible to link this mark to a name. Condition There are large losses of paint associated with the cracks, losses to the foreground and many smaller scattered losses. There is also a narrow addition in softwood at the right hand side of the panel. The large cracks were restored early in the painting’s history. The restoration covered the background and was carefully applied with great respect to the original, following and outlining the profile of the head. During this restoration, the left side of the costume was heavily restored, as was the tablecloth, the green of the original being entirely overpainted due to the large loss at the left side. Indeed, it is

hans holbein hans of antwerp

331

Ill. 23.4. Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans of Antwerp (ill. 23.1), detail of inscription and merchant mark

probably due to these large damages that the painting has escaped cleaning for so long. Although Royal Collection records show that it was ‘treated’ in 1901, this seems to have been partial removal of upper layers of varnish. Some structural work on the panel seems also to have been carried out at this time.7 It seems that the partial removal of upper layer(s) of varnish and did not tamper with previous restoration. The paint was unstable in some areas. The restorer Horace Buttery was called upon in 1956. Oliver Millar, then Deputy Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures writes: ‘Buttery attended to surface: revived uneven varnish and laid loose paint which was particularly prevalent in lower left part of panel’. Examination including X-ray at the Courtauld Institute in 1952 ‘showed so much new

paint and such extensive damage that it was decided not to proceed with restoration’.8 Examination of the painting prior to the exhibition of Holbein at Tate Britain in 2006 did not result in treatment. It was obvious that any investigation and subsequent treatment was going to be of some complexity. The duration of cleaning and restoration was, as a result, difficult to predict and therefore difficult to guarantee the meeting of an exhibition deadline. In 2009 the painting was reexamined with a view to including it in the Royal Collection Northern Renaissance exhibition and it was decided that treatment would take place. The good state of preservation and outstanding quality of the portrait head and sensitive portrayal of the hands were overriding factors in this deci-

332

claire chorley

sion. The prospect of significant investment in time was balanced by the potential of regaining an important portrait by Holbein. In fact, due to the time-consuming nature of the mechanical removal of overpainting of the background, it was not included in the opening of this exhibition at the Queen’s Gallery, The Palace of Holyroodhouse. Panel The panel is composed of two planks, with the head sited to the left of the panel join. The panel had suffered worm damage at some time in its history and had been thinned and cradled by Haines in 1901. The straight and even grain suggests that it is Baltic oak.9 Dendrochronology was not carried out as the end grain of the panel was worm damaged to such an extent it was impossible to make a sensible reading of the tree rings.10 As outlined above, the original panel had been damaged and re-joined before 1639. Priming The panel has a chalk-glue ground applied to the oak planks to make a smooth surface for painting on. This was followed by a salmon-pink oil priming, which acts as a mid-tone for the creation of the portrait. Many of the portrait drawings Holbein created on paper also have pink priming. Using a mid-tone accelerates the time in which one can record information about the sitter. In a cross section taken from the painting, particles of lead white and vermilion are visible, together with some chalk, presumably added to give bulk to the mixture. Optically, the warm colour of the priming is a good foil for other colours painted on top. Holbein uses the pink priming over which to scumble and stipple paler flesh paint. In the area of the book on the table, Holbein obscures the pink priming with a yellow layer perhaps to obliterate the pink to make the white of the paper appear whiter. The priming is applied with a bristle brush to create texture. This texture may be for visual interest as well as providing a rough surface to which thin paint would readily adhere.11

Drawing Holbein’s elegant and sophisticated portrait drawings are well known, but in the case of the group of Hanseatic merchants, no drawings are known. This is not to say that they did not originally exist. There is evidence of incisions on some drawings by Holbein in the Royal Collection which implies that they were used for transferring the drawn image to a panel support. An example of this method is the portrait of the courtier William Reskimer, which has a drawing. There is evidence of it having been used for transfer: there are faint traces of indentations in the contours of this drawing and its outlines exactly match those on the finished painting.12 A tracing was made of the drawing to investigate this match, and when the drawing was overlaid on the painted portrait, the only area in which it appears to differ was a tiny detail in the ear. It is most likely that a portrait drawing on paper would have been taken for capturing the sitter’s likeness, enabling changes and perfections to be made to secure that likeness before making the finished painting (however we do encounter incidences of Holbein appearing to struggle with the sitter’s likeness on the painted surface itself. In the face of Derich Born, changes to the outlines of the sitter’s cheek are apparently made freehand on the prepared panel after the initial drawing). The time available with the sitter must have been variable. Holbein’s closer acquaintances may have had more time available for sittings, but for state portraits or those of courtiers, access and time for sittings may have been at a premium. For example, Holbein’s time with Christina, Duchess of Milan, was recorded as three hours.13 In the Portrait of Hans of Antwerp, the infrared images reveal varied underdrawing techniques (ill. 23.5). The precision of the likeness captured in the presumed drawing seems to have been transferred using a dry method such as tracing and the lines re-inforced using brush and ink. The black underdrawing lines around the true right eye seem to have been made using ink or paint. The line

hans holbein hans of antwerp

Ill. 23.5. Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans of Antwerp (ill. 23.1), IRR

333

334

claire chorley

Ill. 23.6. Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans of Antwerp (ill. 23.1), detail of face showing underdrawing visible through paint layers

under the eye stops abruptly, giving it the character of reinforced transferred line. The line outlining the tear duct is sinuous and descriptive (ill. 23.6). It seems as though the intention was always for it to be visible through the paint, as it gives form to this area. Other areas of underdrawing are visible in the brow, hairline and mouth. Drawn or reinforced lines may also be present which are now hidden from view as they are closely followed by the subsequent painting. Some lines have a pronounced brushy character in the curling lines of the hair and brow bone and profile of the tear duct. As in the drawings, we see that these brush lines vary considerably: tight where they reinforce the transferred lines and loose where the artist needs a record requiring less precision. An example of the latter appears in the infrared reflectography of Hans of Antwerp in the white area of the book on the table. It clearly shows the different size of brush used in this area. The strokes used to describe placement of objects on the table are broader than those on the

face and freely brushed in.14 They give an indication of the first ideas for what might be on the table. When compared with the Portrait of Georg Gisze, it is easy to see that the first intention might have been to have a similar strew of letters on the table. Composition The initial placement of the figure was higher. Two broad strokes indicating the head can be seen through the upper paint layer. The change to the line of the true left shoulder can be seen in Infrared reflectography (IRR). In X-radiograph and also with the naked eye, the reserve for the hand on the right side can also be seen. Changes to the true left hand have continued as it moved down the panel. The compositional struggle evident in the hands of Hans of Antwerp implies that they were re-arranged on the panel at the painting stage. Many changes are evident, particularly in the true left hand. Holbein’s working drawing for the hands of Erasmus is

hans holbein hans of antwerp

the only detailed study of a sitters’ hands that we know. It is possible that this drawing was an unusual exception to his practice of painting the hands directly. Together with the changes to the lines of the shoulders, changes in the costume are also apparent. Visible in raking light is the edge of the pale grey background. This was painted up to the edge of the costume. The fur collar was added over this. In a typical English summer (July 1532), it is necessary to wear fur… or perhaps the sitter requested depiction in his most luxurious and expensive piece of clothing. The strokes of the initial positioning of the head were not visible in IRR, indicating that they did not contain carbon pigment. This led to speculation as to what this initial underdrawing was made of. Further areas of the same appearance were found in the right side, together with many small, circular losses, as if the upper paint layer had been dislodged by what was lying underneath. Tiny ‘strings’ of dark brown-black substance emerge through the upper layer of paint. Iron gall ink has been found on Holbein’s drawings, but this appears to be another substance. It is hoped that further analysis will be carried out on this material to discover what it contains (ill. 23.7). Cleaning The old restoration of the background was particularly insoluble and had to be mechanically removed. Cleaning revealed an original or very early varnish layer. This varnish layer considerably aided the removal of the old restoration. Medium analysis carried out by Brian Singer of Northumbria University using GCMS showed the early varnish was composed of heat bodied linseed oil with the addition of pine resin.15 The history of the restoration of the painting seems to consist of accretion rather than cleaning, resulting in excellent preservation of those parts of the painting which did not receive the initial catastrophic damage. The original background is cool and pale, with subtle shadows of the sitter and junction of the wall as it turns the corner into the

335

shadowed and somewhat mysterious area of interior space. Although this treatment of the background at first appears to be unusual amongst Holbein’s paintings, Susan Foister suggested comparison with the plain triangle of wall in the otherwise overwhelmingly rich 1527 Portrait of Sir Thomas More (New York, Frick Collection).16 Plain plaster as a foil for elaborately lifelike painting is also seen in the Lais Corinthiaca of 1526 (Basel, Kunstmuseum). The 1528 Portrait of Nikolaus Kratzer (Paris, Musée du Louvre) is painted in a similarly austere setting to that of Hans of Antwerp. There is some variation in the amount of black paint in the dark area on the Portrait of Hans of Antwerp, leading to speculation as to whether it was intended to become a niche like in the portrait of Kratzer, an idea which was not in the end taken to conclusion. The old restoration was carefully worked round the head, and was very respectful of the original, only straying partially over Holbein’s paint. Holbein’s characteristic single hairs which make the image so lively and immediate were uncovered underneath this overpaint. The seal lying on the table was overpainted and was always thought to represent the letter W.17 As mentioned above, it is in fact the reverse of the merchant mark which appears on the letter. Only a small part of the ellipse remains as there are several losses to the paint in this area. The green tablecloth had several complete losses down to the ground and in some cases, down to the panel. The cloth had been completely overpainted in a dark olive green. In common with the other old restorations, this had been carefully carried out, the repaint following the outlines of the objects on the table. However, at the extreme left of the painting the fragment of a key had been painted out, and it was with much glee that this object was recovered. Its shadow implied that it was propped up on another object, perhaps another key or keys. The presence of this object at the extreme left of the composition lead to speculation regarding other possible still life objects that might have been painted in the large area since lost between the key and the seal. Other portraits by

336

claire chorley

Ill. 23.7. Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans of Antwerp (ill. 23.1), detail, background

Holbein such as that of Nikolaus Kratzer have a rhythmic litter of still life objects, and one can only imagine what might have occupied this space.18 Conclusion The painting was exhibited in the Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, in the exhibition mentioned above in 2011. Despite the important questions

that remain, the cleaning has been so dramatic that it has been likened to finding a new painting by Holbein. The dramatic colour change in removing discoloured varnish and overpaint and the significant discovery of the seal being that of the sitter’s merchant mark, have added to the corpus of work on Holbein the artist and this still-mysterious sitter. The painting while being apparently very simple is

hans holbein hans of antwerp

a great representation of different materials and textures. Holbein describes a wide range of materials in paint: black satin, white linen, limewashed wall, fur, flesh, hair, feather, parchment, gold, silver. There is great enjoyment in the contrasts of different animals: human hair, differing in beard and head, with the furry collar. The painter has created an intense, heightened reality which belies its apparent modest intentions. In common with Holbein’s other portraits of the Hanseatic merchants, this painting has intense psychological drama carried out on a modest scale. NOTES * My thanks to colleagues at the Royal Collection, in particular to Alan Donnithorne, Chief Conservator at the Royal Library, to Dr. Lorenz Beck, University of Berlin, Rachel Billinge, National Gallery, London, Dr. Victoria Button, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Dr. Wolf Burchard, Dr. Susan Foister, National Gallery, London, Dr. Antonella Ghignol, Dr. Monika Strolz, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Dr. Karsten Uhde, Archivschule Marburg, Germany. 1 Exhibition The Northern Renaissance: Dürer to Holbein, Queen’s Gallery, Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh (17th June 2011-15th January 2012) and Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace (26th October 2012-14th April 2013). 2 Painting: Hans Holbein the Younger, William Reskimer, Royal Collection, RCIN 404422, oil on panel, 46.4 ≈ 33.6 ≈ 1.6 cm (incl. cradle); original panel is 3-4 mm. Drawing: Hans Holbein the Younger, William Reskimer, Royal Collection, RCIN 912237, black and coloured chalks, pen and ink, metalpoint on pink prepared paper, 29 ≈ 21 cm. Inscribed in an eighteenth-century hand, upper left and right ‘Reskeemer, A Cornish Gent’. 3 The ‘Stalhof’ or Steelyard was the Guildhall and warehouses, lodgings and offices in London of the Hanseatic merchants, located to the west of the Tower of London on the north bank of the Thames. A drawing by Anthonis van Wyngaerde exists in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford showing the site, with cranes and a dock labelled ‘Stalhof’. The merchants commissioned several works from Holbein. See: Foister 2004, pp. 130-133.

337

4 Millar 1960; Catalogue of the contents of the Chair room, Whitehall, British Library, Add. Ms. 10112, entitled ‘The Booke of the Kings: 40: Pictures and :12: Statuas placed at this time in the Kings Chare roome…’, a fair copy, drawn up under Van der Doort’s surveillance, of the section in his manuscript, that deals with the Chair Room. 5 Wornum 1867, pp. 258-259. 6 The Royal Collection would like to thank Dr. Karsten Uhde, Dr. Lorenz Beck, Dr. Antonella Ghignol for their help with the inscription and Dr. Wolf Burchard for his help with translation of the inscription. 7 From the Royal Collection curatorial files: ‘Cleaned by Haines & Sons, 1901’. 8 From the Royal Collection curatorial files, handwritten note, apparently by Sir Oliver Millar. 9 Ian Tyers, University of Sheffield, in conversation. 10 Ian Tyers, University of Sheffield, carried out dendrochronology on other paintings in the Royal Collection prior to the exhibition The Northern Renaissance: Dürer to Holbein (2010-2011). 11 Black pigment binds somewhat poorly with oil and this may be an attempt by the artist to make the adhesion of the black paint better. 12 My thanks to Alan Donnithorne, Head of Paper Conservation, The Royal Library, for bringing this to my attention. 13 Holbein visited Christina of Denmark in Brussels on 10th March 1538 to make a portrait of her for Henry VIII. He travelled with the courtier, Philip Hoby, who reported to Thomas Cromwell. In a letter of March 14th from John Hutton, English Agent in Brussels at the court of the Regent of the Netherlands, to Cromwell, Hutton describes the meeting of Holbein and Christina: ‘who havyng but thre owers space hathe shoid hymself tobe a master of that siens, for it (the portrait) is very perffight’. See: Chamberlain 1913, p. 121. 14 First recorded in 2010 when I initially examined the painting prior to possible treatment. 15 Brian Singer, Northumbria University, February 2012: ‘Linseed oil (not heat bodied, rosin, trace of lead white (from underlying paint?). Some protein, perhaps from an animal glue or isinglass consolidant’. 16 In conversation, during a visit Dr. Susan Foister made to the Conservation Studios, Windsor. 17 The seal was repainted as a letter ‘W’, first recorded in Wornum (1867, p. 259): ‘and a seal with a W for a device’. 18 Foister 2004, p. 61, fig. 63 for the reproduction of the infrared reflectography of still-life elements on the table in front of Nikolaus Kratzer (Paris, Musée du Louvre).

A.

B.

Ill. 24.1. The three known versions of the Good Shepherd by Pieter Brueghel the Younger. A: Kronacker Collection, oil on panel, 40.1 x 54.6 cm, unsigned. B: former Pollack Collection, oil on panel, 40.5 x 59.3 cm, signed ‘·P·BREVGHEL’. C: Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, oil on panel, 41.3 x 57 cm, signed and dated ‘P·BREVGHEL ·1616·’

C.

24

A Case of Mistaken Identity A Version of the Good Shepherd by Pieter Brueghel the Younger Dominique Allart, Christina Currie, Pascale Fraiture and Steven Saverwyns

ABSTRACT: An unsigned version of the Good Shepherd in the Kronacker Collection has been variously attributed to members of the Bruegel dynasty over the years, and was offered for sale in 2012 at auction as a painting by Jan Brueghel the Younger (1601-1678). Its attribution was reconsidered after examination at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA). Following usual protocol, the painting was subjected to a detailed scientific investigation, including infrared reflectography, X-radiography, tracing and dendrochronology. In addition, Raman spectroscopy was carried out on the underdrawing, without sampling. The results of these examinations were compared with those from a signed and dated version of the same composition by Pieter Brueghel the Younger in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSKB/ MRBAB) and from another signed version from the former Pollack Collection. The conclusion drawn as regards the attribution of the Kronacker version was unambiguous, and firmly reassigns the painting to the hand of Pieter Brueghel the Younger.

—o— The history of attribution In 2012, the reappearance of an unsigned version of the Good Shepherd on the Paris art market attracted considerable media attention in France (ill. 24.1a). Indeed, this painting, from a private Belgian collection, the Kronacker Collection, had at times been attributed to Pieter Bruegel the Elder.1 The painting was first published by Gustav Glück in 1935 as a copy by Pieter Brueghel the Younger after a lost original by his father.2 At that

time, it belonged to the Princeton University Museum. Glück’s attribution was later contested by Georges Marlier, the author of an important monograph on Pieter Brueghel the Younger published in 1969.3 Marlier, who examined the work after cleaning, identified Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s style in all parts of it except the face of the shepherd. According to him, the face was left unfinished by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and probably later completed by Jan Brueghel the Elder. This was also the conviction expressed by Fritz Grossmann, in the third edition of his famous book on Bruegel. According to him, ‘the lively lines of the underdrawing now visible here [i.e. after cleaning] in the hands, in some of the sheep, as well as several pentimenti, indicate an original work, not a copy’. Therefore, he stated that ‘the composition, at least in outline, must have been drawn on the panel by the designing artist, obviously Pieter Bruegel the Elder’. He recognized the master’s hand in the shepherd’s garment, but thought that Jan Brueghel the Elder was responsible for the completion of the painting. He recognized his manner especially in the wolf and the background landscape.4 Thus, Marlier and Grossmann both agreed on an attribution to Pieter Bruegel the Elder for an important part of the composition. This opinion was reiterated by Philippe and Françoise Roberts-Jones in the catalogue of the acclaimed exhibition on the Bruegel dynasty held in Brussels in 1980.5 Jacques Foucart, the reviewer

340

dominique allart, christina currie, pascale fraiture and steven saverwyns

of the exhibition catalogue, remained reluctant on a total attribution to Pieter Bruegel the Elder, but acknowledged the great master’s authorship for the landscape.6 As usual for a Bruegelian composition, several versions have come down to us. In this case, three versions are known. The other two are almost identical to the Kronacker version. The second version, signed ‘·p·brevghel’, was already mentioned by Glück in 1935 (ill. 24.1b).7 At that time, it belonged to Ernst and Gisela Pollack in Vienna. Looted by the Nazis in 1942, it was recovered by the descendants of the Pollack Family in 2001. In April 2006, it was sold by Christie’s in New York as a replica by Pieter Brueghel the Younger after a lost composition by his father. Peter van den Brink brought this version to our attention in 2004.8 The third version was unknown until it was left to the Royal Museums of Fine Arts (KMSKB/ MRBAB) in Brussels in 1989, as part of the Frans Heulens-Van der Meiren Bequest (ill. 24.1c).9 It can be considered a benchmark in the series, since it is signed by Pieter Brueghel the Younger and dated 1616. Klaus Ertz, the great connoisseur of the Brueghel family, claimed it is a work by Pieter Brueghel the Younger, and we completely agree with him. Painterly technique and underdrawing style are typical of the artist. Therefore, this version was included as an autograph painting by Pieter Brueghel the Younger in our book The Brueghel Phenomenon.10 According to Ertz, the Kronacker version of the Good Shepherd differs from the Brussels Museums version in both style and quality.11 He states that the Kronacker version is a weak copy after the Brussels Museums version, painted by a less gifted painter, maybe Jan Brueghel the Younger, the nephew of Pieter the Younger. This is the last published opinion expressed on the Kronacker version, formerly attributed to Pieter Bruegel the Elder. As a result, the painting was presented for auction in Paris in 2012 as a work by Jan Brueghel the Younger.12 The bewildering question of its attribution will be re-examined here.

Technical and stylistic analysis The technical evidence on the Kronacker version will be examined in comparison with the other two known versions, starting with the paint layer, which is where the confusion first set it.13 Condition The condition of the Kronacker version goes some way to explain why art historians have misjudged the painting in the past. Although there are no significant losses, the paint layer has been somewhat abraded during cleaning. This damage influences greatly our perception of the painting. Because it is not a straightforward loss to paint and ground, it is difficult to quantify. In the head of the shepherd, the highlights on the hair curls are mostly lost and the flesh tones are missing some of their substance (ill. 24.2a). As a result the ground layer is exposed in places. The brown lower foreground is lighter than it should be owing to overcleaning and the black sheep, which contrast little with the white sheep alongside them, are clearly thinner than they should be. The former Pollack version seems to be in a similar condition to that of the Kronacker painting. This version has suffered even more abrasion to the hair, and the flesh tones also seem worn (ill. 24.2b). Some of the facial features have been reinforced with a mid-pink colour during a former restoration, conferring a somewhat crude appearance. The brown foreground also shows signs of abrasion. The Royal Museums of Fine Arts version, on the other hand, has a sense of volume and threedimensionality missing in the other two, thanks to the presence of thicker flesh tones, the excellent condition of the brown and black glazes in the lower foreground, and well-conserved details such as the sheep and shepherd’s hair curls (ill. 24.2c).14 The composition has a more dynamic and rhythmic feel, owing to the preservation of its contrasts: the dark stony ground with the shepherd and wolf juxtaposes with the light, sweeping earth patterns in the upper right, giving way to the green fields to the left and finally to the distant bluish town and

a case of mistaken identity

341

A.

B.

Ill. 24.2. Detail, shepherd’s face, showing comparable brushwork in the three versions. A: Kronacker Collection (ill. 24.1a). B: former Pollack Collection (ill. 24.1b). C: Brussels (ill. 24.1c). C.

342

dominique allart, christina currie, pascale fraiture and steven saverwyns

sky. Although possibly painted slightly more thickly than the other two, the version is clearly in a better state of preservation. Paint application and style Taking into account these differences in condition, the order of execution and brushwork in the three versions appear nonetheless exceedingly alike. The paintings were executed following a similar pattern, starting with the sky and progressing through to the foreground. In the Kronacker and Brussels Royal Museums versions, the distant town on the horizon was brushed in while the sky paint was still soft, as were the narrow tree trunks to the right, with brown paint added later. For the more substantial trees to the left, on the other hand, reserves were retained in the sky paint. These can be seen in the X-radiographs of all three versions (Ill. 24.3a-d).15 Likewise, reserves were left in these

tree trunks for the sheep overlapping them. These reserves, visible in IRR, are found in exactly the same places in all three versions, with the exception of one of the sheep at the back in the Brussels Royal Museums version, which has been painted on top of the tree (Ill. 24.4a-c). The most comparable brushwork among the three versions is found in the shepherd’s face, and in particular the right eyebrow, nose and mouth and the highlights under the eye sockets (Ill. 24.2a-c). The stylistic similarity in this area is such that it is hard to imagine more than one hand being involved in the execution. Underdrawing: material and style Turning to the underdrawing, all three paintings show a similar dry, wiry outline drawing for the entire composition, suggestive of graphite or black chalk. Apart from some of the slender trees to

A.

B.

C.

D.

Ill. 24.3. Painterly reserves for trees in sky paint. A: Kronacker Collection (ill. 24.1a), normal light. B: idem, X-ray, detail. C: Brussels (ill. 24.1c), normal light. D: idem, X-ray, detail

a case of mistaken identity

343

A.

B.

Ill. 24.4. Detail, sheep, showing similar underdrawing style and use of reserves in the three versions. A: Kronacker Collection (ill. 24.1a). B: former Pollack Collection (ill. 24.1b). C: Brussels (ill. 24.1c) C.

dominique allart, christina currie, pascale fraiture and steven saverwyns

Counts

344

Graphite reference

Underdrawing

Black chalk reference

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

Raman shift / cm-1

Ill. 24.5. Raman spectra of underdrawing in Kronacker version (ill. 24.1a), with reference curves for graphite and black chalk

the right and small adjustments to the sheep, the paint layer follows the underdrawing closely in all versions. In the Kronacker version, the underdrawing is exposed at the surface in places. The slight lowering of the profile of a black sheep during painting means that the black drawing lines of its horns are fully visible. Following local removal of the varnish from this spot, it was possible to carry out analysis of the drawing by Raman spectroscopy without having to take a sample. In ill. 24.5, the Raman spectrum of the sample is in red, and is shown alongside the reference spectra for graphite and black chalk. The position of the Raman bands as well as their shape indicate graphite rather than black chalk. Pagès-Camagna, Duval and Guicharnaud first used this method for the analysis of independent drawings by Gustave Moreau,16 and we have since used it for the identification of the underdrawing material in six paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Younger, including the Kronacker Good Shepherd. Of these, five were identified as graphite, one as black chalk.17 Close examination reveals that the underdrawing in the Kronacker painting lies directly on top of a thin greyish imprimatura layer, itself situated

above the white ground. This layer structure is entirely typical of Pieter Brueghel the Younger’s paintings. In both the Brussels Royal Museums and Pollack versions, IRR reveals the tell-tale sweeping brushstrokes characteristic of a carbon-containing imprimatura, but its position versus the underdrawing was not determined. The drawing style is virtually indistinguishable in the three paintings. Although each underdrawing is fundamentally an outline drawing of the composition, there are many shared idiosyncratic notations. These include the series of short hatches for the shepherd’s nose and neck tendon, the short dashes marking his cheek and the manner in which his eyes are outlined (ill. 24.6). In the sheep, similarities include the broken scalloped line for the uppermost sheep and the set of strokes making up the lower sheep’s tail (ill. 24.4). The same nervous line is apparent throughout in the three drawings, the drawing tool lifted frequently along the way. The transfer process Pieter Brueghel the Younger almost always used pricked cartoons to transfer his compositions or at least parts of them, as demonstrated in a previous study.18 We were able to test out this possibility for

a case of mistaken identity

345

A.

B.

Ill. 24.6. Detail, shepherd’s face, revealing similar underdrawing style in the three versions, IRR. A: Kronacker Collection (ill. 24.1a). B: former Pollack Collection (ill. 24.1b); C: Brussels (ill. 24.1c) C.

346

dominique allart, christina currie, pascale fraiture and steven saverwyns

the Good Shepherd through tracing the painted outlines of the Kronacker and Brussels Royal Museums versions, and superposing them with each other and with a reproduction of the Pollack version (Ill. 24.7a-b). This shows a relatively good match for the figures, but not for the shepherd’s hat or the background, even when shifted. The level of correspondence suggests that the same cartoon may have been used for the transfer of the shepherd and wolf motif in the three paintings, but that the rest, including the shepherd’s hat and all the background, was executed without pounced guidelines. This may also explain why the shepherd and wolf motif are more tightly drawn than the sheep and landscape background. Panel support The Kronacker and Brussels Royal Museums versions’ panel supports are intact and in excellent condition. The Pollack panel has been planed and battens attached. According to a 2004 technical report by Caroline von Saint-George, it consists of two oak planks, the upper one narrower and of a higher quality than the lower one.19 The Kronacker and Brussels Royal Museums versions are painted on single planks of radially cut oak. They have both been manually planed in the horizontal direction and present bevelled edges and a generally neat and professional finish. They were both made by the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Claessens, as attested by his distinctive clover stamp clearly present on the reverse sides (Ill. 24.8a-b). The X-radiograph of the Kronacker version reveals an undulating wood grain over the whole panel, with a significant irregularity in the upper right. The wood grain is not as regular as that typically seen in oak planks from the Baltic region (ill. 24.9a). The corresponding X-radiograph of the Brussels Royal Museums version, when turned upside down, shows exactly the same wood grain and irregularity as the Kronacker version (ill. 24.9b). It is clear that these two panels were cut from the same tree.

Dendrochronology revealed some more interesting facts about the Kronacker Good Shepherd. As well as confirming that the plank is indeed from the same tree as that of the Brussels Royal Museums version, dendrochronological analysis shows that the tree originated from a local source from river basins of the Meuse and/or the Middle-Lower Rhine, rather than the Baltic region. Indeed, a large tree giving planks of such exceptional width – 40 cm in the case of the Good Shepherd – would be unusual for wood originating in the cold Baltic forests.20 Dendrochronology also showed that the selfsame tree providing the wood for the two Good Shepherd panels was also the source for three further paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Younger. This can be demonstrated by comparing their dendrochronological curves, which match perfectly (ill. 24.10). These panels comprise a version of the Wedding Dance in the Open Air, unsigned, from the Museum of Fine Arts (KMSK) in Ghent, a version of the Winter Landscape with Bird Trap, dated 1622, from the Museum Mayer van den Bergh in Antwerp and another version of the Winter Landscape with Bird Trap, dated 1626, from the former Coppée-le Hodey Collection.21 The Kronacker Good Shepherd gives the most recent ring of the series: 1597. This date does not include the missing sapwood rings, which would have been removed by the panel-maker. The estimated number of sapwood rings is between 18 and 34 for local oaks over 200 years old, as this tree undoubtedly was. This gives a terminus post quem for the felling of the tree as 1615, just one year before the painted date on the Brussels Royal Museums Good Shepherd.22 There is a ten-year interval between the earliest dated painting from the same tree, the Brussels Royal Museums Good Shepherd, 1616, and the latest one, the 1626 Winter Landscape, suggesting significant storage of the plank for at least certain panels either by the panel-maker or by Brueghel the Younger. 23 We know that Michiel Claessens made at least three of them. His clover mark was found on the two Good Shepherd and Wedding

347

a case of mistaken identity

A.

B.

Ill. 24.7. Possible cartoon use. A: tracings of Kronacker (ill. 24.1a) and Brussels (ill. 24.1c) versions’ superposed. B: tracing of Kronacker version (ill. 24.1a) overlaid on scaled image of Pollack version (ill. 24.1b)

348

dominique allart, christina currie, pascale fraiture and steven saverwyns

A.

B.

Ill. 24.8. Detail, identical Antwerp brands and panel-maker’s marks (Michiel Claessens) in the Kronacker and Brussels panels. A: detail of reverse, Kronacker Collection (ill. 24.1a). B: detail of reverse, Brussels (ill. 24.1c)

Dance panels. The 1622 Winter Landscape shows no sign of his stamp, although the reverse of the panel is bevelled and planed in a way that is typical of his work. The finish is, however, characteristic of professionally produced panels during the period in Antwerp.24 The 1626 Winter Landscape has been thinned and cradled, so any evidence of markings has been lost. The presence of the Antwerp brand – two hands and a castle – on the four intact panels gives a further clue as to the supply chain. The Antwerp brand was ostensibly applied as a proof of quality control by the dean of the panel-makers to finished panels, normally prior to their delivery to the artist. Rubbings of the markings show that the same branding irons were not used every time, which suggests more than one visit by the dean. The castle brands on the Good Shepherd panels are identical, as are the hands, and the castle and hands are at the same distance from one another. The hands in the Wedding Dance fit with those of the Good Shepherd, but not the castle, which was branded with a different iron and at a different distance from the hands. Yet another iron (or irons) was used for the 1622 Winter Landscape, both for the castle and the hands. Given this evidence, we can conclude that the four intact panels were branded in at least three batches and were therefore probably supplied to Brueghel the Younger on different occasions.

Conclusion Based on technical findings and stylistic observations, we firmly attribute the Kronacker version of the Good Shepherd to Pieter Brueghel the Younger. The somewhat compromised condition of the painting, with its areas of overcleaning, perhaps led to the errors of judgment in the past. The dendrochronological study, which gives 1615 as terminus post quem for the felling of the tree making up the panel support, definitively eliminates the earlier hypothesis of Bruegel the Elder’s involvement in the painting’s execution. The underdrawing type and style, the precise positions of the reserves, the areas of wet-in-wet paint and the painterly brushwork were found to be almost identical to corresponding features in Brueghel the Younger’s Brussels Royal Museums version, as well as to those in the Pollack version. In terms of image transfer, it is likely that the same cartoon was used to transfer the motif of the shepherd and wolf for the three versions. Finally, the fact that the oak plank making up the Kronacker panel came from the same tree as the Brussels Royal Museums version and that they were both made by panel-maker Michiel Claessens and marked with an identical Antwerp brand adds additional circumstantial evidence that the two paintings must have been produced in the same workshop and during the same period, i.e. around 1616.

349

a case of mistaken identity

A.

B.

Ill. 24.9. X-radiographs of the Kronacker (ill. 24.1a) and Brussels (ill. 24.1c) versions, showing that the panels are made from planks from the same tree; the Brussels version is shown upside down. A: Kronacker version (ill. 24.1a). B: Brussels (ill. 24.1c)

350 1416

dominique allart, christina currie, pascale fraiture and steven saverwyns

1450

1500

1550

1597 Winter Landscape, Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh (last ring = 1579) Winter Landscape, Coppée-Le Hodey collection (last ring = 1588) Wedding Dance, Ghent, Museum of Fine Arts (last ring = 1590) Good Shepherd, Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (last ring = 1593) Good Shepherd, Kronacker collection (last ring = 1597)

All curves superposed (last ring = 1597)

Ill. 24.10. Dendrochronological curves for five panels of paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Younger from the same tree: Good Shepherd, Kronacker Collection (ill. 24.1a); Good Shepherd, Brussels (ill. 24.1c); Weddding Dance in the Open Air, unsigned, Ghent, Museum of Fine Arts; Winter Landscape with Bird Trap, signed and dated 1622, Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh; Winter Landscape with Bird Trap, signed and dated 1626, former Coppée-le Hodey Collection.

NOTES 1 Good Shepherd, 40.1 ≈ 54.6 cm, unsigned, Kronacker Collection. 2 Gluck 1935, pp. 163-164. 3 Marlier 1969, pp. 263-264. 4 Grossmann 1974, pp. 201-202, ills. 138-139. 5 Brussels 1980, p. 58, nr. 6. 6 Foucart 1981. He contested the authorship of Pieter Bruegel the Elder for the figure of the shepherd (‘d’un pauvre dessin’ and ‘un peu trop nettoyée, comme du reste tout le tableau’) as well as for the sheep, but not for the landscape (‘fort subtil et léger’). 7 Pieter Brueghel the Younger, Good Shepherd, oil on panel, 40.5 ≈ 59.3 cm, signed ‘·p·brevghel’, private collection, former Pollack Collection. Gluck 1935, p. 164, note 37. 8 The Pollack version was examined by Peter van den Brink and Christina Currie in 2004 at the Royal Museums of Fine Arts (KMSKB/ MRBAB) in Brussels. Caroline von Saint-George, who had previously studied the painting, kindly provided infrared and photographic documentation, which were used for this study. The infrared reflectography was undertaken with a MUSIS 2007 camera from Art Innovation, Hengelo (used in the near infrared band 2: 950-1150 nm). 9 Pieter Brueghel the Younger, Good Shepherd, oil on panel, 41.3 ≈ 57.0 cm, signed and dated ‘p·brevghel ·1616·’, Brussels, KMSKB/ MRBAB. Schenking/Donation 1988, p. 32, nr. 8 (entry by Henri Pauwels). 10 See: Searching for the Hand of Pieter Brueghel the Younger, in Currie, Allart 2012, vol. 3, pp. 784-814. 11 Ertz 1998-2000, pp. 144-145. 12 Pierre Bergé & Associés, Drouot Richelieu, 11 June 2012, lot 15. The painting remained unsold. 13 The Kronacker painting was studied and documented at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA) in October-November 2012 (IRPA dossier 2012.11482). The X-radiograph was taken by Catherine Fondaire using Agfa Structurix D7 film and scanned with an Array corporation Laser Film Digitizer 2905HD. The infrared reflectogram (IRR) was made by Sophie De Potter using a Lionsystems infrared camera with an InGaAs captor (900-1700 nm), 512 ≈ 640 focal plane array, 35mm SWIR lens, f1.4. 14 The Royal Museums of Fine Arts version was studied on site at the museum in 2002. Sophie De Potter carried out infrared reflectography with an Inframetrics InfraCAM SWIR (short-wave infrared) video camera with a PtSi captor (1100-2500 nm), 256 ≈ 256 focal plane

array, 12-inch focal length SWIR lens and 1.5-1.73μ narrow bandwidth filter. Guido van der Voorde carried out X-radiography with Agfa Structurix D7 film in 2002, which was scanned by Catherine Fondaire with an Array corporation Laser Film Digitizer 2905HD in 2012. 15 Caroline von Saint-George confirmed that there are reserves in the sky for the large tree trunks to the left, following her examination of the X-radiograph (Caroline von Saint-George, personal communication, February 2015, and Caroline von Saint-George, unpublished technical report, March 2004). 16 Pagès-Camagna, Duval, Guicharnaud 2004. 17 For four of these cases, see: Currie and Saverwyns in Currie, Allart 2012, vol. 3, pp. 986-995. Steven Saverwyns identified graphite in the sixth case, Pieter Brueghel the Younger, Two Peasants Binding Faggots, 36.65 ≈ 27.35 cm (Birmingham, The Barber Institute of Fine Arts, inv. 44.11), in 2014 (IRPA dossier: 2013.12142). 18 Currie, Allart 2012, vol. 3, pp. 746-752. 19 Caroline von Saint-George, unpublished technical report, March 2004. We thank Caroline von Saint-George for her kind permission to publish the following details from her report. According to her, the height of the upper board is 15.7 cm and the lower board 23.5 cm; the upper board has straight narrow rings while the lower one has a somewhat coarser texture and a more uneven year ring history. Her examination of the X-radiograph includes a description of a very narrow, slightly diagonally positioned dowel hole, 0.4 cm in width and 4.2 cm in length, located centrally between the two boards. If this dowel hole were original, it would be exceptional in Brueghel the Younger’s panels, as no examples of dowels have been noted in his small format works. 20 Very few examples of wide planks from the Baltic region have been noted from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century (Fraiture 2007; Fraiture 2009). 21 Fraiture 2012. 22 Hollstein 1965. 23 Fraiture 2012. 24 There is also an ‘A’ marking on the 1622 Winter Landscape. According to Jorgen Wadum’s research on ‘A’ branded panels by Rubens, this ‘A’ marking represents a year mark for the year 1621-1622 (Wadum 1998, p. 198). He also discovered the Antwerp brand and ‘A’ mark on a privately owned copy (New York) of the Winter Landscape by Brueghel the Younger, signed and dated 1622.

Bibliography

ABRAHAM 1912 Erich Abraham, Nürnberger Malerei der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, 157), Strasbourg, 1912. AINSWORTH 1989 Maryan W. Ainsworth, Northern Renaissance Drawings and Underdrawings: A Proposed Method of Study, in Master Drawings, 27/1, 1989, pp. 5-38. AINSWORTH 1990 Maryan W. Ainsworth, Bernart van Orley, Peintre-Inventeur, in Studies in the History of Art, 24, 1990, pp. 41-62. AINSWORTH 2003 Maryan W. Ainsworth, Review of Fritz Koreny (ed.), Early Netherlandish Drawings from Jan van Eyck to Hieronymus Bosch, Antwerp, 2002, in Master Drawings, 41/3, 2003, pp. 305-316. AINSWORTH 2014 Maryan W. Ainsworth, Pieter Coecke van Aelst as a Panel Painter, in Elizabeth Cleland (ed.), Grand Design. Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Renaissance Tapestry, exh. cat., New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art), 2014, pp. 22-35. ALGERI 1997 Giuliana Algeri, Testimonianze e presenze fiamminghe nella pittura del quatrocento, in Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio (ed.), Pittura fiamminga in Liguria secoli XIV-XVII, s.l., 1997, pp. 39-57. ALKMAAR/AMSTERDAM 2014 Daantje Meuwissen et al., Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, De Renaissance in Amsterdam en Alkmaar (ca. 1475-1533), exh. cat., Alkmaar (Stedelijk Museum)/Amsterdam (Amsterdam Museum), Zwolle, 2014. ALSTEENS 2014 Stijn Alsteens, The Drawings of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, in Master Drawings, 52, 2014, pp. 275-362. AMAN, HARTWIEG 2015 Cornelia Aman and Babette Hartwieg (eds.), Der Göttinger Barfüßeraltar von 1424 (Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, Neue Folge, 1), Petersberg, 2015. AMSTERDAM 1986 Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Willy Halsema-Kubes and Wouter Th. Kloek (eds.), Kunst voor de beeldenstorm, exh. cat., Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum), The Hague, 1986. ANTWERP/MAASTRICHT 2005 Peter van den Brink and Maximiliaan P.J. Martens (eds.), ExtravagAnt! A Forgotten Chapter of Antwerp Painting, 1500-1530, exh. cat., Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten)/Maastricht (Bonnefantenmuseum), 2005.

ARU, DE GERADON 1952 C. Aru and Et. de Geradon, La Galerie Sabauda de Turin, Les Primitifs Flamands. 1. Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, 2, Antwerp, 1952. BACKHOUSE 2001 Janet Backhouse, Memorials and Manuscripts of a Yorkist Elite, in Colin Richmond and Eileen Scarff (eds.), St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, in the late Middle Ages, Windsor, 2001, pp. 151-160. BAERT 2001 Barbara Baert, Een erfenis van heilig hout. De neerslag van het teruggevonden kruis in tekst en beeld in de Middeleeuwen, Louvain, 2001. BAMBERG 1987 Renate Baumgärtel-Fleischmann (ed.), Die Altäre des Bamberger Domes von 1012 bis zur Gegenwart, exh. cat., Bamberg (Diözesanmuseum), 1987. BAUMANN 1987 Carl-Friedrich Baumann, Ludowigs, Paul, in Neue Deutsche Biographie, XV, Berlin, 1987, pp. 306-307. BAUMEISTER 1930 Engelbert Baumeister, Zwei Glasfensterentwürfe des Jan Swart van Groningen, in Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, 1, 1930, pp. 222-224. BEAUMONT et al. 1981 Maria Alice Beaumont et al., S. Lucas retratando a Virgem: pintura, Lisbon, 1981. BEENKEN 1951 Hermann Beenken, Rogier van der Weyden, Munich, 1951. BEETS 1914 Nicolaas Beets, Zestiende-eeuwsche kunstenaars. I. Jan Swart, in OudHolland, 32, 1914, pp. 1-28. BEETS 1915 Nicolaas Beets, De houtsneden in Vorsteman’s bijbel van 1528, Amsterdam, 1915. BENEDICT 1924-1925 Curt Benedict, Jan Swart van Groningen als Maler, in Zeitschrift für Bildende Kunst, 58, 1924-1925, pp. 174-182, 240-247. BERGMANS 1957 Simone Bergmans, Jan van Amstel dit Jean de Hollande, in Revue Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art/Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis, 26, 1957, pp. 25-36. BERGMANS 1971 Simone Bergmans, Le triptyque de 1534 de l’église Saint-Nicolas de Furnes attribué ici à Jan van Amstel, in Bulletin van de Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België, 20, 1971, pp. 39-54.

352 BERGSTRÖM 1956 Ingvar Bergström, Dutch Still-life Painting in the Seventeenth Century, London, [1956]. BERMEJO MARTÍNEZ 1982 Elisa Bermejo Martínez, La pintura de los primitivos flamencos en España, 2 vols., Madrid, 1982. BERMEJO MARTÍNEZ 1996 Elisa Bermejo Martínez, Mestre de la Santa Sang, Mare de Déu de la Soledat o els Set Dolors de la mare de Déu, in Catàleg d’escultura i pintura dels segles XVI, XVII i XVIII. Època de Renaixement i el barroc (Fons del Museu Frederic Marès, 3), Barcelona, 1996, pp. 285-289. BLASCHKE 1978 Rainer Blaschke, Die Meister der Flügelmalereien der Lüneburger Goldenen Tafel, in Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, 17, 1978, pp. 61-86. BLEYERVELD, ELEN, NIESSEN 2012 Yvonne Bleyerveld, Albert Elen and Judith Niessen, Nederlandse tekeningen uit de vijftiende en zestiende eeuw in Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam. Kunstenaars geboren voor 1581, Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen) 2012, published online 1 December 2012 (collectie2008.boijmans.nl/nl/onderzoek/nederlandse-tekeningen15e-16e eeuw/) BOCCARDO 2004 Piero Boccardo, Stefano (1581-1660) e Gio. Batta Balbi (1617-1657), in Piero Boccardo (ed.), L’età di Rubens. Dimore, committenti e collezionisti genovesi, exh. cat., Genoa (Palazzo Ducale), Milan, 2004, pp. 397-421. BOCCARDO, MAGNANI 1987 Piero Boccardo and Lauro Magnani, La committenza, in Federica Lamera and Giorgio Pigafetta (eds.), Il Palazzo dell’Università di Genova. Il Collegio dei Gesuiti nella strada dei Balbi, Genoa, 1987, pp. 47-88. BOK 1994 Marten Jan Bok, Vraag en aanbod op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt, 15801700, unpublished Ph. Diss., Universiteit van Utrecht, 1994. BOLLAND 2015 Charlotte Bolland, ‘Sat super est’. A Portrait of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, in Tarnya Cooper, Aviva Burnstock, Maurice Howard and Edward Town (eds.), Painting in Britain 1500-1630: Production, Influences and Patronage, Oxford, Bristish Academy, 2015, pp. 352-361. BOON 1976 Karel G. Boon, Lancelot Blondeel as a Designer for Sculptures and Textiles, in Hafnia. Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art, 1976, pp. 113-124. BORCHERT 2004-2005 Till-Holger Borchert, From Intuition to Intellect: Max J. Friedländer and the Verbalisation of Connoisseurship, in Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Antwerpen, 2004-2005, pp. 9-18. BORN 1995 Annick Born, Le style et le rôle du dessin sous-jacent dans la genèse du Triptyque de Marie-Madeleine attribué au Maître de 1518, in Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq and Roger Van Schoute (eds.), Le Dessin sousjacent dans la peinture. Colloque X. Le dessin sous-jacent dans le processus de création, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1995, pp. 121-131. BORN 2002 Annick Born, Le Maître de 1518 alias Jan Mertens van Dornicke (?), auteur des volets peints et des sculptures du Retable de la vie de la Vierge de Lübeck?, in Sophie Guillot de Suduiraut (ed.), Retables brabançons des

XVe et XVIe siècles. Actes du colloque organisé par le Musée du Louvre les 18 et 19 mai 2001, Paris, 2002, pp. 579-614. BORN 2005 Annick Born, Antwerp Mannerism: a Fashionable Style?, in Kristin Lohse Belkin, Nico van Hout, Peter Van den Brink and Maximiliaan P.J. Martens (eds.), ExtravagAnt! A Forgotten Chapter of Antwerp Painting 15001530, exh. cat., Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen)/Maastricht (Bonnefantenmuseum), 2005, pp. 10-19. BORN 2010 Annick Born, Essai d’analyse critique du maniérisme anversois de Max Jacob Friedländer suivi d’une revision du groupe des oeuvres du Maître de 1518, unpublished Ph. Diss, University of Ghent, 2010. BREDIUS 1915-1922 Abraham Bredius, Künstler-Inventare. Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten und XIIIten Jahrhunderts, 8 vols., The Hague, 1915-1922. BRINKMANN 1997 Bodo Brinkmann, Die Flämiche Buchmalerei am ende des Burgunderreichs. Der Meister des Dresdener Gebetbuchs und die Miniaturisten seiner Zeit, Turnhout, 1997. BROUETTE 1974 Émile Brouette, Un portrait méconnu de Corneille Van der Goes, abbé de Dielegem (1512-1539) et de Middelburg (1536-1539), in Annalecta Praemonstratensia, 50, 1975, pp. 253-260. BRUGES 1902 Georges Hulin de Loo, Bruges 1902. Exposition des tableaux flamands des XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles. Catalogue critique précédé d’une introduction sur l’identité de certains maîtres anonymes, exh. cat., Bruges, 1902. BRUGES 1994a Dirk de Vos, Hans Memling, exh. cat., Bruges (Stedelijke Musea), 1994. BRUGES 1994b Valérie Logghe et al., Schatten uit de Biekorf. Middeleeuwse handschriften uit Ter Doest, exh. cat., Bruges (Centrale Openbare Bibliotheek ‘De Biekorf’), 1994. BRUGES 1998a Maximiliaan P.J. Martens (ed.), Brugge en de Renaissance. Van Memling tot Pourbus. Catalogus, exh. cat., Bruges (Memlingmuseum-Oud-SintJanshospitaal), 1998. BRUGES 1998b Maximiliaan P.J. Martens (ed.), Brugge en de Renaissance. Van Memling tot Pourbus. Notities, exh. cat., Bruges (Memlingmuseum-Oud-SintJanshospitaal), 1998. BRUGES 2002 Laurent Businne and Ludo Vandamme (eds.), Besloten wereld, Open boeken. Middeleeuwse handschriften in dialoog met actuele kunst, exh. cat., Bruges (Grootseminarie), 2002. BRUGES 2004 Roger Van Schoute, Hélène Verougstraete and Till-Holger Borchert (eds.), Fake or not Fake. Het verhaal van de restauratie van de Vlaamse Primitieven/Restaurateurs ou faussaires des Primitifs flamands, exh. cat., Bruges (Groningemuseum), 2004. BRUGES 2010 Till-Holger Borchert (ed.), Van Eyck to Dürer. The Influence of Early Netherlandish Painting on European Art, 1430-1530, exh. cat., Bruges (Groeningemuseum), Tielt, 2010.

353 BRUIJNEN 1999 Yvette Bruijnen, Leuvense schilderkunst 1520-1570, unpublished Ph. Diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1999. BRUIJNEN 2001-2002 Yvette Bruijnen, The Master of Saint Michael: a Newly Established Group of Paintings by an Artist in the Orbit of Bernard van Orley, in Oud Holland, 115, 2001-2002, pp. 79-110. BRUIJNEN 2011 Yvette Bruijnen, Jan Rombouts. The Discovery of an Early SixteenthCentury Master in Louvain, Turnhout, 2011. BRUIJNEN 2012 Yvette Bruijnen, Jan Rombouts, een nieuwe persoonlijkheid in de ZuidNederlandse kunst, in Yvette Bruijnen, Joost M.A. Coen, Simone Cagno, Marjan Debaene, Valentine Henderiks, Koen Janssens and Joris Van Grieken, Getekend, Jan R. Jan Rombouts. Een renaissancemeester herontdekt, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), Brussels, 2012, pp. 24-43. BRUKENTHAL 1893 Freiherr Samuel von Brukenthal’sches Museum in Hermannstadt. Führer durch die Gemäldegalerie, Hermannstadt (Sibiu), 1893. BRUNNENKANT 1997 Katja Brunnenkant, Das Prunkstilleben im Wallraf-Richartz-Museum in Köln, signiert “W. KALF.1643”: Maltecknish Untersuchung des Bildes und Vergleich mit Werken aus der Pariser Periode Willem Kalfs, unpublished Ph. Diss., Fachhochschule Köln, 1997. BRUNNENKANT 1999 Katja Brunnenkant, Falscher Glanz? Technologische Untersuchung des ‘W.Kalf.1643’ signierten Prunkstillebens im Wallraf-Richartz-Museum in Köln und Vergleich mit Werken aus der Pariser Periode Willem Kalfs (ca. 1619-1693), in Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung, 13, 1999, pp. 245-284. BRUSSELS 1959 La miniature flamande. Le mécénat de Philippe le Bon, exh. cat., Brussels (Palais des Beaux-Arts), 1959. BRUSSELS 1980 Bruegel. Une dynastie de peintres, exh. cat., Brussels (Palais des BeauxArts), 1980. BRUSSELS 2013 Véronique Bücken and Griet Steyaert, L’héritage de Rogier van der Weyden. La peinture à Bruxelles 1450-1520, exh. cat., Brussels (Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium), 2013. BRUSSELS/PARIS 2011 Bernard Bousmanne and Thierry Delcourt (eds.), Miniatures flamandes. 1404-1482, exh. cat., Brussels (Royal Library of Belgium)/ Paris (Bibliothèque nationale de France), 2011. BRUYN 1975 Josua Bruyn, Review of Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen, L’Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune. Les primitifs flamands. 1. Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, 13, 1973, in Oud Holland, 89, 1975, pp. 290-292. BUCHELIUS 1928 Arnoldus Buchelius, ‘Res Pictoriae’. Aanteekeningen over Kunstenaars en Kunstwerken voorkomende in zijn Diarium Res Pictoriae, notae quotidianae en Description urbis ultrajectinae (1583-1639) (Quellenstudien zur Holländischen Kunstgeschichte, 15), The Hague, 1928.

BUCHHEIT 1919 Hans Buchheit, Das Bildnis des sog. Kanonikus Schönborn im Germanischen Museum in Nürnberg, in Jahrbuch des Vereins für Christliche Kunst in München, 4, 1919, pp. 26-29. BUCK 2003 Stephanie Buck, The Impact of Hugo van der Goes as a Draftsman, in Master Drawings, 41/3, 2003, pp. 228-239. BURCHARD 1914 Ludwig Burchard, Zu Jan Swart, in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst, 37, 1914, pp. 1-4. BURROUGHS 1938 Alan Burroughs, Art Criticism from a Laboratory, Boston, 1938. CALLEWIER 2014 Hendrik Callewier, De papen van Brugge: de seculiere clerus in een middeleeuwse wereldstad (1411-1477), Louvain, 2014. CAMPBELL 1981 Lorne Campbell, The Early Netherlandish Painters and their Workshops, in Dominique Hollanders-Favart and Roger Van Schoute (eds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque III. Le problème Maître de Flémalle-van der Weyden, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981, pp. 43-61. CAMPBELL 1985 Lorne Campbell, The Early Flemish Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen, Cambridge, 1985. CAMPBELL 1993-1994 Lorne Campbell, Review of Jochen Sander, Hugo van der Goes, Stilentwicklung und Chronologie, Mainz, 1992, in Simiolus, 22/1-2, 19931994, pp. 97-99. CAMPBELL 1994 Lorne Campbell, Aspects of Art Lecture. Rogier van der Weyden and his Workshop, in Lectures and Memoirs 1993. Proceedings of the British Academy, 84, 1994, pp. 1-24. CAMPBELL 1996 Lorne Campbell, Rogier van der Weyden, in Jane Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, vol. 33, New York, 1996, pp. 117-128. CAMPBELL 1998A Lorne Campbell, National Gallery Catalogues. The Fifteenth Century Netherlandisch Schools, London, 1998. CAMPBELL 1998b Lorne Campbell, Exh. Review of Memling to Pourbus. Bruges, in The Burlington Magazine, 140/1149, 1998, pp. 851-853. CAMPBELL 2004 Lorne Campbell, Van der Weyden, London, 2004. CAMPBELL 2009a Lorne Campbell, The New Pictorial Language of Rogier van der Weyden, in Lorne Campbell and Jan Van der Stock (eds.), Rogier van der Weyden 1400/1464. Master of Passions, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), 2009, pp. 32-61. CAMPBELL 2009b Lorne Campbell, The Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, in Lorne Campbell and Jan Van der Stock (eds.), Rogier van der Weyden 1400/1464. Master of Passions, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), 2009, pp. 104-128. CAMPBELL 2012 Lorne Campbell, The Seven Sacraments, in Lorne Campbell, Jan Van der Stock, Catherine Reynolds and Lieve Watteeuw (eds.), Under-

354 drawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVII. Rogier van der Weyden in Context, Paris/Louvain/Walpole, 2012, pp. 136-145.

CHRIST 1949 Yvan Christ, Beaune, Paris, 1949.

CAMPBELL 2014 Lorne Campbell, National Gallery Catalogues. The Sixteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings with French Paintings before 1600, London, 2014.

CIULISOVÁ 2014 Ingrid Ciulisová, Rogier van der Weyden and Veit Stoss and their Two Followers, in Ingrid Ciulisová (ed.), Artistic Innovations and Cultural Zones, Frankfurt am Main, 2014, pp. 187-213.

CAMPBELL 2015 Lorne Campbell (ed.), Rogier van der Weyden and the Kingdom of the Iberian Peninsula, Madrid, 2015. CARTON, VAN DE PUTTE 1861-1863 Charles L. Carton and Ferdinand van de Putte, Collégiale de SainteWalburge, in Annales de la Société d’Émulation de Bruges, 13, 1861-1863, pp. 61-152. CASIER, BERGMANS 1921 Joseph Casier and Paul Bergmans, L’Art ancien dans les Flandres (Région de l’Escaut). Mémorial de l’exposition rétrospective organisée à Gand en 1913, 2 vols, Brussels, 1921. CASTELNOVI 1970 Gian Vittorio Castelnovi, Il Quattrocento e il primo Cinquecento, in Colette Dufour et al., La pittura a Genova e in Liguria dagli inizi al Cinquecento, Genoa, 1970, pp. 77-179. CATALOGUE-ANTWERP 1905 Königliches Museum für Schöne Künste zu Antwerpen. Beschreibendes Verzeichnis. I. Alte Meister, Antwerp, 1905. CATALOGUE-BRUSSELS 1984 Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. Département d’Art Ancien. Catalogue inventaire de la peinture ancienne, Brussels, 1984. CHALUPECKÝ 2007 Ivan Chalupecký, Katedrála sv. Martina v Spišskej. Výskum v Súkromnom archíve Spišskej Kapituly a v archíve Spišského biskupstva, in Magdaléna Janovská and Mária Novotná (eds.), Architektonicko-historický a umelecko-historický výskum katedrály sv. Martina v Spišskej Kapitule, 3 vols., Levoča, 2007. CHAMBERLAIN 1913 Arthur B. Chamberlain, Hans Holbein the Younger, New York, 1913. CHASERANT et al. 2000 Françoise Chaserant, Jacques Fouquart, Isabelle Cabillic and Laurence Callegari, Still Life with Armour: Willem Kalf, Paris, 2000. CHÂTELET 1999a Albert Châtelet, Rogier van der Weyden (Rogier de le Pasture), Paris, 1999. CHÂTELET 1999b Albert Châtelet, Rogier van der Weyden. Problèmes de la vie et de l’œuvre, Strasbourg, 1999. CHÂTELET 2001 Albert Châtelet, with a contribution of J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Jean Prévost. Le Maître de Moulins, Paris, 2001. CHÂTELET, GOETGHEBEUR 2006 Albert Châtelet and Nicole Goetghebeur, Le Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lille. Les Primitifs flamands. 1. Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux et de la principauté de Liège au quinzième siècle, 21, Brussels, 2006. CHIARINI 1997 Marco Chiarini (ed.), Il Giardino del Granduca: natura morta nelle collezioni Medicee, Torino, 1997.

CLARKE 2001 Mark Clarke, The Analysis of Medieval European Manuscripts, in Reviews in Conservation, 2, 2001, pp. 3-17. CLARKE 2002 Mark Clarke, The Analysis of Manuscript Pigments. Why, What, and How?, in Gazette du livre médiéval, 40, 2002, pp. 36-44. CLARKE 2011 Mark Clarke, Mediaeval Painters Materials and Techniques. The Montpellier Liber Diversarum Arcium, London, 2011. COLLINS BAKER 1937 Charles Henry Collins Baker, Catalogue of the Principal Pictures in the Royal Collection at Windsor Castle, London, 1937. COLLOBI RAGGHIANTI 1990 Licia Collobi Ragghianti, Dipinti fiamminghi in Italia (1420-1570). Catalogo, Bologne, 1990. COMBLEN-SONKES 1969 Micheline Comblen-Sonkes, Dessins du XVe siècle. Groupe van der Weyden. Essai de catalogue des originaux du maître, des copies et des dessins anonymes inspirés par son style. Les Primitifs flamands. 3. Contributions à l’étude des Primitifs flamands, 5, Brussels, 1969. COMBLEN-SONKES 1986 Micheline Comblen-Sonkes, with the collaboration of Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen, Le Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon. Les Primitifs flamands. 1. Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, 14, Brussels, 1986. CONWAY 1921 Martin Conway, The Van Eycks and their Followers, London, 1921. CSAKI 1901 Michael Csaki, Baron Brukenthal’sches Museum in Hermannstadt. Führer durch die Gemäldegalerie, Hermannstadt (Sibiu), 1901. CSAKI 1909 Michael Csaki, Baron Brukenthalisches Museum in Hermannstadt. Führer durch die Gemäldegalerie, Hermannstadt (Sibiu), 1909. CURRIE, ALLART 2012 Christina Currie and Dominique Allart, The Brueg[H]el Phenomenon. Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger with a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice (Scientia Artis, 8), 3 vols., Brussels, 2012. DACOS 2012 Nicole Dacos, Voyages à Rome. Les artistes européens au XVIe siècle, Antwerp, 2012. DAVIES 1972 Martin Davies, Rogier van der Weyden. An Essay, with a Critical Catalogue of Paintings assigned to Him and to Robert Campin, London, 1972. DEBAENE 2012a Marjan Debaene, Anoniem (Leuven of Antwerpen?), De val van de opstandige engelen en De onthoofding van Johannes de Doper, in Yvette

355 Bruijnen, Joost M.A. Coen, Simone Cagno, Marjan Debaene, Valentine Henderiks, Koen Janssens and Joris Van Grieken, Getekend, Jan R. Jan Rombouts. Een renaissancemeester herontdekt, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), Brussels, 2012, pp. 101-103.

F. Reddig, Regina Hanemann and Werner Taegert (eds.), 1000 Jahre Bistum Bamberg 1007-2007 unterm Sternenmantel, exh. cat., Bamberg (Diözesanmuseum/Historisches Museum/Staatsbibliothek), 2007, pp. 188-197.

DEBAENE 2012b Marjan Debaene, Meester van de Sint-Nicolaastriptiek, De wonderbare visvangst en De onthoofding van de heilige Catharina, in Yvette Bruijnen, Joost M.A. Coen, Simone Cagno, Marjan Debaene, Valentine Henderiks, Koen Janssens and Joris Van Grieken, Getekend, Jan R. Jan Rombouts. Een renaissancemeester herontdekt, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), Brussels, 2012, pp. 105-108.

DE PATOUL, ROSSI 1995 Brigitte de Patoul and Francesco Rossi, Maître de l’Adoration de Turin, in Le dictionnaire des peintres belges du XIVe siècle à nos jours depuis les premiers maîtres des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux et de la Principauté de Liège jusqu’aux artistes contemporains, Brussels, 1995, pp. 682-683.

DEBAENE 2012c Marjan Debaene, Meester van de Sint-Nicolaastriptiek, Taferelen uit het leven van de heilige Rochus en De heilige Rochus geneest de pestlijders, in Yvette Bruijnen, Joost M.A. Coen, Simone Cagno, Marjan Debaene, Valentine Henderiks, Koen Janssens and Joris Van Grieken, Getekend, Jan R. Jan Rombouts. Een renaissancemeester herontdekt, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), Brussels, 2012, pp. 109-111. DEBAENE 2013 Marjan Debaene, Anonimo Pittore di Lovanio, Apparizione di Gesù risorto agli apostoli sulle rive del lago di Tiberiade, in Serenella Castri (ed.), Il Cammino di Pietro, Geneva/Milan, 2013, pp. 46-49. DE BRUYN 1986 Jean François Hyacinthe de Bruyn, Review of Lorne Campbell, The Early Flemish Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen, Cambridge, 1985, in Oud Holland, 100, 1986, p. 199. DECQ 2009 Louise Decq, More on Joseph Van der Veken (1862-1964), in Hélène Verougstraete and Colombe Janssens de Bisthoven (eds.), Underdrawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVI. The Quest for the Original, Louvain/Paris/Walpole, 2009, pp. 102-106. DEKEYZER, VANDENABEELE, MOENS, CARDON 1999 Brigitte Dekeyzer, Peter Vandenabeele, Luc Moens and Bert Cardon, The Mayer van den Bergh Breviary (Ghent-Bruges, early 16th century). Hands and Pigments, in Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute (eds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’investigation, Louvain, 1999, pp. 303-316. DELENDA 1987 Odile Delenda, Rogier Van der Weyden, Roger de Le Pasture, Paris, 1987. DELFOSSE 2009 Annick Delfosse, La ‘Protectrice du Païs-Bas’. Stratégies politiques et figures de la Vierge dans les Pays-Bas espagnols (Église, liturgie et société dans l’Europe moderne, 2), Turnhout, 2009.

DE POTTER, RONSE, BORRE 1873-1875 Frans de Potter, Edmond Ronse and Pieter Borre, Geschiedenis der stad en kastelnij van Veurne, 2 vols., Ghent, 1873-1875. DE SCHRYVER 1975 Antoine De Schryver, Miniatuurkunst, in Gent. Duizend jaar kunst en cultuur, exh. cat., Ghent (Bijlokemuseum), 1975, pp. 323-396. DESTRÉE 1930 Jules Destrée, Roger de la Pasture, van der Weyden, Paris/Brussels, 1930. DEVLIEGHER 1968 Luc Devliegher, Een westvlaamse inventaris uit 1824, Bruges, 1968. DE VOS 1979 Dirk De Vos, Stedelijke Musea Brugge. Catalogus Schilderijen 15de en 16de eeuw, Bruges, 1979. DE VOS 1994 Dirk De Vos, Hans Memling, Antwerp, 1994. DE VOS 1999 Dirk De Vos, Rogier van der Weyden. The Complete Works, Antwerp/ New York, 1999. DE VRIJ 1994 Marc R. De Vrij, De Meester van de Magdalena-legende en de diptiek van Willem van Bibaut, in Oud Holland, 108, 1994, pp. 73-78. DE VRIJ 1998 Marc R. De Vrij, The Master of Willem van Bibaut, his Oeuvre, his Alleged Origin and his Place in the studio, in Pantheon, 56, 1998, pp. 186-191. DEWILDE 2009 Brecht Dewilde, Gillis Claeissens: een ‘onbekende’ schilder uit de zestiende-eeuws Brugge. Aanzet tot reconstructie van zijn oeuvre binnen de Claeissensgroep, in Revue belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art/Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis, 78, 2009, pp. 29-67. DEWILDE, VAN ACKER 1996 Marc Dewilde and Jan van Acker, De Sint-Denijskerk te Veurne, in Handelingen van het genootschap voor geschiedenis, 133, 1996, pp. 244-248.

DELFT/CAMBRIDGE/FORT WORTH 1988 Sam Segal, A Prosperous Past: the Sumptuous Still Life in the Netherlands, 1600-1700, exh. cat., Delft (Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof)/Cambridge (MA) (Fogg Art Museum)/Fort Worth, Texas (Kimbell Art Museum), 1988.

DE ZUTTER 2014 Élodie de Zutter, L’Exception qui confirme la règle. Contribution à l’étude des portraits de Philippe le Bon, duc de Bourgogne, in Revue Belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art/Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis, 83, 2014, pp. 5-50.

DE MARCHI, VAN MIEGROET 1998 Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet, Novelty and Fashion Circuits in the Mid-Seventeenth-Century Antwerp-Paris Art Trade, in The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 28/1, 1998, pp. 201-246.

DHANENS 1980 Elisabeth Dhanens, Hubert and Jan van Eyck, Antwerp, 1980.

DENGLER-SCHREIBER 2007 Karen Dengler-Schreiber, Städtehass und Kunstsinn. Das Bamberger Domkapitel im 15. Jahrhundert und Georg von Löwenstein, in Wolfgang

DHANENS 1995 Elisabeth Dhanens, Rogier van der Weyden. Revisie van de documenten (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 57, nr. 59), Brussels, 1995.

356 DIÉGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ 2005 Ana Diéguez Rodríguez, La escuela de Brujas en España en el siglo XVI. Un tríptico de Adriaen Isenbrant y una tabla de Pieter Claeissens I, in Boletín del Museo e Instituto Camón Aznar, 95, 2005, pp. 55-74. DIÉGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ 2012 Ana Diéguez Rodríguez, La pintura flamenca del siglo XVI en el norte de España: Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, País Vasco y Navarra, unpublished Ph.Diss., Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 2012. DIJKSTRA 1989 Jellie Dijkstra, On the Role of Underdrawings and Model-drawings in the Workshop Production of the Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden, in Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq (eds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989, pp. 37-53. DIJKSTRA 1994 Jellie Dijkstra, Vrancke van der Stockt, in Roger Van Schoute and Brigitte de Patoul (eds.), Les Primitifs Flamands et leur temps, Tournai, 1994, pp. 524-531. DODGSON 1910 Campbell Dodgson, Zu den Holzschnitten Jan Swarts, in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst, 1910, pp. 33-34. DODGSON 1911 Campbell Dodgson, Zu den Holzschnitten Jan Swarts (Berichtigung und Nachtrag), in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst, 1911, p. 8. DRESDEN 2005 Thomas Ketelsen and Uta Neidhardt (eds.), Das Geheimnis des Jan van Eyck, Die frühen niederländischen Zeichnungen und Gemälde in Dresden, exh. cat., Dresden (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen), 2005. DUBOIS 2014 Anne Dubois, The Donne Hours: a Codicological Puzzle, in Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art, 6:1 (winter 2014). DOI: 10.5092/ jhna.2014.6.1.2. DUBOIS, SLACHMUYLDERS 2001 Anne Dubois and Roel Slachmuylders, Colijn de Coter, in Cyriel Stroo, Pascale Syfer-d’Olne, Anne Dubois, Roel Slachmuylders and Nathalie Toussaint, The Flemish Primitives. III. The Hieronymus Bosch, Albrecht Bouts, Gerard David, Colijn de Coter and Goossen van der Weyden Groups. Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels, 2001, pp. 283-331. DUCLOS 1879 Adolf J. Duclos, Inventaire des Joyaux, ornements &a de l’église St-Nicolas à Furnes, 19 mars 1629, in Annales de la Société d’émulation pour l’étude de l’histoire & des antiquités de la Flandre, 30, 1879, pp. 335-355. DUDOK VAN HEEL 2011 Sebastiaan A.C. Dudok van Heel, with contributions by W.J. van den Berg, De schilders Jacob Cornelisz. alias Jacob War en Cornelis Buys uit Oostzaan, hun werkplaatsen in Amsterdam en Alkmaar, in De Nederlandsche Leeuw, 128/2, 2011, pp. 49-79. DUDOK VAN HEEL 2014 Sebastiaan A.C. Dudok van Heel, Het onmogelijke geboortejaar ca. 1475 van de Amsterdamse schilder Jacob Cornelisz (ca. 1460-1533) met de imaginaire achternaam Van Oostsanen, in De Nederlandsche Leeuw, 131, 2014, pp. 181-190. DÜLBERG 1907 Franz Dülberg, Frühhollander. III. Frühhollander in Italien, Haarlem, 1907.

DUITS 2008 Rembrandt Duits, Gold Brocade and Renaissance Painting. A Study in Material Culture, London, 2008. DUNKERTON, FOISTER, GORDON, PENNY 1991 Jill Dunkerton, Susan Foister, Dillian Gordon and Nicholas Penny, Giotto to Dürer. Early Renaissance Painting in the National Gallery, London, 1991. DUSSIEUX et al. 1854 Louis Dussieux et al., Mémoires inédits sur la vie et les ouvrages des membres de l’Academie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture…, 2 vols, Paris, 1854. ÉBER 1906 László Éber, A szepeshelyi Szent Mihály, in Archeologiai Értesítő, 26, 1906, pp. 193-202. EDINBURGH/LONDON 2011 Kate Heard and Lucy Whitaker, The Northern Renaissance: Dürer to Holbein, exh. cat., Edinburgh (The Queen’s Gallery)/London (The Queen’s Gallery), 2011. EICHBERGER 2015 Dagmar Eichberger, Visualizing the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin: Early Woodcuts and Engravings in the Context of Netherlandish Confraternities, in Emily S. Thelen, The Seven Sorrows Confraternity of Brussels. Drama, Ceremony, and Art Patronage (16th-17th Centuries) (Studies in European Urban History (1100-1800), 37), Turnhout, 2015, pp. 113-144. EIKEMEIER et al. 1983 Peter Eikemeier et al. (eds.), Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen. Alte Pinakothek München. Erläuterungen zu den ausgestellten Gemälden, Munich, 1983. EISLER 1989 Colin Eisler (ed.), The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. Early Netherlandish Painting, London, 1989. ERTZ 1998-2000 Klaus Ertz, Pieter Brueghel de Jüngere 1564-1637/38. Die Gemälde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog, 2 vols., Lingen, 1998-2000. ESDOUHARD D’ANISY 1916 Paul Esdouhard d’Anisy, Le Polyptyque de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, Brussels/Paris, 1916. EWING 1978 Dan Ewing, The Paintings and Drawings of Jan de Beer, 2 vols., unpublished Ph. Diss., University of Michigan, 1978. EWING 1983 Dan Ewing, Some Documentary Additions to the Biography of Jan de Beer, in Jaarboek. Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Antwerpen, 1983, pp. 85-103. EWING 1996 Dan Ewing, Antwerp Mannerism, in Jane Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, 1996, vol. 2, pp. 204-206. EWING 2016 Dan Ewing, Jan de Beer, Gothic Renewal in Renaissance (Me Fecit), Turnhout, 2016. FAGGIN 1968 Giorgio T. Faggin, Nuove opere di Lanceloot Blondeel, in Critica d’Arte, 15, 1968, pp. 37-54.

357 FAILLANT, HOURS, QUARRÉ 1954 Lola Faillant, Madeleine Hours and Pierre Quarré, Le Polyptyque du Jugement dernier de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune d’après la documentation du Laboratoire du Musée du Louvre, Dijon, 1954. FARÉ 1957 Michel Faré, Jean-Michel Picart (1600-1682): peintre de fleurs et marchand de tableaux, in Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de l’art français, 1957, pp. 91-102. FARÉ 1974 Michel Faré, Le grand siècle de la nature morte en France: le 17e siècle, Fribourg/Paris, 1974. FARIES 1989 Molly Faries, The First Examples of Titles in Underdrawing, in Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq (eds), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sousjacent, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989, pp. 145-146. FARIES 1993 Molly Faries, Master and Pupil: a North-Netherlandish Example, in Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq (eds.), Le dessin sousjacent dans la peinture. Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’atelier, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993, pp. 101-111. FARIES 1997 Molly Faries, The Underdrawing of Hans Memling’s Last Judgment Altarpiece in Gdansk, in Hélène Verougstraete, Roger Van Schoute and Maurits Smeyers (eds.), Memling Studies. Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Bruges, 10-12 November 1994), Louvain, 1997, pp. 243-259. FARIES 2012a Molly Faries, Made in Venice, Jan van Scorel’s Earliest Portraits, in Face Book, Studies on Dutch and Flemish Portraiture of the 16th-18th Centuries. Liber Amicorum Presented to Rudolf E.O. Ekkart on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Leiden, 2012, pp. 29-36. FARIES 2012b Molly Faries, The Master of the Legend of Saint Barbara’s ‘Job Altarpiece’ in Cologne, in Lorne Campbell, Jan Van der Stock, Catherine Reynolds and Lieve Watteeuw (eds.), Underdrawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVII. Rogier van der Weyden in Context, Paris/Louvain/Walpole, 2012, pp. 237-249. FARIES, HELMUS 2011 Molly Faries and Liesbeth H. Helmus (eds.), Catalogue of Paintings, 1363-1600, Centraal Museum Utrecht, Utrecht, 2011. FARIES, SPRONK 2003 Molly Faries and Ron Spronk (eds.), Recent Developments in the Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Painting. Methodology, Limitations & Perspectives, Turnhout, 2003. FARMER 1981 John D. Farmer, Bernard van Orley of Brussels, unpublished Ph. Diss., Princeton University, 1981. FAULKNER 1820 Thomas Faulkner, History and Antiquities of Kensington: interspersed with biographical anecdotes of royal and distinguished personages, and a descriptive catalogue of the collection of pictures in the palace, from a survey taken by the late B. West, P.R.A. by command of His Majesty, London, 1820. FIERENS-GEVAERT 1928 Hippolyte Fierens-Gevaert, Histoire de la peinture flamande des origines à la fin du XVe siècle. 2. Les continuateurs des van Eyck, Paris/Brussels, 1928.

FILEDT KOK 1975-1976 Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Review of Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen, L’HôtelDieu de Beaune. Les Primitifs flamands. 1. Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, 13, Brussels, 1973, in Simiolus, 8/3, 1975-1976, pp. 186-189. FILEDT KOK 2011 Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Leiden en Antwerpen omstreeks 1520. De ontmoeting met Albrecht Dürer en de introductie van het landschap, in Lucas van Leyden en de Renaissance, exh. cat., Leiden (Museum De Lakenhal), 2011, pp. 103-119. FILEDT KOK, GIBSON, BRUIJNEN 2014 Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Walter Gibson and Yvette Bruijnen, with contributions by Esther van Duijn and Peter Klein, Cornelis Engebrechtsz. A Sixteenth-Century Leiden Artist and his Workshop (Me Fecit, 6), Turnhout, 2014. FINK 1963 August Fink, Die Schwarzschen Trachtenbücher, Berlin, 1963. FLORENCE 1947 Mostra dell’arte fiamminga e olandese dei secoli XV e XVI. Elenco delle opere esposte, exh. cat., Florence (Palazzo Strozzi), [1947]. FOISTER 2004 Susan Foister, Holbein and England, New Haven/London, 2004. FOISTER, ROY, WYLD 1998 Susan Foister, Ashok Roy and Martin Wyld, Making and Meaning, Holbein’s Ambassadors, London, 1998. FONTANA AMORETTI, PLOMP 1998 Maria Fontana Amoretti and Michiel Plomp, Repertory of Dutch and Flemish Paintings in Italian Public Collections, vol. 1, Liguria, Florence, 1998. FOUCART 1981 Jacques Foucart,  ‘Bruegeliana’ à propos de l’exposition de Bruxelles (1980), in Revue de l’Art, 51, 1981, pp. 61-68. FRAITURE 2007 Pascale Fraiture, Les supports de peintures en bois dans les anciens PaysBas méridionaux de 1450 à 1650: analyses dendrochronologiques et archéologiques, unpulished Ph. Diss., University of Liège, 2007. FRAITURE 2009 Pascale Fraiture, Contribution of Dendrochronology to Understanding of Wood Procurement Sources for Panel Paintings in the Former Southern Netherlands from 1450 to 1650, in Dendrochronologia, 27, 2009, pp. 95-111. FRAITURE 2012 Pascale Fraiture, Dendro-archaeological Examination of Paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Younger, in Christina Currie and Dominique Allart, The Brueg[H]el Phenomenon. Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger with a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice (Scientia Artis, 8), Brussels, 2012, pp. 1002-1017. FRAITURE, ROMPAY 2011 Eddy Fraiture and Paul Van Rompay, Clock and Watchmaking in Belgium, 1300-1830, in The Antiquarian Horological Society, 1/33, September 2011, pp. 27-45. FRANK 1974 Isnard Frank, Dominikus von Caleruega (Domingo de Guzmán), in Engelbert Kirschbaum and Wolfgang Braunfels (eds.), Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, 6. Ikonographie der Heiligen. Crescentianus von Tunis bis Innocentia, Rome/Vienna, 1974, cols. 72-79.

358 FRANKFURT/BERLIN 2008 Stephan Kemperdick and Jochen Sander (eds.), The Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden, exh. cat., Frankfurt (Städel Museum)/ Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie), Ostfildern, 2008. FRIEDLÄNDER 1907 Max J. Friedländer, Bücherschau, in Zeitschrift für Bildende Kunst, N.F. 18, 1907, pp. 79-80. FRIEDLÄNDER 1909 Max J. Friedländer, Bernaert van Orley: II. Orleys Tätigkeit zwischen 1515 und 1520, in Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 30, 1909, pp. 9-34. FRIEDLÄNDER 1915 Max J. Friedländer, Die Antwerpener Manieristen von 1520, in Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 36, 1915, pp. 65-91. FRIEDLÄNDER 1916 Max J. Friedländer, Von Eyck bis Bruegel. Studien zur Geschichte der niederländische Malerei, Berlin, 1916. FRIEDLÄNDER 1916-1917 Max J. Friedländer, Ein fränkischer Flügelaltar aus dem XV. Jahrhundert, in Amtliche Berichte aus den königl. Kunstsammlungen, 38/2, 1916-1917, cols. 57-61.

Group. Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels, 2013. GALLAGHER, REIMELT 2000 Michael Gallagher and Maria Reimelt, Die Restaurierung der Berliner Tafeln des Meisters der Darmstädter Passion, in Maler des Lichtes: der Meister der Darmstädter Passion. Zur Restaurierung der Berliner Altarflügel, exh. cat., Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie), 2000, pp. 71ff. GARCÍA-FRÍAS CHECA 2012 Carmen García-Frías Checa, Some Artistic and Technical Considerations on the ‘Portrait of Philip the Good’ in the Royal Palace of Madrid after its Restoration, in Lorne Campbell, Jan van der Stock, Catherine Reynolds and Lieve Watteeuw (eds.), Underdrawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVII. Rogier van der Weyden in Context, Paris/Louvain/ Walpole, 2012, pp. 168-177. GEIRNAERT 2002 Noël Geirnaert, Van Vlaanderen naar Brabant: Hugo van der Goes, lekenbroeder in Rooklooster, in Raoul Bauer et al., In de voetsporen van Jacob van Maerlant: liber amicorum Raf De Keyser, Louvain, 2002, pp. 351-356. GENOA 1946 Antonio Morassi (ed.), Mostra della Pittura antica in Liguria dal Trecento al Cinquecento, exh. cat., Genoa (Palazzo Reale), Milan, 1946.

FRIEDLÄNDER 1917 Max J. Friedländer, Pieter Coecke van Alost, in Jahrbuch der königlich Preussichen Kunstsammlungen, 38, 1917, pp. 73-94.

GENOA 1996 Luca Leoncini, I misteri delle tavole fiamminghe, exh. cat., Genoa (Palazzo Reale), 1996.

FRIEDLÄNDER 1922 Max J. Friedländer, Die Primitiven-Austellung im Haag, in Der Cicerone, 14, 1922, pp. 813-814, 819.

GENOA 2004 Luca Leoncini (ed.), Da Tintoretto a Rubens. Capolavori della Collezione Durazzo, exh. cat., Genoa (Palazzo Reale), Milan, 2004.

FRIEDLÄNDER 1924-1937 Max J. Friedländer, Die altniederländische Malerei, 14 vols., Berlin/ Leiden, 1924-1937. FRIEDLÄNDER 1927-1928 Max J. Friedländer, Drei Niederlandische Maler in Genua, in Zeitschrift fur Bildende Kunst, 61, 1927-1928, pp. 273-279. FRIEDLÄNDER 1942 Max J. Friedländer, On Art and Connoisseurship, Boston, 1942. FRIEDLÄNDER 1948 Max J. Friedländer, Zu Jan Swart von Groningen, in Oud-Holland, 63, 1948, pp. 2-9. FRIEDLÄNDER 1967-1976 Max J. Friedländer, Early Netherlandish Painting, 14 vols., Leiden/Brussels, 1967-1976. FRITZ 1986 Gerhard Fritz, Die Geschichte der Grafschaft Löwenstein und der Grafen von Löwenstein-Habsburg vom späten 13. bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhundert (Forschungen aus Württembergisch Franken, 29), Sigmaringen, 1986. GABLER, SCHAIBLE, KREKEL 2012 Wolfram Gabler, Volker Schaible, Christoph Krekel (eds.) Die Sprache des Materials. Kölner Maltechnik des Spätmittelalters im Kontext. Beitrage des Symposiums vom 24. bis 26. November 2011 im Kölner Wallraf-RichartzMuseum, in Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung, 26/1, 2012. GALAND 2013 Alexandre Galand, The Flemish Primitives. VI. The Bernard van Orley

GERSTENBERG 1954 Kurt Gerstenberg, Santiago in der Kunst, Bemerkungen zu einer Ausstellung in Madrid, in Kunst-Chronik, 7, 1954, pp. 237-238. GIFFORD et al. 2012 E. Melanie Gifford, Anikó Bezur, Andrea Guidi di Bagno and Lisha Deming Glinsman, The Making of a Luxury Image: Van Aelst’s Painting Materials and Artistic Techniques, in Tanya Paul, James Clifton, Julie Berger Hochstrasser and Arthur K. Wheelock, Elegance and Refinement: The Still-life Paintings of Willem van Aelst, exh. cat., Houston (Museum of Fine Arts)/Washington (National Gallery of Art), 2012, pp. 66-89. GIFFORD, PAUL 2012 E. Melanie Gifford and Tanya Paul, ‘Pronk Still Life with Armor’, c. 1651, in Tanya Paul, James Clifton, Julie Berger Hochstrasser and Arthur K. Wheelock, Elegance and Refinement: The Still-Life Paintings of Willem van Aelst, exh. cat., Houston (Museum of Fine Arts)/Washington (National Gallery of Art), 2012, pp. 101-104, nr. 5. GILTAIJ 2007 Jeroen Giltaij, Willem Kalf in Rotterdam und Paris: die bäuerlichen Interieurs, in Peter van den Brink, Fred G. Meijer and Sylvia Böhmer (eds.), Gemaltes Licht: die Stilleben von Willem Kalf 1619-1693, exh. cat., Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen)/Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum), 2006, pp. 36-41. GILTAIJ, MEIJER 2007 Jeroen Giltaij and Fred Meijer, Willem Kalf in Paris: die frühen Stilleben, in Peter van den Brink, Fred G. Meijer and Sylvia Böhmer (eds.), Gemaltes Licht: die Stilleben von Willem Kalf 1619-1693, exh. cat.,

359 Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen)/Aachen (SuermondtLudwig-Museum), 2006, pp. 70-73. GLUCK 1935 Gustav Glück, Über einige Landschaftsgemälde. Peter Bruegels des Alteren, Vienna, 1935. GODDARD 1984 Stephen H. Goddard, The Master of Frankfurt and his Shop (Verhandelingen van Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schöne Kunsten, 38), Brussels, 1984. GOLDFARB 2014 Hilliard T. Goldfarb, Méditations sur la peinture de nature morte en France au XVIIe siècle, in Éric Coatalem with the collaboration of Florence Thiéblot, La nature morte française au XVIIe siècle/17th-century Still-Life Painting in France, Dijon, 2014, pp. 10-29. GONDINET-WALLSTEIN 1990 Éliane Gondinet-Wallstein, Un retable pour l’Au-delà, sur le Jugement dernier de Rogier van der Weyden à l’Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, Tournai, 1990. GORDON 1988 Eric A. Gordon, The Conservation of Hugo van der Goes’s Portrait of a Donor with St. John the Baptist, in The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 46, 1988, pp. 92-97. GRENDI 1997 Edoardo Grendi, I Balbi. Una famiglia genovese tra Spagna e Impero, Turin, 1997. GRIEB 2007 Manfred H. Grieb (ed.), Nürnberger Künstlerlexikon. Bildende Künstler, Kunsthandwerker, Gelehrte, Sammler, Kulturschaffende und Mäzene vom 12. bis zur Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts, 4 vols., Munich, 2007. GRIMM 1988 Claus Grimm, A Rediscovered Work by Hugo van der Goes, in The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 46, 1988, pp. 77-88. GRISEBACH 1974 Lucius Grisebach, Willem Kalf: 1619-1693, Berlin, 1974. GROSSHANS 2003 Rainald Grosshans, IRR-Investigation of the Panel Paintings by Hugo van der Goes in the Berlin Gemäldegalerie, in Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute (eds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et autres études, Louvain/Paris/ Dudley, 2003, pp. 235-249. GROSSMANN 1974 Fritz Grossmann, Pieter Bruegel: Complete Edition of the Paintings, 3rd revised ed., London, 1974. GUINEAU, VILLELA-PETIT 2002 Bernard Guineau and Inès Villela-Petit, Couleurs et technique picturale du Maître de Boucicaut, in Revue de l’art, 135, 2002, pp. 23-42. GÜMBEL 1906-1907 Albert Gümbel, Archivalische Beiträge zur älteren Nürnberger Malereigeschichte. III. Die Malernamen der Nürnberger Meister- und Bürgerbücher 1363-1534 und der Steuerlisten 1392-1440, in Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 29, 1906, pp. 326-346; 30, 1907, pp. 27-65. GYSELEN 1976 Gaby Gyselen, Twee schilderijen uit 1517 en 1534 voor de Sint-Niklaaskerk te Veurne gerestaureerd, in Ons Erfdeel, 19, 1976, pp. 122-129.

HABERDITZL 1913 Franz M. Haberditzl, Zu den Holzschnitten von Jan Swarts, in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst, 36, 1913, pp. 15-16. HACKENBROCH 1996 Yvonne Hackenbroch, Enseignes, Florence, 1996. HAND 2004 John O. Hand, Joos van Cleve. The Complete Paintings, New Haven/ London, 2004. HAND, WOLFF 1986 John O. Hand and Martha Wolff, Early Netherlandish Painting, Washington, 1986. HANDWÖRTERBUCH 1927 Hanns Bächthold-Sträubli and E. Hoffmann-Krayer (eds.), Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, vol. 1, Berlin/Leipzig, 1927. HANULA 1940 Jozef Hanula, Spomienky slovenského maliara, Martin, 1940. HARTWIEG 2010 Babette Hartwieg, Kunsttechnologische Analyse des Göttinger Barfüßerretabels von 1424 im Kontext zeitgenössischer Altarwerke, Ph. Diss., Dresden, Academy of Fine Art, 2010. URL: http://www.hfbk- dresden.de/fileadmin/alle/downloads/Restaurierung/Diss_2010_ Hartwieg.pdf HARTWIEG 2012 Babette Hartwieg, Eigenständigkeit, Tradition und Wiederholung. Ergebnisse technologischer Untersuchungen am Göttinger Barfüßerretabel und an Werken seines Umkreises, in Wolfram Gabler, Volker Schaible and Christoph Krekel (eds.), Die Sprache des Materials. Kölner Maltechnik des Spätmittelalters im Kontext. Beitrage des Symposiums vom 24. bis 26. November 2011 im Kölner Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, in Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung, 26/1, 2012, pp. 204-219 (German), pp. 324-330 (English). HARTWIEG 2015 Babette Hartwieg, Kunsttechnologische Analyse des Göttinger Barfüßerretabels, in Cornelia Aman and Babette Hartwieg (eds.), Der Göttinger Barfüßeraltar von 1424 (Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, Neue Folge, 1), Petersberg, 2015, pp. 334-335. HAYWARD 2007a Maria Hayward, Crimson, Scarlet, Murrey and Carnation: Red at the Court of Henry VIII, in Textile History, 38/2, 2007, pp. 135-150. HAYWARD 2007b Maria Hayward, Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII, Leeds, 2007. HEERKENS 1793 Gerard Nicolas Heerkens, Complurium Academiarum Socii de Valetudine Literatorum, libri III, Groningen, 1793. HEILIGENFIGUR 2007 Eine Heiligenfigur der Goldenen Tafel aus St. Michael zu Lüneburg (Patrimonia, 324), Hanover, 2007. HELMUS 1999 Liesbeth M. Helmus, De verzamelingen van het Centraal Museum Utrecht. 5b. Schilderkunst tot 1850, Utrecht, 1999. HELMUS 2010 Liesbeth M. Helmus, Schilderen in opdracht. Noord-Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1485-1570, Utrecht, 2010.

360 HENDERIKS 2011 Valentine Henderiks, Albrecht Bouts (1451/55-1549). Les Primitifs flamands. 3. Contributions à l’étude des Primitifs Flamands, 10, Brussels, 2011. HENDRIKMAN 2001 Lars Hendrikman, Christiaan II als Scandinavische Constantijn, in Millennium, 15, 2001, pp. 30-57. HESS 2012a Daniel Hess, Die Natur als vollkommene Lehrmeisterin der Kunst, in Daniel Hess and Thomas Eser (eds.), Der frühe Dürer, exh. cat., Nuremberg (Germanisches Nationalmuseum), 2012, pp. 117-131. HESS 2012b Daniel Hess, Natur und Landschaft, in Daniel Hess and Thomas Eser (eds.), Der frühe Dürer, exh. cat., Nuremberg (Germanisches Nationalmuseum), 2012, pp. 383-394. HESS 1955 Gerhard Heß, Graf Georg. Der letzte Löwensteiner aus dem Hause Habsburg, in Schwaben und Franken, in Heimatgeschichtliche Beilage der ‘Heilbronner Stimme’, 1/9, 30.07.1955, pp. 1-2. HINDMAN 1992 Sandra Hindman, Two Leaves from an Unknown Breviary. The Case for Simon Marmion, in Thomas Kren (ed.), Margaret of York, Simon Marmion and the Visions of Tondal, Malibu, 1992, pp. 223-232. HIRSCHFELDER 2013 Dagmar Hirschfelder, Hans Pleydenwurff. Ein Nürnberger Maler aus Bamberg, in Brigitte Korn, Michael Diefenbacher and Steven M. Zahlaus (eds.), Von nah und fern. Zuwanderer in die Reichsstadt Nürnberg, exh. cat., Nuremberg (Stadtmuseum Fembohaus), 2013, pp. 79-84. HIRSCHFELDER 2017 Dagmar Hirschfelder, Pleydenwurff, Hans, in Andreas Beyer, Bénédicte Savoy, Wolf Tegethoff (eds.), Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon. Die Bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker. 96. Pintaldi-Pretro, 2017, pp. 147-149. HISSETTE, VAN PARYS 1987 Roland Hissette and Johan van Parys, Le missel manuscrit de Ter Doest: Bruges, grand sém. 49/18 et ses deux Regimina Sanitatis, in Scriptorium, 41, 1987, pp. 58-77. HOLLSTEIN 1965 Ernst Hollstein, Jahrringchronologische Datierung von Eichenhölzern ohne Waldkante, in Bonner Jahrbücher, 165, 1965, pp. 11-27. HOLLSTEIN 1949-2007 Friedrich W.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts ca. 1450-1700, 72 vols., Roosendaal, 1949-2007.

(De Wetenschappelijke bibliotheek Beeldende Kunsten), Mechlin/ Amsterdam, 1936. HOOGEWERFF 1948 Godefridus J. Hoogewerff, Jan Swart van Groningen. De prediking van Johannes de Doper, in Phoenix, 3, 1948, pp. 1-3. HOOGEWERFF 1954 Godfridus J. Hoogewerff, De schilderkunst in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden gedurende de zestiende eeuw tot omstreeks 1575, in Henk E. van Gelder and Jozef Duverger (eds.), Kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden, Utrecht/ Antwerp, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 388-436. HOSS 2007 Manfred Hoß, Jan Swart. Ein Katalog zugeschriebener Zeichnungen, unpublished Ph. Diss., Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 2007. HOSTE 1993 Anselme Hoste, De Handschriften van Ter Doest, Steenbrugge, 1993. HOUBRAKEN 1976 Arnold Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen (The Hague, 1753), facsimile reprint, Amsterdam, 1976. HOURS 1957 Madeleine Hours, Quelques documents tirés de l’étude au Laboratoire du Polyptyque du Jugement dernier de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, in Bulletin du Laboratoire du Musée du Louvre, 2, 1957, pp. 22-39. HOUSTON/WASHINGTON 2012 Tanya Paul, James Clifton, Julie Berger Hochstrasser and Arthur K. Wheelock, Elegance and Refinement: The Still-Life Paintings of Willem van Aelst, exh. cat., Houston (Museum of Fine Arts)/Washington (National Gallery of Art), 2012. HULIN DE LOO 1913 Georges Hulin de Loo, Ein authentisches Werk von Goosen van der Weyden in Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum. Die gleichzeitigen Gemälde aus Tongerloo und Lier und die Ursprung der Antwerpener Schule um 1500, in Jarhrbuch der königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 34, 1913, pp. 59-88. HULIN DE LOO 1926-1929 Georges Hulin de Loo, Stockt (Vrancke van der), in Biographie nationale de Belgique, Brussels, 1926-1929, vol. 24, cols. 66-76. HUYGHEBAERT 1966 Nicolas Huyghebaert et al., Abbaye de Ter Doest à Lissewege, in Monasticon belge. III. Province de Flandre Occidentale, Liège, 1966, vol. 2, pp. 317-351.

HOLLSTEIN, 1954-1996 Friedrich W.H. Hollstein, German Engravings, Etchings, and Woodcuts ca. 1400-1700, 43 vols., Amsterdam/Roosendaal/Rotterdam, 1954-1996.

HYMANS 1883 Henri Hymans, Notes sur quelques oeuvres d’art conservées en Flandre et dans le nord de la France, in Bulletin des Commissions royales d’Art et d’Archéologie, 24, 1883, pp. 193-286.

HOLMES 1927 Charles Holmes, Recent Acquisitions at Trafalgar Square, in Burlington Magazine, 51, 1927, pp. 104-113.

ILLUSTRATED BARTSCH 1978W.L. Strauss (ed.), The Illustrated Bartsch, New York/Pleasantville, 1978- (in progress).

HOOGEWERFF 1936a Godfridus J. Hoogewerff, De Noord-Nederlandsche Schilderkunst, vol. 1, The Hague, 1936.

IONESCU 1964 Teodor Ionescu, Muzeul Brukenthal. Galeria de artă plastică, Bucharest, 1964.

HOOGEWERFF 1936b Godefridus J. Hoogewerff, Vlaamsche kunst en Italiaansche Renaissance

JAARBOEK ANTWERPEN 2004-2005 Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, 2004-2005.

361 JACOBUS DE VORAGINE 1993 Jacobus de Voragine, translated by W.G. Ryan, The Golden Legend. Readings on the Saints, 2 vols., Princeton, 1993.

KLIMPERT 1896 Richard Klimpert, Lexikon der Münzen, Masse, Gewichte, Zählarten und Zeitgrössen aller Länder der Erde, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1896.

JAMESON 1844 Anna Jameson, Companion to the Most Celebrated Private Galleries of Art in London, London, 1844.

KLOEK 2011 Wouter Kloek, Lucas van Leyden. H. Hiëronymus, 1521, in Lucas van Leyden en de Renaissance, exh. cat., Leiden (Museum De Lakenhal), 2011, p. 287, nr. 80a.

JANSEN 2006 Linda Jansen, Shop Collaboration in the Painting of Background Landscapes in the Workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, in Molly Faries (ed.), Making and Marketing. Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and SixteenthCentury Netherlandish Workshops, Turnhout, 2006, pp. 119-142. JANSSEN 2008-2009 Robrecht Janssen, Lang leve(n) de doden. Een onderzoek naar de (kunst) historische context van een triptiek met de kruisiging van Christus en stichterfiguren in het Städel Museum te Frankfurt am Main, unpublished master thesis, Louvain (KULeuven), 2008-2009. JONES 1995 Rica Jones, The Methods and Materials of Three Tudor Artists: Bettes, Hilliard and Ketel, in Karen Hearn (ed.), Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630, exh. cat., London (Tate Gallery), 1995, pp. 231-235. KEMP 2003 Cornelia Kemp, Fliege, in Reallexikon zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, Munich, 2003, vol. 9, cols. 1210-1211. KEMPERDICK 1999 Stephan Kemperdick, Rogier van der Weyden. 1399/1400-1464, Cologne, 1999. KEMPERDICK 2004 Stephan Kemperdick, Martin Schongauer (Studien zur internationalen Architektur- und Kunstgeschichte, 32), Petersberg, 2004. KEMPERDICK 2008 Stephan Kemperdick, The Workshop and its Working Materials, in Stephan Kemperdick and Jochen Sander (eds.), The Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden, exh. cat., Frankfurt am Main (Städel Museum)/ Berlin (Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie), Ostfildern, 2008, pp. 95-116. KEMPERDICK 2012 Stephan Kemperdick, Rogier van der Weyden’s Workshop around 1440, in Lorne Campbell, Jan Van der Stock, Catherine Reynolds and Lieve Watteeuw (eds.), Underdrawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVII. Rogier van der Weyden in Context, Paris/Louvain/Walpole, 2012, pp. 57-77. KIRBY, ROY, SPRING 2002 Jo Kirby, Ashok Roy and Marika Spring, The Materials of Underdrawing, in David Bomford (ed.), Art in the Making. Underdrawings in Renaissance Painting, exh. cat., London (National Gallery), 2002, pp. 26-37. KIRBY, SPRING, HIGGITT 2005 Jo Kirby, Marika Spring and Catherine Higgitt, The Technology of Red Lake Pigment Manufacture: Study of the Dyestuff Substrate, in National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 26, 2005, pp. 71-87. KIRBY, VAN BOMMEL, VERHECKEN 2014 Jo Kirby, Maarten van Bommel and André Verhecken, Natural Colorants for Dyeing and Lake Pigment, Pratical Recipes and their Historical Sources, London, 2014.

KNÖTEL 1928 Paul Knötel, Der Pleydenwurffsche Hochaltar der Elisabethkirche in Breslau, in Schlesiens Vorzeit in Bild und Schrift. Zeitschrift des Schlesischen Altertumsvereins, 9, 1928, pp. 59-68. KOOPSTRA 2010 Anna Koopstra, De Antwerpse ‘witter ende paneelmaker’ Melchior de Bout (werkzaam 1625/6-1658): leverancier van ‘ready-made’ panelen voor de Parijse markt, in Oud Holland, 123, 2010, pp. 108-124. KORENY 1996 Fritz Koreny, Martin Schongauer as a Draftsman: A  Reassessment, in Master Drawings, 34, 1996, pp. 123-147. KOSTER 2008 Margaret Koster, Hugo van der Goes and the Procedures of Art and Salvation, Turnhout, 2008. KROESEN 2010 Justin E.A. Kroesen, Seitenaltäre in mittelalterlichen Kirchen. StandortRaum-Liturgie, Regensburg, 2010. KROHM 2007 Hartmut Krohm, Die Lüneburger Goldene Tafel. Retabel und Skulpturenzyklus, in Eine Heiligenfigur der Goldenen Tafel aus St. Michael zu Lüneburg (Patrimonia, 324), Hanover, 2007, pp. 79-103. KRÖNIG 1936 Wolfgang Krönig, Der italienische Einfluss in der flämischen Malerei im ersten Drittel des 16. Jahrhunderts. Beiträge zum Beginn der Renaissance in der Malerei der Niederlande, Würzburg, 1936. LAFOND 1912 Paul Lafond, Rogier van der Weyden, Brussels/Paris, 1912. LAMBERTS 1986 Bé Lamberts, De Spijzing van de Vijfduizend, in Akt, 3/4, 1986, pp. 88-97. LAMMERTSE, SZANTO 2007 Friso Lammertse and Mickaël Szanto, Willem Kalf, eine Biographie, in Peter van den Brink, Fred G. Meijer and Sylvia Böhmer (eds.), Gemaltes Licht: die Stilleben von Willem Kalf 1619-1693, exh. cat., Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningnen)/Aachen (Suermondt-LudwigMuseum), 2006, pp. 9-23. LANE 1991 Barbara G. Lane, The Patron and the Pirate: The Mystery of Memling’s Gdansk Last Judgement, in The Art Bulletin, 73, 1991, pp. 623-640. LANE 2009 Barbara Lane, Hans Memling. Master Painter in Fifteenth-Century Bruges, London/Turnhout, 2009. LAURENT 1997 René Laurent, Les sceaux des princes territoriaux belges de 1482 à 1794, Brussels, 1997. LAW 1898 Ernest Law, The Royal Gallery of Hampton Court, London, 1898.

362 LAW 1908 Ernest Law, The New Authorised Historical Catalogue of the Pictures and Tapestries in the King’s Collection at Hampton Court, London, 1908.

LUCKHARDT, SCHNEEDE 2001 Ulrich Luckhardt and Uwe M. Schneede, Private Schätze. Über das Sammeln von Kunst in Hamburg bis 1933, Hamburg, 2001.

LE BLANC 1854-1890 Charles le Blanc, Manuel de l’amateur d’estampes, 4 vols., Paris, 18541890.

LUTZE, WIEGAND 1936-1937 Eberhard Lutze and Eberhard Wiegand, Kataloge des Germanischen Nationalmuseums zu Nürnberg. Die Gemälde des 13. bis 16. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1936-1937.

LECHNER 1976 Gregor Martin Lechner, Thomas von Aquino, in Engelbert Kirschbaum and Wolfgang Braunfels (eds.), Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie. 8. Ikonographie der Heiligen. Meletius bis Zweiundvierzig Martyrer, Register, Rome/Vienna, 1976, cols. 475-484.

LUXEMBOURG 2007 Jean-Luc Mousset and Krista de Jonge (eds.), Un prince de la Renaissance. Pierre-Ernest de Mansfeld (1517-1604), 2 vols., exh. cat., Luxembourg (Musée national d’histoire et d’art), 2007.

LEEFLANG 2004-2005 Micha Leeflang, Workshop Practices in Early Sixteenth-century Antwerp Studios, in Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, 2004/2005, pp. 233-273.

LUXEMBOURG 2012 Brueghel, Cranach, Tizian, van Eyck. Meisterwerke aus der Sammlung Brukenthal, exh. cat., Luxembourg (Villa Vauban-Musée d’Art de la Ville de Luxembourg), 2012.

LEONCINI 1997 Luca Leoncini, I misteri delle tavole fiamminghe, Genoa, 1997.

MADRID 1998 Sam Segal and Ubaldo Sedano, Willem Kalf: Original y copia, exh. cat., Madrid (Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza), 1998.

LEONCINI 2003 Luca Leoncini, Maestro fiammingo, in Carla Cavelli Traverso (ed.), Primitivi Fiamminghi in Liguria, Genoa, 2003, pp. 138-140, nr. 31. LEONCINI 2008 Luca Leoncini, Museo di Palazzo Reale Genova. I dipinti del Grande Appartamento Reale. Catalogo generale, vol. 1, Milan, 2008. LILLE 2005 Le Maître au Feuillage brodé. Primitifs flamand. Secrets d’ateliers, exh. cat., Lille (Palais des Beaux-Arts), 2005. LONDON 2013 Anna Reynolds, In Fine Style. The Art of Tudor and Stuart Fashion, exh. cat., London (Royal Collection Trust, Queen’s Gallery), 2013. LORENTZ 2004 Philippe Lorentz, La Crucifixion du Parlement de Paris (Collection solo, 29), Paris, 2004. LOS ANGELES/LONDON 2003 Thomas Kren and Scot McKendrick, Illuminating the Renaissance. The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, exh. cat., Los Angeles (J.P. Getty Museum)/London (British Library), 2003. LOUGHMAN 1999 John Loughman, The Market for Netherlandish Still Lifes, in Alan Chong and Wouter Kloek, Still-Life Paintings from the Netherlands 1550-1720, exh. cat., Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum)/Cleveland (The Cleveland Museum of Art), 1999, pp. 87-102. LOUVAIN 2009 Lorne Campbell and Jan Van der Stock (eds.), Rogier van der Weyden. 1400-1464. Master of Passions, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), 2009. LOUVAIN 2012 Yvette Bruijnen, Joost M.A. Coen, Simone Cagno, Marjan Debaene, Valentine Henderiks, Koen Janssens and Joris Van Grieken, Getekend, Jan R. Jan Rombouts. Een renaissancemeester herontdekt, exh. cat., Louvain (M-Museum), Brussels, 2012. LUCHS 1863 Hermann Luchs, Bildende Künstler in Schlesien nach Namen und Monogrammen, in Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Alterthum Schlesiens, 5, 1863, pp. 1-56.

MADRID 2007 Alejandro Vergara (ed.), Patinir. Essays and Critical Catalogue, exh. cat., Madrid (Museo Nacional del Prado), 2007. MADRID 2015 Carmen Garcìa-Frías Checa, Javier Jordán de Urríes y de la Colina (eds.), El Retrato en las collectiones reales de patrimonio nacional. De Juan de Flandes a Antonio López, exh. cat., Madrid (Palacio Real), 2015. MADRID/BRUGES/NEW YORK 2005 Till-Holger Borchert, Hans Memling. Portraits, exh. cat., Madrid (Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza)/Bruges (Groeningemuseum)/New York (Frick Collection), 2005. MARÈS DEULOVOL 2006 Federico Marès Deulovol, El mundo fascinante del coleccionismo y de las antiguedades. Memorias de la vida de un coleccionista, Barcelona, 2006. MARLIER 1966 Georges Marlier, La Renaissance flamande. Pierre Coeck d’Alost, Brussels, 1966. MARLIER 1969 Georges Marlier, Pierre Brueghel le Jeune, Brussels, 1969. MARTENS 2004 Didier Martens, A La Búsqueda de un Pintor Brujense del Renacimiento: ¿Quién es “Moraulus”?, in Archivo Español de Arte, 77/306, 2004, pp. 117-128. MARTENS 2010 Didier Martens, Peinture flamande et goût ibérique aux XVème et XVIème siècles, Brussels, 2010. MARTENS, KISS 2003 Didier Martens and Barbara Kiss, Le triptyque de Ontaneda aux Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles: typologie, attribution et fortune critique, in Revue belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art/Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis, 72, 2003, pp. 113-146. MARTH 1994 Regine Marth, Der Schatz der Goldenen Tafel. Kestner-Museum Hannover (Museum Kesternianum, 2), Hanover, 1994. MARTH 2007 Regine Marth, Der Schatz der Goldenen Tafel, in Eine Heiligenfigur der

363 Goldenen Tafel aus St. Michael zu Lüneburg (Patrimonia, 324), Hanover, 2007, pp. 105-113.

MORASSI 1951 Antonio Morassi, Capolavori della pittura a Genova, Milan, 1951.

MATHER 1946 Frank Jewett Mather, The Problem of the Adoration of the Lamb. An Historical Approach, in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 29, 1946, pp. 269284.

MORERI 1732 Louis Moreri, Le Grand dictionnaire historique, ou le Mélange curieux de l’histoire sacrée et profane…, 6 vols., Paris, revised edition, 1732.

MEIJER 2013 Fred G. Meijer, Review of Tanya Paul, James Clifton, Julie Berger Hochstrasser and Arthur K. Wheelock, Elegance and Refinement: The Still-Life Paintings of Willem van Aelst, exh. cat., Houston (Museum of Fine Arts)/Washington (National Gallery of Art), 2012, in The Burlington Magazine, 155, 2013, pp. 105-106. MEIJER, SLUITER, SQUELLATI BRIZIO 2011 Bert W. Meijer, Guus Sluiter and Paola Squellati Brizio, Repertory of Duch and Flemish Paintings in Italian Public Collections. III. Piedmont and Valle d’Aosta, vol. 2 (M-Z), Florence, 2011. MERINO DE CÁCERES, MARTÍNEZ RUIZ 2012 José Miguel Merino de Cáceres and María José Martínez Ruiz, La destrucción del patrimonio artístico español. W. R. Hearst: “el gran acaparador”, Madrid, 2012. MERLE DU BOURG 2014 Alexis Merle du Bourg, L’Apport substantiel du Nord, in Éric Coatalem with collaboration of Florence Thiéblot, La nature morte française au XVIIe siècle/17th-century Still-Life Painting in France, Dijon, 2014, pp. 362-389. MERRIFIELD 1967 Mary P. Merrifield, Original Treatises on the Arts of Painting, New York, 1967. MESNIL 1915 Jacques Mesnil, De tentoonstelling in het Musée des Beaux-Arts de la ville de Paris, in Onze Kunst, 28, 1915, pp. 41-49. MEUWISSEN 2006 Daantje Meuwissen, A ‘Painter in Black and White’: the Symbiotic Relationship between the Paintings and Woodcuts of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, in Molly Faries (ed.), Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops, Turnhout, 2006, pp. 55-81. MEUWISSEN 2014 Daantje Meuwissen, De tekenaar ontmaskerd? Het schetsboek en Cornelis Anthonisz., in Ilona van Tuinen, with a contribution by Daantje Meuwissen, Het vroegste Amsterdamse schetsboek. Een zestiende-eeuws zakboekje uit het atelier van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, Oostszaan, 2014, pp. 202-205.

MORRIS 2002 Susan Morris, Art Without Borders, London, Richard Green at Three London Galleries, 2002. MUNICH 2003 Barocke Sammellust. Die Sammlung des Baron Samuel von Brukenthal, exh. cat., Munich (Haus der Kunst), 2003. MUSEU FREDERIC MARÈS 1979 Catàleg del Museu Frederic Marès, Barcelona, 1979. MUSPER 1968 Theodor Musper, Altniederländische Malerei. Von Van Eyck bis Bosch, New York, 1968. NAGLER 1848 Georg K. Nagler, Neues allgemeines Künstler-Lexicon oder Nachrichten von dem Leben und Werken der Maler, Bildhauer, Baumeister, Kupferstecher, Formschneider, Lithographen, Zeichner, Medailleure, Elfenbeinarbeiter, etc., Munich, 1848. NASH 1999 Susie Nash, Between France and Flanders. Manuscript Illumination in Amiens, London, 1999. NEW HAVEN/LONDON 2010 Michael Snodin (ed.), Horace Walpole’s Strawberry Hill, exh. cat., New Haven (Yale Center for British Art)/London (Victoria and Albert Museum), 2010. NEW YORK 1994 Maryan W. Ainsworth, Petrus Christus. Renaissance Master of Bruges, exh. cat., New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art), 1994. NEW YORK 1998 Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen (eds.), From Van Eyck to Bruegel. Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, exh. cat., New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art), 1998. NEW YORK 2014 Elisabeth A.H. Cleland (ed.), Grand Design. Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Renaissance Tapestry, exh. cat., New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art), 2014. NIËL 2000 Maikel Niël, De perspectivische ruimteweergave van het Gezicht in vogelvlucht op Amsterdam van Cornelis Anthonisz., in Caert-Thresoor, 19, 2000, pp. 107-113.

MEUWISSEN 2017 Daantje Meuwissen, Attributing the Berlin Sketchbook to Cornelis Anthonisz, in Simiolus. Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, 39/1-2, 2017, pp.15-43.

NORTHEMANN 2011 Yvonne Northemann, Zwischen Vergessen und Erinnern. Die Nürnberger Klöster im medialen Geflecht, Petersberg, 2011.

MICHEL 2013 Eva Michel, Aus dem Schatten des Vaters ins Licht gerückt: Albrecht Bouts in einer neuen Studie, in Kunstchronik, 66/9-10, 2013, pp. 468-473.

NUYTTEN 2005 Dieter Nuytten, Bouwhistorisch onderzoek aan de Cisterziënzerschuur ter Doest te Lissewege, Brussels, 2005.

MILLAR 1960 Oliver Millar (ed.), Abraham van der Doort’s Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I (Walpole Society, 37), London, 1960.

OLDENBOURG 1973 Maria Consuelo Oldenbourg, Hortulus Animae [1494]-1523. Bibliographie und Illustration, Hamburg, 1973.

MOHR 1995 Georg-Heinz Mohr, Lessico di iconografia cristiana, Milan, 1984.

ORTH 1988 Myra Dickman Orth, French Renaissance Manuscripts. The 1520s Hours

364 Workshop and the Master of the Getty Epistles, in The J.Paul Getty Museum Journal, 16, 1988, pp. 33-60.

of Willem van Aelst, exh. cat., Houston (Museum of Fine Arts)/Washington (National Gallery of Art), 2012, pp. 10-23.

ORTH 1989 Myra Dickman Orth, Antwerp Mannerist Model Drawings in French Renaissance Books of Hours. A Case Study of the 1520s Hours Workshop, in Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 47, 1989, pp. 61-90.

PAUWELS 1959 Henri Pauwels, Een Kruisiging met stichters van Joos van Wassenhove, in Revue Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art/ Belgisch tijdschrift voor oudheidkunde en kunstgeschiedenis, 28/1-2, 1959, pp. 43-51.

ORTH 2015 Myra Dickman Orth, Renaissance Manuscripts. The Sixteenth Century (A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in France, 4), 2 vols., London/ Turnhout, 2015.

PÉRIER-D’IETEREN 1985 Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren, Colyn de Coter et la technique picturale des peintres flamands du XVe siècle, Brussels, 1985.

PÄCHT 1997 Otto Pächt, Early Netherlandish Painting, From Rogier van der Weyden to Gerard David, London, 1997. PAGÈS-CAMAGNA, DUVAL, GUICHARNAUD 2004 Sandrine Pagès-Camagna, Alain Duval and Hélène Guicharnaud, Study of Gustave Moreau’s Black Drawings: Identification of the Graphic Materials by Raman microspectrometry and PIXE, in Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 35, 2004, pp. 628-632. PANOFSKY 1953 Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting. Its Origin and Character, Cambridge (Ma), 1953.

PÉRIER-D’IETEREN 2005 Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren, Thierry Bouts. L’œuvre complet, Brussels, 2005. PÉRIER-D’LETEREN 2006 Catheline Périer-D’leteren, Dieric Bouts. The Complete Works, Brussels, 2006. PÉRIER-D’IETEREN 2015 Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren, Essai d’attribution des volets peints du retable de Güstrow et examen de leur dessin sous-jacent, in Catheline PérierD’Ieteren and Yvo Mohrmann (eds.), Le retable de la Passion de l’église Sainte-Marie de Güstrow/Der Passions-Altar der Pfarrkirche St. Marien zu Güstrow, Brussels, 2015, pp. 105-133.

PANOFSKY 1964 Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting. Its Origin and Character, 2 vols., 3rd ed., Cambridge (Ma), 1964.

PÉRIER-D’IETEREN, MOHRMANN 2015 Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren and Yvo Mohrmann (eds.), Le retable de la Passion de l’église Sainte-Marie de Güstrow/Der Passions-Altar der Pfarrkirche St. Marien zu Güstrow, Brussels, 2015.

PARIS 2009 Bruegel, Memling, Van Eyck… La collection Brukenthal, exh. cat., Paris (Musée Jacquemart-André), 2009.

PLATH 1980 Helmut Plath, Das St. Michaeliskloster von 1376 in Lüneburg, Lüneburg, 1980.

PARIS 2017 François Ier et l’art des Pays-Bas, exh. cat., Paris (Musée du Louvre), 2017.

POSTEC 2012 Marie Postec, Technical Reconstitution based on ‘The Seven Sacraments’ by Rogier van der Weyden: An Experimental Approach, in Lorne Campbell, Jan Van der Stock, Catherine Reynolds and Lieve Watteeuw (eds.), Underdrawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVII. Rogier van der Weyden in Context, Paris/Louvain/Walpole, 2012, pp. 146-156.

PARTHEY 1863-1864 Gustav Parthey, Deutscher Bildersaal. Verzeichniss der in Deutschland vorhandenen Oelbilder verstorbener Maler, 2 vols., Berlin, 1863-1864. PASSAVANT 1833 Johann David Passavant, Kunstreise durch England und Belgien, Frankfurt am Main, 1833. PASSAVANT 1843 Johann David Passavant, Beiträge zur Kenntniss der alt-niederlandischen Malerschulen bis zur Mitte des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, in Kunstblatt, 24, 1843, pp. 225-263. PASSAVANT 1860-1862 Johann David Passavant, Le peintre-graveur, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1860-1862. PATAŁA 2015 Agnieszka Patała, Rola Norymbergi w ksztaltowaniu pó´znogotyckiego malarstwa tablicowego na ´Sla.sku, Ph. Diss., University of Wroclaw, 2015. PAUL 2008 Tanya Paul, ‘Beschildert met een Glans’: Willem van Aelst and Artistic Self-Consciousness in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Still Life Painting, unpublished Ph. Diss., University of Virginia, 2008. PAUL 2012 Tanya Paul, Cultivating Virtuosity: A Biographical Portrait of Willem van Aelst, in Tanya Paul, James Clifton, Julie Berger Hochstrasser and Arthur K. Wheelock, Elegance and Refinement: The Still-Life Paintings

PRINCIPALES ACQUISITIONS 1978 La Chronique des Arts. Principales acquisitions des Musées en 1977, in Gazette des Beaux Arts, Supplément, 1310/March 1978, p. 36, nr. 168. PROVOOST 2006 Nele Provoost, Profane devotie in een kleine stad in middeleeuws Vlaanderen. De Heilige Kruisprocessie te Veurne (1395-1550), in Handelingen van het genootschap voor geschiedenis te Brugge, 143/3-4, 2006, pp. 449-523. PYNE 1819 William Henry Pyne, The History of Royal Residences, 3 vols., London, 1819. RAGGHIANTI 1949 Carlo Ragghianti, Il maestro delle ‘Scene della passione di Bruges’, in Critica d’Arte, 4, 1949, pp. 334-338. RANDALL 1989 Lilian M.C. Randall, Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery. 2. France, 1420-1540, Baltimore, 1989. RANKE 1861 Wilhelm Ranke, Alte christliche Bilder, photographisch dargestellt. Erstes Heft mit drei Bildern der altflandrischen Schule, Berlin, 1861.

365 READE 1947 Brian Reade, William Frizell and the Royal Collection, in The Burlington Magazine, 89/528, 1947, pp. 70-75. RECKLINGHAUSEN 1954 Weihnachten in der Kunst, exh. cat., Recklinghausen (Städtische Kunsthalle), 1954. REEKMANS 1963 Paul Reekmans, Jan van Rillaer de oudere, stadsschilder te Leuven van 1548 tot 1570. Zijn schilderijen en zijn dood, in Mededelingen van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring voor Leuven en Omgeving, 3, 1963, pp. 117-128. RICHTER 2014 Jan Friedrich Richter, Das mittelalterliche Hochaltarretabel der Lübecker Marienkirche, in Zeitschrift für Lübeckische Geschichte, 94, 2014, pp. 1-30. RICHTER, HAHN, FUCHS 2001 Mark Richter, Oliver Hahn and Robert Fuchs, Purple Fluorite: A Little Known Artists’ Pigment and its Use in Late Gothic and Early Renaissance Painting in Northern Europe, in Studies in Conservation, 46, 2001, pp. 1-13.

(Museum Boijmans Van Beuningnen)/Aachen (Suermondt-LudwigMuseum), 2006. SALVI 2000 Claudia Salvi, D’après nature: la nature morte en France au XVIIe siècle, Tournai, 2000. SANDER 1992 Jochen Sander, Hugo van der Goes, Stilentwicklung und Chronologie (Berliner Schriften zur Kunst, 3), Mainz, 1992. SANDER 2008 Jochen Sander, Die Rekonstruktion von Künstlerpersönlichkeiten und Werkgruppen, in Stephan Kemperdick and Jochen Sander (eds.), Der Meister von Flémalle und Rogier van der Weyden, exh. cat., Frankfurt am Main (Städel Museum)/Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie), 2008, pp. 75-93. SANDNER 2010 Ingo Sandner, Unter Farbschichten verborgen. Die Gemälde des Conrad von Soest und seiner Werkstatt unter infraroter Strahlung, in Westfalen. Hefte für Geschichte, Kunst und Volkskunde, 85-86, 2007-2008, pp. 221-242. SAVELSBERG 1989 Wolfgang Savelsberg, Ein Reisealtar von Jan Swart van Groningen aus dem Jahr 1562, in Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, 28, 1989, pp. 77-88.

ROBINSON, WOLFF 1986 William W. Robinson and Martha Wolff, The Function of Drawings in the Netherlands in the Sixteenth Century, in John O. Hand, J. Richard Judson, William W. Robinson and Martha Wolff, The Age of Bruegel. Netherlandish Drawings in the Sixteenth Century, exh. cat., Washington (National Gallery of Art)/New York (Pierpont Morgan Library), 1986, pp. 25-40.

SCHENKING/DONATION 1988 Schenking Dokter en Mevrouw Frans Heulens-Van der Meiren - Donation Docteur et Madame Frans Heulens-Van der Meiren, Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Département Art ancien, Brussels, 1988.

ROLLAND 1913 Paul Rolland, Deux oeuvres de Roger de le Pasture, in Revue tournaisienne, 7, 1913, pp. 160-161.

SCHLIE 1883 Friedrich Schlie, Das Altarwerk der beiden Brüsseler Meister Jan Borman und Bernard van Orley in der Pfarrkirche zu Güstrow, Güstrow, 1883.

ROLLER 2000 Stephan Roller, Zwei Arbeiten aus der Werkstatt Hans Pleydenwurffs in der Nationalgalerie in Prag, Teil 1, in Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, 10, 2000, pp. 6-17.

SCHMIDT 2006 Victor M. Schmidt, Diptychs and Supplicants: Precedents and Contexts of Fifteenth-Century Devotional Diptychs, in John O. Hand and Ron Spronk (eds.), Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych. Essays in Context, New Haven/London, 2006, pp. 14-31.

ROLLER 2001 Stephan Roller, Zwei Arbeiten aus der Werkstatt Hans Pleydenwurffs in der Nationalgalerie in Prag, Teil 2, in Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, 11, 2001, pp. 20-37. ROLLER, WEILANDT 2004 Stephan Roller and Gerhard Weilandt, Der Dreikönigsaltar in St. Lorenz und Hans Pleydenwurff, in Christian Schmidta and Stephan Roller (eds.), Hundert Jahre Verein zur Erhaltung 1903-2003. Sammelband der Referate des Kolloquiums aus Anlass des Vereinsjubiläums (Schriftenreihe des Vereins zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg e.V. 2), Nuremberg, 2004, pp. 35-44. ROMBOUTS, VAN LERIUS 1872-1876 Philip Rombouts and Théodore Van Lerius, De Liggeren en andere historische archiven der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde, onder zinspreuk «Wt ionsten versaemt», 2 vols., Antwerp/The Hague, 1872-1876. ROME 2015 Till-Holger Borchert, Memling. Rinasciemento fiammingo, exh. cat., Rome (Scuderie del Quirinale), 2015. ROTTERDAM/AACHEN 2006 Peter van den Brink, Fred G. Meijer and Sylvia Böhmer (eds.), Gemaltes Licht: die Stilleben von Willem Kalf 1619-1693, exh. cat., Rotterdam

SCHMIDT 1867 Wilhelm Schmidt, Jakob Cornelisz van Oostsaanen und Jan Swart van Groningen in der Münchener Pinakothek, in Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, 2, 1867, pp. 41-44. SCHOENEN 1967 Paul Schoenen, Epitaph, in Otto Schmitt et al. (eds.), Reallexikon zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, 5. Email–Eselritt, Stuttgart, 1967, cols. 872921. SCHÖFBECK, HEUSSNER 2015 Tilo Schöfbeck and Karl-Uwe Heussner, Les analyses dendrochronologiques du retable de Güstrow, in Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren and Yvo Mohrmann (eds.), Le retable de la Passion de l’église Sainte-Marie de Güstrow/Der Passions-Altar der Pfarrkirche St. Marien zu Güstrow, Brussels, 2015, pp. 87-93. SCHÖNE 1937 Wolfang Schöne, Über einige altniederländische Bilder, vor allem in Spanien, in Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 58, 1937, pp. 153-181. SCHÖNE 1938 Wolfgang Schöne, Dieric Bouts und seine Schule, Berlin/Leipzig, 1938.

366 SCHULER 1987 Carol M. Schuler, The Sword of Compassion: Images of the Sorrowing Virgin in Late Medieval and Renaissance Art, unpublished Ph. Diss., Columbia University, 1987.

Bücken and Griet Steyaert, De erfenis van Rogier van der Weyden, De schilderkunst in Brussel 1450-1520, exh. cat., Brussels (Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées royaux des BeauxArts de Belgique), 2013, pp. 147-153.

SCHULER 1992 Carol M. Schuler, The Seven Sorrows of the Virgin. Popular Culture and Cultic Imagery in Pre-Reformation Europe, in Simiolus, 21, 1992, pp. 5-28.

STEYAERT 2013c Griet Steyaert, De Meester van de Catharinalegende, in Véronique Bücken and Griet Steyaert, De erfenis van Rogier van der Weyden, De schilderkunst in Brussel 1450-1520, exh. cat., Brussels (Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées royaux des BeauxArts de Belgique), 2013, pp. 205-207.

SCHÜRER, WIESE 1938 Oskar Schürer and Erich Wiese, Deutsche Kunst in der Zips (Forschungen zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, 23), Brünn/Vienna/Leipzig, 1938. SEGAL 2007 Sam Segal, Review of Peter van den Brink, Fred G. Meijer and Sylvia Böhmer (eds.), Gemaltes Licht: die Stilleben von Willem Kalf 1619-1693, exh. cat., Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen)/Aachen (Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum), 2006, in ArtHist, 2007. URL: http:// www.arthist.net/download/book/2007/071122Segal.pdf. SONKES 1970 Micheline Sonkes, Le dessin sous-jacent chez les Primitifs flamands, in Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, 12, 1970, pp. 195-225. SONKES 1971-1972 Micheline Sonkes, Le dessin sous-jacent chez Roger van der Weyden et le problème de la personnalité du Maître de Flémalle, in Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, 13, 1971-1972, pp. 161-206. SPRING 2000 Marika Spring, Occurrences of the Purple Pigment Fluorite on Paintings in the National Gallery, in National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 21, 2000, pp. 20-27. STANGE 1958 Alfred Stange, Deutsche Malerei der Gotik. 9. Franken, Böhmen und Thüringen-Sachsen in der Zeit von 1400 bis 1500, Munich/Berlin, 1958. STANGE 1978 Alfred Stange, Kritisches Verzeichnis der deutschen Tafelbilder vor Dürer, 3. Franken, Munich, 1978. STECKHAN 2007 Peter Steckhan, Die Goldene Tafel des Benediktinerklosters St. Michaelis zu Lüneburg im historischen Kontext, in Eine Heiligenfigur der Goldenen Tafel aus St. Michael zu Lüneburg (Patrimonia, 324), Hanover, 2007, pp. 9-21. STEINBART 1929 Kurt Steinbart, Nachlese im Werk des Jacob Cornelisz., in Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 5, 1929, pp. 1-48. STEYAERT 2012 Griet Steyaert, The Seven Sacraments: Some Technical Aspects observed during the Restoration, in Lorne Campbell, Jan Van der Stock, Catherine Reynolds and Lieve Watteeuw (eds.), Underdrawing and Technology in Painting. Symposium XVII. Rogier van der Weyden in Context, Paris/Louvain/Walpole, 2012, pp. 118-135.

STEYAERT 2013d Griet Steyaert, Pieter van der Weyden en het atelier van Rogier van der Weyden na zijn dood, in Véronique Bücken and Griet Steyaert, De erfenis van Rogier van der Weyden, De schilderkunst in Brussel 1450-1520, exh. cat., Brussels (Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique), 2013, pp. 96-101. STEYAERT 2013e Griet Steyaert, Vrancke van der Stockt, in Véronique Bücken and Griet Steyaert, De erfenis van Rogier van der Weyden, De schilderkunst in Brussel 1450-1520, exh. cat., Brussels (Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique), 2013, pp. 171-172. STEYAERT, TUCKER 2014 Griet Steyaert and Mark S. Tucker, The Philadelphia Crucifixion, Dijon Annunciation, and Washington Apparition: A Carved Altarpiece’s Painted Wings from the Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, in Boletín del Museo del Prado, 32/50, 2014, pp. 50-69. STOLS-WITLOX 2012 Maartje Stols-Witlox, Grounds for Easel Painting, in Joyce Hill Stoner and Rebecca Rushfield (eds.), The Conservation of Easel Paintings, London/New York, 2012, pp. 161-185. STRIEDER 1993 Peter Strieder, Tafelmalerei in Nürnberg 1350-1550, Königstein im Taunus, 1993. STROLTZ 2011 Monica Stroltz, ‘Zway Khleine Stückhl aneinander von Öelfarb auf Holcz […]’. Das Wiener Diptychon von Hugo van der Goes: Technologische Beobachtungen und Restaurierung, in Technologische Studien Kunsthistorisches Museum, 8, 2011, pp. 90-131. SUCKALE 1984 Robert Suckale, Hans Pleydenwurff in Bamberg, in Berichte des Historischen Vereins Bamberg, 120, 1984, pp. 423-438. SUCKALE 2009 Robert Suckale, Die Erneuerung der Malkunst vor Dürer (Schriftenreihe des Historischen Vereins Bamberg, 44), 2 vols., Petersberg, 2009. SUIDA 1906 Wilhelm Suida, Genua, Leipzig, 1906.

STEYAERT 2013a Griet Steyaert, Aert van den Bossche et le Maître de la Légende de sainte Barbe, in Véronique Bücken and Griet Steyaert, L’héritage de Rogier van der Weyden. La peinture à Bruxelles 1450-1520, exh. cat., Brussels (Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique), 2013, pp. 246-275.

SYFER-D’OLNE et al. 2006 Pascal Syfer-d’Olne, Roel Slachmuylders, Anne Dubois, Bart Fransen and Famke Peters, The Flemish Primitives. IV. Masters with Provisional Names. Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels, 2006.

STEYAERT 2013b Griet Steyaert, De Meester van de verlossing van het Prado, in Véronique

SZANTO 2001 Mickaël Szanto, Pour Jacques Linard, peintre de natures mortes (Troyes,

367 1597-Paris, 1645), in Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de l’Art français, 2001, pp. 25-62.

in Early Sixteenth-Century Antwerp Workshops, in Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Antwerpen, 2004-2005, pp. 159-231.

SZANTO 2006 Mickaël Szanto, Antwerp and the Paris Art Market in the Years 16201630, in Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miegroet (eds.), Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450-1750 (Studies in European Urban History (1100-1800), 6), Turnhout, 2006, pp. 328-342.

VANDENBROECK 1985 Paul Vandenbroeck, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerpen. Catalogus schilderijen 14e en 15e eeuw, Antwerp, 1985.

TOMBU 1929 Jeanne Tombu, Le Maître de la Légende de Marie-Madeleine, in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 71, 1929, pp. 258-292. TOUSSAINT 1994 Nathalie Toussaint, Le Maître de l’Adoration de Turin, in Brigitte de Patoul and Roger Van Schoute (eds.), Les Primitifs flamands et leur temps, Tournai, 1994, p. 511. TYERS 2010 Ian Tyers, Aspects of the European Trade in Oak Boards to England 12001700, in Jo Kirby, Susie Nash and Joanna Cannon (eds.), Artists’ Materials. Markets and Commerce in Europe to 1700, London, 2010, pp. 42-49. UTRECHT 2000 Molly Faries and Liesbeth M. Helmus, The Madonnas of Jan van Scorel. 1495-1562, exh. cat., Utrecht (Centraal Museum), 2000. VALENCIA 2010 Gema I. Barberán (ed.), El nacimiento de una pintura: de lo visible a lo invisible, exh. cat., Valencia (Museo de Bellas Artes), 2010. VAN ACKER 2008 Jan van Acker, De Veurnse H. Kruisprocessie anno 1912, in Archikrant, 18, 2008, pp. 10-17. VAN ASPEREN DE BOER, DIJKSTRA, VAN SCHOUTE 1990 J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Jellie Dijkstra and Roger Van Schoute, Underdrawing in Paintings of the Rogier van der Weyden and Master of Flémalle groups, in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 41, 1990. VAN ASPEREN DE BOER, FARIES, FILEDT KOK 1986 J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Molly Faries and Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Painting Technique and Workshop Practice in Northern Netherlandish Art of the Sixteenth Century, in Jan Piet Filedt Kok, Willy Halsema and Wouter K. Kloek (eds.), Kunst voor de Beeldenstorm. Noordnederlandse Kunst 1525-1580, exh. cat., Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum), 1986, pp. 85-116. VAN BELLINGEN 1986 S. Van Bellingen, De Meester van 1518, in De Brabantse Folklore, 251, 1986, pp. 236-241. VANDENABEELE, MOENS 2002 Peter Vandenabeele and Luc Moens, Spectroscopic Pigment Investigation of the Mayer van den Bergh Breviary, in Bert Cardon, Jan Van der Stock and Dominique Vanwijnsberghe (eds.), “Als Ich Can”. Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, 12. Low Countries Series 9), Paris/Louvain/Dudley, 2002, pp. 1443-1455.

VAN DE VELDE 1855 Henry van de Velde, Histoire de la Procession de Furnes, in Annales de la Société d’Émulation de Bruges, 2nd series, 1855, pp. 143-228. VANDIVERE 2012 Abbie Vandivere, Reconstructing Intermediate Layers in Early Netherlandish Paintings, in Lucy Wrapson, Jenny Rose, Rose Miller and Spike Bucklow (eds.), In Artist’s Footsteps: The Reconstruction of Pigments and Paintings, London, 2012, pp. 63-76. VAN DORST 2013 Sven Van Dorst, Convex Pillar Paintings in Church Interiors: Context, Materials and Conservation Problems, in CeROArt [online], 2013. URL: http://ceroart.revues.org/3229. VAN HOUT 1998 Nico van Hout, Meaning and Development of the Ground Layer in Seventeenth Century Painting, in Erma Hermens (ed.), Looking Through Paintings. The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research (Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 11), Baarn/ London, 1998, pp. 199-225. VAN MANDER 1994-1999 Karel van Mander, The lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters from the First Edition of the Schilder-boeck (1603-1604), Hessel Miedema (ed.), 6 vols., Doornspijk, 1994-1999. VAN PUYVELDE 1962 Leo van Puyvelde, La peinture flamande au siècle de Bosch et Breughel, Paris, 1962. VAN ROYEN, VAN DE CRUYS, CHERON 2011 Harry van Royen, Marc van de Cruys and Marc Cheron, Ter Doest (Heraldiek van abdijen en kloosters, 26), Wijnegem, 2011. VAN SCHOUTE, DE PATOUL 1994 Roger Van Schoute and Brigitte de Patoul (eds.), Les Primitifs flamands et leur temps, Tournai, 1994. VAN TUINEN 2014 Ilona van Tuinen, with a contribution by Daantje Meuwissen, Het vroegste Amsterdamse schetsboek. Een zestiende-eeuws zakboekje uit het atelier van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, Oostszaan, 2014. VÉGH 1967 János Végh, Tableaux allemands et bohémiens du XVe siècle, Budapest, 1967. VÉGH 2010 János Végh, Netherlandish Influences in Early 16th Century Painting in the Szepesség (Spiš, SK), in Lívia Varga et al. (eds.), Bonum ut pulchrum. Essays in Art History in Honour of Ernö Marosi on His Seventieth Birthday, Budapest, 2010, pp. 457-468.

VAN DEN BRINK 1997 Peter Van den Brink, “Da Josef timmert”. Een Antwerps paneeltje in Delft, in Liesbeth M. Helmus (ed.), Album discipulorum J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Zwolle, 1997, pp. 27-35.

VELDMAN 2011 Ilja M. Veldman, Lucas van Leyden. Jongeman met schedel, in Lucas van Leyden en de Renaissance, exh. cat., Leiden (Museum De Lakenhal), 2011, pp. 289-290, nr. 82.

VAN DEN BRINK 2004-2005 Peter van den Brink, The Artist at Work. The Crucial Role of Drawings

VERONEE-VERHAEGEN 1973 Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen, L’Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune. Les Primitifs fla-

368 mands. 1. Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle, 13, Brussels, 1973.

Provinzen van Frankreich, mit besonderer Berücksichtigungaltfranzösischer und altniederländischer Kunst, in Kunstblatt, 7, 1856, pp. 236-240.

VERONEE-VERHAEGEN 1981 Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen, D’un Jugement Dernier à l’autre, in Ars Auro Prior, Studia Joanni Bialostocki sexagenario dicata, Varsovie, 1981, pp. 171-178.

WADUM 1995 JørgenWadum, Primuersel of Imprimatura, in kM, 15, 1995, pp. 39-40.

VERONEE-VERHAEGEN 1983 Nicole Veronee-Verhaegen, Le retable de Beaune. Élaboration et collaboration, in Dominique Hollanders-Favart and Roger Van Schoute (eds.), Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque IV. Le problème de l’auteur de l’oeuvre de peinture. Contribution de l’étude du dessin sousjacent à la question des attributions, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983, pp. 11-15. VEROUGSTRAETE, VAN SCHOUTE 2001 Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, La Madone Renders et sa restauration par Joseph Van der Veken (1872-1964), in Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute (eds.), Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La peinture et le laboratoire: procédés, méthodologie, applications., Louvain/Paris, 2001, pp. 137-148. VILLELA-PETIT 2003 Inès Villela-Petit, with the participation of Patricia Roger, Le Bréviaire de Châteauroux, Paris, 2003.

WADUM 1998 Jørgen Wadum, The Antwerp Brand on Paintings on Panel, in Erma Hermens (ed.), Looking Through Paintings. The Study of Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research (Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 11), Baarn/London, 1998, pp. 179-198. WAGNER 1774 Carolus Wagner (ed.), Analecta Scepusii sacri et profane. vol. 1, Vienna, 1774, pp. 347-351, nr. XXXVII. WASHINGTON/ANTWERP 2006 John O. Hand, Catherine A. Metzger and Ron Spronk (eds.), Prayers and Portraits. Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych, exh. cat., Washington (National Gallery of Art)/Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), 2006. WATERHOUSE 1953 Ellis Waterhouse, Painting in Britain 1530 to 1790, London, 1953.

VOLL 1906 Karl Voll, Die altniederländische Malerei von Jan van Eyck bis Memling. Ein Entwicklungsgeschichtlicher Versuch, Leipzig, 1906.

WAUTERS 1855 Alphonse Wauters, Roger Vanderweyden, ses œuvres, ses élèves et ses descendants, étude sur l’histoire de la peinture flamande au XVe siècle, in Revue universelle des Arts, 1855-1856, vol. 1, pp. 421- 433, vol. 2, pp. 1-36, 85-99, 165-176, 245-265, 325-338.

VOLLMER 1950 Hans Vollmer, Allgemeines Lexicon der Bildenden Künstler van der Antike bis zur Gegenwart [Thieme and Becker], vol. 37, Meister mit Notnamen und Monogrammisten, Leipzig, 1950.

WAUTERS 1909 Alphonse Wauters, Corneille van Coninxloo et le triptyque de l’Abbé de Tuegele au Musée de Bruxelles, in Revue de Belgique, 4, 1909, pp. 99-113.

VON BALDASS 1918 Ludwig von Baldass, Notizen über holländische Zeichner des XVI. Jahrhunderts. III. Jan Swart van Groningen, in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst, 41, 1918, pp. 11-21. VON FRIMMEL 1894 Theodor von Frimmel, Kleine Galeriestudien. Die Gemäldesammlung in Hermannstadt, Vienna, 1894. VON MURR 1801 Christoph Gottlieb von Murr, Beschreibung der vornehmsten Merkwürdigkeiten in der Reichsstadt Nürnberg, in deren Bezirke, und auf der Universität Altdorf nebst einem Anhange, 2nd ed., Nuremberg, 1801. VON REBER 1885 Franz von Reber, Katalog der Gemälde-Sammlung der königlichen älteren Pinakothek in München: vollständig amtliche Ausgabe, Munich, 1885. VON SIERSTORPFF 1817 Caspar Heinrich von Sierstorpff, Für die Kunstfreunde, welche meine kleine Gemälde-Sammlung besuchen wollen, Braunschweig, 1817. VON WURZBACH 1906-1911 Alfred von Wurzbach, Niederländisches Künstler-Lexikon, 3 vols., Vienna, 1906-1911. WAAGEN 1854 Gustav Friedrich Waagen, Treasures of Art in Great Britain, 3 vols., London, 1854. WAAGEN 1856 Gustav Friedrich Waagen, Bemerkungen über Kunstwerke in einige

WEALE 1911 W.H. James Weale, Imaginary Flemish Painters, in The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 20/105, 1911, p. 172. WEILANDT 2003 Gerhard Weilandt, Alltag einer Küsterin. Die Ausstattung und liturgische Nutzung von Chor und Nonnenempore der Nürnberger Dominikanerinnenkirche nach dem unbekannten ‘Notel der Küsterin’ (1436), in Anna MorahtFromm (ed.), Kunst und Liturgie. Choranlagen des Spätmittelalters. Ihre Architektur, Ausstattung und Nutzung, Ostfildern, 2003, pp. 159-187. WEILANDT 2007 Gerhard Weilandt, Die Sebalduskirche in Nürnberg. Bild und Gesellschaft im Zeitalter der Gotik und Renaissance (Studien zur internationalen Architektur- und Kunstgeschichte, 47), Petersberg, 2007. WENIGER 2014 Matthias Weniger, Fränkische Galerie. Zweigmuseum des Bayerischen Nationalmuseums, Festung Rosenberg, Kronach (Kataloge des Bayerischen Nationalmuseums, n.e. 4), Petersberg, 2014. WHEELOCK 2012 Arthur K. Wheelock, “Guillelmo” in Amsterdam: Van Aelst’s Painterly Style in Amsterdam, in Tanya Paul, James Clifton, Julie Berger Hochstrasser and Arthur K. Wheelock, Elegance and Refinement: The StillLife Paintings of Willem van Aelst, exh. cat., Houston (Museum of Fine Arts)/Washington (National Gallery of Art), 2012, pp. 36-49. WIEMERS 1994 Michael Wiemers, Die Heilung der Geistigen Blindheit zu Jan de Beers ‘Anbetung der Hirten’ im Kölner Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, in WallrafRichartz-Jahrbuch, 55, 1994, pp. 315-332.

369 WILLBERG 1997 Annette Willberg, Die Punzierungen in der Altkölner Malerei. Punzierungen in Kölner Tafelbildern des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts, unpublished Ph. Diss., Universität zu Köln, 1997. WINKLER 1913 Friedrich Winkler, Der Meister von Flémalle und Rogier van der Weyden. Studien zu ihren Werken und zur Kunst ihrer Zeit mit mehreren Katalogen zu Rogier, Strasbourg, 1913.

WOLFTHAL, METZGER 2014 Diane Wolfthal and Cathy Metzger, Los Angeles Museums. The Flemish Primitives. 1. Corpus of Early Netherlandish Painting, 22, Brussels, 2014. WOLTERS 2011 Margreet Wolters, ‘Met kool en krijt’. De functie van de ondertekening in de schilderijen van Joachim Beuckelaer, unpublished Ph. Diss., University of Groningen, 2011.

WINKLER 1923 Friedrich Winkler, Die nordfranzösische Malerei im 15. Jahrhundert und ihr Verhältnis zur altniederländische Malerei, in Paul Clemen (ed.), Belgische Kunstdenkmäler, Munich, 1923, vol. 1, pp. 247-268.

WOLTERS, WALLERT 1999 Margreet Wolters and Arie Wallert, Joachim Beuckelaer. The Well-Stocked Kitchen, in Arie Wallert (ed.), Still Lifes: Techniques and Style. An Examination of Paintings from the Rijksmuseum, exh. cat., Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum), 1999, pp. 40-43, nr. 1.

WINKLER 1924 Friedrich Winkler, Die Altniederländische Malerei, Die Malerei in Belgien und Holland von 1400-1600, Berlin, 1924.

WOODS 1996 Kim Woods, Jan Mertens, in The Dictionary of Art, London/New York, 1996, vol. 21, p. 167.

WINKLER 1925 Friedrich Winkler, Die flämische Buchmalerei des XV. und XVI. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1925.

WORNUM 1867 Ralph N. Wornum, Some Account of the Life and Works of Hans Holbein, London, 1867.

WOHLFEIL 1985 Rainer and Trudl Wohlfeil, Nürnberger Bildepitaphien. Versuch einer Fallstudie zur historischen Bildkunde, in Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 12, 1985, pp. 129-180.

WORP 1898 Jacob A. Worp, Gerard Nicolaas Heerkens, in Groningsche Volksalmanak voor het Jaar 1899, Groningen, 1898, pp. 1-51.

WOLFF 2008a Martha Wolff (ed.), Northern European and Spanish Paintings before 1600 in the Art Institute of Chicago. A Catalogue of the Collection, Chicago, 2008. WOLFF 2008b Martha Wolff, Observations on Underdrawings in Paintings by the Master of Moulins, in Julien Chapuis (ed.), Invention, Northern Renaissance Studies in Honor of Molly Faries, Turnhout, 2008, pp. 136-151. WOLFF 2011 Martha Wolff, Le processus créatif de Jean Hey, in Frédéric Elsig (ed.), Peindre en France à la Renaissance. I. Les courants stylistiques au temps de Louis XII et de François Ier, Milan, 2011, pp. 195-214. WOLFSON 1992 Michael Wolfson, Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hannover, Landesgalerie, Die deutschen und die niederländischen Gemälde bis 1550, Hanover, 1992.

WOUTERS, BANIK 2000 Jan Wouters and Gerhard Banik, Inks from the Middle Ages: Old Recipes, Modern Analysis and Future Decay, in Pierre Cockshaw and Christiane Van den Bergen-Pantens (eds.), Les Chroniques de Hainaut ou les Ambitions d’un Prince Bourguignon, Turnhout, 2000, pp. 141-148. ZDANOV 2017 Sacha Zdanov, Nouvelles perspectives sur la conception des volets peints des retables mixtes brabançons: le retable de Güstrow, in Annales d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie, 39, 2017, pp. 103-121. ZEVENBERGEN 2012-2013 Luther Zevenbergen, Parochiale armenzorg te Kortrijk. 1520-1547. Een onderzoek naar de armendis van de Sint-Maartenskerk, unpublished Ph. Diss., KULeuven, 2012-2013. ZIEMBA 2011 Antoni Ziemba, Sztuka Burgundii i Niderlandów 1380-1500. II. Niderlandzkie malarstwo tablicowe 1430-1500, Warsaw, 2011.

Contributors

Maryan W. Ainsworth, Curator of European Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, received her B.A. and M.A. degrees in art history from Oberlin College and her Ph.D. from Yale. She has specialized in the technical examination of paintings, initially in the Paintings Conservation Department and subsequently as curator in the European Paintings Department. Maryan has trained over 25 MMA Fellows in technical art history, and is also Adjunct Professor at Barnard College. Her publications include monographs on Petrus Christus, Gerard David, Jan Gossart, and Pieter Coecke van Aelst, and collection catalogues of the Met’s early Netherlandish and early German paintings. Dominique Allart is Professor of Art History and director of the interdisciplinary Department ‘Transitions’ (Middle Ages and Early Modern Times) at the University of Liège (ULg). A Northern Renaissance scholar, specialized in the study of fifteenth and sixteenth century painting (Bruegel, Lombard), she is currently involved in a project on epistolary exchanges regarding artists’ practices, networking and artistic patronage in the Renaissance. She co-authored, together with Christina Currie, The Brueg[h]el Phenomenon. Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger with a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice (Brussels, 2012) and continues to collaborate with her on the technical aspects of the Bruegel family’s paintings. Before training as a paintings conservator Rachel Billinge was a research scientist and engineer working for the MOD. She joined the Conservation Department of the National Gallery, London in 1991 as Leverhulme Research Fellow in infrared reflectography and worked closely with Dr Lorne Campbell on the technical examination of the paintings studied for his catalogues of paintings by artists of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Netherlandish Schools. She is now employed at the National Gallery as a Research Associate, specializing in infrared reflectography and studying European paintings from the thirteenth to late nineteenth centuries. Véronique Bücken holds a Ph.D. in Art History. She starts her carreer as director of the Castel of Seneffe. In 2009 she joined the staff of Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium where she is currently head of section Old Masters Painting and curator of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Flemish paintings. She was promoter of several research projects on early Netherlandish painting and on Bernard van Orley. Recently, she was one of the two curators of the exhibition The Heritage of Rogier van der Weyden. Painting in Brussels 1450-1520 held in Brussels in the autumn 2013. She wrote the catalogue with Griet Steyaert. Claire Chorley studied Fine Art (painting) at Chelsea School of Art, London and Conservation of easel paintings at the Hamilton Kerr Institute, University of Cambridge. She has appointed Paintings Conservator at The Royal Collection in 2002. After a degree in History and History of Art at Westfield College, University of London, Nicola Christie studied for a diploma in the Conservation of easel paintings at the Hamilton Kerr Institute, Cambridge. This was followed by a nine month internship at the Musée de

Louvre in Paris. After working as assistant conservator at the National Galleries of Scotland she moved to the National Museums of Liverpool as Head of Paintings Conservation in 1998 and joined Royal Collection Trust in 2009 as Head of Paintings Conservation. She has published on aspects of technical art history in the Hamilton Kerr Institute Bulletin and contributed to a number of online articles. She is currently undertaking a full technical examination of the Royal Collection’s Early Flemish paintings. Ingrid Ciulisová is a Senior Research Fellow at the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Art History in Bratislava. She was previously employed at a conservator at a state restoration studio. Recently she has been awarded fellowships at the Centre for Advanced Studies of the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brussels, and at I  Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, Florence. She has published on art in the Low Countries, history of art collecting, history of art history and preservations of monuments. Her publications include Paintings of the 16th Century Netherlandish Masters: Slovak Art Collections (Bratislava, 2006) and Men of Taste: Essays on Art Collecting in East-Central Europe (Bratislava 2014). Christina Currie heads the Scientific Imagery and Photography unit at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA) in Brussels, Belgium. She holds a Master’s degree in Painting Conservation (University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 1989) and a Ph.D. on the painting practices of Pieter Brueghel the Younger (University of Liège, 2003). In 2012, she co-authored, together with Dominique Allart, The Bruegh[H]el Phenomenon… Since then, she has continued examining and carrying out technical research on Bruegelian paintings and especially on copies by Bruegel the Elder’s sons Pieter and Jan. Marjan Debaene studied Art History at the KULeuven and graduated in 2001. She also obtained a postgraduate in Cultural Studies. She started working at M-Museum Louvain in 2006 as a scientific assistant. Today she holds the position of Head of Collections at the museum. She specializes in late gothic sculpture and early Renaissance painting from the Brabant region. Marjan Debaene has coordinated a large number of exhibitions and collection presentations in M among which Signed, Jan R. The re-discovery of a Renaissance Master in 2012. Marjan is currently preparing a doctoral research proposal on the topic of late gothic Louvain sculpture. Anne Dubois took her Ph.D. in Art History at the Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, UCL). She worked first as an assistant at the Laboratoire d’étude des oeuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques (1989-1999, UCL). She became a scientific collaborator at the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (1997-2009) where she worked on four of the five volumes of the scientific catalogue of fifteenth-century paintings. She was a postdoctoral fellow at FRS-FNRS (Belgian Fund for Scientific Research, 2010-2014), working on a project devoted to the painting technique of easel paintings and miniatures in the second half of the fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth century). Since 2008, she has also been teaching at UCL.

372 Following on from her studies in Art History, History, Classical Archaeology and Economics at the University of Erlangen and Rome, Katrin Dyballa deepened her research on the artist Georg Pencz with a Ph.D. at the University in Frankfurt/Main. Immediately afterwards she started as an intern at the Staatliche Museen in Berlin where she worked for several exhibition projects, for instance The Road to Jan van Eyck. After that she went to the Städel Museum as an Assistant Curator and was co-responsible for two exhibitions: Albrecht Dürer. His Art in Context and Realms of Imagination. Albrecht Altdorfer and the Expressvity of Art around 1500. At present she writes a collection catalogue on the early Netherlandish and French paintings in the Gemäldegalerie Berlin. Lisa Eckstein studied art technology and the conservation and restoration of polychrome surfaces and architectural decoration at the University of Applied Sciences in Erfurt, where she graduated in 2008. During her studies she interned at the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere and the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. Since 2008 she works in the Paintings and Sculpture Department of the Institute for Art Technology and Conservation (IKK) at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, where she is currently in the project to catalogue the museum’s late-medieval paintings. Dan Ewing completed his dissertation on Jan de Beer at the University of Michigan in 1978. He has taught at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Pepperdine University, and, currently, at Barry University. His publications focus mainly on Jan de Beer, his Antwerp contemporaries, and Antwerp Mannerism, but he has also published on Michelangelo’s Bruges Madonna and the Pand art market in Antwerp. He was a contributor to the 2005-2006 Antwerp and Maastricht exhibition, ‘ExtravagAnt!’, the 2007 Patinir exhibition in Madrid, and the 2011 Joos van Cleve exhibition in Aachen. His monograph on Jan de Beer is being published by Brepols. Molly Faries is Professor Emerita at Indiana University, Bloomington and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, where she held a chair in technical studies in art history from 1998 to 2005. She took her Ph.D. at Bryn Mawr College, 1972, with a dissertation on Jan van Scorel. She directed two long-term infrared reflectography (IRR) research projects: a NEH Basic Research Grant (1984-1987) and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation Grant for Art-Historical Study Using Infrared Reflectography (1990-1997), and co-directed, with M.P.J. Martens, the project Painting in Antwerp Before Iconoclasm, a socioeconomic approach (2000-2004), funded by the Netherlands NWO. Recent publications include: Recent Developments in the Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Painting: Methodology, Limitations and Perspectives, 2003 (co-ed. with R. Spronk), Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Workshops, 2006 (ed. M. Faries), and Catalogue of Paintings, 1400-1600, Centraal Museum, Utrecht, 2011 (co-ed. with L.M. Helmus). Pascale Fraiture is Head of the Dendrochronology section in the Laboratories Department at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA) in Brussels. After a Master degree in Archaeology, History of Art and Musicology at the University of Liège (1998), she wrote her Ph.D. (2007) on the archaeological and dendrochronological analysis of wooden paintings from the Southern Netherlands, from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries. Her main areas of interest are dendrochronology applied to works of art, buildings and archaeological remains, dendro-archaeological research on wooden objects and dendro-provenancing (research of the provenance of wood based on dendrochronology). Bart Fransen is Head of the Centre for the Study of the Flemish Primitives at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA), Brussels. He earned his Ph.D. degree in the History of Art from the Catholic University of Louvain in 2009. The main projects he has

been involved in are the Hieronymus Bosch exhibition at the Prado Museum, Madrid (2000), the catalogue The Flemish Primitives. Masters with Provisional Names at the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (2006), the Rogier Van der Weyden exhibition in M-Museum, Louvain (2009) and the pre-Eyckian panel painting research project at the KIK/IRPA. Beate Fücker studied art technology and the conservation and restoration of polychrome sculptures, panel paintings, and retables at the University of Fine Arts (HfBK), Dresden, where she received an M.A. in 2006, followed by a Ph.D. in 2014 with the dissertation Der Heiligen schöner Schein: Bekleidete Sakralfiguren im deutschsprachigen Raum, 16501850 (2017). In 2008 she started work in the Paintings and Sculpture Department of the Institute for Art Technology and Conservation (IKK) at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, and in 2013 she joined the museum’s project to catalogue its late-medieval paintings. Maria Clelia Galassi has been an Associate Professor in the Dipartimento di Italianistica, Romanistica, Antichistica, Arti e Spettacolo (DIRAAS) at the Università di Genova since 2000. Having completed her Ph.D. at the Università di Milano, Maria was researcher at the Università di Udine (1993-1999) and Curator of the Museo G.Luxoro, Genoa (1988-1993). Her research expertise is in the fields of Flemish and Italian painting techniques, Italian and Flemish underdrawing, and the relationships between Genoa and Flanders in the Early Modern Age. Maria has held Fellowships at the Flemish Academic Centre of Science and the Arts (VLAC), Brussels, Belgium (2010) and at the Centre for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts (CASVA), Washington, US (2003-2004). Melanie Gifford’s research considers the artistic decision-making process, focusing on Dutch and Flemish painters. After working as a painting conservator for 15 years she completed a Ph.D. in Art History, and she combines these fields at the National Gallery of Art as Research Conservator for Painting Technology. Recent publications include technical studies of paintings by Van Eyck and Dürer as well as exhibition catalogue essays on Rembrandt’s landscape paintings, and the painting techniques of Lievens and Metsu. Her current research documents seventeenth-century evaluations of artistic style through technical study of artistic interactions among Dutch genre painters working 1650-1675. Babette Hartwieg is Head of Conservation at the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, since 2006. She received her diploma in conservation of paintings and polychrome sculptures at the Academy of Fine Arts Stuttgart and submitted her dissertation at the Academy of Fine Arts Dresden. After studies and work in different conservation studios of museums (Braunschweig, Amsterdam, Washington, Karlsruhe) and institutions (Vienna, Oberlin inter alia) she became Head of Conservation in the Landesmuseum Hannover. There she led the project on conservation and restoration of the Göttingen Barfüßer Altarpiece from 1424. She specialized on Northern German retables and techniques from this period. And is member of the cooperative project team on the Goldene Tafel. Valentine Henderiks holds a Ph.D. in Art History from the Université Libre of Brussels. She is Scientific Associate at the Centre for the Study of the Flemish Primitives (KIK/IRPA) and lecturer at the University of Brussels. Her Ph.D., dedicated to the life and work of Albrecht Bouts (1451/55-1549), received the Jacques Lavalleye-Coppens prize from the ‘classe des Arts’ of the Royal Academy of Belgium, and was published in 2011 in the series Contributions (nr 10) edited by the Centre. Dagmar Hirschfelder studied Art History, History, and German Literature in Bonn and Paris, and received M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Bonn University in 2000 and 2005. She wrote her dissertation on

373 Tronie und Porträt in der niederländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts (2008) and has published on northern European painting of the fifteenth through eighteenth centuries. Her work at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, beginning in 2005, has involved the reconception of the Renaissance through enlightenment section of the permanent collection and the ‘Early Dürer’ research project. From 2013 to 2017, she led the museum’s project to catalogue its latemedieval paintings. Currently she is head of the Department of Paintings and Graphic Art at the Kurpfälzisches Museum, Heidelberg. Stephan Kemperdick studied Fine Arts at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, then Art History at the Freie Universität Berlin. Graduated 1992; Ph.D. in 1996. 1999-2002: Städel Museum, Frankfurt; 20032004: Gemäldegalerie Berlin; 2005-2007: curator of Old Master Paintings at the Kunstmuseum Basel; since 2008: Curator of Early Netherlandish and German paintings at the Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen Berlin. Curator and co-curator of several exhibitions, e.g. The Early Portrait, Kunstmuseum Basel 2006; Hans Holbein the Younger. The Basel years, Kunstmuseum Basel 2006; The Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden, Städel Museum Frankfurt, Gemäldegalerie Berlin 2008-2009; The Road to Van Eyck, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam 2012-2013. Mary Kempski has a BA degree in the History of Art and Fine Art from the University of Reading (1972-1976). She has a postgraduate diploma in the conservation of easel paintings from the Hamilton Kerr Institute, University of Cambridge (1977-1980) and was an intern at the Akademie der Bildenden Kunste, Vienna (1981). She worked as a freelance conservator at the Hamilton Kerr Institute’s London studio with Herbert Lank and also in Cambridge. Since 2003 she has taught and supervised students at the Hamilton Kerr Institute, specialising in the reconstruction of paintings, becoming Assistant to the Director in 2010. She has published in various Conservation Journals and has contributed to books on the Thornham Parva Retable and the Westminster Retable. David Lainé has a master’s in the restoration and conservation of paintings from the Hogere Academie voor Beeldende Kunsten in Anderlecht (Brussels). He went on to further studies in microscopic cross sections and pigment analysis at the University of London (International Academic Project). His specialisations include the structural conservation of panel paintings and monumental works by old masters. He opened a one-man business as a freelance conservator in 1996. Lainé bvba was established in late 2008; at the end of 2011 it became IPARC cvba (International Platform for Art Research and Conservation). He was a member of the international expert committee for the exhibition to be devoted to the sixteenth-century painter Michiel Coxcie at the M-Museum in Leuven in 2013. David Lainé is the vice president of Belgium’s association of conservator-conservators, the Beroepsvereniging voor Conservators and Restaurateurs van Kunstvoorwerpen/Association Professionelle de Conservateurs d’Œuvres d’Art (BRK/APROA). Daantje Meuwissen is Assistant Professor in Art History at the Radboud University, Nijmegen. She works on early Modern art history with a strong focus on technical art history. From 2009 onwards she was guest curator at the Stedelijk Museum in Alkmaar and the Amsterdam Museum, where she curated and prepared a catalogue for the exhibition Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, De Renaissance in Amsterdam en Alkmaar held simultaneously in the two above-mentioned museums and the St. Lawrence Church in Alkmaar. After participating in the NWO Antwerp Painting research project at Groningen, Meuwissen took her Ph.D. at Utrecht University in 2011 with a dissertation on a sixteenthcentury portrait series of Teutonic Knights in Utrecht, entitled: Gekoesterde traditie. De portretreeks met de landcommandeurs van de Ridderlijke Duitsche Orde, Balije van Utrecht, Verloren 2011. In 2015, she was named ‘outstanding young female scholar’ at Radboud University by the Network of Women Professors in Nijmegen.

After finishing her studies at Utrecht University in 1997, with a thesis on religious paintings depicted in seventeenth century genre scenes, Judith Niessen worked at Sotheby’s in Amsterdam as Director Old Master Paintings. Since 2007 she is a freelance art historian who participated in cataloguing projects for the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (early Netherlandish paintings) and Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam (early Netherlandish drawings). Judith published on the Master of Alkmaar, Maarten van Heemskerck and Cornelis van Haarlem, wrote entries for various exhibitions and specialises in provenance research. Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren is Honorary Professor at the Université Libre of Brussels and member of the Académie royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts of Belgium. She has taught courses at the Institut français de restauration des œuvres d’art and at the École nationale supérieure des arts visuels de la Cambre (ENSAV, Brussels). She has been guest lecturer at various European universities, president of the Comité de conservation du Conseil international des Musées (ICOM-CC) and consultant and member of various Belgian and international scientific committees in the area of conservation-restoration. She is the author of over one hundred publications and contributions (symposia and conferences) on European painting in general and Flemish painting of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, on Brabantine altarpieces of the same period, on the use of scientific methods of investigation of works of art, on pictural techniques and the problems of conservation – restoration of Cultural Heritage as well as on heightening the public’s awareness of Cultural Heritage. Carmen Sandalinas Linares earned her degree in Fine Arts from the Universitat de Barcelona (UB) in 1984 and her Ph.D. from the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) in 2002. She has been Head of the Restoration Department in the Frederic Marès Museum in Barcelona since 1992 and researcher in Raman Spectroscopy (pigment analysis) STC Department (UPC) from 1996 to 2012. She was also Associated Professor in the Faculty of Fine Arts (UB) in 1990 and 1992 and conservator-restorer in the CRMBC of the Generalitat de Catalunya from 1983 to 1992. Steven Saverwyns obtained his Ph.D. degree in Science (analytical chemistry) at Ghent University in May 2000. Specialized in the scientific analysis of easel paintings using non-invasive or micro-destructive techniques, he heads the Paintings section of the Laboratories Department of the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA), where he has been active since 2000. He has coordinated a 4-year research project focusing on the analytical characterization of modern and contemporary art (2010-2014) and is currently leading another one on the technological evolution of European lacquer (together with the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels and the University of Antwerp). Griet Steyaert is conservator-restorer of paintings and doctor in art history. She was co-curator of the exhibition and co-editor of the catalog The heritage of Rogier van der Weyden. Painting in Brussels in the late 15th and early 16th centuries (Royal Museums of Fine Arts Belgium, Brussels, 2013). Her restorations include The Seven Sacraments by Rogier van der Weyden (Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp). Currently she is a member of a team from the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (IRPA-KIK) which is restoring the Ghent Altarpiece by the Van Eycks and she works in the Groeningemuseum, Bruges, where she restored the Last Judgment by Hieronymus Bosch. Peter van den Brink studied Art History at Groningen University and worked closely together with Prof. Em. Dr. J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, who was his teacher in the field of scientifical examination of paintings, especially infrared reflectography. After his studies Peter van den Brink worked in several museums, especially at the Bonnefantenmuseum in Maastricht, where he prepared several exhibitions, the two

374 best known being Brueghel Enterprises and ExtravagAnt!. Since 2005 he is director of the Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum in Aachen, where he continues to make exhibitions that rely heavily on in-depth art historical research, like Leonardo des Nordens, on Joos van Cleve, Der große Virtuose, on Jacob Backer, in 2009 or the very succesfull exhibitions on Hans von Aachen (2010) and Charlemagne (2014). Currently he is working on several exhibitions, the most promising being Passion: Albrecht Bouts and the Face of Christ (planned for 2016-2017, with Luxembourg) and Dürer’s Journey (2020-2021, with Antwerp). Peter van den Brink published widely on early Netherlandish painting and drawing, as well as Dutch seventeenth-century painting. Elisabeth Van Eyck is an holder of an Art History diploma of the Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, obtained in 2012), she is specialized in conservation of heritage and museum studies and in Middle Ages and Modern Times. From 2013 up to 2015, she worked in the Centre for the Study of the Flemish Primitives in the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA) and she coordinated the publication in e-book form of Frames and Supports in 15th- and 16th- century Southern Nederlandish Paintings written by Hélène Verougstraete. This work had been financed by the Getty Foundation. Anne Van Oosterwijk earned a Master in Art History at the University of Groningen and a Master in Museum Curator Studies at the Free University of Amsterdam, both in the Netherlands. She is currently assistant curator of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century art at the Groeningemuseum in Bruges (Belgium) and is a doctoral student at the University of Ghent (Belgium). The focus of her Ph.D. research is directed towards technical art history and the negotiation practices between patron and artist. She is currently preparing an exhibition for 2017 with the working title Pieter Pourbus and the Claeissens family: the Bruges painting world in the second half of the sixteenth century. Caterina Virdis Limentani has lectured on the history of Flemish and Dutch art since 1973 at Padua University, at the Ph.D. School of the associated universities of Venice, Padua and Trieste and at the School of Specialization in Art History of the Università Cattolica in Milan. She has supervised many exhibitions concerning Flemish art and has published extensively on the subject and has participated in various international conferences. Specialised in Flemish and Dutch art of the sixteenth century, she has written several studies on the underdrawings of Flemish painting on panel. She has directed and coordinated research programs on Flemish painting and reflectographic analyses. Some of her former pupils now teach History of Flemish Art at Italian universities.

Katja von Baum studied technical art history, conservation and restoration of paintings, Cultural Heritage preservation, and Romance philology in Florence, Cologne, and Bamberg. Through her diploma thesis on the early still lives by Willem Kalf, published in 1999, her doctoral dissertation on medieval canvas painting in Cologne, published in 2012, and work in several research projects in Hanover and Cologne, she has specialized in the technical art history of paintings. Recent publications include co-authorship of Let the Material Talk: Technology of Late-Medieval Cologne Panel Painting (2014). Since 2013 she works at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, in the project to catalogue the museum’s late-medieval paintings, serving as project coordinator since 2017. Joshua P. Waterman earned a Ph.D. from Princeton University (2007) with a dissertation on interrelationships between art and poetry of the Baroque in Silesia. He has worked in research and curatorial capacities at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. His publications include, with Maryan W. Ainsworth, German Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1350–1600 and, with Till-Holger Borchert, The Book of Miracles (both 2013). Since 2013 he works at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, in the project to catalogue the museum’s late-medieval paintings. Lucy Whitaker is Senior Curator of Paintings at the British Royal Collection. She has specialised in the British, German, French and Netherlandish paintings 1400-1800 and Italian paintings 1300-1800 in the Royal Collection. Previously she was Curator of Christ Church Picture Gallery in Oxford and Research Assistant at the National Gallery, London. She studied at York University and the Courtauld Institute, London. She was co-author of The Art of Italy, the exhibition of Italian Renaissance and Baroque paintings and drawings held in The Queen’s Galleries in London and Edinburgh, 2007-2008 and of The Northern Renaissance Dürer to Holbein in The Queen’s Galleries, Edinburgh and London, 2011-2013. Margreet Wolters has been employed since 1997 at the RKD-Netherlands Institute for Art History in The Hague as Scientific Research Associate IRR and Curator of Technical Documentation. From 1994 to 1999 she participated in a research project on the working methods and workshop practices of Pieter Aertsen, Joachim Beuckelaer, and painters from their circle. Her dissertation on the function of the underdrawing in paintings by Joachim Beuckelaer was completed in 2011 for the University of Groningen. She also took part in various exhibitions and cataloguing projects, often directing the IRR study.

Photo Credits

Aachen, Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Foto: Anne Gold, Aachen: ill. 5.2.

Dresden, Hochschule für Bildende Künste: ills. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 14.3, 14.4a-b, 14.5a-b, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9.

Amiens, Bibliothèque d’Amiens-Métropole: ill. 10.8.

Dyballa, Katrin: ills. 3.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7a-b, 20.8, 20.9.

Amsterdam Museum: ill. 21.7b.

Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum, Dauerleihgabe der Evangelischen Hoffnungsgemeinde: ills. 20.10, 20.11.

Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum: ill. 5.8. Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet: ills. 21.5b, 21.6b, 21.8.

Galassi, M.C.: ills. 6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5a-b, 7.6a-b, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9a-b.

Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh: ill. 9.8b.

Genoa, Museo di Palazzo Reale: ills. 6.1, 6.2.

Barcelona, Museu Frederic Marès: ills. 9.1a-b, 9.2, 9.6, 9.7a, 9.8a.

Ghent, UGent, Gicas and Musea Brugge/Groeningemuseum: ills. 17.7, 17.8.

Barcelona, Museu Frederic Marès, photos Carles Aymerich and Ramon Maroto: ills. 9.3a-d, 9.4a-b, 9.5a-e. Basel, Öffentliche Kunstsammlung: ill. 18.7.

Ghent, UGent, Gicas: ills. 19.4, 19.7. Gifford, E.M.: ills. 1.3b, 1.6b, 1.8b-c, 1.10b-c, 1.11b, 1.14a-c, 1.15a-c, 1.16a-c.

Beaune, Hospices de Beaune: ills. 2.1, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.16. Gotha, Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein: ill. 3.1. Bellavitis, Maddalena: ills. 8.3, 8.4, 8.5. Hain, Miroslav: ills. 11.2, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussicher Kulturbesitz Gemäldegalerie, photo: Jörg p. Anders: ill. 19.3.

Hain, Miroslav and Bishopric Spišské Podhradie. ills. 11.3, 11.4.

Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussicher Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett: ills. 21.2c, 21.3c, 21.5a, 21.6a, 21.7a.

Hanover, Landesmuseum, Golden Panel project-team: ills. 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 12.9a-c, 12.10, 12.11.

Bezur, Aniko: ill. 1.5b.

Hartwieg, B.: ill. 12.8.

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Rhona MacBeth: ills. 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.5, 18.10.

Hof bei Salzburg (Austria), Schloss Fuschl Collection: ill. 1.7. Houston, Museum of Fine Arts: ill. 1.5a.

Bratislava, courtesy of the Archive of the Institute of Art History of the Slovak Academy of Science, Pavol Breier.: ill. 11.1.

Houston, Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation: ill. 17.1.

Bruges, Groot Seminarie: ill. 6.9.

Houston, Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation, Maureen Eck and Bert Samples. ills. 17.3, 17.4.

Brussels, KIK/IRPA: ills. 5.1, 5.3a, 5.5a-b, 5.6, 5.7, 6.5, 6.8, 9.7b, 24.1a, 24.1c, 24.2a, 24.2c, 24.3a-d, 24.4a, 24.4c, 24.5, 24.6a, 24.6c, 24.7a-b, 24.8a-b, 24.9a-b, 24.10.

Italy, private collection: ills. 8.1, 8.2, 8.6. Kemperdick, Stephan: ills. 3.2, 3.3.

Brussels, KMSBB/MRBAB: ills. 3.7, 6.3a-c, 6.4a, 19.2.

Köln, Rheinisches Bildarchiv: ill. 1.13.

Brussels, KMSBB/MRBAB, Freya Maes: ills. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 14.10a, 17.9, 17.10.

Lainé, David (IPARC): ills. 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6a-b, 15.7a-b, 15.10, 15.11.

Brussels, KMSBB/MRBAB, J. Geylens/ Ro scan: ills. 5.3b, 5.4.

Le Mans, Musée: ills. 1.1, 1.9, 1.10a.

Cambridge, Hamilton Kerr Institute, Chris Titmus: ills. 22.1, 22.2, 22.4.

London, British Museum, Trustees: ills. 3.8, 20.1, 20.2, 20.4a-b. London, National Portrait Gallery: ills. 22.3, 22.5, 22.6.

Cologny (Geneva), Fondation Martin Bodmer: ill. 21.1. Delft, Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof: ill. 1.3a.

Louvain-la-Neuve, UCL, Archives de l’Université: ills. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6.

376 Lukas - Art in Flanders vzw, Hugo Maertens: ill. 3.5.

Paris, BNF: ill. 10.7.

Lukas - Arts in Flanders vzw, Dominique Provost: ills. 15.1, 15.2, 15.8, 15.9.

Tager Stonor Richardson: ill. 19.5. Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen: ills. 4.8, 16.1a.

Madrid, Museo del Prado, Scientific Department: ills. 4.4, 4.5a-b, 4.6a, 4.7.

Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Albert Elen: ill. 16.2.

Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional: ill. 3.6.

Rouen, Musées de la Ville: ills. 1.8a, 1.12.

Mecklenburg, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege -Vorpommern, photo Bötefür.: ills. 14.1, 14.2a-b, 14.4c, 14.10b.

Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2015: ills. 19.1, 19.6, 19.8, 22.7, 22.8, 23.1-7.

Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen: ills. 13.10a-c, 18.6, 20.3, 20.4c-d.

Sandalinas Linares, Carmen and Guillém Fernández Huerta: ill. 9.4c-d.

Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Sibylle Forster: ill. 13.9. National Heritage Institute, Regional Historic sites Management in Kroměříž, State chateau Vizovice: ill. 1.11a. New York, Alinari/SEAT / Art Resource: ill. 1.4. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art: ills. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3a-b, 4.5c, 4.6b, 6.4b, 18.8, 18.9. New York, Sotheby’s: ill. 1.2. Niessen, Judith: ills. 16.1b, 16.3a-b. Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum: ills. 13.2, 13.3a-b, 13.4ab, 13.6, 13.8a-b. Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Monika Runge: ill. 13.7. Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Georg Janßen: ills. 13.1, 13.5, 13.11a. Oviedo, Museo de Bellas Artes Asturias: ills. 17.5, 17.6.

Santoña, Santa Maria del Puerto Church: ill. 17.2a-b. Steyaert, Griet: ills. 2.2, 2.15, 2.17. Strasbourg, Musée des Beaux-Arts: ills. 6.1, 6.2. Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie: ill. 21.2b. The Hague, Mauritshuis: ill. 1.6a. The Hague, RKD / Foundation Art Books Collections: ills. 16.4, 16.5, 16.6a-c, 16.7a-c, 16.8a-b. The Hague, RKD, J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer: ills. 18.4, 18.11. Turin, Galleria Sabauda: ill. 6.1. Van den Brink, Peter: ill. 21.3a. Von Saint-George, Caroline: ills. 24.1b, 24.2b, 24.4b, 24.6b. Washington, D.C, National Gallery of Art: ill. 21.4.

377

Colophon

Scientific Committee Till-Holger Borchert (Musea Brugge, Flemish Research Centre for the Arts in the Burgundian Netherlands), Jacqueline Couvert (UCL, Laboratoire d’étude des oeuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques), Christina Currie (KIK-IRPA), Anne Dubois (UCL, FRS-FNRS), Bart Fransen (KIK-IRPA), Valentine Hendericks (Université Libre de Bruxelles, KIK-IRPA), Vanessa Paumen (Musea Brugge, Flemish Research Centre for the Arts in the Burgundian Netherlands), Cyriel Stroo (KIK-IRPA), Jan Van der Stock (KULeuven, Illuminare), Anne van Oosterwijk (Musea Brugge, Flemish Research Centre for the Arts in the Burgundian Netherlands), Dominique Vanwijnsberghe (KIKIRPA), Lieve Watteeuw (KULeuven, Illuminare); Honorary member: Hélène Verougstraete (Emeritus Professor, UCL)

Organizing Committee Till-Holger Borchert (Musea Brugge, Flemish Research Centre for the Arts in the Burgundian Netherlands), Jacqueline Couvert (UCL, Laboratoire d’étude des oeuvres d’art par les méthodes scientifiques), Anne Dubois (UCL, FRS-FNRS), Vanessa Paumen (Musea Brugge, Flemish Research Centre for the Arts in the Burgundian Netherlands) and Anne van Oosterwijk (Musea Brugge, Flemish Research Centre for the Arts in the Burgundian Netherlands)