Brueghel_bladerfunctie_ENG

BRUEGHEL and contemporaries Art as BRUEGHEL covert resistance? and contemporaries

Waanders Publishers, Zwolle Bonnefanten, Maastricht

and contemporaries Art as covert resistance?

Lars Hendrikman Dorien Tamis

Contents

6

Preface STIJN HU IJT S

9

The criticism and the cross:

the invention of a complex sixteenth-century pictorial tradition L ARS H EN DRIKMAN | DO R I EN TA MI S

33

Between politics and marketing

A Christ carrying the Cross by Pieter Brueghel II, in the collection of the Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum in Brunswick SAR AH BABIN

49 50

Catalogue Preamble

216

Endnotes

224

Bibliography

231

Photo credits

5

Preface

S

hould art be a form of activism? Ought it to play a part in the social discourse of its day or should it really be above all that? Following a long period of relative silence on this question, the debate has taken off again in recent years.

Issues ranging from the excesses of the art market to the consequences

of the global climate crisis have been addressed by artists of various kinds.

We have even witnessed a minor outbreak of iconoclasm, during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations of May and June 2020, when statues believed (rightly or wrongly) to be linked to the slave trade and genocide were daubed with paint or even overthrown.

None of this is new: over 450 years ago, the Dutch Revolt – the civil war formerly known

as the Eighty Years’ War – began with the ‘Iconoclastic Fury’ (in Dutch: Beeldenstorm) of

1566. To what extent was art used then, during the ‘long’ sixteenth century, to reflect on the state of society at that time? It is a question more usually asked in connection with

the work of Pieter Bruegel I (the Bruegel or ‘Peasant Bruegel’), but it is equally interesting – indeed, perhaps even more so – to ask it in relation to the work of his son and epigone, Pieter Brueghel II.

The exhibition Brueghel and Contemporaries: art as covert resistance? is part of what can well be regarded as a tradition of exhibitions at the Bonnefanten concerning the

­­Brueg[h]el family. The museum has no fewer than five Brueghels in its collection, including the iconic Christ Carrying the Cross that was the starting point for this exhibition. This time, we have chosen to adopt an emphatically iconographic and even expository

approach. At a distance of four centuries, it is possible to explore the issue of whether the social engagement that can be traced in paintings of that past era can serve as a mirror

to those in the present. Do we still see what the artist intended? And if not, how long does it take for that kind of meaning to be eroded? And how contemporary must art be for us to be recognise it as relevant to the concerns of its day? It is a big subject: too universal

6

and too complex to be encompassed in a single exhibition catalogue. For that reason, we have chosen to design this book as an introduction, touching on many different facets

but with no claim to completeness. Indeed, we hope that the exhibition will prompt further research.

I would like to thank all those who have helped to create this exhibition and the

accompanying catalogue. My thanks go first and foremost to the many people and institutions in the Netherlands and abroad who have lent works, especially to our

colleagues at the Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum in Brunswick (Germany): their exhibition

Brueghel. Ein Meisterwerk Restauriert has been a major source of inspiration for Brueghel and Contemporaries: art as covert resistance? The museum also owes a great debt of

gratitude to curator Lars Hendrikman and guest curator Dorien Tamis, as well as to guest authors Sarah Babin, Saskia Cohen-Willner, Ann Diels, Linda Jansen, Marieke van Delft and Ed van der Vlist. Finally, I am extremely grateful to the Province of Limburg, DSM,

Bankgiroloterij, Mondriaan Fund, Prince Bernhard Culture Fund, Fonds 21 and the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands for supporting this initiative financially.

Organising a large, internationally oriented exhibition like this is complicated enough

under normal circumstances, requiring years of work and coordination. The eventual

achievement of Brueghel and Contemporaries: art as covert resistance? despite all the restrictions imposed by the Coronavirus pandemic is something for which I thank all

concerned, and especially the team at the Bonnefantenmuseum, from the bottom of my heart.

Stijn Huijts Directeur

7

L AR S HE N DR I K M A N D O RI E N TA M I S

The criticism and the cross:

the invention of a complex sixteenth-century pictorial tradition

D

uring the successive Covid-related lockdowns of 2020, this meme – and

variants of it – did the rounds on the social media (ill. p. 9). The widespread sharing of the joke on the internet shows not only that the public found it

particularly funny, but also that people saw the combination of image and text as a telling satire on the restrictions on social life imposed at the time.1 An

analysis of the factors that make the meme so effective offers fresh insight into the e ­ ffect of the serial production of Pieter Brueghel II’s paintings of Christ Carrying the Cross.

First of all, the meme is based on a visual image that is doubly iconic. The picture – we’ll come back to the fact that it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci – represents the Last

Supper. This episode in the New Testament is of huge importance to the Christian faith.2 It incorporates not only one of the most dramatic moments in the story of Christ’s passion – his prediction to his followers of the betrayal that will lead to his death – but also his instruction to remember him in future by sharing bread and wine, as representing his

body and blood. As such, the Last Supper is the basis for the Eucharist: Christianity’s most important sacrament. The fact that even now, in our largely secularised society,

the depiction of this event is immediately recognised as sacred is the result of centuries of pictorial tradition. Even those who do not immediately identify the Last Supper as a

masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci will be familiar with the picture as one of the highpoints of Renaissance art – even of the whole of Western art history – and sacrosanct for that reason alone.

In sharp contrast to the ancient, venerable and sacred qualities of Leonardo’s Last

Supper, the meme presents two ordinary police officers in everyday contemporary

dress. In this version, the uniforms are American; in others, they include the distinctive

tall helmets of London Bobbies or the high-vis vests of Dutch civil enforcement officers,

known as ‘Boa’s’. Utterly unaware of the gravity of the occasion and the exceptional, even divine, status of the participants, the two officers are completely focussed on the job in Maker unknown, Covid-related meme, shared (and frequently modified) on social media worldwide during the first wave of the pandemic in the second quarter of 2020.

<

Detail Pieter Brueghel II, Christ Carrying the Cross, Antwerp: KMSKA, inv. no. 31

9

1

10

Landscape with Christ Carrying the Cross Studio of Pieter Brueghel II, c. 1605 > painting

Physical features Oil on panel, 117.5 x 165.5 cm Provenance/location Maastricht: Bonnefanten inv. no. 1004042.

Since 1993, this painting has been on long-term loan to the museum from the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. The work was recuperated from Germany following World War II and is now in the

stewardship of the Dutch State, awaiting restitution to the rightful owners or their heirs, see http://www.herkomstgezocht.nl/nl/ nk-collectie/landschap-met-kruisdraging (12 January 2021) Literature Ertz 2000, p. 407 no. 401; Coll. cat.

Maastricht 2012, pp. 77-79 and 166-167

11

Catalogue

49

Preamble

P

LH

ieter Brueghel II, also known as Pieter Brueghel the Younger, was born in

Brussels in 1564/1565. His parents were Pieter Bruegel and Mayken Coecke, herself the daughter of famous painter and tapestry designer Pieter Coecke van Aelst (1502-1550) and Mayken Verhulst (1518-1600). Pieter Bruegel I

died in 1569 and Mayken Coecke in 1578. Pieter the Younger was fourteen

and his brother Jan only ten when they found themselves orphaned. They were taken

in by their grandmother, Mayken Verhulst, who lived in Antwerp. She had been running the workshop of her late husband Pieter Coecke ever since 1550 and was herself a miniaturist.

Mayken Verhulst gave Pieter and Jan their initial training as artists. Pieter was then

apprenticed to Gillis II van Coninxloo but afterwards devoted himself to copying, imitating and reworking his father’s compositions, which continued to be much in demand.

He turned the production of copies into a highly successful enterprise. This was the

subject of a previous exhibition – De Firma Brueghel (2001/2002) – organised jointly by the Bonnefantenmuseum and the Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België

(KMSKB) in Brussels. In addition to copies, Pieter the Younger also painted pictures of his own invention, not infrequently cheerful scenes of country life.

Their sometimes unusual choice of subjects and lively compositions have led to the

belief that the paintings of both Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger contain fierce criticism of the society of their day. A good example is Pieter I’s Census

at Bethlehem (1566), the original of which hangs in the KMSKB in Brussels, while one of

the thirteen surviving copies by Pieter the Younger is in Maastricht. The composition has been interpreted as criticising taxation under the Habsburg regime. Recently, however, it

has been shown that - while tax collection is indeed the theme - the painting is less critical than previously thought. In fact, it was painted for an important, aristocratic tax collector, whose own home features prominently in the composition! In other cases, like Christ

carrying the Cross and other versions of the same scene, a note of criticism can definitely be distinguished, although it is never crude and predictable.

Artists who trained under Pieter II include famous Antwerp masters like Frans Snyders

and Andries Daniëls, both of whom went on to paint in a completely different style. Pieter’s brother, Jan Brueghel, secured the legacy of the Brueghel dynasty in a more personal

way: he became the father-in-law and grandfather of a host of artists named Brueghel, Kessel or Teniers.

50

Practical points: • N.B. Catalogue numbers 1-5 are included in the essay section.

• The thematic arrangement of the catalogue entries mirrors that of the exhibition; works are therefore not always in chronological order.

• The dimensions of the artworks are given in centimetres (cm): first height, then width and (where appropriate) depth, all without frame or other adjuncts unless explicitly stated

otherwise. The majority of the objects in the exhibition are paintings in oils. Where the

support (panel or canvas) is specified without further details, the object is an oil painting.

• Where research has revealed new and previously unpublished details of provenance, these are mentioned; otherwise, only the current location of the artwork is stated.

• The literature in the heading to each entry comprises only the main and/or most recent publications in which the artwork is explicitly discussed (and which were accessible

under Coronavirus restrictions). Where no publications are listed, the artwork has not previously been mentioned in the literature.

• The authors of the catalogue are aware that terms like ‘gypsy’ have a pejorative

connotation when used to describe members of Roma communities. However, in the

context of research on sixteenth-century iconography, the term is unavoidable because it refers to a general type of figure that was part of the worldview of the period. See also

Meganck 2018, pp. 90-93; Babin 2019, p. 67 n. 29 and Babin in this catalogue, p. 43 n. 43.

• It is useful for readers to be able to place an artist in time. For that reason, the first

mention of an artist in a particular entry is invariably accompanied by dates and places

of birth and death (where known) or, in the most complex cases, by a single date. Unless

recent research suggests otherwise, details, dates and spellings are those employed by the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) in The Hague.

• The catalogue discusses works by artist families in which the same first names were

used generation after generation. The Bruegel (or Brueghel) family is a case in point. In the body of the text, generations are distinguished either by using Roman numerals or

by the more traditional designations ‘the Younger’ and ‘the Elder’. In either case, care has been taken to ensure that it is clear which artist is concerned.

51

6

View of Antwerp

MvD

Amsterdam, Frederick de Wit, (after-1698) Joris Hoefnagel, c. 1596 > engraving

Map 71 in Theatrum ichnographicum omnium urbium et præcipuorum oppidorum Belgicarum XVII Provinciarum peraccurate delineatarum. = Perfecte aftekeningen der steden van de XVII Nederlandsche Provincien in platte gronden. = Le theatre des plans de toutes les villes qui sont situéez dans les XVII Provinces du Pays Bas parfaictement déseignéez.

Physical features Engraving, 46 x 79 cm Printed on two sheets; Inscription: ANTVERPIA. Depingebat Georgi Hoefnag. North on the right Provenance/location The Hague: KB, National Library of the Netherlands KW 1046 B 16.

Acquired from the collection of the Van Vollenhoven family (no further details) in 2010 Literature Van der Krogt 2010, p. 703, no. 184; Van Delft/Van der Krogt 2012, pp. 9-11 and 303

52

T

his map of Antwerp is from the town atlas

The map is an oddity in other respects too. The maps in

print dealer Frederick de Wit (Gouda 1630 –

the Meir is a platoon of soldiers marching towards the port

produced by Amsterdam map-seller and

Amsterdam 1706) in 1698.1 It is the only map

in the whole atlas to be printed across two

sheets. It is striking that De Wit has used a map designed

in the city’s heyday, a period that had come to an end with the Fall of Antwerp in 1585. The map was originally drawn

by Joris Hoefnagel (Antwerp 1542 – Vienna 1600) for

Georg Braun and Frans Hogenberg’s famous town atlas, published between 1572 and 1618. Hoefnagel used a 2

most town atlases show no people, but this one does. On

and a lively cattle market is being held on the Ossenmarkt.

Finally, the perspective is unusual. Most of the maps in this atlas display an orthogonal projection (that is, the town is

viewed from directly overhead), sometimes with buildings drawn onto the map as if seen from the side. But this map offers a bird’s-eye view of Antwerp, as if we are looking at the town from a nearby mountaintop.

map produced by Hieronymus Cock in 1557 and adapted

it to include newer buildings like the citadel (built in 1567), the town hall (1564, top centre) and the Hanzehuis (1568, on the right).3

A comparison of De Wit’s map with that of Braun and

Hogenberg shows that De Wit has changed nothing. We see the town from the east, with the north on the right.

The map features poems in praise of the town by Daniel Rogiers (bottom left) and Julius Scaliger (bottom right),

with an anonymous poem in the centre. Even the legend,

the key to the map, remains unchanged. In the top corners are the armorials of Brabant (left) and the Margraviate of

Antwerp (right): an imperial eagle and the coat of arms of

the town, a castle with two severed hands. These refer to

the legend of Brabo, who cut off the hands of the evil giant Antigoon and threw (Dutch: werpen) them into the river Scheldt – the supposed origin of the name of Antwerp.

De Wit’s use of this map of Antwerp casts light on the

history of map production. Maps were printed from copper plates, the production of which was a time-consuming and expensive process. Consequently, printing plates were

often sold on when a printer went out of business. That was how De Wit laid hands on Braun and Hogenberg’s

plates for his town atlas in 1694. And this explains why this particular print is a fold-out map, just as it was in

Braun and Hogenberg’s atlas: it was printed from the same copper plate.4

53

7

Entry of Ferdinand of Austria into Antwerp 1635

MvD

Theodoor van Thulden, 1642 > etching, engraving

Arrival of the procession at the gates of Antwerp, from: Jean-Gaspard Gevaerts, Pompa introitus honori serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Austriaci Hispaniarum Infantis: S.P.Q. Antverp. decreta et adornata ... XV. Kal. Maii, ann. M. DC. XXXV. Arcus, pegmata, iconesq[ue] à Pet. Pavlo Rvbenio ... Inuentas & delineatas inscriptionibus & elogiis ornabat, libroq[ue] commentario illustrabat Casperivs Gevartivs ... Accessit Lavrea Calloana, eodem auctore descripta. Antverpiæ veneunt exemplaria Apud Theod. a Tulden qui iconum tabulas ex archetÿpis Rubenianis delineauit et scalpsit. [Antverpiæ]: Excudebat Ioannes Meursius (1642), print 3, preceding p. 5.

54

I

n the early modern era as now, the arrival of a new

made his Joyous Entry into the important merchant city

monarch toured the major towns in his realm and was

an extensive programme of events to celebrate the grand

ruler was an occasion for great celebration. A new

welcomed with festivities in each of them. So, when Philip IV of Spain appointed his brother, Cardinal-

Infante Ferdinand of Austria, as the new governor of the Southern Netherlands in 1631, the occasion could not

of Antwerp. In November 1634, the city began planning

occasion.1 Peter Paul Rubens, the foremost painter in the Southern Netherlands, designed triumphal arches and sculpture galleries illustrating the virtues and victories

of the new ruler and the Spanish throne.2 Ferdinand and

be allowed to pass unnoticed. Because of the Thirty

his retinue processed through the city viewing all these

Brussels until 1634. A year later – on 17 April 1635 – he

Triumphal arches are temporary affairs; books and paper

Years’ War, Ferdinand was unable to make his entry into

commemorative structures.3

are more durable. That is why, following the success of

the Entry, it was decided to publish a book of the designs.

Immediately after the Entry, a pupil of Rubens, Theodoor van Thulden (Den Bosch 1606 – Den Bosch 1669), was commissioned to produce the engravings. Political

circumstances and the death of Ferdinand of Austria in

1641 delayed the publication of the book until 1643.4 The

massive volume contains 43 engravings, each captioned

in Latin. Its production history was extremely complex, and work on the book continued even after its publication. As

a result, a number of variants exist, with differing contents and prints.5

This print depicts the arrival of the procession at the gates of Antwerp. The city is shown from the south, as seen

from the citadel; to the left (but not visible) is the River

Scheldt. In the middle of the city is the Cathedral of Our

Lady with the new town hall diagonally behind it. Various

churches are also visible. In the centre of the composition, Ferdinand rides towards the gates of the city in the

midst of his entourage; groups of horsemen, pikemen

and musketeers look on.6 Plate 42 in the Pompa introitus

repeats the scene. There, however, Antwerp is shown from the east, as in the engraving in Frederick de Wit’s atlas

(cat.no. 6). And, just as in that engraving, the coats of arms of Brabant and of the Margraviate of Antwerp are shown on the left and right respectively.

Physical features Etching, engraving 31 x 57 cm Signed: T. a Thulden fec.

Cum priuilegio; numbered at top right: 3

Provenance/location The Hague: KB, National Library of the Netherlands KW 1042 B 18 Literature Arents 1949, p 152

55

8

56

Map of Antwerp

After Joris Hoefnagel, 1582 > etching, engraving

MvD

From: Lodovico Guicciardini, Description de tovts les Pais-Bas, autrement appellés la Germanie Inférievre, ov Basse Allemagne. Par messire Lovis Gvicciardin gentilhomme Florentine ... avec toutes les cartes geographiques desdicts pais, & et plusieurs pourtraicts de villes tirés au naturel. Avec indice tresample des choses le plus memorables. A Anvers, de l’imprimerie de Christophle Plantin, 1582.

Physical features Etching, engraving, 23.5 x 32 cm. Inscription at bottom right: Anwerpiae nobilis semi totius orbis terraru[m] emporii typus anno 1581

Literature Deys 2001, map of Antwerp 3.1, p. 128

Provenance/location The Hague: KB, National Library of the Netherlands KW 1707 A 1

Before Antwerp fell to the Spaniards in 1585, it was by far the most important port city in the Low Countries and home to merchants from all over Europe.

Among them was Lodovico Guicciardini (Florence 1521 – Antwerp 1589), an

Italian aristocrat who was sent to Antwerp to train as a merchant when he was

about twenty and remained there for the rest of his life. He wrote a book about his adopted country, Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi, first published in 1567.

Within a century, it went through more than thirty editions, appearing in German, English, French, Latin, Dutch and Spanish. Guicciardini’s description of the way

of life, history and geography of the Low Countries makes the book an excellent contemporary source of information about life and conditions in the region,

rendered still more attractive by the maps it contains. By far the most extensive of Guicciardini’s descriptions of towns is that of his hometown of Antwerp.1

Guicciardini describes both the built environment and the rural setting of

Antwerp, and naturally includes a map of the town. The view of Antwerp shown here is from the French edition of his book, Description de tovts les Pais-

Bas, issued in 1582 by the world-famous Antwerp printer Christoffel Plantijn.

The print is copied from the town map produced by Joris Hoefnagel in 1574,

when the town was still at the height of its prosperity.2 It shows the town from the south. In the foreground, slightly left of centre, is the citadel, which Alba

had ordered to be built on the south side of the town. After the massacre of

townspeople during the Spanish Fury of 1576, the populace began demolishing the hated fort. The wall facing the town was knocked down and that part of the moat filled in. From the citadel, walls and a moat run right around the town.

This map also shows the armorials of Brabant and Antwerp. Here, however,

the latter are the arms of the city of Antwerp, featuring only the castle and the severed hands; the eagle of the Margraviate of Antwerp is missing (compare

cat. nos. 6 and 7). Guicciardini explains the name of the town by reference to the legend of the giant Antigoon, said to have lived in a castle beside the Scheldt in the time of Julius Caesar. According to Guicciardini, he exacted a toll of half the

value of every passing cargo. If anyone cheated, he cut off their hands and threw them into the river: so, Antwerp = “Handwerpen” (Dutch for ‘hand’ and ‘throw’).3

57

9

Portrait of Pieter Brueghel II

DT

Anthony van Dyck, 1630-1632 > etching

Physical features Etching, first state, plate mark: 243 x 155 mm.

Inscription, recto bottom left, handwritten: ‘Pier Brueghel’; collector’s mark, verso bottom left, stamped: Lugt 240 Provenance/location Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum inv. no. RP-P-BI-7383 Literature Mauquoy-Hendrickx 1956, p. 154 no. 2; Antwerp-Amsterdam 1999, pp. 104-108; New Hollstein 2002, pp. 19-23 no. 3

58

B

etween 1631/1632 and 1641, the year of

his death, portrait painter Anthony van Dyck (Antwerp 1599 – London 1641) produced a series of prints portraying celebrated contemporaries – monarchs, military

men, scholars and artists – that was later published

as the Iconographie ou vies des hommes illustres (the Iconography for short). The history of the series is

complex and it is not always certain who – Van Dyck, other printmakers or publishers – did what when. It is likely that Van Dyck adopted the same procedure as in his portrait paintings, sketching in the head and hands and leaving

assistants to complete the work.1 In the case of seventeen of the prints, the etching of the faces and, in some cases,

nthony van Dyck, Portrait of Pieter Brueghel II, drawing, 245 x 198 mm, A Chatsworth: The Devonshire Collections, inv. no. 995

the hands and certain details is certainly the work of

Van Dyck himself. These include the portraits of Pieter

Brueghel II (Brussels 1564/65 – Antwerp 1637/38) and his brother Jan Brueghel I (Brussels 1568 – Antwerp 1625).

Van Dyck etched like he sketched: in a loose, lively and direct style. His etchings of the Brueghel brothers are virtuoso portraits and the sketchy style gives them a

swiftly made, unfinished, yet animated appearance. Yet

they are first state prints, not proofs – too many examples of each portrait survive for that to be the case. The non finito effect must have been deliberate, intended to

enhance the attractiveness of the prints to an audience of connoisseurs.2

Anthony van Dyck, Portrait of Pieter Brueghel II, drawing, 230 x 190 mm, St Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. no. 5908

59

138

42

Christ Carrying the Cross

LH

Quinten Massijs, c. 1510-1515 > painting

W

hite-faced and emaciated, Christ

There is an obvious comparison to be drawn between

heavy cross on his shoulders. The

scene in the Madre de Deus altarpiece (1509-1513) in

collapses beneath the weight of the crown of thorns has made gaping

wounds; his neck and shoulders are

wet with blood. He looks scarcely conscious and his face is in sharp contrast to those of the four grimacing and

bawling guards hauling him across the picture plane. One is even pulling at his hair. On the left in the background

stands Jerusalem, with an eye-catching building in the

centre, and on the right is Golgotha. Conspicuous by its

Massijs’s composition and that of the cross-carrying

Lisbon.2 While the latter is larger, more densely populated and affords no glimpse of Golgotha, the composition

is very similar, with the cross being used to frame the

figure of Christ. In that picture too, the double-headed

eagle features prominently on the banner attached to the trumpet. This has prompted speculation that the painting in Amsterdam was also part of an altarpiece depicting the seven sorrows of the Virgin.3 However, nothing (so

size, a banner bearing the double-headed eagle of the

far as we know) survives of this hypothetical altarpiece,

the guards. The contrast between Christ and the other

the cross-carrying. It is therefore not unlikely that it was

Holy Roman Empire flutters from the trumpet of one of

figures is further underlined by the cross, which cuts him

off visually from the rest of the composition and gives the latter a clear structure.

From the early years of the sixteenth century onward,

the cross-carrying is increasingly found as an apparently autonomous scene, although here – as in the case of

numbers 39 and 25 – it is impossible to prove that the

panel was originally intended as such. The rounded top of this example by Quinten Massijs (Leuven 1465/66 –

Antwerp 1530) is typical of the central panels of triptychs

but, in the absence of the original frame, it is impossible to know whether it once had wings.

or indeed of any other work relating to this depiction of always an autonomous work.4

The remarkable prominence of the imperial eagle within the composition has never been addressed in the

literature. This is understandable: perhaps it is merely part of general transposition of the Bible story to the artist’s own time.5 It can hardly have been intended as a piece

of political criticism, given the appearance of the same banner in the cross-carrying scene in the Madre Deus

altarpiece, commissioned by Eleonor of Viseu – the former queen consort of Portugal – for the Clarist Madre Deus convent near Lisbon.

The conflation of Massijs’s own time with that of Christ is also apparent in an Ecce Homo (1514-1517) in Coimbra.6

Once again, the imperial banner is unmistakable, this Physical features Oil on panel, 83 x 59 cm, with rounded top Provenance/location Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum inv. no. SK-A-4048. Donated to the Rijksmuseum in 1949 by Isaäc de Bruijn and Johanna Geertruida de Bruijn-van der Leeuw (De Bruijnvan der Leeuw Bequest, Muri, Switzerland)1 Literature Friedländer vol. XIV 1937, p. 108; Boon 1942, p. 28; Bodkin 1945,

p. 35; Vroom 1945, no. IV; Coll. cat. The Hague 1968, pp. 38-39, no. 961; ENP vol. VII 1971, p. 80, no. supp. 167; De Bosque 1975, p. 158; Silver 1984, pp. 96-97, 201 and 208 no. 15. V. Hoogland, ‘Quinten Massijs (I), The Carrying of the Cross, Antwerp, ca. 1510 - ca. 1515’, in J.P. Filedt Kok (ed.), Early Netherlandish Paintings, online Coll. cat. Amsterdam 2010: hdl. handle.net/10934/RM0001.

COLHoogland 2010 LECT.10081 (4 December 2020)

time accompanied by a shield bearing the letters SPQR,

referring directly to Rome. At the same time, the towers of the cathedral visible in the background place the scene more specifically in early sixteenth-century Antwerp.

139

43

Christ Carrying the Cross

After Herri met de Bles, possibly Master I.Q.V, c. 1540-1550 > etching

Physical features Intaglio print on paper, 34.8 x 44 cm; collector’s marks: verso bottom centre stamped Lugt 2228 and Lugt 2760 Location Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum inv. no. RP-P-1994-102

140

Literature Hollstein II, p. 58; Gibson 1989, p. 33, p. 104, n. 152 (as anonymous after Herri met de Bles, possibly from the circle of Pieter van der Borcht); Serck 1998, pp. 53, 69, no. 17; Toussaint 2001, pp. 202-03, no. 24; Jenkins 2006, p. 116, n. 18; Serck 2010, pp. 89-91

SCW

Monogrammist I.Q.V., Landscape with Two Panthers, etching, 305 x 444 mm, 1543, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum RP-P-OB-38.515

T

ogether with Joachim Patenir (1475/1480

landscape paintings their sense of panoramic openness

1510 – Antwerp c. 1550/before 1567) was

replete with ‘horror vacui’, in which the eye is unable to

– 1524), Herri met de Bles (Bouvignes c.

among the leading early landscape painters in the Southern Netherlands. A multitude

of panoramic ‘world landscapes’ are attributed to him. A

proportion of them were probably made for export, either

by Bles and his studio or by his followers.1 Some found

their way to Italy, where the work of ‘Civetta’ was extremely

and spatiality. The result is an overcrowded composition come to rest and the multitude of details obscures the narrative. The type of paper does nothing to help the

viewer forget the lack of tonal contrast, while the minor irregularities of a poorly polished etching plate cause additional visual interference throughout the image.5

popular. Countless versions of Bles’ densely populated

In the period from 1530 to 1540, the quality of landscape

by the master himself, others not.2 Remarkably, in the

of landscape painting, a situation eventually resolved by

Christ Carrying the Cross have survived, some executed sixteenth century one of these compositions was also

published as an etching, of which only two impressions are known to exist today. 3 The print is a close copy in mirror image of Bles’ painting Christ Carrying the Cross in the

Doria Pamphilj collection in Rome, a work whose presence in Italy is documented since as early as 1592 (ill. p. 120).4

prints produced in the Netherlands lagged far behind that the sophisticated publications of Hieronymus Cock in the 1550s.6 It has been speculated that the painter himself may have wielded the etching needle in this print. It is

more likely, however, that the plate was produced in Italy or, closer to home, at Fontainebleau, rather than in the

Low Countries. The arrival of Primaticcio led to a boom in printmaking at Fontainebleau between 1542 and 1548.7

The print reveals how difficult it was to translate Bles’

Among those active there was the Monogrammist I.Q.V.,

The style is rather hesitant, and the printmaker has

Bles (ill. p. 141). Moreover, paper with the same watermark

talents as a painter convincingly into a graphic medium. failed to do justice to the tonal variation that lends Bles’

whose graphic style is similar to that of the etching after was in use at Fontainebleau.8

141

44

Christ Carrying the Cross Herri met de Bles, c. 1525 > painting

Physical features oil on panel, 145 x 69 cm Location Namur: Musée Namurois Literature Currie/Serck 2007

142

SCW

A

ccording to early sources, Herri met

de Bles (Bouvignes c. 1500/10 – Antwerp

c. 1550/before 1567) hailed from Bouvignes (now Bouvignes-sur-Meuse). He is believed to have enrolled with the Antwerp Guild

of St Luke in 1535 as ‘Herry de Patenir’, although there is no known family relationship with the landscape

painter Joachim Patinir (1475/1480 – 1524).1 Together, these two artists pioneered what has become known

panoramic landscapes intended, as it were, to encompass

Herri met de Bles, The Road to Calvary, oil on panel, 82.6 x 114.4 cm, c. 1535, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Art Museum inv. no. 1950-1

influenced the work of other painters, including Pieter

copied in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The

always included a little owl somewhere in his paintings, a

several different studios to meet the growing demand for

as the ‘Weltlandschaft’ or ‘world landscape’: imaginary the entire world. It was an approach to landscape that

Bruegel I.2 According to Van Mander, Herri met de Bles

habit that in Italy earned him the nickname ‘il Civetta’ (ill.

p. 143 below).3 After the death of Patinir, Herri met de Bles

was the leading painter of Early Netherlandish panoramic landscapes and his work was eagerly collected and

oeuvre now attributed to him was probably produced in

landscapes, some of them for export to Italy (ill. p. 120).4 Christ Carrying the Cross was a popular subject that

he painted many times, in roughly two ways. The first,

more traditional, type of composition shows a balanced

landscape with a distant view of Jerusalem in the centre and the procession to Calvary passing in front of it in a

gentle curve. An example is the painting now at Princeton (ill. p. 143 above). In the second, more dynamic type of image, like the one in this exhibition, the centre of the painting is occupied by rocks and buildings and the

procession of figures swirls and eddies around it towards Golgotha (cat.no. 43).5 It is interesting that most of the

figures watching the procession from the foreground

are in contemporary dress. We observe the scene, as it

were, through them and join with them in experiencing the suffering of Christ in the events taking place before our very eyes.

These are the kinds of details that will have struck Pieter Anonymous, Portrait of Herri met de Bles, from: Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germaniae Inferioris effigies, 227 × 123 mm, 1572, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum inv.no. RP-P-1907-587

Bruegel I and it is not surprising that Herri met de Bles –

like Jan van Amstel, who was also active in Antwerp – had a strong influence on the development of Bruegel’s early landscapes.6

143

45

Christ Carrying the Cross

SCW

Johannes Wierix after Gillis Mostaert, 1579 > engraving

Physical features Copperplate engraving on paper, 373 x 269 mm. Inscriptions: dated FLORENZIAE 1579; caption: Et mundus eum non cognovit; monogrammed IHW Location Vienna: Albertina Museum inv.no.

H/I/20/136 Literature Van de Velde 1985, pp. 595-608; New Hollstein 2003-2004, p. 170 cat. no. 2031; Grove Art Online 2003, Van de Velde; Grimm 2005, pp. 103-04 ill. 6 (as unknown artist).

144

T

his allegorical image shows a globus cruciger

(orb and cross) – a symbol of Christ’s domina-

tion over the world – illuminated by the sun and moon. Within the globus cruciger is a view of Christ Carrying the Cross with an apparently

unending procession of figures following Christ to Golgotha.

On the lofty ‘place of the skull’, another vast crowd has as-

sembled around a still vacant cross. The caption ‘Et mundus eum non cognovit’ is a reference to the Gospel of St John.

Christ came into the world to bring the true light, but the

world was blind and nailed him to the cross: ‘He was in the

world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew

Unidentified workshop, probably Brussels, Haywain in orb, gold and silver thread, silk and wool, 298 x 373 cm, 1550-70, Patrimonio Nacional, San Lorenzo de El Escorial

him not.’1

Gillis Mostaert was a talented artist who trained under

figures, the inscription ‘FLORENZIAE 1579’ has given rise

enjoyed a long and productive career as a figure and

Combined with the monogram ‘TG’ and the Italianate

to considerable confusion regarding the identity of the

designer, printmaker and publisher. It is likely, however, that

the print was engraved by Johannes Wierix (Antwerp 1549 – Brussels c. 1620) – whose monogram IHW can be discerned next to the foremost soldier in the group surrounding Christ

– after a design by painter Gillis Mostaert (Hulst c. 1528/29 – Antwerp 1598).2

Jheronimus Bosch’s pupil Jan Mandijn and subsequently landscape painter in Antwerp. In addition to producing

works of his own, he provided the figures in paintings by

other artists.3 Mostaert’s Christ Carrying the Cross shows a close similarity (albeit in mirror image) to a Landscape

with Christ Carrying the Cross, surrounded by scenes from

Christ’s Passion in grisaille (ill. p. 196).4 Although the globus

cruciger motif does not appear in that work, Mostaert

had used it earlier in The Haywain, an

allegory on worldly and spiritual abuses

which is likewise contained within an orb

(ill. p. 145 below).5 That composition very probably derives from a lost design by Jheronimus Bosch, possibly via Pieter

Bruegel I. Bosch’s composition formed the basis for a well-known series of

tapestries made for Cardinal Granvelle

in 1566 (ill. p. 145 above).6 Following the

Iconoclastic Fury, inventive artists like Gillis Mostaert introduced subtle changes in

pictorial traditions, giving works new and sometimes radical meanings.7

Studio of Gillis Mostaert, The Haywain, oil on panel, 104 x 139 cm, after 1575, Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. M.N.R. 399

145

46

Christ Carrying the Cross

Follower of Jheronimus Bosch, c. 1540 > painting

Physical features Oil on oak panel, 107 x 149 cm Provenance/location Antwerp: Museum Mayer van den Bergh, on permanent loan to since 7 October 2010. Bruges: private collection (1882); Ghent: coll. Van den Hecke; Mechelen: coll. Wafelaerts; Brussels: coll.

Jules de Brouwere (1884); Ghent: coll. Jan de Coen (1924); Brussels: auction Poulier Ketele 26 March 1924, lot no. 21; Brussels: auction Giroux 15 March 1926, lot no. 29; Paris: auction Drouot 1931, lot no. 3; Antwerp: L. Jacobs-

146

Havenith 1935; Antwerp: coll. Fam. Jacobs van Merlen.

Donated to the heritage fund of the King Baudouin Foundation Literature Wurzbach vol. II 1910, p. 98; Antwerp 1935, p. 31 no. 77; Van Puyvelde 1962, pp. 70-71; Brussels 1963, pp. 129-130 no. 151; Unverfehrt 1980, pp. 143-144 and 281; Elsig 2004, p. 119; De Vrij 2006, pp. 18-19 and 66-67; Pypaert 2008, p. 243 no. 149; Ilsink/Koldeweij 2011

LH

T

he weird and wonderful headgear worn by the

and could warn people or call for help in this way. So,

the horror of the scene. Christ is carrying

disaster. This is not the only such indication: the colours

troop of soldiers almost makes one forget his cross to the hill where he will be nailed

to it and die within hours. His martyrdom will

take place on the hill at top right of the painting. A crowd has already gathered there and the crosses of the two thieves are being erected.1 Oddly, an already crucified

figure is shown between them. To show that Golgotha was a habitual place of execution? Or depicting an event yet to take place, as in Pieter Brueghel II’s painting (cat. nos. 1-5)

the crucifixion of Christ is signalled as an approaching

of the horses ridden by the four equestrians are found in

nature, but may also refer to the white, red, black and pale horses of the Apocalypse.3 The man on the brown (‘red’) horse carries a thorny stick symbolising a rod of justice

and identifying him as Pontius Pilate (although this is hard to reconcile with his Phrygian cap, a form of headgear worn, for example, by emancipated slaves).

of half a century later?

The painter of this cross-carrying scene was certainly

heavily influenced by Jheronimus Bosch’s version, but he has not produced a slavish copy. There are a number of

direct references, but he has made his own contribution

too. The central group derives from the version by Bosch now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (ill. p.

134). The figure of Christ with his cross and the soldier in yellow (red in Bosch’s painting) are direct copies. In

Bosch’s version there are two spiked blocks and here only

one, but the underdrawing shows another such instrument of torture under Christ’s left foot. Clearly, therefore, the

artist had access to Bosch’s composition. The question is which version of it was available to him. We know,

for example, that there was a cross-carrying scene by

Jheronimus Bosch in the Church of St Pharaildis in Ghent,

at least until the church was hit by the wave of iconoclasm in 1566. Chronicler Marcus van Vaernewyck refers to it

unambiguously: “Hier inne was een gheschilderde tafel

ende es daer Ons Heere zijn cruuse draecht, ghedaen bij meester Jeronimus Bosch […]” (“Inside it was a painted panel showing Our Lord carrying his cross, done by master Jheronimus Bosch […]” (cat. nos. 40-41).2

On examination, apparently minor details of the painting prove to be highly significant. For example, the sails of

the centrally placed windmill in the background are in the position used exclusively to signal approaching danger.

Windmills were visible from considerable distances

147

47

Christ Carrying the Cross

Jan van Wechelen and Cornelis van Dalem?, c. 1570 > painting

Physical features Oil on panel, 28.6 x 50.2 cm Signed at bottom right: H VA/WECHLEN Provenance/location Cologne: Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Fondation Corboud inv. no. Dep 08251 Literature St. Petersburg (Fl.) 1990, p. 45; Allart 1993, p. 129

148

DT

T

his painting owes its peculiar perspective,

Anabaptists refused to recognize any worldly authority

and the road winding uphill on the right, to

widespread revolts in 1535. Did Van Wechelen sympathise

with the meandering town wall on the left

an engraving of Christ Led to the Crucifixion made after a drawing by Lambert Lombard,

who was himself copying a painting by Jheronimus

and suffered fierce persecution following a series of

with the Anabaptists (like Van Dalem, whom the Council of Troubles accused of heresy in 1571)? It seems likely.

Bosch (cat. nos. 40-41). Although there is some similarity

Close scrutiny of the figures in this painting of Christ

of Christ collapsed on all fours under the cross, the figures

the painting an unusually strong commentary on the

between the painting and the engraving, such as the figure in the procession on the road to Golgotha are the painter’s own invention. The signature at bottom right shows that he must have been the Antwerp master Jan – or Hans,

both being abbreviations of Johannes – van Wechelen (Antwerp 1537 – Antwerp 1570).

Because of the curious lack of unity between the figures and the landscape, the latter is frequently attributed to landscape painter Cornelis van Dalem (Antwerp

c. 1528 – Bavel 1573). According to his biographer 2

Karel van Mander (who disapproved of the practice), Van Dalem generally got other people to do the figures in his paintings.3 Van Wechelen had enrolled in the Antwerp guild in 1557 and acted as Van Dalem’s regular figure

painter, probably from 1564 onwards.4 If the painting is

indeed a co-production by Van Wechelen and Van Dalem, this would mean that it was painted between 1564 and 1573 (the year of Van Dalem’s death). If the horseman 5

shown in profile is indeed Alba (see below), that would

further reduce the possible date range, since the ‘Iron

Carrying the Cross reveals a number of things that make religious troubles of the time. Firstly, many of the figures

are in obviously contemporary dress. The soldiers beating Christ wear red hose and tall red hats. This is a reference to the Walloon forces used by the Spanish rulers to keep order, who were loathed by the local population.7 Of the

dignitaries following Christ on horseback, one wears a

red bishop’s mitre while the other is dressed as a scholar in a black gown and black beret. Are they intended like

‘pictograms’ representing the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and his main opponent, the reformer Martin Luther? The equestrian figure with a tall hat and long beard could

be the same sort of ‘pictogram’ representing Alba. The

group of women at bottom left is also oddly different from the usual, fairly generic, figures accompanying Christ

to his execution. The presence of Simon of Cyrene and

Veronica (dressed in yellow, in the centre) are conventional features. Is the painting a sort of summing up of all sides of the conflict, or something else? What exactly did Van Wechelen intend to say? As yet, we can only guess.

Duke’ did not arrive in the Low Countries until 1567.

Like many others, Van Dalem left Antwerp in 1565

because of his religious convictions. He moved to Bavel, near Breda. When the house built for him there was

demolished in the nineteenth century, an inscription was found indicating that a mason called Jan de Weese also

lived there. De Weese was banished from Antwerp in 1566 for being an Anabaptist – a member of one of the most

controversial Protestant sects in Western Europe.6 The 149