FARIES - Making and Marketing Studies of The Painting Process in Netherlandish Workshops

Making and Marketing:
Studies of the Painting Process in

Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century
Netherlandish Workshops
Studies of the Painting Process in
Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century
Netherlandish Workshops
Edited by Molly Faries
H
F
‘Me Fecit’
As a sign not only of a burgeoning artistic self-awareness, but also of a certain level of
excellence long maintained by the medieval craft tradition, early Renaissance artists began
to inscribe their paintings along with the declaration,‘Me fecit’.
This series, which takes its inspiration from this phrase, features one or more paintings
by artists of the fifteenth- and early sixteenth-centuries that are deemed autograph due to
inscriptions, through reliable documentary evidence, or on account of manifest self-por-
traiture.The aim is to explore such paintings in an interdisciplinary manner, from all points
of view : the nature of the documentation, the physical characteristics of the painting and
the apparent working procedure, the place of the work within the œuvre of the artist, the
iconographic problems the theme presents, and the unique manner in which the artist
solved the challenge of a given commission – be it traditional or innovative.
Each book in the series will attempt to unite the results of the technical investigation of
paintings with art historical concerns in order to provide the most fully integrated study
possible of documented works by a number of well-known artists. In turn, it is hoped
that in-depth views of artistic production will provide the foundation for the investiga-
tion of other works or oeuvres.
These publications may be the product of one author or enriched by collaboration
among specialists in different fields of expertise.
Maryan W. Ainsworth
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Cover illustration:
Bernard van Orley, Last Judgment Triptych (interior)
Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten.
© 2006, Brepols Publishers n.v.,Turnhout, Belgium.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
D/2006/0095/151
ISBN 2-503-51605-X
Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

Contents
Editor’s Foreword VII
Molly Faries
‘Making and Marketing: Studies of the Painting Process’ 1
Micha Leeflang
‘The Saint Reinhold Altarpiece by Joos van Cleve and his Workshop:
New Insights into Albrecht Dürer’s Influence on the Working Process’ 15
Ron Spronk and Catharina van Daalen

‘Two Scenes from the Passion at the Harvard Art Museums:
a Tale of Two Antwerp Workshops?’ 43
Daantje Meuwissen
‘A ‘Painter in Black and White’: the Symbiotic Relationship
Between the Paintings and Woodcuts of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen’ 55
Anne H. van Buren

‘Collaboration in Manuscripts: France and the Low Countries’ 83
Maryan W.Ainsworth
‘Romanism as a Catalyst for Change in Bernard van Orley’s
Workshop Practices’ 99
Linda Jansen
‘Shop Collaboration in the Painting of Background Landscapes
in the Workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst’ 119
Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute

‘Copies, Pastiches, and Forgeries after Bosch’ 143
Margreet Wolters
‘Creativity and Efficiency:Aspects of Joachim Beuckelaer’s Use
of Patterns and Models’ 155
Maria Galassi
‘Jan Massys and Artistic Relationships Between Antwerp and
Genoa during the Sixteenth Century’ 179
V
Liesbeth M. Helmus
‘Journeymen and Servants: Sixteenth-Century Employment Contracts
with Painters from the Netherlands’ 201
Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters

‘Artists by Numbers: Quantifying Artists’Trades in
Sixteenth-Century Antwerp’ 211
Bibliography 223
Color Plates 244
Illustration Credits 277
VI CONTENTS
Editor’s Foreword
This volume derives from a session organized for the Historians of Netherlandish Art Inter-
national Conference entitled ‘Painters’Workshops in the Sixteenth-Century Netherlands’, which
was held in Antwerp in March, 2002. Five of the speakers at that session gratiously agreed to
take time from their busy schedules to work up their presentations into articles for this publica-
tion.1 Nine other scholars, Maria Galassi, Liesbeth M. Helmus, Linda Jansen, Daantje Meuwis-
sen, Ron Spronk, Anne van Buren, Catharina van Daalen, Roger Van Schoute, and Hélène
Verougstraete, were kind enough to submit important additional contributions to this volume.
The contents have now been expanded to cover artists working from the fifteenth up to and
beyond the middle of the sixteenth century, not only in the northern and southern Netherlands
but also in France.While the focus is on painters and painting, the articles also touch on the relat-
ed artistic traditions of manuscript illumination, printmaking, and tapestry production.
It will be evident from the table of contents that this publication concentrates on the activi-
ties of sixteenth-century masters. It is intended to highlight the achievements of artists like Joos
van Cleve, Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Bernard van Orley, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Joachim
Beuckelaer, and Jan Massys, who are still not as well-known as they should be, especially when
compared with their fifteenth-century counterparts.This volume is also intended to rectify a
common misconception about the term workshop: that it implies only a working locale with
sizable personnel capable of streamlined, or ‘mass’ production.The idea of mass production must
in any case be qualified, and this publication is meant to show a range of possibilities in work-
shop organization – from the types of complex collaboration that can be detected in some shops,
on the one hand, to the ingenious methods of one-person enterprises on the other. Infrared
reflectography is the technical method of choice in most of the articles in this volume, but the
research should not be misconstrued as ‘underdrawing studies’ alone.What is gained by this type
of research is insight into the painting process as a whole, and this is why the words ‘painting
process’ are stressed in the title.The elucidation of the overall painting process is indispensable in
any study of artistic production; and it therefore forms the basis of this publication. Some arti-
cles in this volume present the results of new technical studies that are comprehensive in nature,
revealing the inter-relationship between prints and painting practices, modes of collaboration,
shifts in procedure, the development and use of shop models, and the impact of international
commerce. Other articles present equally valuable information about historical context: new doc-
umentary evidence and new methods of historical statistics revealing trends in workshop size,
career trajectories, and immigration.
I would like to express my thanks to those museums, granting institutions, and colleagues
who have made this publication possible. Much of the infrared documentation, research, and
brainstorming took place within the context of a grant at University of Groningen from 2000-
04, ‘Antwerp Painting Before Iconoclasm: a Socio-Economic Approach’ (co-directors Molly
Faries and Maximiliaan P. J. Martens; post-doc, Natasja Peeters; Ph.D. candidates, Linda Jansen
and Micha Leeflang, and technical assistant, Daantje Meuwissen), funded by the Netherlands
Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).This grant afforded all of us exceptional research
opportunities, many intense work sessions, and much stimulating discussion. Other research
projects have also played a role in this publication, such as the Netherlands Organization for Sci-
entific Research / Flemish-Dutch Committee for Dutch Language and Culture (NWO/VNC)
grant that supported Margreet Wolter’s research on Joachim Beuckelaer. My fellow authors and
I are deeply indebted to the museums and collections whose works are discussed in this volume;
the technical investigations in particular required much staff time in making arrangements and
offering friendly assistance and interest in countless other ways. In return, we hope to have offered
some sort of compensation by making the technical documents available and seeing to it that
VII
they are properly archived. In that regard, I would like to thank the Netherlands Institute for Art
History (RKD) for agreeing to house my own IRR archive as well as that of the Antwerp research
project mentioned above.
With this publication, Brepols Publishers continues to show its loyalty to the study of Nether-
landish painting, and I would like to thank Johan Van der Beke, in particular, for shepherding
this volume through the publication process.Thanks also go to Maryan W.Ainsworth for agree-
ing to have this publication in the ‘Me fecit’ series. Finally, as always, I owe more than I can pos-
sibly express, to my partner, Eileen Fry, for her patience and willingness to become involved in
discussions dealing with matters ranging from editorial minutiae to grand hypotheses.
Molly Faries
NOTES
1.The session, held Friday, March 15, 2002, was chaired by

Molly Faries and included the following talks: Micha Leeflang
and Peter van den Brink,‘Demystifying the Process: Practices
in Early Sixteenth-Century Antwerp Painters’ Workshops’;
Maryan W.Ainsworth,‘Bernard van Orley: Evolution and Stan-
dardization in the Workshop’; Margreet Wolters, ‘Creativity
and Efficiency: the Use of Cartoons and Patterns in Paintings
by Pieter Aertsen and Joachim Beuckelaer’; and Maximiliaan
P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters,‘Artists by Numbers: Quan-
tifying Artists’Trades in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp.’ I would
like to thank Peter van den Brink for kindly allowing Micha
Leeflang access to his research materials for her article in this
volume.
VIII EDITOR’S FOREWORD

Studies of the Painting Process
Molly Faries
Professor Emerita, University of Groningen and Indiana University, Bloomington
Introduction
This publication is about workshop practice. It is intended to highlight the contributions of

recent socio-economic and technical research: the recognition that the painter’s workshop is a
corporate entity and that the working methods employed by a shop can be made visible for
documentation and study.This applies to the one-person workshop that, according to Max Martens
and Natasja Peeters, was predominant during the period under discussion. It also applies to the
larger enterprises of artists such as Joos van Cleve and Pieter Coecke van Aelst, two Antwerp
painter-entrepreneurs who are presented in this volume by, respectively, Micha Leeflang and Lin-
da Jansen. Many issues have emerged for consideration: the size of the workshop based on an
estimate of its personnel, the amount and type of collaboration, standardization and/or change
in shop routine, the appearance of shop replicas as opposed to later copies, and actual practices
related to the creation and repetition of workshop models.The production of art may also be
categorized according to the presumed percentages of on spec as opposed to commissioned
works, and in relation to other demographic trends, such as immigration and emigration.
While the essays in this volume cannot be expected to provide a complete overview of these
topics, it is important to note that they are based on extensive research projects that have gar-
nered large quantities of primary source material. One article, a traditional case study by Ron
Spronk and Tinke van Daalen, offers links to other articles dealing with Antwerp artists and reports
on another form of shop collaboration, that between the two crafts of painting and carpentry.
Other essays present a broad synthesis of findings. Max Martens and Natasja Peeters utilize a rela-
tional database comprising several thousand records from the Antwerp archives. Micha Leeflang
describes a working procedure that cuts across a number of workshops active in early sixteenth-
century Antwerp. Other authors present findings deriving from the study of literally hundreds of
paintings. Helénè Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute’s essay stems from years of researching
the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch and his followers.Anne van Buren’s article on collaboration
in manuscripts also represents a lifetime’s expertise. For the remaining essays, up to fifty or more
works have been studied by technical means in each of the following artistic groups: Joos van
Cleve, Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Bernard van Orley, Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Pieter Aert-
sen and Joachim Beuckelaer. Such solidly-researched contributions bring out issues vital to the
study of artistic workshops from the end of the fifteenth century to ca. 1565.
Recognizing Workshop Practices
One of the premises underlying this publication is that workshop practices become more dis-
cernable during this approximately seventy-five-year period.This statement can apply to either
one- or multi-person shops, although discerning collaboration, i.e.‘hands’, is an easier matter in
the large-scale commissions or compositional replicas that are usually associated with sizeable,
more productive workshops.This is in contrast to the early fifteenth-century situation where
the presumed collaboration of Jan and Hubert Van Eyck in the Ghent Altarpiece remains invis-
MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 1

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

duction – that is, variants of Crucifixion scenes and compositions with the Virgin and Child
rather than exact replicas – appeared in works associated with Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen’s
shop in the second decade of the sixteenth century. Maryan Ainsworth is able to discern Bernard
van Orley’s first use of a cartoon, not only in an original composition but also in copies. Mar-
greet Wolters’s essay shows that serial production remained a part of shop routine up to the
period of Joachim Beuckelaer’s work, although by this time the subject specialty has changed and
the process has taken on a form characteristic of that artist.
A number of scholars have drawn our attention to the importance of standardization, in mate-
rials and motifs as well as in the painting process itself. Such a seemingly simple matter as size can
have a far-reaching effect. Some carved retables of the early sixteenth century have housings (or
caisses) that can be measured according to units of Antwerp feet (one Antwerp foot = 28.7 cm)
and in width to height ratios that correspond to the golden mean.13 Interestingly, some of the
panel paintings that Margreet Wolters discusses in her article exhibit this same phenomenon. Jør-
gen Wadum has mentioned that the standardization of panel sizes may vary from city to city, prob-
ably due to differences in the length of the local measurement for feet used by the woodworkers
making panels. Nonetheless, he implies an increase in standard formats during the sixteenth cen-
tury and their eventual transfer to canvas supports in the seventeenth century.14
Little research into quantifying size has been done for the sixteenth century in the Nether-
lands. For Germany, Gunnar Heydenreich has been able to discern the following panel formats
in Lucas Cranach the Elder’s works from 1520 to 1535: 18.5-22.5 x 14-16 cm, 33.5-39 x 23.5-
30 cm, 51-59 x 34-40 cm, 82-90 x 55-63 cm, 114-121 x 77-84 cm, and 149-158 x 112-119
cm.15 Occasionally, however, scholars have isolated groupings in Netherlandish works that may
eventually prove to be standard formats. Measurements in the ranges of 30 x 40, 55 x 70, and
110 x 160/165 cm have been mentioned. 28-33 x 40-46 cm is the approximate size Dijkstra pos-
tulated for the designs or cartoons used for some Madonna and Child compositions in the fol-
lowing of Rogier van der Weyden.16 55 x 70 and 110 x 160/165 cm are close to 2 x 21/2 and 4
x 6 Antwerp feet.17 Standardization in the size of the support would also facilitate the use of
compositional modules, as well as the systematic employment of a method like squaring to re-
size motifs as needed. Lars Hendrikman has completed a study of this type by comparing the rel-
ative sizes of similar motifs in a series of works in the Bernard van Orley group.18 It would be
useful to undertake statistical surveys of large numbers of paintings to see if the measurements
mentioned above would be borne out or if other standard formats would emerge. Considera-
tion of this issue for individual masters could also reward study.
The primary method of investigation used by the scholars contributing to this volume is infrared
reflectography (IRR). It is this technique in particular that can ‘see’ into the painting process
from the initial layout of the composition to the finalized image. In this sense, IRR is especial-
ly suited to study of workshop practice. IRR is capable of revealing the underdrawing stage of
paintings, where the layout may vary according to its function in the shop and where the links
to shop models have often been observed. This stage, moreover, gives access to the modes of
collaboration involved in the working process.Although collaboration can take many forms, two
distinct types have been mentioned in earlier literature: vertical (defined originally as in juxta-
posed areas of the composition) or horizontal (in the build-up of layers of the painting process).19
Since these terms have not been used at all consistently since their introduction into the litera-
ture, it is proposed here to avoid further confusion by simply using the words, ‘superimposed’
and ‘juxtaposed’. Superimposed collaboration would refer to collaboration in the build-up of
layers in the painting process, while juxtaposed collaboration would refer to artists working side
by side in the same layer.
IRR has also detected the curious practice of writing titles in underdrawings, a phenomenon
first reported in 1989 and found in other early sixteenth-century Antwerp works since then.20

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

Fig. 1.Attributed to Jan Joest, The Apostles John the Evangelist,Thomas, and James the Less, or Jude.Ann Arbor, University
of Michigan Museum of Art, 1973/2.77. Infrared reflectogram digital composite showing elaborate brush under-
drawing. (IRR and digital composite: Molly Faries).
the time.As Micha Leeflang explains in her essay, they could have easily provided a standard mod-
el that would facilitate the complexities of collaboration involved in the production of early six-
teenth-century retables. In these examples, however, the use of prints as models did not involve
their simple transfer to the ground by means of pouncing or tracing, as one might expect. Instead,
the underdrawings of new compositions were worked up so that they recreated the style and
shading system of their models.
The woodcut look in underdrawings can be analyzed even further. Although much has been
said about streamlining and cost cutting in the expansion of production presumed for this peri-
od, this type of layout would certainly not fit that model.The elaborate Düreresque underdrawings
must have been both time-consuming and labor intensive, regardless of whether the master or

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

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

Fig. 2. Copy after Hieronymus Bosch, Temptation of Saint Anthony. Indianapolis, Indianapolis Museum of Art, Clowes
Collection, C 10008. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the painting (upside down) showing traces of an
underlying portrait. (IRR and digital composite: Molly Faries).
ing what was presumably a portrait made on commission into a work most likely produced on
spec.The transformation into a ready-made ‘Bosch’ thus confirms the continuing marketability
of Boschian imagery. Further technical study of the hundreds of paintings representing the ‘Bosch
industry’ would undoubtedly turn up more examples of this type of commercial adaptation.

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

Fig. 4. School of Antwerp, Rest on the Flight into Egypt. Fig. 5. Adriaen Isenbrant, Rest on the Flight into Egypt.
Whereabouts unknown. Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 1914-CE.
In this volume, two articles focus on the use of shop models. First, Linda Jansen explains how
the use of model drawings can facilitate collaboration, in this case ‘juxtaposed’ collaboration in
the painting of background landscapes.This information, combined with the view into the paint-
ing process provided by infrared reflectography (IRR), allows Linda Jansen to suggest that the
shop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst often regarded the execution of the background as a separate
stage.This portion of a painting could be delegated to a workshop assistant, who, as the author
argues, need not be regarded as a landscape specialist.This is an important distinction. In this case,
technical examination can discern a division in labor, but not an identifiable, recurring ‘hand’.
Jansen then goes on to refute the long-standing notion in the literature that Jan van Amstel could
have been such a landscape specialist in Coecke’s shop.
The second article on this topic deals with aspects of Joachim Beuckelaer’s use of models. Mar-
greet Wolters judiciously selects works that comprise one of this artist’s serial productions – ver-
sions of a Market Scene with Ecce Homo – thereby setting up a controlled case for the observation
of repeated motifs. Beuckelaer’s use of models, as described by the author, seems remarkably
supple, with ongoing alterations, reversals, and repositioning that are somewhat reminiscent of
the methods of the Bosch pasticheurs.What is especially noteworthy about Margreet Wolter’s
discussion is that it goes well beyond the basic discovery of evidence for models that no longer
survive. She not only identifies the models the artist used, but also makes observations about their
possible size, the degree to which they were worked up in their details, and whether they might
have had indications for color.Wolters also shows the origin of one motif during the painting
process and its further elaboration in later works. Both Wolters and Jansen clearly contribute
significant insights into this aspect of workshop practice.

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

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

NOTES
1. van Asperen de Boer et al. 1992. 24. Jacobs 1998, 224; this stands in apparent contrast to Ger-
man practice.
2. See Faries 2003, 31-32, with references to previous lit-
erature. 25.The Adam and Eve scene on the exterior of Gossaert’s
famous Malvagna triptych, taken from Dürer’s woodcut of the
3. Leeflang forthcoming (Ph.D. dissertation for the Uni- same subject from the Small Passion, has in fact no detectable
versity of Groningen). underdrawing; see the forthcoming 2006 article on this work
4.Wolters 1997. by Ainsworth and Faries in the colloquium papers mentioned
in note 12.
5. Dijkstra 1990, 43-44, 66.
26. For an explanation of these concepts, see Vermeylen
6. For comments on these processes, see Faries 2003, 26-29. 2003, 5. In this case, process and product innovation may in
fact be blended, for, as Micha Leeflang mentions in her essay,
7. For the publication of an additional example of pounc-
this type of underdrawing was so fully worked up that it also
ing in a work by Isenbrant, along with citations of relevant lit-
appropriated something of Dürer’s style. In attempting to co-
erature on this artist, see Faries 2001, 97-98.
opt the Düreresque-look for their images, these artists were
8. Dijkstra 1990, 7. also producing a new commodity.
9. See for instance,Vermeylen 2001, 47-48, and 2003, 7, 27. See Filedt Kok et al. 1986.
15, 29-30. 28. Krekel and Burmester 2001.
10.Ainsworth 1998, 295-308. 29. Lecture by Filip Vermeylen, ‘The Colour of Money:
11. Faries and Helmus 2000. Dealing in Pigments in Sixteenth-century Antwerp,’ February
12, 2005, at the symposium organized by the Courtauld Insti-
12.The conference, organized by Helénè Verougstraete and tute of Art and the National Gallery, London, on European
Rogier Van Schoute, was held in Bruges, September 11-13, Trade in Painters’ Materials to 1700 (publication forthcom-
2003; the papers of the conference are forthcoming in 2006. ing by Archetype Press).Vermeylen 2003, 17, also mentions the
13. Serck-Dewaide 1993, 114, citing Horace Doursther (Dic- import of exotic materials such as cochineal (for a red color)
tionnaire des poids et mesures, Amsterdam, 1865) for the length from Central America into Antwerp.
of Antwerp feet. 30.Vandamme 1996.
14.Wadum 1995a, 160. 31. Eikema Hommes 2002, 83.
15. Heydenreich 1998, 106-07. 32.Vandamme 1996, 105.
16. See Faries 2003, 27, citing Dijkstra 1990, 116-30. 33. The papers of a conference held at the University of
Groningen on this subject are now being edited by N. Peeters
17.These formats will be discussed further in the Ph.D. dis-
for the forthcoming publication, Invisible hands? Role and Sta-
sertation by Margreet Wolters on Joachim Beuckelaer for the
tus of journeymen in artists’ and craftsmens’ workshops in the Low
University of Groningen.
Countries ca. 1450-1650, Leuven, Uitgeverij Peeters.
18. Lars Hendrikman, ‘Variations on a Theme: Meeting 34.Ainsworth 1998, chapter 4.
the Demand for Adapted Compositions in Bernard van Orley’s
Workshop in Brussels,’ forthcoming in Bulletin Koninklijke 35. Leeflang forthcoming (Ph.D. dissertation for the Uni-
Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie/Musées Royaux des Beaux- versity of Groningen).
arts de Belgique (papers of the Symposium Brueghel Enterprises,
Brussels, June 20-21, 2002). 36. Faries 1976.
19. Faries 2003, 30, for the derivation of these terms from 37. See Vermeylen 2003, 158, 161.
studies of Rogier van der Weyden. 38. For a listing of examples of the re-use of panels, see Faries
20. For an overall listing of examples, see the essay by Ron and van Asperen de Boer 1997, 9-10; for Isenbrant, see Urbach
Spronk and Tinke van Daalen in this publication. 2001.
21.Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 31-35. 39.The first painting, a Temptation of St.Anthony in ‘s-Her-
togenbosch with the Burning of Troy underneath, is discussed
22. Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, inv. nos. WRM in van den Brink 2003; the second painting, an Adoration of the
432, 433, 434 (see Hiller et al. 1969, 73-74), and Ann Arbor, Magi in Aachen with the Parable of the Prodigal Son under-
University of Michigan Museum of Art, inv. no. 1973/2.77. neath, is discussed in Faries and van Asperen de Boer 1997.
23. The panel in Ann Arbor was studied with IRR by 40.The panel with the Temptation of St. Anthony can have
Molly Faries, Nov. 12, 1984, with Indiana University’s been painted anytime after 1530; see van den Brink 2003, 94
Grundig equipment: a Grundig 70 H television camera out- note 43 (citing the report by Pascale Fraiture dated July 8,
fitted with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon, a TV 2002).The dendrochronlogical dating of the Adoration of the
Macromar 1:2.8/36 mm lens, and a Kodak 87A filter. Reflec- Magi in Aachen can be estimated from around 1540 with the
tograms were documented from the screen of the Grundig addition of an average number of 15 sapwood rings and a min-
BG 12 monitor with black and white film, IRR MF 349/18- imum of 2 years seasoning (report by P. Klein, dated June 13,
351/21. 1995).

41. See Faries 1997, 16, citing Peter Klein’s report dated July 45.Ainsworth 2003.
20, 1994. The fact that the panel is on Baltic oak helps to
confirm that the portrait was done in the Netherlands, rather 46. Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv. no. 1914-
than Augsburg, where one would presume another wood might CE, 38.4 x 29.7 cm. For the publication of the results of the
have been used, such as fir or beech. IRR study of this painting, see note 7.
42. For Hieronymus Sulzer, see Reinhard 1996, 830-31. 47. School of Antwerp, 48.6 x 34 cm, lot 37 in Arts of
Sulzer was a Mehrer, a class between the patricians and the pro- the Renaissance, sale 7600, Sotheby’s, New York, Jan. 25,
fessions. I would like to thank Natasja Peeters for drawing my 2001.
attention to Reinhard’s publication. 48. See Micha Leeflang,‘Serial Production in Joos van Cleve’s
There is another portrait of Sulzer by Christoph Amberg- workshop,’ forthcoming in the publication mentioned in note
er in Gotha, Schlossmuseum Friedenstein, inv. no. SG 664, dat- 18; also cited by Vermeylen 2003, 125-26.
ed 1542. Sulzer is presumably older and depicted with a beard.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to make close comparisons of 49.This discussion deals only with devotional imagery, leav-
the features of the sitter in Gotha with the underlying portrait ing aside the other, obvious replication of subjects in the works
in Indianapolis, since too much of the face still remains obscured of Antwerp Mannerists; for the latter, see Vermeylen 2003, 29,
in both IRR and the X-radiograph. 163.
43. Lukas II Rem, the uncle of Maria Rem, Sulzer’s wife, 50. For a summary of this situation, ibid., 124-25.
had contacts with Antwerp from 1511-1518; Reinhard 1996, 51. Some estimates will be provided by N. Peeters and M.P.J.
686. Martens in their forthcoming article,‘ ‘Large in number’: work-
44. van Asperen de Boer et al. 1992, esp. cat. nos.W4 and shop assistants in artists’ workshop in the Southern Nether-
W8; also cited by Faries 2003, 22. lands, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries’, in the publication
mentioned in note 33.

The Saint Reinhold Altarpiece by
Joos van Cleve and his Workshop:
New Insights into the Influence of
Albrecht Dürer on the Working Process*
Micha Leeflang
University of Groningen
Introduction
In his 1890 article on the Reinhold Altarpiece, L. Kaemmerer wrote that:‘a detailed description
does not exist; nor are reproductions of the altarpiece possible to obtain, and the fine descrip-
tion in the fragmentarily preserved book on the Sankt Marienkirche in Gda ńsk by Th. Hirsch
is not available’.1 It has taken more than one hundred years for this situation to change, although
the book by Theodor Hirsch is still difficult to obtain.2 John Hand included one of the first
detailed descriptions of the Reinhold Altarpiece in his 1978 dissertation on Joos van Cleve, and
Ryszard Szmydki followed in 1986 with descriptions of both the painted wings and the sculp-
ted interior of the altarpiece in the chapter in his book on Antwerp retables in Poland.3 In 2001,
the Reinhold Altarpiece (Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe) was examined with infrared reflectogra-
phy (IRR) as part of the NWO-sponsored research project, ‘Antwerp Painting before Icono-
clasm: a Socio-Economic Approach’, at the University of Groningen.4 In the following year,
chronicles and other relevant documents in the State Archives of Gdańsk were also studied.5
Finally, the color reproductions published here give the reader for the first time overviews of the
painted wings in color (plates 1 and 2).6
The Reinhold Altarpiece is one of the key works in the oeuvre of Joos van Cleve and is a prime
example of a work by the artist and his workshop influenced by the Antwerp Mannerists.The
artist signed the altarpiece with his monogram ‘IvaB’ for ‘Joos vander Beke’, which is also found
in two other works: the triptych with the Death of the Virgin in Cologne (Wallraf-Richartz Muse-
um)7 and the altarpiece with the Adoration of the Magi in Detroit (Detroit Institute of Arts).8 In
the late nineteenth century, this ‘IvaB’ monogram led to the identification of the unknown
Master of the Death of the Virgin as Joos van Cleve.9 In addition to the monogram, the artist
added his self-portrait as Saint Reinhold in the exterior right wing of the altarpiece (figs. 1 and
2).10 A comparison between Saint Reinhold’s face with the self-portrait by Joos van Cleve in
Madrid (Thyssen Bornemisza Collection), which he probably made in honor of his marriage
with Anna Vijdts in 1519, is convincing proof that they are the same person.11
Despite these ‘signatures’, research has shown that the altarpiece could not have been execut-
ed without the collaboration of workshop assistants. Infrared reflectography (IRR) provides us
with new insights into the working procedure of Joos van Cleve and his shop and shows that
Dürer influenced the artist to an extent that was not previously surmised in the literature.12
Joos van Cleve, Dürer, and the Altarpiece for the Saint Reinhold Brotherhood in
Gda ńsk
Joos van Cleve, who was probably born around 1485, obtained his first experience in paint-
ing wings for a compound work in the Kalkar Altarpiece, which was installed in the Sankt Nico-
THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP 15
Fig. 1. Detail of the self-portrait of
Joos van Cleve (right exterior wing),
Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum
Narodowe.
laikirche in Kalkar in 1508. (Besides the altarpiece for the Sankt Nicolaikirche and the Reinhold
Altarpiece, there are no other examples of wing panels for carved retables that can be connected
to Joos van Cleve.) A certain Master Matheus had begun the wings for Kalkar some time before
and had presumably died before completing them. In the spring of 1506 Jan Joest was contract-
ed to finish the work.13 Van Cleve assisted Jan Joest in the execution of the painted wings, though
it is not certain whether Joest was his first master or Van Cleve was a pupil in another master’s
studio before coming to work as Joest’s assistant. Scholars generally assume that Van Cleve was
an apprentice of Jan Joest, but he could just as easily have been a journeyman hired by Joest specif-
ically for the execution of the Kalkar Altarpiece.14 Even though he was never mentioned by
name in the Kalkar documents,Van Cleve’s portrait is painted on the left side of the panel with
the Raising of Lazarus in the Kalkar Altarpiece.This self-portrait could be considered the source
of his continuing use of self-portraits in his later works such as the Reinhold Altarpiece and two
panels with the Adoration of the Magi in Dresden.15
After the completion of the Kalkar Altarpiece, Joos van Cleve went on to the Netherlands. Hand
thought that Van Cleve might have gone to Bruges first, but no documentary evidence can prove
this assumption.16 In 1511, the artist was registered as a free master in the Liggeren, the mem-
bership lists of the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke.17 He was active in Antwerp until his death in
1540/1541. He accepted five apprentices into his workshop: one in 1516, another in 1523, two
in 1535, and the last one in 1536. Five years after Van Cleve obtained master’s status, the Rein-
hold Altarpiece, commissioned by the Reinhold Brotherhood, was installed in the Sankt Marienkirche
in Gdańsk.18 Georg Meelman wrote in both his 1522 chronicle as well as the 1548 edition:‘Year
1516. After the week of Corpus Christi (May 22), the altarpiece was installed for the high altar
of the parish church of Our Lady in Gdańsk; [it] can no longer be seen today, and was made by
16 THE SAINT REINHOLD ALTARPIECE BY JOOS VAN CLEVE AND HIS WORKSHOP
Fig. 2. Infrared reflectogram digital
composite of the self-portrait of Joos
van Cleve, Reinhold Altarpiece.
Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR:
Molly Faries; digital composite:
Micha Leeflang).
a master called Michel. In the same year an altarpiece was installed in the Reinhold Chapel around
Saint Michael’s day’.19
The Reinhold Altarpiece has a sculpted interior with double wings painted by Joos van Cleve
and his workshop.When the altarpiece is completely closed, Saints John the Baptist and Rein-
hold, standing in niches and identified by their attributes and the inscriptions on their pedestals,
are visible on the left and right exterior wings (plate 1). Opening the exterior wings reveals the
painted interior sides of the outer wings and the exterior sides of the second, inner set of wings.
Eight painted scenes from the Passion of Christ are shown on two levels across the interior:
from left to right in the upper tier, the Presentation in the Temple, the Baptism of Christ, the Last
Supper, and Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane; and in the lower tier, the Ecce Homo, Christ Before
Pilate, Christ Carrying the Cross, and the Crucifixion (plate 2).
The bright colors, the use of shot color (couleur changeante), and the twisted positions of the
figures on the inner wings are typical of what Friedländer has called ‘Antwerp Mannerism’.20
Hand mentioned that ‘the earliest date we have for a ‘mannerist’ work is 1513, the year of Adri-
aen van Overbeek’s altarpiece in Kempen’.21 Van Overbeek’s altarpiece shows many similarities
to the Reinhold Altarpiece, even in its working procedure.22 Since the Reinhold Altarpiece was installed
three years after the altarpiece in Kempen was commissioned, it also can be considered an early
work in the Mannerist style.
Szmydki, Hand, Friedländer, and Bial/ostocki have discerned a number of different influences
on the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece, notably prints by Dürer and the painted panels in
the Kalkar Altarpiece by Jan Joest and his assistants.They, and other scholars, also note influences
Fig. 3. Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, Reinhold Fig. 4.Albrecht Dürer, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane
Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (Large Passion), 1511.
from other Antwerp Mannerists.23 They also propose that Gerard David and Patinir influenced
the scene with the Baptism of Christ.24 Still, scholars have yet to notice the remarkable similari-
ties between the triangular composition of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (fig. 3) and the print
of the same subject by Albrecht Dürer from the Large Passion series, published in 1511 (fig. 4).25
Christ, dressed in a purple garment and kneeling in prayer before a dark cave, forms the top of
the triangle in the painting, while the apostles Peter and John the Evangelist are situated in the
lower left and right corners.An angel flies in from above in the backgrounds of both the paint-
ing and the woodcut, and a group of soldiers arrives at a wooden gate.Yet since the figures of
Christ and the angel are reversed from those in the Dürer woodcut, Joos van Cleve may have
used another source for this part of the composition. He probably adapted his Christ from anoth-
er of Dürer’s prints, Saint John’s Vision of Christ and the Seven Candles in the Apocalypse from 1498
(fig. 5).This figure is indeed more comparable to the kneeling Christ in the Reinhold Altarpiece
than to the one in the Large Passion.The long, curly hair, and the placement of hands and bare
feet are exactly the same.
As in the preceding scene, the Ecce Homo is drawn to a large extent from Dürer, specifically his
print of the same subject in the Small Passion, dated 1509, but published in 1511.26 Two men
stand beside Christ in the upper part of the composition and perform similar actions in both
the print and the painting.The three men in
the foreground of the painting are more direct-
ly related to the print.The figure seen in pro-
file on the left points with his right arm towards
Christ.The seated man in the lower foreground
turns his head to the right and holds a halberd
in his right hand. Of the two men standing on
the right side of the composition, the one on
the left corresponds more closely to the figure
designed by Dürer.
Other elements that Van Cleve adapted from

Dürer’s Small Passion further confirm his
acquaintance with this series. In the panel with
Christ Before Pilate, there are some similarities
between the figure of Pilate seated on his throne
on the left side of the composition and the fig-
ure of Pilate in the series.27 The men on horse-
back in the Carrying of the Cross have faces and
elaborate headgear that resemble these same
features in the woodcut. Furthermore, the posi-
tion of the figure seen in profile with his head
through the ladder is also comparable. In the
more sober scene of the Crucifixion, the two
soldiers on the left derive from the print.28
Fig. 5.Albrecht Dürer, Saint John's Vision of Christ and the
It should be mentioned that Joos van Cleve’s Seven Candles (The Revelations of Saint John, Apocalypse),
workshop did not produce the predella with 1495.
Christ as the Man of Sorrows in the center,
flanked by four saints on each side.This panel
differs in style and technique from the rest of
the altarpiece. It was difficult to detect any underdrawing with IRR: only a few sketchy lines
registered. It is plausible that the predella was made by another workshop from the Netherlands
or by a local artist from Gdańsk.29 It is known that some workshops specialized in the produc-
tion of predellas alone.30
Although the sculpted interior is not the subject of this essay, some description and remarks
about attribution are worth mentioning. When both sets of wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece
are completely open, six sculpted scenes are visible in the central compartment: the Birth of
the Virgin, the Virgin Entering the Temple, Joseph Refusing the Marriage with Mary, the Visitation,
the Nativity, and the Presentation in the Temple (see fig. 6).The sculptures on the wings are divid-
ed into two compartments with two narrative scenes each. Saints in niches have been placed
along the outer edges. Bial/ostocki and Szmydki attributed the carved part of the altarpiece to
Jan de Molder and his workshop.31 This sculptor was active in Antwerp from 1513 until 1518.32
Only two altarpieces can be attributed to him, both bought by the Abbey of Averbode. Szmy-
dki based his attribution of the carved interior of the Reinhold Altarpiece on stylistic similari-
ties to Averbode Altarpiece (now in Paris, Musée de Cluny), ordered in 1513.The second, more
expensive altarpiece ordered in 1518 for its chapel of Saint John is known now only from doc-
uments.33
Marks of the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke, the so-called ‘Antwerp hands’, appear on some heads
of the carved figures in the interior (fig. 7) as well as the frame.34 Often it was the deacons of
the guild who burned or pressed these stamps into the wood before it was painted as a guaran-
Fig. 7. Antwerp brand mark (a hand) on the head of a
sculpted figure, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum
Narodowe.
tee of the quality of the panels.35 The deacons’

role also was to inspect the final product and,
if approved, burn or press the Antwerp castle
into the completed altarpiece.The combina-
tion of these two stamps guarantees the qual-
ity and production in Antwerp, and was
particularly important for clients who bought
Fig. 6. Detail of the sculpted interior of the Reinhold
non-commissioned works, as the presence of
Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.
these marks was their only guarantee.36
Nonetheless, there are other examples of works
produced on commission, besides the Reinhold
Altarpiece, that have been stamped.37 During
the research of the Reinhold Altarpiece in 2001 and 2002, we only noted the Antwerp hands.
Szmydki mentions the castle, but we did not find this particular mark.38 On top of a head in the
background of the Nativity, a single ‘Antwerp hand’ is visible. Elsewhere on the caisse, pairs of
hands appear, ranging in size of either one or two centimeters.The size differences may indicate
the use of two different brands, or the occurrence of two different inspections by the guild.
The Reinhold Brotherhood and the Sankt Marienkirche
In 1457 (or 1488)39 the Reinhold Brotherhood founded their chapel in the Sankt
Marienkirche.40 In this period, the brotherhood of Saint Reinhold was one of six companies in
the Artus Court, the building that housed the main brotherhoods of the city of Gda ńsk and was
the site of social gatherings such as weddings and feasts.41 The five other brotherhoods were: the
Drei Köningsbank (Three Kings Brotherhood), Christopherbank (Christopher Brotherhood), also
called the Lübeck Brotherhood because its members were primarily merchants from that region,
the Hollandische Bank (Netherlandish Brotherhood), Schiffer Bank, the brotherhood of sailors,
and the Mariënburger Bank (Mariënburg Brotherhood). Of the six brotherhoods, the Reinhold
Brotherhood was the most important in the second half of the fifteenth century.42 Its members
were merchants from Mechelen, Dordrecht, Ghent,Amsterdam, Kempen,Augsburg, and so on.43
It is likely that there were also some members from Bruges and Antwerp, since both cities were
important economic centers at that time.
During World War II, most of the documents related to the commission of the Reinhold Altar-
piece and the Reinhold Brotherhood were destroyed.44 The Meelman and Hirsch publications
mentioned earlier comprise the only remaining information. In addition to the installation date
of 1516, Hirsch mentions a payment for the retabel:‘hebbe ik gefen Bernt Tullen, dat he vor de
tafel ut gegefen heft 100 Mk’ (I gave Bernt Tullen 100 M[ar]k for the altarpiece he paid for).45
Since the original sixteenth-century document from which Hirsch transcribed is now lost, the
name of the Reinhold Brotherhood member who gave the money to Tullen remains unknown.
Who was this Bernt Tullen? Since the membership list has also been destroyed, it is not possible
to say if he was a member of the Reinhold Brotherhood. He may just have been the interme-
diary between Joos van Cleve (or the sculptor, who might have been Jan de Molder) and the
Reinhold Brotherhood because he had received the money from the brotherhood to pay for
the altarpiece.The name Bernt Tullen is not recorded in the Antwerp archives, but in 1525, a
‘Beern Danswyck’ is mentioned, which could be interpreted as Bernt from Danzig.46 A more
definitive identification seems impossible.
It is interesting to note that Hirsch also mentioned ‘…dass Albrecht Dürer das Bild [the Rein-
hold Altarpiece] gemalt habe.’ Hirsch was not entirely convinced by this information, but he nev-
ertheless wanted to emphasize the relationship between the brotherhood of Saint Reinhold and
Nuremberg.47 This legendary attribution continued to be mentioned in some later literature,
such as that by Brausewetter.48 When Firmenich-Richartz discoverd the ‘IvaB’ monogram in
1894, scholars accepted the attribution to Joos van Cleve and his shop and no longer mentioned
Dürer as the author of the altarpiece.49
During World War II, almost the entire interior of the Marienkirche was damaged. By the end
of 1944, many of the art works from the church, including the Reinhold Altarpiece, had been placed
into storage in small village churches, land houses and barns near Gda ńsk.50 On July 7, 1945,
the Reinhold Altarpiece was transported to the Muzeum Narodowe in Warsaw from a depot in
Koscierzyna (East Pomerania, near Gda ńsk).51 Besides the Reinhold Altarpiece, some works of art
still remain in museums in Warsaw and Gdańsk (such as Hans Memling’s famous Last Judgment
triptych now in the Gdańsk museum); others have been restored to their original location in
the Sankt Marienkirche.52
Trading connections between Gdańsk and Antwerp are well known.The shipment of grain
from the Baltic to Antwerp was already quite important by the beginning of the fourteenth
century.53 In the fifteenth century, Gdańsk became the principal center for export to the west,
especially to Antwerp.54 In addition to grain, the export of wood – for panel paintings, for instance
– from the Baltic region must have been considerable.55 The importation of goods from the
Netherlands into Gdańsk was also significant. In the sixteenth century,Antwerp became an impor-
tant city for the export of luxury goods. Documents on shipments in the Gdańsk State Archive
record the import of paintings from Antwerp to Gdańsk.56 As North wrote, Gdańsk was the most
frequented harbor of the Baltic Sea.57 The increasing number of merchants moving to Gdańsk
contributed to the prosperity of this Baltic harbor.58
A connection between the Reinhold Brotherhood and the city of Antwerp seems plausible,
but how do we account for ordering of the Reinhold Altarpiece? Even though the commission
could have been given to either Joos van Cleve or the sculptor, the reputation of Joos van Cleve
makes him a strong candidate for the offer. At the time of the commission, Joos van Cleve was
already known for his painted altarpieces and had achieved a good reputation in the five years
since obtaining mastership in Antwerp. By 1515 he had already finished the small altarpiece
with the Death of the Virgin for the Hackeney family in Cologne (Cologne,Wallraf-Richartz-
Museum).59 Bial/ostocki felt that this altarpiece explained why the Reinhold Brotherhood
asked Joos van Cleve to paint for them and even proposed that the artist met his future com-
missioners during a stay in Cologne.There is, however, no proof for such a journey.Another pos-
sibility is that the aforementioned Bernt Tullen was the contact person between Joos van Cleve
and the commissioners of the Reinhold Altarpiece.A contract that specified the iconographic pro-
gram as well as the quality of the materials must have accompanied the commission because Saint
Reinhold, who is uncommon in the Netherlands, appears on the outer wings.60
Study of the Reinhold Altarpiece with Infrared Reflectography (IRR)
John Hand wrote:‘The Saint Reinhold retable is the only work in Joos van Cleve’s oeuvre in
which a firm, documented date, the artist’s monogram, and a recognizable self-portrait are all
conjoined. Paradoxically, and notwithstanding Joos’ insistence on being recognized, the greatest
part of the altarpiece is the product of Joos van Cleve’s atelier.’61 These facts, along with the obser-
vation of underdrawing that showed through the paint in many areas in the available black and
white photographs, formed the basic reasons for a closer examination of the altarpiece.62 Study
with IRR, as we hoped, provided us with more insights into the making of the altarpiece, the
collaboration of assistants, and the pervasive influence of Albrecht Dürer.
During the IRR examination, most colors became transparent except for the black areas and
some blues that were perhaps mixed with black paint or underpainted with a gray layer.63 The
underdrawing, for the most part executed with a brush in a liquid medium (possibly ink), could
be revealed easily because the artist applied paint over it thinly, in just one or two layers. Most
of the background elements, such as the walls and floors of the eight scenes as well as other
areas, were prepared with a dry material, probably black chalk.The areas in chalk are underdrawn
with heavier and longer hatchings than similar lines applied in brush.
The IRR assembly of the Carrying of the Cross and other areas of revealed underdrawing in
the altarpiece provide good examples of the graphic vocabulary that Joos van Cleve and his
shop employed (see plates 3 and 4 and figs. 8 and 9). Hatching is applied in all directions. Series
of parallel lines are sometimes curved and therefore suggest volume and shade. Cross-hatching
defines the darkest shadows, as in the darkest parts of Christ’s purple robe in the Carrying of the
Cross. Particularly striking are the zones of diagonal hatchings that cross over forms to indicate
broad areas of shade, as in the face and chest of the man holding the ladder behind Christ.The
artist also uses contour lines, often hooked at the ends, to strengthen the edges of figures and
objects as well as to mark the edge of a shadow.The hands, which have attenuated fingers (as can
be seen in the man on horseback in the left background), are also outlined by contours and, if
in shadow, covered with hatching. Another characteristic detail of the underdrawing is the use
of the so-called ‘white line’ that Ainsworth and Faries describe as ‘a thin open space bordered by
contour lines on each side’; it is a graphic effect found in Dürer’s woodcuts.64 Such a white line
appears in the lower part of the garment of Christ.
Another remarkable feature of the Reinhold Altarpiece is the presence of forty-three color
notations found in the inner painted narrative scenes. In the Carrying of the Cross, IRR regis-
tered six (see plate 4).65 Notations for red, ‘r’, appear in both the man with the red mantle on
horseback in the left background and the man in red to the right of the cross, who is about to
hit Christ with a rope.A ‘p’ for purper/ paars (purple) registers in the garment of Christ and ‘ge’
(geel/ yellow) for the yellow cloth of figure in the back on the right side of the composition.
Not all of the colors that were planned were followed in paint. A ‘b’ for blauw (blue) appears in
the man who is seen in profile just behind Christ. In paint, however, he wears a yellow garment.
In the Virgin’s blue mantle, an ‘r’ for rood (red) can be seen in the sleeve, which of course does
not correspond to iconographic tradition in which the Virgin is dressed in blue. During the appli-
cation of the paint layers, it probably became clear that the woman on the left is the Virgin
Mary, and that her cloak must be blue. Since the man next to her with the color notation ‘b’
could not be blue as well, the artist changed the planned color to yellow.
Fig. 8. Detail of a figure in Christ before Pilate, Reinhold Fig. 9. Infrared reflectogram digital composite corre-
Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. sponding to fig. 8. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital compos-
ite: Micha Leeflang).
The collaboration of workshop assistants in this altarpiece is quite significant, as has already
been suggested in the literature.66 It is, however, uncertain whether the color notations are
decisive proof of this collaboration. Color notations can also indicate the amount of pigments
needed.67 It is noteworthy that most of the notations were for the red and purple areas, the lat-
ter plausibly a combination of a red and blue pigment. Since some red and blue pigments were,
as Kirby has suggested, the most expensive, the color notations could have been an indication of
the costs of the required materials.68 (It is not certain which specific pigments were used, since
no paint samples exist from the Reinhold Altarpiece.) The artist also likely used the color nota-
tions to get a sense of the distribution of color. Ceninni wrote in his Il Libro dell’Arte in approx-
imately 1390 that red was the color to key on in a composition.69 Several authors have mentioned
that strong and bright colors are typical for the painted wings of compound altarpieces by the
Antwerp Mannerists.70 The division of these colors over a composition makes it easier to read
at a distance.
An inscription may provide clues about the iconographic program and the working process.
The fully written-out word, aventmael (Dutch for avondmaal,‘supper’), was detected by IRR near
the upper right edge of the Last Supper (fig. 10).71 No other underwritten titles for scenes were
found, although if they were also near edges or the frame, dark, impenetrable paint may have
obscured them.The members of the Reinhold Brotherhood may have stipulated a specific icono-
graphic program.72 With ten different scenes painted on four separate wings, it was necessary
for the artist and his assistants to know where each scene had to be placed. If the inscription in
Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a detail in the Last Supper, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum
Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).
the Last Supper is indeed the only underwritten title, it could have been a very important scene
for the commissioners; they may have wished it to have a specific location.This may also have
been the reason why Joos van Cleve added his monogram to this panel (which is the reverse of
the Saint Reinhold wing).
The outer wings are underdrawn differently than the inner wings.The entire underdrawing
of both outer wings with Saints John the Baptist and Reinhold was done in a dry material, prob-
ably chalk (figs. 2 and 11), and is less elaborate and more sketchy than the inner wings.This is
especially evident in John’s attribute, the lamb.73 The layout in these wings must have had
another function and may have been made by a different hand.The underdrawing shows many
similarities with other works for which Joos van Cleve executed the underdrawing.The outer
contour of Saint John’s head and collar is obscured by paint, but loose, curling underdrawn lines
appear in his hair and beard, along with loosely sketched contours in his nose, mouth and ear.
There is only a rough line for the eye socket. Long diagonal hatchings locate the shade on the
right side of his neck. Slightly curved parallel lines are drawn in the collar of his garment, indi-
cating both shadow and volume.These features are similar to the underdrawing in the figure of
Mary in the Brussels Virgin and Child with Joachim and Anna.74 The head of Saint Reinhold is
underdrawn with a wavering contour along the left side of the face.The nose is drawn higher,
and the eyes, like those of Saint John’s, are barely indicated in the layout. A simple contour
marks the mouth and ear.The artist placed some diagonal hatching for shading and volume on
the right side of his face.
Only minimal changes between the underdrawing and painted layers can be noted. On the
outer wings, short curved lines can be seen along the contour of Saint Reinhold’s jaw and chin,
suggesting that the saint was planned with a beard that was then omitted in paint. A brooch
with round stones was also planned but not executed, and there are a few small alterations in
Reinhold’s armour, in the sword and the form of the collar. Additional changes were found in
other panels.As can be seen in the IRR assembly of the Carrying of the Cross (plate 4), the build-
ings in the background are much more detailed in the layout stage than in the paint stage where
the forms are relatively simple structures. In the Baptism of Christ, two broken benches were
planned in the underdrawing but were not executed in paint. Some changes occurred in the fore-
ground of the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and in the architectural setting of the Presenta-
tion in the Temple, where the decorated pillar behind the three women was originally underdrawn
as a thin column. The only substantial alteration is in Saint Peter in Christ in the Garden of
Fig. 11. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the face of Saint John the Baptist (left exte-
rior wing), Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital com-
posite: Micha Leeflang).
Gethsemane (figs. 12, 13, and 14). In the underdrawing, Peter’s facial features and the profile of
the head are much more comparable to the woodcut of the same subject by Dürer than to the
figure executed in paint.The almost complete absence of major change in the inner and outer
wings suggests that the artist made preliminary drawings on paper, a practice that was probably
followed in other paintings by Joos van Cleve and his workshop.75
Fig. 12. Detail of the head of Saint Peter in Christ in the Fig. 13. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the
Garden of Gethsemane, Reinhold Altarpiece. Warsaw, head of Saint Peter, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane,
Muzeum Narodowe. Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR:
Molly Faries; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).
This type of extremely detailed underdrawing in the inner wings, with an elaborate system
of shading and broad curly contour lines, calls to mind contemporary woodcuts, particularly
those by Albrecht Dürer.Terms such as the ‘woodcut look’ and the ‘woodcut convention’ have
been coined for this type of underdrawing.Whether Joos van Cleve himself was connected to
printmaking is not known. Both Stogdon and Ainsworth noted that early works by Joos van
Cleve seem to have borrowed motifs from prints signed with the FVB monogram.76 How-
ever, the connection between the paintings by Joos van Cleve and the prints by Master FVB
cannot be substantiated, since no compositional borrowings can be found and the graphic
vocabulary used by the printmaker is totally different from the woodcut convention under-
drawing of the Reinhold Altarpiece.77 Van Cleve’s most important link to printmaking was his
establishment in Antwerp, one of the leading centers of printmaking at the beginning of the
sixteenth century.78
Joos van Cleve must have known the works of Albrecht Dürer. Many Antwerp art dealers,
collectors and painters’ workshops presumably owned prints by Dürer.79 According to Schmid’s
calculations, between approximately 70,000 and 175,000 woodcuts and between 20,000 and
50,000 engraving by Dürer were in circulation at the time, even excluding the copies made
outside Dürer’s shop.80 In 1522 Ferdinand Columbus had more than 3000 prints in his collec-
tion: 174 from the hand of Dürer and 202 by Dürer’s school.81 Joris Vezeleer, who was the con-
tact person between Joos van Cleve and King François I, owned Dürer prints and could have
shown or given Van Cleve some.82
Most references to Dürer’s prints, however, date from after the period of the Reinhold Altar-
piece. Dürer mentioned several times in the diary of his travels in 1520 that he gave, sold or
exchanged prints of his Large Passion, the Small Passion, scenes of the Life of the Virgin and images
of Saint Jerome in his Cell to friends and clients in Antwerp.83 The clear influence on the com-
positions and the underdrawing of the inner wings of the retable for the Reinhold Brotherhood
seems to prove that Dürer’s prints were circu-
lating before 1516. Dürer’s influence, moreover,
can be seen in other wings of early compound
altarpieces from Antwerp, such as the Anne
Altarpiece by Adriaen van Overbeke and his
assistants from 1513.
Van Cleve may also have had some of Dürer’s

prints (and possibly drawings) as models in his
studio. Schmid wrote, ‘It is quite obvious that
Dürer’s products met the taste of his time and
had a forming influence on many artists of his
own generation and of many generations to
come … Copies by other artists and Dürer’s
own designs for other craftsman caused a fur-
ther spread of his ideas and his style’.84 Fur-
thermore, Koerner noted that: ‘[Dürer’s]
subjects, techniques and style, even the shape
Fig. 14. Detail of the head of Saint Peter,Albrecht he gave his career, were once avidly appropri-
Dürer, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (Large ated by other artists’.85 Indeed, Joos van Cleve
Passion), 1511. was not the only artist to adapt compositions
by Dürer and make use of the woodcut con-
vention for the layouts of his paintings; others,
like Adriaen van Overbeke, the Master of 1518,
the Master of the Antwerp Adoration, the Master of the von Groote Adoration, and Lucas van
Leyden also used the prints by Dürer as an important source of inspiration.86
All the paintings, drawings and prints from the workshop of Dürer were signed with the AD
monogram.87 This signature was recognizable to artists and collectors, and works by Dürer are
mentioned by name in several inventories.88 This is significant, because at the time, most works
of art were just described by title, as, for example, paneelke met Maagd Maria (‘small panel with
the Virgin Mary’).89 The artist’s name was often not known or considered important enough to
be written down in the inventories. Since artists as well as art collectors knew Dürer’s work, it
is possible that commissioners asked for works in the style of the German artist.As the Reinhold
Altarpiece shows, Joos van Cleve was indeed a painter who could easily adapt styles to his own
compositional and stylistic vocabulary.90
The Function of Underdrawing in the Woodcut Convention
The graphic style of the underdrawing of the Reinhold Altarpiece was probably easy to recog-
nize and easy to read.This could apply to the commissioners of the altarpiece as well as to the
members of the shop.The underdrawing might have served as a kind of ‘vidimus’ or presenta-
tion drawing for the patron’s approval.91 Contract drawings were usually done on paper, but the
commissioner could also have requested very specific changes based on a viewing of the under-
drawn layout. Examples have been mentioned in the literature, often regarding paintings by Jan
van Eyck.92 Despite the fact that paint closely follows the underdrawing of the Reinhold Altar-
piece, it is still possible that one of the commissioners or one of the Brotherhood’s envoys (Bernt
Tullen?) had checked the elaborate layout in the ‘woodcut style’ before the paint layers were
applied.
If not done at the patrons’ request, another possible reason why the artist used a working method
that shows so many similarities to woodcuts could be for workshop co-operation.The under-
Fig. 15. Detail of Christ, Baptism of
Christ, Reinhold Altarpiece.
Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.
drawing must have been developed as an efficient guide for those who applied the paint, per-
haps workshop assistants. A detailed underdrawing was easier to follow in paint, and as a result,
would save time. It is possible to assume that assistants, who were probably not allowed to make
alterations, filled in the elaborate layout. Changes in the underdrawing, or changes between the
underdrawing and the paint layers, are, after all, often interpreted as proof of the creative process
of the master himself.
The working method of the Reinhold Altarpiece with its very detailed underdrawing and thin
paint layers is a sign of the quick and inexpensive execution typical of Antwerp altarpieces.93
Due to the transparency of the paint layers, the underdrawing is visible to the naked eye in
many parts of the compositions, such as the flesh tones, the yellows, and the red draperies. It is pos-
sible that the paint layers have become more transparent over time, but it is more likely that the
underdrawing was visible in some areas from the beginning.The paint layers appear to have been
applied very thinly, and it seems that the underdrawing was intended to show through in some
parts. If the altarpiece was viewed from a distance, it would not have been necessary to apply more
paint to darken shadow areas, as underdrawing showing through paint can achieve the same effect.
composite of Christ, Baptism of
Christ, Reinhold Altarpiece.
(IRR: Molly Faries; digital
composite: Micha Leeflang).
Making the underdrawing function as part of the painting could save time and money: fewer paint
layers were needed, and the drying time was shorter, thus speeding up the working process.
Realization of the Reinhold Altarpiece: the Role of Shop Assistants
Joos van Cleve had only one apprentice in 1516, Claas van Brugge. His enrollment in the Lig-
geren, however, does not tell us if Claas had already been in the shop for some time, or if he was
only beginning as a pupil at the time of his registration. It is therefore unknown if Claas was
active in Van Cleve’s workshop during the execution of the Reinhold Altarpiece.94 Although there
is no documentary evidence of any other pupil at this time, this does not mean that Van Cleve
did not have other help. Gezellen or cnaepen, assistants who worked less than two weeks for the
same master, were not required to make any payment to the guild.95 Despite this lack of docu-
mentary evidence, IRR research can provide us with new insights into the execution of the altar-
piece and the amount of help Joos van Cleve might have had.
The master himself probably executed some of
the critical details in the inner wings, such as
the head of Christ in the Baptism panel. Curi-
ously, the underdrawing has been scratched
away in the face (figs. 15-16).Though it is not
entirely clear what happened here – perhaps
either Joos van Cleve was not satisfied with the
underdrawing and had it removed, or the blank
space indicated that this area was to be left in
reserve during the first application of paint –
in either situation, the soft texturing of the face
and detailing of the water droplets are typical
of Joos himself. Furthermore, the crack pattern
in this area is continuous, indicating that the
change must be an original one made during
the realization of the altarpiece. Joos van Cleve
may also have been painted other faces in the
inner wings, such as Saint Peter in both the
Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and Last Sup-
per scenes. Furthermore Van Cleve could have
executed some of the other figures of Christ,
Fig. 17. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of back- but they are too worn or damaged to be sure.
ground figures in the Adoration of the Magi. Dresden,
Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte As Bial/ostocki already mentioned in 1955, it is
likely that Joos van Cleve painted the outer
Meister. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Micha Leeflang).
wings because of his own appearance on the
right wing in the guise of Saint Reinhold.96
It may be possible to use the underdrawing of
Saints John and Reinhold to support this contention, since the underdrawing here is so visual-
ly different from that of the inner wings.The function and the working method of the under-
drawn layout here must have been different. One can assume that if Van Cleve was painting these
figures himself, it would have been unnecessary to reinforce the sketchy dry lines as a final guide
for the paint.A comparison with other works painted by the master, such as the Virgin and Child
with Joachim and Anna (Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België), and the
triptych with the Enthroned Madonna and Child (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum), would seem
to confirm this. Even the marble niche is painted in a way which is characteristic of Joos van
Cleve himself and corresponds to the red marble columns which appear in many of his auto-
graph works.Van Cleve’s subtle painting technique, with its attention to small details, is not pre-
sent in most parts of the inner wing panels, often thought to have been executed by assistants.
The identity of these collaborators is unknown, and there is no way to prove that Claas van
Brugge could have been one of them. It is likely that Van Cleve hired gezellen to paint this part
of the Reinhold Altarpiece.97
The style of the underdrawing of the inner wings is not unique; it appears again in works dat-
ed after the Reinhold Altarpiece, so that one can postulate that this woodcut look represents the
development of a codified working procedure for the shop.The exacting underdrawing of the
inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece gradually becomes more simplified and less precise in lat-
er panels, such as the triptych with the Adoration of the Magi in Detroit98 and the so-called Large
Adoration in Dresden.99 In the Adoration in Detroit, the underdrawing is also applied in a liquid
medium and utilizes volumetric hatching, although the lines are shorter and the use of cross-
hatching is minimized.The hatching and details in the underdrawing of the Dresden Adoration
(fig. 17) also illustrate the same woodcut convention.The left hand of the figure on the right is
underdrawn with bent and angular contour lines similar to those of the man to the left of the
composite of figures in the
Presentation in the Temple,
Reinhold Altarpiece.
(IRR: Molly Faries; digital
composite: Micha Leeflang).
priest in the Reinhold Presentation in the Temple (fig. 18).The turban is drawn with contour lines
only, comparable to those in the headgear of Pilate in Christ before Pilate (fig. 19). Other similar-
ities in the layout of the Dresden panel include the white line and contour lines ending in hooks,
such as those in the hands of Saint Luke.100
The woodcut convention of the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece thus conceivably forms
the basis of the working method used by both Joos van Cleve and his assistants. How, then, was
the underdrawing made and by whom? As mentioned earlier, there are only a few changes between
the underdrawing and the paint layers, and there are no changes of any significance in the under-
drawing itself.Therefore, the compositions must have been fixed before the brush underdraw-
ing was executed on the ground of the panels. Perhaps Van Cleve made a first sketch on the panel
with a dry medium, such as chalk or charcoal.When satisfied with the result, he or an assistant
drew over it in a liquid medium, brushing away the preliminary sketch.Another possibility is that
the first sketchy underdrawing was made with a material that is not detectable by IRR.A third
assumption is that Joos van Cleve first made a model drawing, smaller or actual size, which was
then transferred to the ground and worked up in brush, in which case, the lines accomplishing
the transfer would no longer be visible.101 Indeed, the use of model drawings and preliminary
drawings on paper was common in the workshop of Joos van Cleve.102
The quality of the underdrawing of the inner
wings is much higher than most parts of the
paint layers. This difference is also visible in
works by Adriaen van Overbeke, the Master
of the Antwerp Adoration, and the Master of
1518. In 1998 Hoffmann suggested in his essay
on Adriaen van Overbeke’s Saint Anne Altar-
piece in Kempen that the master was respon-
sible for the underdrawing and the assistants
for the paint layers.103 According to Hoffman,
this was common practice in Antwerp work-
shops. Recently, however, Hoffman revised his
opinion, under the assumption that the exe-
cution of painted wings of compound altar-
pieces is much more complex.104 It is even
possible to assume the presence of an artist
who was specialized in the making of under-
drawings in the woodcut convention. Such
a specialist capable of executing the liquid,
finalized underdrawing might even go from
Fig. 19. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of fig- one shop to another, which would explain
ures in Christ before Pilate, Reinhold Altarpiece.Warsaw, the use of the same graphic vocabulary in
Muzeum Narodowe. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital com- the underdrawing of painted wings of com-
posite: Micha Leeflang). pound altarpieces attributed to the Antwerp
Mannerists. Although Dürer’s prints must
have been fairly new in Antwerp at this time,
Adriaen van Overbeke’s Anne Altarpiece does
prove that Dürer’s prints were known in
Antwerp around 1513.
Still, it is likely that the decision to use Dürer’s prints for the compositions and the style of the
underdrawing would be the choice of the master of the shop.Although it is possible that the artist
of the underdrawing in the woodcut convention might be an assistant, it cannot be excluded that
it could have been the master himself, who was capable of working in two modes: namely, to
produce an exacting guide for assistants to fill in with color, and, to sketch out the design for the
composition of the outer wings.
The Woodcut Convention: a Well Known Working Procedure
The Saint Anne Altarpiece by Adriaen van Overbeke and his workshop in the Propsteikirche
in Kempen, is, in contrast to most early sixteenth-century Antwerp altarpieces, fully docu-
mented.105 The original documents, including a full contract, a receipt, and other correspon-
dence, are in the city archives of Kempen and provide us with a wealth of information about
the production of compound altarpieces.106 The contract drawn up on August 11, 1513, between
Adriaen van Overbeke and the Brotherhood of Saint Anne in Kempen details the size of the
altarpiece, the iconographic program (especially that of the sculpted interior), quality, dead-
lines, payments and installments. The iconography of the sculpted part of the altarpiece was
described in detail in contrast to the painted wings, which were hardly mentioned at all.The
commissioners told Adriaen van Overbeke to paint the Last Judgment on the outer wings
and the history of Saint Anne on the inner wings, a rather uncommon legend. As a result,Van
Overbeke could not base his compositions on known, standard models; he had to design most
of the scenes himself.The scene of the Marriage of Joachim and Anne is an exception; its com-
position is based on Albrecht Dürer’s woodcut of the Betrothal of the Virgin from the Life of the
Virgin, published in 1511.107 In the production of the large compound altarpiece in the Sankt
Peterskirche in Dortmund of 1521,Van Overbeke relied on the same print no less than three
times.108
The fact that Van Overbeke chose not to use well known models for most of the painted scenes
in the Anne Altarpiece is all the more remarkable since he had not been given much time to deliv-
er the altarpiece to the church in Kempen.The contract specified that the work had to be installed
before July 26, 1514, giving the artist less than one year to produce the altarpiece, including
both the sculpted interior and the painted wings.Although Van Overbeke did not meet the dead-
line, he was able to deliver the altarpiece less than a month later, on August 20, 1514. Including
transport, the production of the sculpted interior and the painted wings took exactly one year
and nine days.
Both the Reinhold Altarpiece and Anne Altarpiece follow the same underdrawing convention.
In 1997 three panels of the Kempen altarpiece, Anne Greets Christ, the Death of Anne, and the
Last Judgment, were studied by IRR.109 Like the inner panels of the Reinhold Altarpiece, the
underdrawing is extremely detailed and exhibits the same graphic vocabulary (fig. 20).The lay-
out is applied with brush in a liquid medium. Both artists used contour lines and volumetric
hatchings. Furthermore, the white line, that characteristic element in the woodcuts by Dürer,
appears in Van Overbeke’s altarpiece even more frequently than in Joos van Cleve’s.The under-
drawing of the Reinhold Altarpiece, however, seems to have been applied more quickly: the
underdrawn parallel lines are longer and there are fewer short curved lines ending in hooks or
loops. In comparison, the underdrawing of the altarpiece in Kempen seems to be even more
precise than the layout of the Reinhold Altarpiece. As in Van Cleve’s altarpiece in Warsaw, the
artist(s) responsible for the paint layers of the work in Kempen followed the underdrawing
closely. Not one shift between the underdrawing and the paint layers could be discovered in
the panels of the Anne Altarpiece that were examined. It is very plausible that underdrawing in
the woodcut convention for both the Reinhold Altarpiece and the Anne Altarpiece functioned as
an exacting guide for assistants.
The wings by Adriaen van Overbeke and his assistants have been painted in extremely strong
and clear colors.The altarpiece would have been seen from a distance, so that subtle colors or
nuances were hardly relevant. Moreover, a simplified color scheme had, as van den Brink noticed,
one big advantage: the execution could be carried out by almost anyone.110
Adriaen van Overbeke must have had the help of other painters (pupils or gezellen) during the
execution of the painted wings. Of the four known pupils of Van Overbeke, two began their
apprenticeship before the production of the Anne Altarpiece; they could therefore have helped
their master with its execution.These apprentices, Peerken and Jacob Quintens, were enrolled
in the Liggeren in 1510.These pupils would have been in the last year of their training when Van
Overbeke received the commission for the Kempen altarpiece, assuming a four-year appren-
ticeship period.111 They may have been the ones filling in the detailed underdrawing, which
might account for the lesser quality of the paint layers. In addition to his two apprentices, it is
also plausible that Van Overbeke hired some fully trained gezellen as well.A document from August
21, 1522, which records Adriaen van Overbeke as paying 10 Rhenish guilders and 7 shillings to
Martene de Hees for the delivery of a painting proves that he made use of the services of painters
outside his own workshop.112 Furthermore,Van Overbeke, who had received the commission
for the whole of the compound altarpiece, had to sub-contract a sculptor’s studio as well.
To produce the altarpiece within one year, Adriaen van Overbeke needed an underdrawing
that prepared the compositions in extreme detail. Filling in the layout with paint was then a
simple routine matter.As in the Reinhold Altarpiece, the paint layers are limited to one or two lay-
Fig. 20. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the Death of Anne, Adriaen van Overbeke and Workshop, Saint
Anne Altarpiece. Kempen, Propsteikirche. (IRR: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer/Stichting RKD; digital composite: Micha
Leeflang).
ers, which must have reduced the drying time.Van Overbeke must have been successful using
this working method because he used it in other commissions he received, including the paint-
ed compound altarpieces with the Passion of Christ in the Sankt Petrikirche in Dortmund and
the church of Saint Victor in Schwerte.113 As can be gathered from the altarpieces in Dortmund
and Kempen, quality was not as essential as legibility and speed. Based on this evidence, it becomes
possible to hypothesize that Van Overbeke operated more like a contractor who made use of a
large number of painters and sculptors.
Van den Brink has assumed that many altarpieces from other shops were produced in exactly
the same way.114 Indeed, the same woodcut convention was employed in the altarpiece in the
Fig. 21. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Joachim and Anna Giving Their Goods to the Needy, Master of 1518.
Lübeck, Marienkirche. (IRR: Molly Faries/Stichting RKD; digital composite: Koen Wensveen).
Marienkirche in Lübeck, the key work in the oeuvre of the Master of 1518.115 Some differ-
ences can be noted: the Master of 1518 makes more use of the difference in the thickness of the
underdrawn brush lines, endowing them with a greater sense of elegance (fig. 21). Contour
lines indicating drapery folds are generally thicker, and the hatchings for shade and volume are
thinner.The system of zones of parallel lines in the work of the Master of 1518 is even more
elaborate than that in the Reinhold Altarpiece. Furthermore, the artist made more frequent use of
cross-hatching. Even though the layout is usually followed meticulously in the paint layers, there
are some alterations. Changes occur in the background elements (something also noted in the
Reinhold Altarpiece) and the head of the Virgin in the Adoration of the Magi panel, which has been
totally altered from a frontal to a downward-looking position.116 It may be that the master
intervened occasionally in the execution of the
paint layers, as also occurred in the Reinhold
Altarpiece. Assuming assistants were not per-
mitted to make changes, the master himself
would have painted the face of the Virgin in
this panel.
The woodcut convention has also been found

in the underdrawing of two panels in the Bon-
nefantenmuseum in Maastricht attributed to
the Master of the Antwerp Adoration.117 In
what may be assumed to be a right wing pan-
el, the underdrawing of the figure of the priest
exhibits similarities and some differences from
the Reinhold Altarpiece. Both artists use hatch-
ings in all directions, and the left hand of the
priest in the Bonnefantenmuseum panel, with
pointed fingertips and fingers defined by con-
tour lines, is underdrawn in exactly the same
way as the hand of the man to the left of the
priest in the Reinhold Altarpiece (compare figs.18
and 22).The noses of both priests are indicated
with a wavy line next to the bone, which marks
the beginning of the diagonally-hatched shad-
ow. In contrast to the other works discussed so
far, some fairly radical compositional changes
have been detected in the two Bonnefanten
museum panels: the landscape background has
been simplified,and the positions of some heads
and figures have also been altered.118 The sim-
plification of the paint layers in contrast to the
elaborate underdrawing might be explained, as
van den Brink phrases it, by ‘different hands or
a craftsman who draws well but paints lousy’.119
Van den Brink’s IRR study of the Master of

the Antwerp Adoration’s Adoration of the Magi
in Brussels revealed an underdrawing in a liq-
uid medium that, once again, appears to be even
Fig. 22. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the
more exacting and elaborate than Van Cleve’s
high priest, Presentation in the Temple, Master of the
shop routine.120 Works from this master’s shop
Antwerp Adoration. Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum.
also exhibit very little compositional change.
(IRR: RKD; digital composite: Koen Wensveen).
The underdrawings of the paintings attributed
to the Master of the von Groote Adoration have
also been shown to be comparable to the lay-
out of the Reinhold Altarpiece.121
Conclusions
Joos van Cleve probably made model drawings and possibly made the first underdrawn sketch-
es in the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece. However, it is possible that someone else, perhaps a
specialist, worked up these sketches with brush in a liquid medium.Therefore, the underdrawing
of the inner wings of the Reinhold Altarpiece shows some generic similarities with those in later
works but does not have all the characteristics of a typical Van Cleve underdrawing.
The underdrawing made in the woodcut convention is a practice that was employed in the
workshops of other Antwerp painters at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Apparently,
this type of underdrawing with the woodcut look was an accepted working method for pro-
ducing painted wings of compound altarpieces, especially those by the Antwerp Mannerists.
Specific elements in these underdrawings still allow one to connect certain layouts to specif-
ic painters and/or their assistants. Underdrawings in the workshops of Joos van Cleve, Adri-
aen van Overbeke, the Master of 1518, the Master of the Antwerp Adoration, and the Master
of the Von Groote Adoration all show the same woodcut convention, although differences in
style can still be discerned.
While the underdrawing in the woodcut convention of the inner wings of the Reinhold Altar-
piece could have functioned as a kind of ‘vidimus’ for the commissioners, it was also necessary for
efficient workshop collaboration.The exacting and detailed underdrawing must have saved time
and made the painting easier. An elaborate underdrawing in brush could obviate the need for
changes in paint, which would add to drying time and reduce efficiency. Assistants could easily
paint over an underdrawing in the woodcut convention; and, as van den Brink and Hoffmann
assumed for the Anne Altarpiece by Van Overbeke, the detailed layout already had a certain ‘style’.122
By following such an underdrawing meticulously, any given assistant would be able to produce
a composition in that master’s ‘style’.
The color notations and the inscription, which occur in the inner wings of the Reinhold
Altarpiece, can also indicate workshop collaboration.Very thin and transparent application of
paint, strong colors, and the mode of underdrawing imply the quick and cheap production
of altarpieces for export; this applies not only to Van Cleve’s altarpiece, but also to Adriaen
van Overbeke’s Anne Altarpiece in Kempen and his retable in Dortmund.The Reinhold Altar-
piece differs in some ways from these works. In contrast to the simplified color schemes of
painted wings in the Antwerp Mannerist style,Van Cleve and his assistants created sophisti-
cated color effects and painted many small details in the surfaces of his panels. Likewise, the
outer wings with Saint Reinhold and Saint John the Baptist are of a very high quality, as are
some details in the inner wings. Joos van Cleve probably painted these parts himself. The
commission may account for these features.The prominent Reinhold Brotherhood ordered
the altarpiece, and the commissioners no doubt wanted an altarpiece that could compete
with the other south Netherlandish works in the Sankt Marienkirche in Gda ńsk.123 The
more refined execution of the Reinhold Altarpiece, invisible at a distance, is likely to have been
seen in the chapel in which the altarpiece was installed since it was not that large (4.5 x 4.17
m.).
The ‘IvaB’ monogram and the self-portrait must signify the importance of the commission
for Joos van Cleve.The artist must have wanted to be recognized as the one responsible for the
altarpiece. It is not known, however, if Joos van Cleve was the contractor of the entire altar-
piece, including the sculpted interior. Assistants (gezellen) must have been responsible for paint-
ing most of the inner wing panels, but their identities remain unknown.
The archival documents concerning the commission of the Anne Altarpiece by Adriaen van
Overbeke give us more insight into the amount of time it took to produce a compound altar-
piece. In order to complete such a complex work in a relatively short period of time, artists
often relied on known models, such as the compositions by Dürer.
Besides the many compositional elements in the Reinhold Altarpiece, Dürer’s woodcuts inspired
Joos van Cleve’s working method.With his elaborate underdrawing,Van Cleve might have been
able to demonstrate to his commissioners that his skills equaled those of Dürer. Clearly, the incor-
poration of Dürer’s graphic method was a conscious decision undertaken by the artist as he estab-
lished his workshop, as the underdrawing of later works confirm.The influence of prints by Dürer
was widespread in Antwerp and the rest of the Netherlands, and Joos van Cleve was adapting it
to Antwerp taste. He seems to have participated in and benefited from the growing influence of
Albrecht Dürer.
NOTES
*This study would not have been possible without the finan- Staatliche Kunstsammlungen; Saint Reinhold (Reinhold Altar-
cial support of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk piece), Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe; Self-portrait, Madrid,
Onderzoek (NWO) and the University of Groningen as well Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection; The Last Supper, Paris, Lou-
as the help of my colleagues in the project,Antwerp Painting vre; and the Self-portrait, which Friedländer dates 1540, in
Before Iconoclasm: a Socio-Economic Approach (co-direc- Hampton Court (Friedländer 1972, vol. 9, II, 18, pl. 128, nr.
tors Molly Faries and Maximiliaan Martens, Ph.D. candidate, 120/ 120 B and Campbell 1985, 22-24.). I presume the
Linda Jansen, technical assistant, Daantje Meuwissen, and post- Muzeum Narodowe’s Adoration of the Magi does not include
doc, Natasja Peeters). Furthermore I want to thank Peter van a self-portrait since this is not an autograph work by Joos van
den Brink for discussing with me the Reinhold Altarpiece and Cleve, and it is probably not even a portrait of Joos van Cleve
its relation to the Antwerp Mannerists. by one of his apprentices; I wish to thank P. Michal/owski
for discussing this portrait, April 26, 2002. Although I have
not seen the last panel in the list from Hampton Court, the
1.‘…eine genauere Beschreibung desselben nicht verdriessen man is portrayed with a beard and is older than the other
lassen, da eine genügende photographische Wiedergabe des known self-portraits by Joos van Cleve. It is therefore diffi-
ganzen Altarwerks vorderhand nicht erreichbar ist und die an cult to compare this figure with the other self-portraits.
sich gute Schilderung in dem, leider Fragment gebliebenen Besides, the painting was ‘severely damaged during an early,
Buche von Th. Hirsch über die Oberpfarrkirche von St. Marien reckless and strenuous restoration’ (Campbell 1985, 23). At
zu Danzig nicht allgemein zugänglich sein dürfte, auch für this moment, I am not convinced that this portrait is a self-
unseren Zweck nicht ausreicht’; Kaemmerer 1890, 1. portrait at all. I wish to thank John Hand for sharing his opin-
ion with me about this panel, March 15, 2002 (see also Hand
2. Hirsch 1843 is available in the Bibliotheka Gdanska, 1978, 15-16). Besides these eight paintings there is also a por-
Gdańsk. trait of Joos van Cleve in The Legend of Saint Victor by
Bartholomeus Bruyn, Cologne, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum
3. Hand 2004, 31-35, cat. no. 8, 117; Hand 1978, 92-106
(Leeflang 2003a).
and Szmydki 1986b, 23-73.
11. Eisler 1989, 186-189, 270 (with color reproduction).
4. M. Faries, P.B.R. van den Brink, L. Jansen, M. Leeflang
and D. Meuwissen examined the Reinhold Altarpiece in Warsaw, 12. Friedländer 1972; Szmydki 1986b, 68-70; Hand 1978,
on April 17-20, 2001, with Indiana University’s Grundig t.v. Bial/ostocki 1955 mention some Dürer influences but did not
equipment: a Grundig 70 H television camera set at 875 lines note the influence of this artist on the Christ in the Garden of
and outfitted with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon, a TV Gethsemane.
Macromar 1:2.8/36 mm lens, and Kodak 87 A filter, with
Grundig BG 12 monitor; documentation with a Canon A- 1 13.Wolff-Thomsen 1997, 115-340.
35 mm camera, a 50 mm Macrolens, and Kodak Plus X Film. 14. The IRR research of the Kalkar Altarpiece revealed a
M. Leeflang made the IRR digital composites with Vips 6.7 working method that is not taken over by Van Cleve.Techni-
and Adobe Photoshop 5.0. I wish to thank M. Kluk and M. cal examination does not prove a master-apprentice relation-
Monkiewics from the Muzeum Narodowe for all their help ship between Joos van Cleve and Jan Joest.This point will be
during our research. discussed more fully in my forthcoming dissertation for the
5. N. Peeters, M. Martens and the author carried out archival University of Groningen.
research April 22-25, 2002. 15. See for the self-portraits by Joos van Cleve, Leeflang
6. Digital color slides are available at www.saskia.com. A 2003a.
color detail of the artist’s self-portrait has been published in 16. Hand 2004, 1; Hand 1978, 63.
Leeflang 2003a (180, fig. 5). Only black and white illustrations
are available in earlier publications. [Editor’s note: I want to 17. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1961, 75.
thank M. Monkiewics, Curator of Dutch Painting, Muzeum
Narodowe, for his help in arranging for us to be able to use 18. Hand 2004, 31; Hand 1978, 92-106; Szmydki 1986b,
the museum’s transparencies for this publication.] 23-73.
7. Joos van Cleve, Death of the Virgin,Wallraf-Richartz Muse- 19. ‘Ao.1516. Nach des H. Leichnams Woche (22 Mai),
um, Cologne, inv.WRM 430, 63 x 123-57 cm. ward die grosse Tafel zu Dantzke auf das Hohe Altar gesatsz
in unser Lieben Frauenkirche oder Pfarrkirche genant,
8. Joos van Cleve, Adoration of the Magi, Detroit, Detroit Insti- welchen gleichen nie gesehen ist, der sie machte heiss Meis-
tute of Arts, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edgar B. Whitcomb, inv. ter Michel. In demselbigen Jahre wurde auch die Tafel gesatzt
45.420. in Reinholds-Capelle um Zeit Michaëlis.’ Georg Meelman,
Chronica oder eigentliche Beschreibung dessen was sich merckwürdiges
9. Kaemmerer 1890, 1-11; Firmenich-Richartz 1894, 187- in Pohlen und Preussen absonderlich auch in Dantzig begeben
194. und zugetragen, 1552; Georg Meelmann, Chronica des Landes
10. Other self-portraits by Joos van Cleve are, first, in the Preussen Anno 1548, Ierzego Melmanna. Stads Archief Gdanks,
high altar in the Sankt Nicolaikirche in Kalkar; Workshop Bibliotheca Archivi: 300, RL 1,2, microfilm E 33301, fol. 487,
of Joos van Cleve, Adoration of the Magi, Poznan, Muzeum 300, RL 1,1, microfilm E 33300, fol. 734; double number-
Narodowe (presumed to be a self-portrait by, among others, ing: 805.
Bial/ostocki 1955 and Scailliérez 1991); The Adoration of the 20. Friedländer 1974, vol. 11.
Magi (Small Adoration), Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlun-
gen; The Adoration of the Magi (Large Adoration), Dresden, 21. Hand 1978, 88.
22. Hoffmann 1998a, 117-285. Some IRR details have been 46. Schepen Register 1525 (KR), fol. 281, SR 1527 (KR),
published of the Anne Altarpiece by Adriaen van Overbeke in fol. 108. I wish to thank Max Martens for this information.
this article.
47. Hirsch 1843, 435.
23. van den Brink 2002, 6-20, sees the influence of the Mas-
ter of the Antwerp Adoration on the Presentation scene, while 48. Brausewetter 1928, 11-12: ‘in one of the most beauti-
others relate this composition to a work by the Pseudo Ble- ful chapels, the Reinhold-chapel, [is] a Dürer altarpiece from
sius; see Szmydki 1986b, 65-66; Hand 1978, 103, Bial/ostocki 1516 from Nuremberg, not by the master himself, but defi-
1955, 125. nitely by his school.’
24. Hand 1978, 100-102; Szmydki 1986b, 66-68; Bial/ostoc- 49. Firmenich-Richartz 1894, 187-94.
ki 1955, 125-126. 50. Bogdanowicz 1995, 13.
25. Bial/ostocki and Hand do not mention the similarities 51. I wish to thank M. Monkiewics for this information.
between this scene and the Dürer’s print. Szmydki 1986b, 69,
only noticed the similarities between the two figures in the 52.This would include the Antwerp altarpiece of St.Adri-
foreground with the print, and not the figure of Christ with an, which was originally installed in the church circa 1520.
the Apocalypse woodcut. Most of the woodcuts for the Large 53. Unger 1983, 1 and table 1.
Passion were made about 1497 to1500, but the whole series
of twelve cuts did not appear until 1511. 54. Ibid., 3.
26. Szmydki 1986b, 69-70; Hand 1978, 98; Bial/ostocki 1955, 55. See Klein 2003a and 2003b.
128, note 22.
56. M. Martens and N. Peeters have found some references to
27. Szmydki 1986b, 70.The author also mentioned the sim- the import of Antwerp paintings in Gdańsk State Archive.
ilarity in the facial type of Christ in the Reinhold Altarpiece to that
in the scene with Christ before Pilate in the Kalkar Altarpiece. 57. North 1983, 73.
28. Hand only mentioned that ‘The influence of Dürer’s 58. Baetens 1983, 61.
woodcut series is also observable to a lesser extent in the Last 59.The triptychs with the Death of the Virgin will be dis-
Supper and the Crucifixion.’ Hand 1978, 98. Other Antwerp cussed further in my forthcoming dissertation for the Uni-
masters were influenced by this print of Dürer as well, see for versity of Groningen.
example, De Corte 1989, 147-51 (ill. 93-96b).
60. Jacobs mentioned the contract of October 23, 1517,
29. Perier D’Ieteren 1993, 64. between the abbey of Averbode and the sculptor Jan de Mold-
30. Ibid., and cat no. 16 in Nieuwdorp 1993; see also Jacobs er in which the quality of the wood is discussed (Jacobs 1989,
1998; Jacobs 1989, 206-29. 213).The document is published in Szmydki 1986a, 52 (doc-
ument 3).
31. Szmydki 1986a, 56 and 61; Bial/ostocki as cited in Szmy-
dki 1986a, 56. 61. Hand 1978, 97.
32. Szmydki 1986a. 62. Black and white photographs of the Reinhold Altarpiece
are available at the RKD,The Hague.
33. Ewing 1990, 571, 574 (note 109).
63. See note 4 for details of the examination.
34. Szmydki 1986a, 27.
64.Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 32.
35. Heppner 1940, 174-75.
65.The panel with the Last Supper had the most color nota-
36. Heppner 1940, 174; Jacobs 1989, 212-13. tions, namely ten.
37. Ibid., and Prims, F., ‘Altaarstudiën (1): Antwerpsche 66. Bial/ostocki 1955, 121.
altaarkunst der Xvde-XVIde eeuw,’ Anwerpiensia 13 (1939),
278-85. 67. Faries 2001, 88-89; van den Brink 1997, 30.
38. Szmydki 1986a, 27. 68. Kirby 2000, 19-42.
39. Kaemmerer 1890, 4; Szmydki 1986b, 24. Both authors 69. Ceninni 2002, 77-83; Faries 2001, 88 (on functions of
mentioned that the Reinhold Brotherhood was the owner of color notations).
the chapel in 1488. 70. Jacobs 1998; Jacobs 1989; this was also mentioned by
40. Hirsch 1843, 43; Hinz 1855, 18. van den Brink in his lecture for the Historians of Netherlan-
dish Art International Conference in Antwerp in 2002.
41. Simson 1900, 336; Szpakiewicz 1996, 7.The Artus Court
is located in the Dl/uga Targ, the Market Square, and the Dl/uga 71. For other literature on inscriptions in the underdraw-
Street. ing, see Faries 1989, 145-46. [Editor’s note: see also the essay
in this volume by Ron Spronk and Catherina van Daalen.]
42. Kaemmerer 1890, 4.
72. Hand 1978, 93; for more on the iconographic program,
43. Simson 1900, 42; Hirsch 1843, 435. In the membership see Jacobs 1998; Jacobs 1989.
list of the Reinhold Bank (1527-1618) the names Jacob, Jurgen
and Jochem are mentioned quite often (State Archive Gdańsk, 73.The appearance and layout of this animal is quite com-
416. 57/ no. 1 to 6, 12 and 13).The years 1521 to 1526 were parable to the lamb in the much smaller left wing of the trip-
also registered in the year 1527. tych with the Deposition in the National Gallery of Scotland,
Edinburgh.The author and others studied this work January
44.The Vogtbuch of the brotherhood of Saint Reinhold was 28, 2003, with University of Groningen’s Mitsubishi plat-
already destroyed by fire in 1857 (Simson 1900, 47, note 1 and inum silicide IR-M700 focal plane array camera.
327).
74. M. Faries, L. Jansen, M. Leeflang, and D. Meuwissen car-
45. Ibid., note 2; Rechnungsbuch der Vogte, Reinhold- ried out the IRR research of this panel in Brussels on March
brüderschaft, 1500-1516. 19, 2001 with the same equipment mentioned in note 4.
75.Ainsworth 1983b, 163; Leeflang 2003b. 94. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1961, 86.
76.An inscription ‘francois à becke’ on the verso of a draw- 95.Van der Stock 1993, 48.
ing with the Bear Hunt in the Lehman Collection in New York
has been used as the starting point to postulate a connection 96. Bial/ostocki 1955, 126.
between Joos van Cleve and a printmaker who was possibly 97. For more on the role of the gezellen and assistants in
identical to Master FVB (see Haverkamp-Begemann 1999, the workshop of Joos van Cleve, see Leeflang forthcoming (see
123, note 28). Stogdon saw a similarity between the graphic note 93).
vocabulary of the drawing in the Lehman Collection and prints
by this master;Ainsworth 2001, 118. 98. M. Faries carried out the IRR research, November 13-
14, 1984, with the Indiana University equipment mentioned
77.The print with the Nativity shows some composition- in note 4.
al similarities to the panel with the same composition in a
private collection in Italy. The painting is in reverse and is 99. P. van den Brink, M. Faries, R. van der Meijde and U.
therefore more comparable to the print by Schongauer, which Neidhardt carried out the IRR research in 1998 with the IRR
was probably the print Master FVB copied (Hollstein 1955, camera of the RKD, The Hague: a Hamamatsu C 2400-07
145). camera with a N 2606 vidicon, a Nikon Micro-Nikkor
1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG 1000) filter
78.Van der Stock 1998. with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines).
79. Goldstein mentioned that a book by Albrecht Dürer is 100. Leeflang 2003b with the publication of an IRR digi-
recorded in Vezeleer’s inventory (C. Goldstein, Lecture at the tal composite of S.Luke’s hands, 27, ill. 15.
UFSIA (University of Antwerp), January 2002).
101. For stages in underdrawing, see, among others, Leeflang
80. Schmid 1996, 37.The approximately 350 woodcuts and 2003b and Leeflang forthcoming (see note 93).
100 engravings are multiplied by 200 and 500.
102. Probably a third of the attributed works were made
81. Koerner 2002, 19. with the use of a cartoon, see Micha Leeflang forthcoming in
Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Belgie/Musées
82. Hand 2004, 61;Vermeylen 2003, 63-67 (who, howev- Royaux des Beaux-arts de Belgique (papers of the Symposium
er, on p. 67 also mentions that Vezeleer did not deal in paint- Brueghel Enterprises, Brussels 20-21 June 2002).The draw-
ings and prints). ing of the Adoration of the Magi (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)
83. Dürer wrote ‘Sebald Fischer bought of me at Antwerp functioned most likely as a preparatory drawing and vidimus
sixteen Small Passions for 4 florins, thirty-two of the large for the central panel of the San Donato altarpiece in Genoa;
books for 8 florins, also six engraved Passions for 3 florins, also see Leeflang 2003b and also Ainsworth 1983a and Ainsworth
twenty half-sheets of all kinds taken together at 1 florin to 1983b, 164.
the value of 3 florins …’ (Dürer 1995, 40). He also gave Joachim 103. Hoffmann 1998a, 117-285.
Patinir a print (ibid., 41).
104. I wish to thank Godehard Hoffmann for discussing this
84. Schmid 1996, 32, 37. issue with me (September 10, 2003).
85. Koerner 2002, 23. 105.This part of the text dealing with the Anne Altarpiece
is based on the lecture at the international conference of the
86.Ainsworth and Faries 1986 (Master of 1518), 31-32.The Historians of Netherlandish Art in Antwerp (March 13-16,
early works by Lucas van Leyden, as for example Potiphar’s Wife 2002) by Peter van den Brink. I wish to thank him for giving
Showing Joseph’s Robe (Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van me the possibility of including materials from his lecture in
Beuningen), circa 1512, are underdrawn in a similar graphic this article. For the complete publication on the Anne Altar-
style; see Filedt Kok 1979, 27, ill. 17. Filedt Kok wrote in his piece, see Hoffmann 1998a, 155-217 and Hoffmann forthcoming
book on this artist that ‘Albrecht Dürer’s engravings appear in ExtravagAnt! A Forgotten Age of Painting (see note 93).
to have been his great model both stylistically and technical-
ly’; Filedt Kok 1978, 38. On Dürer’s influence on Netherland- 106. Hoffmann 1998a, 160-166 (the documents are pub-
ish artists, see Held 1931. lished as illustrations, 10-12); Hoffmann 1998b, 30, note 10;
the original documents are in the Stadtarchiv Kempen, E.
87. Koerner 2003, 26. Kircheliche Stiftungen und Vikarien, vol. 1, 1430-1700, fol. 23.
88. Lecture by C. Goldstein 2002 (see note 84). For more 107. Hoffmann 1998a, 184-185.
information on collection of Vezeleer, see Vermeylen 2003, 63-
67. 108. Ibid.
89. M.P.J. Martens and N. Peeters, Painters and their World, 109. J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, P. van den Brink,T. Borchert,
Painting in 16th-century Antwerp: a Socio-Economic Approach G. Hoffmann, A. Born, M.Wolters and D. Meuwissen exam-
(unpublished manuscript). ined the panels on April 7, 1995, with the equipment of van
Asperen de Boer: a Grundig FA 70 camera, with a Hamamat-
90.This is akin to the development that occurred ca. 1530 su N214 infrared vidicon and a Macro Zoomatar objective.
in Joos van Cleve’s career: when the artist produced works in
the Italian Renaissance style ahead of the taste for Italian goods 110. Lecture by van den Brink (see note 105).
on the Antwerp market. See Leeflang forthcoming Ph.D. dis-
111. Floerke 1905, 130;Van der Stock 1993, 48.
sertation for the University of Groningen.
112.Van der Stock 1993, 51.
91. Faries 1991, 60.
113. Lecture by van den Brink (see note 105); Hoffmann
92. Faries 2003; Faries 2001; van Asperen de Boer and Faries 1998a, 117-285.
1990, 37-49.
114. Ibid.; see also Leeflang forthcoming (note 93).
93. See Micha Leeflang forthcoming,‘Workshop practices
in early sixteenth-century Antwerp studios.’ In Jaarboek van het 115. M. Faries studied in the altarpiece in Lübeck in 1985
Koninklijke Museum voor Schone Kunsten, ExtravagAnt! A For- with the IRR camera of Indiana University (see note 4). She
gotten Age of Painting, ed. P. Vandenbroecke (forthcoming 2006). also researched two of the predella panels in the Sankt Annen-
museum in Lübeck.The original reflectogram negatives are another way, because they ‘suggest one continuous creative
now archived at the RKD, The Hague. Two other predella working process [that] seems to contradict the familiar stan-
panels in the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart were studied by van dard workshop practices of Antwerp workshops’; van den Brink
Asperen de Boer and van den Brink November 30, 1993, 2002, 12, and lecture by van den Brink (note 105).
with the equipment of van Asperen de Boer (see note 109).
For more on the underdrawing of the Master of 1518: Brek- 120. Hoffmann 1998a, ill. 37, 201.
ka 2000; Born 1993, and Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 29-37. 121. For more examples of the underdrawing of the Mas-
A. Born is working on a Ph.D. on the workshop practices ter of the von Groote Adoration, see van den Brink 2001b, 46-
by the Master of 1518 for the Université Libre de Bruxelles. 61.
116. Born 1993, 191 and Leeflang forthcoming (see note 122. Ibid., 193-203 and lecture by van den Brink (note
93). 105).
117. van den Brink 2002. 123.The Last Judgment by Hans Memling was installed in
118. Ibid. the chapel of the Saint George Brotherhood (now in the
Muzeum Narodowe, Gdansk) and the so-called Saint Adrian’s
119.As van den Brink notes, the changes between the under- Retable (produced in Antwerp) was in the chapel of the Holy
drawing and the final paint stage could also be interpreted in Cross (and is still in the church today).
Two Scenes from the Passion
at the Harvard Art Museums:
a Tale of Two Antwerp Workshops?*
Ron Spronk and Catharina van Daalen
Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies, Harvard University Art Museums
In 1952, Harvard curator and professor, Charles L. Kuhn, donated a small, oblong panel paint-
ing of the Arrest of Christ (fig. 1; plate 1) to the Busch-Reisinger Museum, one of the Harvard
University Art Museums in Cambridge, Massachusetts.1 The painting, attributed to an anony-
mous sixteenth-century Antwerp painter, depicts the moment in the Passion when Herod’s
soldiers capture Christ. A closely related panel with the Agony in the Garden (fig. 2, plate 2)
was recently acquired by the Art Museums.This second panel, depicting Christ in the garden
of Gethsemane, the moment in the Passion that occurs immediately before the Arrest, is vir-
tually identical in size to the Arrest of Christ and fully comparable in style and technique of
execution.2 The work was acquired by the Art Museums in 2001.3 Since the two panels are
fully comparable in material, stylistic, and iconographic aspects, they doubtlessly formed part
of the same ensemble, probably with additional scenes from the Passion.The present study will
briefly address the narratives of the two panels. The findings from a campaign of technical
examinations will be presented, and the pictorial sources for the compositions will be dis-
cussed. The findings from the technical study raise the possibility that the original ensemble
might have been a collaborative production between the workshop of a painter and that of
another craftsman, possibly a carpenter. A hypothesis about the ensemble’s possible original
form and function is also offered.
The gospels give varied and complimentary accounts of the Passion of Christ, and the two
compositions discussed here depict elements from all four.4 The Agony in the Garden depicts Christ
kneeling in prayer with raised arms in front of the opening of a cave.To his left, depicted with-
in a cloud, is the angel that appeared to Christ to bring him strength. James, John and Peter, the
three chosen disciples, are asleep in the foreground. John is young and blond, and is dressed in a
red garment while his hands are folded over a book.The bearded and balding Peter has a sword
across his lap. Judas, in the background, leads the soldiers through the garden’s gate to Christ. In
the middle ground at the far right, more soldiers are making their way into the garden. In the
Arrest of Christ, Herod’s soldiers capture Christ at the gate to the garden of Gethsemane. Judas
betrays Christ with a kiss while holding his reward, a purse with silver pieces. Peter raises his
sword to cut off the ear of Caiaphas’s servant holding the lantern. The city of Jerusalem is
depicted in the background of both panels.
Since the mid 1990s, the Arrest of Christ has been regularly documented with different meth-
ods of infrared examination.The small painting has a relatively distinctive and characteristic under-
drawing that is partly visible with the unaided eye.The panel has been frequently used for teaching
students about underdrawing and infrared examination, and for testing different infrared cam-
eras at the Straus Center for Conservation.5 It was extensively used in Henry Lie’s 2003 publi-
cation on the use of digital imaging in technical examination.6 The arrival of the Agony in the
Garden triggered a new series of technical studies of both panels.The two panels were analyzed
with dendrochronology, and the paint surfaces examined with the binocular microscope, fluo-
rescence under ultraviolet light, and with X-ray fluorescence (XRF).The paintings were X-radi-
ographed and the detailed and characteristic underdrawings were documented with infrared
TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS 43

Fig. 1. Arrest of Christ. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard University Art Museums,
BR1952.15. Gift of Charles L. Kuhn.
Fig. 2. Agony in the Garden. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, 2001.193.
Bequest of Grenville L.Winthrop, by exchange.
reflectography as well as with high-resolution infrared photography.A limited number of cross-

sections were taken and examined with microscopy and with a scanning electron microscope
with energy dispersive microanalysis (SEM-EDS).
The paintings are virtually identical in size.The Agony in the Garden measures 18 by 37.2 cm
(13.5 x 33 cm within the frame); the Arrest of Christ is 18 by 37.8 cm (13.6 by 33.8 cm within
the frame).The wood grain runs horizontally in both panels, each of which shows considerable
warp.The reverses of the panels are thinly coated with a blackish paint that was applied direct-
ly on the wood, but which is probably not original (see further below). Peter Klein established
that the support panels were produced from oak from the Baltic region, and that the two pan-
44 TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

a. b. c. d.
Fig. 3. Details from figs. 1 and 2, construction of frames. 3c. Arrest of Christ, upper left corner.
3a. Agony in the Garden, upper left corner. 3d. Arrest of Christ, upper right corner.
3b. Agony in the Garden, upper right corner.
els originated from the same tree. He determined that the youngest heartwood ring was formed
in 1492, resulting in a possible creation date of 1509 or later.7
The applied strip frames on both paintings are original. Each frame consists of four separate
strips of wood with relatively simple profiles that were glued on the support panels. Since the
wood underneath the members of the strip frames remains unpainted and traces of barbs are pre-
sent, the strip frames must have been attached before the ground and paint layers were applied.
The frames received a blackish coating after they were glued to the support panels but before
the panels were painted.This black layer seems unrelated to the more thinly applied black paint
on the reverse of the panels.The inner moldings of the frames of both panels were gilded over
a layer of yellowish bole that in turn was applied over a calcium-containing ground layer.The
gilding appears to be old and might well be original, but this is hard to determine with certain-
ty since both bole and gilding were applied after the panel was painted, which is uncharacteris-
tic for the period. As illustrated in the X-radiograph, the bole contains a relatively high degree
of an X-ray opaque material.The instrumental analyses of a cross-section from the gilded area
of the frame of the Agony in the Garden, however, did not determine the presence of lead white
or lead-tin yellow.8 Interestingly, black paint was observed on the top of the gilding in some loca-
tions as well as below it.
The construction of the strip frame is also rather unusual.The horizontal and the vertical mem-
bers of the frames are attached to the support only, not to each other. In the Agony in the Gar-
den, the frame members meet at the upper and lower left corner at an angle of circa 45 degrees
(fig. 3a).The corners on the right hand are constructed differently. Here only the molded part
of the frame meets at an angle of circa 45 degrees.The outermost upper and lower flat parts of
the horizontal frame members, on the other hand, extend horizontally to the far right edge of
the panel (fig. 3b). In the Arrest of Christ the same features are present, but their positions are
mirrored: on the right side, the corners of the frame meet at an angle (fig. 3d) while the corners
on the left hand side do so only partly (fig. 3c).The reasons for these features and their possible
significance are not yet known.9
Both panels have a light-colored ground layer. A cross-section from the Agony in the Garden
was used to determine that this is a calcium carbonate ground that contains fossilized marine
microorganisms, indicating the use of a naturally formed chalk.10 The X-radiograph of the Agony
in the Garden (fig. 4) shows a remarkable build-up of an X-ray opaque material at the right hand
side of the panel, while a circa 2 cm-wide vertical strip at the far right of the panel is surpris-
ingly X-ray transparent.The hard and linear interface between the X-ray opaque and transpar-
ent areas is also visible in the paint surface under specular or raking light.The crack pattern is
more prominent in the X-ray opaque area than in the X-ray transparent strip to its right.Two
cross-sections (plate 3a-b) determined the presence of an additional layer of calcium carbonate

Fig. 4. Agony in the Garden, X-radiograph. (X-radiography: Eugene Farrell and Ron Spronk).
Fig. 5. Arrest of Christ, X-radiograph. (X-radiography: Eugene Farrell and Ron Spronk).
ground in an X-ray opaque area, and that this layer is absent in the relatively X-ray transparent
area.This extra ground layer was not evenly applied over the supports, since the X-radiograph
shows that this layer appears to taper off at the outer edges of the panel.A similar build up of X-
ray opaque materials (presumably also an extra layer of calcium carbonate ground), bordered by
narrow vertical areas that are relatively X-ray transparent can be observed in the X-radiograph
of the Arrest of Christ (fig. 5), but here the interface between these areas is less crisp than in the
Agony in the Garden.The locations of the most conspicuous X-ray opaque and transparent areas
in the Arrest of Christ are the mirror opposites of that in the Agony in the Garden, since these areas
are located at the far left edge of the panel. It is yet unclear if these features are in any way relat-
ed to the unusual features in the construction of the strip frames discussed above, which were
also mirrored, but these variations in opacity might indicate that the panels were initially pre-
pared with broader frames.11

Fig. 6. Agony in the Garden, infrared reflectogram digital assembly. (IRR and digital assembly: Henry Lie,Amy Powell,
and Ron Spronk).
Fig. 7. Arrest of Christ, infrared reflectogram digital assembly. (IRR and digital assembly: Henry Lie,Amy Powell, and
Ron Spronk).
The painting technique appears to be in full accordance with the Netherlandish tradition
of the early sixteenth century with regard to the materials used and the applied painting tech-
nique. The colors are applied in thin paint layers and glazes, and the X-radiographs of the
panels show that both compositions were carefully planned since all major compositional ele-
ments were delimited from the background (or ‘left in reserve’).The X-radiographs also estab-
lished that the panels are in relatively good condition, although a number of small losses can
be observed. A larger loss, with some smaller islands of original paint in it, is present near the
top center of the Agony in the Garden. Analyses of the paint surface with X-ray fluorescence
determined the presence of elements that are consistent with the use of the following pig-
ments: lead white, lead-tin yellow, vermilion, azurite, malachite or copper resinate green, and
ochre.12 The relatively X-ray opaque darker blue areas, such as the robe of Peter, were prob-
ably painted in azurite over a lower layer of azurite mixed with lead white, but cross sections
were not taken in this location. The background landscapes are both depicted with atmos-
pheric perspective and painted in bluish tones. Compared to the other colors, the red areas,
probably a red lake, are relatively thin and transparent, and the elaborate underdrawing is ful-
ly visible here to the unaided eye.

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

Fig. 9. Agony in the Garden, detail with inscription, infrared digital photograph (around 1000-1100 nanometer).
(Photomacrograph: Catharina van Daalen).
Fig. 10. Arrest of Christ, detail with inscription, infrared digital photograph (around 1000-1100 nanometer).
(Photomacrograph: Catharina van Daalen).
Prints by Albrecht Dürer served as compo-

sitional sources for both panels.The Agony in
the Garden is based on Dürer’s engraving of
Christ on the Mount of Olives, signed and dated
1508 (fig. 11).16 The Arrest of Christ closely fol-
lows Dürer’s woodcut of the Arrest of Christ
from the Small Passion series (fig. 12), which
was printed around 1510.17 In the Agony in the
Garden, the relatively narrow, vertical format of
the prints was adapted to fit the horizontal
direction of the panel. In the Arrest of Christ,
this was not done, and here the vertical com-
position of the print was merely migrated onto
the oblong panel, resulting in a rather curious,
densely packed figure group in a wide open
landscape. Some details in the background, such
as the view of Jerusalem and Judas’s entry
through the gate of the garden of Gethsemane
in the Agony in the Garden, are also present in
Dürer’s engraving. For the foreshortened gate
in the Arrest of Christ, one of the less compelling
elements in the work, Dürer’s prints did not
serve as example.
The Dürer prints were followed more close-

ly in the underdrawings than in the paint sur-
faces. In the Agony in the Garden, the
underdrawn faces of both the kneeling Christ Fig. 11. Albrecht Dürer, Agony in the Garden, 1508,
and John the Evangelist resemble Dürer’s engraving. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art
engraving closely but less so in the paint sur- Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, G7812. Gray
face, where the initial design was slightly Collection of Engravings Fund.

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

of prints by Albrecht Dürer in the Netherlands
is well known, and his work was widely avail-
able there long before his journeys to the
Netherlands of 1520 and 1521.18 Among many
others, painters such as Adriaen Isenbrant, Jan
Provoost, Quinten Massys, and Jacob Cornelisz
van Oostsanen are all known to have drawn
from his prints. For his own version of the
Fig. 12.Albrecht Dürer, Betrayal of Christ, from the Small
Agony in the Garden, Bernard van Orley drew
Passion, circa 1510, woodcut. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
from Dürer’s Large Passion woodcut of 1500.
University Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Van Orley’s painting was part of a series of four
G4425. Gray Collection of Engravings Fund.
Passion scenes, which are closely related to a
set of tapestries.19 The larger, vertical format of
Van Orley’s four paintings and their different
iconographic program seem to exclude any
close analogy with the Harvard panels.
The HUAM panels’ small size and their extreme oblong horizontal format make it highly
unlikely that they were part of a series of autonomous Passion scenes such as the Van Orley pan-
els mentioned above, which were stored separately, according to a 1535 inventory.20 It seems
highly likely that HUAM’s Agony in the Garden and Arrest of Christ were part of a larger ensem-
ble, probably together with other scenes from the Passion. Both the Agony in the Garden and
the Arrest of Christ take place early in the Passion, and they are depicted less frequently than oth-
er scenes such as the Flagellation, the Carrying of the Cross, or the Crucifixion. Although the
original form and function of such an ensemble remains unknown for now, the format of the
panels and the findings from the technical studies provide important information in this regard.
As discussed above, the presence of inscriptions in the underdrawings of both panels might
well indicate that, in addition to the painter, another craftsman was involved in the produc-
tion of the panels.This should be taken into account when hypothesizing about the original
form of the ensemble. A possible original function of the panels within the lower register of
a large retable with a carved central section cannot be excluded but seems rather unlikely.
We know of no examples of painted sections of retables with such an extreme oblong for-
mat, neither in the wings nor in the predella of the carved central section.21 The format of
the small horizontally-oriented panels that, in some German examples, were organized in
columns and rows to form a composite altarpiece are also invariably less oblong than the Har-
vard panels.22
It seems more likely that the Agony in the Garden and Arrest of Christ originally functioned as part
of a piece of furniture,as drawer fronts.Such an original function would account for both the extreme

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

NOTES
* We would like to thank Francesca Bewer, Kate Olivier, for Conservation. SEM/EPMA analyses of the cross-section
and Karma Tomm for their comments on earlier versions of were performed by Richard Newman and Kathy Eremin, using
this text. We are also grateful for the help of Peter van den the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ controlled pressure Scan-
Brink, Bart Devolder, Kathy Eremin, Eugene Farrel, Ivan ning Electron Microscope, a GEOL GSN-6460 LV system
Gaskell,Teri Hensick, Narayan Khandekar, Henry Lie, Lucy with an Oxford instrument energy dispersive analytical sys-
Lie, Richard Newman, Peter Nisbet and Melvin Seiden. tem running Inca software. All analyses were done at 20 Kv,
with a chamber pressure of 35 Pc.All samples were examined
without coating. Samples were mounted in bioplastic (poly-
1. Unidentified Artist, the Arrest of Christ. Oak panel, 18 x ester resin), ground and polished to a 1 micron finish.
37.8 cm. Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard University Art
Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, inv. no. BR1952.15. Gift 9. No other examples of such a construction of strip
of Charles L. Kuhn. Kuhn was curator of the Busch-Reisinger frames are known to the authors. A similarly differing and
Museum from 1930 to 1968. mirrored construction of the corners of a frame can be
found in Gerard David’s Cambyses panels in the
2.The only marked difference between the two panels is Groeningemuseum in Bruges, but these panels are housed
the overall tonal appearance of the two paint surfaces, caused in an engaged frame;Verougstraete-Marcq and Van Schoute
by the darkened varnish on the Agony in the Garden. 1989, 180-82.
3. Unidentified Artist, the Agony in the Garden. Oak pan- 10.This was confirmed through SEM-EDS analyses of cross-
el, 18 x 37.2 cm. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University sections. See further note 8 above.
Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, inv. no. 2001.193.
Bequest of Grenville L. Winthrop, by exchange. Sotheby’s 11.The barbs of an initial broader frame would have result-
Amsterdam offered the painting for auction on November ed in an uneven painting surface after such frame members
10, 1998 as ‘Circle of Herri met de Bles’. Peter van den Brink, were replaced by the present, narrower frame.The application
who recognized the similarities between this panel and the of an extra layer of ground might have been used to level the
Arrest of Christ in the Busch-Reisinger Museum, kindly alert- surface. We are grateful to Narayan Khandekar for this sug-
ed HUAM curators. The panel was acquired by Vermeer gestion.
Associates, and placed in long-term loan at the Fogg Art
Museum, after which it was acquired for the Fogg in 2001. 12. The analyses with XRF were performed by Kathy
Eremin with the Straus Center’s energy dispersive ArtTAX
4. Luke 22:39-53; Mark 14:32-52; Matthew 26:36-56; John XRF spectrometer, operated at 50 Kv, 600 mAh for all analy-
18:1-12. ses.All analyses were in situ on unprepared surfaces.
5. Over the years the panel has been examined and/or doc- 13.Antwerp School, Annunciation and Visitation. Panel, 193
umented with the Straus Center’s vidicon camera (Hamamatsu x 77 cm. Cologne,Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, inv. nos. 439 and
lead-sulfide tube-based vidicon camera), the FLIR Inframet- 440, see Faries 1989a, note 1; Attributed to Cornelis Enge-
rics (InfraCAM-SWIR model A, PtSi 256 x 256 CCD FPA brechtsz, Holy Family. Panel, diameter 61.9 cm. Delft, Prin-
camera; a micron bandpass filter of width 1.5-1.8 and a 36” senhof (on loan from ICN, Amsterdam), inv. no. NK 1412,
lens were used), a Sensors Unlimited camera, the Art Innova- see van den Brink 1997, note 1; Master of 1518, Woman Dis-
tion’s Musis 2007 camera, and the Phase One (LightPhase CCD tributing Alms. Panel, 52 x 53 cm. Brussels, Royal Museums of
digital camera back, 3120x2060 pixels, mounted on a Hassel- Fine Arts of Belgium, inv. no. 2600, see van den Brink 1997,
blad 500 C/M camera, with a 80 mm Planar 1:2.8 lens. For note 20; Antwerp School, Scenes from the Lives of St. Anthony
visible digital photography a Phase One TG1 filter was used; and St. Jacob. Panel, measurements unknown. Kempen, Prop-
for infrared digital photography, a 87A SF-72M Tiffen filter steikirche, see Mulder 1997.
was used); see further Hoffmann 1998c; Henry Lie, ‘A New
Platinum Silicide Camera for Infrared Studies,’ paper present- 14. Faries 1989a and van den Brink 1997.
ed at a symposium for IRR studies of underdrawings at
Brauweiler, Rheinisches Amt für Denkmalpflege,April 23-24, 15. Jacobs 1998, 217.
1998; and Lie 2003, 122 and 126-29.
16. Albrecht Dürer, Agony in the Garden, 1508. Engraving,
6. Lie 2003. 11.5 x 7 cm. B4.
7.The youngest heartwood ring from the Agony in the Gar- 17.Albrecht Dürer, Betrayal of Christ, c. 1510.Woodcut, 12.8
den was formed in 1488; in the Arrest of Christ the youngest x 10 cm. B27.
heartwood ring was formed in 1492.When accounting for the
minimum of nine removed sapwood rings, the earliest possi- 18. Held 1931.
ble felling date is 1492 + 9 = 1501. Assuming the median of
fifteen sapwood rings and two years of seasoning, a creation 19. Bernard van Orley, Agony in the Garden. Panel, 66.5 x
date from 1509 onwards is statistically more likely. Den- 82.5 cm. Paris, art market (Habolt & Co.); Crowning with Thorns.
drochronology reports of both paintings dated June 25, 1999, Panel, 65.5 x 82 cm. Hannover, Niedersächsisches Landesmu-
P. Klein, Ordinariat für Holzbiologie, Universität Hamburg. seum, inv. no. KA 50/1958; Christ Carrying the Cross. Panel,
For a recent article on this methodology and the applied for- exact measurements unknown. Oxford, Chapel of Oriel Col-
mulae, see Klein 2003a, 69. lege (Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, no. 97); Preparations for the Cru-
cifixion. Panel, 67.3 x 85.7 cm. Edinburgh, National Gallery
8.The cross-sections were taken and mounted by Narayan of Scotland, inv. no. NG 995 (Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, no. 111).
Khandekar, senior conservation scientist at the Straus Center See further Donald Garstang, exh. cat. Jean-Luc Baroni Ltd.,

Master Painting and Sculpture, New York (Adam Williams Fine type of retable, from the Brussels shop of Jan Borman, exists
Art Ltd.) 2003, no. 2 (no pagination), esp. note 10. in two versions, now in Jäder and in Skepptuna (Sweden). In
both versions, the Agony in the Garden is executed in sculpture
20.Van Orley’s paintings were commissioned by Mencía de at the far right of the central register, while the Arrest of Christ
Mendoza and her husband, Count Henry III of Nassau, whose is painted on the first panel of the inner right wing. Jacobs
coats of arms are depicted on the reverses.The panels were list- 1998, 219, fig. 60 and fig. 78.
ed individually as being stored in separate cases in an inven-
tory of Mendoza’s collection of 1535 which was published 22. South-German School, Apocalypse Altarpiece. Panel, 185
by Th. M. Roest van Limburg, Een Spaansche Gravin van Nas- x 102 cm. Freising, Diözesanmuseum, inv. no. L9001.The scenes
sau. Mencia de Mendoza, Markies van Zenete, Gravin van Nassau in this altarpiece are based on a series of woodcuts by Holbein
(1508-1554), Leiden, 1908, 91-92. Lorne Campbell linked the Younger from 1523.According to Hahn and Steiner 1997,
the 1535 inventory with the four Van Orley Passion paint- these woodcuts drew from Cranach’s woodcuts from 1522,
ings, see Donald Garstang (note 19 above), especially his note which in turn take their inspiration from Dürer’s Apocalypse
3.We are grateful to Lorne Campbell for discussing this issue woodcut series of 1498; Hahn and Steiner 1997, 133.
with us.
23. Compare the later examples listed by Fabri 1991, and
21. Jacobs listed only a single type of retable with scenes her fig. 1.
from the Passion in the lower register, which were combined
with scenes from Christ’s Infancy in the main register. This 24. Fabri 1991, 48.

A ‘Painter in Black and White’:
The Symbiotic Relationship Between
the Paintings and Woodcuts of Jacob
Cornelisz. van Oostsanen*
Daantje Meuwissen
University of Utrecht
Introduction
In 1995 the New York art dealer Otto Nauman offered for sale a previously unknown Cruci-
fixion (plate 1).The work is dated 1507 and is attributed to the North Netherlandish painter
Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen (ca. 1472 – 1533). The panel is an important addition to the
early work of Jacob Cornelisz. since the Noli Me Tangere in Kassel, which is also dated 1507, had
formerly been considered the artist’s earliest known work (plate 5).The Crucifixion and the Noli
Me Tangere however, differ considerably in style.
Because of its meticulous technique and excellent condition, the Noli Me Tangere is regarded
as the ‘pearl’ in the oeuvre of Jacob Cornelisz.The attribution has never been in any real doubt.
Only Friedländer expressed surprise at the difference in style compared with the series of wood-
cuts published in the same year, signed by Jacob Cornelisz., entitled the Life of the Virgin (figs. 1
and 2). As Friedländer put it:‘How pedantic, limited and laborious the Kassel painting of 1507
looks next to the casually limned woodcuts done at the same time!’1 The New York Crucifixion
was not known to Friedländer.
In the summer of 2000, the Crucifixion was examined by means of infrared reflectography (IRR)
in the Sherman Fairchild Conservation Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York.The outcome of this examination would have pleased Friedländer, as the underdrawing of
the Crucifixion proved to be nearly identical to the woodcut series of the Life of the Virgin.This
newly revealed infrared reflectography material is the starting point of the current study. A com-
parison of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin will demonstrate that, on the basis of distinctive
stylistic similarities, the former painting must be from Jacob Cornelisz.’s studio.The Noli Me Tan-
gere already had been examined by means of infrared reflectography in 1987, and this unpublished
examination confirms its difference in style from the Crucifixion. Clearly, these results have conse-
quences for the attribution of the Noli Me Tangere, a problem that will be addressed below.
In 1507, Jacob Cornelisz. must have been about thirty-five, rather old for someone said to be
at the beginning of his career.2 The painter had already been able to purchase a house on the
Kalverstraat in Amsterdam on January 16, 1500. Interest on the house, which belonged to ‘...Jakob
Corneliszoon the painter...,’ was paid in the amount of three Wilhelmus guilders.3 We cannot
conclude from this that Jacob Cornelisz. produced only paintings at that time, since designers of
prints also identified themselves as painters.4 It is safe, however, to assume that Jacob Cornelisz.
was already active as an artist as early as 1500.5
The unanswered question that presents itself again in this context is the following: what
paintings, if any, did Jacob Cornelisz. produce prior to 1507?6 Until now it has been assumed
that he worked – and therefore had been trained – as a painter, and that he only occasionally pro-
A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’ 55

Fig. 1. Jacob Cornelisz. van
Oostsanen, Christ with Mary and
Martha, woodcut from the Life of the
Virgin series (signed).Amsterdam,
Rijksmuseum, rp-p-1927-303.
duced (designs for) woodcuts. Much of his painted oeuvre, by far the greater part of which has
been attributed, has been regarded as technically proficient but not very innovative.7 If, how-
ever, Jacob Cornelisz. was primarily a painter, why did he only begin to sign his paintings from
1523 onward; and why was his first series of woodcuts, the Life of the Virgin, made sixteen years
earlier, signed so prominently in two places?8
The material to be presented below will offer a different view of the master.The paintings
attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. exhibit a graphic approach: an idiosyncratic, draftsman-like appli-
cation of paint. On the basis of this feature, one might suppose that Jacob Cornelisz. was a print-
maker first and a painter second.This was, in fact, Schretlen’s firm conviction.9 Friedländer also
suspected something along these lines:‘Easy draftsmanship, reminiscent of script, corresponds to
a way of seeing, we are inclined to dub ‘painterly’, and we wonder, then, that this master, stylus
in hand, became a ‘painter’ in black and white, long before he was one with the brush.’10 Stein-
bart made a similar observation.11 The story does not end here, however.The relationship between
the two media in the artist’s oeuvre is more complex than hitherto assumed and might be even
termed ‘symbiotic’.12 Whereas the master’s paintings show unmistakable graphic characteristics,
56 A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

Fig. 2. Jacob Cornelisz. van
Oostsanen, Lamentation, woodcut
from the Life of the Virgin series
(signed).Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum,
rp-p-bi-6268.
his woodcuts undeniably evoke a painter’s vision. In fact, a painterly quality defines the charac-
ter of these woodcuts.
This article will discuss in greater detail the relationship between Jacob Cornelisz.’s painting
technique and his woodcuts in the period between 1507 and 1515. I will argue that any future
research of Jacob’s oeuvre should focus first on his woodcuts.The reason for this lies not only in
the close relationship between the two media, but also in the fact that the woodcuts, in contrast
to the paintings, are almost always signed and dated.The prints, then, can form a firm skeleton
around which the frequently attributed, but undated, paintings may be grouped. Moreover, the
compositions of many of the paintings were partly based on the woodcuts, providing further evi-
dence that the woodcuts were the primary focus of Jacob’s activities.
The first part of this paper will place the 1507 Crucifixion in a context of at least eight related
paintings attributed to Jacob Cornelisz.A discussion of the Life of the Virgin series, which appeared
in the same year, will follow. By means of a table referred to as a pattern book (Table 1), a com-

parison will be made between the underdraw-
ing of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin
prints. It will then be argued that this type of
graphic layout has to be by the hand of the mas-
ter himself.This conclusion, however, does not
imply that the paint stage would always be by
Jacob Cornelisz., as a separation between design
and execution was not unusual in sixteenth-
century studios. Jacob Cornelisz.’s painting tech-
nique in the period between 1512 and 1515
will also be analyzed, using Friedländer’s obser-
vations as a starting point and focusing on the
Crucifixion, the Noli Me Tangere, and the attri-
bution of the latter.The last section of the paper
will return to the symbiotic relationship
between Jacob Cornelisz.’s paintings and his
woodcuts. An appendix to the article, dealing
with the artist’s problematic name, will argue
that his name was neither ‘Jacob Cornelisz. van
Oostsanen’ nor ‘Jacob van Amsterdam’, but
actually Jacob Cornelisz.War or Warre.
Fig. 3. Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen (signed), The New York Crucifixion
Crucifixion, woodcut. Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, A 13394,
49.3 x 35.5 cm. The New York Crucifixion (plate 1) is a large
panel (99.1 x 78 cm) with a symmetrical com-
position.The painting belongs to a group of
at least eight related compositions. 13 The
works in question, while not signed, are all attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. on the basis of their
similarities in style, composition, and size. In addition, these works are related to a signed, but
undated, woodcut of the same subject by Jacob Cornelisz. (fig. 3).14 Since various details from
this woodcut recur in all eight paintings, it is possible that the print served as a basis for the
group as a whole. This, however, is not certain since the dating of the woodcut varies from
1504 to 1511/12.15
As mentioned earlier, the New York Crucifixion is the only panel of the group that is dated.
The date ‘ANNO DNI MCCCCC et VII’ (1507) appears on the harness of the gray horse just
to the right of the cross, and is in accordance with the dendrochronological dating.16 The dates
of the other paintings in the group are based on comparative research and vary widely.The Cal-
vary in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, is usually dated around 1510. Until now this panel has
been regarded as the earliest of the group, and thus the prototype of other versions. One might
question whether a date of 1510 can still be considered valid after the discovery of the Crucifix-
ion of 1507.17 Nonetheless, the Calvary is undeniably one of the better pieces, which is one of
the reasons why it assumed to be by the painter’s own hand.18 While there are no exact copies
in the group described here, it does contain partial copies in which background scenes related
to the Crucifixion reappear in varying sizes. From this it may be concluded that the studio had
stock models which could be reused again and again.19 In some cases the models were Jacob
Cornelisz.’s own woodcuts.20
The version closest in composition and size to the New York Crucifixion is the panel from the
collection of the Prince of Liechtenstein in Vaduz (100 x 80 cm; fig. 4).21 This work differs only
in minor details from the New York example: the faces of John the Evangelist, Mary Salome,

Fig. 4. Attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Crucifixion, not dated.Vaduz, Sammlungen des Fürsten von
Liechtenstein, G 938, 99.5 x 80.8 cm.
and the other Mary vary, as does some of the clothing.The young soldier and his white horse
are also repositioned, as are some of the background figures. In the Vaduz version, Longinus has
a beard and is differently attired. Small variations are also found in the position of the angel at
Christ’s feet, on the left in the Vaduz version, and on the right in the New York version. In addi-
tion, the Temple of Jerusalem is clearly visible in the background of the Vaduz version, while the
setting in the New York version strikes the viewer as being more ‘local’ in character.

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

composite of the Crucifixion
(plate 1), private collection,
New York. (IRR: Metropolitan
Museum of Art; digital composite:
Daantje Meuwissen).
The Underdrawing of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin:The Hand of Jacob Cor-
nelisz.?
To compare the underdrawing of the Crucifixion with the woodcuts from the Life of the Virgin,
I have set up a pattern book with an inventory of the graphic repertory present in both works
of art (see Table1).The pattern book helps demonstrate that while there are many similarities
between the two works of art, there are some divergences as well, primarily due to the differ-
ences in medium and function.
Infrared reflectography revealed that the Crucifixion was extensively prepared (figs. 5, 6).34 The
underdrawing has been applied in a dry material such as black chalk and was made visible
everywhere except for areas where black or dark blue paint was used, as in the Virgin´s robe.
The similarities between the underdrawing of the Crucifixion and the Life of the Virgin will be
discussed briefly, but for more detailed analysis, I refer to the pattern book in table 1. Obvious
outlines are used in both works of art. Within those outlines, the folds of the garments are
drawn by means of curved lines that follow the volume of the fabric. Protruding folds are indi-

Figs. 6a-b. Detail of fig. 5 and tracing showing the position of the underdrawing.
cated by means of ‘stitches’: straight lines that determine the direction of the fold, with short
shadings at right angles across the contour. Such stitches can be seen, for example, on the sleeve
of the Virgin Mary in the woodcut, Christ with Mary and Martha (see fig. 1), and on that of John
the Evangelist in the New York Crucifixion (see fig. 6a-b). Depth is achieved by means of diago-
nal, parallel hatchings that form the mid-tones.The lighter areas are left blank.The darker the
area, the narrower the space between the lines: note, for example, the section below John the
Evangelist’s knee in the Crucifixion.The darkest passages were drawn by means of crosshatching.
In the shadows below the chins of the figures, four or five short vertical strokes are visible.These
lines look like beards, even on the women, as in the second Mary behind John in the Crucifix-
ion and Mary Magdalene in the woodcut, Christ with Mary and Martha.The horizon is drawn by
means of a number of gently curved lines that resemble large waves. It can be concluded that
Jacob Cornelisz. applied too much, rather than too little hatching in these two works of art.This
feature is characteristic of the underdrawing in Jacob’s early paintings as well. His later works
show less extensive underdrawing.35
The underdrawing and the woodcuts differ in a number of ways.The first difference is that
the woodcuts appear more detailed and less sketchy.The lines, contours, and hatchings that are

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

Component/form Pattern book Present in the Present in the Present in the Present in the
(description of underdrawing Life of the Noli Me Naples
hatching) of the Virgin (1507) Tangere (1507) Adoration
Crucifixion woodcuts (1512)
(1507)
General Enthusiastic, Yes. Yes. No; tidier, less Yes.
characteristics, messy, dynamic, messy. Parallel
‘distinctive gnarly. Shadings shadings, many
style’ in all directions, of which are
as if he could not vertical.
stop.
Protruding Straight line with Yes. Yes. No. Yes.
folds short shadings
on top at right
angles, referred
to as ‘stitches’.
Differences Diagonal, Yes. Yes. No. Yes.
in depth and parallel hatching.
fabric
Mid-tones Widely spaced, Yes. Yes. Partly: Yes.
for dressed diagonal shorter shadings.
figures hatching, often
from top right to
bottom left.
Large Widely spaced Yes. No. No. Yes.
shadow areas hatching, often
from top right to
bottom left on
top of previous
hatchings.
Darkest areas Crosshatching, Yes. Yes. A small amount Yes.
often hexagonal of crosshatching.
or diamond-
shaped.
Shadows on Numerous Yes. Yes. No nudes Yes.
bare bodies curved, small present.
lines (commas),
as if figures are
covered with
hair.
Shadows on Multiple curved, Yes. Yes. Possibly some Yes.
the face vertical commas parallel lines
across forehead along right side
like ‘pony' of face of Christ.
haircut, and
along the
temples.
Shadows under Four or five Yes. Yes. No; diagonal Yes.
the chin short, vertical lines
lines, like a corresponding to
beard. the form.
Indication of Some lines, Yes. No. No. Yes.
eyes, nose, often only
mouth circles for the
eyes.
Zigzags Unclear function, Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
possibly softly
folding fabric.
Horizon Coarse, curved, Yes. Yes. Not visible in Yes.
undulating lines examined part.
like water.
Contours Thick and broad. No. Yes. No. No.
Table 1: Pattern book of Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen’s graphic repertory

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

Fig. 7. Detail of the Nativity (plate 3),
face of Andries Boelen. Naples, Museo
e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte.
techniques almost in their entirety. Scorel’s first independent painting, the Obervellach altarpiece
(1519), is stylistically and technically so similar to the work of Jacob Cornelisz. that the triptych
might be attributed to the latter were it not for the fact that Jan van Scorel himself clearly
signed it.53 The same applies to the Adoration of the Magi in Chicago, a panel that had been attrib-
uted to Jacob Cornelisz. for years.54 Technical research, however, made it clear that the painting
was made by Jan van Scorel, who absorbed his master’s style and technique, and in his first years
as an independent artist continued to follow the practices he learned as a studio assistant.Although
these practices, which will be described in detail, are typical for Jacob Cornelisz.’s workshop, I
detect the hand of the master himself in the paintings under discussion – an impression prompt-
ed by the high quality of the works and the similarities between the painting technique and the
woodcuts.
The first painting to be used in the description of Jacob Cornelisz.’s technique is the Nativity,
dated 1512, in the Museo Capodimonte in Naples.The panel is regarded as one of the high-
lights of the master’s early work.55 The attribution to Jacob Cornelisz. dates as far back as 1882
and has not been in dispute since the identification of the donors as members of the Amsterdam
Catholic oligarchy.56 A late gothic composition filled with large as well as smaller figures, all
represented in great detail, this work is regarded as typifying Jacob Cornelisz’s oeuvre. Friedlän-
der aptly defines Jacob Cornelisz.’s focus on minute details as ‘a myopic interest in texture’.57
There are at least four other versions similar in composition and style to the Nativity, all attrib-
uted to Jacob Cornelisz.58
Although the Naples panel is one of the largest works from the oeuvre of Jacob Cornelisz.
(128 x 177 cm), it looks as if it had been painted in miniature.This must be the graphic style to
which Friedländer refers.The whole panel is ‘drawn in paint’ down to the smallest detail.The
paint surface is built up with numerous hatchings, tiny stripes of paint, which in most cases are
slightly curved and generally run from top right to bottom left.59 They appear to have been

Fig. 8. Detail of the Nativity (plate 3),
face of Margriet Boelen. Naples,
Museo e Galleria Nazionale di
Capodimonte.
applied by means of a small brush and thick, sticky paint. Such thick paint surfaces are found
primarily in the earlier work of Jacob Cornelisz. Friedländer defined this application technique
as heavy-handed ‘hatching and dotting’.60 In combination, these miniscule lines form light and
shadow.The skin areas were all laid in as flesh-colored mid-tones, after which the lightest parts
were ‘drawn’ in light beige, and the shadows were applied in a semi-transparent brown, as can
best be seen under the chin of the female donor, Margriet Boelen (fig. 8), and, behind her, in
the hand of St.Agnes.The face of the male donor,Andries Boelen, was painted in a similar man-
ner (fig. 7), as was the whole of the panel, down to the minutest detail.
The contours of the figures are enhanced with the dark outlines noted by Friedländer, as can
be seen along the nose, eyes, and mouth of the face of Margriet.The same applies to Andries
Boelen, and, for instance, the angel holding the missal (plate 4a). Practically every contour in the
painting has been created by a dark line. A comparable manifestation of this ‘graphic style’ is
seen in the Adoration of the Magi in the Art Institute, Chicago, which, along with the painting
technique, also resembles the Naples altarpiece in composition and detail.61

A few brief remarks should be added about the
underdrawing of the Naples painting, since the
same graphic repertoire was used as for the
works discussed earlier. The underdrawing is
applied in a dry medium, probably chalk, and
is extremely detailed.62 The lively and exuber-
ant style of the 1507 Crucifixion and the Life of
the Virgin is instantly recognizable. Like the paint
surface, the forms in the underdrawing have
been meticulously prepared down to the small-
est detail.The miniscule angels in the sky, for
example, are sketched in with rapid, short cir-
cular lines.The foreground figures are drawn
in greater detail. The preparation of the
draperies of the main figures, in particular,
shows a fine web of hatching that completely
reflects the pattern book repertoire (fig. 9). In
column four of the pattern book, the under-
drawing of the Naples altarpiece is discussed in
Fig. 9. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the fig- greater detail.
ure of Joseph in the Nativity (plate 3). Naples, Museo e
Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte. (IRR: Molly Faries;The second panel displaying the graphic style
digital composite: Catharina van Daalen). described by Friedländer is the Virgin and Child
with Musical Angels (plate 3).This type of com-
position was obviously quite popular in the
period between 1512 and 1519, as there are seven paintings with this theme, all of which are
attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. and/or his studio.63 Around 1515, the humanist Pompeus Occo
commissioned a triptych in which he and his spouse were painted on the wings, with the Vir-
gin and Child surrounded by musical angels in the middle panel.64 The burgomaster of Alk-
maar,Augustijn van Teylingen, commissioned a similar work in or around 1518.65 There are no
identical replicas but, as in the case of the Crucifixion, the group does contain partial copies.The
comparable sizes, as well as the compositional similarities and the discovery of a grid under one
of the works from this group, suggest serial production of this theme in Jacob Cornelisz.’s stu-
dio.66 The previously unpublished painting to be discussed here, which was offered for sale by
Sotheby’s in New York in 2000, is one of the best of these versions.67 Due to its high quality, it
is possible that this painting was part of a commissioned triptych.68
The surface of this meticulously painted version of the Virgin and Child with Musical Angels
consists almost entirely of linear strokes. A good example can be seen in the hand of the lute-
playing angel at bottom left. It appears as if the hand is drawn in paint rather than painted.These
‘hatchings’, again applied with a small brush in sticky, thick paint, are slightly curved and in many
cases run from top right to bottom left.The Virgin’s hand provides another example of this drafts-
man-like brushwork.69 In addition to the flesh areas, the hair, drapery, and gold ornaments were
all created in this way. Nearly every part of the figures is outlined in dark brown, as can be seen,
again, in the Virgin’s hand. Comparable contour lines can also be observed around all the angels,
as for instance the angel with the flower basket (plate 4b).
This panel was also examined by means of infrared reflectography.70 Although the extremely
lively underdrawing can be detected with the naked eye, it showed up poorly in infrared reflec-
tography, becoming only partly visible.The possibility cannot be excluded that the artist exe-
cuted the preparatory drawing in a brownish ink, a material that is assumed to be present in
approximately one-third of the examined paintings attributed to Jacob Cornelisz.71

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

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

Although the Kassel panel was not docu-
mented in its entirety, the IRR material pub-
lished here still makes it clear that there are
significant differences in style between the Noli
Me Tangere and the Crucifixion from the same
year.The Kassel work also differs from other
paintings attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. As the
Crucifixion must be from Jacob’s studio, it would
seem more sensible in any future research to
regard the New York work rather than Noli Me
Tangere as the starting point for the oeuvre of
Jacob Cornelisz. Moreover, the Crucifixion
belongs to a group of at least ten composition-
al variants that are all attributed to Jacob on the
basis of similarities in style and size, as well as to
similarities in a signed woodcut with the same
composition. It therefore provides a more sol-
id foundation for Jacob Cornelisz.’s oeuvre than
the Noli Me Tangere, which cannot be related
to any other work.
Jacob Cornelisz.: A ‘Painter in Black and

White’
As discussed earlier, Friedländer wondered

whether the term ‘painterly’ was really applic-
able to Jacob Cornelisz. He linked the elabo- Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram assembly of the figure of
rately worked-up surface technique to Jacob Christ in the Kassel Noli me tangere (plate 2). (IRR and
Cornelisz.’s main activity and possible training assembly: Molly Faries).
in the graphic arts. Friedländer referred to Lucas
van Leyden (ca. 1494 – 1533), whose paintings
also exhibit a graphic style and were done after
the artist had been producing engravings and woodcuts for a fairly long time.‘Having begun to
engrave as a painter, [Lucas] seems to paint as an engraver…’,81 according to Friedländer, who
further refers to Lucas’s work as ‘…reminiscent of engraving technique’.82
As a supplement to Friedländer’s observations, Filedt Kok suggested in 1979 that underdraw-

ings in the earliest paintings of Lucas van Leyden often look like the graphic equivalents of the
painted surfaces.83 The as yet undeveloped painting technique of the master led Filedt Kok to
conclude that Lucas started devoting himself to painting only after he had fully mastered the skills
of drawing and engraving.84
A comparable, close relationship between painting and printmaking has also been observed in
the works of Hans Schäuffelein (ca. 1480-1540) and Hans Baldung Grien (ca. 1484 – 1545),
artists also proficient both media.The underdrawings of the paintings they produced show graph-
ic conventions that can also be found in their woodcuts or engravings.85 Furthermore, their paint-
ings have linear, or graphic, details in the paint surfaces. In Schäuffelein’s work there is even a
type of ‘overdrawing’ in which figures are modeled by means of parallel shadings and crosshatching
placed over the colors. According to Ainsworth, this gives the works the appearance of wood-
cuts.86 In 1986, Judson came to a comparable conclusion.According to this art historian, a loose
pen and ink drawing attributed to Jacob Cornelisz., Allegory on the Sacrifice of the Mass (ca. 1513),
was similar in technique to the master’s woodcuts from the same period.87

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES
* I am indebted to Dr. Maryan Ainsworth for her help in 10. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 64.
setting up this research during my internship at the Sherman
Fairchild Paintings Conservation Department of the Metro- 11. Steinbart 1922, 47:‘Es ist immer wieder, als ob der Pin-
politan Museum of Art in New York. I am very grateful to Ms. sel seine Hand beschwere und erst der Stift sie zu frischerem
Hester Diamond not only for allowing me to examine the schaffen beflügele.’ (It always seems as if the brush makes Jacob’s
Crucifixion, but also, and in particular, for funding part of my hand heavier, whereas, with the drawing stylus, he creates fresh
research and the translation of this article. Many thanks go to designs.)
Professor Molly Faries for her willingness to allow me to exam- 12. Maryan Ainsworth, who published a list of desiderata
ine with her the Naples Nativity with infrared reflectography for future research, suggested study of the ‘symbiotic relation-
and for allowing me to examine her IRR material on Jacob ship’ between engravings, underdrawings, and paintings;
Cornelisz. and to publish the IRR of the Kassel painting, as Ainsworth 2001, 117.
well as for her comments on the various versions of this text.
The processing of the material was made possible by a grant 13. 1) Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, cat. no.A 1967; panel, 104
from The University of Utrecht, for which I am indebted to x 88 cm dated ca. 1510); 2) Philadelphia, Philadelphia Muse-
Professor Peter Hecht. I am very grateful to Dr. Truus van um of Art, Johnson Collection, cat. no. 409, panel, 99 x 80.4
Bueren of The Utrecht University for her comments on the cm (dated ca. 1515); 3) Barnard Castle, Bowes Museum, cat.
various versions of this article. I also thank the Foundation no.unknown,panel,106 x 91,7 cm (dated ca.1517);4) Utrecht,
Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, in particular Mr. and Mrs. van Centraal Museum, cat. no. 27855, panel, 76,5 x 80.8 cm (dated
Wijk, for their help in acquiring the color plates.This article ca. 1520); 5) Amsterdam, Stichting P.& N. de Boer, panel, 87 x
was translated from the Dutch by Dr. Paul Van Buren. 77 cm (date unknown); 6) Location unknown, Sotheby Mak
van Waay 1977, no. 101, 66.5 x 49.5 cm.; 7) Utrecht, Museum
Catharijneconvent,cat.no.S 87,118 x 103 cm,(dated ca.1520),
1. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 64. with six other scenes from the Passion of Christ;8)Vaduz,Prince
of Liechtenstein collection, cat. no. 938, panel, 100 x 80 cm.
2. For the estimate of Jacob’s date of birth, see Carroll 1987,
8. 14.The woodcut is made up of two folios, 49.6 x 35.5 cm;
Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, Graphische Sammlung, cat. no.A 13394,
3. van Eeghen 1986, 97. 49.6 x 35.5 cm.
4. Parshall and Landau 1994, 8. Moes reports that Jacob’s 15. Steinbart dates the woodcut to ca.1511/12; Steinbart
grandson, Cornelis Anthonisz., whom we know mainly as a 1937, 36 (no. 19). Schretlen dated it to ca. 1504; Schretlen 1938,
designer of woodcuts, also identified himself as a painter; Moes 147.
1900, 187-98. Regarding Cornelis Anthonisz., see Filedt Kok
et al. 1986, 198. 16.The date is part of the original paint layer and thus can-
not have been added later.This observation derives from the
5. van Eeghen established that Jacob Cornelisz. must have stereomicroscopic research by Justina Bascik, Sherman Fairchild
bought his house before the turn of the century; van Eeghen Conservation Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
1986, 97. York (September 14, 2000). Dendrochronology was carried
out by Dr. Peter Klein, University of Hamburg, on May 30,
6. Friedländer (1975, vol. 12) published two paintings which 1996. According to Klein, the earliest possible felling date of
he suspected to be from one of Jacob Cornelisz.’s earlier peri- the tree used for the panel is 1499. However, with the addi-
ods: Virgin and Child with St.Anne (Yale Art Gallery, 92.5 x 84 tion of a statistical average of fifteen sapwood rings and a min-
cm) and an Adoration of the Magi (Utrecht, Museum Cathari- imum of two years drying time, the painting could have been
jneconvent, inv. no. ABM 61, 112.5 x 109 cm). The former produced from 1506 onwards.
work is now attributed to the Haarlem School, and the under-
drawing of this painting is different from those in works that 17.Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum (cat. no.A 1967), oil on pan-
are characteristic of Jacob Cornelisz.The IRR examination el, 104 x 88 cm.
was conducted by Dr. Maryan Ainsworth and Daantje Meuwis-
sen on September 8, 2000, with the equipment of the Yale Uni- 18. Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3, 89.
versity. The work in the Catharijneconvent is currently referred 19.This subject will be discussed in the forthcoming Cen-
to as ‘anonymous North Netherlandish’. traal Museum catalogue by Molly Faries, Liesbeth Helmus, and
7. Beets 1914, 86, Filedt Kok et al. 1986, 131; and Carroll Dorien Tamis. I thank Dorien Tamis for allowing me to read
1987, 5. the first version of the catalogue entry for the Crucifixion attrib-
uted to Jacob Cornelisz., cat. no. 27855.
8. Friedländer (1975, vol. 12, 56) suggests that the practice
of signing paintings originated from the art of engraving, and 20. In this connection, also see Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3, 95-
that painters who were not engravers usually did not sign their 100. Truus van Bueren and I are preparing a publication in
paintings. However, this does not explain the sixteen year gap which we discuss Jacob Cornelisz.’s use of woodcuts for his
between Jacob’s first signed woodcut (1507) and the first signed own paintings.
painting (1523). 21. Steinbart 1922, 86.
9. Schretlen suggested that Jacob Cornelisz. was, above all, 22. Carroll 1987, 175.
a designer of woodcuts; Schretlen 1925, 143-49. For an
overview of the literature on the early works of Jacob Cor- 23. Of course, a much later copy of the 1507 version might
nelisz., see Carrol 1987, 8-14. be the case here.

24. Rosier 1977, vol. 1, 131. was carried out by the author with the use of a Panavue Image
Assembler 2.10, and edited with Adobe Photoshop 5.0.
25. Filedt Kok 1988, 89.
35.Ainsworth and Faries 1986, 16.
26. Steinbart 1937, 11-23. For the monogram, see also
Appendix 1. 36.There are cases known in which the underdrawing was
used as a kind of vidimus, but the Crucifixion shows no indica-
27. Jacobowitz and Stepanek 1983, 266. tion of this. For more details, see Faries 2001, 86-88, and Faries
28. According to Schretlen the hatchings in the woodcuts 1993, 101.
continue to get busier, heavier, and rounder over the years, but 37.The folios measure approximately 37.8 x 27.8 cm (the
here I disagree with the author (Schretlen 1958, 148). sizes of the various folios differ by a few millimeters), while
29. Next to the Amsterdam coat of arms, the coat of arms the individual compositions in the bottom half measure approx-
of Rotterdam can also be seen (leaf no. 7), but neither gives imately 19 cm. It is not known whether the compositions were
any indication of the patron’s identity (see Steinbart 1937, 15). carved as separate blocks. In any event, they were reprinted in
Above the Amsterdam coat of arms an emperor’s crown is 1513 (for a series with the Seven Sorrows of Mary) and placed
displayed; see Dudok van Heel 1993, 1-21. in a frame designed by Jacob Cornelisz.; see Steinbart 1937,
19-20. Steinbart suspects that the printer, Doen Pietersz., carved
30. Moes 1900, 41. the original blocks of the Seven Sorrows of Mary in 1513; Stein-
bart 1937, 63-64.
31. Parshall and Landau 1994, 205.
38. It is also possible that contour lines in the underdraw-
32.To my knowledge Parshall and Landau never account-
ing might coincide with the painted contours in the surface,
ed for their estimate. I do not know, for example, whether the
thus rendering them invisible for IRR.
authors based their calculation on several cutters, or only on
one. This clearly affects the calculation of the time that was 39.This hatching can also be seen in the Naples altarpiece
spent on the carving of the Life of the Virgin. My estimates by Jacob Cornelisz.This will be discussed in greater detail in
correspond to two possibilities: either a) the number of blocks section four of this article. See also exh. cat. Ondertekend 2003
is the determining factor, or b) the surface to be cut is the (entry by van Daalen, 31-36).
determining factor. Regarding a), the underlying assumption
is that Jacob Cornelisz. spent as much time as Altdorfer on 40.Veldman 1985, 261; Moes 1900, 41, also suggested this.
carving a block, assuming that Jacob Cornelisz.’s blocks may 41. Jacobowitz and Stepanek, 1983, 266.
have been larger, resulting in more than average carving time,
but that miniature woodcuts by Altdorfer must have taken 42. Ibid., 29.
longer because they were more detailed. Consequently, in
this hypothesis surface and detail cancel each other out. 43.The artist, in turn, tried to adapt his design to the tech-
If 40 blocks for Altdorfer = 2.5 years, then 7 blocks for Jacob nical requirements of the material. For more details, see Par-
Cornelisz. = 0.4375 year (in other words, about six months). shall and Landau 1994, 172-74, and Ivins 1929-30, 102-11.
Regarding b), the underlying assumption is that the surface 44. On woodblock drawings, see for instance, Müller 1999,
is the determining factor.The degree of elaboration is irrele- 121, including Dürer’s woodblock drawings for the series, The
vant in this case and the size of the block is the sole determi- Comedies of Terence (ca. 1492), 119-23.
nant of carving time.The basis for the calculation would seem
to be reliable, given that carving costs relating to the printing 45.The Resurrection of the Young Man of Naïn (Bibliothèque
of Anton Koberger’s Weltchronik (ca. 1492) were based on wood- Nationale, Paris, pen and brown ink on paper, 25 x 23 cm)
block size (Parshall and Landau 1994, 41). could, in my view, be a preparatory sketch for a woodcut,
The hypothesis leads to the following calculation: given its relatively large size, the wide spaces between the lines
surface one Altdorfer panel = 73 x 48 mm = 3.504 mm2, and hatchings, the firmly executed lines, and the attention to
surface one Jacob Cornelisz. panel = 378 x 278 mm = detail. In this connection, see also appendix 1.
105.084 mm2, 46. Strictly speaking, it cannot be excluded that an assis-
total surface Altdorfer’s= 40 x 3.504 mm2 = 140.160 mm2, tant might have been involved whose work faithfully followed
total surface Jacob Cornelisz’s = 7 x 105.084 mm2 = 735.588 the master’s style. On the contribution by Jacob Cornelisz.’s
mm2. studio and its daily routine, see section four.
if Altdorfer’s carving time for 140,160 mm2 = 2.5 years,
then Jacob Cornelisz’s carving time for 735,588 mm2 = 13.1 47. It cannot be excluded that in this case, too, there was
years. somebody involved whose work closely followed the prevail-
This calculation suggests that Jacob Cornelisz.’s designs for ing studio style. However, in view of the early dates of the
the Life of the Virgin were drawn at least six months before 1507 works and their high quality, this would not seem plausible.
and at most slightly over thirteen years before that date.
48. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 63.
33. A print by Hugo Jansz. van Woerden, Een wandelinghe
der kerstenmenschen, contains the following text:‘Printed in Ams- 49. 1: All Saints Triptych, Gemäldegalerie, Kassel, cat. no. 30,
terdam near the Heiliger Stede in the year of Our Lord mcc- signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ on the banderole on the left
cc and vi on the xviii day of December’; Moes 1900,18.The panel, dated ‘1523’ on a banderole on the right panel. 2: Salome
publisher’s imprint on a book printed by Cornelis van Pepin- with the Head of John the Baptist, Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam (on
gen contains the following text:‘Printed in Amsterdam in the loan from Mauritshuis,The Hague), cat. no. C 1349, signed ‘I
Calverstraat at Young Jacob’s alley’.There is no general agree- [identifying mark] A’ and dated ‘1524’ on the banderole in
ment on the dating of this book (1500 or 1520); see Moes the middle of the sky top half. 3: Saul and the Witch of Endor,
1900, 91. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, cat. no. A 668, signed ‘I [identify-
ing mark] A’ and dated ‘A[nn]o 1526 nove[m]ber 29’ on cartelli-
34. Research conducted by Maryan Ainsworth and Daan- no. 4: Virgin and Child with Two Donors, Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie,
tje Meuwissen on August 2, 2000, at the Sherman Fairchild cat. no. GVL 61 a,b,c, signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ and dat-
Paintings Conservation Department, Metropolitan Museum ed ‘1526’ on the middle panel, side panels dated ‘1530’,
of Art, New York. Research was done with a Hamamatsu unsigned. In spite of the identifying mark on the middle pan-
Infrared Vidicon 260606 with C2741 controller, 87 A wrat- el, Friedländer attributes the painting to Jacob’s son, Dirk Jacob-
ten filter, a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55 mm lens.The assembly sz. (Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 56.) 5: Self Portrait, Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam, cat. no.A 1405, signed ‘I [identifying mark] A’ and tion, October, 12, 2003 and August 20, 2004. Mr. Haakma
dated ‘1533’ on cartellino.Although there are no doubts about Wagenaar is convinced that the ceilings of the churches in
the signature, the dating of this work poses problems. In this Warmenhuizen and Alkmaar are painted by Jacob Cornelisz.
connection, see Filedt Kok et al. 1986, 196-97 and van Eeghen and has expressed this opinion in various lectures and in per-
1986, 121. On two controversial, vanished paintings said to sonal communication with specialists). The signed triptych
bear Jacob Cornelisz.’s identifying mark, see Van in Stuttgart is said to have been executed in a ‘mixed medi-
Mander/Miedema 1995, vol. 2, 287. um’ (tempera covered by oil paint), but the catalogue does
not say whether the medium was tested in the laboratory
50.The panel from the Amsterdam Historisch Museum with (Alte Meister 1992, 90). Tempera was rarely used for panel
the portraits of Korsgen Elbertsz, attributed to Jacob Cornelisz., paintings in the northern Netherlands in the fifteenth and
is often dated to 1508, since this is the date that appears on the sixteenth centuries, and in cases where it does occur, it is
frame. However, the date in question marks the death of the restricted to the lowest layers of the painting surfaces, see
female donor’s mother.The donor’s daughter, Griete Korsgen, Dunkerton 2000, 288.
had the panel installed in the Convent of St. Agnes in 1518.
Friedländer (1975, vol. 12, 61) suspected that, in view of its 60. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 63.
style, the work could not have been painted much earlier than
1518, a view that was confirmed by infrared reflectography. 61.Art Institute, Chicago, cat. no. 1983.375. I thank Martha
Wolff for giving me the opportunity on September 21, 2000,
51. Polyptych with St Jerome and Donors,Vienna, Kunsthis- to examine the Chicago Adoration under the microscope, and
torisches Museum, cat. no. 646. Middle panel, 176 x 113 cm, Cynthia Berry for her assistance.According to Steinbart (1922,
side panels, 176 x 46 cm. Dated twice in the Mass of St. Gre- 72), this panel is from the hand of Jacob Cornelisz. himself.
gory: ‘ANNO DOMINI MCCCCCXI/ ANNO DOMINI
1511’. 62. Examined in Naples on October 21, 2002, by Profes-
sor Molly Faries, Linda Jansen, Micha Leeflang and Daantje
52. On Jacob Cornelisz.’s family relations, see van Eeghen, Meuwissen with the use of equipment of the University of
1986, 95-132. Parshall and Landau observe that women and Groningen: Mitsubishi IR M700 E focal plane array camera,
daughters often worked in printmakers’ family studios, for PtSi-FPA 801 x 512 pixel detector and RS 170 or CCIR 625
example, as carvers of woodblocks; Parshall and Landau 1994, video output, Nikkor f 3.5, 55 mm lens; images captured with
12. Arte software.The assembly was made by Tinke van Daalen
in Panavue ImageAssembler 2.10 and edited in Adobe Pho-
53. Faries 1993, 101-11. toshop 5.0. See also exh. cat. Ondertekend 2003 (entry by van
54. Adoration of the Magi, Chicago, Art Institute, cat. no. Daalen, 31-36).
1935.381, unsigned (the inscription on the back, Schoo[r]el, is
63. For tradition, iconography, and an overview of attribu-
not original), ca. 1519, panel. On the attribution to Scorel,
tions, see Carroll 1987, 143-64.The different versions: 1) Rot-
see Faries and Wolff 1996, 728-30.
terdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, cat. no. 3170, panel
55. Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples, 66 x 57.5 cm., ca. 1512-1513 (part of triptych with donors,
(cat. no.3), 128 x 177 cm, dated ‘1512’, unsigned. side panel interiors in Düsseldorf, Kunstmuseum, cat. no. M
1970 13a-b, each panel 65 x 23.5 cm, reverses in private pos-
56. For an overview of the various older attributions, see session; 2) Museum voor Religieuze Kunst, Aarle-Rixtel, 65
Carroll 1987, 107. For the identification of the donors, see x 56 cm (middle panel with Mary), date on painting 1518,
Noach 1940, 227-31, and Scholtens 1958, 198-210.Andries donors Joris Samson and his wife on panels; 3) Munich,
Boelen (1455-1525) is also among the figures present, who, Gemäldegalerie, size and catalog number unknown, (see Stein-
apart from having been mayor of Amsterdam fifteen times bart 1929, 14), might be identical to 4) Schleissheim, Bayerische
in succession, was also an intermediary between Emperor Staatsgemäldesammlungen, cat. no.WAF 159, 84 x 58 cm; 5)
Maximilian II and his aunt, Margriet Dircksdr. Boelen.The Berlin, Staatliche Gemäldegalerie, cat. no. 607, 42 x 32 cm.
other figures are identified as next of kin and relatives by mar- (middle panel with the Madonna), panels with donors,
riage, including Claes Hillebransdtsz. den Otter (1496-1540), Augusteijn van Teijlingen and his wife, each 50 x 17 cm, ca.
a priest of the Nieuwe Kerk parish in Amsterdam.The mem- 1518; 6) Antwerp, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, cat. no. 523-
bers of the Boelen/Den Otter family maintained close rela- 525, 107 x 72 cm (middle panel), 107 x 30 cm, panels with
tions with the Carthusian monastery near Amsterdam, for donors, Pompeus Occo and his wife, ca. 1515-1519; 7) Loca-
which this large work was made. Jacob Cornelisz. probably tion unknown, copy of New York version (see section 4.2),
also produced stained-glass windows for Andries Boelen en presented in Steinbart 1929, 14 (fig.19).The Aarle-Rixtel trip-
Claes Hillebrandtz. which were placed in the Nieuwe Zijds tych was examined on April 19, 2004, by Linda Jansen,Truus
chapel. van Bueren, and Daantje Meuwissen, with Groningen’s infrared
57. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 63. equipment (see note 62). Under the painted surface of the
middle panel, there is another composition with the Virgin and
58. For the different versions, see Carroll 1987, 105-07. Child surrounded by musical angels which seems to be the
exact equivalent of the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen ver-
59. One is inclined to associate this type of application sion. Dr.Truus van Bueren and I are preparing a publication
with tempera paint, a type of paint which, because of its medi- in which we will discuss the memorial pieces painted by Jacob
um (egg), is difficult to mix and therefore is often applied in Cornelisz. and his studio.The examination of the Aarle-Rix-
lines or dots. In contrast, oil paint is, because of its long dry- tel work will be included in the discussion.
ing time, readily mixed, and can thus produce smooth enam-
el-type surfaces. It is generally assumed that Jacob Cornelisz., 64. See note 63 for data on this painting, which is said to
like his contemporaries, painted in oil. This means that his have been displayed in Occo’s house; see Carasso-Kok 2004,
manner of paint application goes against the specific prop- 307.
erties of the medium. However, Jacob Cornelisz.’s use of paint
is worthy of further study, seeing that he also probably used 65. See note 63 for data on this painting.
watercolor or glue for painting on canvas (Carroll 1987, 257), 66. Van Eyck tot Bruegel 1994, 302-05.
and probably also a different medium for his paintings on
ceilings. (For this last remark I am indebted to Mr.W. Haak- 67. Virgin and Child with Musical Angels, unsigned and undat-
ma Wagenaar, restorer of the ceiling paintings attributed to ed. Sotheby’s, New York, January 25, 2001, lot 39A (the paint-
Jacob in the Grote Kerk of Alkmaar; personal communica- ing is currently in the possession of the art dealer, Alexander

Acevedo, New York), 71.8 x 55.3 cm; oil painting on panel, 78. Infrared reflectography by Professor Molly Faries on
two vertical planks. Although the gray ornament in the cor- August 17, 1987, using Indiana University’s Grundig equip-
ners is very old, it is not original.The ornament does not match ment: a Grundig 70 H 875 television camera set at 875 lines,
the manner in which the rest of the panel was painted, nor the outfitted with a Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon,TV Macro-
style of Jacob Cornelisz. in general; furthermore, the crack pat- mar 1:2.8/36 mm lens and Kodak written 87 A filter with a
tern in the corners is different from that of the rest of the paint- Grundig BG 12 monitor. Documentation is done with a Canon
ing. Finally, the ornament is painted on a red layer that is missing A-1 35 mm camera with a 50 mm Macrolens and Kodak Plus
in the rest of the painting. X-ray examination shows that the X film.
corners originally contained a thistle-type ornamentation
(probably in lead-tin yellow), which matches the decoration 79. Carroll sees black contour lines which I have not been
in the version illustrated in Steinbart 1929, 14 (fig. 19); X-ray able to discern. Such contour lines were held to be necessary
examination on September 14, 2000, by Justina Bascik, Sher- to separate the foreground from the background figures; Car-
man Fairchild Conservation Department, Metropolitan Muse- roll 1987, 201. Carroll’s statement may have been based on a
um of Art, New York. similar suggestion made earlier by Steinbart to the effect that
the figures are ‘…scharf in dem Umriß eingefangen…’; Stein-
68. I have not been able to trace the provenance of the work. bart 1922, 45.
It was offered for sale in the autumn of 1999 at Christie’s, New
York. 80. Steinbart 1922, 45 and Carroll 1987, 201.
69.The hand of the Virgin has an area with hatched retouch-
ing. Obviously this area is not the ‘handwriting’ of Jacob Cor- 82. Ibid., 51 and 63.A comparable graphic manner has also
nelisz. been suggested for the paintings of Hendrik Goltzius (1558-
1617), which were made after the master had produced engrav-
70. Infrared reflectography was done on July 27, 2000, by ings for a long time; see Leeflang en Luijten 2003, 265-69.
Dr. Maryan Ainsworth, Kristi Dahm, and Daantje Meuwissen
at the Sherman Fairchild Paintings Conservation Department, 83. Filedt Kok 1979, 36-41.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.The equipment used
was a Hamamatsu Infrared Vidicon 260606 with C2741 con- 84. Ibid., 3.
troller, 87 A wratten filter, and a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55 mm 85. In this connection, see also Faries 1983, 144-57, and
lens. Filedt Kok 1983, 163-70.Also see Micha Leeflang’s article on
71. On this material see Faries 1993, 109, and exh. cat. Joos van Cleve’s St. Reinhold Altarpiece by Joos van Cleve else-
Ondertekend 2003 (entry by Meuwissen, 23). For some parts of where in this volume.
the painting it was easier to make the underdrawing visible, 86.Ainsworth 1987, 135-40. It should be pointed out that
for example, in the Madonna’s chest, where several slightly ‘overdrawing’ does not occur only in Schäuffelein but is a Ger-
curved lines can be discerned. The angels in the top left of man tradition.
the painting shows small circular lines that match those of the
preparation of some of the angels in the Naples altarpiece. 87. Judson 1986, 126-27.This observation holds as well for
other drawings attributed to the master; they have not been
72. Kassel, Gemäldegalerie, cat. no. GK 29, panel, 54.5 x included in the context of this article because of their uncer-
38.8 cm., with date on the ointment jar, MCCCCCVII (1507). tain dating.
For a description of the condition of the work, see Schnack-
enburg 1996, 210, and Carroll 1987, 200. 88. On the same matter, see also Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3,
97.
73. Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 57; Carroll 1987, 200.
89. For more details, see Steinbart 1937, 24 –28, and
74. Hoogewerff 1939, vol. 3, 82-85; Steinbart 1922, 43-47. Jacobowitz and Stepanek 1983, 267.
See also De Kruijff, J.D., ‘Jacob´s ‘Noli Me Tangere’ en de
invloed van Dürer’, Jacobsbode. Nieuwsbrief van de Stichting Jacob 90. Ibid., 30.
Cornelisz. van Oostsanen 3 (2004), 1-4. 91. Schretlen 1925, 143-149.
75. I have not had an opportunity to examine the painting 92. For more details, see the section on ‘Prints as competi-
under the microscope. My description is based on an inspec- tors of paintings’ in Parshall and Landau 1994, 81.
tion with the naked eye, a photographic magnification of the
painting made by the Foundation Jacob Cornelisz. van Oost- 93. Filedt Kok 1988, 89, and Parshall and Landau 1994,
sanen, as well as Steinbart’s description, see Steinbart 1922, 42- 8. Ainsworth concluded that Gerard David, who worked in
47. Beets reports that he could not detect any ‘flowing the southern Netherlands (ca. 1455-1523), occasionally
brushwork’ in the Noli Me Tangere, but at the same time sug- acquired commissions for miniatures on the basis of his rep-
gests that he cannot detect ‘smooth brushwork’ in the other utation as a pre-eminent panel painter in Bruges;Ainsworth
works of Jacob Cornelisz. either; Beets 1914, 86. 2002, 1.
76.The somewhat childlike figures in the background cor- 94. Parshall and Landau 1994, 8.
respond to the background figures in the Crucifixion in Barnard 95. Ibid.
Castle (Bowes Museum, cat. no. unknown, panel, 106 x 91.7
cm, dated to ca. 1517). 96. Ibid.
77. Hollstein 1968, no. 60.The figures are mirror images of 97. Ibid., 31.
those in the Kassel painting: Christ is to the left, Mary Mag- 98. Schmid 1996, 34.
dalene to the right. Christ makes a pointing gesture, in con-
trast to the painting where he touches Mary Magdalene (on 99. In my opinion, future research into the earliest activi-
this iconographic problem, see De Kruijff 2004, 1-4, cited in ties of Jacob Cornelisz. should focus on the painting tech-
note 74 above.) In the woodcut, Christ’s upper torso and his nique of the Master of the Figdor Deposition, active in
legs are bare and he has a cloth on his head, while the Kassel Haarlem or Amsterdam, ca. 1500. This is the artist who has
painting shows nothing on the head and the cloak covers near- been said to lie between Geertgen tot Sint Jans (ca. 1460/1465-
ly all of Christ’s body. Behind Christ’s head a halo can be seen 1488/1493) and Jacob Cornelisz. It has also been suggested
which is missing in the painting. that the Figdor Master was the young Jacob Cornelisz. (for

more details, see Defoer 1998, 265-74, and Filedt Kok ed. 100. Brulliot was the first to link the anonymous mono-
2000), 76, a suggestion I find quite plausible for several rea- gram to Jacob Cornelisz. On the historiography concerning
sons. First, there are clear stylistic similarities between the two the monogram, see Carroll 1987, 1-2
masters: recently Dr. Paul Huys Jansen published an unknown
panel with Scenes from the Life of St. Bartholomew and attrib- 101.Van Mander/Miedema 1995, vol. 2, 285.
uted it to the Master of the Figdor Deposition.The fact that 102. My thanks go to Wouter Kloek of the Rijksmuseum
this panel strongly resembles in style, composition, and size, in Amsterdam, who drew my attention to the Paris drawing.
the panel by Jacob Cornelisz., Scenes from the life of St. Hubert
(Berlin, Gemäldegalerie) was not mentioned. Whether the 103. van Regteren Altena 1975, 274;Van Mander/Miede-
two paintings were part of the same altarpiece is not known. ma 1995, vol. 2, 1995, 285.
What is clear is that the works were created in close proxim- 104. van Eeghen 1986, 103.
ity to each other, perhaps in the same studio. Further research
into this matter will be conducted by the Foundation Jacob 105. Ibid., 103 and 122, note 18.
Cornelisz. van Oostsanen.A second connection between the
Figdor Master and Jacob Cornelisz. may be found in the draw- 106. Friedländer read the monogram as two interconnect-
ing of the Deposition (Dresden, Kupferstichkabinett, cat. no. ed letters; Friedländer 1975, vol. 12, 53.
799a, 28.6 x 24.4 cm), which has been attributed to Jacob 107. More on this in Van Mander/Miedema 1995, vol. 2,
Cornelisz on the basis of style. The attribution is correct in 290.
my view, since all the characteristics enumerated in the pat-
tern book are present in the drawing. It is striking that the 108. Cornelis Cornelisz. Buys, Rebecca at the Well, panel, 106
figure of Nicodemus is practically identical to the one in the x 73 cm., private collection; included in Filedt Kok et al. 1986,
painted Descent from the Cross (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, 131 244. Incidentally, the latter publication mentions that Dirck
x 102, lost in 1944/1945), a work attributed to the Figdor Jacobsz. signed with the same monogram (p. 199).
Master and the work that gave the master his name.This pan- 109. van Regteren Altena 1975, 268-76.
el originally formed the exterior wing of an altarpiece with
the Martyrdom of St. Lucy on the interior (also attributed to 110.The author is referring here to Wagenaar’s description
the Figdor Master,Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, cat. no. SK-A- of Amsterdam (1760), which was said to contain a statement
1688). to the effect that War or Werre referred to the place Warmond
in the present-day province of Noord-Holland; see van
Regteren Altena 1975, 274.

Collaboration in Manuscripts:
France and the Low Countries
Anne H. van Buren
Professor, Retired,Tufts University
Making one of the profusely decorated manuscripts that were brought to an apogee of refine-
ment in the late fifteenth century always entailed a good deal of collaboration: collaboration
between scribes, between the chief illuminator and the scribe, and among the several illumina-
tors required to complete such a book in a reasonable length of time.1 Indeed, collaboration was
promoted by both the physical structure of the volume and the sequential technique of paint-
ing.Although the artists’ procedure was not invariable – books differed in content, size, and degree
of luxury; artists were individuals with habits of their own; and conditions of making and mar-
keting changed with the explosion of the book industry – it is still possible to describe those
commonly observed in the numerous unfinished manuscripts that have survived to the present.
A medieval volume, like a fine modern book, was built up in quires, or gatherings.These were
packages of superimposed sheets of parchment (or paper for a cheaper book), usually assembled
in quantities of four, called quaternia, but they could be larger and scribes often used a ternion
or a binion for a short text or the end of a longer one.The sheets, or bifolios, were not fixed in
their gatherings until the binder stitched them in, as he took the thread gathering by gathering
around leather toggles laid over their backs, thus creating the spine.While this construction cre-
ated a strong binding, it also provided the craftsmen with a basic unit of work. Scribes were paid
according to the number of gatherings written2 and illuminators, although paid by the piece,3
often worked on a gathering, or group of gatherings, at a time.
Before the work could start, the director of the enterprise, the patron or his or her agent (a
dealer, the author or translator, or the scribe) had to provide an exemplar for the text and decide
on the layout.4 The exemplar was usually an earlier manuscript of the text or, for a new text, a
rough copy provided by the author or translator, as Jean Wauquelin did for the first of the com-
missions through which Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy launched a revival of literature and
manuscript painting in the Low Countries.5 This rough copy might be a complete mock-up,
with spaces reserved for the decorated initials and miniatures. Judging from the several that have
survived, Philip’s writers regularly made such a minute (as they were called in French) for a new
text or format. Before its destruction in World War II the minute for Philip’s extraordinary side-
turned chronicle of the kings of Jerusalem lay unnoticed in the municipal library of Tournai.6
Better known examples are five manuscripts from the shop of his secretary and translator of pious
works, Jean Miélot. All contain rough ink and wash illustrations apparently by Miélot himself,
many of them copied from printed engravings. In the minute for his Miroir de salvation humaine
of 1449, Miélot traced figures in prints by the Master of the Gardens of Love, the Master of the
Playing Cards, and the Master of the Banderoles.When no print was available, he copied the cor-
responding miniature in a manuscript of the original Latin Speculum Humanae Salvationis.7
With the increased specialization of crafts by this time, the scribe probably received the parch-
ment, or paper for a cheaper book, from the parchment maker or paper mill already cut, ruled
to his specifications, and put into gatherings.8 The surface had been smoothed by rubbing it with
pumice and the ruling initiated by pricking through the sheets of a gathering with an awl or
knife or running a spiked wheel along their edges. Lines for the columns and rows of text were
COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS 83
then ruled between the pricks with a stylus of plummet, an alloy of lead and tin.9 The ruling
was fundamental to the appearance of the page, determining both the module of the script and
the format of the miniatures and decorated initials, which were fitted between the columns and
a number of lines. It could also structure the composition of the miniature when an artist drew
the edges of furniture or architecture along the ruled lines.10
The scribe usually made his or her transcription page by page, on sheets folded in their gath-
erings.With foliation still a rare novelty, the scribe created a device to preserve the order of the
gatherings, which today enables scholars to determine the manuscript’s structure. On complet-
ing the last line in a gathering, he or she copied the following word or two in a nearby margin,
thus creating a catchword. Since these words were repeated in the first line of the next gather-
ing, the book’s illuminators and, most importantly, the binder had only to match them to the
preceding catchword.To keep the order within a gathering, someone, usually the binder, marked
the lower right corner of each bifolio with a signature, a letter of the alphabet for each gather-
ing followed by a Roman numeral in minuscule for each bifolio: aj aij aiij, and aiiij and bj-iiij
and so forth.The signatures thus appear on only the first half of the gathering because all the
leaves of the second half are conjoined with those of the first.11
Once the scribe had completed the transcription, he or she sent the gatherings to the illumi-
nators or, more often, to the patron.12 The illuminators received their instructions in a variety
of ways.They might be told to reproduce the miniatures of the scribe’s exemplar or some oth-
er manuscript, a procedure implied whenever the copy contains color notes in or near the
spaces left for a miniature.When both the copy and the model exist today, much light is cast on
the artists’ procedure. Sometimes, they copied the older miniatures exactly, not even following
the usual practice of modernizing the way the figures are dressed, presumably to save time and
the effort of invention.An example is found in a Roman de Thèbes made for a bookseller in Lille,13
and the Master of Guillebert de Mets did the same in the copy of Boccaccio’s Decameron which
his eponymous scribe transcribed for Philip the Good from the early Parisian copy Philip had
inherited from his father, John the Fearless.14 In fact the Guillebert Master copied the older
miniatures so closely that he must have traced them,15 but he managed to paint only a third of
the planned one hundred miniatures.The set was completed a few years later by the Campinesque
Master of Jean Mansel.This artist had access to the first artist’s presumed tracings, but used them
more freely, sometimes modifying a composition to make it adhere more closely to the text and
regularly modernizing the settings and the dress. His style may explain why Philip kept both
copies.The duke may have kept the older copy in fidelity to his father and preferred the one
largely illustrated in the new realistic style, which had been developed by his own subjects, Jan
van Eyck and Robert Campin.
For traditional texts such as those of a Book of Hours, the subjects were often written next to
the spaces for miniatures, by the scribe or someone else. Two French instances will be men-
tioned farther on. For an unfamiliar text, the miniaturist often received a list of subjects from a
learned adviser such as the churchman, Jean Gerson, for the illustration of Honorat Bovet’s trea-
tise on the schism of the Church,16 the early French humanist Jean Lebègue, for Sallust’s Roman
histories,17 and the later humanist Robert Gaguin, who wrote a program for Maître François to
follow in a luxurious copy of St. Augustine’s City of God.18 For a new text, the author usually
devised the program for its illustration, as Olivier de la Marche did for his allegorical poem, Le
chevalier delibéré.19 Some such list must have stood behind the letters and numbers that are some-
times found next to the miniatures, notably, in the first volume of the presentation copy of the
Chroniques de Hainaut (the text of which Wauquelin sent the duke in 1447),20 in its second vol-
ume and other manuscripts illustrated by Willem Vrelant21 and in the Lille Roman de Thèbes.22
Simpler instructions might be given orally and noted by the artist in a few sketchy figures in a
margin,23 and there is at least one instance of the artist writing his own instructions.The Guille-
bert Master wrote a description of the miniature in his native Flemish language below a sequence
84 COLLABORATION IN MANUSCRIPTS
of four in Philip’s new Decameron, the only ones that do not follow the model. It appears that
the artist, having lost the four tracings, wrote down his recollections of the model, which had
been returned to the ducal library.24
When miniaturists had to invent a design they could draw on the collection of patterns which
was an essential part of an artist’s equipment. In a complaint filed with the Duke of Berry’s chief
of works, a certain Jean de Hollande accused Jacquemart de Hesdin, Jacquemart’s apprentice,
and his brother-in-law of breaking into his chest and stealing his colors and patterns.25 The draw-
ings, usually of individual figures or groups but also whole compositions, were probably on
loose sheets, although some may have been bound in a fascicule.26 While only a few such sheets
survive from the Low Countries,27 the use of a pattern is implied in the numerous manuscripts
that contain the same figure in more than one miniature. The Master of Guillebert de Mets,
who probably worked in a Parisian illuminator’s shop around 1412, continued to reproduce com-
positions by those Parisian illuminators until his death around 1440.28 The Master named after
Wauquelin’s Histoire d’Alexandre (whose eponymous book resulted, along with the Chroniques de
Hainaut and a splendid Roman de Girart de Roussillon, from the writer’s first ducal commission)
reproduced the same figures of soldiers and workmen in the Chroniques and in the Alexandre.29
Patterns used in all three books entered the possession of Dreux Jehan, Philip’s entitled illumi-
nator who probably directed their illustration. He re-used them in 1456, in the above-mentioned
Jerusalem Chronicle and a clumsy follower used them again around 1465 in a Grande chronique
de Normandie made for one of Philip’s courtiers.30
Other artists were more eclectic.The rough painter of the misnamed Hours of Anne of Brit-
tany assembled a veritable anthology of Netherlandish panels and miniatures visible in Bruges
around 1460: groups and whole compositions from the Dutch-Parisian Limbourg brothers, the
Eyckian painters of the Turin-Milan Hours,Van Eyck himself, Robert Campin, and Rogier van
der Weyden.31 The Flemish panel painters were equally admired in Utrecht, where the Master
of Catherine of Cleves reproduced works of Van Eyck and Campin in at least two manuscripts,
while his followers repeated his own figures and groups, evidently copied in the shop’s collec-
tion of patterns.32
The Cleves Master also used the new medium of prints to populate his borders with animals
and flowers copied from the suit-points in the earliest engraved playing cards. In Flanders the
cards were used not only by Miélot, but also by professional illuminators in the first volume of
the Chroniques de Hainaut, in the Girart de Roussillon, and in certain Books of Hours.33 The Guille-
bert Master even copied three of the cards’ deer in a miniature, the one that opens in Philip the
Good’s copy of the Livre des deduits du roi Modus et de la reine Ratio, a hunting manual.34 Miélot’s
use of engravings for his Miroir de salvation humaine has already been mentioned and the Master
of Wauquelin’s Alexander copied Master E. S.’s print of the Man of Sorrows in the Hours of Paul
van Overtvelt, a leading citizen of Bruges (figs. 1 and 2)35
Meanwhile, using drawn patterns,Vrelant reproduced figure groups from Parisian manuscripts
and from Eyckian miniatures of the Turin-Milan Hours,while his assistants repeated his own motifs.36
By the end of the century such repetitions were a regular practice.The group known as the Ghent
Associates copied figures and compositions invented by the Master of Mary of Burgundy and the
related Master of the Houghton Miniatures, as well as, more remotely, Dirk Bouts and Hugo van
der Goes, in the Berlin Hours of Duchess Mary of Burgundy and her husband Maximilian of
Austria.37 The same patterns remained in use in the shop of the long-lived Master of Maximilian’s
Older Prayer Book, a manuscript which also repeats compositions of Simon Marmion.The shop
also copied several of Marmion’s miniatures in the Hours known as La Flora (which the Maximilian
Master knew well, since he and his team had painted its final miniatures) in an uncommissioned,
though lavish, Book of Hours now in Munich.38 The growing collection was then acquired or
inherited by Simon Bening. By the late 1520s Bening was also copying prints of Martin Schon-
gauer and Albrecht Dürer in the Prayer Book of
Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg.39 He then
discovered the art of the Italian Renaissance and,
in the mid-1530s, copied engravings after
Raphael and Michelangelo in his Hennesey
Hours.40 One could say that a late Flemish illu-
minator rarely invented a motif unless he had
to.
Whereas scribes naturally copied the text on

successive folios, the artists extracted a bi-folio
from its gathering in order to work on the
whole sheet.As a result, the decoration on con-
joint leaves is almost always by the same hand,
even in a gathering shared by two artists.The
innumerable examples include a bifolio in
Philip the Good’s Decameron,41 several bifolios
in the enormous Golden Legend illustrated by
Vrelant and his shop,42 and, from Utrecht, the
Hours of Catherine of Cleves.43
The successive steps in the execution of the

decoration are most clearly visible in manuscripts
whose decoration was left unfinished, for one
reason or another.The Parisian Master of the
Duke of Bedford, decorating what was to be a
truly extravagant Missal for the Dauphin Louis
of Guyenne, was arrested in the midst of work- Fig. 1. Christ with Angels and the Instruments of the Passion,
ing on the page that inaugurates the Mass for the Hours of Paul van Overtvelt. Brussels, Bibliothèque
first Sunday in Advent (plate 1).44 Before the Royale de Belgique/Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België,
Master made the underdrawing (on parchment ms IV, 95, fol. 216.
presumably cleaned by rubbing it with a wad of
bread mixed with bits of parchment or powdered
glass), the scribe or a specialized decorator flourished the small initials with intricate penwork in
alternating red and blue ink.45 The Master, using a stylus of plummet or silver,46 began his work by
drawing a populous celebration of the Mass in the miniature-space and acanthus inhabited by little
angels in the margins, the three in the bottom margin supporting a shield containing the dauphin’s
arms. Next, he or a specialized decorator started to paint the border (but not the initial, curiously
enough), by putting ‘shell’ gold (powdered gold) in all the required spaces, doing this first so that no
dust raised in burnishing would fall on colors that had not dried.47 He made no attempt to connect
the gold dots and leaves, because he planned to draw this linework at the end in the same ink that
would edge the areas of gold and of certain colors.The artist then laid down the base layers of a
gouache of glair and a pigment whose composition can only be surmised, in the absence of a tech-
nical examination: lapis lazuli for the intensely pure blues (azurite was used in less expensive books);
madder for the lighter reds; vermilion for the intense reds, malachite for the brilliant greens, ochre
for the light browns, and lamp black for the background of the angels.48 When the work was arrest-
ed the painter had just started to model the colors, with dark red on the acanthus in the lower left
corner and the pink gown of an angel at the right.49
While there is no way of knowing whether the painter of this border was the miniaturist him-
self,other manuscripts leave no doubt as to the presence of a specialized decorator.In Jean de Berry’s
Très belles heures de Notre Dame and its detached section containing the Missal and many prayers
which became the so-called Hours of Turin and Milan, the same type of late fourteenth-century
border surrounds all the miniatures, painted in
several campaigns over the next sixty years.50 In
fact, the participation of decorators is certain
wherever a single type of decoration accompa-
nies miniatures by more than one artist.
The miniature was usually painted last.51 The

technique was a slight elaboration of that used
for the borders: a base layer of paint; possibly a
second layer; more and varied modeling and,
occasionally, a final redrawing in ink of out-
lines, drapery folds and facial features. Certain
artists, especially in the Netherlands after ca.
1470, added gold striations to highlight the
drapery of holy or royal personages.
While most illuminators worked on a single

miniature or gathering at a time, the Master
of the Hours of Charles of France began his
eponymous Hours by making the underdraw-
ing for all the important miniatures and bor-
ders.52 Returning to the beginning, he
2. Master E. S., Christ with Angels and the Instruments of completed the miniatures and borders for the
the Passion, engraving. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. first three Hours of the Virgin and the land-
scape in the fourth, the Massacre of the Inno-
cents at Terce. Perhaps waiting for this paint to
dry, he abandoned the figures and jumped to the Crucifixion in the Hours of the Cross.There he
brought the landscape almost to completion (plate 2), adding blades of grass at the right of the
Cross, but not at the left, evidently meaning to complete the background before starting to
paint the figures.The Valenciennois Master of Antoine Rolin, on the other hand, began the first
miniature in a copy of the Faits de Jacques de Lalaing by putting down the base layers of color all
over the miniature, starting with a thin wash of grayish brown on the earth and the wall at the
left and, with added black for a darker tone, on the wall at the right (plate 3).53 He then put red
on the garments of the young Jacques, the boy’s mother, and the Duke of Cleves and a pure blue
on the gown of Jacques’ father and the upper sky, diluting it the toward the horizon. Adding
black, he put the resulting dark blue on Jacques’ hose, infringing on the red gown, and on the
duke’s doublet.The next step would have been to put down the base layer on the remaining
garments (green and black, to judge from the artist’s work in other manuscripts), followed by
modeling each area in a darker shade of the base color.The last step would have added vegeta-
tion to the earth and paint to the heads and hands.
This complex process could be accelerated by assigning the various steps to different artists or by
having the artists work on different parts of the book.While the artists might take on different sec-
tions of the text,54 there are both written and visible indications that they usually exploited the
gatherings structure.A note in the model of Jean de Berry’s Histoire ancienne jusqu’à César says that
the second gathering has been given to Perrin Remiet to help him illuminate another gathering,
meaning one in the copy,55 and many other manuscripts testify to this way of dividing the labor. In
a Book of Hours from Avignon started by Barthélémy d’Eyck and a decorator around 1440 and
taken up twenty years later by Enguerrand Quarton and his decorator,56 the gatherings have been
left at different stages. In fact, two of the openings juxtapose the last page of a completed gathering,
with its visible catchword, and the first of one whose decoration was only just begun (figs. 3a-b).A
few gatherings contain bifolios abandoned at different stages, revealing that the miniaturist and his
decorator divided up the gathering between them and painted the whole bifolio at one time.
Figs. 3a-b.Avignon Hours. New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, ms M. 357, fols. 43v and 44(detail).
Artists could also collaborate on a miniature.The easiest way was for one to make the under-
drawing and another the painting.While this might be shown by infrared reflectography, so far
applied to only a few Flemish manuscripts, it should be suspected whenever a composition
deviates from the usual style of the artist who painted the surface. In Philip the Good’s Girart de
Roussillon the interiors by the chief artist, Dreux Jehan, exhibit a spatial naturalism rare around
1450: they are like snapshots of a space larger than that delimited by the frame, which in his
interiors intercepts a row of windows in the rear wall.At the same time, his chief associate, whom
I have named ‘the Master of the Burial Scenes’, used the old space-creating device of a diaphragm
arch before a box-like room, whose ceiling is at least partly visible (fig. 4).57 In the final minia-
tures, however, the second and third of three which tell of the hero’s contested burial58, show-
ing the exhumation of the coffin from its initial site (fig. 5) and its reburial in the church of
Poultières, the space is constructed like Jehan’s.The reason is probably not that the more con-
servative artist finally succumbed to the style of his chief, but that Jehan, who drew and painted
the group’s first miniature, made the underdrawing for all three.This might be demonstrated by
reflectography since Jehan’s exceptionally loose drawing is easily recognized.
This type of collaboration could operate at long distance.The great family trees in the picto-
rial genealogy of the Kings of Portugal, commissioned by the Infante Fernando in the late 1520s,
were drawn in Lisbon by Antonio da Hollanda, who, as one of the king’s pursuivants at arms as
well as a member of the shop that produced documents for the royal archives, enjoyed the nec-
essary access to genealogical records.59 The leaves were to be painted in Bruges by Simon Ben-
ing, whom the prince’s agent called ‘the principal master of this art in all of Europe’.60 They came
so slowly, however, that, when the Infante died in 1534, Bening had painted only five of the sur-
viving leaves. One still at the drawing stage (probably because it was never sent away) shows not
Fig. 4. The Reconciliation of Girart and King Charles the Bald, Roman de Girart de Roussillon.Vienna, Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 2549, fol. 83v.
only the high quality of Antonio’s drawing but, in its empty margins, that he left to Bening’s
invention the border scenes of historic events in the lives of the ancestors who sit in the trees.
Nevertheless, in painting the ancestors Simon left their armorial shields untouched or covered
only by a base of silver, undoubtedly because Antonio was to emblazon them when the leaves
returned to Portugal.61 Parts of the text were likewise to be written after their return, a reversal
of the usual sequence.62
Other manuscripts show a closer collaboration in painting the miniatures.Already around 1407
Christine de Pizan, who commissioned illustrated copies of her works for members of the French
court, praised the illuminator Anastaise for her skill in painting borders and the backgrounds of
miniatures.63 While this does not necessarily mean that Anastaise did not paint the figures as well,
it anticipates a specialization current in the second half of the century, especially in the massive
history books that were made in Bruges.64 In the copy of Jean Froissart's chronicle of the Hun-
dred Years War in the British Library’s Harley collection most of the miniatures are by the epony-
mous master of the Harley Froissart and some by a second artist, the Master of the Chroniques
d’Angleterre, whose figures are longer, stiffer, and less substantial. In a few other miniatures the
second artist painted only the landscape and left the figures for the Harley Master, who was
evidently acknowledged as more capable of this work.65
This type of specialization is also found in a large picture book containing an abbreviated his-
tory of Troy from the shop of Jean Colombe in Bourges, which was continued by his son Phili-
bert.66 At some point realizing that he could not complete the task, Philibert called on the Master
of Manuscript 6 of the New York Public Library’s Spencer collection to help in the last three of
Fig. 5.The Exhumation of Girart’s Corps, Roman de Girart de Roussillon.Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,
Cod. 2549, fol. 179v.
the eight gatherings, but even this effort failed to complete the book, which still contains four
partly painted miniatures, three in the drawing stage, and four blank spaces. One of the partly
painted miniatures is the famous view of Troy, painted by the Spencer Master, looming above
Philibert’s fine drawing of the great wooden horse being pushed into a city gate.67 Which of the
two artists was to paint this lower section is answered in the book’s last miniature (fig. 6), in which
an armored cavalcade moves toward a distant city of Troy. Here again, the Spencer Master exe-
cuted the loosely painted background, but the polished but lively faces of the soldiers and silken
flesh of the horses could only have been painted by the younger Colombe. In a reversal of the
usual order, the drapery still lacks its modeling and the golden armor the decoration seen in
Colombe’s other miniatures.68 The miniature is nevertheless complete enough to show how the
artists collaborated: Colombe made the underdrawing, the Spencer Master painted the back-
ground, and Colombe, the better artist, returned to paint the figures and the foreground, which
means that Colombe was to paint the foreground of the Trojan Horse miniature.
Miniaturists also collaborated in the painting of figures or parts of figures. Judging by his mas-
sive Golden Legend and his second volume of the Chroniques de Hainaut,Vrelant regularly paint-
ed the flesh areas of important persons in miniatures by his assistants.69 In the Chroniques' miniature
of Vandals invading Gaul (fig. 7), six or seven faces in the foreground and the whole figure of a
Madonna-like woman are more fully modeled than the other faces and figures.These touches
served to homogenize the miniatures, making them look as if Vrelant had painted them all and
giving the book a more uniform and elegant appearance. His role in another manuscript, the
Llangetock Hours, is more problematic, because the book’s seven other illuminators are not found
in Vrelant’s other manuscripts. In
fact, he merely painted the face
and the hands of the Virgin in
the first miniature, an Annuncia-
tion by the book’s eponymous
Master of the Llangetock
Hours.70 Had Vrelant received
the commission and farmed it
out to the Llangetock Master
and his team? Or was he super-
vising the work on behalf of the
patron? Most likely, he was
brought in to give a touch of
elegance to this important
miniature.
The practice of a Master

touching up an assistant’s work
is striking in the already-men-
tioned Roi Modus, which was
completed in the early 1460s by
the follower of Dreux Jehan
known as the Master of Guille-
bert de Lannoy.71 In the book’s
last miniature an assistant com-
pleted the illustration of a
method of setting of a trap for
birds, but left a bare space for the
trap setter’s head (fig. 8). Evi-
dently, the head was to be paint-
ed by the Master, who
overlooked this little miniature
on the verso of one of the very
last folios.
The additions were some-

times made by an artist known Fig. 6. Soldiers Approach the City of Troy, Histoire de la Destruction de Troyes.
for his painting on panel. Many Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms n. a. fr. 24920, fol. 54.
of the great panel painters con-
tributed to a manuscript now
and then: Robert Campin, Jan van Eyck, Simon Marmion, Gerard David, Simon Bening
and, in France, Jean Fouquet. 72 Usually the painter contributed one special miniature: a
frontispiece, as Van der Weyden did for the Chroniques de Hainaut, or an illustration of the
patron’s favorite devotion such as Petrus Christus’s Trinity in the Hours of Paul van Overt-
felt.73 Some embellished a few of the other miniatures. In one extremely luxurious Book of
Hours, Gerard David painted two whole miniatures and the heads of principal figures in at
least five of those by the book’s illuminator, the Master of Edward IV.74 He also painted the
Virgin and Child and five of the virgin saints in a large miniature by an unidentified illumi-
nator.75
Sometimes the panel painter personalized the book with a portrait of the owner, alone or among
familiars.Van der Weyden’s frontispiece to the Chroniques de Hainaut contains the best portraits extant
of Philip the Good, his young son, Charles, his administrators, and his closest noblemen,76 and
Fig. 7. Vandals Invade Gaul, Chroniques de Hainaiut, vol. II. Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique/Koninklijke
Bibliotheek van België, ms 9243, fol. 27.
Marmion portrayed some of the same men in Philip’s copy of the Grandes chroniques de France.77 In
the sixteenth century this practice became available to lesser owners. Usually, the portrait was paint-
ed separately on a leaf which was then inserted before a favorite prayer or devotional text, but por-
traits were also added within a miniature. In a book of Hours for the use of Lyons, Jean Perréal
painted the figures of the young female owner and the Virgin and Child in the miniature of her
presentation by Saint John otherwise by Perréal’s regular associate Guillaume Lambert.78 Perréal
also painted the portrait of the author inserted at the front of the lovely little book of the poems
the humanist Pierre Sala addressed to his future wife, Marguerite Bullioud, but he was supposed to
do more than this.79 The poems themselves were illustrated by the busy Parisian Master of the
Chronique scandaleuse, but one of these displays an empty space for the head of a man picking a daisy,
une marguerite. Since the facing poem is in the first person, this was surely to be another portrait of
Sala. Its unfinished state may have been not accidental, but caused by Perréal’s inability to come
from Lyons to Paris before the gatherings went to the binder.
A generation later French patrons could employ an even greater portraitist, Jean Clouet. Dur-
ing the Lenten season of 1534, Antoine Macault, secretary to Francis I, read his translation of
Diodorus Siculus’s Historical Library aloud before the king, who then gave permission to have it
printed.The reading is reported in the prologue
and commemorated in the frontispiece of the
luxurious manuscript copy Macault presented
to the king. The frontispiece (plate 4) shows
Macault reading his translation before Francis,
the King’s three sons, and his highest officers,
who include the Grand-master and later Con-
stable of France, Anne de Montmorency, and
the Chancellor, Cardinal Antoine Duprat.Their
faces are perceptibly larger and more person-
alized than the others in this scene otherwise
by a member of the so-called 1520s Workshop.
A Louvre curator’s comparison of these heads
with Clouet’s portraits in pastel has confirmed
that they are indeed by the same painter.80
Clouet repeated this performance around the
same time for the royal comptroller, Étienne
Le Blanc, putting the same portraits in the fron-
tispiece (also by a member of the 1520s Work-
shop) of the manuscript Le Blanc presented
to Montmorency of his translation of Cicero’s
orations.81
These glamorous insertions are hardly

instances of collaboration in the sense of a
cooperation among artists of equal status. Nor
was every luxury book made in collaboration. Fig. 8. Setting a Trap for Birds, Livre du roi Modus et de la
Nearly every major illuminator – Marmion; reine Ratio. Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de
Lievin van Lathem; the Master of Mary of Bur- Belgique/Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, ms 10218,
gundy; the Masters of the Dresden Prayer Book, fol. 99.
of James IV of Scotland, and of the Prayer
Books of ca. 1500; and Simon Bening – paint-
ed a few manuscripts with the help of just a
decorator.82 But most manuscripts were painted by a team of artists, who divided up the task,
used a large stock of patterns, and painted with a routinized technique.This practice, refined by
generations of artists transmitting their increasing skill in the imitation of nature to increasingly
skilled pupils, raised the art of the painted manuscript to a level of extraordinary finesse.The result
may seem cool and impersonal to a modern eye; but those practices brought substantial benefits
in time saved, a consistent style, and high quality. Making books was a business, after all. In this
case, a highly successful one. Books from France and Flanders, richly decorated with illusionis-
tic borders and miniatures of an idealized natural world or a naturalized spiritual world, were
found among the most treasured possessions of owners throughout western Europe.
ABBREVIATIONS
BL British Library
BnF Bibliothèque nationale de France
JPGM J. Paul Getty Museum
KBR Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique / Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België
n. a. fr. nouvelles acquisitions françaises
n. a. lat. nouvelles acquisitions latines
PML Pierpont Morgan Library
ÖNb Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
NOTES
1.All book painters were called ‘illuminators’ because they his minutes for shorter texts, one of which is also found in Brus-
used gold. For a survey of manuscript making throughout the sels, KBR ms II 239;Wilson and Wilson 1984, 66-72.
Middle Ages, see Alexander 1992 and De Hamel 1992.
8. For detailed accounts of the preparation of parchment,
2. Jaquemart Pilavaine, for example, was paid in 1453 for see Thompson 1956, 24-28; Farquhar 1976, 61-72, and De
writing the 271/2 gatherings of one book and the 441/2 of Hamel 1992.
another; Esch 2002, 642-43.
9. Petroski 1990, 31. Ink was also used for ruling, but rarely
3. Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy’s payment to Loy- in luxury manuscripts.
set Liédet for the miniatures in a copy of the Chroniques abrégée
des rois de France (Paris, BnF, ms fr. 6463) lists 7 miniatures, 49 10. For some early fifteenth-century Parisian examples see
four- and five-point initials (4 or 5 lines high), and 1750 one- Byrne 1984, and for some from the shop of Willem Vrelant,
point initials; Legaré 1999.The same reckoning is used in pay- Bousmanne 1997, 94-96.
ments for Liédet’s work on other manuscripts; De Schryver 11. Certain manuscripts, such as an Histoire de Troie in Brus-
1979. sels (KBR, ms. 9650-52), have an ‘X’ on the fifth leaf of a quater-
4. On the documented activity of scribes and dealers in nion; Cockshaw and Johan 2002, 401-02. Although these
directing the production of a book, see Rouse and Rouse 2000. authors are puzzled by this mark, my teacher, L. M. J. Delais-
A model is provided by the patron in three of the French con- sé, explained that it was made by the signer on the back of
tracts reproduced in Alexander 1992,Appendix 1, nos. 3, 5, and the fourth sheet as he turned it over onto the pile of preced-
7. In 1398 Guillaume le Chamois, a citizen of Dijon, gave the ing sheets. For a rare instance of signatures in the upper right
scribe of a Book of Hours an exemplar for the text, as well as corner of the page, in the Hours of St. Maur (Paris, BnF, ms
the parchment and specified the quantities of fine gold and n. a. lat. 3107), painted by the Boucicaut Master and assistants,
fine azure. In 1448 a representative of Jean Rolin, Bishop of see Andrews 2002, 38, n. 42.
Autun, showed the illuminator of a Missal written for the bish-
12.The inventory taken of Philip the Good’s library after
op an example of the form and figures the artist was to draw
his death in 1467 lists several manuscripts as still without their
with skill and paint in fine gold, lapis lazuli, and pink. In 1504
miniatures, many of which contain a scribal explicit that dates
the Carmelite brother ordering an antiphonary for the prior
the transcription in the early 1460s or before. Jean Wauquelin
and convent of Carmelites at Luc (in the diocese of Fréjus)
sent the undecorated gatherings of the two books written by
showed the scribe two parchment leaves from a book of the
his own scribe in 1447-48 (see note 5) – the Chroniques and
required height and width; the convent was to pay for the
the Histoire d’Alexandre – to the duke (that is, to the keeper of
parchment, the scribe to provide the azure and vermilion he
his library or to his entitled illuminator, Dreux Jehan, the prob-
would use to decorate the initials.
able overseer of the production of all three books), who in turn
5. Wauquelin sent the duke a rough copy of his transla- sent the gatherings to the illuminators; van Buren 2000, 61.
tion of the first volume of the Chroniques de Hainaut in Feb- In France, one of the contracts cited in note 4 above, the Missal
ruary 1447 and part of his prose rendition of the Roman de written for Bishop Rolin, was already in the bishop’s posses-
Girart de Roussillon the following May, which Philip exam- sion when his agent hired the illuminator.
ined, or had examined, before giving Wauquelin permission
to make the formal copies; Cockshaw 2000, 37. Shortly 13. Cologny-Geneva, Fondation Bodmer, ms 160; whose
before April 1448 Wauquelin and his scribe were paid for miniatures were copied from those in a copy of a variant text
the formal copies of the Chroniques (Brussels, KBR, ms. 9242; of the Roman de Thèbes written in 1459 (Brussels, KBR, ms
Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 3), the prose version of the 9650-52); Cockshaw and Johan 2002. In this volume the Roman
Alexander romance he composed some years earlier (Paris, de Thèbes is followed by the same scribe’s, Jacotin de l’Espluc’s,
BnF, ms. 9342; Delaissé 1959, no. 40,) and the Girart (Vien- copy of the Histoire de la destruction de Troie, which has an explic-
na, ÖNb, Cod. 2549; Pächt, Jenni and Thoss 1983, 34-60). it saying he wrote it in 1469.
6. Les chroniques de Jerusalem abregées, formerly Tournai, Bib- 14.The model is Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ms
liothèque municipale, ms. 133, containing a colophon saying Pal. lat. 1969 (made ca. 1417), and the copy is Paris, Biblio-
that it was minutée et achevée in Lille in December 1455; Faider thèque de l’Arsenal, ms 5070 (written and first illustrated ca.
and Van Sint Jan 1950, 149. The formal copy, illustrated by 1438 and completed ca.1447); Schwall-Hoummady 1999, 21-
Dreux Jehan and associates, is Vienna, ÖNb, Cod. 2533; Pächt, 154, 249-55, 281-90, with a too-early date.
Jenni and Thoss 1983, 61-77, who discovered Faider’s descrip- 15.The methods of tracing described by Cennino Cenni-
tion of the minute.The ‘landscape’ format imitates the vertical ni in the late fourteenth century and by Jean Lebègue in 1431
rolls used for parallel histories and genealogies. are discussed in Farquhar 1976, 61-69;Alexander 1992, 50-51,
7. Brussels, KBR, mss 9249-50;Wilson and Wilson 1984, and Scheller 1995, 70-73.
49-59; Cardon 1996, 230-264.The text, but not the pictures, 16. Somnium Materia Schismatis (Paris, BnF, ms lat. 14643);
was copied in Paris, BnF, ms fr. 6275;Wilson and Wilson 1984, Ouy 1960; Meiss 1967b, 13;Alexander 1992, fig. 78.
60-65; Cardon 1996, 236, 418-20.Two minutes exist, both dat-
ed 1451, for Miélot’s translation of a work he called Le miroir 17. Lebègue’s instructions for the illustration of the Cati-
de l’âme pechéresse:The Hague, KB, ms 76 E 9 (Korteweg 1980, line and the Jugurtha are preserved in Oxford (Bodleian Library,
no. 44) and Brussels KBR, ms 11123 (Masai and Wittek, 1978, ms D’Orville 141), unillustrated and on paper whose water-
no. 314). Miélot’s minutes for five short treatises are collected mark dates from ca 1468, according to a letter from the late
in Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek, ms Thott 1090/4 (Car- Keeper of Manuscripts, Albinia De la Mare.They are closely
don 1996, 236-237). Paris, BnF, ms 17001 contains several of followed in three manuscripts illustrated by the shop of the
Bedford Master: Paris, BnF, mss lat. 5762 and 9684, and Gene- 29. For a reconstruction of a hypothetical pattern sheet for
va, Bibliothèque publique et universitaire, ms lat. 54; Porcher the soldiers in the Chroniques and the Alexander (Paris, BnF, ms
1962; Byrne 1986. 9342), see van Buren 2000, 74. For the Girart, see note 5.
18. Paris, BnF, mss fr. 18-19; Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 30. See note 6.The Chronique de Normandie (London, BL,
16. In a letter of August 19, 1473, Gaguin told the patron, ms Yates Thompson 33; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 57)
Charles de Gaucourt, chamberlain to King Louis XI, that Maître was made for a Burgundian courier, Philippe de Crèvecoeur.
François has executed his program better than Apelles would
have done. 31. Paris, BnF, ms lat. 10548; Cardon 2002, mentioning repro-
ductions of panels in other manuscripts.The arms of Anne of
19. La Marche’s instructions, preserved in a late fifteenth Brittany are a later addition, painted over those of the unknown
century copy in Paris (BnF, ms fr. 1606) were published in first owner.
Lippmann 1898, and followed exactly in the woodcuts in the 32. Hours of Catherine of Cleves (New York, PML, mss M.
Schiedam edition of ca. 1500; Cinquième centenaire 1973, nos. 917 and 945; Defoer et al. 1989, 156, nos. 45-46), and the Hours
238a and b. On the other hand, the Declaration des hystoires in of Katharina van Lochorst; Münster,Westfälisches Landesmu-
a fifteenth-century French copy of Heinrich Suso’s Horloge de seum, ms 530; Lammers 1982, 42.
sapience (Brussels, KBR, ms IV 111), which has been read as
instructions for artists, is in fact addressed to readers. It was, 33. van Buren and Edmunds 1974, 25-28.
furthermore, not written by the same scribe as the text of the
Horloge and some of its descriptions deviate from the minia- 34. Brussels, KBR, mss 10218-19; ibid., fig. 2; Delaissé 1959,
tures; Monks 1990. no. 222.
20. See note 5 and van Buren 1973. 35. Brussels, KBR, ms IV 95; Kren and McKendrick 2003,
no. 6. Having started as Isabella’s secretary and then receiver of
21. Brussels, KBR, ms 9243; Bousmane 2000, 77.The minia- her finances, Overtvelt had become one of Philip’s ambassadors
tures are also numbered in the Golden Legend (New York, Pier- and negotiators by the time he commissioned this book.
pont Morgan Library, ms M. 672, and Macon, Bibliothèque
36. Farquhar 1976, 41-75; Bousmanne 1997, 93-103.
municipale, ms 3; Bousmanne, 1997, 228, 281); and in the Miroir
historiale (Paris, BnF, mss fr. 308-11); Farquhar 1976, 155. 37. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, ms 78 B
12; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 38.
22. See note 13.The numbers cease after the sixteenth minia-
ture, but, since they are in the outer margins, any following 38. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, ms Clm. 28345
ones may have been on parchment trimmed off by a binder. (without marks of ownership), and Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale
di Napoli, ms. I. B. 51 (containing the arms of Charles VIII of
23.A list of known marginal drawings is provided in Alexan- France); Kren and McKendrick 2003, nos. 90 and 93.
der 1992,Appendix 2, 184-86.As observed in Andrews 2002,
32-33, those in Boucicaut Master manuscripts reproduced in 39. Los Angeles, JPGM, ms Ludwig IX. 19; Kren and McK-
Meiss 1967b, figs. 306-13, are pictorial notes rather than pre- endrick 2003, no. 145
cise designs for the adjacent miniatures.
40. Brussels, KBR, ms II 158; Kren and McKendrick 2003,
24. Schwall-Hoummady 1999, 146.The notes were in any no. 150.
case not written by the scribe, as some authors have said; Guille-
41. In a gathering containing miniatures by the Guillebert
bert would not have made the famous error in the first note,
Master the two on the conjoint folios 25 and 32 are by his
which contradicts the text he had recently transcribed.
chief assistant.
25. Meiss 1967b, 226; Scheller 1995, 78-79. 42. New York, PML, mss M 672-675, and Mâcon, Biblio-
26. Scheller 1995.There are two French pattern collections thèque municipale, ms 3; Caswell 1993, 43-44.
of ca 1400: one attributed to Jacquemart de Hesdin (New York, 43. Calkins 1979, 31-32, appendix A.
PML, ms M. 346) and a set on boxwood panels signed by Jaques
Daliwe (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Liber picturatus A. 74); Jenni 44. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, ms 406;Taburet-Delahaye
1987; Scheller 1995, nos. 19, 21. and Avril 2004, no. 70.The authors assume, probably correctly,
that the work was arrested by the dauphin’s sudden death in
27. Most of the surviving Flemish model drawings come December 1415.The book also contains several more unfin-
from the circle of the Master of Mary of Burgundy. One is the ished pages and has lost seven others, presumably fully painted.
Master’s fully realized little drawing of Pentecost (Paris, École
nationale des Beaux-Arts, Masson coll. 664), another, proba- 45.This pen flourishing of the initials was a specialty devel-
bly by his hand and copied by illuminators for some forty years, oped by Parisian decorators in the course of the fourteenth
is a model for a historiated border of scenes of Christmas Eve century;Avril 1971.
(London, British Museum), and a third is the little sheet of 46.Thompson’s suggestion (1936, 88), followed by Alexan-
fourteen heads by the Master of the Houghton Miniatures in der 1992, 38, that illuminators may have drawn with graphite,
Berlin (Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett); Kren and is belied by the discovery of graphite only in the early 1560s;
McKendrick 2003, nos. 21, 26, 35. Petroski 1990, 34-35.
28. Compositions taken by the Guillebert Master from 47.The much more expensive gold leaf, regularly used in
works by the Boucicaut, Breviary, Egerton, and Cité des earlier centuries, is rare in fifteenth-century manuscripts.
Dames workshops are discussed in Martens 2002, 921-25.
The author’s uncertainty whether the Master was ever in 48.The pigments and mordants are described in medieval
Paris contradicts his earlier observation that the artist paint- treatises whose editions and modern publications are listed in
ed parts of the Breviary of John the Fearless or his wife Mar- Alexander 1992, 159, n. 43.To my knowledge, only two Flem-
garet of Bavaria; London, BL, Harley ms. 2897. In addition ish manuscripts have been subjected to micro-Raman spec-
the Master reproduced the Breviary Master’s Birth of the Vir- troscopy and total X-ray fluorescence: the Mayer van den Bergh
gin (Harley 2897, fol. 385) as late as ca. 1440 in the Arsenal Breviary (Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh, inv. 946;
Decameron (Meiss 1967a, 58-60) and in the hardly published Dekeyser et al. 1999;Vandenabeele and Moens 2002) and the
Golden Legend in the collection of the Duke of Norfolk at Arsenal Decameron (see note 14), in which twelve miniatures
Arundel Castle. were recorded by Mady Elias in the laboratory of the Louvre.
49. Another striking example of visible stages in the exe- 59. London, BL, Add. ms 12531; Kren and McKendrick
cution, which also shows the artists working on whole gath- 2003, no. 147, ills. 147a-d.
erings, is in the Bible moralisée (Paris, BnF, ms. fr. 166) originally
commissioned by Philip the Bold of Burgundy from the Lim- 60. Góis 1556, quoted in ibid.
bourg brothers in 1402.These last three gatherings represent 61.The leaves that never left Portugal include seven colored
a third attempt of ca. 1492 to complete the book’s over 5000 by Antonio, who was still unpaid five years after the patron’s
little miniatures; Lowden 2000, 250-84, 302-04, figs. 107-09. death; Kren and McKendrick 2003, ill. 147d.The whole group
50. Paris, BnF, ms n. a. lat. 3093; the destroyed Turin, Bib- remained in the family of Dom Fernando before their distri-
lioteca Nazionale e Universitaria, ms K. IV. 29; and Turin, Museo bution among later owners in Lisbon and Madrid who sold
Civico d’Arte Antica, Inv. No. 47; van Buren, Marrow and Pet- the leaves to the British Museum.
tenati 1996. 62. Kren and McKendrick 2003, 463, n. 8.This is not the
only example of decoration painted before the text was writ-
51.The practice was not invariable.The section of the Avi-
ten. A Parisian Hours of ca. 1400 (The Hague, KB, ms 76 F
gnon Hours (see note 56) painted by Barthélémy d’Eyck con-
21) contains a full set of miniatures and borders and empty
tains both pages with a completed border and an empty
spaces for the text; the Rouennais Hours of Lady Margaret
miniature-space and pages with a completed miniature and
Beaufort (Cambridge, St. John’s College, ms N 24; Binski and
empty margins.
Panayotova 2005, no. 89), painted by the Fastolf Master and an
52. Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, ms 471; and New York, assistant has a small miniature of St. George on folio 168 with-
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cloisters collection; Avril and out the suffrage meant to accompany it. Several pages of the
Reynaud 1993, no. 81. Only the suffrages and two prayers have Hours of Mary of Burgundy (ÖNb, Cod. 1857; Inglis 1995)
no drawing.The eponymous Master was responsible for all the have text that runs over the marginal decoration, while the
miniatures except the first, an Arrest of Christ, by the king’s verso of the leaf (fol. 53) whose recto contains the end of the
painter, Jean Fouquet. hour of Lauds has marginal decoration alone.
53. Private collection; Legaré 2002. All of the more than 63. La cité des dames, bk. 1, ch. 41; Meiss, 1967b, 3, n. 3.
50 following spaces for miniatures are blank.The arms of Lalaing 64. All of the manuscripts containing collaborative minia-
in the prologue initial are surrounded by the collar of the Order tures listed by McKendrick (Kren and McKendrick 2003, 65)
of the Golden Fleece, to which Charles I de Lalaing was admit- are histories, except the Hours of Charles the Bold (Los Ange-
ted in 1505, and the same scribe wrote the following heraldic les, JPGM, ms 37; ibid., no. 16).
text composed in 1507. Although, as Legaré points out, the
same arms were borne by Charles’s brother, Jacques, the cloth- 65. London, British Library, Harley mss 4379 and 4380; Kren
ing portrayed was no longer fashionable when he joined the and McKendrick (2003, no. 68, n. 2) mention collaboration
order in 1516. in volume 1, without specifying the folios, and on volume 2,
fols. 149 and 151. For the Master of the Vienna Chroniques
54. In early fifteenth century Paris, the artists around the d’Angleterre (Vienna, ÖNb, Cod, 2534), see Pächt and Thoss
Boucicaut Master frequently collaborated with others, both 1990, 39-45.
separately on different text sections and together on a minia-
ture; Andrews 2002, 32-37. In the 1420s, a division by texts 66. Paris, BnF, ms n. a. fr. 24920;Thomas, 1973; Avril and
among illustrators in Utrecht is implied in a note added to Reynaud 1993, no. 186.
the History Bible in Brussels (KBR, mss 9018-19; Defoer et
al. 1989, 136) saying that the illuminator Claes Brouwer has 67. Alexander 1992, 47, fig. 68, assigning the city to Jean
the 61/2 gatherings containing the books of Judith, Esther, Colombe and saying he meant to paint the foreground as well.
and Job; the Parables of Solomon and the books of Ecclesi- In fact, as pointed out in Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 186,
astes, Canticles, and Wisdom, despite Alexander’s assertion Colombe died in 1493, at least five years before the date indi-
(1992, 50) that the note shows the illuminators working by cated by the dress.
gatherings. In Bruges in the mid-1406s, the illustrators of 68.This reversal of the usual sequence also occurred on folio
Philip the Good’s second copy of Wauquelin’s Alexander 39v, where the architectural setting, sky, and faces are com-
romance (Paris, Musée du Petit Palais, Dutuit coll., ms 456; plete; the hands of two men have been started, and their cloth-
Bousmanne 1997, 200-204) also worked mainly on sections ing and a small figure at the right are bare.
of the text.
69. For example in the second volume of the Chroniques
55.The model and the copy are: London, British Library, and in the Golden Legend (see note 21); Caswell 1993, 27-30;
Royal ms 20 D i, and Paris, BnF, ms 301;Avril 1969; Oltrogge Bousmanne 1997, 58-61, 168-71, 281-83. Caswell’s St.Andrew
1987;Alexander 1992, figs. 231 and 230. Master is the artist recognized as Vrelant; her Saint Hadrian
Master is his regular assistant, Bousmanne’s ‘Maître de la Vraie
56. New York, PML, ms M. 358;Avril, 1977; Calkins, 1977,
cronique d’escose’, whom I prefer to call ‘the Master of the
with a chart showing the stage of decoration in each gather-
Polemical Texts’ and think was probably Vrelant’s wife; van
ing.Avril’s date for the whole manuscript, 1440-1450, repeat-
Buren 1999, 24-26.
ed in Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 123, was corrected by
Reynaud already in 1988, 37, pointing out that the dress sup- 70. Los Angeles, JPGM, ms Ludwig IX 7; Kren and McK-
ports such a date only in the section painted by Barthélémy endrick 2004, no. 2, distinguishing as many as eight hands
d’Eyck; that shown on marginal figures in the Quarton’s sec- and, in n. 2, reporting a conservator’s discovery that the
tion (fols. 129, 158v, 183v, and 186v) did not exist before ca. clasps bearing the arms of Folpard van Amerongen were
1460. On the basis of my fund of datable images of dress to made for another volume.
be published by the Morgan Library in 2008, she can correct
the first date to ca. 1440, and see that the weaker hand Calkins 71. See note 34.The place and small size of the Lannoy Mas-
observed in three calendar medallions (which include the tra- ter’s Presentation scene, after the prologue, reveals that the nor-
ditional fashionable lovers in May) worked ca. 1490. mal space for such a scene at the head of a prologue was already
occupied when Philip acquired the unfinished manuscript.The
57.This analysis was first made by Pächt, Jenni and Thoss, dress in the Presentation dates this second campaign to the ear-
1983, 61-62. ly 1460s.
58. Fols. 177v, 179v, 181; Pächt, Jenni and Thoss 1983, 51; 72. Campin painted the canon miniatures in a lost Missal;
figs. 89, 99, 100. Dumoulin and Pycke 1993. For panels by Simon Bening, see
Ainsworth 2000. For the work of the other painters, see Kren 79. London, BL, Stowe ms 954; Backhouse and Giraud ca.
and Maryan W.Ainsworth in Kren and McKendrick 2003, 37- 1994. Sala’s use of an artist in Paris dates the book before his
41, and for Fouquet’s contribution to the Hours of Charles of definitive return to Lyons in 1511.
France, see note 52 above.
80. Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms 1672 (721); Scailliérez 1996.
73. Brussels, KBR, ms IV 95 (see note 35), fol. 155v; Kren I thank Nicole Reynaud for calling my attention to this arti-
and McKendrick 2003, 96-97. cle.
74. El Escorial, Biblioteca del Monasterio di San Lorenzo, 81. St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ms fr. F. v. XV,
ms vitrinas 12; Kren and McKendrick 2003, no. 99. 3; ibid., 50, fig. 6, and nos. 21, 23, citing Crépin-Leblond 1991,
no. 2.
75. New York, PML, ms M 659; ibid., no. 107, a single leaf
from a lost Book of Hours. 82.Marmion’s Visions du chevalier Tondal (Los Angeles,JPGM,
ms 30); the Burgundy Master’s Hours of Engelbert of Nassau
76.Van Buren, 2000, 111-12. (Oxford,Bodleian Library,ms Douce 219-20);van Lathem’s His-
77. St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ms Ermitage toire de Jason (Paris, BnF, ms fr. 331); a Breviary illustrated by the
88;Avril and Reynaud 1993, no. 36. Master of James IV of Scotland (Manchester,John Rylands Uni-
versity Library, ms 39, and New York, PML, ms 1046); a Book
78. Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, ms W. 447, fol. 128; of Hours by the Dresden Prayer Book Master (London, BL,
Randall 1992, no. 186, color plate XXa. Burin 2002, no. 46, Add. ms 17280); and the Roman de la rose by the Master of the
fig. 123, Burin calls the associate ‘the Master of Keble 7’. Per- Prayer Books of ca. 1500 (London, BL, Harley ms 4425); as well
réal also painted the independent portrait of a young man of as Bening’s Franciscan Horae (New York, PML, ms M 451) and
the Bellecombe family in Paris, BnF, ms lat. 1363, fol. 22v;Avril Hennessy Hours (Brussels, KBR, ms II 1 58); Kren and McK-
and Reynaud 1993, no. 207; Burin 2001, no. 32, fig. 185. endrick 2003, nos. 14, 18, 59, 108, 117, 120, 148, 150.
Romanism as a Catalyst for Change in
Bernard van Orley’s Workshop Practices
Maryan W.Ainsworth
Metropolitan Museum of Art
It has long been acknowledged that the delivery of Raphael’s cartoons for the Acts of the Apos-
tles tapestry series to Brussels in 1516 had a profound role in introducing Romanism to sixteenth-
century Flanders, and particularly, to Bernard van Orley. His Job Altarpiece (Brussels, Musées
Royaux des Beaux-Arts) monogrammed and dated 1521 is often identified as key evidence of
the assimilation of this new mode.1 What has not been discussed, however, is the specific nature
of the impact of Raphael’s cartoons beyond the mere appropriation of figure style and certain
motifs.When exactly did Raphael’s influence take hold in Van Orley’s atelier? Can this influence
be recognized in certain shifts in workshop practice as well as in matters of style? How did the
transmission of ideas take place, and how critical a role was played by Raphael’s workshop assis-
tants and emissaries to Brussels, especially Tommaso Vincidor? These questions can be more read-
ily answered when Van Orley’s paintings, drawings, and designs for both tapestry and stained
glass are all taken into account and studied from the point of view of the working procedures of
the atelier. In addition, crucial information is provided by the underdrawings in the artist’s pan-
el paintings.2 It is essential to resolve these issues in order to further clarify the pivotal role the
Van Orley workshop played in the evolution of early sixteenth-century Flemish workshop
practices, particularly the role of the painter-designer.3
Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles and Preliminary Stages of Influence
Van Orley’s earliest known panel paintings from about 1512-18 share certain characteristics.
This group includes the Marriage of the Virgin and Christ Among the Doctors (Washington, Nation-
al Gallery of Art),4 the Virgin and Child with Singing Angels (New York, Metropolitan Museum of
Art), the Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum and Brussels,
Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, fig. 1), and the dispersed panels that comprise altarpieces devot-
ed to Saints Martin and John the Baptist (Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Art Museum and New York,
Metropolitan Museum of Art). Although there may have been preliminary compositional draw-
ings on paper for each, none have survived.The preparatory drawings that may have existed,
however, were probably not especially detailed, since a consistent feature of all of these paintings
is that the brush underdrawings (preliminary designs made directly on the grounded panels) are
quite sketchy and often show multiple changes. In the Virgin and Child with Singing Angels there
are slight alterations in the draperies of the angels and substantial changes in the architecture. In
the far more ambitious composition of the Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece, the artist made
modifications both at the underdrawing stage and from the underdrawings to the final painted
version of the works.The costume of King Gondophares of India (who threatens Saint Thomas
in the scene on the left), for example, is significantly altered from the underdrawing stage to the
final painted version (fig. 2).Van Orley also reconsidered the positions of the women standing
behind Saint Thomas. Even incidental details, such as the elegant dog in the foreground, or the
decorative finials at the roofline in the architecture, were added or changed in a late paint stage
without benefit of an underdrawn guide.The final design exhibits a relatively easy flow between
the figures and their architectural settings, even though in establishing this design,Van Orley made
numerous adjustments to both.The ground of the panel served as Van Orley’s sketchpad for the
ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE 99

Fig. 1. Bernard van Orley, Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece, middle panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
evolving plan that apparently was carried out at that stage rather than in multiple independent
preparatory drawings on paper.
Raphael’s cartoons for the Acts of the Apostles tapestry series arrived in Brussels in 1516, at the
same time as Van Orley’s early panel painting production. Félibien reported the seventeenth-cen-
tury tradition that Van Orley supervised the weaving of Raphael’s designs, but this is an over-
statement.5 Van Orley certainly had contact with Brussels’s weavers and cartonniers at the time;
he was already designing his first known tapestry series, the Notre Dame du Sablon ca. 1516-17
(Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire), and participating in the design of The Honors of
ca. 1517-20 (Patrimonio Nacional, Palacio Real de la Granja de San Ildefonso).6 He must have
been well acquainted with the noted weaver Pieter van Aelst in whose workshop The Honors and
Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles were woven;7 Van Orley likely saw first hand the impressive gouache
cartoons for the latter there.
There is no indication, however, that Raphael’s designs had any impact whatsoever on Van
Orley’s earliest tapestry designs. Nor is there any Roman influence to be found in the artist’s sub-
sequent 1518-20 series (now in Madrid, Palacio Real) called the ‘Square Passion’ until the two
additions to that series, the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and Christ Carrying the Cross, were
designed in ca. 1520.8 The assimilation of Raphael’s art, though, is piecemeal and limited in these
two works.The Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane is more indebted in certain respects to Dür-
er’s art than to Raphael’s.Van Orley may have drawn inspiration from Dürer’s sheet of 1520 (Karl-
100 ROMANISM AS A CATALYST FOR CHANGE IN BERNARD VAN ORLEY’S WORKSHOP PRACTICE
Fig. 2. Infrared reflectogram
assembly of King Gondophares in
fig. 1, showing changes in the
costume. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).
sruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle) and from various prints from the Large Passion, the Small Engraved
Passion, and the Small Woodcut Passion – especially their depiction of landscape details and the
disciples in the foreground, slumped over in complete exhaustion, oblivious of Christ’s agony.9
Only Van Orley’s Christ with outstretched arms recalls Raphael’s figure of St. Stephen in the
Stoning of St. Stephen.The Christ Carrying the Cross was inspired not by Raphael’s Acts of the Apos-
tles cartoons, but instead by his so-called Lo Spasimo di Sicilia. This work may have come to Van
Orley’s attention as a drawing after Raphael’s painting (dated about 1515-16), or through knowl-
edge of the cartoon by Raphael’s workshop and Giovanni da Udine ca. 1516-19 that was prob-
ably woven in Brussels, possibly for Nicolo Balbi.10
Tommaso Vincidor’s Arrival in Brussels
The initial impact of Raphael’s art, then, did not come from the Acts of the Apostles series, but
from other Raphael workshop drawings arriving in Brussels around 1520-22. A number of
Fig. 3. Central panel of Bernard van Orley’s Job Triptych. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts.
these were rapidly assimilated into Van Orley’s own vocabulary for both his tapestry designs and
his panel paintings.The arrival in Brussels of Raphael’s assistant,Tommaso Vincidor, fostered the
second wave of Raphael’s influence.11 Sources locate Vincidor in Rome in 1517 when he wit-
nessed Raphael’s signature on a document and where he worked on the Vatican Loggia frescoes.12
On May 21, 1520, Pope Leo X presented him with a letter of safe conduct to Flanders.13 There,
as we know from Albrecht Dürer’s travel diaries,Vincidor met up with the German artist in
Antwerp on at least five different occasions in 1520 and 1521; each made a portrait from life of
the other.14 During that time, as Vincidor notes in a letter dated July 20, 1521, to his patron
Pope Leo X,15 he was working on at least two separate series of tapestry cartoons, the Giochi di
Putti (or Putti Playing) and the letto di paramento, a ceremonial bed for the Pope that included the
Vision of Ezekiel, a cartoon now in Boughton House.16 In addition to Raphael’s written instruc-
tions for the Acts of the Apostles series,Vincidor probably took along a number of preliminary
designs for tapestries and some completed modelli. He must also have brought with him draw-
ings of various figures and compositions from Raphael’s workshop in Rome.
digital composite of female
figure in fig. 3, showing
painted stage unchanged
from drawn stage.
(IRR: Maryan Ainsworth;
digital composite:
Alison Gilchrest).

digital composite of female
figure in fig. 3, showing
painted stage unchanged
from drawn stage.
(IRR: Maryan Ainsworth;
digital composite:
Alison Gilchrest).
Changes in habitual workshop practice do not take place overnight; they should be described
more accurately as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It is my hypothesis that the evolu-
tionary changes that took place in Van Orley’s atelier were most significantly influenced by Vin-
cidor.The individual figural motifs that Van Orley took from Raphael’s art have been frequently
Fig. 6. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of writhing naked man on outside right wing of the Job Altarpiece,
showing brush underdrawing. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).
cited; I am not referring to this practice alone

but to Van Orley’s workshop methods that were
altered in successive stages as a result of his
exposure to Italian studio practices. Under-
standing how and in what ways Van Orley
assimilated the working methods of Italian
artists better explains their significant implica-
tions for future generations of Flemish painter-
designers.
Van Orley’s 1521 Job Altarpiece has long been

assumed to be the primary example of
Fig. 7. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Raphael’s influence on Van Orley’s art. In the
deathbed scene on outside right wing of the Job Altarpiece, comparison between the outside left wing of
showing fixed state of underdrawing. (IRR: Maryan the Job Triptych and the inside left wing of Van
Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest). Orley’s Saints Thomas and Matthew Altarpiece, it
is apparent that, in some ways,Van Orley had
advanced only marginally beyond his estab-
lished compositional formula.17 In both, the artist fits figures within stage-like settings that have
an upper and lower register, or self-contained foreground and background scenes.What is start-
lingly new is the exaggerated expression and poses of some of the figures in the central panel
Fig. 8. Bernard van Orley,
Kneeling Female Figure. Munich,
Staatliche Graphische Sammlung.
of the Job Altarpiece. It is clear from the figures and the corresponding underdrawings that they
have been individually studied (see figs. 3, 4, 5). I conclude this because in the central panel the
figures are not as interrelated or interactive as they are on the interior wings.18 Instead, they
appear to be disconnected and arranged in an additive way, one adjacent to or superimposed on
top of another, as if conceived independently rather than as part of a whole.
Arnout Balis succinctly observed the salient characteristics of the new mode.19 During the
Renaissance, he noted,‘...new and more complex requirements were introduced for the struc-
ture [and] the syntax of a composition.’20 There were suddenly new compositional require-
ments and new ways that figures and figural groups functioned within them. Figures assumed
more complex roles, and artists like Van Orley needed a better understanding of the structure of
the human body, in particular an appreciation of anatomy. Poses and figures had to be individu-
ally worked out; in addition, designing a composition now needed more preparation than ever,
and there was more recourse to drawing preparatory stages.
New and different types of drawings must have entered into Van Orley's consciousness through
Vincidor’s and Raphael’s workshop examples, that is, drawings that served diverse functions in the
creative process. Little evidence of this remains, but it may be reconstructed from the underdraw-
ings ofVan Orley’s paintings and from a few surviving drawings on paper.The clearest evidence that
more preparatory drawings on paper were made for portions of the Job Altarpiece in 1520-21 than
for Van Orley’s earlier works comes from the fact that the brush underdrawings are far more fixed
at this initial stage than they are in his paintings of 1512-18.The fully worked up and carefully mod-
eled figures of the fallen women on the central panel (see figs. 4, 5), or the writhing naked man in
hell on the right exterior wing (fig. 6), are presented in their final form at this preliminary stage.
The pose of the naked man in hell on the outside right wing is loosely derived from Raphael’s
clothed Ananias in the Death of Ananias and from studies of the fallen soldier in the Resurrection in
the Chigi Chapel in Santa Maria delle Pace.21 The full articulation of the musculature ofVan Orley’s
nude figure, however, had to be newly studied and carefully rendered.The death scene, carried out
in meticulous detail, is in a fixed form in the preliminary drawing on the panel (fig. 7). Compared
Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of fig.
10. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison
Gilchrest).
Fig. 9. Bernard van Orley, Soldier and a Crouching Man.

Leipzig, Museum der Bildende Kunste.
toVan Orley’s early works, there is very little alteration or reworking of these portions in the under-
drawing, or between the underdrawing and final painted stages.
The evolving state of the composition and in particular the poses of certain figures must have
been worked out beforehand in a series of independent studies on paper. One of the few remain-
ing examples is the Study of a Kneeling Woman (Munich, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, fig. 8),
derived from the figure of Saint Stephen in the Stoning of Saint Stephen, one of the lost cartoons for
Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles series.Van Orley’s drawing was based on the preparatory drawing or
cartoon stage of Raphael’s model and not on the tapestry, because the figure shows the same ori-
entation as the now lost cartoon and is not reversed, which it would have been if Van Orley’s mod-
el had been the completed tapestry.Another example of individually studied figures is Van Orley’s
crouching workman, part of a preparatory drawing in the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart for the Crucifixion
tapestry in the National Gallery,Washington.22 The man in the foreground of Raphael’s tapestry
design for the Stoning of Saint Stephen (in the Acts of the Apostles series) inspired this figure.23
Van Orley’s workshop employed these two models in other works.The Munich study was used
for tapestry designs and paintings alike. It served as the basis for both male and female figures
(with various levels of the outstretched arms), including Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, a
Saint John in the Rotterdam Crucifixion, and Mary Magdalene in both his tapestry The Appari-
tion of Christ to the Magdalen (Paris, Louvre) and a painting fragment in Hovingham Hall, the
Mourners Beneath the Cross.24 Van Orley included an adaptation of the crouching workman fig-
ure for his Roman Soldier and Crouching Man (Leipzig, Museum der Bildenden Künste, fig. 9).
The underdrawing of the Leipzig painting shows that Van Orley initially followed the model
closely, even including the rope held by the man in the Crucifixion tapestry, changing it only in
the painted layers (fig. 10).
Toward Streamlined Production
During this period of evolving workshop procedures, there is further evidence of standard-
ization of techniques toward efforts to streamline production in the Van Orley workshop.This
began in the early 1520s, most likely also as a result of Van Orley’s new knowledge of Italian
practices.A prime example of this streamlining of procedure is the cartoon that apparently served
both for the centerpiece of Van Orley’s Haneton Triptych and his tapestry of the Lamentation.The
composition of the Lamentation is based on works by both Dürer and Raphael, the latter per-
haps brought by Vincidor from Rome.25 As well, the elaborate border for the Lamentation tapes-
try adapts figures from Vincidor’s Giochi di putti series that Van Orley had rendered first in a pen
and ink drawing.26 The motif of the Virgin supporting and embracing the body of Christ, as
well as the diagonal thrust of the figures of Christ, the Virgin, and St. John comes from Dürer’s
woodcut of ca. 1495.27 Between the Haneton painting and the weaving of the composition,Van
Orley probably saw Dürer’s drawing of an Old Man of Ninety-three (Vienna, Albertina) made in
Antwerp during Dürer’s visit there in 1521, since he adapted it for the figure of Joseph of Ari-
mathea in his tapestry design.28 Like Van Orley’s tapestry, Dürer’s black chalk drawing of the
Lamentation of 1522 in the Bremen Kunsthalle shows an aged Joseph of Arimathea holding a
pixus and a curly-headed Nicodemus facing him in the upper right corner, as well as a similar-
ly displayed languorous body of Christ in the immediate foreground, showing his pierced hand
in the center of the immediate foreground.29 In this case, it is likely that Van Orley influenced
Dürer, as the latter’s drawing is monogrammed and dated 1522 after he had returned to Nurem-
berg from his trip to the Netherlands, and its horizontal format, although similar to Van Orley’s
painting and tapestry, is uncommon for Dürer’s drawings of this date.
It is Raphael’s 1506-07 compositional draft in pen and ink for the Borghese Entombment (Lon-
don, British Museum) from Raphael’s Florentine period that appears to have provided a model
for Van Orley’s similarly posed dead Christ, with his head drooping to the side and his torso slight-
ly turned toward the viewer.The poignant motif of one of the Marys caressing Christ’s hand
and the tightly-compressed heads of the mourners around the head of Christ in the foreground
are also borrowed from this drawing by Raphael.30
What is even more indicative of the influence of Italian design procedures is the use of one
design for two independent works in different media: a painting and a tapestry. In the case of
Van Orley, it seems that even parts of the same cartoon were used for painting and tapestry alike.
Although the cartoon for the composition of the Lamentation no longer exists, the equivalent
measurements of five of the heads (for Christ, John, and three of the Marys) in both the tapes-
try and the painting suggest that the same template was used for both works.31 A well-known
example of the use of the same concept drawing for painting (either fresco or panel painting)
and for tapestry cartoons in the Raphael workshop is the Adoration of the Magi. The design for
the Loggia fresco and the Ashmolean drawing after it were expanded for a version made in tapes-
try as part of the Life of Christ (Scuola nuova) in the Vatican.32 Van Orley followed this practice in
his own rendition of Raphael’s Adoration of the Magi.The design is used for the Altman tapestry
in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and various paintings, none of which is demonstrably by
Van Orley’s own hand but from his workshop.33
Another characteristic of Italian design procedure that Van Orley assimilated from Vincidor is
the ‘cut and paste’ procedure, the reuse of figures or combined parts of figures from one com-
position for another one.34 This is evident in Vincidor’s Giochi di Putti, a combination of sources
from both Raphael and Penni, with additional influence from Dürer’s art.This practice was in
effect in 1521 when Vincidor was working on the designs in Brussels, and when, as Dürer’s trav-
el journals report, he met with Dürer and certainly with Van Orley.Van Orley no doubt learned
of this technique then, and he employed his own ‘cut and paste’ method for the new designs for
the Alba Passion tapestry series.Van Orley’s compositional drawing ca. 1524-26 for the Crucifix-
Fig. 12. Infrared reflectogram assembly showing pounc-
ing in underdrawing of Christ Child’s head in fig. 11.
(IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).
Fig. 11.Workshop of Bernard van Orley, Holy Family.

Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts.
ion tapestry (Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie, Graphische Sammlung), a conflation of models derived

from Raphael (the foreground crouching giant) and Mantegna as seen through the eyes of Dür-
er (his Crucifixion engraving of 1508 with the Virgin collapsing in the arms of the other Marys
and John in passionate entreaty),35 demonstrates this method. Compared to the scale of the oth-
er figures in the composition, the uneasy conflation of the oversized giant and two gesturing
soldiers in the right foreground expresses Van Orley’s somewhat awkward combination of his
models at this juncture – Dürer for northern emotional pathos, and Raphael for dramatic expres-
sion, even hyperbole, through the poses of his figures in order to help convey his message.The
mismatched scale of the figures was amended in subsequent working drawings in order to achieve
greater harmony in the related tapestry in the National Gallery of Art,Washington.
The ‘cut and paste’ method that was incorporated by both Vincidor and Van Orley requires
readymade workshop patterns that can be easily arranged and rearranged to suit the requirements
of a new project. Methods of transfer are required that can be employed to move the desired
figural motif from one support to another. If Van Orley used transfer methods before his intro-
duction to them by Vincidor and Italian workshop methods, there is no evidence of it so far in
his underdrawings for paintings. Certainly the early works already mentioned instead reveal many
alterations as if Van Orley was using the grounded panel like a sketchpad for his evolving ideas.
The first example so far detected in Van Orley’s works of the transfer of a design is the Holy
Family (Madrid, Museo del Prado), an undisputed work by Van Orley that is signed and dated
1522 at the lower right corner. Evident in the underdrawing are the tell-tale signs of a design
transfer: the underdrawing (uncharacteristically for Van Orley) is restricted to the contours of
the forms (except for occasional minimal parallel hatching in the draperies of the Virgin).The
rather stiff, mechanical nature of the line as can be seen in the head of the Christ Child is typi-
cal of a transfer from a cartoon.36
Often in the technical study of early Netherlandish paintings evidence of tracing or pouncing
is interpreted as indicative of workshop production or of a copy after the master’s work.As there
is no question about the autograph status of the Prado painting, it is worth considering the influ-
ence of Italian practices here. Raphael often worked up his compositional drawings on paper in
one-to-one scale cartoons, transferring them to panel through pouncing.37 However, as Carmen
Bambach has noted, for Raphael’s work, the spolvero, or pouncing technique, offered an oppor-
tunity to create synthetic types of preliminary drawings and often served as an exploratory design
technique.38 That is to say, Raphael often employed a transfer procedure for his primary or
original version of the painting. It can very well be that new examples from Raphael’s work-
shop influenced Van Orley whose aim was similar in the Prado Holy Family.
The transfer method, of course, may also have been used in order to insure the replication of
the desired design to multiple panels.This common method was subsequently employed in Van
Orley’s workshop to produce copies after the Prado painting, such as a version now in Brussels,
Musées Royaux des Beaux Arts (figs. 11, 12).39 The contour of the Christ Child’s face in this
copy shows clear evidence of transfer of the design from a cartoon, in this case by pouncing.
The generation of multiple copies had much to do with the considerable impetus from the
open art market and the possibility for increased sales in Brussels and, especially, Antwerp.This
is the first appearance in Van Orley’s workshop of the production of replicas and standardized
methods employed for making them.The artist must have been previously aware of these meth-
ods; they were already in practice in the Low Countries at an earlier time.The fact, however,
that Van Orley took up this practice for a first or primary version at this point may well have
been due to Vincidor’s tutelage about Italian practices,40 especially considering that Vincidor, not
Raphael, stood directly behind Van Orley’s Prado Holy Family.
Raphael’s Holy Family of Francis I (Paris, Louvre) has usually been identified as Van Orley’s source
for the composition of his Prado Holy Family.Still,his design is not an exact copy of Raphael’s paint-
ing but a reduction of it in terms of the number of figures; there are also adjustments to the poses
of the figures.A fresh look reveals that certain features are more closely derived from The Meeting
of the Two Holy Families (Northants, Duke of Buccleuch Collection, Boughton House), a tapestry
cartoon of ca. 1521 attributed to Vincidor by Tom Campbell, who suggests that it was part of the
letto di paramento.41 Although Van Orley’s own composition is an adaptation and not an exact copy,
certain details follow Vincidor’s cartoon closely.Van Orley’s crowning angel is airborne like the one
in the cartoon, not standing on the ground as in Raphael’s painting. His Joseph looking on from
the background at the right also comes from Vincidor’s example, which shares a common source
for Van Orley’s Joseph, that of Albrecht Dürer and his drawing of an Old Man of Ninety-three (Vien-
na,Albertina).The Prado Holy Family angel, in sharp profile view at the left, who urgently presses
onto the scene with a basket brimming with flowers, is probably inspired by another Vincidor fig-
ure, this time from a different tapestry cartoon, the Vision of Ezekiel that Campbell suggests joined
the Meeting of the Two Holy Families as part of the designs for the Pope’s ceremonial bed.42
Further confirmation that Van Orley directly knew the Vision of Ezekiel is found in the figure
of the triumphant Christ portrayed above in the central panel of the triptych of the Last Judg-
ment (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten), and two panels from an altarpiece
devoted to St. Michael by a workshop assistant, the St. Michael Master (today in New York,
Hester Diamond Collection).43 Certain figures in the vision of St. Michael in heaven, such as
the gesturing putti and the angel in strong profile entering the scene from the right, are clearly
modeled after the Vision of Ezekiel cartoon attributed to Vincidor.
Van Orley’s Last Judgment Altarpiece
Van Orley’s triptych of the Last Judgment and Seven Mercies (plate 1) was commissioned by the
almoners of the Antwerp Cathedral in 1518-19 and completed in 1525; it covers this same peri-
od of seemingly intense interaction of Van Orley with Vincidor. Although a complete study of
Fig. 13. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of lower left of central panel in Bernard van Orley’s Last Judgment
Triptych in Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and Margreet
Wolters; digital composite: Molly Faries).
the altarpiece has yet to be carried out, an initial investigation reveals Van Orley’s continued assim-
ilation of Raphael’s art, through Vincidor as an intermediary, not only in terms of composition
and figure style, but also through lessons of execution and handling.44
It has often been remarked that the general composition of Van Orley’s Last Judgment Triptych
(see plate 1) – with the heavenly and earthly realms spread across the upper portion in the three
panels and the lower central panel – most likely took inspiration from Raphael’s Disputa. How-
ever, there is no reason to suppose that Van Orley ever saw the fresco that was completed in the
winter of 1509. He likely encountered it through drawings or prints after it, or through studies
for the figures that Vincidor had brought north. Proving himself worthy of the contemporary
accolade,‘Netherlandish Raphael’,Van Orley absorbed the essence of the Italian’s art.As Friedlän-
der noted, his ‘figures capture the rhythm of Raphael with astonishing fidelity…by mastering the
illusion of continuously flowing motion.’45
Clearly this was achieved in the central panel
by the successful arrangement of individually
studied figures taken from Raphael workshop
drawings. Just as Raphael’s preparatory draw-
ings reveal his efforts to avoid monotony in the
poses of the figures and to compel urgency
through their gestures and movements,46 so too
does Van Orley aim for similar results in the
Last Judgment. His ability to successfully arrange
figures of diverse poses demonstrates consid-
erable progress over the earlier Job Altarpiece.
Van Orley has now overcome the somewhat
awkward conflation of Raphaelesque figures
with his own more conventional types.
Infrared reflectography of the lower left por-

tion of the central panel (fig. 13) of the Last
Judgment shows Van Orley’s continued adjust- Fig. 14. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of angel
ment at a mid-stage of the painting process of at right of central panel in Bernard van Orley’s Last
the poses and placement of the figures in order Judgment Triptych (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and
to achieve the desired balance of movement Margreet Wolters; digital assembly:Alison Gilchrest).
and expression. Key figures that underscore the
meaning of the painting, such as the angel at
the lower right who gestures toward Christ the Savior, are given individual, detailed attention in
the underdrawing (fig. 14); they are boldly drawn and carefully articulated for maximum effect.
Others, intended to comprise the endless human masses, are only summarily indicated (fig. 15).
What is remarkable here is the variety of underdrawing tools used and types of execution and
handling evident, from a dry medium (possibly black chalk) to brush, and from simple compo-
Fig. 15. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of mass of figures in middle ground of central panel in Bernard van
Orley’s Last Judgment Triptych (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and Margreet Wolters; digital composite: Alison
Gilchrest).
Fig. 16. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of figures in lower half of inner left wing in Bernard van Orley’s
Last Judgment Triptych (plate 1). (IRR: Lars Hendrikman and Margreet Wolters; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).
sitional sketches to carefully worked up modeling in parallel and cross hatching, and finally a wash
application for broad zones of shadow.The lower left of the inside left wing with figures repre-
senting the feeding of the hungry exemplify a variety of bold and directly executed underdrawing
(fig. 16 and cover illustration).The bent over man delivering the pitchers of wine or water (adapt-
ed from the figure at the lower right in Giulio Romano’s 1520-21 design for the Massacre of the
Innocents in the Life of Christ series, known as the Scuola nuova)47 was underdrawn in a black
chalk (?) sketch, enhanced with parallel hatching in brush, and finished with a wash drawing
that models his face in bold chiaroscuro.
composite of John in the Crucifixion,
Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van
Beuningen, showing black chalk (?)
underdrawing. (IRR: J.R.J. van
Asperen de Boer; digital composite:
Alison Gilchrest).
Following Raphael’s Drawing Technique and Execution
The variety of styles encountered in Van Orley’s drawings and underdrawings of his mature
period appear also to have been greatly influenced by Raphaelesque examples.Van Orley’s draw-
ing of ca. 1520 for two playing putti (London, British Museum), adapted from figures in tapes-
try designs carrying Vincidor’s cipher for a series of the Playing Putti is one of the first notable
examples where Vincidor influenced not only Van Orley’s design but also his choice of a colored
paper.48 In a departure for Van Orley, or at least in the only extant example, he made the draw-
ing in pen and ink on grey prepared paper.Vincidor’s modelli are on grey-brown and lighter
brown prepared paper in pen with white heightening.Van Orley’s relationship with Vincidor, and
with preparatory drawings from the Raphael workshop and tapestry cartoons produced from
them, presented him with examples of different drawing styles and techniques that had an impact
on his own work. In what is thought to be the final modello of 1507 for the Entombment (Flo-
rence, Uffizi),49 Raphael employs a distinctive cross-hatching technique in pen that perhaps pro-
Fig. 19. Raphael, drawing for St. Catherine.
Paris, Département des Arts Graphiques du
Musée du Louvre.
Fig. 18. Infrared reflectogram assembly of Bernard van Orley’s Virgin

and Child, New York, Private Collection. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).
vided a model for the technique of Van Orley’s particularly Italianate Kneeling Woman (see fig.
8). Raphael’s drawings for the Borghese Entombment inspired the composition and figural motifs
in Van Orley’s Lamentation (as part of both the Haneton Triptych and the Washington tapestry).
Changes in drawing style and medium may also be recognized in Van Orley’s underdrawings.
Whereas Van Orley’s underdrawings of paintings from his early and middle periods show bold
brush underdrawing, in his later phase of production he began to change his habitual mode. He
more often favored executing his preliminary sketches on the ground of the panel, for his small
to middle-sized paintings, with a dry medium, probably black chalk, instead of brush under-
drawing.This may be due to his increased awareness of Raphael’s workshop techniques where
black chalk was routinely used for the preparatory drawings for his paintings.This shift of medi-
um in Van Orley’s underdrawings is evident in the Rotterdam Crucifixion (fig. 17),50 a superb
Raphaelesque Virgin and Child (European private collection, plates 2a-b),51 and many copies of
popular compositions of the Virgin and Child that Van Orley apparently turned out in an accel-
erated production in the 1520s (New York, Private Collection; San Francisco, de Young Muse-
um, fig. 18).A comparison between the underdrawing of the Virgin and Child (European private
collection, plate 2b) with a study for Saint Catherine in black chalk by Raphael (Paris, Louvre,
fig. 19) reveals Van Orley’s new style of drawing that appears to be influenced by Raphael. Here
this example will stand for the technique of Raphael’s larger scale drawings of his early Floren-
tine period and the underdrawings found in his Madonna and Child paintings of this time.The
Fig. 20. Bernard van Orley, The Circumcision.Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum.
Fig. 21. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of fig.

21. (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison
Gilchrest).
same even parallel hatching in a dry medium is used to describe the volume of forms and the
system of lighting appears in these works by both artists.
Van Orley, however, did not always carry out the underdrawing of his later works solely in
black chalk. In more complicated compositions, as well as a number of late paintings (particu-
larly large works), such as the Last Judgment and the Vienna Circumcision and Ecce Homo (figs. 20,
21), he also used brush. In delicate parallel hatching the brush indicates zones of shadow across
the forms; used in broad washes it boldly articulates three-dimensional and sculptural treatments
of heads and draperies. For the latter, with its assertive chiaroscuro effect, the connection with
Raphael workshop cartoons for tapestries is inescapable. In the Leipzig Soldier and Crouching Work-
man (see fig. 9), different types of underdrawing are used separately on different figures in the
same composition. The crouching man shows even parallel hatching in brush to suggest the
dark shadow across his face. A figure in the background is formed with a quick, broad applica-
tion of wash in a summary fashion, in addition to even parallel hatching to indicate the features
of the face and a more general modeling tone (compare figs. 22 and 23).
Fig. 23. Infrared reflectogram of crouching man’s face
in fig. 9 (turned sideways). (IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).
Fig. 22. Infrared reflectogram of a soldier’s face in fig. 9.

(IRR: Maryan Ainsworth).
Conclusions
A number of examples indicate Van Orley’s assimilation not only of the designs and motifs,
but also of the very working techniques of Raphael’s workshop, especially as Vincidor introduced
them. Many of these observations introduced here deserve further study. Here is a brief review
of the points made.
• Although Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles cartoons arrived in Brussels in 1516, it was not until
Vincidor’s appearance in 1520 that Italian workshop practices become part of Van Orley’s work-
ing procedures.
• These new working methods include but are not limited to the increased use of the same mod-
el drawings of figures, heads, and landscape features for different paintings and tapestry designs,
and the ‘cut and paste technique’. Just as Vincidor conflated models from Raphael and Penni
(with influence from Dürer as well), so Van Orley assimilated Dürer, Raphael, and Vincidor
models in a similar manner for his own use.
• Due to the knowledge of Raphaelesque examples, we see in Van Orley’s Prado Holy Family the
first appearance of methods of transfer used for the production of the original painting as well
as for replicas.This led to the inception of the more rapid production of copies (especially of
paintings of the Virgin and Child) for the open art market.
• The introduction of changes in Van Orley’s drawing and underdrawing technique, including
details of execution and handling, are the result of his new familiarity with Raphael work-
shop drawings, modelli, and cartoons. At this later stage,Van Orley begins to use a dry medi-
um, probably black chalk, for his underdrawings. In his more ambitious compositions and larger
works, he employs both dry and liquid media for working up the underdrawing from the ini-
tial sketch to what must have appeared as a fully finished, chiaroscuro rendering.
NOTES
1. Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, 102, no. 85, plates 78-81; Farmer 22. Illustrated in Campbell 2002, cat. nos. 33-34, 314-15.
1981, 123-48;Ainsworth 1982, 100-101, 117-122; Dacos 1987,
614-616;Ainsworth 1990, 292-297; Campbell 2002, 292-97. 23.Ainsworth in Campbell 2002, 194, fig. 79.
2. I have studied approximately thirty separate panels with 24. Illustrations are found in Campbell 2002, 308; and in
infrared reflectography that are attributed to Van Orley. In addi- Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, plate 105, no. 113 and plate 106, no.
tion, the results of infrared reflectography of other paintings 114; Louis Guimbaud, Les Arts Décoratifs La Tapisserie de Haute
by Van Orley and his workshop have been published by Péri- et Basse Lisse, Paris, 1928, 21, fig. 13.
er-d’Ieteren 1979,Van den Brink 1995, Hendrikman 1999, 25.Ainsworth 1990, 41-64.
Silva Maroto 2001, and Dunbar (2005).
26. Ibid., 46-48, figs. 7-11.
3. For other points of view on Van Orley’s workshop, see
Farmer 1994 and the forthcoming dissertation of Lars Hen- 27. Illustrated in ibid., 45, fig. 3; Knappe 1965, no.129 and
drikman:‘The Renaissance is to Blame – Bernard van Orley’s illustrated in Hütt 1965, no. 1732.
workshop in Brussels – Revision of a reputation’ (for the Uni- 28.Ainsworth 1990, 46, fig. 5.
versity of Groningen).
29. Ibid., 46, fig. 6.
4. Lars Hendrikman (in Hendrikman 1999) believes that
the Washington panels date closer to 1506. 30. Ibid., 45, fig. 4.
5. Andre Félibien des Avaux, Entretiens sur les vies et sur les 31. Ibid., 43, note 21 and Farmer 1994, 30-31.
ouvrages des plus excellens peintres anciens et modernes (1725 edi-
tion, vol. 2, 328); Shearman 1972, 138; Ainsworth 1982, 25- 32. Standen 1971, 109-15; and Campbell 2002, 237-41. I
26; Campbell 2002, 292. am very aware that the authorship of the late drawings by
Raphael’s workshop is disputed, especially recently, and for the
6.Ainsworth 1982, 36-39.The most recent discussion of this purposes of this article I will therefore use the generic desig-
series with color illustrations is in Campbell 2002, 168-85. nation of Raphael workshop for many of these.
7.Ainsworth 1982, 33-34; Campbell 2002, 197. 33. Standen 1971, 109-15. See also Van Orley examples in
Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, plates 102-03, nos. 105-06c.
8. Campbell 2002, 291-92, figs. 131-34.
34. Campbell 2002, 234; see also Lisa Pons, Raphael, Dürer,
9. See Ainsworth in Campbell 2002, 312, 316, 318, 320, figs. and Marcantonio Raimondi, Copying and the Italian Renaissance
133-34 (292). For the influence of Lucas Cranach the Elder’s Print, New Haven and London, 2004, 113-18.
print, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, see also Guy Del-
marcel 1992, 127-60 35. See Ainsworth in Campbell 2002, 320 and illustrated
314.
10. Campbell 2002, cat. no. 25, 218-23.
36. Here I differ from the interpretation of the results pub-
11. On Tommaso Vincidor, see Standen 1971, 109-115; lished by Silva Moroto 2001, 109-19, figs. 2a, 2b.
Dacos 1980, 61-99, esp. 86-87; Dacos 1997; Campbell 2002,
189, 191, 231, 240-2, 258, 260, 295, 296, 300, 306, 316, 341, 37. Examples include the Madonna del Granducca (Florence,
344, 393, and 395. Palazzo Pitti), the Small Cowper Madonna (Washington, Nation-
al Gallery of Art), the Large Cowper Madonna (Washington,
12.Vasari 1568 (1906 ed.), vol. 4, 363; Pinchart 1854, 538- National Gallery of Art), and the Madonna of the Meadow (Vien-
543; Dacos 1980, 63 and 93, appendice no. 1; Campbell 2002, na, Kunsthistorisches Museum). I thank Carmen Bambach for
230. discussing this matter with me and pointing out several exam-
13. Dacos 1980, 61 and 93-94,Appendice no. 2. ples. For further discussion, see Bambach 1999, especially
102-05.
14. Conway 1889, 105-106, and 118.
38. Ibid., 14-15, 105.
15. For the letter to Pope Leo X, see Dacos 1980, 63
and 94-95,Appendice no. 4; Campbell 2002, 230-231, 233- 39. Périer-d’Ieteren 1979, 47-48, pl. 5.
234. 40. Other Flemish artists, such as Gerard David, who were
16. Campbell 1996, 436-45; Campbell 2002, 230-36, 257, likewise influenced by Italian art (in this case Leonardo da Vin-
and figs. 94, 96, 104. ci), also started to use a method of transfer for the primary ver-
sion of what would become a series output. See Ainsworth
17. Illustrated in Friedländer 1972, vol. 8, plates 81 and 73. 1998, 295-308.
18. For the underdrawing of the figures and minor adjust- 41. Campbell 1996, 436-45; Campbell 2002, 233-36.
ments Van Orley made to the preliminary design on the inner
right wing, see van den Brink 1995, 178-79, and plates 78-79. 42. Ibid., fig. 96.
19. Balis 2000, 130-33. 43. Bruijnen 2001/2002, fig. 1.
20. Ibid., 130. 44. My sincere thanks to Margreet Wolters and Lars Hen-
drikman for carrying out this initial study with the IRR equip-
21. Illustrated in E, Knab, E. Mitsch, and K. Oberhuber, ment of the RKD in November of 2004. [Editor’s note: the
Raphael. Die Zeichnungen, Stuttgart, 1983, 124 and fig. 479. documentation was carried out Dec. 10, 2004, with a Hama-
matsu C 2400-07 camera with a N 2606 vidicon, a Nikon 47.The tapestry is in the Vatican Museum,Vatican City; see
Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens, a Heliopan RG 850 (or RG Campbell 2002, 259.
1000) filter with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625 lines).
Digitized documentation is performed with a Meteor RCB 48.Vincidor wrote to Pope Leo X about this series in a
framegrabber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualba- letter of 1521; ibid., 230-31.
sic). Margreet Wolters and Lars Hendrikman would like to 49. Bambach 1999, fig. 114.
thank Yolande Deckers and Liesbeth Schotsman of the Antwerp
museum for their assistance.] 50. For other details of the underdrawing in the Rotterdam
Crucifixion, see van den Brink 1995, plate 78 a,b.
51. The pose of the Christ Child derives from Raphael’s
46. John Pope-Hennessy, Raphael,The Wrightsman Lectures, La Belle Jardinière (Paris, Louvre) and preparatory drawings in
New York, 1970, 59-69. Washington, National Gallery, and elsewhere.
Shop Collaboration in the Painting of
Background Landscapes in the Workshop
of Pieter Coecke van Aelst*
Linda Jansen
University of Groningen
Introduction
One of the new genres that developed in sixteenth-century Antwerp was landscape painting.1
The pioneer of Antwerp landscape painting was Joachim Patinir, whose ‘cosmic landscape’ was
an extension of the Eyckian panorama of the fifteenth-century. Landscape became an indepen-
dent subject matter, in which the figures and small religious scenes played a seemingly subordi-
nate role.2 The conventions of Patinir, such as capricious rock formations and the deliberate
organization of space into three planes became very influential in the Antwerp artistic environ-
ment.They can be seen not only in the works of later landscape painters, such as Herri Bles and
Jan van Amstel, but also in the works of figure painters such as Quinten Massys, Joos van Cleve,
and even the Bruges master,Adriaen Isenbrant.
The development of the landscape specialist led to new forms of collaboration.Very little is
known about this practice, especially for the first half of the sixteenth century.The most impor-
tant source of information is Karel van Mander’s Schilder-boeck.This writer was the first to men-
tion which landscape artists collaborated with figure painters and vice versa.3 Yet none of the
paintings Van Mander mentions has survived nor do any archival records confirm the collabora-
tions he cites. Nonetheless,Van Mander’s statements and the widespread influence of landscape
painters in the work of figure painters have led several art historians to see all sorts of collabo-
ration between well-known masters such as Joachim Patinir and Quinten Massys; Joos van Cleve
and Lucas Gassel; and Pieter Coecke and Jan van Amstel.4 How the collaboration actually took
place is the question that is usually overlooked.
Other important sources of information on collaboration are archival records.The few doc-
uments that have survived reveal that many forms of collaboration must have existed – between
master painters, masters and journeymen, and painters and sculptors. Information is scattered,
though, and an overview or a thorough study on this subject is lacking.5 Collaboration in the
painting of backgrounds can be divided roughly into two categories.The first can be typified
as ‘prestige collaboration’, that is, collaboration between two artists of equal rank and status
working together on one painting – one responsible for the landscape and the other for the
figures. For the early sixteenth century, there are only a few examples of prestige collabora-
tion, the most-well known being the Temptation of St. Anthony (Madrid, Prado) that is signed
opus Joachim *at* nier.6 In a 1574 inventory from the Escorial, the figures were given to a maestre
Coyntin and the landscape to maestre Joaquin.7 Both painters were celebrated artists with pro-
ductive workshops in this period: Massys was active in Antwerp between 1491 and 1530 and
Patinir between 1515 and 1524. Gibson has suggested that the painting might very well have
been made on commission, judging by its considerable size and its early entrance into the
collection of Philip II.8 The practice of prestige collaboration seems, however, to have been
more common in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with examples between well-
known painters such as Jan Brueghel and Peter Paul Rubens, and Jan Brueghel and Joos de
Momper.9
SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES 119

Fig. 1. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triptych with the Crucifixion. Utrecht, Rijksmuseum Catharijneconvent,ABM s00107.
Another type of collaboration that originated in the first half of the sixteenth century is the
employment of specialized journeymen in the workshops of figure painters.10 The growth of the
art market and the subsequent increase in the demand for paintings forced artists to streamline
their production methods in order to meet this demand.11 Standardized compositions and stan-
dardized production methods, along with a division of labor that involved the employment of
specialized journeymen, were all strategies the workshops of the period could use to accomplish
this goal. According to Franz, the employment of specialists – whether landscape-, figure-, or
still life – was also related to a need for perfectionism. Although several specialists contributed
their best work to a painting, the objective was still to make it one whole.The unity and per-
fection of the final product was more highly valued than the personal style of an individual artist.12
This seems to be in contrast to those paintings that were the result of prestige collaboration,
where the individuality of the separate artists contributed to the uniqueness of the work.
To further examine this highly problematic practice of collaboration in the painting of back-
ground landscapes, I would like to focus on the case of the Antwerp painter, Pieter Coecke van
Aelst. Coecke was the head of a large and productive workshop from 1527 until his death in
1550. He took on three apprentices and trained his three sons, Pieter II, Michiel, and Paul.
Along with the variable number of unregistered journeymen, his shop was one of the largest of
his time.13 The oeuvre that is attributed to Coecke and his workshop of about four to five hun-
dred paintings mainly consists of serial products for the free market and includes many repeti-
tions of the Madonna and Child and the Adoration of the Magi. A great deal of variety in both quality
120 SHOP COLLABORATION IN THE PAINTING OF BACKGROUND LANDSCAPES

Fig. 2. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triptych with the Crucifixion. Bonn, Rheinlandisches Museum.
and style can be noticed within this oeuvre, which led both Friedländer and Marlier to the
assumption that Coecke must have worked with a shop that employed many assistants, and, in a
few instances, also landscape specialists.14 This last assumption seemed to be supported by Coecke’s
close family ties with landscape painters such as Jan van Amstel, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and
Gillis van Coninxloo.
Although authors have frequently pointed out collaboration in the painting of landscape back-
grounds in the workshop of Pieter Coecke, very few have supported their statements with sol-
id arguments and examples. In this article I would like to discuss two questions: first, can a division
of labor in the painting of background landscapes and the employment of landscape specialists
indeed be determined? Two groups of paintings will serve as test cases, one group with Cruci-
fixion scenes and the other with scenes from the Passion of Christ.The panels in these two groups
have been examined with infrared reflectography (IRR) in order to obtain more information
about the creative process. Second, is the widely-held assumption that Coecke collaborated
with the landscape specialist, Jan van Amstel, who was related to him by marriage, still tenable?
The City of Jerusalem in the Crucifixions in Warsaw, Bonn, and Utrecht
A small group of four compositionally similar Crucifixions stands out in Coecke’s oeuvre.
The interrelationships among these works provide a good example of the complex system of
collaboration in Coecke’s workshop. Several hands can be distinguished: three in the under-
drawings, at least two in the painting of the figures, one for the cityscape of Jerusalem in the
works in both Warsaw and Bonn, and a different one for the background in the painting in
Utrecht.

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

of such a model drawing may be the Berlin
Crucifixion attributed to the circle of Pieter
Coecke van Aelst (fig. 4).21 The pose of St.
John, stepping forward with his proper right
leg and holding up his garment with his prop-
er left hand, recalls John’s stance in the War-
saw and Bonn paintings. The drawing is
attributed to the circle of Coecke and might
have been executed by a pupil or an assistant
in his workshop as a kind of copy drawing
repeating a composition of the master. After
all, one of the basic elements in the training
of a pupil was making drawings after com-
positions by the master.22 Making this kind
of copy drawing was no doubt also of bene-
fit to the assistants, since it provided them
with a stock of models they could rely on at
a future date.
Division of Labor
Judging by the considerable differences in

underdrawing style, painting technique, and Fig. 4. Attributed to the Circle of Pieter Coecke van
quality, it can be concluded that the Crucifix- Aelst, Crucifixion. Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett.
ions in question are the result of collaboration
among various members of the workshop.The
employment of assistants may be surmised from
the different hands discernable in the underdrawing stage of the four paintings. Comparison of
the layout drawing in the draperies (figs. 5 and 6) reveals that the same hand made the under-
drawings in the Crucifixions in Utrecht and Warsaw.23 The underdrawing was made with brush
and a liquid material.The thick lines are curving and continuous, often ending in loops or hooks.
Typical s-shaped strokes and little ovals indicate indentations in the folds. In contrast to Warsaw,
the Crucifixion in Utrecht exhibits a second preparatory stage: the shadows and volumes are laid
in with wash-like hatchings.The assured lines and the lack of any major change during execu-
tion indicate that the composition must already have been established in another form, most like-
ly a model drawing.The skilled hand responsible for the underdrawings needed only to take over
the basic outlines from this presumed example.The style and routine of the underdrawings belong
to the type that appears in other high quality paintings in the Coecke group, such as the wings
with St. John Presenting Female Donors and St. James Presenting Male Donors in Madrid (fig. 7)24 and
the Adoration of the Magi in Oldenzaal (fig. 8).25 This core group of paintings demonstrates a
consistent workshop routine that sets the standard for the underdrawing method used in Coecke’s
workshop. It is, however, not certain to what extent the underdrawing in this core group is by
the hand of the master himself.
The underdrawing in the Bonn Crucifixion was made in accordance with the same routine
but is by a different hand.26 The underdrawing registered best in the figures of Christ and the
angels.27 It was made with brush in a liquid medium and was restricted to only the basic con-
tours and details in the drapery (fig. 9).The lines, however, are less elegantly curved than in the
core group.The underdrawing of the figures, and possibly also their execution in paint, must have
been left to an assistant in the shop who based his work on an available model, perhaps the same
one that lay at the basis of the closely related Warsaw composition. In the Leeuwarden Crucifix-
ion, the underdrawing was also made following the routine of the core group, but it deviates in

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

composite of Mary Magdalene’s red
cloak in the Warsaw Crucifixion (plate
2). (IRR: Molly Faries; digital com-
posite: Linda Jansen).
style (fig. 10).28 The lines are rough and coarse and much less detailed. Since this work deviates
the most from the other three compositions in both underdrawing and painting technique, this
triptych might be considered a late pastiche in which various compositions and figure types were
assembled that were common in the Coecke workshop.29 It is difficult in this case to make a
distinction between another assistant working within the shop and a follower working outside
the shop.
The execution of the figures in the paint layers shows different hands as well.30 The style and
painting technique of the Warsaw and Utrecht figures clearly stand out.The facial types in these

Fig. 7. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of St. James in St. James and Male Donors, Madrid, Museo del Prado.
(IRR and digital composite: Linda Jansen).
works are identical to each other and comparable to those we find in the core group. For instance,
John in Warsaw has the same straight eyebrows as the Virgin in the Utrecht Crucifixion, and both
have the same characteristic dimple in the chin, along with pronounced nostrils and lips. In the
Warsaw version, much attention is given to expressive details, such as the tears on the Magda-
lene’s cheeks – a detail lacking in any of the other versions.The figures in the Bonn and Leeuwar-
den Crucifixions are more simplified and less expressive, and details in the faces and the drapery
folds are more angular. The painting technique of the Warsaw and Utrecht paintings is also
much more refined than the technique used in the Bonn and Leeuwarden triptychs.The mod-
elling of the flesh areas, such as the faces and the body of Christ, is strong, though with subtle
transitions; it gives these areas more volume than similar areas in the Bonn and Leeuwarden paint-
ings. The draperies in the latter paintings are more heavily modelled, and since the contrast
between the dark and light areas is rather harsh, the overall look is more decorative. Individual
brushstrokes are hardly discernible in the Warsaw and Utrecht paintings, but can be seen in the
other two works.The differences in the paint layers correspond to the division of hands in the
underdrawing: Utrecht and Warsaw were done by the same person, while the execution of the
figures in the triptychs in Bonn and Leeuwarden were executed by other assistants in the work-
shop.
In all four paintings, the background consists of a landscape dominated by a walled city. In
the backgrounds in Warsaw, Bonn and Utrecht, a domed church resembling the Dome of the
Rock makes the city identifiable as Jerusalem, although the city is otherwise not topograph-
ically correct.31 The backgrounds in Warsaw and Bonn are remarkable for their detailed ren-
dering and their refined painterly quality (plates 3 and 4). Interestingly, the background was

composite of the Virgin and Child in
the Triptych with the Adoration of the
Magi, Oldenzaal, Plechelmusbasiliek.
(IRR: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer /
Stichting RKD; digital composite:
Linda Jansen).
not prepared in the underdrawing stage in either work. Still, it is not very likely that an artist
would improvise every time a background was needed. Both cityscapes and architectural struc-
tures differ and cannot, therefore, rely on the same source. It is more likely that the artist had
several models from which he could draw. Because of their close resemblance in style and tech-
nique, it can be assumed that the same hand painted the backgrounds in the Warsaw and
Bonn versions, while different hands executed the figures in both paintings. Can we, then,
speak of an assistant, a journeyman, who functioned as the landscape specialist in Coecke’s
workshop? In my opinion we cannot, since this hand does not consistently reappear in other
backgrounds.The division of labor does prove, however, that the background was handled as
a separate stage in the painting process and could be delegated to an assistant who was solely
responsible for the landscape setting.
The background landscape with the city of Jerusalem in the Utrecht Crucifixion is quite dif-
ferent in character (plate 5).The city does not occupy the entire background, and is more sober-

Fig. 9. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of Christ’s
loincloth in fig. 2. (IRR and digital composite: Linda
Jansen). Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of the
angel on the left in fig. 3. (IRR and digital composite:
Linda Jansen).

composite of John the Evangelist and
background landscape in fig. 1. (IRR:
Molly Faries; digital composite: Linda
Jansen).
ly rendered.The architectural structures are again different, and more solid.The color palette that
is used differs as well: instead of atmospheric blue tones, the city is painted in brownish and green-
ish colors.Also in contrast to the Warsaw and Bonn Crucifixions, the background in Utrecht was
prepared in the underdrawing stage (fig. 11).The horizon and the hills are indicated with sim-
ple contours.The architecture in the city and the areas of foliage are drawn with loose, sketchy
lines.The underdrawing in the city is quite schematic, functioning only as a generalized indica-
tion for the form that was supposed to be given shape in the later paint stages.This may also be
the reason why only minor changes occurred: the bushes and the city wall were originally planned
a little higher than their present position. In the Utrecht painting it is not certain that the back-
ground was prepared and executed by a hand other than the one responsible for the figures.The
different approach in the underdrawing of the figures as opposed to that of the landscape may
relate only to the organization of space.The background still stands out as a separate stage, but
this is not obviously connected to a division in labor, as was the case in the Warsaw and Bonn
versions.

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

Fig. 12. Pieter Coecke van Aelst,
Christ before Pilate. Berlin,
Jagdschloss Grünewald.
and Mechisedeck (Malines, Groot Seminarie), and the Carrying of the Cross (Basel, Kunstmuseum).40
Nevertheless, the motif clearly has a long and varied history, not only in panel painting but also
in manuscript illumination.The complex interrelationship of the drawings, paintings, and minia-
tures shows how widespread some background motifs were, sometimes even going beyond the
workshop of a single painter.
The Wings of the St.Truiden Passion Altarpiece
Another striking example of collaboration in the execution of background landscape is found

in a set of wings that originally belonged to a sculpted altarpiece. Five wing panels have sur-
vived and are dispersed over five different locations: the Entry into Jerusalem (Maastricht, Bon-
nefantenmuseum), Christ before Pilate, (Berlin, Jagdschloss Grünewald; fig. 12), the Entombment of
Christ (Lisbon, private collection), the Ascension of Christ (Trier, Städisches Museum Simeonstift)
and the Decent of the Holy Ghost (Cape Town, Michaëlis collection).41 Friedländer already knew
two of the paintings, Christ before Pilate and Christ before Caïphas (formerly also in Berlin) and

Fig. 13. Pieter Coecke van Aelst,
Saint Libertus. Cape Town,
Michaëlis Collection.
attributed the works to Pieter Coecke van Aelst.42 Marlier mentioned all the panels and noted
their similarities in style, but he did not connect them as belonging to one work of art.43 Both
authors attributed the paintings to Coecke’s workshop rather than to Coecke himself, due to
the rather coarse and simplified execution of the figures, even though these are unmistakably
Coecke inventions.
Buijsen recently identified the five surviving panels as wings from a sculpted altarpiece.44 Like
Friedländer and Marlier, he recognized the stylistic similarities and noticed that several figure types
recurred in the five panels, such as the kneeling man with the pointed beard in the lower right
corner of the Entry into Jerusalem who is repeated in the Decent of the Holy Ghost. Since the panels
all depict episodes from the Passion of Christ, it is likely that they formed the wings of an altar-
piece with a sculpted Crucifixion as the center piece.With the panels depicting scenes before Christ’s
death placed on the left wing and those with scenes after Christ’s death on the right wing, it
would have been possible to read the story chronologically from left to right.According to Buij-
sen each wing consisted of four panels.45 The larger panels, each measuring ca. 100 x 63 cm, were
placed in the upper storey and the slightly smaller panels, measuring ca. 85 x 63 cm, in the lower
storey. One small panel from the left wing, possibly depicting the Agony in the Garden, and one
larger panel from the right wing, possibly a Resurrection of Christ, are still missing.
The evidence proving that the panels belonged to one single altarpiece was the nearly iden-
tical depiction of saints standing under an architectural canopy seen on the reverse of the pan-

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

composite of Christ and a soldier in
fig. 12. (IRR: RKD; digital
composite: Linda Jansen).
special interest because it is probably the only one executed in Coecke’s workshop.59 Many of
the compositions are similar to those in the wings of the St.Truiden altarpiece.
The simpler painting technique of the St.Truiden wings cannot be due only to the employ-
ment of less gifted workshop assistants, as has been suggested in the literature.The execution of
the wings of sculpted altarpieces may have been subject to different standards. Wings were
meant to be seen from a distance, and a clear graphic style with bright colors seems to have
been the standard for such works.60 As a comparison, I refer to Joos van Cleve’s Reinhold Altar-
piece (see the article in this volume by Micha Leeflang) in which the scenes on the inner sides of
the wings were done by assistants.These scenes are also more schematic than the painterly tech-
nique encountered in the outer wings and in other works by Van Cleve and his workshop.
The examination by IRR of four of the paintings from the altarpiece shows a type of collab-
oration similar to that mentioned earlier, namely a division of labor in the underdrawing stage
between the figures and background landscape.61 In all four paintings the underdrawing in the
figures was made according to the same routine and style. Assured elongated lines depict fold
lines in the drapery and the contours of figures (fig. 14); typical s-shaped strokes or little ovals
indicate indentations in the folds.This underdrawing routine is typical for the core group and
can also be found in the Crucifixions in Utrecht and Warsaw. Occasionally, parallel hatching is used
in these wing panels to indicate a shadow area, as, for instance, in the cloak of Pilate and the

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

composite of the background land-
scape on the left side of fig. 13. (IRR:
RKD; digital composite: Linda
Jansen).
The execution of the background landscape is not only a different stage in the genesis of a
painting but also translates into a division of labor, as we have seen in the Crucifixion group.
However, for the same reason as in the Warsaw and Bonn Crucifixions, care must be taken when
speaking of a journeyman who specialized in landscapes.The same hand does not recur consis-
tently throughout the paintings produced in Coecke’s shop.The type of background architec-
ture in the Entry into Jerusalem is rather common in the Coecke group as well as in works by
Bles and other anonymous Antwerp painters.This again suggests that model drawings circulat-
ed in the shop and were used by the various assistants working there in the style of the work-
shop that hired them, rather than landscape specialists with their own styles.
A Landscape Specialist Related by Marriage: Jan van Amstel
Whenever Coecke’s collaboration with a landscape specialist is discussed, only one name is
mentioned: Jan van Amstel. A critical look at the literature shows that this presumed collabora-
tion is for the most part a literary invention of the twentieth century. Information from the
archives combined with a disputed oeuvre has evolved over the years from hypothesis into fact.

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

Christ in Santarem, in the wing with St. James Presenting Male Donors in Madrid, and in the left
wing of the Karlsruhe triptych with the Resurrection of Christ.85 The backgrounds of these three
works show dense groups of tiny figures standing in a variety of poses. Marlier considers the small
figures a new element in the work of Coecke, and reminiscent of the figures of the Brunswick
Monogrammist, Coecke’s brother-in-law, Jan van Amstel. He then suggests that the latter might
have executed the figures in these paintings:‘Nothing says they could not have been inserted by
Jan van Amstel’ (Rien ne dit qu’elles n’y sont pas insérées par Jan van Amstel). 86 His arguments are
weak: he focuses solely on the presence of small figures that appear in Jan van Amstel’s paintings,
but are only a novelty in Coecke’s work. Background scenes with little figures, however, are quite
common. Such scenes appear in other paintings by Coecke, such as the Crucifixions in Warsaw
and Bonn, where a procession to mount Calvary populates the background. Marlier does not
comment at all on the rest of the landscape, nor on the backgrounds with tiny figures depicted
in the other wings (for example, those with St. John the Evangelist and Female Donors in Madrid
or the Rescue of Jonah from the Karlsruhe triptych).
Schubert supports these attributions to Jan van Amstel. He makes an even closer comparison
between the background of the Santarem Baptism of Christ and Jan van Amstel’s Entry of Christ
into Jerusalem in Stuttgart (although he admits to never having studied the Baptism at first hand).87
He does not mention the background landscape in the Prado wing with St. James and Male Donors,
which, according to Marlier, is by the same hand. Schubert also supports Marlier’s attribution of
the background landscape in the Nebuchadnezzar wing to Van Amstel, but he corrects Marlier
by saying that the Karlsruhe triptych is a smaller copy after the original wings in Nuremburg
that were actually painted by Van Amstel.88 Schubert adds one more example of collaboration
of the two artists to the list, the Reading Virgin with the Christ Child (Munich).89 According to
this author, the artistic relationship between Coecke and Van Amstel does not end here. He draws
our attention to a few more paintings that are occasionally attributed to Coecke, but attributes
them to Van Amstel: the Lamentation of Christ (Berlin, Bode Museum), the Crucifixion (Neuss),
the Holy Family (Utrecht and Diest), and St. Jerome in a Landscape (Wiesbaden).90 These are exam-
ples of biblical scenes with large-scale figures that Van Amstel had supposedly taken over from
Coecke. Here, according to Schubert, the artists did not collaborate; rather Van Amstel derived
his examples from the Coecke workshop by means of intermediate drawings. To summarize,
according to both authors, the actual collaboration between Coecke and Van Amstel apparently
only occurred upon Coecke’s initiative: that is, Coecke hired Jan van Amstel as a landscape painter,
and not the other way around.They both situate the collaboration in the period around 1535-
40. In my opinion, the arguments of these authors are not convincing for both stylistic and
practical reasons.
Although Schubert provides better and more fully elaborated stylistic comparisons, the argu-
ments for Van Amstel’s collaboration remain highly speculative. Do the similarities in land-
scape backgrounds between the two painters, which occurred on only three occasions,
necessarily have to be the result of collaboration? Marlier and Schubert’s arguments in favor
of collaboration state only that there is no reason to believe that it is not the result of col-
laboration.They overlook other possibilities for the similarities, such as the role of drawings
or prints as a source of inspiration (as seen in the Crucifixion group). Schubert admits that
this is a possibility in the case of Van Amstel’s use of Coecke-like figures. Until the oeuvre
of Van Amstel is more thoroughly studied with methods of technical examination, and can
be systematically compared with that of Coecke, this question of collaboration remains
unresolved.91 Technical examination of the Prado wings, however, did not show any differ-
ence in painting technique and working routine between the left and right wing, nor a clear
division between the execution of the foreground and background.Therefore the argument
that the backgrounds in these paintings were done by different hands, as Marlier implies, is
inconclusive.92 This considerably weakens Marlier’s arguments for the collaboration of Jan
van Amstel in the painting of these wings.

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

Coecke’s workshop. On the contrary, it can be said that landscapes do not occupy a dominant
position in the majority of works from Coecke’s studio, and certainly not in the many serial prod-

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

NOTES
* This study is part of my Ph.D. thesis on the workshop Stock 1993, 47-49).An interdisciplinary workshop was devot-
practices of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, which is part of the pro- ed to this subject at the University of Groningen (May 23-
ject,‘Antwerp Painting before Iconoclasm (ca. 1480 – 1566: a 24, 2003), ‘Working for Money. The role and status of
Socio-Economic Approach,’ at the University of Groningen, journeymen in the artists’ and craftsmans’ workshops in the
co-directed by Prof. Dr. Molly Faries and Dr. M.P.J. Martens Low Countries ca. 1450-1650,’ (the papers, edited by N. Peeters,
(2000 – 2004) and sponsored by NWO (Netherlands Orga- are forthcoming).
nization for Scientific Research).
11. Thijs 1993, 106;Van der Stock 1993, 51-52; van den
Brink 2001a. Specialization and standardization also occurred
in the in the retable industry, see Jacobs 1998, 161, 209-37.
1. For an overview of the development of sixteenth-cen-
tury landscape painting, see Genaille 1987 and Gibson 1989. 12. Franz 1982, 173-74.
Several recent exhibitions have also focused on the develop-
ment of the landscape genre in the sixteenth and seventeenth 13. Of the masters in the period 1500-1539, 57.3 %
centuries, see Huys Janssen 2001; Ertz et al. 2003; Devisscher remained one-person businesses and never took on appren-
2004.These catalogues also provide extensive bibliographies tices; only 3.7 % of the master painters took on three or more
on the subject. apprentices in this same period (see Martens and Peeters else-
where in this volume). Sosson (1970, 99-100) already noticed
2. For the iconography of sixteenth-century landscape, see a similar trend in Bruges for the period 1454-1530; only 38.7
Falkenburg 1988 and Buijsen 2001. % of all the masters took on apprentices. See also note 10.
3.Van Mander (Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, fol. 14. Friedländer 1917, 91-94; Marlier 1966, 226, 269-72,
207v) cites Jan van Scorel as the background painter in a Depo- 274, 277.
sition from the Cross by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, and
Joachim Patinir as the background painter in a Virgin and Child 15. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifixion,
by Joos van Cleve (fol. 227r). Unfortunately, both paintings are Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent, inv. no. AMB s00107.
lost today. Center panel 66.5 x 44 cm; wings 68 x 18.5 cm.Wings: left,
Other mentions of collaboration are: Hendrik van Cleef Adam and Eve, and right, the Sacrifice of Isaac. Master of the
who frequently painted backgrounds for Frans Floris (fol. 230v) Utrecht Adoration (according to the museum catalogue), trip-
and his brother Marten van Cleef (fol. 230v). Marten for his tych with the Crucifixion, Bonn, Rheinlandishes Museum, inv.
part added figures in the landscapes of Gillis van Coninxloo no. 92.0639. Center panel: 87.5 x 57.3 cm; wings 89.3 x 24
(fols. 230v and 268r) and other landscape painters (ander fraey cm. Wings: left, Flagellation of Christ and right, Entombment.
Landtschap-makers). Also Frans Mostaert used ‘other painters’ Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifixion,
to populate his landscape with figures (fol. 261r). His brother Leeuwarden, Fries Museum, inv. no. S6071. Center panel, 89
Gillis Mostaert as well as Bartholomeus Spranger painted fig- x 58 cm; wings, 89 x 25 cm.Wings: left, Carrying of the Cross,
ures in the landscapes of Cornelis van Dalem (fol. 269r). Gielis and right, the Resurrection.
Coignet used Cornelis Molenaer to fill in backgrounds (fol. 16. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion,Warsaw, Museum
262r). In Italy apparently the same practice of collaboration Narodowe, inv. no. 232680. 92 x 138 cm.
occurred: Pieter de Vlerick painted the figures in Muziano’s
landscapes (fol 250v). 17. For instance, Circle of Jan van Eyck, Crucifixion, Berlin,
Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie; Gerard David, Crucifixion,
4. Gibson 1989, 23, 61; Schubert 1970, 26, 153-58; Deviss- Genoa, Palazzo Bianco; Bernard van Orley, Crucifixion, Rot-
cher 2004, 17. Some scholars also suggested collaboration terdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen; Joos van Cleve,
between Coecke and Bernard van Orley or Coecke and the Crucifixion, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts.
illustrious Tons Brothers; see Marlier 1966, 266-71; Schnee-
balg-Perelman 1982. 18. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifix-
ion, auction at Fréderic Muller (collection Mensing), Novem-
5. Most informative being Campbell 1976, 193, n. 61; Camp- ber 15, 1938, lot 21. Present location unknown. Center panel,
bell 1981, 43, 50-53;Van der Stock 1993, 49-51; Jacobs 1998, 122 x 81.5 cm, wings, 126 x 36 cm; wings with saints and
210-19. donors; at earlier auctions also attributed to Michiel Cox-
6. Temptation of St.Anthony, Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. cie.
no. 1615; panel 155 x 173 cm. Signed: opus Joachim *at* nier. 19. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Crucifixion,
See Silver 1984, 217-18; Genaille 1987, 151-52; Gibson 1989, Dublin, Dominican Convent. Center panel, 150 x 110 cm;
13. wings with saints and donors.
7. Silver 1984, 218. 20. The woodcut is from a series referred to as schlechtes
8. Gibson 1989, 5. Holzwerk, best translated as modest works, and are considered
workshop products (New Bartsch, vol. 10, commentary, 326).
9.Tamis 2001/02; Franz 1982, 174-77. A woodcut now attributed to the Nuremberg School repeats
the pose of Mary Magdalene (B. appendix 6 [175]; New
10.A journeyman (gezel, knaap, compagnon) is a trained artist Bartsch, vol. 10, commentary, 443).
who had not acquired his master title and worked, possibly
on a temporary basis, as an assistant in the workshop of a mas- 21. Circle of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion, Berlin,
ter painter. Because they did not need to register with the guild, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. no. KdZ
the numbers and the exact activities of this group of journey- 13280, dated 1536. Pen and grey and brown ink with grey
men remain highly speculative (Campbell 1981, 48-49;Van der washes, 278 x 190 mm. Bock and Rosenberg 1931, 38.

22. Campbell 1981, 53; Robinson and Wolff 1986, 26. to Constantinople in 1533, there is no documentary evidence
that he traveled on to Jerusalem.
23.The triptych in Utrecht was examined several times by
Molly Faries (in 1985 and 2001) and by Peter van den Brink 32. Use of prints might be from a later date, such as the sec-
(in 1992). Faries’ IRR examination was done with a Grundig ond half of the sixteenth century, when prints after Pieter
70 H television camera set at 875 lines and outfitted with a Bruegel became available and inspired many artists. In chap-
Hamamatsu N 214 infrared vidicon, a TV Macromar 1:2.8/36 ter eight on landscapes in the famous Den Grondt der Edel vry
mm lens, and Kodak 87 A filter, with a Grundig BG 12 mon- Schilder-const,Van Mander even advised painters to take the
itor. Any documentation was done with a Canon A1 35 mm prints of Bruegel as an example for their own landscapes (Van
camera, a 50 mm Macrolens, and Kodak Plus X film.The dig- Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, 210).
itized negatives were assembled into composites by Jansen in
Panavue and Photoshop; van den Brink (2000, 28) already pub- 33. Robinson and Wolff 1986, 26-29.
lished a detail, the figure of Mary Magdalene.The Crucifixion 34. Marlier 1966, 69-72.
in Warsaw was studied by Faries and Jansen in April 2001, with
the same equipment as above.The negatives were digitized and 35. Faries 1998a, 128. Scorel also used the drawings he made
assembled by Jansen in Panavue and Photoshop. on his travels to recreate new, historicized backgrounds.
24. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, St. John Presenting Female Donors, 36. Held 1933, 282-83; Koch 1998, 18; Bevers 1998, 45-46.
verso: St. Adrian and St. James Presenting Male Donors, verso: 37. Bevers 1998, 46-48.
St. Sebastian, Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. nos. 1609 and 1610.
The wings were examined with IRR by Linda Jansen, with 38. Associate of the Master of Cardinal Wolsey, Arenberg
the assistance of Daantje Meuwissen en Lars Hendrikman, in Missal, shortly after 1524. Full page miniature, fol. 68v, 439 x
February 2003.The results will be published in my forthcoming 312 mm; see Kren and McKendrick 2003, cat. nos. 170-72.
thesis (see statement at beginning of notes).
39. Scailliérez 1991, 68-69. For this particular motif, she
25. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, triptych with the Ado- refers to similarities with the drawings from Antwerp Sketch-
ration of the Magi, Oldenzaal, Plechelmusbasiliek.The work was book from the Bles workshop. She also discusses the similari-
examined with IRR in 1992 by P. van den Brink and J.R.J. ties in landscape views between Metsys and Van Cleve and
van Asperen de Boer, who kindly put their material at my the much discussed collaboration between Joachim Patinir and
disposal. Van Cleve (70-72 and 29-32). Jan de Beer was also inpired by
the architectural motif of the city tower with the sloping wall.
26.The triptych was studied in March 2003 by Linda Jansen The artist include the motif – based, however, on the famous
and Lars Hendrikman with the IRR equipment of Gronin- Errara Sketchbook – in the background of a Crucifixion scene
gen University: a Mitsubishi IR-M700 focal plane array cam- (Cologne, Erzbischöfliches Diözesanmuseum).There are also
era with PtSi-FPA 801 x 512 pixel detector and RS 170 or remarkable similarities between De Beer’s Cologne Crucifix-
CCIR625 video output, outfitted with a Nikor f 3.5, 55 mm ion and Coecke’s Bonn Crucifixion: the postures of the figure
lens. Reflectogram images, in a 640 x 480 array, are registered of Magdalene and the three angels are identical.According to
with the capture software Arte, and assembled with the mosa- Ewing, the composition of De Beer’s Cologne Crucifixion was
ic software, Panavue. I would like to thank Mrs. I. Krueger for widely copied. Ewing cited the Crucifixion drawing from
her permission and her assistance. Coecke’s circle and noticed the similarities between the crossed
27.The underdrawing in the figures of the Magdalene, Mary, arms and shrouded hand of Mary. Coecke depended on De
and St. John, looked even more schematic. However, this low- Beer’s painting again in his Bonn Crucifixion. He must have
er zone was heavily damaged and restored, which may have had a model of De Beer’s painting, probably a copy drawing,
made the penetration with IRR more difficult. from which he was able to derive figures. See Dan Ewing in
Extravagant! A Forgotten Chapter of Antwerp Painting, 1500-1530,
28.The IRR examination was done by Jansen, Meuwissen ed. by P. van den Brink, exh. cat. Koninklijke Museum voor
and Hendrikman in July 2002, with a Sensors Unlimited Cam- Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, and Bonnefantenmuseum, Maas-
era with an indium gallium arsenide detector, outfitted with tricht, 2005, 73-76 (cat. no. 24) and 77-81 (cat. no. 25).
a Nikon 55 mm macrolens.The reflectogram images were cap-
tured with Arte and assembled in the mosaic software Panavue. 40. Kren and McKendrick 2003, cat. no. 172, mention two
I would like to thank Erik Bouma of the Fries Museum for paintings by Coecke in which this architectural motif is used:
drawing my attention to this still little-known triptych, and in The Carrying of the Cross in Basel and the Nîmes St. Luke
to Dr. Elzinga for his permission to examine it with IRR. Painting the Virgin. In the Carrying of the Cross, the architecture
is larger and placed more in the middle ground; an exquisite
29.Two exact copies exist of the center panel, both in Spain, rendering of the city of Jerusalem is painted in the background
one in the Iglesia del Salvador in Ubeda and the other in Museo that is reminiscent of the Bonn and Warsaw cityscapes.
de Bellas Artes y Bilbao in Seville (see Bermejo 1981, fig. 12
and 13). It is possible that a workshop in the periphery of 41.Another panel that clearly belongs to this same ensem-
Coecke focused on making pastiches for export, especially to ble is the Christ before Caïphas that was destroyed during World
the Iberian Peninsula. War II (previously in Berlin, Staatliche Museen).
30.The four paintings were studied with a magnifying glass. 42. Friedländer 1917, 92-93; Friedländer 1935, vol. 12, 66
It must be noted that the paint surface in all the paintings was and 181. See also note 37.
rather damaged. It was clear, though, which areas were origi- 43. Marlier 1966, 202-04, 208-10, 213.
nal or restored.
44. Buijsen 2000, 10-12; 14-18.
31. I would like to thank Molly Faries for drawing my atten-
tion to another Crucifixion, loosely attributed to Coecke (at 45. Ibid.; for an illustration of the reconstruction, see 16-17.
Feigen & Co. in New York in 1996, 34.9 x 22.5 cm), which 46.The reverse of The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem in Maas-
depicts some of the buildings and details of Jerusalem that tricht was for a long time overpainted with a green layer. It
appear in a topographical drawing of the city by an anony- was not until 2000 that the original paint layer was made vis-
mous sixteenth-century master (for the drawing, see Jan van ible again during the cleaning and restoration of the painting;
Scorel, exh. cat., Utrecht, Centraal Museum, 1955, cat. no. 98). see Schreuder 2000, 8-9.
These examples were alluded to in Faries 1998a, 125 and note
70. It should be noted, however, that although Coecke went 47. Lavigne 1988, 269.

48. Martens 2000, 24. 67. van den Brink 2000, 26-27; figures 43, 46, 47 and 52.
49. Jacobs 1998, 101. 68. A similar manner of setting up the background land-
50. Fransen 1997, 94. scape was found in the Crucifixion in Utrecht.
51. The Annunciation with Duplex Intercessio (on the 69. In the two triptychs mentioned earlier in Madrid and
reverse), Diocese Hasselt, now on display in the former Bene- Kassel (see note 65), the background was included in the car-
dictine Abbey of St.Truiden. Panel, 130 x 93 cm. Faries and toon as well.
Jansen studied the painting with IRR April 9, 2001. The 70. Faries 1991, 52.
results will be presented in my forthcoming thesis for the
University of Groningen on the workshop practices of the 71. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Christ on His Way to
workshop of Pieter Coecke (see statement at the beginning Emmaus (Amsterdam, sale Sotheby’s November 4, 2003, lot no.
of the notes). 48).The painting was studied with IRR by Jansen, Leeflang,
52. Réau 1956-57, vol. 2, 46-47; Schiller 1968, 238-39.The and Hendrikman with the equipment of the University of
theme is often misidentified as a Trinity. Groningen (see note 26).The results will be discussed further
in my Ph.D. thesis on the workshop practices of Pieter Coecke
53. De Dijn 1974, 92-93; Marlier 1966, 208, 210. (see statement at the beginning of the notes).
54. Friedländer 1917, 92-93; Marlier 1966, 208, 210. 72.The triptych was documented with IRR by Jose Pes-
soã, head of the Photographic Department of the Institute
55.Van der Stock 1993, 47-52; Jacobs 1998, 96-102, 210-
for Portuguese Museums in March 2003, at my request.The
19.
results of this highly problematic painting, which is attributed
56. Périer d’Ieteren 1993, 64. to Coecke in a document from 1585, will be discussed further
in my Ph.D. thesis for the University of Groningen.
57. Périer d’Ieteren 1990, 629.
73. City Archive, Antwerp (S.A.A.), Schepenregisters, sub
58. Périer d’Ieteren 1993, 86-88. Keyser en Ballinck, 1527, fol. 279 recto en verso: ‘Adriane
59. Ibid., 88. For a complete study of the Oplinter altarpiece, martens alias van doernicke Jans dochtere met Janne van Ams-
see De Boodt and Serck-Dewaide 1999. tel/ schildere eius marito et tutore …’
60. Jacobs 1998, 102-14. 74. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 110. Six years ear-
lier, in 1522, a supposedly different person called Jan de Hol-
61. The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (Maastricht, Bon- lander enrolled as a master as well, and later took on an
nefantenmuseum) and The Ascension of Christ (Trier, Städisches apprentice, Berthel van der Borch, in 1539. Rombouts and Van
Museum Simeonstift) were examined by Peter van den Brink, Lerius 1864-76, 100 and 132.According to Miedema, this Jan
Margreet Wolters and Kees Schreuder in 1999, using the cam- de Hollander was not the same as the Jan the Hollander men-
era of Stichting Restauratie Atelier Limburg and equipment tioned in Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 3, 32.
of the RKD: Hamamatsu C2400 03d outfitted with a Nikon
Micro-Nikkor 55 mm lens and a Kodak Wratten 87C filter. 75. Ibid., vol. 1, 118-119, fol. 215.
Images were displayed on a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor
and captured with a Metero RCB framegrabber, 768 x 574 76. Genaille 1974-80, 68.
pixels, and colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic). Digital compos-
ites were made by Wolters using Panavue and Photoshop; van 77. Gillis II is also referred to as Gillis III, but now it has
den Brink (2000, 25-29) published the results of this IRR been proven that Gillis II and III are one and the same; see Van
examination. Linda Jansen and Margreet Wolters studied the Mander/Miedema 1994-9, vol. 5, 74.
other panels, The Ascension of the Holy Ghost and Christ before 78.Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, 330 (fol. 268).
Pilate, in Maastricht in September 2000, using the same equip- Marlier, Schubert, Gibson, and Miedema all hold to Van Man-
ment as above. Jansen made the digital composites using der’s information and deduce from his data that Jan van Ams-
Panavue and Photoshop. tel died somewhere around 1542-3. Gibson bases his
62. van den Brink 2000, 25. conclusions on the archival research of Monballieu, who dis-
covered that Adriana van Coninxloo was the same person as
63. For the Madonna with the Veil, see Jansen forthcoming the wife of Jan van Amstel (Gibson 1989, 23 note 50). The
in Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Bel- archival research of Monballieu has never been published and
gie/Musées Royaux des Beaux-arts de Belgique (papers of the Sym- thus, unfortunately, cannot be verified.
posium Brueghel Enterprises in Brussels, June 20-21, 2002);
see other contributions in this volume for more discussion of 79. Genaille 1974-80, 71-74.
this topic and van den Brink 2001a.
80.The identification of the Brunswick Monogrammist
64. See Jansen 2003 and Linda Jansen forthcoming, ‘The with Jan van Amstel is not entirely undisputed:Van Puyvelde
place of serial products in the workshop of Pieter Coecke (1962) identified him as Jan Sanders van Hemessen, based
van Aelst: a working hypothesis,’ Le dessin sous-jacent et la tech- on a different reading of the monogram and correspondences
nologie dans la peinture. Colloque XV: Copies, répliques et pastich- between the works of the two artists. Bergmans (1955) gave
es, Bruges, September 11-13, 2003, to be published in 2006. the core group of fifteen paintings to various painters and
identified the Monogrammist as Coecke’s second wife Marie
65.Triptych with the Adoration of the Magi, Madrid, Prado, Verhulst. Only The Deluge (Brussels) and the triptych with
inv. no. 2223; panel, 87 x 55 cm and 87 x 23 cm.The painting the Crucifixion (Veurne) were supposed to be by Van Ams-
was studied by Jansen, Meuwissen and Hendrikman in March tel. For an extensive review of the many opinions, see Sander
2003 with the IRR equipment of the University of Gronin- 1993, 356-61.
gen (see note 26).Triptych with The Holy Family, Kassel, Alte
Gemäldegallerie, inv. no. GK 31; panel, 87 x 55 and 87 x 23 81. Schubert 1970 attributed about thirty paintings to Jan
cm. Studied by Jansen and Hendrikman in April 2003 with the van Amstel; Genaille (1974-80) sticks to only eleven.
IRR equipment of the University of Groningen (see note 26).
82. Genaille 1974-80, 82.
66. Bambach 1999, 14-15, and chapters 7 and 8 for the use
of traced cartoons as a designing tool. 83. Ibid., 89.

84. Marlier 1966, 49; Schubert 1970, 16-17, 156-57, 196- 95. This topic will be fully worked out in my thesis (see
98, 205; Gibson 1989, 4, 23, 61. statement at the beginning of the notes). The workshop of
Coecke was a family business, with his second wife Mary Ver-
85. Marlier 1966, 272-74, and 277-78. hulst as a driving force. For her role in another important fam-
86. Ibid., 274. ily business, the Brueghel workshop, see N. Peeters forthcoming,
‘Family Matters. An integrated biography of Pieter Brueghel
87. Schubert 1970, 156 and cat. no. 19. II,’ in Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Bel-
gie/Musées Royaux des Beaux-arts de Belgique (papers of the Sym-
88. Ibid., 156 and cat. no. 20. posium Brueghel Enterprises, Brussels, June 20-21, 2002).
89. Ibid., 138, 148-50; cat. no. 30.The better known ver-
sion of this painting in Liège, Museum Curtius, is, according 96. Dunbar 1979, 126, 135, 140-41. He also dismisses the
to the author, completely by Van Amstel’s hand. presumed collaboration between Cornelis and his brother Jan
Massys. [Editor’s note: for a similar opinion about this pre-
90. Ibid., 121-23, 124-26, 138, 145-47; and cat. nos. 22, 23, sumed collaboration, see the essay in this volume by Maria
and 32. Clelia Galassi.]
91.A start has been made: the Brothel Scene (Städel, Frank-
furt) has been studied by IRR, X-radiography, and den- 97.There are of course some exceptions.The Holy Family in
drochronology; see Sander 1993. Essen (Gallinat Bank) contains a landscape background of very
high quality; see Linda Jansen forthcoming,‘The place of serial
92. Both wings were studied in February 2003 (see note products in the workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst: a work-
24). ing hypothesis,’Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture.
93. Campbell 1976, 191. Colloque XV: Copies, répliques et pastiches, Bruges, September 11-
13, 2003, to be published in 2006.An exact replica exists in the
94. Hendrikman 1995, 10 – 11. collection of Dr. Simon at Brussels; see Marlier 1966, 228.

Copies, Pastiches, and Forgeries
After Bosch
Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute
Catholic University of Louvain
Introduction
This article revisits a topic we have discussed previously.1 A number of ‘Boschian’ composi-
tions are, we believe, mere pastiches while others may be outright old forgeries. Some of the
compositions that derive from the Prado Epiphany and the London Christ Mocked (the Crowning
with Thorns) are works we consider pastiches.These paintings have come down to us as compo-
sitional variants executed by a variety of hands, suggesting that they were produced in a busy
workshop employing several artists.When dealing with a topic of this complexity, it is essential
to pose several basic questions. First, did the authors of these pastiches intend to mislead about
the true authorship of their works? There are reasons to believe that, in at least some cases, they
did. If so, the paintings may then be considered forgeries. A pastiche, regardless of whether or
not it might be a forgery, can draw its inspiration from more than one painting and from works
by more than one master.This is hardly surprising. Models in the workshops were probably col-
lected according to their subject matter rather than style. Secondly, did Bosch repeat his own pat-
terns himself? This question must be posed regarding two paintings of Christ Carrying the Cross,
one in the Escorial, and the other in Vienna.Although different in many respects, both paintings
have three figures in common, suggesting the use of shared models. Given these possibilities, the
distinction between a copy made in or outside the original artist’s shop, a pastiche, and a forgery
is not always easy to draw.
Some of Bosch’s major compositions, such as the Temptation of Saint Anthony, the Garden of
Earthly Delights, and the Haywain, have been copied faithfully down to the smallest details.These
exacting copies were probably made during the artist’s lifetime in his own workshop. A tribute
to Bosch’s success, these replicas must have stimulated a demand for more.The demand was met
not only by more copies, but also by pastiches which may also have been executed during the
master’s lifetime as well as in the decades after his death. 2 Dendrochronological datings by Peter
Klein have revealed, in fact, that many copies are quite old.3 Very soon, then, confusion must have
reigned about the authorship of many compositions in a Boschian style.
We are of the opinion that some well-known compositions are pastiches in which the astute-
nesses of the pasticheur is easy to recognize.4 In the literature, these works are usually called ‘copies
after lost originals’,‘early works’, and also ‘works left unfinished by the painter and completed by
a follower.’ Some of the best of these paintings have been attributed to Bosch himself.This arti-
cle will stress the similarities between works by Bosch and the pasticheurs. One cannot conclude
solely on the basis of these similarities that the former were necessarily the direct models for the
latter.The likenesses among the works do not allow for such facile conclusions. Links are miss-
ing; and, moreover, some of the so-called ‘lost compositions’ may never have existed.
Copies and Pastiches After the Prado Epiphany
In his famous Prado Epiphany, Bosch depicted both the Magi and the shepherds together in
the same scene. For the most part, the Epiphany inspired scenes with the Adoration of the Magi,
but it also spawned several Adorations of the Shepherds (fig. 1).
COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH 143

144 COPIES, PASTICHES,AND FORGERIES AFTER BOSCH
Fig. 1. (on left page) Pastiches after Bosch’s Epiphany (Madrid, Prado)
b c d e f
g k
h
i
j
a. Hieronymus Bosch, Epiphany Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2048.

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

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

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

Fig. 2. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Epiphany, Madrid, Prado; and far right: Anonymous, Nativity, Cologne,Wallraf-
Richartz Museum.The composite in the middle shows how motifs from the Madrid painting have been re-used
in a pastiche with shepherds. Some details were copied faithfully while others were more freely adapted.
the Virgin in Brussels, see fig. 1k).6 This combination of motifs in both works perhaps derives from
a common model, such as the type of pattern that was typically kept in many workshops.The
origin of the model may have been forgotten.
Copies, Pastiches, and Forgeries After the London Crowning with Thorns
Two series of pastiches derive from Bosch’s Crowning with Thorns in London (National Gallery,
fig. 3).7 The first series is illustrated as figs. 3b, f, g, and the second as figs. 3c, d, e, and figs. 4 and
5).8 There is little or no invention in either series. Both represent half-length figures, with an exe-
cutioner’s knee occupying an illogical position at the very center of the composition.This fea-
ture is common to both series and so distinctive that one may surmise that the two series derive
from the same workshop.
The skill of the pasticheur is revealed in many details: such as the lowering or raising of heads,
shifting them from right to left or vice-versa, rotating them on their axis, or tilting them in dif-
ferent directions.The gazes are redirected according to the new context.There is a tendency
towards caricaturization: noses get sharper, and lower lips are made to either protrude or recede.
Details are transposed: a hat moves from one head to another, and the arrow is shifted from one
hat to another. One person’s arm can be moved to another body; an iron gauntlet can be placed
on someone else’s hand; hair styles can be changed; and a face can be repeated to create the
sense of a crowd.These are all easy procedures for painters who have been trained in the han-
dling of patterns or models.
The first pastiche, as seen in the Escorial, Madrid, and Valencia versions (figs. 3b, f, g), contains
a figure on the left who does not belong to the London Crowning with Thorns. Seen frontally, this
figure bears a remarkable resemblance to Bosch’s portrait in the Recueil d’Arras (Arras, Biblio-
thèque Municipale). For this reason, this individual is generally seen as a portrait of Bosch.We
believe this face was included in the pastiche to deceive, to certify the (usurped) authorship of
the painting. Moreover, two versions in this series have a prestigious pedigree, or a signature (as
in the Valencia version).The Valencia triptych once was in the collection of Mencia de Mendoza
(†1554),9 while the Escorial version was owned by Philip II, later to be given by him to the
monastery of San Lorenzo at the Escorial in 1593.The inventory of the paintings given by Philip
II mentions that the painting ‘was sent from Flanders to his Majesty’.10 If the self-portrait of

Fig. 3 (on left page) Pastiches after Bosch’s Christ Crowned with Thorns (London, National Gallery).
b c d e
f
g h
i j
a. Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Crowned with Thorns, London, National Gallery, 4744 (73.7 x 57.8 cm).
b.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo (165 x 195 cm).
c.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Bern, Kunstmuseum, inv. no. 64 (82 x 59.5 cm).
d.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Philadelphia, Museum of Art, cat no. 353 (68 x 51.5 cm).
e.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns,Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, 840 (83 x 68 cm).
f.Anonymous, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Madrid, Museo Lazaro Galdiano (138 x 164 cm).
g.Anonymous,Triptych with Christ Crowned with Thorns,Valencia, Museo de Bellas Artes (163 x 191 cm).
h. Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo, (150 x 103 cm).
i.Anonymous, The Taking of Christ, formerly Fiévez Collection (whereabouts unknown).
j.Anonymous, The Taking of Christ, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum.
Two series of pastiches derive from the London Christ Crowned with Thorns. In the first, the composition is inscribed
in a full circle, completed with little grisailles in the corners (b, f, g). Bosch’s ‘self-portrait’ was added, probably to
emphasize the (usurped) authorship of the composition.The work in Valencia (g) has wings.The physiognomies of
the right wing resemble some in the Escorial Christ Carrying the Cross (h).The left wing was copied in separate
works (i, j) that are pastiches without direct links to Bosch.A second series of pastiches (c, d, e) more faithfully repro-
duces the general disposition of the model.
Fig. 4. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Crowned with Thorns, London, National Gallery; and far right: Anonymous,
Christ Crowned with Thorns, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo.The composite in the middle shows how
motifs from the London painting have been re-used in the pastiche.The presumed Bosch self-portrait in the pas-
tiche is not borrowed from the London painting.

Fig. 5. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Crowned with Thorns, London, National Gallery; and far right :Anonymous,
Christ Crowned with Thorns, Philadelphia, Museum of Art.The composite in the middle shows how motifs from the
London painting have been re-used in the pastiche.
Fig, 6. Left: Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo ; and right:
right wing of the triptych with Christ Crowned with Thorns,Valencia, Museo de Bellas Artes.The Valencia wing bor-
rows motifs from Bosch’s Escorial Christ Carrying the Cross (see also fig. 7).

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

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

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

NOTES
1.Van Schoute,Verougstraete and Garrido 2001. Altarpiece, Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv.WAF 1189-1191).
The same authors mention also a similar detail in a composi-
2. On Bosch’s followers at the beginning of the sixteenth tion after Hugo van der Goes, see Stroo et al. 2001, 127.
century, see Unverfehrt 1980.
7. This attribution is generally undisputed; see Campbell
3. Klein 2001. 1999.
4. See the critical catalogue in Van Schoute and Verboomen 8.Van Schoute,Verougstraete and Garrido 2001.
2003, 184-223.
9. Steppe 1967. For the history of the painting, see also
5. For the history of attributions and a list of the extant com- Gimenez-Frechina 1998.
positions, see Stroo et al. 2001, 123-29.
10. Marijnissen with the collaboration of Ruyffelaere 1987,
6. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 360.The Escorial Crowning with Thorns is thought to have been
inv. 10513.According to the authors of the Brussels catalogue, commissioned by the goldsmith’s guild of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
this detail originates with Rogier van der Weyden (Bladelin for the altarpiece of a new altar installed at the collegiate church
Triptych, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, cat. no. 535; Columba of Saint John around 1510; see Koldeweij 1995.

Creativity and Efficiency: Aspects of
Joachim Beuckelaer’s Use of Patterns and
Models
Margreet Wolters
Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD)
Introduction
In Den Grondt der Edel vrij Schilder-const, Karel van Mander describes the varied methods painters
could follow in preparing their paintings.There are those artists, he mentions, who drew what
was conceived in their minds directly onto their panels freehand and others who compiled their
works with great difficulty and effort from numerous sketches and drawings, transferring the
resulting design with great precision and care onto the support.Van Mander preferred the first
way of working and saw it as the sign of a true master.1 Although the author described this as
an ideal, in practice, painters generally utilized sketches, model drawings, patterns and/or car-
toons in creating their compositions.These preparatory works were highly valued and formed
an important part of the equipment of painters’ workshops.2 Where models or patterns have
survived, comparing them to the painted surface can elucidate how they relate to the final image.3
Research with IRR (infrared reflectography) gives important additional information about the
way the models were actually transferred and put to use during the process of execution. If the
models no longer survive, which very often is the case,4 their use can only be deduced from study
of the paintings themselves.
In this article, comparisons of a number of paintings by Joachim Beuckelaer (Antwerp ca. 1533-
1575) dealing with the same subject will offer insight into the ways the artist employed models in
his workshop around the middle of the 1560s. Some of these models can only be reconstructed by
means of technical study since they are no longer extant; but others, such as the prints the artist
used as source material, are still known to us today.The paintings to be discussed depict one of
Beuckelaer’s favorite themes: a market scene with the Ecce Homo in the background.This subject
appears for the first time in 1561,5 a year after Beuckelaer became freemaster in the Antwerp guild
of Saint Luke,6 and the earliest year from which pictures by this Antwerp master are known.Anoth-
er painting, dated 1564 and now in the Schottenstift in Vienna (plate 1), shows a number of devi-
ations from the first work, but is closely related to three other examples dating 1565 (Stockholm,
Nationalmuseum, plate 2) and 1566 (formerly in Nuremberg, fig. 1; and Florence, Uffizi, plate 3).7
In all four works, similar motifs in the fore- and middle ground indicate the use of a stock of mod-
els that must have been available in the workshop.8 For the impressive cityscapes in the backgrounds,
Beuckelaer borrowed extensively from the five books on architecture by Sebastiano Serlio. Com-
parisons of the paintings to each other as well as to the Serlio prints, will show Beuckelaer’s cre-
ative, but also very efficient way of working.This can be further illuminated by the results of the
IRR examination of the three surviving works.9
Beuckelaer is generally seen as a painter specializing in compositions that were to a large extent
invented by his uncle and master, Pieter Aertsen (Amsterdam ca. 1508-1575).10 Although Beuck-
elaer painted religious scenes as well, he is better known for his numerous market and kitchen
pieces. This article will demonstrate that within this specialization, which is already a way of
streamlining production,11 Beuckelaer used other timesaving strategies and cost-cutting devices
to produce his works.
CREATIVITY AND EFFICIENCY 155

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

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

b
a
c
d
Figs. 2a-d, details of the butcher’s stall in four Market Scenes: a) Vienna, b) Stockholm, c) formerly Nuremberg, and
d) Florence.
The two meat stall vendors have returned to their Stockholm positions, but not without
some errors. The saleswoman still has her arms spread out, as if the joint of meat should be
placed in her hands, but since the meat has been painted in another position, the gesture becomes
superfluous. Between these two Stockholm-type groups on the left and right is a male fruit
seller with a cart very similar to the one in the Vienna painting along with a group of women
on the left that seems to be compiled of elements from the middle ground of the Nuremberg

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

composite of a slaughtered animal in
Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with
Ecce Homo,Vienna, Museum im
Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital com-
posite: Margreet Wolters).
left (see fig. 23): the forms are worked up primarily as a system of painted contour lines similar
to those that occur in the middle and background of Beuckelaer’s paintings. However, in the
right foreground of the Stockholm panel, the objects and figures are underdrawn in some detail,
and with clothes.The little boy, on the other hand, is represented in a very cursory way, with a
circle for the head and an undressed body, and with arms and legs that are rounded shapes with-
out indications of hands or feet.21 It was therefore only during the painting process that the boy
received his final shape.The painted boy must then have been added to the stock of motifs, since
he appears in almost the same form in the painting formerly in Nuremberg, and is repeated fac-
ing front in the Florentine work. The underdrawing of the boy in the latter painting is very
sketchy as well (fig. 8), but from the beginning the boy is conceived as a clothed figure, thus
implying the use of a more worked-up model.
Beuckelaer’s uncle and former master, Pieter Aertsen, also created or finalized motifs during
the working process, and then repeated them in other works. In Aertsen’s Kitchen Maid from 1559,
now in Brussels,22 three parsnips sit on a stool, behind which is a basket with two heads of let-
tuce (fig. 9).These motifs, among others, also reappear in a number of later paintings by Aertsen.

Fig. 4. Joachim Beuckelaer,
Slaughtered Pig. Cologne,
Wallraf-Richartz-Museum.
We can observe them in the harvest scenes from the Hallwyl Museum, Stockholm, and the Muse-
um Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam; in the Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery now
in the National Museum in Stockholm, and in the Berlin Vegetable Seller.23 By using tracings on
transparent sheets and IRR study of the Boijmans painting,Yvette Bruijnen was able to demon-
strate that Aertsen used partial cartoons for these motifs.24 Examination with IRR of the two
Aertsen paintings in Stockholm confirmed the use of a mechanical method of transfer, but the
results from the research of the Brussels panel point in another direction.25 The infrared image
of the parsnips shows that their underdrawn shapes differ considerably from the forms on the
painted surface (fig. 10).The tip of the upper parsnip, for instance, pointed downward instead of
upward.The difference in the shape of the leaves is also striking. Rounded forms were under-
drawn in chalk; in paint, long stalks with smaller leaves are visible. Apparently, finalizing the
form of these parsnips did not occur until the last stages of the painting process. In the lettuces,
still another working method becomes evident. Here, no underdrawing could be detected at all.
Since black chalk was used in other parts of the underdrawing, it may be surmised that these
lettuces were created entirely in paint.26 Given the fact that the tracings of the lettuces in the
Rotterdam painting correspond closely with those in the Brussels Kitchen Maid, the cartoon
that was used in Aertsen’s workshop was undoubtedly created by copying the lettuces directly
from the surface of the Brussels painting.The forms, most likely traced onto transparent paper,
were then used either as the cartoon itself or as the basis for the definitive cartoon.27 Deviation
between the Rotterdam tracing and the Brussels parsnips probably originated during the copy-
ing process rather than the process of transferring this motif to the Rotterdam painting, as had
been assumed earlier.28

Fig. 6. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a dog
in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo,
Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital
composite: Margreet Wolters).
Fig. 5. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of a fruit-

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

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

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

Fig. 9. Pieter Aertsen, Kitchen Maid.
Brussels, Musées Royaux des
Beaux-Arts de Belgique.
umn, could have been meant as sums to be added.The panel could apparently function as a kind
of scratch pad.33 One can only guess about the meaning of these enigmatic markings that are
totally unrelated to the underdrawing. Perhaps they were calculations made to inform a buyer
about the costs of the painting, or they may have been meant solely for the artist, as for instance,
in estimating the amounts necessary of the (most costly) pigments. But then again, they might
be totally unrelated to the painting process.
Beuckelaer’s Use of Sebastiano Serlio’s Woodcuts as Models
A different situation exits for the backgrounds of Beuckelaer’s Market Scenes with Ecce Homo,
in that they are based on still-surviving models.This provides us with an opportunity of relating
the creative process in the backgrounds to the observations that have already been made about
the arrangement and variation of foreground motifs.
For the architectural structures in the background, the artist borrowed frequently from the Five
Books on Architecture by Sebastiano Serlio (Bologna 1475 - Fontainebleau 1554).34 These books

Fig. 10. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of parsnips in Pieter Aertsen, Kitchen Maid, Brussels, Musées Royaux
des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. (IRR: RKD; digital composite: Margreet Wolters).
Fig. 11. Infrared photograph of a

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

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

Fig. 13. Infrared reflectograms showing numbers in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Florence,
Uffizi: a) figures in the neck and chest of the man selling poultry and dairy on the left, and b) figures in the veil of
the headdress of the woman at the meat stall on the left. (IRR: RKD).
Fig. 14. Sebastiano Serlio, Comic Scene.

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

Fig. 15. Sebastiano Serlio, Tragic
Scene.The Hague, Royal Library.
Fig. 16. Sebastiano Serlio, Column and

Obelisks.The Hague, Royal Library.

Fig. 17. Sebastiano Serlio, Ionic Palace.The
Hague, Royal Library.
in his workshop.41 For the four Market Scenes with Ecce Homo, Book II on perspective was
of great importance, and Beuckelaer often quoted from the stage designs for the Comic and
Tragic Scenes at the end of the book.42 Perspective was a special interest in this period: it
was, for instance, in 1560 that Vredeman de Vries’s first series of perspective prints was
published by Hieronymus Cock in Antwerp. 43 This interest might have played a role in
Beuckelaer’s use of Serlio’s stage designs. By using these already worked-out motifs as a
source for the architectural backgrounds, the artist of course saved himself time. Still, Beuck-
elaer did more than simply enlarge the prints. A discussion of the manner in which he han-
dled his patterns and prepared them on the ground of the panels will demonstrate his working
method with regard to this stock of background motifs.
Moxey is most informative in giving an overview of the borrowings from Serlio’s prints that
can be observed in the four market scenes.44 In this article, I will confine myself to those exam-
ples that correspond to the strategies used in the foreground motifs.The artist sometimes copied
Serlio’s architectural elements almost literally. In the Vienna painting (see plate 1), the buildings
in the foreshortened street are generally inspired by Serlio’s designs of the Comic and Tragic
Scenes (figs. 14 and 15).45 The small temple near the middle of the street, though, is represent-
ed exactly as we see it in the Tragic Scene. Beuckelaer combined motifs in the Stockholm paint-
ing (plate 2): the street is composed of buildings or parts of buildings deriving from the prints.
This also applies to the obelisk in Stockholm: the obelisk is taken from a print in Book III that
depicts a number of different columns and obelisks (fig. 16).46 In the painting it is placed on top
of the base of Trajan’s column, which in Serlio, is illustrated on the previous folio.47 In this instance,

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

Fig. 19. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of architecture in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market
Scene with Ecce Homo,Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital composite:
Margreet Wolters).
vanishing point, a small cross can be made out in the Vienna and Stockholm Market Scenes
(plates 4a-b).55 This could not be discerned in the panel now in Florence.56 Measurements tak-
en on the photographs indicate that in the Vienna and Stockholm paintings, the artist used the
Golden Section to locate the vanishing point on the height and width of the panel.57 This was
not the case in the Nuremberg painting, and applies perhaps only to the height of the panel in
Florence.58
Small holes visible in the crosses in the Market Scenes in Vienna and Stockholm, more or less
in the center (as well as at the vanishing point in the Florence panel), are undoubtedly the result
of a method known to have been used to create an accurate central-point perspective. At the
vanishing point, a pin was fixed into the panel, to which a string was attached.The string could
have been either smeared with chalk and snapped to produce an orthogonal on the ground of
the painting or could have been used as a guide for drawing a line alongside.The string may also
have been combined with the use of a ruler.59 In the three Market Scenes examined with IRR,
orthogonals were revealed that stop a little outside the painted forms – they never reach the
vanishing point.This method was not used with absolute precision, since, as in the Stockholm
painting, some of these lines converge at a considerable distance from the marked vanishing point.
Like the very cursory underdrawing in the foreground figures, the architecture in the Vienna
Market Scene is laid out with only a few lines. Besides the orthogonals and horizontal and verti-
cal lines obviously drawn with a ruler, there are also lines underdrawn freehand that undulate
slightly.The buildings are not drawn in an exact sense; instead, the artist constructs a framework
that functions as the basis for the application of the paint. Given this summary method of under-
drawing, it seems likely that Beuckelaer used the Serlian architectural motifs as a basis for inde-
pendent sketches or drawings before starting work on the panel.
The larger and more sophisticated structure of the Stockholm painting, with uncropped build-
ings that cover more of the panel’s surface, required a more complex approach. A number of
placement lines were used here to mark out the positions of the building (fig. 21).The upper
horizontal line in the sky was probably set down first to establish the height of the obelisk.
Next, with the aid of a square, the artist positioned the vertical that determined the central axis
for the palazzo.60 Parallel to this, other verticals were drawn to create a framework for the palaz-
zo’s columns and pilasters, and horizontals were added for the further construction of the facade.
A second horizontal placement line in the sky most likely functioned to connect the upper sto-
ry of the repoussoir building on the right, the windows in the aedicula, and perhaps the lantern
of the domed building in the background.61 Still, this careful preparation did not prevent the

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

Fig. 21. Infrared photograph of a
building in Joachim Beuckelaer,
Market Scene with Ecce Homo,
Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.
oration a certain back and forth can also be observed,63 there is no reason to assume in this
case that anyone other than Beuckelaer was responsible for the architectural backgrounds of
the Market Scenes.
Conclusion
With the aid of his own stock of patterns and additional models from Serlio’s books, four paint-
ings were created, highly alike in their appearance, but rather different in their execution.The
relatively small panel from Vienna, with its sketchy and summary underdrawing (fig. 22), is
painted in quick, transparent brushstrokes that make it almost appear like an oil sketch.64 The
composition has been conceived as a unified whole, and there are no apparent proportional dis-
crepancies among the foreground motifs. A number of motifs were borrowed from Serlio for
the buildings, and they were painted with only minimum help from an underdrawn system of
perspective.
In the larger and almost square panel from Stockholm, a more elaborated underdrawing is
found in the foreground.The group on the left is an exception, laid out more like figures in the
middle- and background – that is, based only on a few chalk lines, and worked up primarily by
means of painted contours (fig. 23).The figures on the right show that an effort was made dur-
ing the painting process to correct for size discrepancies. For the impressive combination of Ser-
lian buildings, the artist used a sophisticated but somewhat hastily-executed linear construction.
In paint, the architecture is rendered with refined brushwork, using subtle blue and pink tones,
and with the addition of numerous small decorative motifs taken from Serlio’s books.
In the painting formerly in Nuremberg, no serious effort was made to compensate for the
differences in size among the foreground figures.The depth between fore- and background has
decreased, and the strong diagonal leading to the background in Stockholm is no longer pre-
sent.The artist applied less creative energy in integrating the buildings taken from different prints,
and judging from the photograph, the decoration is less refined than in the Stockholm work.
The application of the Golden Section is no longer evident.

Fig. 22. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of fig-
ures in Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo,
Vienna, Museum in Schottenstift. (IRR: RKD; digital
Fig. 23. Infrared reflectogram digital composite show-
composite: Margreet Wolters).
ing working up with paint contours in Joachim
Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo, Stockholm,
Nationalmuseum. (IRR: RKD; digital composite:
Margreet Wolters).
The painting in Florence represents a further step in the gradual degradation in this type of
picture. Rectangular rather than square, the panel has also been reduced in size. Scale anom-
alies occur in the foreground, and IRR reveals that no attempt was made to correct them.
The underdrawing is almost careless in some areas, with strange hook-like shapes that are not
related to underdrawn forms. Interestingly, calculations on the ground of the panel suggest that
it might also have functioned as the artist’s scratch pad. Color notations in the group on the
right may indicate the wishes of a client. In the background, Serlian architecture no longer
occupies the full width of the panel.The town of Jerusalem on the right is rendered in a form
seen in both earlier and later works without Serlian influence.The buildings in the street are
variations on a theme, rather than motifs taken directly from Serlio’s books on architecture.
Furthermore, the architecture is painted in a quick, stippling manner using for the most part
(less expensive) ochre-colored pigments, a far cry from the refined painting style observed in
Stockholm.

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

NOTES
1.Van Mander/Miedema 1973, part 1, fol. 46v-47r:‘Ick en 9. No information about the underdrawing or other aspects
derf u niet prijsen noch versmaden // Dat eenighe wel ghe- of the working process in the painting formerly in Nurem-
oeffent expeerdich // En vast in handelinghe cloeck beraden berg is available.
// (Niet licht’lijck verdolend’in cromme paden // Maer om
hun Const zijn Meesters name weerdich) // Gaen toe en uyt 10. Moxey 1976, 180.
der handt teyckenen veerdich // Op hun penneelen t’ghene 11. See, for instance, the remarks on specialization in Mon-
nae behooren // In hun Ide’is gheschildert te vooren // … tias 1987.
Ander zijnder die met veel moeyten swaerlijck // Wt schet-
sen oft teyckeninghen met hoopen // Hun dinghen te sae- 12. See Honig 1998, 79.
men rapen eenpaerlijck // En teyckenen daer nae suyver en
13. See Honig 1998, 255, note 96.
claerlijck // Volcoomlijck wat sy in den sin beknoopen //
Op t’primuersel met een verwe die loopen // Can dunne 14. Drawings by Beuckelaer have survived, but any that were
ghetempert oft treckent netlijck // Met Potlooten vaghent used for the fore- and middle grounds of the paintings dis-
reyn onbesmetlijck // Jae alle dinghen seer vast en ghewislijck cussed in this article no longer exist. For Beuckelaer’s works
// Soo wel binnewerck als omtreck by maten // Sonder een on paper, see Kloek 1989. As Honig mentions, Beuckelaer
trecksken te salen vergislijck // Dit en gaet niet niet qualijck divides his farmers according to the way goods were sold on
noch vry niet mislijck // Maer comt in’t schilderen grootelijck the market; Honig 1998, 66-67. It is not inconceivable that
te baten.’ Beuckelaer drew some of these motifs from life.Van Mander
states that Beuckelaer was, at first, not very skilled using col-
2. Often quoted in this respect is the famous lawsuit between
ors and painting, until his uncle Pieter Aertsen made him paint
Ambrosius Benson and Gerard David, see for instance, Martens
objects from life:‘In zijn aenvanghen con hy qualijck tot het
1998, 58-59.
wel verwen oft coloreren ghecomen / tot dat hem Pier zijn
3.An interesting example is Pieter Pourbus’s Van Belle Trip- Oom gewennen liet alle dinghen nae t’leven te schilderen /
tych in Bruges, see Martens ed. 1998, cat. nos. 99-101. als vruchten / fruyten / vleys / Voghelen / Visschen / en
dergelijcke dinghen: door welcke veel te doen / hy is ghe-
4.The models no longer exist, probably because they were worden soo vast in zijn temperingen / dat hy des halven van
heavily used, and may not always have been desired by col- d’uytnemenste Meesters is gheworden.’Van Mander/Miede-
lectors; see Dijkstra 1990, 52. ma 1994-99, vol. 1, fol. 238 v.
5. Dated 1561; panel, 123 x 165 cm; Stockholm, National- 15. Monogrammed; dated 1563; panel, 142 x 138 cm;
museum (inv. no. NM 321). Älvkarleby, church.This motif also figured prominently in a
6. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, vol. 1, 220. Market Scene by Pieter Aertsen (marked with the trident; dat-
ed 1561; panel, 170 x 82.8 cm, Budapest, Szépmüvészti
7. 1) The Vienna panel: monogrammed and dated:‘1564 6. Múzeum, inv. no. 1337.
Dece’; panel, 60 x 117 cm;Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift
(inv. no. 201); 2) the Stockholm panel: monogrammed; dated 16.The paintings were studied within the context of a four-
1565; panel, 146.7 x 145.3 cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum year research project on the workshop practices of Pieter Aert-
(inv. no. NM 322); 3) the formerly Nuremberg panel: mono- sen and Joachim Beuckelaer, as well as some masters from their
grammed; dated 1566; panel, 149 x 148 cm; destroyed in World circle, such as Jan van Hemessen, Jan van Amstel and Pieter
War II, formerly Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum Pietersz. A cooperation between the University of Gronin-
(inv. no. GM 97); and 4) the Florence panel: monogrammed; gen and the RKD in The Hague, the project was supported
dated 1566 (twice: on the meat stall and in the cartouche on by NWO/VNC (Netherlands Organization for Scientific
the palace); panel, 110 x 140 cm; Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi Research / Flemish-Dutch Committee for Dutch Language
(inv. no. 2215). and Culture). Also participating were Reindert Falkenburg,
J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer, Max Martens and Peter van den
8. For brief references to the re-use of models in these Brink. I am very grateful to them, especially to Peter van den
paintings; see, for example,Verbraeken 1986-1987, cat. no. 3; Brink, for the good teamwork during the research of the paint-
Honig 1998, 78-81. The composition from 1561 now in ings. My participation in this project will result in a disserta-
Stockholm (see note 5) shows similarities but also differs to tion on Joachim Beuckelaer for the University of Groningen.
such an extent from the four paintings to be discussed, that Examination of the market scenes fromVienna and Florence
it will not be included in the comparisons. There is confu- was carried out with the equipment of the RKD: a Hamamat-
sion regarding another work; Sievers mentions a Market Scene su C2400 camera equipped with an N2606-06 select infrared
with Ecce Homo dated 1561 from the Bayerische Staats- vidicon,a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 1:2.8/55 mm lens,Kodak Wrat-
gemäldesammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Schleißheim, measur- ten 87C filter, with a Lucius & Baer VM 1710 monitor (625
ing 121 x 169 cm (Sievers 1911,114, 200). In the literature lines).Documentation was done with a Meteor RCB framegrab-
it was often assumed that the work formerly in Nuremberg ber, 768 x 574 pixels, colorvision toolkit (Visualbasic). For the
and destroyed in World War II, dated 1566 (see note 7,WAF examination of the panel in Stockholm, the camera from the
130), was a replica of the 1561 painting, but the size of this Rubenianum in Antwerp (with a C-2400 infrared vidicon) was
almost square panel (148 x 149 cm) differs considerably.The used, and the reflectograms were documented with a Nikon
work from 1561 (WAF 129) was in the collection of Her- camera and Ilford film FP 4,ASA 125.The films were scanned
zog Ludwig Wilhelm von Bayern, but according to the Wit- on an Agfa Horizon Plus at 1200 ppi. All reflectograms were
telsbacher Ausgleichfonds its present location is unknown. assembled in Photoshop 3.0, 4.0 and/or 5.5. For the loan of
Since no photograph is available, this painting cannot be the Rubenianum camera, I kindly thank Arnout Balis and Nico
included in the discussion here. van Hout, our Belgian colleagues, working on Rubens within

the NWO/VNC project. I am also very grateful to the staffs of sory underdrawing do not point towards the use of a trans-
the museums,not only for their permission to examine the works ferred cartoon; see also Campbell 2002, 44.The application
but also for their kindness in facilitating the IRR of the paint- of methods of mechanical reproduction could only be proven
ings discussed in this article. I thankYvette Bruijnen and Edwin with more certainty in two closely related Vegetable Sellers, see
Buijsen for suggestions concerning this article. M.Wolters, ‘Two Vegetable Sellers by Joachim Bueckelaer: a
symbiotic relationship,’ in Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie
17.This first phase is to some extent visible to the unaided dans la peinture, Colloque XV: Copies, repliques, pastiches, Bruges,
eye, probably due to the increased transparency of the paint 11-13 September 2003, forthcoming in 2006.
layers over time. On the other hand, it can also be observed
that in the figure climbing on the obelisk, the artist made no 30. For establishing approximate sizes, measurements of a
attempt to cover up this first paint layer. number of motifs were taken from the photographs of the
paintings. Measuring from photographs is never precise, but
18. Monogrammed; dated 1563; panel, 114 x 83 cm; does give a good indication of differences in size.
Cologne,Wallraf-Richartz-Museum (inv. no. 2324).
31.Notwithstanding the fact that color indications were found
19.The exact determination of the material used for under- in a painting as late as 1567, they occur mainly in Beuckelaer’s
drawings is problematic; for a discussion, see an essay from a works from the first half of the 1560s. Indications are frequently
recent exhibition catalogue in the Art in the Making series; Kir- found in clothes and hats in the foreground of compositions with
by, Roy and Spring 2002-2003. Still, analysis of the under- multiple,smaller figures,but they sometimes appear in the cloth-
drawing material from Beuckelaer’s The Four Elements discussed ing of large-figured scenes as well. Usually they are neatly spread
in that essay points towards the use of black chalk, ibid. 34. over the foreground of the composition;sometimes only the reds
20. Monogrammed, dated 1563; panel; 112.5 x 153.5 cm; are indicated, suggesting they were mainly used to establish the
Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van Bel- color scheme,rather than being meant for assistants.In this paint-
gië, inv. no. 3888. ing, as well as in the other works, there is no consistent spelling
in the notations. For indications in other works by Beuckelaer
21.This type of very simple underdrawing can also be found see Dik,Wallert and Szafran 1996 and Wolters 1996.
in the background figures of Beuckelaer’s works.
32. See also Spronk 1999, 47.
22. Marked with the trident; monogrammed PA; dated:
‘1559.16°Cal.Aug’; panel, 127.5 x 82 cm; Brussels, Koninklijke 33. Comparable numbers were also discovered in Beucke-
Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België, inv. no. 3744. laer’s the Element Water from the series of The Four Elements in
London (signed; monogrammed; dated 1569; canvas, 158.5 x
23. Respectively: dated 1569; panel, 83.5 x 169.5 cm; Stock- 215 cm; London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG 6586) and in
holm, Hallwyl Museum (inv. no. B 20). Panel transferred to the Kitchen Maid with Christ in the House of Mary and Martha
linen backing, 102.5 x 134 cm; Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans in Vienna (Signed, monogrammed, dated 1574; panel, 112 x
Van Beuningen (inv. no. 2436). Monogrammed PA; marked 81 cm; Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. no. 6049). In these
with the trident; dated: ‘1567-16aug’; panel, 111 x 110 cm; works, addition is obviously implied, since the resulting sum
Berlin, Staatliche Museen (inv. no.3/61). Panel 122 x 180 cm; is legible. For the London painting, I would like to thank Rachel
Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (inv. no. NM 2106). Billinge and Lorne Campbell for sharing this information and
kindly providing me with IRR documentation.
24. Bruijnen 1994. According to my knowledge, the presence of numbers and
25.These paintings were also examined in the context of sums in an underdrawing is unique, but they appear more often
the Aertsen/Beuckelaer project. For the works in Stockholm on (the backs of) independent drawings.
the combination of the RKD equipment and the Rubenianum 34. Serlio’s volumes VI-VIII were not published during his
camera was used (see note 16); the Brussels panel was examined lifetime. For Serlio’s treatise, see Serlio 1996 en Serlio 2001.
with the equipment of J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer: a Grundig
FA 70 television camera equipped with a Hamamatsu N 214 35. Book IV was first published in 1539 (second edition in
IR vidicon (1975);a Kodak wratten 87A filter cutting-on at 0.9 1549); Book III in 1546; Books I, II and V were translated by
micron and a Zoomar 1:2 8/4 cm Macro Zoomatar lens.The Coecke, but published after his death by his widow Mayken
monitor was a Grundig BG 12 with 875 television lines. Doc- Verhulst in 1553; see Moxey 1976, 113-123.
umentation was done with a Nikon camera,a 50 mm macrolens,
and Ilford film FP 4,ASA 125.The reflectograms were scanned 36. Lunsingh Scheurleer 1947.
and assembled as mentioned in note 16. 37. Moxey 1976, 113.
For the results of the examination of the Brussels panel also
see Gilda De Kiviet,‘Pieter Aertsen, de Keukenmeid natuur- 38. ‘Scilders, Beeldensnijders, Architecten vroet, // Ende
wetenschappelijk onderzocht,’ unpublished minor thesis, Rijks- oock ghy Steenhouwers, ghy Smeden sterck // Liefhebbers
universiteit Groningen, Groningen, 1996. der Symmetrien conste soet, // Comt hier, compt besiet dit
constelijk nieuwe werck,…’ quoted from the first edition dat-
26. It is not inconceivable that a combination of black chalk ed 1539, see reprint, Rolf 1978, fol.A verso.
with another material that does not register in IRR was used
in this case; the combination of black and red chalk occurs 39.Vredeman studied them as well, as Van Mander informs
for instance in Beuckelaer’s Saint Anne with her Family (mono- us (see Borggrefe et al. 2002, 15 and no. 7), but his literal bor-
grammed; dated 1567; panel, 154.5 x 153.5 cm; Copenhagen, rowings from Serlio’s prints are not as specific and frequent as
Statens Museum for Kunst, inv. no. 4411). Still, in this case, those by Aertsen and especially Beuckelaer.
the chalk was visible to the unaided eye. No trace of another 40. Jan van Amstel and Pieter Coecke van Aelst were both
material could be seen in the Brussels painting. married to daughters of the painter, Jan van Dornicke; see
27. A method used to create transparent paper was to rub Bergmans 1957, 27.The addition ‘Aertsson’ to Van Amstel’s name
it with oil. Other methods for reproducing motifs and com- has led authors to assume he was a brother of Pieter Aertsen;
positions existed as well; see Dijkstra 1990, 69-77. see, for instance, Hoogewerff 1936-1947, vol. 4, 488-90.
28. Bruijnen 1994, 124. 41. Depictions of painters’ workshops show that painters
used books in their studios. In Frans Floris’s Saint Luke Paint-
29. In other paintings by Beuckelaer, motifs appear in sizes ing the Virgin from 1556 (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor
that are more comparable, but differences in shape and the cur- Schone Kunsten, inv. no. 114), books are present on a shelf

behind the saint at his easel. See also Hermens’s entry on An 57. I am indebted to Bernard Vermet for pointing this out
Allegory of the Art of Painting by Jan Brueghel the Younger (pri- to me.Vermet mentions that the Golden Section is frequent-
vate collection), in Komanecky 1999, cat. no. 9, 158-61. ly found in paintings from the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
tury and is often clearly evident, frequently at the vanishing
42. Serlio Book II, fol. xxvi recto and verso; see Moxey 1976, point, in architectural compositions; see Vermet 1996, 39.
113-115, fig. 6, 7. For the comparison of the Serlian motifs, I The Golden Section is used to divide a line – in the case
studied the Royal Library’s copy in The Hague (1705 A 10), of a painting, its height and/or width – as follows: the short-
consisting of Coecke’s Dutch translation of Book IV, 1539 edi- est part (minor) is to the longest part (major) as the longest
tion; Book I, II,V, edition of 1553; Book III translation in part is to the complete line. In mathematic terms, the Golden
French, 1550 edition. For practical reasons, I used a modern Section – also Sectio Divina or Proportio Divina – is 1:1.618;
reprint of the English translation published in 1616 as well (see see Snijders 1969, 10 and 18. By dividing the length of a line
Serlio 1982); the folio numbers in this article refer to the Book by 2.618, its minor and major can be calculated.Another way
I-V in the Royal Library. Illustrations were taken from pho- of establishing the Golden Section ratio is by using a pair of
tocopies of Serlio’s treatise from the Royal Library. compasses; see Snijders 1969, 14-18, and 19 and Poortenaar
43. See Borggrefe et al. 2002, 17, and nos. 29-30. [1941], 18-19. Beuckelaer divided the height and width of the
panel according to the Golden Section and positioned the van-
44.Moxey 1976,113-123 (the quotations are also mentioned ishing point where the lines intersect.The Golden Section in
in Moxey 1977, 72-77; in the following I will refer to the arti- Beuckelaer’s paintings is not applied with absolute precision
cle from 1976). In my forthcoming dissertation on Beuckelaer, though: there are often discrepancies of a few centimeters.
some additional borrowings will be discussed as well. Huvenne mentions that Pieter Pourbus was acquainted with
45. See note 42. the Golden Section; see Huvenne 1984, 120, and cat. no. 3,
also Huvenne 1981, 111.
46. Serlio Book III, fol. xxx recto, see Moxey 1976, 122-23,
fig. 17. On the obelisks in Beuckelaer’s works hieroglyphs are 58. In Beuckelaer’s later works, the artist becomes more and
present, they were borrowed mainly from Francesco Colon- more indifferent to Serlian language (see Moxey 1976, 123);
na’s Hypnerotomachia Poliphili; see Emmens 1973, 97; Moxey he places the vanishing point further to the left or right in
1976, 124-37. the painting, thus no longer applying the Golden Section.
47. Serlio Book III, fol. xxix recto, see Moxey 1976, 123, 59. For an explanation of this method, see Giltaij 1991 and
fig. 123.The base of Trajan’s Column is used in the paintings Wadum 1995b.The hole in Joachim Beuckelaer’s Christ in the
formerly in Nuremberg and Florence as well, and it also appears House of Mary and Martha in Brussels (see note 55) was exam-
in other paintings by Beuckelaer, such as the Market Scene ined with the stereomicroscope by J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer
with Ecce Homo, dated 1561, in Stockholm (see note 5) and the and myself.The hole’s edges were somewhat rounded, proba-
Adoration of the Shepherds (dated 1565, panel, 107 x 141 cm; bly as the result of traction on the pin while pulling the string.
Cologne, Ursulakirche); see Ehmke 1967, 249. 60.The artist may have applied the Golden Section for the
48.The obelisk was re-erected in the center of St. Peter’s placement of this line since the distance from the right edge
Square by Pope Sixtus V in 1586. of the panel corresponds with the minor.
49. Serlio Book III, fol. xxix verso. 61. Similar placement lines have been found in other paint-
ings by Beuckelaer, including those where the artist no longer
50.The same type of flattened obelisk appears on the paint- applied Serlian motifs.They were used to place the capitals of
ing formerly in Nuremberg, but in the Florence panel, a prop- arches at the same height in, for example, the Stockholm Kitchen
erly pointed one is depicted. Scene with Christ in the House of Mary and Martha (see note
56), the Element Water, from London (see note 33), and the Fish
51. Serlio Book IV, fol. xlii recto; see Moxey 1976, 116, fig. 10. Market with Ecce Homo (signed; dated 1570; panel, 151 x 202
52. Serlio Book IV, fol. xli verso. cm; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. no. NM 324), where
other placement lines are visible as well.
53. Serlio Book III, fol. xxiii recto; see Moxey 1976, 119,
fig. 14. 62.Wilenski suggested without further argument that an archi-
tectural specialist might have helped with the background of
54.An easy way of achieving a reversed image was observed Beuckelaer’s Fish Market with Ecce Homo in Stockholm (see note
in Adriaen Isenbrant’s Seven Sorrows of the Virgin in the Church of 61),Wilenski 1960, vol. 1, 171; see also Ehmke 1967, 249, n. 14.
our Lady in Bruges,where a pounced cartoon was simply turned
and used again for the architectural features;see Martens ed.1998, 63. See Tamis 2001/2002, 120-22.
cat. no. 40. Beuckelaer did not use cartoons for his architecture.
64. It cannot be regarded as an actual oil sketch, but Beuck-
55. These crosses have been found in a number of other elaer did produce oil sketches on panel as well as on paper.A
paintings by Beuckelaer: for instance, in Kitchen Scene with Christ very small panel (31.5 x 57 cm), only known through an illus-
in the House of Mary and Martha (monogrammed; dated 1565; tration in an auction catalogue, shows a Market Scene with Ecce
panel 113 x 163 cm; Brussels, Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Homo that resembles the compositions discussed here; auc-
Kunsten van België in Brussels, inv. no. 3934); Isaac Blessing tion Luzern (Fischer), 19-07-1927, no. 1 (ill.); see Kloek 1990,
Jacob in Utrecht (monogrammed; dated 1568; panel, 113 x 170 135, cat. nos. B.9a-10b, and n. 14.
cm, Museum Catharijneconvent, inv. no. BMH 76); and the
Element Water (see note 33). 65. See for instance, Ainsworth 1998, 257-312, and Faries
and Helmus 2000.
56. Such crosses have not been found in all of Beuckelaer’s
paintings with central perspective. In the painting in Florence, 66. See also Campbell 2002, 44.
rather dark paint has been applied in the area where the van- 67. Monogrammed; dated 1566; canvas, 136.5 x 165.3 cm;
ishing point is located, perhaps obscuring the mark. In the Napels, Museo di Capodimonte, inv. no.Q 162.A weaker mar-
Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Mary and Martha (mono- ket composition without a religious scene in the background is
grammed; dated 1565; panel, 130.5 x 202.5 cm; Stockholm, in San Francisco (monogrammed;dated 1565;panel,87.5 x 113.6
Nationalmuseum, inv. no. NM 323), the area becomes trans- cm;San Francisco,TheYoung Memorial Museum,inv.no.54.21).
parent to IRR, but no cross was found.The use of this mark
might depend on specific demands in creating the perspective. 68. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum (see note 61).

Jan Massys and Artistic Relationships
Between Antwerp and Genoa During
the Sixteenth Century
Maria Clelia Galassi
University of Genoa
Antwerp Paintings in Genoa in the Sixteenth Century
Genoese patrons and collectors began to buy paintings and order portraits and altarpieces in
Bruges as early as Jan van Eyck’s period of activity during the second quarter of the fifteenth
century.1 The massive and continuous presence of Genoese merchants in Bruges2 shaped the
artistic taste of the Genoese aristocracy. In turn, the presence of Flemish paintings in Genoa (in
the region of Liguria) significantly affected the development of local art production.3 The Genoese
interest in Flemish art continued into the sixteenth century when Antwerp replaced Bruges as
the undisputed commercial and artistic center north of the Alps.
Genoese merchants began to move to Antwerp during the second decade of the sixteenth cen-
tury.4 In 1536 the Genoese Senate approved the statute of the Natione or Masseria that, as doc-
umented ten years later, was the largest among the foreign communities in Antwerp.5 In addition
to merchants, new categories of businessmen, such as shipbrokers, bankers, and moneylenders,
established their activities in the city at the service of Charles V, and then of Philip II and Philip
III. Spanish loans facilitated the charter of ships and the funds that guaranteed a cash flow to the
southern Netherlands (anticipating huge amounts of money coming to Spain from the exploita-
tion of American gold and silver mines).6
As soon as the Genoese community began moving to Antwerp, they commissioned large altar-
pieces from local painters and sent the works to Ligurian churches.7 The modes of communi-
cation to relay instruction between Genoese clients and Flemish painters are uncertain. It is
possible that donors discussed the commissions during their business stays in Antwerp, or that
members of the Genoese community in Antwerp served as mediators for relatives and friends at
home. Joos van Cleve was one of the most sought after painters among the Antwerp masters,
From circa 1515 to 1525 he executed four altarpieces that were delivered to Genoa: the Triptych
of the Adoration of the Kings documented in the church of San Luca d’Albaro in 1518 (now in
Dresden, Gemäldegalerie); the Triptych of the Adoration of the Kings datable on stylistic grounds to
around 1520 (still in Genoa in the church of San Donato; plate 1); the altarpiece of the Deposi-
tion for the church of Santa Maria della Pace datable to around 1525 (Paris, Musée du Louvre);
and a fourth triptych with the Crucifixion originally in the church of the Santissima Annunziata
della Costa of Sestri Ponente near Genoa around 1520 and still in Genoa in the Del Vecchio Col-
lection in 1889 (New York,The Metropolitan Museum of New York).8
Except for the still unidentified bearded man represented in the Crucifixion in New York,9 the
portraits in all of the altarpieces depict well known donors: Oberto de Lazzari, donor of the Dres-
den triptych; Nicolò Bellogio (represented with his wife Francischetta De Marco), donor of the
Louvre altarpiece; and Stefano Raggio, donor of the San Donato triptych (fig. 1).This remark-
able activity for Genoese patrons prompted some scholars to presume that Joos van Cleve exe-
cuted parts of these commissions while in Genoa during one or two undocumented stays.10
Nevertheless, our increasing knowledge about long-distance commissions such as large altar-
JAN MASSYS AND ARTISTIC RELATIONSHIPS 179

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

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

percent for a period of six to ten years.26 These numbers suggest that the Genoese Nation includ-
ed mostly permanent residents who, rather than being mere occasional clients at the panden, like-
ly maintained stable ties with the local artistic and cultural milieu.
As Laura Tagliaferro has shown in her research on the Brignole family archive, Genoese resi-
dents in Antwerp bought paintings not only to stock their personal collections, but also to trade
with relatives, commercial partners and dealers at home.27 The Brignole family’s activity in
Antwerp begins with Giovanni, a manufacturer of velvet and a merchant of silk, northern tex-
tiles, spices and corals. In 1527 and in 1533, he bought three paintings, including a Deposition
and a Saint Jerome, in Antwerp for his Genoese home. His son Teramo, resident in Antwerp in
1557 to 1559 and during the 1560s, sold precious pieces of furniture and clothing, tapestries
and linen cloths, works of silver, books, and paintings to a group of Genoese aristocratic friends
(for a considerable amount of Dutch guilders). In 1564 and 1565, he sold a Deposition and ‘doze
quadri delle doze stagioni dell’anno’ (a series of the twelve Seasons) to Benedetto Imperiale,
resident at that time in Palermo; in 1569, five paintings to Benedetto Pallavicino and three to his
brother-in-law Agostino Invrea; and in 1568 to 1569, four landscapes to Giovanni Lomellini. In
1567 his brother Francesco came back from Antwerp with four paintings which he intended to
sell to an unknown ‘pintore’ (probably a painter who was also a dealer).The third brother,Anto-
nio, resident in Genoa, bought eleven landscapes in Antwerp in 1573 through the mediation of
Nicolò Pallavicino (son of Benedetto), who at that time was working in the southern Nether-
lands. In 1594 Antonio received a new stock of twelve landscapes from his agent in Antwerp,
Domenico Bernardi.28 This aristocratic art trade, closely linked with other mercantile enterprises
and perfectly consistent with the business strategy of Genoese merchants, most likely intro-
duced innumerable paintings on the Genoese market (as well as countless tapestries, another artis-
tic genre appreciated by the rich families of the city).29 The 1567 inventory of nobleman Stefano
Squarciafico’s palace lists a concentration of artistic objects more befitting a pand than a private
collection: mirrors from Venice, coffers and cabinets, small tables, carpets, embossed leathers, Flem-
ish tapestries (sixteen pieces with figures, others ‘a verdure’), eighteen Flemish paintings, and a
entire roll of landscape paintings from Flanders.30
Unfortunately, other sixteenth-century inventories are not as detailed as Squarciafico’s. Inven-

tories from the seventeenth century,31 as well as the first local artistic guides from the eigh-
teenth century32 list a remarkable number – but not when and how they were collected – of
now mostly lost Flemish paintings in Genoese private collections.Among the several ‘alla maniera
fiamminga’ paintings, documents and old sources cite panels by Luca d’Olanda (Lucas van Ley-
den), Maestro Quintino (Quinten Massys),Alberto Duro (Albrecht Dürer), and Breughel (prob-
ably Jan), all names that Genoese writers used out of convenience to assign northern Renaissance
paintings of uncertain authorship.33
The Balbi collection, extraordinarily rich in Flemish paintings, represents an exception to this
general uncertainty of provenance.Two inventories drawn up in Genoa in 1649, one related to
the collection of Gerolamo Balbi († 1627) and the other to his nephew Giovanni Agostino (†
1621), list, often with precise attributions and descriptions of subjects, nearly sixty Antwerp paint-
ings from the sixteenth century: ten paintings by Frans Floris (a series of the Seven Liberal Arts,
two stories of Adam and Eve, a Hercules and Antaeus); a Raising of Lazarus by ‘Luca di Leida’; a
Kitchen by ‘Pietro Long’ (Pieter Aertsen), now in Genoa in the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco (fig.
2); four landscapes by ‘Brughel’; six landscapes by ‘Monstrat’ (Gillis Mostaert); eighteen paintings
with different subjects ‘alla maniera fiamminga’; four paintings ‘di Anversa’, including a version
of Christ and John the Baptist as Children, Kissing; and fourteen ‘battles and landscapes’ by an unspec-
ified ‘pittore fiammingo’.34 As Elena Parma and Piero Boccardo demonstrate, the Balbi collec-
tion (now dispersed) was moved to Genoa only after being amassed in Antwerp following the
vicissitudes of its owners.35 Gerolamo Balbi lived in Antwerp from at least 1585, when he was
elected consul of the Genoese Nation. He was again consul in 1591 and came back definitive-

ly to Genoa in 1595, bringing with him his
orphaned nephew Giovanni Agostino, son of
his brother Bartolomeo. Documents record
Bartolomeo, who died in Antwerp in 1592, as
being in the Flemish city from 1565; marrying
a Flemish woman Lucretia van Santvoort, in
1572, and as consul of the Genoese Nation in
1573 and in 1592. His son Giovanni Agostino
lived again in Antwerp from 1608 to 1617 and
died in 1621, six years before his uncle Gero-
lamo.36 The endogamous marriage between
Giovanni Agostino’s daughter Ottavia with
Gerolamo’s son brought together the two col-
lections formed in Antwerp between 1565 and
1617. Parts of these collections arrived in Genoa
first in 1595 (following the move of Gerolamo
himself) and later in 1617 (with Giovanni
Agostino).The identification of Floris’s works
(the seven Liberal Arts and the Hercules and
Antaeus) with some of those executed by the
painter around 1555 for Nicolaas Jongelinck,37
is evidence that part of the Balbi collection
came from the splendid Jongelinck collection,
which was pawned to the city of Antwerp
because of the owner’s financial collapse in 1566
and auctioned off after the owner’s death in
1570.38
Antwerp Artists in Genoa During the Six-

teenth Century
Before 1591, when new and liberal regula-

tions of the guild of Ars Pictoriae et Scutariae were
approved, Genoese art guild regulations had
strongly discouraged foreign artists from work- Fig. 2. Pieter Aertsen, The Kitchen. Genoa, Galleria di
ing in Genoa.39 Documents about the Genoese Palazzo Bianco.
activity of artists coming from Antwerp are rare,
as they are for other foreign artists. In fact, pre-
vious guild regulations established in 1481 allowed foreign painters to work in the city only
after residing with a family there for five years and paying a trade-license tax.40 Foreign artists
were forced to come up with elaborate loopholes in order to sidestep the guild’s control and
work in Genoa. Only a handful of Flemish tapestry-makers were able to open workshops, which,
thanks to the lack of local artists, held a monopoly that the Republic officially authorized.41
Antwerp silversmiths who worked in Genoa for public commissions such as the huge Corpus
Domini Shrine (Genoa, Museo del Tesoro del Duomo di San Lorenzo), but who officially were
employed as soldiers of the Militiae Germanicae (the guards in service at the Palazzo Ducale),
designed a ruse to escape the guild’s control.According to the registers of the Palace during the
1550s and 1560s,Thomas Opluten (or Opreiten or Utpluxen), Reinhard Fox, Petrus Costen,
David Scaglia and Balthasar Martines – the most renowned silversmiths of the moment in Genoa
– were ‘argentieri et milites Platae Palatii Genuae’. Moreover, as Franco Boggero argues,Adrian
van Sittinghausen, chief of the guards, probably played a significant role in offering Flemish artists
the ways and means to elude the guild’s control. Sittinghausen, brother-in-law of Jacob Schrenk

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

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

sen ende provintien’.57 Given the strong influ-
ence of Fontainebleau on his paintings, scholars
assume a stay in France.Three different argu-
ments have been advanced to justify his activ-
ity in Genoa: first, the surprising concentration
of works in Genoa which are believed to have
been painted during his exile; second, the
assumption that the old man in the Portrait in
Palazzo Bianco is the Genoese nobleman
Andrea Doria; and third, the accurate depic-
tion of the city of Genoa which appears in the
background of the Venus Cythereia now in the
National Museum of Stockholm.58 The first Fig. 4. Infrared digital photograph of the child’s face in
two arguments cannot be used as proof of plate 2, Jan Massys’s Madonna and Child, showing a change
Massys’ activity in Genoa.The third point sup- in the face. (Digital infrared photography: Carla Oberto).
ports the hypothesis that Massys worked for the
Genoese citizen Ambrogio Di Negro between
1559 and 1561, after his exile.
Massys’s paintings in the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco have different origins.The collector Lui-
gi Frugone donated the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria, previously documented in Perugia in
the old collection of the noble family Connestabile della Staffa as a work of Domenico Alfani,
in 1948; only its recent acquisition places it in Genoa.59 The Madonna and the Charity can be
identified as the Nostra Signora con Christo in braccio maniera fiamenga and the ‘Carità con 4 figure,
maniera fiamminga’ listed in the inventory of Gerolamo Balbi’s collection.60 Gerolamo or his
brother Bartolomeo probably acquired the paintings in Antwerp in a period likely dating from
1565 when Bartolomeo at first arrived in Antwerp, to 1595 when Gerolamo left Antwerp with
his nephew Giovanni Agostino.61 The assumption that the two works belonged to the Balbi
collection and therefore were likely bought in Antwerp carries with it reasonable doubt that Jan

Fig. 5. Detail of plate 3, Jan Massys’s Charity.
Massys could have painted them on a supposed stay in Genoa during his exile. In addition, con-
trary to speculation by Leontine Buijnsters-Smet, Massys’s technique used for the Madonna
(dated 1552, during the exile) compared with that used for the Charity suggests that Massys paint-
ed the latter many years later, after his return to Antwerp.62
The two paintings, as well as the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria, were examined in June
2002 using infrared reflectography (IRR)63 and close-up photography.

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

composite of the child in fig. 5,
showing a summary free-hand
underdrawing in brush with washed
shadows. (IRR: Maria Clelia Galassi;
digital composite: Chiara Masi).
Fig. 8. Infrared digital photograph of

Judith’s breast in Jan Massys’s Judith,
Antwerp, Museum voor Schone
Kunsten, showing a summary
free-hand underdrawing in brush.
(Digital infrared photography:Adri
Verburg).
the work’s provenance from the Antwerp collection of the Balbi family is inconclusive in prov-
ing Massys’s possible activity in Genoa.The Charity, on the other hand, was most likely painted
in Antwerp during the 1560s and bought by a member of the Balbi family residing there.
If Massys’s depiction of Andrea Doria, who died in Genoa in 1560 at the age of 94, exists,
it would provide a convincing argument to support the notion that the artist was active in
Genoa in or around 1550. However, the painting (fig. 9) only recently came to Genoa from
Perugia. No real evidence proves that the old man in the portrait is Andrea Doria or, for
that matter, that work is a Jan Massys.

Fig. 9. Unknown (Flemish ?)
Painter, Sixteenth Century
(formerly attributed to Jan Massys),
so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria.
Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco.
The illustration of the bearded old man, wearing a black robe and a black beret, in the Piazzo
Bianco portrait does show some vague similarities to the physiognomy of other accepted images
of Andrea Doria painted during his old age. It bears resemblance to a portrait by an unknown
painter (Genoa, Palazzo del Principe),69 a fresco of about 1550 recently attributed to Ottavio
Semino in the Gallery of the Villa Centurione-Doria in Genova-Pegli, 70 and two engravings in
the double frontispiece of the Vita del Principe Andrea Doria discritta da M. Lorenzo Capelloni pub-
lished in Venice in 1565. However, the Palazzo Bianco portrait lacks an important feature which
always appears in Andrea Doria iconography: the decoration of the Order of the Golden Fleece
which he received from Charles V in 1531.71 The beret depicted in the Palazzo Bianco portrait
also differs in shape from those worn by Andrea Doria in the other portraits and looks very much
like a headpiece popular in Florentine portraits of the mid-Cinquecento.72
Caterina Marcenaro attributed the presumed Andrea Doria to Jan Massys when the painting
became part of the Palazzo Bianco collection.73 Although eminent scholars such as Umberto
Gnoli and Roberto Longhi refuted this attribution,74 Buijnsters-Smet’s recent monograph reaf-
firms the attribution to Massys and dates the portrait’s execution to around 1554 to 1555. Oth-
er art historians generally accept the portrait, even if with some misgivings.75 Only recently have
E. Parma and C. Di Fabio rejected it outright.76

Fig. 10. Detail of a hand in fig. 9.
Figs. 11a-b. a) Detail of a hand in fig. 9, and b) infrared

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

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

Fig.13. Detail of the city of Genoa in fig. 12.
belonged formerly to Rudolf II of Prague, and reached the collection of Christina of Sweden
in the mid-seventeenth century after the sack of Rudolf ’s treasures in Prague.80 Given the
accurate and recognizable view behind Venus of Genoa and its skyline (fig.13), the painting
constitutes the only uncontested link between Massys and Genoa. Further analysis of the land-
scape presents new findings about the identity of the Genoese patron who commissioned the
work before the painting found its way into Rudolf II’s collection and sheds light on Massys’s
possible physical presence in Genoa.
Three different planes are distinguishable in the landscape surrounding the goddess of love:
the foreground with the marble terrace, balustrades, and nymphaeum with a monumental
fountain where Venus reclines with composed sensuality on a silken drape and holds some
carnations (the symbol of the promise of love); the middle ground with a series of villas and
gardens extending to the city walls; and the background with the view of Genoa including
the hills with fortifications, the city around the port, the Lanterna lighthouse closing the far
edge of the port, and, in the far distance, the Portofino promontory.The Palazzo del Principe,
residence of Andrea Doria (plate 7a) is perfectly recognizable among the villas. Scholars have
always singled out this depiction as the only visual document of the original building and
north garden as they appeared at Andrea Doria’s time, before the renovations carried out by
his nephew Giovanni Andrea Doria during the last decades of the sixteenth century.81 (Leon-
tine Buijnsters-Smet hypothesizes that the patron of the painting might have been Giovan-

Fig. 14. Infrared digital photograph of Venus’s foot in fig. 12, showing a change in composition. (Digital infrared
photography: John Rothlind).
ni Andrea Doria himself, who after the death of Andrea in 1560 inherited the villa with all
his uncle’s property. 82) A careful analysis of the painting shows that the closest connections
exist between the foreground with Venus and another villa featuring a lateral porch which,
in the general expanse of the landscape, occupies the most prominant position immediately
below the marble terrace (plate 7b). At the villa we see a couple in a continuing narrative,
first at the door or large window opening onto the terraced roof, then in the garden through
the door of the villa, and finally in a courting pose on the steps of the terrace. The painter,
through the couple’s movements, provides a guided tour that begins inside the villa, pro-
ceeds through the garden, and ultimately arrives at Venus’s terrace. The painter, therefore,
intentionally placed Venus in the garden of a real, identifiable villa, whose owner could have
commissioned the painting from Massys.83
The garden’s exact location on the hill is hard to place due to present-day urbanization. At
the time and for centuries thereafter the Di Negro family owned virtually the entire hill (today
called the Di Negro quarter). Despite some transformations, we can easily distinguish what is
now known as the Villa Durazzo (fig.16)84 which, at the time of the painting, belonged to
Ambrogio De Negro (1519-1601),85 who also owned the Villa Lo Scoglietto (at the right in
the landscape, near the sea; plate 7c). From 1560 to 1567 Ambrogio began restoring the Scogli-
etto, eventually re-landscaping the hill dominating the two villas to mimic a ‘garden of delights’.
Ambrogio’s illegitimate son Orazio (legitimized in 1584) continued to enhance the garden,
lavishly adorning it, according to Furttenbach (who visited in 1627), with trees, pavilions, foun-
tains, sculptures and a famous grotto. From the top of the hill the visitor was afforded a beau-
tiful view of the whole city of Genoa, the port, and the coast, up to a distance of thirty miles.86
The similarities between the Furttenbach discription and the Venus landscape are too close to
be coincidental.

Fig. 15. Infrared digital photograph of
the vase in fig. 12, showing loose
placement lines in the underdrawing.
(Digital infrared photography: John
Rothlind).
Ambrogio seems to have had all the qualities

befitting the patron of a painting such as Massys’s
Venus. Coming from one of the oldest aristo-
cratic families of the city and destined for a bril-
liant political career (which culminated in 1585
when he became doge),Ambrogio devoted him-
self equally to his banking profession and his
poetry.From 1543 to 1546 he lived in Burgundy
in the court of the noblewoman Laura Riario,
to whom he addressed forty amorous sonnets in
Petrarchesque style;in 1588 Gerolamo Ampeglio
collected these sonnets into a manuscript and
dedicated them to Orazio.87
The subject of one of Ambrogio’s sonnets is

so close to Massys’s depiction that its text plau-
Fig. 16. Genoa,Villa Durazzo (formerly Di Negro). sibly inspired the painting or vice versa. In the
poem’s description,the coasts and gardens of the
Genoese landscape are so beautiful in the morn-
ing light that they induceVenus to leave her own
country and to move to Genoa.88 The possibility that Ambrogio and Jan Massys could have met, if
not discussed the sonnet’s subject, in Antwerp is likely.89 Several of Ambrogio’s close relatives had
frequent and prolonged contacts with Antwerp: Negrone Di Negro, banker to Charles I and Philip
II, with whom the latter signed an agreement in 1559 for the transport of alum from the mines of
Mazarrón to Antwerp;90 Francesco Di Negro, a financier and merchant of silk, spices, sugar, wine
and corals in Antwerp from 1563 to 1591;91 and Giacomo Di Negro, ambassador of the Genoese
Republic to Brussels and Antwerp from 1553 to 1559.92 Ambrogio himself was active as a banker
and diplomat in Brussels and Antwerp from 1558 to September 1559.93 In that period Massys exe-
cuted the Flora with the View of Antwerp (Hamburg, Kunsthalle) (fig. 17), which is the prototype for

Fig. 17. Jan Massys, Flora. Hamburg, Kunsthalle.
the Venus Cythereia94 as well as for the Venus with Cupid in a Sea Landscape (now in Kracow, Jagel-
lonian University Museum).95 It is not unlikely that Ambrogio had the chance to admire the Flo-
ra, discuss its subject with Massys, and ultimately enjoin the artist’s services for the Venus.The Di
Negro family had shown a predilection for Flemish painters in the past: in 1518 a Bruges painter,
perhaps Adriaen Isenbrant, had been commissioned to paint the Portrait of Paolo Di Negro (Bruges,
Groeningemuseum), merchant in Bruges and Antwerp, and Ambrogio’s uncle.96
Ambrogio Di Negro’s potential role as patron of the Venus could explain how the painting
arrived in the collection of Rudolf II of Prague. He amassed great wealth as a banker and money-
lender to the Ausburg dynasty from 1549 to 1565. From 1575 to 1584 he was one of the most
important financiers of Rudolf father’s, Maximilian II, as well as of Charles V and Philip II.97
Encounters between Ambrogio and Rudolf no doubt took place; in 1571 the young prince vis-
ited Genoa for the first time with Don Juan of Austria; in 1581 Rudolf came to Genoa with his
mother, Maria of Austria.98 It is possible that during this second visit the prince, who often
obtained his art works from other collectors by means of diplomatic pressure, coerced Ambro-
gio into offering the painting.

Still left to discuss is the possibility that Massys
actually set foot in Genoa. In 1561, the date of
the Venus Cythereia, Massys was unquestionably
working in Antwerp.The use of a Baltic oak pan-
el as well as the results of dendrochronology –
according to which the earliest possible creation
of the painting is from 1556 on99 – refute the
idea that Massys could have begun the painting
some years before, during his supposed sojourn
in Genoa. According to accepted opinion, the
detailed and accurate view of the Genoese port
and surroundings in the Venus Cythereia proves
that he visited the city. Assuming that Massys
stayed in Genoa around 1552 when he was
exiled from Antwerp, scholars generally agree
with the hypothesis that the painter executed
the landscape of the Venus based on a study
drawn in situ about ten year earlier.100 Contrary
to this generally accepted notion, I will argue
that the view of Genoa undeniably dates to
between 1560 and 1561 – immediately before
the execution of the painting – and that this
landscape should be attributed to a cityscape spe-
cialist who collaborated with Massys.
The date of the view can be deduced by care-

ful analysis of the architecture depicted, all of
which is perfectly identifiable.Among the many
churches, immediately below the San Lorenzo
Cathedral, and on the hill of Carignano is the
basilica of Santa Maria Assunta, recognizable by
its central plan and the presence of a dome (plate
7d). Although the central dome of the basilica
Fig. 18. Infrared digital photograph of Venus’s left shoul- was erected in 1602, documents indicate that in
der in fig. 12, showing two shifts in the outlines. (Digital February 1560 one of the four smaller lateral
infrared photography: John Rothlind) domes had just been erected, and in May 1561,
the choir vault was nearly finished.The church’s
imposing structure, albeit with one dome only,
was easily visible in the Genoese skyline – exactly as it is in the painted view.101 Therefore, the land-
scape is derived from a contemporary view, and was probably executed intentionally.
Elena Parma, considering the differences between the draftsmanship of the figures and the more
pictorial execution of the background, speculated that a landscape specialist – perhaps Jan Massys
brother, Cornelis – might have collaborated in the execution of the Venus.102 The same issue of
authorship has been debated regarding the Hamburg Flora, the landscape of which shows a view
of Antwerp. In the past, scholars attributed the landscape to Pieter Brueghel the Elder and to Cor-
nelis Massys.103 More recently, after the restoration, it has been re-attributed to Jan.104 The infrared
investigation of the Stockholm Venus provided some interesting findings relating to Parma’s dis-
cussion.The infrared details of the area around Venus’s left shoulder and arm show, in fact, that the
painter shifted the figure’s contours three times before positioning them definitively further to the
left (fig.18).The painted portion extending between the first, outer contour and the final one was
clearly executed in order to connect the already painted landscape with the figure.The working
process entailed three different stages: the underdrawing of figure’s external contours with the

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

NOTES
1.Algeri 1997; Di Fabio 1997c, 83-92; Parma 1999; Parma Groeningemuseum) see, Scailliérez 1997, 124.The Portrait of
2002. Paolo Di Negro will be discussed later in this paper.
2. Heers 1961; Petti Balbi 1996; Petti Balbi 2003. 10. Hoogewerff 1934, 103-10; Hoogewerff 1961, 176-94;
exh.cat. Restauri in Liguria 1978, entry nos. 16, 251-57 (by G.
3.Algeri 1991. Rotondi Terminiello). Friedländer (1972, 26) only faintly con-
siders the supposition of a Genoese trip. See also Cavelli Tra-
4. Among the Italian communities, the Genoese one was verso 2003, 25 and entry no.4 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso).
the last to officially leave Bruges in 1521; see Parma 1999, 81.
11. See Klein 2003b; Leeflang 2003b; Silvestri 2003.
5. Beck 1983.
12. Simonetti-Zanelli 2003, entry no.1 (by G. Zanelli); Cavel-
6. See Braudel 1949, 509-46; Doria 1986, 64-75. li Traverso 2003, entry no. 3 (by Gianluca Zanelli).
7. It is useful to briefly list the paintings coming to Genoa 13. Doehaerd 1962-1963, vol. 2, 279.
from Bruges between the end of the fifteenth century and 14. Cavelli Traverso 1997, 93-98; Sciolla 2001. Cavelli Tra-
the beginning of the sixteenth century, immediately before the verso 2003, entry no. 27 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso).
irreversible decline of the Flemish city: the Polyptych of Saint
John the Evangelist, executed by the so-called Master of Saint 15. See Cavelli Traverso 1997, 98-103. Cavelli Traverso 2003,
John the Evangelist for an unknown donor and from the church entry nos.12 and 33 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso).
of the Santissima Annunziata di Portoria (now Genoa, Galle-
ria di Palazzo Bianco and Novi Ligure, Collezione Coulant 16. On the creation of this triumphal arch, the most expen-
Peloso); the Triptych of Saint Andrew still in loco in the Church sive of the ephemeral structures erected for the entrance of the
of San Lorenzo della Costa near Genoa and executed by an prince, with allegorical figures and painted scenes dedicated
anonymous master in Bruges in 1499 for Andrea della Costa, to Charles V and Philip II, see Parma 1997, 49-53.
a Genoese merchant residing there; Gerard David’s Cervara 17. For this topic, only briefly summarized here, see Parma
Altarpiece commissioned by Vincenzo Sauli in 1506 for the 1997, with bibliography; Parma 1999, 20-21, 25.
Abbey of San Gerolamo della Cervara near Genoa (now Genoa,
Galleria di Palazzo Bianco; Paris, Musée du Louvre; New York, 18.Vermeylen 2001.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art); and the San Pancrazio Altar-
piece, probably executed around 1520 in Adriaen Isenbrant’s 19. See Parma 2003. Curiously, no documents or records
workshop, still in loco in the church of San Pancrazio. At pre- exist about the importation of carved altarpieces from Antwerp.
sent, it is not possible to determine the patrons or the arrival The only fifteenth-century Flemish carved altarpiece still extant
of Jan Provoost’s works in Genoa: the two wings with Saint in Liguria (bearing in mind the widespread dissemination of
Peter and Saint Elizabeth, coming to the Ospedale di San Mar- such wooden complexes during the eighteenth and nineteenth
tino in 1922 from the Ospedale di Pammatone (now Genoa, centuries) is the Passion Altarpiece now in the church of Tes-
Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), and the panel of the Annuncia- tana, near Genoa; it has been attributed to a Master close to
tion, documented in the seventeenth century in the church Jan Borman the Elder; exh. cat. Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo
of San Colombano (now in the Palazzo Bianco as well). Also, Spinola, Interventi di restauro 1980, entry no.6 (by G. Rotondi
the two panels with the Martyrdom of Saint Agnes and Saint Terminiello). On this issue, see also Lagomarsino 2000-2003.
Catherine (Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Reale), probably part of 20. Rosso del Brenna 1976b, 15.
the same complex to which the Adoration of the Kings belonged
(now Turin, Galleria Sabauda) and attributed to the Master of 21.Vermeylen 2001, 51.
the Turin Adoration around 1480-1490, are documented for
22. Grendi 1987, 339-43. See also Costantini 1978, 167-69.
the first time in the mid-seventeenth century in the collection
of Giovanni Battista Balbi. On this issue, in addition to the bib- 23. See Giustiniani, Agostino, Giornale dei Suoi Tempi, sev-
liography in note 1, see: Pittarello-Leoncini 1996;Ainsworth, enteenth-century ms., Genoa, Biblioteca Berio, ad annum.
1998, 179-201; Martens ed. 1998, entry no. 26 (by R. Spronk);
Fontana Amoretti-Plomp 1998, entries no.51-53, 222-27, 280- 24. See Beck 1983.
81; Borchert 2001, 75; Cavelli Traverso 2003, entry nos. 14 (by 25. See Goris 1925, 210-15, 644-50;Van Houtte 1984, 96;
C. Cavelli Traverso), 15 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 16 (by M. C. Doria 1986; Beck 1983.
Galassi), 21 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 25 (by C. Cavelli Traverso),
28 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 29 (by C. Cavelli Traverso), 31 (by L. 26. See Doria 1986, 78-105.
Leoncini), 52 (by L. Leonicini), 53 (by C. Cavelli Traverso).
27. See Tagliaferro 1995.
8. See Hand 1978, 104-05; Hand 2004, esp. ch. 5 and 75-
28. Ibid. 152.
78; Scailliérez 1991; Parma 1997; Scailliérez 1997; Ainsworth
and Christiansen 1998, entry no. 95 (by M.W.Ainsworth); Par- 29. See ibid. 164-65, 174, for the Brignole family’s trade of
ma 1999, 13-25; Zanelli 2003. Hand 2004, esp. ch. 5 and 75- tapestries from Antwerp and Brussels to Genoa and Palermo.
78. On the presence of Flemish tapestries in Genoese collections,
see Parma 2003, 35-38.
9. For the hypothetical identification of the donor with Pao-
lo Di Negro, based on the presence of Saint Paul and thanks 30.Archivio di Stato di Genova, notary Leonardi Chiavari,
to some (not entirely convincing) similarities with the 1518 October 11, 1567, fol.14; the inventory has been published
portrait of Di Negro attributed to Isenbrant (Bruges, by Poleggi 1977, 122.

31. Inventories from the seventeenth century have been this regulation, which gave local and foreign painters the possi-
located and published, above all, by V. Belloni; see in particu- bility of escaping guild control. According to the new regula-
lar Belloni 1973 and Belloni 1988. tion, painters were allowed to work privately, without following
corporate rules. On this issue, see Pesenti 1986, 9-13.
32. See, for instance, Ratti 1780.
50. See Orlando 1996; Di Fabio 1997a; Di Fabio 1997b.
33. On this issue see Fontana Amoretti 1991-1994; Fontana
Amoretti 1997. 51. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco, inv. nos. PB525,
PB285, and PB897 respectively.
34. See Boccardo and Magnani, 1987, 78-80; Boccardo 2004,
166-67.The inventories also list several paintings by Flemish 52. For the catalogue of Jan Massys’s works, see Buijnsters-
painters from the first half of seventeenth century, such as Van Smet 1995, 171, 178-79, 181-84.
Dyck, Jan Roos, Cornelis de Wael, and Frans Francken the
Elder. For the identification of several paintings cited in the 53. Ibid. 46, 179-80.
inventory with works by Jan Massys (the Charity and the Madon- 54.Tagliaferro 1991, 15.The wood was identified by Peter
na and Child, both Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), Frans Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität Hamburg, in a let-
Floris (the two stories of Adam and Eve now in the Konin- ter to the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco, February 17, 2006. I am
klijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten of Antwerp and six of the grateful to Prof. Klein for communicating his results to me
Seven Liberal Arts, all in private collections), Pieter Aertsen (a regarding Jan Massys.
Market Scene, Budapest, Szépmuvészeti Museum; a Kitchen Scene,
Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), Joachim Beucklaer (a Mar- 55. According to the traditional habit of Flemish painters,
ket Scene, Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco), Joos van Cleve’s Jan Massys, after his return to Antwerp, used Baltic oak, as the
workshop (Christ and Saint John the Baptist as Children, Kiss- analyses executed on the Massys paintings in the National-
ing, Private collection), Aelbert van Ouwater (the Raising of museum of Stockholm by Prof. Peter Klein, Ordinariat für
Lazarus, Berlin, Gemäldegalerie), Jan Verbeeck (an Allegory of Holzbiologie, Universität Hamburg, demonstrated.
the Innocence, Private collection), see Boccardo 1997; Cavelli
Traverso 2003, entry nos.45 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso), 1 and 56. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 44-55.
2 (by Paola Martini); Boccardo 2004, entries no. 16 (by Anna 57.The quotation came from a declaration by the painter
Orlando), 17 (by Anna Orlando), 18 (by Piero Boccardo and Hendrik Schyt and Hubrecht Massys, Jan’s brother, dated 1589;
C.Van De Velde), 20-21 (by Clario Di Fabio), 22 (by Gianlu- Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 23. The document was unknown to
ca Zanelli), 23 (by Paul Vandenbroeck), Friedländer, who did not believe in the Italian trip.
35. Boccardo 1997, 151-58; Parma 1997, 54-56; Elena Par- 58. Hoogewerff 1961, 192-94; Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 45,
ma forthcoming,‘La nazione genovese ad Anversa nel Cinque- 55-59; Cavelli Traverso 1997, 103-04; Cavelli Traverso 2003,
cento e il suo ruolo nella committenza artistica’, in Italie en de 25-26.
Nederlanden-Artistieke Wisselwekingen, Symposium in the Muse-
um Het Catharijneconvent. Utrecht, April 13, 1992; Boccar- 59. Gnoli 1929; Di Fabio 2000, 104, 106.
do 2004, 163-65.
60. Boccardo 1997, 151-59; Boccardo and Di Fabio 1966,
36. For the activity of the Balbi family in Antwerp, see Gren- 177 and entry no.17; Cavelli Traverso 2003, entries no. 44 (by
di 1997. Clario Di Fabio), 45 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso); Boccardo
2004, entries no. 20-21 (by Clario Di Fabio).At the beginning
37. Boccardo 1997, 161-62; Parma 1997, 53-54. of the nineteenth century,Agostino Zoagli inherited the Char-
38. See Van de Velde 1965. ity; in the 1860s he passed it on to the collection of Odone,
prince of Savoia. It was finally donated to the city of Genoa
39. See Parma 1999, 14. along with the vast collections of the young prince, who died
40. See Rosso del Brenna 1976a, 19. before his time in 1866.The Madonna has a less detailed his-
tory: the Galleria di Palazzo Bianco acquired the painting in
41. As attested to by archival documents published in the 1950 from the dealer-collector Emilio Barabino.
nineteenth century by Federigo Alizeri; in 1551 Vincent van
den Daele and Petrus from Brussels obtained the government’s 61.According to Piero Boccardo, Massys’s Three Fates, now
permission to open a workshop; in 1553 the same privilege in an unknown location (Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 171) might
was accorded to Dionys Martenz, whose activity is recorded be identified with a painting which in the nineteenth centu-
until 1563;Alizeri 1873, 489-501. Nevertheless, the large com- ry passed from the Balbi collection to the Genoese Peirano
missions for tapestries, such as for the salon of the Maggior collection; see Boccardo 1997, 159, 174.
Consiglio in the Palazzo Ducale, continued to be addressed 62. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 182. Carla Cavelli Traverso 2003,
to the factories of Flanders; Boccardo 1983-1985; Boccardo entry no.45 also agrees with a date around 1552, during the
1989, 77-87; Boccardo-Di Fabio 1994, entries no. 8-11 (by P. period of Massys’s exile.
Boccardo).
63. IRR by M.C.Galassi (with the help of Chiara Masi),
42. See Boggero 1991, 48-59; Parma 2003, 33-35. using equipment of the Università di Genova (Hamamatsu C
43.The document has been published by Alizeri 1874, 315- 2400-07 Camera with Hamamatsu N 2606-26 infrared vidi-
16. con; USB Video Capture Device:Toshiba Satellite 2540 CDS).
Mosaics by Chiara Masi with Adobe Photoshop. I am grate-
44. See Dacos 1995a. ful to Dr. Clario Di Fabio, curator of the Galleria di Palazzo
Bianco, for allowing me to study the paintings.
45. Caracciolo 1997.
46. See Van de Velde 1975a, vol. 1, 153-54; Dacos 1995a, 24; 64.I am grateful to Dr.Clario Di Fabio for giving me the per-
Parma 1997, 47-49. mission to follow the restoration of the painting at the Studio
Martino Oberto of Genova. I am grateful to Mrs.Carla Oberto,
47.Alizeri 1874, 201-05. as well, for discussing with me the results of the restoration.
48. See Rosso del Brenna 1977, 14. 65. I thank Carla Oberto for providing me with the reflec-
togram that is published here.
49.After a long discussion,a group of Genoese painters under
the guidance of Giovanni Battista Paggi managed to introduce 66. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 182.

67. I am grateful to Prof. Molly Faries for discussing with 86. For the oldest description of the garden and the beautiful
me the results of the IRR published here.When this article view, see Furttenbach, Josephum, Newes Itinerarium Italiae, Ulm,
was in press, Peter Klein analyzed the oak support of the paint- 1627, 217-18; on the Villa Lo Scoglietto, see Magnani 1978.
ing by dendrochronology, establishing 1549 as the earliest pos-
sible felling date.With a minimum of two years for seasoning, 87. For Ambrogio’s biography, see Levati 1930, 189-202;
the earliest possible creation of the painting is from 1551 on. Savelli 1991. For his activity as poet,Verdino 1992.The man-
Assuming a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seas- uscript with the Rime composte dall’Illustrissimo Signor Ambro-
ening, an execution is plausible from 1557 on. (Letter from gio Di Negro is in the Biblioteca Berio, Genoa.
Prof. Peter Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität Ham- 88.‘Il nuovo sol che te felice inraggia, / e che fa Cintho sì
burg, February 10, 2006) d’invidia piena, / rende Liguria mia gioconda e amena, / qual
68. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 193-94, 198-99, 205-06. John parte è in te più strana e più selvaggia / rende si cara la tua
Rothlind studied the Venus Cythereia using digital infrared pho- vaga spiaggia, / che con disdegno dei suoi regni e pena, / Venere
tography in November 2002;Adri Verburg studied the paint- bella desiosa mena, / di cangiar propria stanza per selvaggia’ in
ings in Antwerp using a CCD camera in April 2003. I am Rime composte dall’Illustrissimo Signor Ambrogio Di Negro’,
grateful to John Rothlind, former Chief Conservator of the 12 (see note 87).
Nationalmuseum of Stockholm, and Lizet Klaassen, Head of 89.The knowledge about Massys’s exile is so unclear that
Conservation of the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kun- the possibility that Ambrogio could also have met the painter
sten of Antwerp, for giving me permission to study the results. in Burgundy during his stay in 1544, will not be discussed.
The same kind of underdrawing, with only a few, pictorial con-
tour lines and rich in changes, has been detected in Jan Massys’s 90.Van Houtte 1984, 96.
Flora (Hamburg, Kunsthalle), dated 1559: Kränz 2003, 45. 91. Doria 1986, 110.
Unfortunately the author did not publish any IRR details of
the painting. 92. Cavanna Ciappina 1991.
69. Boccardo 1989, 111, fig.135. 93. Doria 1991, 9; Savelli 1991.
70. Pesenti 2002, 14. 94. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 191-93; Kränz 2003.
71. Pauwels 1962, 39. 95. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 190-91; the Jan Massys attribu-
tion of the painting, dated by dendrochronology to after 1559,
72. On the issue of Florentine berets that show similarities became more plausible after its restoration; Niedzielska 1992.
with that depicted in the Palazzo Bianco portrait, see exh.
cat. L’officina della maniera 1996, entry 130 (by C. Falciani). 96. The portrait is in the Groeningemuseum of Bruges:
Martens ed. 1998, 62-63, entry 36 (by Till H. Borchert). As
73. See Marcenaro 1949. noted above, Scailliérez 1997, 124 hypothesized that Paolo Di
74. Gnoli 1929; Longhi 1952. Negro might have been the donor of the Van Cleve Crucifix-
ion of New York, as well. For the genealogy of the Di Negro
75. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 53-54, 183-84 (with bibliogra- family, see Buonarroti, Angelo M, Alberi Genealogici di Diverse
phy); Cavelli Traverso 1997, 103-04; Cavelli Traverso 2003, Famiglie Nobili (Genoa, Bibioteca Berio) ms. 1750, 506-07.
entry no.46 (by Carla Cavelli Traverso).
97. Doria 1991.
76. Parma 1997, 57; Di Fabio 2000, 106. Fontana Amoret-
ti and Plomp did not include the painting in their Repertory of 98. Stagno 2002, 82-83
Dutch and Flemish Paintings in Italian Public Collections (Fontana 99.The earliest felling date of the tree from which the pan-
Amoretti-Plomp 1998). el is made (three boards from the same tree) is 1554, with a
77. Di Fabio 2000, 106.The identification of a sample by more plausible felling date between 1558…1560…1564 + x.
Prof. Dr. Peter Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität With a minimum of two years seasoning and storage time, a
Hamburg, in a letter dated December 19, 2002, to the Galle- creation date from 1556 on would be possible. Assuming a
ria di Palazzo Bianco established that the panel is poplar and median of 15 added sapwood rings and 2 years seasoning, a
not beech. creation date from 1562 on is possible (letter from Prof. Peter
Klein, Zentrum Holzwirtschaft, Universität Hamburg, Decem-
78. See note 66. ber 18, 1998).
79. See Sapori 1997, 87, fig.14. 100. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 191-93; Cavelli Traverso 1997,
80. Inv. no. 507; Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 193-94. 103.
81. Parma 1970, 16; Gorse 1980, 94-96; Poleggi and Cevi- 101.Varni 1877, 12-17, documents VI,VII and VIII.
ni 1981, 6-7, 111; Magnani 1987, 42-43; Boccardo 1989, 34. 102. Parma 1997, 57.
82. Buijnsters-Smet 1995, 194. 103. De Tolnay 1957 (with the attribution to Brueghel the
83. Grosso 1937, 20, already noted he presence of the two Elder); De Callatay 1965 (with the attribution to Cornelis).
‘mysterious lovers’, probably the owners of the villa. 104. Kränz 2003, 42, note 31.
84.The second owner, the cardinal Stefano Durazzo, who 105. Justi 1886: Bakker 2004, 122-23, 145.
donated the building to the Order of Saint Vincenzo de Paoli,
radically transformed the villa (now the site of the Collegio 106. On this issue, see Franz 1969, vol. 1, 92-97; Dunbar
Brignole Sale Negroni dei Signori delle Missioni) in the mid- 1974-1980; Israels 1995; Egorova 1998:
seventeenth century; De Negri et al. 1967, 72-73 (entry by 107.The only known impression of the impressive and huge
Emmina De Negri). I am grateful to Mr. Paolo Arduino, Bib- etching of the view of Genova (on five sheets of paper, 444 x
lioteca di Storia dell’arte, Palazzo Rosso, Genoa, for his assis- 1663 mm), is in the Royal Library of Stockholm, see
tance in identifying the Villa Durazzo. Haverkamp-Begemann 1969, 375-76, 393-94; Hollstein 2000,
85. Documents show that Stefano Durazzo bought the vil- 124-30.
la from Lelia Di Negro, grand-daughter of Ambrogio;Alfon-
so 1972, 134.

Journeymen and Servants: Sixteenth-
Century Employment Contracts with
Painters from the Netherlands*
Liesbeth M. Helmus
Centraal Museum, Utrecht
On November 15, 1538, Michiel Gast appeared before a notary in Rome with a Rotterdammer
named Laurentius to confirm the contents of an agreement.The document in question was an
employment contract that laid down the rights and duties of both parties. Gast was going to work
for a year in Laurentius’s workshop.The latter ‘wanted to have paintings made of all that he had
in the way of works of art’ (al wat hy van consten heeft dat sal hij hem laeten contrefayten).1 This state-
ment is important, for it indicates the type of work that Gast was being hired to do. He was not
a pupil or an assistant, but he still seems to be expected to produce full-fledged paintings. Mak-
ing works of art available probably meant providing models to be painted; these could be draw-
ings or paintings to be copied for the free market.The contract stipulated that Gast had to work
two full days a week until three o’clock in the morning, while on Sundays and religious holi-
days he was free to use the studio for his own purposes. Laurentius would compensate Gast’s
services in kind, promising to keep him in ‘stockings and shoes’ (van cousen ende schoen) – that is,
giving him room and board. Should either party breach the contract, a fine of thirty-five kro-
nen would be imposed.The contract was retroactively effective as of November 1. It was signed
by both parties and by Claudius de Valle, the notary on duty at the court of Rota.2
The text of this contract has been preserved in the form of a transcript by A. Bertolotti, an
archivist who regularly published excerpts of documents in the Roman state archive.The art his-
torian G. J. Hoogewerff (1884-1963), who earned his doctorate in 1912 with his study entitled
Nederlandsche schilders in Italië in de XVIe eeuw (de geschiedenis van het Romanisme), re-examined in
situ the material that Bertolotti published. However, he could not recover this contract of 1538,
the earliest document that Bertolotti had disclosed with an additional translation in Italian.3 With-
out further explanation of Gast’s working hours, Hoogewerff erroneously noted that he had to
work until six o’clock in the evening.4 He probably assumed that he was dealing with a slip of
the pen, or an incorrect transcription of the original text. Working until three o’clock in the
morning is, indeed, odd, given that one generally was active only in daylight.
Whether Gast stayed on with Laurentius at the end of his one-year contract is not known. He
was accepted as a free master in the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke in 1558,5 and thus must have
returned home from Rome before this time. Gast’s age when he left for Rome is unknown, as
is the date of his death.Van Mander did not include any biographical information in the few lines
he devoted in 1604 to the life of the painter, but did note that Gast painted numerous ruins and
vistas in Rome, combining these compositions with his own inventions.6 The only known mono-
grammed work by Michiel Gast is just such a painting (fig. 1),7 showing a city bordering on a
bay set in a sweeping, mountainous landscape. In the foreground is a partially ruined gateway
giving access to an equally dilapidated Roman circus. At the lower right corner of the panel is
an inconspicuous depiction of Christ on his way to Emmaus, where Christ (in the middle with
a nimbus) joins his two disciples (recognizable by their haloes).The entire scene is bathed in a
ruddy evening glow. The Christ on the Way to Emmaus is signed ‘MG’ (in ligature) and dated
1577. This year functions as a terminus post quem for Gast’s date of death.8 Nothing is known
with certainty about the Rotterdam painter Laurentius. He may be identical to a certain Laurens,
JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS 201

Fig. 1. Michael Gast, Landscape with the Journey to Emmaus, 1577. Utrecht, Centraal Museum, 11725, 21.3 x 28.4 cm.
who appears in a Roman document in the spring of 1550 concerning a quarrel with the Utrecht
painter Anthonie Mor.9
While no other contracts with painters from the Netherlands who were employed by a col-
league abroad are known, it must have been common practice to work in the studio of a col-
league and fellow countryman. People sought each other out, helped one another and worked
together. In his Schilder-boeck of 1604, Karel van Mander mentions several such instances. For
example, after spending a year in Venice, Hendrick Cornelisz.Vroom ended up working for
Valerius in Milan, who, according to Van Mander, was ‘a mediocre Netherlandish painter,’ (een
slecht Nederlandtsch schilder).10 Not only abroad, but also at home in the Netherlands, the magni-
tude of workshops was expanding, which necessitated a division of labor.A well-run workshop
with a large number of pupils and assistants generated a higher rate of production.11
There is one known contract from the Southern Netherlands comparable to Michiel Gast’s,
namely an agreement dated November 13, 1498. It states that Hannekin van den Dijke was to
serve the painter-illuminator Gerard Horenbout for four years,‘to work on the [manuscript] illu-
minations that Gerard sees fit to give him’ (omme te werkene van verlichte alzulc als hem Gheeraert te
wercke gheven sal).12 Van den Dijke would receive room and board. Unlike Gast,Van den Dijke
could only sell his own work and keep the proceeds with Horenbout’s permission. At least half
of the total text is devoted to penalty clauses in the event that Van den Dijke would marry.Were
he to marry within two years, he would be fined six pounds. In the third or fourth years, the
amount was set at four pounds.
202 JOURNEYMEN AND SERVANTS

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

if he made up for the lost working time.The same applied to periods of illness. Regardless of its
nature,Van Huldenberge had to compensate for every delay with additional working days. In
contrast to Joosten who was allowed to dine with the brothers,Van Huldenberge had to eat in
his own room, although he was expected to serve at table in the refectory when necessary. His
annual wages were fifteen Rhenish guilders plus a tabbard, or if he so chose, five Rhenish guilders
on top of his honorarium.27
Comparable information on the annual wage of a painter is lacking. It is possible, however, to

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

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

Fig. 2. Pieter and Frans Pourbus, Triptych of the Bruges Fish Merchants,The Calling of Four Apostles and the Miraculous
Draught of Fishes (middle panel); Jesus at the Sea of Tiberias (left wing); Finding the Fish with the Tribute Money (right
wing), 1576. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 7416, 117 x 175 cm.
scene the patrons wanted a depiction of the miraculous draught of fishes (Luke 5:1-12). On the
left and right wings were Christ appearing at the Lake of Tiberias (John 21:1-15) and Peter pay-
ing the silver coin to the receiver of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-26). This is the story in
which Christ commands Peter to cast a hook in the sea and to use the silver coin found in the
mouth of the first fish he catches to pay the temple tax. Finally, Saints John the Evangelist and
Andrew were to be painted in grisaille on the exteriors of the wings. From the contract it emerges
that Pourbus had presented a modello of the altarpiece to his patrons, which was approved by a
theologian from Bruges. For his work, Pourbus would receive twenty Flemish pounds (120 Rhen-
ish guilders) in three instalments.The delivery date was set for December 25, 1576. Should he
be late, Pourbus was to refund the money he had received, but had to continue working.
Within the context of this investigation it is important to note that the contract stipulated
that Pourbus had to produce the painting himself, and could only be assisted by his son Frans
Pourbus, a painter in Antwerp.49 In so far as is known, Frans was the only child of Pieter Pour-
bus and Anna Blondeel. By the time he went to study with the celebrated Frans Floris in Antwerp
in 1564/65, he had probably already worked with his father for several years. Karel van Mander
lavishes praise on the quality of Frans’s work and calls him the best painter ever to have come
from the studio of Frans Floris.50When the contract was closed in 1576, Frans was in Antwerp.
Four years earlier he had also registered as a citizen in Bruges.As his domicile he chose his par-
ents’ house, and his father Pieter stood surety for him.51 Frans was probably responsible for the
exterior of the triptych’s wings, which deviate stylistically from the rest of the altarpiece.52
A second commission stipulating autography may be reconstructed from another legal docu-
ment, although the original text of the contract is lost. On January 27, 1520, a bailiff and alder-
men heard a suit concerning a dispute between the Bruges Saint Francis Guild (guild of the
fullers and cloth shearers) and the painter Albert Cornelis.53 According to the contract dated
November 9, 1517, the altarpiece he was to paint was intended for the guild’s altar in the Sint
Jacobskerk in Bruges. Cornelis had promised ‘to paint all of the nudes and the principal work
himself, ably and artfully’ (zelve, metter handt, wel ende constich wercken alle de naecten ende 't princi-
paele werc).The guild summoned Cornelis before the bailiff and aldermen because he had passed
on part of the work to a subcontractor for eight Flemish pounds.The guild expected quality for
the sum (thirty pounds groot) they were prepared to pay and therefore insisted on an autograph
work. Moreover, the two-year delivery period had expired. Cornelis countered the charges as
follows: first, the patron had not provided the agreed-upon payments, and moreover, the artist
could not be reproached in any way with respect to the subcontracting,‘as he was not required

Fig. 3. Pieter and Frans Pourbus, Triptych of the Bruges Fish Merchants, Saints John the Evangelist and Andrew (exterior
wings), 1576. Brussels, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 7416, 117 x 81 cm.
to paint anything other than the faces himself, which demanded the greatest skill and which he
proposed making within a reasonable period of time’ (mids dat hy niet anders ghehouden en es zelve
metter handt te makene dan de aenzichten, daer de meeste const an licht ende de welcke hy presenteerde te
makene bynnen zekeren behoorlicken tyde). Evidently, the patron’s demand applied solely to the flesh-
colored passages, and then just the most important ones. Only the faces of the figures, which
indeed required the greatest mastery, are specified in the text. Nothing is stated regarding the
other areas of flesh, such as the hands.
The Bruges aldermen set a new delivery date, Easter of 1521. If this was not met, Cornelis
forfeited six Flemish pounds, which he had to pay to the guild. On April 15, 1522, both parties
again appeared before the aldermen, this time with Cornelis as the plaintiff. Even though the
altarpiece had been ready for some time, it had yet to be collected by the guild. Moreover, Cor-
nelis demanded payment of the twelve Flemish pounds the guild still owed him.The guild replied
that according to the agreement, Cornelis was to have delivered the altarpiece to the church.
Due to the expiration of the delivery date of Easter 1521, the guild was also exacting a fine of
six Flemish pounds.The bailiff and aldermen finally decided that the guild had to collect the
altarpiece and that, if the altarpiece was not done entirely in accordance with its wishes, they
could indeed deduct six Flemish pounds from the money still owed the artist. Nothing more was
said about the faces, or whether they were autograph or not.
Written sources on the position and working circumstances of journeymen and servants in
sixteenth-century painters’ workshops are exceptionally rare. From the two employment con-
tracts that have come down to us – that of Michiel Gast and Hannekin van den Dijke, both
painters in the service of a colleague – it appears that producing their own work outside of the
contractually required activities within the workshop was an issue. Gast and Van den Dijke, in

contrast to painters who closed an employment contract with a cloister, received no daily or
annual wages. Otherwise, their positions are comparable. Our notion that painters with an employ-
er-employee relationship were working under poor conditions, because their wages were lower
compared to that of other craftsmen, must be revised.54After all, these employment contracts
included room and board, which meant that their total wages were significantly higher than that
of their independently operating colleagues.
ABBREVIATIONS
WNT Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal,The Hague and Leiden, 1882-1998, 29 vols.

NOTES
* This investigation of employment contracts with painters 16. See Van der Haeghen 1914, 30; De Jager 1990.
is part of my doctoral dissertation, Schilderen in opdracht. Noord- 17. See WNT 1882-1998, vol. 4 (1889), cols. 2178 (sub 1)
Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1450-1570, for the Uni- and 2179 (sub 2).
versity of Amsterdam. See Helmus 1990, among others.This
article was translated from the Dutch by Jennifer Kilian and 18. See WNT 1882-1998, vol. 7 ii (1937), col. 4520; Camp-
Katy Kist,Amsterdam. bell 1981.
19. One example is known of a painter who closed an
employment contract with a king.The Utrecht painter Nico-
1. See Bertolotti 1880, 44; Hoogewerff 1932, 161. Haver- laus (Clausz) Johansen, according to a contract dated May 20,
korn van Rijsewijk included the text of the contract in Obreen 1598, was to work for six months in the service of Christian
1880/1881 (vol. 3). IV of Denmark (1577-1648). He received per month five
2.According to Hoogewerff, Claudius de Valle was a native daalders for food, thirty daalders for lodging, and a halb gewon-
of the county of Vermandois, diocese of Cambrai. He is doc- lich Hoftkleid (which is probably clothing that one could wear
umented in Rome as of 1541 as ‘clericus coniugatus’ and was daily at court). One daalder equalled thirty stuivers or one and
a member of Santa Maria dell’Anima; see Hoogewerff 1932, one-half guilders.The artist would be separately reimbursed
161. for the requisite pigments; see Schmidt 1917.As this is a con-
tract with a king, it is left out of further consideration here.
3. See note 1.
20. On December 15, 1526, Joosten testified that he had
4. Hoogewerff 1932, 161 (note 3). lived and worked in the cloister for about seventeen years.This
means that he had worked for the abbey since 1509; see Hof
5. For admittance to the Antwerp guild, see Rombouts
1958, 120.
and Van Lerius 1961, vol. 1, 209. Dacos (Fiamminghi a Roma
1995, 195) asserts incorrectly that Gast became a master in that 21. Hof (1958, 119-20) first published the text of the con-
year. tract.
6.Van Mander 1604, fol. 205, 40-44. 22.The text literally reads as follows:‘Ende sal dair mededienen
als dat gewoenlichen is by hem luyden’; see Hof 1958, 120.
7. On the basis of stylistic comparison, N. Dacos attributed
a second painting to Michiel Gast.This is the King David in a 23. This emerges from a report by the committee of the
Landscape with Ruins; on panel, diameter 20.2 cm (Antwerp, governess dated December 15, 1526, about the election of
Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten). There is one Brother Willem van der Goes as abbot of Egmond; see ibid.
known engraving by Gast with the Porta Latina, 128 x 225
mm. Inscribed in the upper border is: ‘Di M[aest]ro Michil 24. Ibid., 118, 121.
Gast fiandroso’; see Dacos in Fiamminghi a Roma 1995, cat. no. 25. Gerits and Praem 1967, 212-14.
94, 195-196. For the attribution of Roman frescoes to Gast,
see Dacos 1995b, 43-51. 26. A stoter is the appellation of various coins worth two
and one-half stuivers; see Van Gelder 1980, 270.
8. Gast is mentioned by his brother Mathias in a letter dat-
ed November 9, 1575, written in Salamanca and, addressed to 27.When he entered the service of Christian IV of Den-
Juan Moreno (an assistant of the Duke of Alva). In it, Mathias mark, Nicolaus (Clausz) Johansen received an item of cloth-
notes that Michiel had almost completed the painting ‘del sitio ing; see note 19.
de Roma en 1556’.Thieme and Becker 1907-50, vol. 13 (1920),
28. Scholliers 1960, 84.
240.
29. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 20-22.
9. This concerns a separately kept note written in Latin,
which Bertolotti also recorded; see Hoogewerff 1932, 162. 30. On the length of the working day, see Scholliers 1960,
91-92.
10.Van Mander 1604, fol. 287v, 5-11.
31.Van Mander 1604, fol. 238v, 21-22 (Joachim Beucke-
11. Jan van Scorel was one of the first artists in the North-
laer), fol. 241v, 33-36 (Frans Floris), fol. 256v, 34-35 (Cornelis
ern Netherlands to run a complex, highly productive work-
Molenaer).
shop. On Scorel’s workshop in Haarlem (1527-1530), see Faries
1998b and Faries and Helmus 2000, 8-11. On the organiza- 32. Dirk Bouts 1975, 24.
tion of workshops in the Southern Netherlands between 1400
and 1530, see Campbell 1981, among others. 33. Campbell 1981, 49.
12.Van der Haeghen 1914, 29. 34. Montias 1982, 20.
13. See Hoogewerff 1932, 161, and Dacos in Fiamminghi a 35. Lugard 1946, 107.
Roma 1995, 195. 36. Moes 1896, 62. For jonger, see WNT (jonger in the fourth
14. See Van der Haeghen 1914, 27; Calkins 1998, 52. Camp- sense).
bell 1981, 48, does interpret the contract as an agreement 37. See note 26.
between a master and an assistant.
38. Periods of illness or unemployment are not taken into
15. See De Jager 1990. account. At the end of the sixteenth century the number of

working days increased as a result of the marked decrease in 45. Hof 1958, 119-20.
the number of religious holidays; see Dirk Bouts 1975, 22 and
47; Noordegraaf 1980, 33-34; Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 46. See WNT for the meaning of prove and prebende.
1984, 21-22. In his investigation of the standard of living in 47. My forthcoming doctoral dissertation, Schilderen in
Antwerp in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Scholliers opdracht. Noord-Nederlandse contracten voor altaarstukken 1450-
arrived at a maximum of 264 possible working days, forty-nine 1570 (University of Amsterdam) will include a complete list
free days and fifty-two Sundays a year. These numbers are of the contracts.
applied to laborers working for a daily wage. For resident per-
sonnel, which had board and lodging, the number of work- 48.The original contract has been lost. For a complete tran-
ing days will have been higher; Scholliers estimated three scription of the text, see Philippot 1973, 77. For the altarpiece,
hundred; Scholliers 1960, 84-87, 95-96.The Rhenish guilder see also Van Puyvelde 1963 (as attributed to Jan van Elburch)
was the standard coinage in the fifteenth and sixteenth centu- and Huvenne 1984, 58-59 and 331 (document 107).
ry. Its value was greater than its derivative, the Carolus guilder.
This was worth twenty stuivers. In the sixteenth century, the 49.‘and, moreover, the same P. Pourbus is beholden to com-
Rhenish guilder was used as a monetary unit of twenty-eight plete this and all that this involves with his own hand, promis-
stuivers; see Van Gelder 1980, 268. Huldenberge thus earned ing to take only his son Frans Pourbus, now living in Antwerp,
(20 x 28) about 560 stuivers a year, assuming a total of 250 as his assistant and no one else, lest he commit fraud,’ en noch
working days 2.24 stuivers a day. bovendien is den zelven P. Pourbusse ghehoudene dit met zyn handt
en te vulmaeckene van al zulks als daer toebehoort, ten ware dat hy
39. Gerits and Praem 1967, 211 and 215. voor zyne mede hulpe naeme zyn zoone Franciscus Pourbusse die ’t
40.The annual wages of Joosten amounted to two Flemish Antwerpen als nu woont en niemant anders, al zonder fraude; Philip-
pounds or twelve Carolus guilders x 20 (= 240 stuivers). His pot 1973, 77.
daily wage, in that case, and based on 250 working days, would 50.Van Mander 1604, fol. 257v, 14-31.
have been 0.96 stuiver. If the Flemish pound is equated to
twelve Rhenish guilders x 28 (= 336 stuivers a year), his dai- 51.Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 4, 170.
ly wage based on 250 working days would have come to 1.34
stuivers a day. See note 38. 52. Philippot 1973, 83.
41. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 27;Vroom 1969, 53.The documents were published by Weale 1863.Tamis
30. investigated the extant central panel (still in the church),
with infrared reflectography and distinguished three hands
42. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 82. in the underdrawing. They clarify the case documents and
43.Van Biema 1905, 156. afford insight into the genesis of the altarpiece; see Tamis
2000, with, on 673, an incorrect reference to the date of
44. Noordegraaf and Schoenmakers 1984, 13.When living the legal proceeding: February 27, 1520, should be January
in residence, the worker also had to be fed on Sundays and 27, 1520.
holidays, and in the winter period when there was less work.
For the percentage, see Scholliers 1960, 95-96. 54. Montias 1993, 1545.

Artists by Numbers: Quantifying Artists’
Trades in Sixteenth-Century Antwerp*
Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters
University of Ghent and Royal Museum of the Army and Military History, Brussels
Introduction
When Karel van Mander wrote that Quinten Metsijs had not been apprenticed, he probably
did not realize that the Liggeren, the famous membership lists of the Antwerp guild of Saint Luke,
support his statement.1 Since then, everyone who has studied Antwerp art has turned to these
lists, mostly in their published form, edited by Philippe-Felix Rombouts and Théodoor Van Lerius
between 1864 and 1876.2
The original Liggeren, preserved in the Royal Academy in Antwerp,3 are unique documents for
Antwerp's corporate history and corporate history in general, as most matriculation records have
not been preserved.Traditionally, these records, which begin in 1453, have been used as a bio-
graphical source for Antwerp artists between the middle of the fifteenth century and the end of
the Ancien Régime. More recently, some scholars have tried to quantify the enrollment of mas-
ters, suggesting that it is correlated to Antwerp's changing economic climate.4 No systematic
quantitative analysis has been made of this archival source, however, which by its heuristic for-
mat lends itself very well to this type of research.5 As social historians have demonstrated, enroll-
ment lists are primary sources in prosopographical research, which uses extensive quantitative
analysis to create a collective biography describing the external characteristics of a population
with common traits.6 This type of research has recently experienced a break-through due to the
availability of powerful PCs, relational databases and statistical software.7
Statistical analysis of the lists of free masters and apprentices can give insight into the fluctua-
tion in the number of workshops, their size and structure, and the differentiation of professions
within the corporation.The corporate system in which art was created offered a structural frame-
work for social mobility to its members. Statistical analysis of mastership admittance has recent-
ly provided additional important insights into the social mobility of other socio-professional
groups.8
In the sixteenth century,Antwerp witnessed a demographic explosion.At the time, demogra-

phy was one of the most important driving forces behind any development that can be traced,
be it social, economic, or cultural.9 This paper will concentrate on two fundamental events in
the lives of artists: the acquisition of the status of free master (establishing the workshop), and
the acceptance of a first pupil (expanding the workshop). It focuses on the evolving accessibili-
ty of master’s status in the corporation, and on the changing possibilities of employing person-
nel in the organisation of the production process. Our working hypothesis is that both events
are correlated to, if not strongly determined by, the demographic and micro-economic climate
of the commercial metropolis,Antwerp.
Method
We propose here a suitable method for investigating the Liggeren statistically, and draw tenta-
tive conclusions. Restricting investigations to the period 1500-1579 enabled us to cope with an
ARTISTS BY NUMBERS 211

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

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

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

Year Inhabitants
1496 47,000
1526 55,000
1542-43 84,000
1568 105,000
1582-85 84,000
It is difficult to quantify immigration, but some indications of the evolving size of the city are
available (fig. 1).19 Antwerp skyrocketed in population from about 47,000 inhabitants at the end
of the fifteenth century to 105,000 in 1568, making it the second largest city north of the Alps
after Paris.The drastic increase started around 1526, when it rose with more than two thousand
inhabitants per year until 1542, reaching about 84,000 inhabitants. After the crisis of the late
1560s, and mainly during that of the early 1580s, the population decreased due to emigration
and expulsion.
The numbers in fig. 1 demonstrate that our curves are primarily the result of the demo-
graphic evolution, which can also serve as an index for the economic climate.The curves show
that a local pool of laborers was formed in the beginning of the century. In order to respond to
the demand on the market, more apprentices were enrolled than new masters. However, the ‘small
crisis’ of the 1520s resulted in a decline of inscriptions at all levels.When the city started to attract
a constant influx of immigrants, new strategies had to be developed. Masters started to accept
apprentices in more moderate numbers, as immigrants fulfilled the growing need for labor.The
cyclical movement in the enrollment of apprentices suggests that their numbers were consider-
ably controlled, probably by the board of the guild.The reason why the enrollment of painters
corresponds better to that of the local masters’ sons than to the general trend may be because
they were able to control their trade and market relatively better than other professions.Anoth-
er, but not necessarily alternative explanation might be that the market for paintings had become
saturated before the apex of immigration was reached. Other possible explanations are: that the
immigration of painters was less drastic because their trade involved more skill and the poten-
tial of immigrants reached a maximum sooner than for most other trades in the guild; and that
it was more expensive to set up business for painters than for other professions within the guild.
As a result, the missing peak in the enrollment would hide a larger part of unregistered immi-
grant painters who were employed as journeymen. All these possible reasons are not mutually
exclusive; they could all have contributed to the situation.
A new systematic reconsideration of all the archival documentation on the corporation and
immigration records is needed to support these assumptions.This perception of the development
also raises questions about the quantity and the quality of the production of paintings and the
ways the painters responded to the ever changing size of the markets.
Professional Differentiation
Our determination of professional differentiation is based not only on what is explicitly men-
tioned in the Liggeren, but also on what we know about individuals from other archival sources

collected in our database.20 We grouped ninety-three different professions 21 into fourteen cat-
egories, including a category for others, and one for unknowns (plate 4). Even though the amount
of professional differentiation is large, many professions have a small number of members.The
main categories are: figurative painters (thirty-five percent), printing and book related professions
(thirteen percent), glass manufacturers (ten percent), and sculptors (eight percent).With the excep-
tion of the unknowns, the other professional categories that feature in the sample constitute six
percent or less. Some of the trades were affiliated with other guilds, for example, the woodworkers
with the joiners, the shopkeepers with the traders (meerseniers), and the blacksmiths with their
guilds. Such people most likely obtained master’s status in the guild of Saint Luke in order to
share privileges with other members.
The professional categorization of the apprentices is less diversified (plate 5).The larger groups
are the same as for the masters; however, their proportions are different: forty-two percent of the
apprentices are figurative painters, fifteen percent work in the glass-related trades, nine percent
as sculptors, and only six percent in printing; the other professional categories constitute four
percent or less. Nineteen percent have an unknown profession.
Figure 2.Table showing the top fifteen professions, 1547-64 (source: Liggeren)22
Profession Individuals
Painters 149
Unknown 69
Glaziers 34
Book binders 18
Sculptors 16
Book sellers 15
Panel makers 14
Clavichord makers 12
Trunk makers 11
Silversmiths 10
Potters 10
Canvas painters 10
Gilders 10
Antique sculptors 9
Engravers 8
Figure 3.Table showing the number of different professions (source: Liggeren)

Years Number of professions
1501-25 19
1525-35 21
1535-46 31
1546-58 48
1558-64 49
1564-79 46
During the cycle of increase and subsequent dramatic collapse in enrollment between 1547
and 1564, the most prominently represented professions were painters and glaziers; other pro-
fessions were far less well represented (fig. 2).There is a remarkable trend in the evolution of the
differentiation of professions for masters (fig. 3): in the years 1535 to 1546, when the number of
masters dropped slightly in comparison to previous years, the number of different trades repre-
sented among these masters increased by about fifty percent to thiry-one. From 1546 to 1558

this increased to forty-eight trades, a level that was maintained afterwards.The enormous increase
in the enrollment of masters from 1546 to 1558 thus coincides with a remarkable increase in
professional differentiation.23 As amply shown by the demographic evolution, during these
years more immigrants than ever with a large number of different professions tried to enter
Antwerp’s workforce.
Evidently, the majority of masters were men. However, thirteen women were inscribed in the
Liggeren for the period under consideration. Five of them were painters (Isabella Coffermans,
Elisabeth Wouters, widow X, widow of Gillis van Everen, widow of Jan de Coninck), one a doll
maker (wife of Jacob, the doll maker), one a playing card maker (widow Langanie), and lastly, one
was an engraver (widow of Willem Lansman). Five women had unknown professions (Cathar-
ina van Keulen, Clara Cocks, wife of De Leeuw, Johanna Cuelle and Elisabeth Jansdr. Laurey-
sen). Needless to say, many wives and widows continued the trade of their husbands even though
their names were not inscribed in the Liggeren.
Size of Workshops: Cumulative Distribution of Apprentices
The size of the workshops can be studied by calculating the cumulative distribution of appren-
tices. Jean-Pierre Sosson introduced this method in 1970 in a groundbreaking article on the Bruges
corporation of image-makers.24 First, the number of apprentices employed throughout the career
of each master is counted and grouped by frequency, thus arriving at a list of masters who had no
apprentice, and those who had one, two, and so forth.Although this number is thought to reflect
the size of the workshop,it actually refers to the number of people employed in a workshop through-
out its existence. Nonetheless, the number of apprentices is a reliable indication of size if we assume
that most apprentices stayed in the workshop as journeymen for many years after their appren-
ticeship.The accessibility of mastership (discussed later) supports this assumption.
Calculations to determine the cumulative distribution of apprentices involve calculating per-

centages, and then accumulating them in order to determine the mean. Next the number of mas-
ters is multiplied by the number of apprentices they employed, arriving thus at the number of
apprentices grouped by the size of workshop they were trained in. Once again, percentages and
cumulative percentages are calculated.These calculations were made for all free masters of the
guild of Saint Luke and for painters only between 1500 and 1579 (figs. 5 and 7) and for the first
half of the period (1500 to 1539) (figs. 4 and 6).Trends can be observed by comparing the latter
data with those for the whole period.We did not divide the period 1500 to1579 into two equal
periods to avoid the risk of counting a person twice whose career overlaps the two periods. Final-
ly, the workshops were regrouped according to size, in order to facilitate the analysis (fig. 8).
Figure 4.Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices, 1500-1539 (source: Liggeren)

Apprentice per
master Masters % cum % Apprentices % cum %
0 465 60.47 60.47 0 0 0

1 172 22.37 82.84 172 31.97 31.97
2 71 9.23 92.07 142 26.39 58.36
3 35 4.55 96.62 105 19.52 77.88
4 16 2.08 98.70 64 11.9 89.78
5 6 0.78 99.48 30 5.58 95.36
6 3 0.39 99.87 18 3.35 98.71
7 1 0.13 100 7 1.3 100
total 769 538

Figure 5:Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices, 1500-1579 (source: Liggeren)
Apprentices per
0 1283 73.15 73.15 0 0 0
1 292 16.65 89.79 292 37.48 37.48
2 102 5.82 95.61 204 26.19 63.67
3 45 2.57 98.18 135 17.33 81.00
4 18 1.03 99.20 72 9.24 90.24
5 10 0.57 99.77 50 6.42 96.66
6 2 0.11 99.89 12 1.54 98.20
7 2 0.11 100 14 1.80 100
total 1754 779
Figure 6:Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices for painters, 1500-1539 (source: Liggeren)
Apprentices per
0 168 57.34 57.34 0 0 0
1 63 21.5 78.84 63 27.16 27.16
2 32 10.92 89.76 64 27.59 54.75
3 19 6.48 96.24 57 24.57 79.32
4 8 2.73 98.97 32 13.79 93.11
5 2 0.68 99.65 10 4.31 97.42
6 1 0.34 100 6 2.59 100
total 293 232
Figure 7.Table showing cumulative distribution of apprentices for painters, 1500-1579 (source: Liggeren)
Apprentices per
0 425 67.68 67.68 0 0 0
1 118 18.79 86.47 118 33.62 33.62
2 47 7.48 93.95 94 26.78 60.40
3 23 3.66 97.61 69 19.66 80.06
4 8 1.27 98.88 32 9.12 89.18
5 5 0.8 99.68 25 7.12 96.30
6 1 0.16 99.84 6 1.71 98.01
7 1 0.16 100 7 1.99 100
total 628 351
Figure 8.Table showing development in the size of workshops (source: Liggeren)

Apprentices
per master General Painters
1500-1539 (%) 1500-1579 (%) 1500-1539 (%) 1500-1579 (%)
0 60.5 73.1 57.3 67.6

1 22.4 16.6 21.5 18.8
2-3 13.8 8.4 17.4 11.1
>3 3.4 1.8 3.7 2.4

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

Apprentices General Painters
1500-1539 (%) 1500-1579 (%) 1500-1539 (%) 1500-1579 (%)
1 32 37.5 27.2 33.6
2-3 46 43.5 52.2 46.4
>3 22.1 19 20.7 19.9
For apprentices, it is important to note that their number decreased in workshops of all sizes
between the first and the whole period. For the table in fig. 9 the workshops are also regrouped
according to relevant size: those with a single apprentice, those in workshop of two to three, and
those in shops with more than three apprentices. During the entire period, eighty-one percent
of all apprentices and eighty percent of painters’ apprentices worked in a workshop of one to
three people.These numbers barely altered during the course of the century; however, their dis-
tribution did. Shops with single apprentices increased by 5.5 percent over those workshops with
two and more. Painters’ shops with one pupil even increased by 6.4 percent at the expense of all
the others.The very few workshops with more than three apprentices stayed more or less stable.
Very large workshops were exceptional, and workshops with four or more apprentices scarce-
ly existed. As has been demonstrated for Bruges in the late fifteenth century, one-person busi-
nesses increased due to economic crisis. Are we dealing here with a conscious strategy of
artists-craftsmen against crisis? Does a similar trend in Antwerp half a century later have the same
reason? In any case, this trend has to be taken seriously when studying specialization and the
collaboration within and between workshops.The observations made here also make a strong
case against what has erroneously been coined ‘mass production’.
Professional Mobility: Intervals
When we take the number of apprentices who never became free masters and correct this
number with those who nevertheless are mentioned as teachers, we can calculate the number of
people that remained journeymen – although some of them may have dropped out, died, or emi-
grated. As much as 80.7 percent of apprentices did not make it to the status of free master. For

observation (n=152)
Fig. 10. Graph showing the interval between beginning apprenticeship and beginning free mastership.
observation (n=94)
Fig. 11. Graph showing the interval between obtaining mastership and accepting an apprentice for painters, 1500-
1579.

observation (n=252)
Fig. 12. Graph showing the interval between obtaining mastership and accepting a first apprentice.
observation (n=126)
Fig. 13. Graph showing the interval between beginning apprenticeship and beginning free mastership for painters.

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

NOTES
* The research for this paper was conducted as part of the 18. Carl Van de Velde demonstrated that the entries for the
NWO-sponsored project, Antwerp Painting Before Icono- first eighty years cannot possibly be authentic; see note 6 above
clasm: a Socio-Economic Approach (Rijksuniversiteit Gronin- and Van de Velde 1975b, 420-21. He showed that the water-
gen), supervised by Molly Faries and Maximiliaan P.J. Martens. mark of the paper used in the entire volume dates from about
1520-30; that the introduction to the register (starting on fol.
1) was written by a clerk whose activity is still recorded as
1.Van Mander/Miedema 1994-99, vol. 1, fols. 215-215v. late as 1561, and that folios 8v to 88v (i.e. the entries of 1453
up to 1531) were written by the same hand with the same ink.
2. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76. In other words, all those entries were copied from an older,
3. Antwerp, Koninklijke Academie voor Schone Kunsten, now lost list, and consequently, as copies, they have to be treat-
Oud Archief, Liggeren van de Sint-Lucasgilde, 1453-1616, no. ed cautiously.
70 (3). 19. See note 10.
4. See, for instance, the attempts by Kervyn de Meerendre 20.We also have assumed that apprentices take on the pro-
1973, 147-55; van Miegroet and de Marchi 1999, 83. fession of their masters.
5. See codicological analysis by Van de Velde 1973, 252-77. 21. People with more than one profession are counted for
6. Definition based on De Ridder-Symoens 1991, 95-117 each of their professions separately. Thus, eighty individuals
(esp. 96). were counted at least twice, sometimes even three times. Most
combinations of professions are closely related, such as glazier-
7. Goudriaan et al. 1995. glass painter or printer-engraver.
8. Dambruyne 1996, 73-120. 22. In these years, 507 masters enrolled, representing sev-
enty-five different professions.
9. Boumans and Craeybeckx 1947, 394-405; Boumans 1948,
1-11;Van Roey 1975, 5-108; Soly 1986, 84-92;Van der Wee 23. Some thought must also be given to the fact that heuris-
and Materné 1993, 19-31; Kint 1996, 23-46; Limberger 2001, tically, the professions may have been inscribed in greater detail
39-62. in certain periods than others. Similar calculations have not
been made for the apprentices, as there is no such peak in their
10. In our forthcoming book, we will expand the sample enrollment.
with the periods 1453-1499 and 1580-1600.We consciously
avoided choosing historically significant cut-off dates, in order 24. Sosson 1970, 91-100. Some of his conclusions have been
to avoid bias in our sample. questioned by Montias 1990, 358-73, esp. 368. Both Max
Martens and Wim Blockmans have attempted to refine this
11.The integrated OCR option of HP PrecisionScan LTX method; see Martens 1992, 45-49; Blockmans 1995, 14-15.
software was used for this purpose.
25. Ateliers with seven apprentices include the the wood
12.This database, called Antwerp Painting before Iconoclasm,
and antique carver,Wouter van Elsmaer, and the glass maker,
was set up by the authors using Microsoft Access 97 in July,
Pieter van Ollem.Ateliers with six apprentices include the glass
2000, as a source-oriented system. On July 4, 2003, it con-
painter and maker, Aart Ortkens van Nijmegen; ateliers with
tained 7068 records.
five apprentices include the painters Christiaan van de Queeck-
13.The authors wish to thank Myriam Carlier (University borne II, Hendrik Thonis and Maarten van Cleve, the wood
of Ghent, Dept. of Medieval History) for discussing these issues carver Wouter van Dale, the glass painter Dirk JacobssoneVellert,
and providing us with a copy of unpublished materials for and the glass maker Simon van Dale I, the mirror maker Vic-
her course,‘Methodologie van de geschiedenis, module Proso- tor Tant, and the goldsmith Gerard Bufken.
pografie’.
26. It should be clear that these calculations are made as of
14. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 707-92 1500 only; apprentices enrolled before that date are not count-
ed.
15. For this database, see note 12.
27. Campbell 1976, 188-98; Martens 1992, 45-46.
16. Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 149-50.
28. According to the 1442 statutes of the Antwerp Saint
17. Between 1500 and 1579, we recorded six cases: Jan Luke’s Guild, the duration of the apprenticeship was set at four
Bouwens in 1504 and 1507, Cornelis Geerts in 1508 and 1516, years; see Van der Straelen 1855, 7, art. 1. However, whether
Nicolaas van Brugge in 1516 and 1522,Adriaan Pieters in 1521 this was a minimum time, and whether this duration was strict-
and 1523, Gillis Cornelis in 1532 and 1535, and Hans Schrivers ly adhered to, is highly questionable.
in 1551 and 1558. See Rombouts and Van Lerius 1864-76, 60,
67, 69, 86, 87, 98, 100, 103, 118, 125, 177 and 210. 29. Guicciardini 1625, 113.

Bibliography
Abramowski, Paul. Gotische Altäre der Danziger Art. Exh. cat., Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Marien-kirche. Berlin, 1927. New York. New York, 1998.
Ainsworth, Maryan W. Bernart van Orley as a Alexander, Jonathan J. G. Medieval Illuminators
Designer of Tapestry. Ph.D. dissertation.Yale and their Methods of Work. New Haven and
University, 1982. London, 1992.
_____.‘New Insights into Joos van Cleve as a Alfonso, Luigi.‘La fondazione della Casa delle
Draughtsman’. In Essays in Northern European Missioni di Fassolo in Genova’. In Atti della
Art presented to Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann Società Ligure di Storia Patria 12 (1972), 131-
on his sixtieth birthday. Doornspijk, 1983. 54.
[Ainsworth 1983a] Algeri, Giuliana.‘1440-1460: la Liguria, il mon-
_____. ‘Underdrawings in Paintings by Joos do fiammingo e la ‘cultura Mediterranea’’.
van Cleve at The Metropolitan Museum of In La pittura in Liguria: Il Quattrocento. Edit-
Art’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. ed by Giuliana Algeri and Anna De Floriani,
Colloque IV. L’attribution en peinture apport 161-224. Genoa, 1991.
du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger Van _____. ‘Testimonianze e presenze fiammighe
Schoute and Dominique Hollanders-Favart, nella pittura del Quattrocento’. In Pittura
161-67. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983. [Ains- fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited
worth 1983b] by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 39-
_____. ‘Schäufelein as Painter and Graphic 58. Genoa, 1997.
Artist in the Visitation’. In Metropolitan Muse- Alizeri, Federigo. Notizie dei professori del diseg-
um Journal 22 (1987), 135-40. no in Liguria dalle origini al secolo XVI.Vol. 2.
_____.‘Bernart van Orley: Peintre-inventeur’. Genoa, 1873.
In Studies in the History of Art 24 (1990), 41- _____. Notizie dei professori del disegno in Liguria
64. dalle origini al secolo XVI.Vol. 3. Genoa, 1874.
_____. Gerard David: Purity of Vision in an Age
of Transition. New York, 1998. Alte Meister. Catalogue, Staatsgalerie Stuttgart.
Stuttgart, 1992.
_____.‘Commentary:An Integrated Approach’.
In Early Netherlandish Painting at the Cross- Andrews, Christine Geisler. ‘The Boucicaut
roads:A Critical Look at Methodologies. Edited Masters’. In Gesta 41 (2002), 29-38.
by Maryan Ainsworth, 106-21. New York, Avril, François.‘Trois manuscrits napolitains des
2001. collections de Charles V et de Jean de Berry’.
_____.‘Was Simon Bening a Panel Painter?’ In In Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 127
‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of (1969), 291-328.
Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert _____.‘Un enlumineur ornemantiste parisien
Cardon et al., 2 vols, 1-26. Leuven, 2002. de la première moitié du XIVe siècle: Jacobus
_____.‘Diverse patterns pertaining to the crafts Mathey (Jaquet Maci?)’. In Bulletin Monu-
of painters or illuminators: Gerard David and mental 129 (1971), 249-64.
the Bening Workshop’. In Master Drawings _____.‘Pour l’enluminure provençale: Enguer-
41(2003), 240-65. rand Quarton, peintre de manuscrits’. In
Ainsworth, Maryan W. and Molly A. Faries. Revue de l’Art 35 (1997), 9-40.
Northern Renaissance Paintings:The Discovery Avril, François, and Nicole Reynaud, eds. Les
of Invention.The Saint Louis Art Museum Bul- manuscrits à peintures en France 1440-1520.
letin 18 (1986). Exh. cat., Bibliothèque nationale de France,
Ainsworth, Maryan W. and Keith Christiansen, Paris. Paris, 1993.
eds. From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Nether- Backhouse, Janet, and Yves Giraud. Pierre Sala.
landish Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Petit livre d’amour: Stowe MS 955, British
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
Library, London. Facsimile: Commentary Volume. co, and James H. Marrow, 39-50. Princeton,
Lucerne, ca. 1994. NJ, and Turnhout, 1998.
Baetens, Roland.‘De Zuidelijke Nederlanden Bial/ostocki, Jan.‘New observations on Joos van
en de handel op de Baltische ruimte (17e Cleve’. Oud Holland 70 (1955), 121-29.
eeuw)’. In The Interactions of Amsterdam and
Antwerp with the Baltic Region 1400-1800. Binski, Paul and Stella Panayotova, eds. The
Edited by Johanna Maria van Winter, 59-71. Cambridge Illuminations. 10 Centuries of Book
Leiden, 1983. Production in the Medieval West. Exh. cat.,
Fitzwilliam Museum and University Library,
Bakker, Boudewijn. Landschap en wereldbeeld van Cambridge. London, 2005.
Van Eyck tot Rembrandt. Bussum, 2004.
Blockmans,Willem Pieter.‘The Creative Envi-
Balis, Arnout. ‘Working it out: Design, Tools ronment: Incentives to and Functions of
and Procedures in Sixteenth- and Seven- Bruges Art Production’. In Petrus Christus in
teenth-Century Flemish Art’. In Concept, Renaissance Bruges:An Interdisciplinary Approach.
Design, and Execution in Flemish Painting Edited by Maryan Wynn Ainsworth, 4-15.
(1550-1700). Edited by Hans Vlieghe,Arnout New York and Turnhout, 1995.
Balis, and Carl Van de Velde, 129-51.Turn-
hout, 2000. Boccardo, Piero.‘Fonti d’archivio per una sto-
ria degli arazzi a Genova’. In Studi di storia
Bambach, Carmen C. Drawing and Painting in delle arti 5 (1983-85), 113-31.
the Italian Renaissance Workshop:Theory and
Practice, 1300-1600. Cambridge, UK, 1999. _____. Andrea Doria e le arti: committenza e mece-
natismo a Genova. Rome, 1989.
Beck, Colette.‘La Nation Genoise à Anvers dans
la première moitié du 16e siècle’. In Atti del _____. ‘Dipinti fiamminghi del secondo
congresso internazionale di studi storici: Rappor- Cinquecento a Genova: il ruolo di una
ti Genova-Mediterraneo-Atlantico nell’età mod- collezione Balbi’. In Pittura fiamminga in Lig-
erna. Edited by Raffaele Belvederi, 213-23. uria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boc-
Genoa, 1983. cardo and Clario Di Fabio, 159-75. Genoa,
1997.
Beets, Nicolaas.‘De tentoonstelling van Noord-
Nederlandsche schilderen beeldhouwkunst Boccardo, Piero and Clario Di Fabio.‘Merca-
vóór 1575’. In Onze Kunst 25 (1914), 85-88. to, collezionismo e connoisseurship a Gen-
ova fra Restaurazione e Unità d’Italia, e la
Belloni,Venanzio. Penne, pennelli e quadrerie. raccolta d’arte di Odone’. In Odone di Savoia
Genoa, 1973. 1846-1866: Le collezioni di un principe per Gen-
_____. Scritti e cose d’arte genovese. Genoa, 1988. ova. Edited by Laura Tagliaferro, 171-80. Exh.
cat., Palazzo Ducale, Genoa. Milan, 1996.
Bergmans, Simone. ‘Jan van Amstel, dit Jean
de Hollande’. In Revue d’Archéologie et d’His- Boccardo, Piero and Lauro Magnani.‘La Com-
toire de l’Art 26 (1957), 25-36. mittenza’. In Il palazzo dell’Università di Gen-
ova: Il collegio dei Gesuti nella Strada dei Balbi.
_____.‘Le problème Jan van Hemessen, mono- Edited by Roberto Masiero et al., 47-88.
grammiste de Brunswick. Le collaborateur Genoa, 1987.
de Jan van Hemessen. L’identité du mono-
grammiste’. In Revue Belge d’Archéologie et Boccardo, Piero, ed. L’Età di Rubens: dimore, com-
d’Histoire de l’Art 24 (1955), 133-57. mittenti e collezionisti Genovesi. Exh. cat., Palaz-
zo Ducale, Genoa. Genoa, 2004.
Bermejo, Elisa. ‘Pinturas inéditas de Pieter
Coecke, conservadas en España’. In Archivo Boccardo, Piero and Clario Di Fabio, eds.
Espagnol de Arte 54 (1981), 113-41. Ritorno a palazzo, dipinti e arazzi nell’Appar-
tamento del Doge. Exh. cat., Palazzo Ducale,
Bertolotti,A. Artisti belgi ed olandesi a Roma nei Genoa. Genoa, 1994.
secoli XVI e XVII: notizie e documenti raccolti
negli archivi Romani. Florence, 1880. Bock, E., and J. Rosenberg. Staatliche Museen
zu Berlin. Die Zeichnungen der alten Meister im
Bevers, Holm. ‘The Antwerp Sketchbook of Kupferstichkabinett: Die Niederländischen Meis-
the Bles Workshop in the Berlin Kupfer- ter. 2 vols. Berlin, 1930-31.
stichkabinett’. In Herri met de Bles: Studies and
Explorations of the World Landscape Tradition. Bogdanowicz, Stanislaw. St. Mary’s Church in
Edited by Norman E. Muller, Betsy J. Rosas- Gdansk. Dülmen, 1995.
224 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boggero, Franco.‘Argento americano e argen- _____.‘The Master of Saint Michael:A New-
tieri alemanni’. In Argenti genovesi da parata ly Established Group of Paintings by an Artist
tra Cinque e Seicento. Edited by Franco Bog- in the Orbit of Bernard van Orley’. In Oud
gero and Farida Simonetti, 48-59. Turin, Holland 115 (2001/2), 79-110.
1991.
Buijnsters-Smet, Leontine. Jan Massys: een
Borchert,Till H.‘Some Remarks on the Work- Antwerps schilder uit de zestiende eeuw. Zwolle,
shop Practice in Paintings of the Isenbrant- 1995.
Group’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie
dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La Peinture et Buijsen, Edwin. ‘De Intocht in Jeruzalem als
le laboratoire: Procédé, Méthodologie,Applications. onderdeel van een Antwerps Passieretabel:
Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène een poging tot reconstructie’. In Uitgelicht 5.
Verougstraete-Marcq, 65-76. Leuven, 2001. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, de Intocht in Jeruza-
lem, retabelfragmenten in diaspora, tijdelijk weer
Borggrefe, Heiner,Thomas Fusenig, and Bar- bijeen. Edited by H. van Wegen, 10-20. Maas-
bara Uppenkamp, eds. Tussen stadspaleizen tricht, 2000.
en luchtkastelen: Hans Vredeman de Vries en de
Renaissance. Exh. cat., Weserrenaissance- _____.‘De zoektocht naar de betekenis van het
Museum Schloß Brake, Lemgo, and Konin- geschilderde landschap’. In Panorama op de
klijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, wereld: het landschap van Bosch tot Rubens. Edit-
Antwerp.Antwerp, 2002. ed by P. Huys Janssen, 43-63. Exh. cat., Noord
Brabantsmuseum,‘s-Hertogenbosch.‘s-Her-
Born,Annick,‘Apport à l’étude du dessin sous- togenbosch and Zwolle, 2001.
jacent et pratiques d’atelier du Maître de
1518’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Burin, Elisabeth. Manuscript Illumination in Lyons
Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pratiques d’ate- 1473-1530.Turnhout, 2001.
lier. Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène Butler, Marigene H., and J. R. J. van Asperen
Verougstraete-Marcq, 189-97. Louvain-la- de Boer. ‘The Examination of the Milan-
Neuve, 1993. Turin Hours with Infrared Reflectography:
Boumans, René. ‘L’évolution démographique A Preliminary Report’. In Le dessin sous-jacent
d’Anvers (XVe -XVIIIe siècles)’. In Bulletin dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géographie et
de Statistique 34 (1948), 1-11. chronologie du dessin sous-jacent. Edited by
Roger Van Schoute and Hélène Ver-
Boumans, René and Jan Craeybeckx. ‘Het ougstraete-Marcq, 71-76. Louvain-la-Neuve,
bevolkingscijfer van Antwerpen in het derde 1989.
kwart der XVIe eeuw’. In Tijdschrift voor
Geschiedenis 60 (1947), 394-405. Byrne, Donal.‘Manuscript Ruling and Picto-
rial Design in the Work of the Limbourgs,
Bousmanne, Bernard. Item a Guillaume Wyelant the Bedford Master, and the Boucicaut Mas-
aussi enlumineur.Turnhout, 1997. ter’. In Art Bulletin 66 (1984), 118-36.
_____.‘Le deuxième volume des Chroniques de _____.‘An Early French Humanist and Sallust:
Hainaut (Bruxelles, KBR ms. 9243), manu- Jean Lebègue and the Iconographic Pro-
scrit ‘non Parfait’ ou commande de prestige?’ gramme for the Catiline and Jugurtha’. In Jour-
In Les Chroniques de Hainaut. Edited by Chris- nal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 49
tiane Van den Bergen-Pantens, 75-82.Turn- (1986), 41-65.
hout, 2000.
Calkins, Robert G.‘Stages of Execution, Pro-
Braudel, Ferdinand. La Mediterranée et le Monde cedures of Illumination as Revealed in an
méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II.Paris,1949. Unfinished Book of Hours’. In Gesta 17
Brausewetter, Artur. St. Marien in Danzig. (1978), 61-70.
Danzig, 1928. _____. Distribution of Labor:The Illuminators of
Brekka,Pamela Merrill.‘An Early Netherlandish the Hours of Catherine of Cleves and their Work-
Adoration of the Magi’. In Record of the Art shop. Philadelphia, 1979.
Museum Princeton University 59 (2000), 56-61. _____.‘Gerard Horenbout and his Associates:
Bruijnen,Yvette. ‘Fruit and Vegetables: New Illuminating Activities in Ghent, 1480-1521’.
Information on the Workshop Practice of In In Detail: New Studies of Northern Renais-
Pieter Aertsen’. In Oud Holland 108 (1994), sance Art in Honor of Walter S. Gibson. Edited
120-26. by Laurinda S. Dixon, 49-67.Turnhout,1998.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225
Campbell, Lorne. ‘The Art Market in the Caswell, Jean. ‘Two Manuscripts from the
Southern Netherlands in the Fifteenth Cen- Chroniques II Workshop: Chroniques de Hain-
tury’. In Burlington Magazine 118 (1976), 188- autVolume II and the Morgan-Mâcon Gold-
98. en Legend’. In Revue Belge d’archéologie et de
_____.‘The Early Netherlandish Painters and l’Histoire de l’Art 62 (1993), 17-45.
their Workshops’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans Cavanna Ciappina, Maristella.‘Di Negro, Gia-
la peinture. Colloque III. Le problème Maître de como’. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani.
Flémalle-van der Weyden. Edited by Dominique Vol. 40, 138-39. Rome, 1991.
Hollanders-Favart and Roger Van Schoute, Cavelli Traverso, Carla. ‘Da Provost a Massys’.
43-60. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII.
_____. The Early Flemish Pictures in the Collec- Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di
tion of Her Majesty the Queen. Cambridge, Fabio, 83-110. Genoa, 1997.
1985. Cavelli Traverso, Carla, ed. Primitivi Fiamminghi
_____. ‘Bosch. Christ Mocked (The Crowning in Liguria. Genoa, 2003.
with Thorns), NG 4744’. In Le dessin sous- Cecci,Allessandro and Antonio Natali, eds. L’of-
jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque ficina della maniera: varieta e fierezza nell’arte
XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siè- fiorentina del Cinquecento fra le due repubbliche,
cle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méth- 1494-1530. Exh. cat., Galleria degli Uffizi,
odes d’investigation. Edited by Hélène Florence.Venice, 1996.
Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, 29-
36. Leuven, 1999. Ceninni, Ceninno. Het handboek van de kunste-
naar: ll Libro dell’Arte. Translated by H. van
_____. ‘Beuckelaer’s The Four Elements: Four der Bossche and H.Theuns.Amsterdam and
Masterpieces by a Neglected Genius’. In Apol- Antwerp, 2002.
lo (February 2002), 40-46.
Cennini, Cennino. Il Libro dell’Arte:The Crafts-
Campbell,Thomas P.‘Pope Leo X’s Consisto- man’s Handbook.Translated by D.V.Thomp-
rial ‘letto de paramento’ and the Boughton son. New York, 1954.
House Cartoons’. In Burlington Magazine 138
(1996), 436-45. Cinquième centenaire de l’imprimerie dans les anciens
_____, with contributions by Maryan W. Pays-Bas 1e. Exh. cat., Bibliothèque royale
Ainsworth et al. Tapestry in the Renaissance: Albert Ier, Brussels. Brussels, 1973.
Art and Magnificence. Exh. cat., Metropoli- Cockshaw, Pierre.‘Jean Wauquelin: documents
tan Museum of Art, New York. New York, d’archives’. In Les Chroniques de Hainaut ou
2002. les Ambitions d’un Prince Bourguignon. Edited
Caracciolo, Maria Teresa. ‘Le voyage à Rome by Christiane van den Bergen-Pantens, 37-
du temps des ‘Fiamminghi’: la route française 49.Turnhout, 2000.
et l’étape à Lyon’. In Fiamminghi a Roma Cockshaw, Pierre, and Frédérique Johan.‘Mod-
1508-1608. Edited by Nicole Dacos, 23-40. èle et copie: l’exemple des manuscrits Brux-
Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Bruxelles, elles, ms 9650-52 et Cologne, cod. Bodmer
February 24-25, 1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Sup- 160’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Mem-
plemento (1997). ory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by
Cardon, Bert. Manuscripts of the Speculum Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 401-34. Leuven,
Humanae Salvationis in the Southern Nether- 2002.
lands, ca. 1410 - ca.1470. Leuven, 1996. Conway, William Martin. Literary Remains of
_____.‘The Portfolio of a Bruges Miniaturist Albrecht Dürer. Cambridge, 1889.
in the Mid-Fifteenth Century’. In ‘Als Ich Costantini, Claudio. La Repubblica di Genova
Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor nell’età moderna.Turin, 1978.
Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon Crépin-Leblond,Thierry. Livres du connétable:
et al., 2 vols., 317-55. Leuven, 2002. La Bibliothéque d’Anne de Montmorency. Exh.
Carroll, Jane. The Paintings of Jacob Cornelisz. van cat., Écouen, Musée national de la Renais-
Oostsanen. Ph.D. dissertation. University of sance and Musée Condé, château de Chan-
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1987. tilly. Paris, 1991.
Carasso-Kok, Marijke, ed. Geschiedenis van Ams- Dacos, Nicole.‘Tommaso Vincidor: un élève de
terdam: een stad uit het niets.Amsterdam, 2004. Raphaël aux Pays-Bas’. In Relations artistiques
226 BIBLIOGRAPHY
entre les Pays-Bas et l’Italie à la Renaissance: De Hamel, Christopher. Medieval Craftsmen:
Études dédiées à Suzanne Sulzberge. Études d’his- Scribes and Illuminators. London, 1992.
toire de l’art 4 (1980), 61-99. De Jager, R.‘Meester, leerjongen, leertijd: een
_____. ‘Raphaël et les Pays-Bas: l’École de analyse van zeventiende-eeuwse Noord-
Bruxelles’. In Studi su Raffaello. Edited by Nederlandse leerlingcontracten van kun-
Micaela Sambucco Hamoud and Maria stschilders, goud- en zilversmeden’. In Oud
Letizia Strocchi, 611-23.Atti del Congresso Holland 104 (1990), 69-111.
Internazionale di Studi, Urbino and Florence, De Negri, Emmina et al., eds. Le Ville Genovesi.
April 6-14, 1984. Urbino, 1987. Genoa, 1981.
_____.‘Per vedere, per imparare’. In Fiamminghi De Ridder-Symoens, Hilde.‘Prosopografie en
a Roma 1508/1608. Under the direction of Middeleeuwse geschiedenis: een onmogelijke
Nicole Dacos and B.W. Meijer, 17-34. Exh. mogelijkheid?’. In Handelingen der Maatschap-
cat., Palais des Beaux Arts, Brussels, and Palaz- pij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent,
zo delle Esposizioni, Rome. Brussels and n.s. 45 (1991), 95-117.
Rome, 1995. [Dacos 1995a]
De Schryver,Antoine,‘Prix de l’enluminure et
_____. Roma quanta fuit: tre pittori fiamminghi codicologie: le point comme unité de cal-
nella Domus Aurea. Rome, 1995. [Dacos cul dans Le Songe du vieil pélérin et Les faictz
1995b] et gestes d’Alexandre (Paris, B. N. fr. 9200-9201
_____. ‘Cartons et dessins raphaélesques à et fr. 22547)’. In Miscellanea codicologica F. Masai
Bruxelles: l’action de Rome aux Pays-Bas’. dedicata. Edited by Pierre Cockshaw,
In Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608. Edited Monique-Cécile Garand, and Pierre Jodogne,
by Nicole Dacos, 1-22.Atti del Convegno Vol. 2, 470-73. Ghent, 1979.
Internazionale, Bruxelles, February 24-25, De Smedt, H. J.,‘De verspreiding der Brabantse
1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento retabels in oostelijke richting’. In Mededelin-
(1997). gen van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring
Dambruyne, Johan. ‘Sociale mobiliteit en sta- voor Leuven en omgeving. De Brabantse Stad 28
tus in het zestiende-eeuwse Gentse (1965), note 20.
ambachtswezen’. In Handelingen der De Tolnay, Charles.‘Une vue d’Anvers de Pierre
Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde Brueghel l’Ancien?’ In Gazette des Beaux-Arts
te Gent 50 (1996), 73-120. 49 (1957), 73-80.
De Boodt, Ria, Myriam Serck-Dewaide et al. De Vos, Dirk. Hans Memling, het volledige œuvre.
Le retable d’Oplinter/ Het retabel van Oplinter. Antwerpen, 1994.
Scientia Artis.Vol. 1. Brussels, 1999.
Defoer, Henri.‘De marteldood van de H. Lucia
De Callatay, Édouard.‘Cornelis Massys, paysag- door de Meester van de Kruisafneming uit
iste, collaborateur de son père et son frère et de Verzameling Figdor’. In Bulletin van het
auteur de l’album Errera’. In Bulletin des Rijksmuseum 46 (1998), 265-74.
Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts 14 (1965), 56-
58. Defoer, Henri L. M., Anne S. Korteweg, and
Wilhelmina C. M.Wüstefeld, eds. The Gold-
De Corte, Érik.‘Triptyque Anversois de la pas- en Age of Dutch Manuscript Painting. Stuttgart
sion d’après Dürer: la part d’influence des and Zurich, 1989.
gravures sur le dessin sous-jacent’. In Le dessin Dekeyzer, Brigitte, Peter Vandenabeele, Luc
sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII. Géo- Moens, and Bert Cardon. ‘The Mayer van
graphie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent. Edit- den Bergh breviary (Ghent-Bruges, early six-
ed by Roger van Schoute and Hélène teenth century). Hands and Pigments’. In
Verougstraete-Marcq, 147-51. Louvain-la- Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque
Neuve, 1989. XII. La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siè-
De Dijn, C. G.‘Het Begijnhof Sint Truiden en cle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méth-
de oude muurschilderingen in de kerk’. In odes d’investigation. Edited by Roger van
Kunst en Oudheden in Limburg 4. Sint Truiden, Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq,
1974. 303-16. Leuven, 1999.
De Góis, Damião. Crónica do felicissimo rei D. Delaissé, L. M. J., ed. Le Siècle d’or de la minia-
Manuel. 4 vols. Lisbon, 1566. Reprint, Coïm- ture flamande: Le mécénat de Philippe le Bon.
bra, 1955. Exh. cat. Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam, and Bibiliothèque Doria, Giorgio.‘Conoscenza del mercato e sis-
Nationale, Paris. Brussels, 1959. tema informativo: il know-how dei mercan-
ti finanzieri genovesi nei secoli XVI e XVII’.
Delmarcel, Guy. ‘De Passietapijten van Mar- In La repubblica internazionale del denaro tra XV
gareta van Oostenrijk (ca. 1518-1524): e XVII secolo. Edited by Aldo De Maddalena
nieuwe gegevens en documenten’. In Revue and Hermann Kellenbenz, 57-121. Bologna,
Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art 61 1986.
(1992), 127-60.
_____.‘Un doge banchiere e la costruzione di
Devisscher, H. ed. De uitvinding van het land- un palazzo’. In Palazzo Di Negro in Banchi.
schap: van Patinir tot Rubens 1520-1650. Exh. Edited by Giorgio Doria, Ezia Gavazza, and
cat., Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kun- Giovanni Pellegrino, 7-22. Genoa, 1991.
sten,Antwerp.Antwerp, 2004.
Drost, Willem. Das Jüngste Gericht des Hans
Di Fabio, Clario.‘Dai Van Deynen ai De Wael: Memling in der Marienkirche zu Danzig.Vien-
i fiamminghi a Genova nella prima metà del na, 1941.
Seicento’. In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, sec-
oli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Dudok van Heel, S. A. C.‘De blauwe keizers-
Clario Di Fabio, 203-28. Genoa, 1997. [Di kroon op het wapen van Amsterdam’. In
Fabio 1997a] Amstelodamum 80 (1993), 1-21.
_____.‘Due generazioni di pittori fiamminghi Dürer, Albrecht. Dürer’s Record of Journeys to
a Genova (1602-1657) e la bottega di Cor- Venice and the Low Countries.Translated and
nelis de Wael’. In Van Dyck: Grande pittura e edited by Roger Fry. New York, 1995.
collezionismo a Genova. Edited by Susan
Barnes, Piero Boccardo et al., 82-104. Exh. Dumoulin, Jean, and Jacques Pycke.‘Comptes
cat., Palazzo Ducale, Genoa. Milan, 1997. [Di de la paroissse sainte Marguerite de Tournai
Fabio 1997b] au quinzième siècle: documents inédits relat-
ifs à Roger de la Pasture, Robert Campin,
_____.‘Gerard David e il polittico di San Gero- et d’autres artisans tournaisiens’. In Les grands
lamo della Cervara’. In Pittura fiamminga in siècles de Tournai (12e-15e siècles). Edited by
Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero Boc- Albert Châtelet, Jean Dumoulin, Jean-Claude
cardo and Clario Di Fabio, 59-82. Genoa, Ghislain et al., 279-320. Tournai and Lou-
1997. [Di Fabio 1997c] vain-la-Neuve, 1993.
_____.‘Una protagonista della scena culturale Dunbar, Burton. ‘The Landscape Paintings of
Genovse tra 1950 e 1970: Caterina Marce- Cornelis Massys’. In Bulletin des Musées Roy-
naro fra casa e musei’. In Genova e il collezion- aux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 13-14 (1-3)
ismo del Novecento: studi nel centenario di Angelo (1974-1980), 97-124.
Costa. Edited by Anna Orlando, 92-106.
Turin, 2000. _____.‘The Question of Cornelis Massys’ land-
scape collaboration with Quinten and Jan
Dijkstra, Jeltje. Origineel en kopie: een onderzoek Massys’. In Jaarboek van het Museum voor Schone
naar de navolging van de Meester van Flémalle en Kunsten Antwerpen (1979), 125-41.
Rogier van der Weyden. Ph.D. dissertation. Uni-
versity of Amsterdam, 1990. _____, with contributions by Molly Faries,
Anne Lowenthal, Peter Klein, and Roger
Dik, Joris, Arie Wallert, and Yvonne Szafran. Ward. The Collections of the Nelson-Atkins
‘The Technical Examination of Joachim Museum of Art: German and Netherlandish
Beuckelaer’s The Miraculous Draught of Fish- Paintings 1450-1600. Kansas City and Seat-
es’. In Preprints of the Eleventh Triennial Meet- tle, 2005.
ing Edinburgh, Scotland, ICOM Committee for
Conservation. Edited by Janet Bridgland, 348- Dunkerton, J. ‘Observations on the handling
54. Edinburgh, 1996. properties of binding media identified in
European painting from the fifteenth to the
Dirk Bouts en zijn tijd. Realization and presen- seventeenth centuries’. In Bulletin du Institut
tation by J. Crab. Exh. cat., Sint Pieterskerk, Royal du Patrimoine Artistique 27 (2000), 287-
Leuven. Leuven, 1975. 92.
Doehaerd, Renée. Études anversoises: documents Egorova, Xenia.‘A Painting by Cornelis Massys
sur le commerce international à Anvers, 1488- in Moscow’. In Jaarboek van het Museum voor
1514. 3 vols. Paris, 1962-63. Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1988), 179-91.
228 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ehmke, Ruth.‘Ein Tafelbild der Geburt Christi Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 144-57. Lou-
in der Ursulakirche zu Köln’. In Jahrbuch der vain-la-Neuve, 1983.
Rheinischen Denkmalpflege 27 (1967), 223-51. _____.‘The First Examples of Titles in Under-
Eikema Hommes, Margriet. Discoloration in drawing’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la pein-
Renaissance and Baroque Oil Paintings. Ph.D. ture. Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du
dissertation. University of Amsterdam, 2002. dessin sous-jacent. Edited by Roger van
Eisler, Colin. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: Ear- Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq,
ly Netherlandish Painting. London, 1989. 145-46. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989. [Faries
1989a]
Emmens, Jan Ameling.‘ ‘Eins Aber ist Nötig’ -
Zu Inhalt und Bedeutung von Markt- und _____. ‘The Underdrawing of Jan Provoost’s
Küchenstücken des 16. Jahrhunderts’. In Last Judgment and Related Paintings’. In Le
Album Amicorum J. G. van Gelder. Edited by dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Colloque VII.
J. Bruyn et al., 93-110.The Hague, 1973. Géographie et chronologie du dessin sous-jacent.
Edited by Roger van Schoute and Hélène
Ertz, K.,A.Wied, K. Schütz et al. Die Flämische Verougstraete-Marcq, 137-44. Louvain-la-
Landschaft 1520-1700. Exh. cat.,Villa Hügel, Neuve, 1989. [Faries, 1989b]
Kulturstiftung Ruhr Essen, and Kunsthis-
torisches Museum,Vienna. Lingen, 2003. _____. Studying Underdrawings: Notes for the
Cologne Workshop. Unpublished Reader.
Esch,Anke.‘La production de livres de Jacque- Bloomington, IN 1991.
mart Pilavine à Mons: Nouvelles perspec-
tives’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in _____.‘Master and Pupil: a North-Netherland-
Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edit- ish example’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la
ed by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 641-68. Leu- peinture. Colloque IX. Dessin sous-jacent et pra-
ven, 2002. tiques d’atelier. Edited by Roger van Schoute
and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, 101-11.
Ewing, Dan C. ‘Marketing Art in Antwerp, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993.
1460-1560: Our Lady’s pand’. In Art Bulletin _____.‘Jan van Scorel’s Jerusalem Landscapes’.
72 (1990), 558-84. In In Detail: Studies of Northern Renaissance Art
Fabri, Ria. De 17de-eeuwse Antwerpse Kunstkast: in Honor of Walter S. Gibson. Edited by Lau-
Typologische en Historische Aspecten. Verhan- rinda S. Dixon, 113-34. Turnhout, 1998.
delingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Weten- [Faries 1998a]
schappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, _____.‘Die Werkstatt Jan van Scorels in Haar-
Klasse der Schone Kunsten 53(53). Brussels, lem’. In Künstlerwerkstätten der Renaissance.
1991. Edited by Roberto Cassanelli, 297-309.
_____. De 17de-eeuwse Antwerpse Kunstkast: Milan, 1998. [Faries 1998b]
Kunsthistorische Aspecten.Verhandelingen van de _____. ‘Reshaping the Field: The Contribu-
Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Let- tion of Technical Studies’. In Early Nether-
teren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der landish Painting at the Crossroads. Edited by
Schone Kunsten 55(57). Brussels, 1993. Maryan W. Ainworth, 70-105. New York,
Faider, Paul, and Pierre van sint Jan. Catalogue 2001.
des manuscrits conservés à Tournai: Bibliothèques _____.‘Technical Studies of Early Netherland-
de la ville et du Séminaire. Gembloux, 1950. ish Painting:A Critical Overview of Recent
Falkenburg, R. L. Joachim Patinir: the landscape Developments’. In Recent Developments in the
as an image of the pilgrimage of life.Amsterdam, Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish
1998. Painting: Methodology, Limitations, and Perspec-
Faries, Molly.‘Underdrawings in the Workshop tives. Edited by Molly Faries and Ron Spronk,
Production of Jan van Scorel: A Study with 1-37.Turnhout and Cambridge, MA, 2003.
Infrared Reflectography’. In Nederlands Kunst- Faries, Molly and Martha Wolff.‘Landscape in
historisch Jaarboek 26 (1975), 89-228. the early paintings of Jan van Scorel’. In
_____. ‘Some remarks on the inter-relation- Burlington Magazine 138 (1996), 733-94.
ships of underdrawings, drawings, and prints’. Faries, Molly, and J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer.
In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Col- ‘Covering-Over or Covering-Up: Some
loque V. Dessin sous-jacent et autres techniques Instances of Re-Use of Panels in Paintings
graphiques. Edited by Roger van Schoute and after Hieronymus Bosch’. In Le dessin sous-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229
jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque _____.‘Over de Calvarieberg:Albrecht Dürer
XI. Perspectives. Edited by Roger van Schoute in Leiden, omstreeks 1520’. In Bulletin van
and Hélène Verougstraete with Anne Dubois, het Rijksmuseum 44 (1996), 335-59.
7-17. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997. Filedt Kok, J. P., ed. Netherlandish Art in the
Faries, Molly and Liesbeth Helmus. The Madon- Rijksmuseum. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum,Ams-
nas of Jan van Scorel (1495-1562). Exh. cat., terdam. Zwolle, 2000.
Centraal Museum, Utrecht. Utrecht, 2000. Filedt Kok, J. P. et al., eds. Kunst voor de Beelden-
Faries, Molly and Ron Spronk, eds. Recent storm. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
Developments in the Technical Examination of The Hague, 1986.
Early Netherlandish Panel Painting: Methodolo- Firmenich-Richartz, Eduard. ‘Der Meister des
gy, Limitations, and Perspectives. Turnhout and Todes Mariae:sein Name und seine Herkunft’.
Cambridge, MA, 2003. In Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 5 (1894), 187-
Farmer, John David. Bernard van Orley of Brus- 94.
sels. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation. Princeton Uni- Floerke, Hanns. Studien zur niederländischen
versity, 1981. Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte, die Formen des
_____.‘How One Workshop Worked: Bernard Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in die
van Orley’s Atelier in Early Sixteenth-Cen- Niederlanden vom 15.-18. Jahrhundert. Munich,
tury Brussels’. In A Tribute to Robert A. Koch: 1905.
Studies in the Northern Renaissance. Edited by Fontana Amoretti, Maria.‘Fonti per una storia
Barbara T. Ross and John O. Hand, 21-42. della fortuna critica e collezionistica dei prim-
Princeton, 1994. itivi fiamminghi in Liguria’. In Studi di sto-
Farquhar, James Douglas. Creation and Imitation: ria delle arti 7 (1991-94), 11-29.
The Work of a Fifteenth-Century Manuscript Illu- _____. ‘La fortuna critica dei primitivi
minator. Fort Lauderdale, 1976. fiamminghi a Genova’. In Pittura fiamminga
_____. ‘The Manuscript as a Book’. In Pen to in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII. Edited by Piero
Press: Illustrated Manuscripts and Printed Books Boccardo and Clario Di Fabio, 299-313.
in the First Century of Printing. Edited by San- Genoa, 1997.
dra Hindman and James Douglas Farquhar, Fontana Amoretti, Maria, and Michiel Plomp,
11-99. College Park, MD, 1977. eds. Repertory of Dutch and Flemish Paintings
Fiamminghi a Roma 1508/1608. Under the in Italian Public Collections.Vol. 1. Florence,
direction of Nicole Dacos and B.W. Meijer. 1998.
Exh. cat., Palais des Beaux Arts, Brussels, and Fransen, H., ed. Michaelis Collection, the Old Town
Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Rome. Brussels and House, Cape Town. Catalogue of the Collection
Rome, 1995. of Paintings and Drawings. Zwolle, 1997.
Filedt Kok, Jan Piet.‘Underdrawing and other Franz, Heinrich Gerhard. Niederländische Land-
technical aspects in the paintings of Lucas van schaftsmalerei im Zeitalter des Manierismus. 2
Leyden’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek vols. Graz, 1969.
29 (1978), 1-184.
_____. ‘Landschaftsbilder als kollektive Werk-
_____. ‘The development of graphic style in stattschopfungen in der flamischen Malerei
15th century Northern printmaking and the des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts’. In Kunsthis-
graphic style of the master of the Amsterdam torisches Jahrbuch Graz 18 (1982), 165-81.
cabinet in his drypoints, drawings, miniatures,
glass-paintings and the underdrawing of his Friedländer, Max J. Early Netherlandish Painting.
paintings’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la pein- 14 vols. Leiden and Brussels, 1967-76. Orig-
ture. Colloque V. Dessin sou-jacent et autres tech- inal edition Die altniederländische Malerei. 14
niques graphiques. Edited by Roger van vols. Berlin and Leiden, 1924-37.
Schoute and Hélène Verougstraete-Marcq, _____. ‘Pieter Coecke van Alost’. In Jahrbuch
163-70. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1983. der Königlich Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen 38
_____. ‘Een Biblia pauperum met houtsneden (1917) 73-94.
van Jacob Cornelisz. en Lucas van Leyden Funck-Hellet, Charles. Composition et nombre
gereconstrueerd’. In Bulletin van het Rijksmu- d’or dans les oeuvres peintes de la Renaissance:
seum 36 (1988), 83-116. proportion-symétrie-symbolisme. Paris, 1950.
230 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola: interventi History of the Medieval and Modern Low Coun-
di restauro, 2. Exh. cat., Galleria di Palazzo tries. Louvain and Apeldoorn, 1995.
Spinola, Genoa. Genoa, 1980. Grendi, Edoardo. La repubblica aristocratica dei
Genaille, Robert. ‘Au temps d’Erasme et de genovesi. Bologna, 1987.
Luther. L’oeuvre de Jan van Amstel, Mono- _____. I Balbi: una famiglia genovese tra Spagna e
grammiste de Brunswick’. In Bulletin Konin- Impero.Turin, 1997.
klijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België
23/29 (1974-80), 65-96. Grosso, Orlando.‘La Genova del Cinquecento
in un dipinto di Giovanni Massys’. In Geno-
_____.‘Le paysage dans la peinture des anciens va 17 (1937), 17-21.
Pays-Bas de Patinier à Bruegel’. In Jaarboek
van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunst- Guicciardini, Lodovico. Description de touts les
en Antwerpen (1987), 143-83. Pays-Bas. Amsterdam, 1625.
Gerits,T.J. and O. Praem.‘Aantekeningen over Hahn, S. and P. B. Steiner. Gottesbild-bilder des
de Leuvense schilder Anthonis van Hulden- Unsichtbaren. Exh. cat., Diözesanmuseum für
berge en zijn werken voor de Abdij van Aver- Christliche Kunst des Erzbistums, München
bode in de XVIe eeuw’. In Mededelingen van und Freising. Regensburg, 1997.
de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige kring van Leu- Hand, John O. Joos van Cleve: The Early and
ven en omgeving 7 (1967), 209-15. Mature Paintings. Ph.D. dissertation. Prince-
Gibson, W. S. ‘Mirror of the Earth’:The World ton University, 1978.
Landscape in Sixteenth-Century Flemish Paint- _____. Joos van Cleve:The Complete Paintings.
ing. Princeton, 1989. New Haven, CT, and London, 2004.
Gilissen, Léon. Prolégomènes à la codicologie: Haverkamp-Begemann, Egbert. ‘The Spanish
recherches sur la construction des cahiers et de la Views of AntonVan Den Wyngaerde’. In Mas-
mise en page des manuscrits médiévaux. Ghent, ter Drawings 7 (1969), 375-99.
1977.
_____. The Robert Lehman Collection: Fifteenth-
Giltaij, Jeroen.‘Perspectiven: Saenredam en de to Eighteenth-Century European Drawings.
architectuurschilders van de 17e eeuw’. In Princeton, 1999.
Perspectiven: Saenredam en de architectuurschilders
van de 17e eeuw. Organized by Jeroen Giltaij Haverkorn van Rijsewijk, P. ‘Nederlandsche
and Guido Jansen, 8-18. Exh. cat., Museum kunstenaars te Rome’. In F. D. O. Obreen,
Boijmans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam. Rot- Archief Nederlandsche kunstgeschiedenis.Vol. 3,
terdam, 1991. 207-17. Rotterdam, 1880/1.
Gimenez-Frechina, J. Triptico de la Pasion del Heers, Jacques. Gênes au XV siècle. Paris, 1961.
Museo de Bellas Artes de Valencia: obra recuper- Held, Julius. Dürers Wirkung auf die Nieder-
ada del trimestre agosto 1998. Valencia, 1998. ländische Kunst seiner Zeit.The Hague, 1931.
Gnoli, Umberto.‘Domenico Alfani’. In Enciclo- _____. ‘Notizen zu einem niederländischen
pedia Italiana. Edited by Giovanni Gentile and Skizzenbuch in Berlin’. In Oud Holland 50
Calogero Tumminelli,vol.2,383.Rome,1929. (1933), 273-88.
Góis, Damião de. Crónica do felicissimo rei D. Helmus, Liesbeth M.‘Drie contracten met zil-
Manuel. 4 vols. Lisbon, 1566. Reprint, Coïm- versmeden’. In Buscoducis: Kunst uit de Bour-
bra, 1955. gondische tijd te ‘s-Hertogenbosch. De cultuur van
Goris, J.A. Études sur les colonies marchandes mérid- late middeleeuwen en renaissance. Bijdragen. Edit-
ionales à Anvers de 1488 à 1567. Louvain, ed by A. M. Koldeweij, 473-81, 609-11.
1925. Maarssen and The Hague, 1990.
Gorse, George L. The Villa Doria in Fassolo, Hendrikman, Lars.‘Joachim Patinir: heilige of
Genoa. Ph.D. dissertation. Brown University, handelaar?’ In Akt 67 (1995), 4-13.
1980. _____.‘Bernard van Orley’s Washington Dip-
Goudriaan, Koen, K. Mandemakers, J. Reitsma tych - Art Historical and Technical Obser-
and P. Stabel, eds. Prosopography and Comput- vations’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie
er: Contributions of Mediaevalists and Modernists dans la peinture. Colloque XII. La Peinture dans
on the Use of Computer in Historical Research: les Pays-Bas au 16e Siècle. Practiques d’atelier.
Studies in Urban Social, Economic and Political Infrarouges et autres methods d’investigation. Edit-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
ed by H.Verougstraete and R.Van Schoute, _____. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings
63-72. Leuven, 1999. and Woodcuts, 1450-1700.Vol. 55. Rotterdam,
2000.
Heppner,A.‘Ingebrande Merkteekens (‘Brand-
merken’) en hun waarde voor de kennis van Honig, Elizabeth A. Painting and the Market in
schilderijen’. In Oud-Holland 57 (1940), 172- Early Modern Antwerp. New Haven, CT, 1998.
80. Hoogewerff, Godefridus J. ‘Documenten be-
Heydenreich, Gunnar. ‘Artistic Exchange and treffende Nederlandsche schilders te Rome
Experimental Variation: Studies in the Work- omstreeks het midden der XVIe eeuw’. In
shop Practice of Lucas Cranach the Elder’. Mededeelingen van het Nederlandsch Instituut
In Painting Techniques, History, Materials, and te Rome 2 (2nd series).The Hague, 1932.
Studio Practice. Contributions to the Dublin _____. De Noord-Nederlandsche Schilderkunst. 5
I.I.C. Congress, September 7-11, 1998. Edit- vols.The Hague, 1936-47.
ed by Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, 106-11. _____.‘Pittori fiamminghi in Liguria nel sec-
London, 1998. olo XVI’. In Commentari 12 (1961), 176-94.
Hillar, Imgard, Horst Vey, and Tilman Falk. Kat- Hoogewerff, Godefridus J., ed. Vlaamsche Kunst
alog der deutschen und niederländischen Gemälde en Italiaansche Renaissance.Antwerp and Ams-
bis 1550,Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Cologne, terdam, 1934.
1969.
Hütt,Wolfgang. Albrecht Dürer 1471 bis 1528:
Hindman, Sandra and James Douglas Farquhar, das gesamte graphische Werk. Herrsching and
eds. Pen to Press: Illustrated Manuscripts and Munich, 1971.
Printed Books in the First Century of Printing.
College Park, MD, 1977. Huvenne, Paul. ‘Pieter Pourbus en de
nagedachtenis aan Margareta van Oosten-
Hinz, A. Gedrängte Beschreibung der Ober-Pfarr- rijk’. In Feestbundel bij de opening van het Kol-
kirche zu St. Marien in Danzig. Danzig, 1855. veniershof en het Rubenianum, 107-16.Antwerp,
Hirsch,Theodor. Ober-Pfarrkirche von St. Marien 1981.
in Danzig in ihrer Denkmälern und in ihnen _____. Pieter Pourbus Meester-Schilder 1524-
Beziehungen zum kirchlichen Leben Danzigs 1584. Exh. cat., Memlingmuseum, Bruges.
überhaupt.Vol. 1. Gdansk, 1843. Bruges, 1984.
Hof, J. ‘De abdij van Egmond en de schilder- Huys Janssen, P. Panorama op de wereld: het land-
en beeldhouwkunst in het begin der XVIde schap van Bosch tot Rubens. Exh. cat., Noord
eeuw’. In Oud Holland 73 (1958), 117-27. Brabants museum, ’s-Hertogenbosch. ’s-Her-
togenbosch and Zwolle, 2001.
Hoffmann, Godehard. ‘Der Annenaltar des
Adrian van Overbeck in der Propsteikirche Inglis, Erik. Commentary on The Hours of Mary
zu Kempen.’ In Spätgotik am Niederrhein: of Burgundy: Codex Vindobonensis 1857,Vien-
rheinische und flämische Flügelaltäre im Licht na, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. London,
neuer Forschung, 117-285. Cologne, 1998. 1995.
[Hoffman 1998a] Israëls, Machtelt.‘Von Job en een muzicant naar
De Terugkeer van de Verloren Zoon van Cor-
_____. ‘Das Antwerpener Retabel in St. Petri nelis Matsys: een transformatie natuur-
in Dortmund’. In Westfalen 76 (1998), 26-51. wetenschappelijk onderzocht’. In Bulletin van
[Hoffmann 1998b] het Rijksmuseum 43 (1995), 113-34.
_____.‘Infrarotuntersuchung von Tafelmalerei Ivins,W.‘Notes on Three Dürer Woodblocks’.
– Aufnahmesysteme vor Originalwerken im In Metropolitan Museum Studies 2 (1929-30),
Vergleich’. In Denkmalpflege im Rheinland: 102-11.
Rheinisches Amt für Denkmalpflege 15 (1998),
151-57. [Hoffmann 1998c] Jacobowitz, E. and S. Stepanek. The Prints of
Lucas van Leyden and his Contemporaries. Exh.
Hollstein, F.W.H. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, cat., National Gallery of Art,Washington, DC.
Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700.Vol. 12. New Haven, 1983.
Amsterdam, 1955.
Jacobs, Lynn F.,‘The Marketing and Standard-
_____. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings ization of South Netherlandish Carved Altar-
and Woodcuts, ca. 1450-1700.Vol. 5. Amster- pieces: Limits on the Role of the Patron’. In
dam, 1968. Art Bulletin 71 (1989), 208-29.
232 BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____. Early Netherlandish Carved Altarpieces, lowers’. In Hieronymus Bosch: New Insights Into
1380-1550: Medieval Tastes and Mass Market- his Life and Work. Edited by J. Koldeweij,
ing. New York, 1998. B.Vermet, and B.Kooij, 121-31. Ghent, 2001.
Jansen, Linda. ‘The Last Supper as a Starting _____. ‘Dendrochronological Analyses of
Point for the Study of the Workshop Prac- Netherlandish Paintings’. In Recent Develop-
tices in the Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst’. ments in the Technical Examination of Early
In Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie dans la Netherlandish Panel Painting: Methodology, Lim-
peinture. Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son itations, and Perspectives. Edited by Molly Faries
entourage et autres études. Edited by Hélène and Ron Spronk, 65-81.Turnhout and Cam-
Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute, 165- bridge, MA, 2003. [Klein 2003a]
74. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA, 2003.
_____.‘Dendrochronological Analyses of Pan-
Jenni, Ulrike, and Ursula Winter. Das Skizzen- el Paintings of Joos van Cleve and his Work-
buch des Jaques Daliwe: Kommentar zur Fak- shop’. In Indagini tecniche sulle opere genovesi di
simileausgabe des Liber Picturatus der Deutschen Joos van Cleve. Edited by Farida Simonetti et
Staatsbibliothek. Berlin, 1987. al., 39-45. Florence, 2003. [Klein 2003b]
Joannides, Paul. Michel-Ange Élèves et Copistes: Kloek,Wouter.‘De tekeningen van Pieter Aert-
Inventaire Général des Dessins Italiens.Vol. 6. sen en Joachim Beuckelaer’. In Nederlands
Paris, 2003. Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 40 (1989), 129-66.
Judson, J. Richard.‘Jan Gossaert and the New Knappe, Karl-Adolf. Dürer:The Complete Engrav-
Aesthetic’. In The Age of Bruegel: Netherland- ings, Etchings, and Woodcuts. New York, 1965.
ish Drawings in the Sixteenth Century. Edited
by J. O. Hand, J. R. Judson,W.W. Robinson, Koch, Robert A.‘A Rediscovered Painting:The
and Martha Wolff, 13-24. Exh.cat., Nation- Road to Calvary by Herri met de Bles’. In Her-
al Gallery of Art,Washington, DC.Washing- ri met de Bles: Studies and Explorations of the
ton, DC, 1986. World Landscape Tradition. Edited by Norman
E. Muller, Betsy J. Rosasco, and James H.
Justi, Carl.‘Altflandrische Bilder in Spanien und Marrow, 9-21. Princeton, NJ, and Turnhout,
Portugal: Joachim Patinier und Quentin Met- 1998.
sys’. In Zeitschrift für Bildenden Kunst 21(1886),
93-95. Koerner, Joseph.‘Albrecht Dürer:A Sixteenth-
Kaemmerer, L. ‘Ein bezeichnetes Werk des Century Influenza’. In Albrecht Dürer and his
Meister vom Tode der Maria’. In Jahrbuch Legacy:The Graphic Work of a Renaissance Artist.
der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen Edited by Giulia Bartrum, 18-38. London,
11(1890), 150-60. 2002.
Kervyn de Meerendre, M. ‘L’évolution de la Koldeweij, A. M. ‘Hieronymus Bosch’. In Van
corporation des peintres, vitriers et batteurs de Hoed en de Hand, Betekenis en Functie van
d’or de Bruxelles au XVIIe siècle’. In Revue de Middeleeuwse Kunst, 29-35. Utrecht, 1995.
des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain 6 Komanecky, Michael. Copper as Canvas:Two
(1973), 147-55. Centuries of Masterpiece Paintings on Copper
Kint,A. The Community of Commerce: Social Rela- 1575-1775. Exh. cat., Phoenix Art Museum,
tions in Sixteenth Century Antwerp. Ph.D. dis- Phoenix, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art,
sertation. Columbia University, 1996. Kansas City, and the Mauritshuis,The Hague.
The Hague, Phoenix, and Oxford, 1999.
Kirby, Jo. ‘The price of quality: factors influ-
encing the cost of pigments during the Korteweg,Anne S., ed. Schatten van de Koniklijke
Renaissance’. In Revealing Renaissance Art. Biblotheek. Exh. cat., Rijksmuseum Meer-
Edited by Gabriele Nehers and Rupert Shep- manno-Westreenianum and Koninklijke Bib-
herd, 19-42. Hampshire (Hants), UK, 2000. liotheek,The Hague.The Hague, 1980.
Kirby, Jo,Ashok Roy, and Marika Spring.‘The Kränz, Regine. ‘Zur Restaurierung der Flora
Materials of Underdrawing’. In Art in the von Jan Massys’. In Verführungskunst, im Blick-
Making: Underdrawings in Renaissance Painting. feld: Jan Massys ‘Flora’. Edited by Karsten
Edited by David Bomford, 26-37. Exh. cat., Müller, 45-49. Exh. cat., Kunsthalle, Ham-
National Gallery, London. London, 2002-03. burg. Hamburg, 2003.
Klein, Peter.‘Dendrochronological Analysis of Krekel, Christoph and Andreas Burmester.‘Das
Works by Hieronymus Bosch and his Fol- Münchner Taxenprojekt’. In Restauro,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
Zeitschrift für Kunsttechniken, Restaurierung und Levati, Luigi. Dogi biennali di Genova dal 1528
Museums Fragen 6 (2001), 450-55. al 1699. Genoa, 1930.
Kren,Thomas and Scot McKendrick, eds. Illu- Lie, Henry. ‘Digital Imaging for the Study of
minating the Renaissance:The Triumph of Flem- Paintings: Experiences at the Straus Center
ish Manuscript Illumination in Europe. Exh. cat., for Conservation’. In Recent Developments in
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, and Roy- the Technical Examination of Early Netherland-
al Academy of Arts, London. Los Angeles and ish Panel Painting: Methodology, Limitations, and
London, 2003. Perspectives. Edited by Molly Faries and Ron
Spronk, 117-34.Turnhout and Cambridge,
Kuhlemann, Ute.‘The Celebration of Dürer in MA, 2003.
Germany During Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries’. In Albrecht Dürer and his Legacy: Limberger, Michael. ‘ ‘No Town in the World
The Graphic Work of a Renaissance Artist. Edit- Provides More Advantages’: Economies of
ed by Guilia Bartrum, 39-60. London, 2002. Agglomeration and the Golden Age of
Antwerp’. In Urban Achievement in Early Mod-
Kurth,Willi. The Complete Woodcuts of Albrecht ern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp,Amsterdam,
Dürer. New York, 1963. and London. Edited by Patrick O’Brien et al.,
Lagomarsino, Laura. ‘Un gruppo quattrocen- 39-62. Cambridge, UK, 2001.
tesco nordico dellaVergine in Passione a Gen- Lippmann, Friedrich. Le Chevalier Deliberé by
ova’. In Studi di storia delle arti 10 (2000-03), Olivier de la Marche:The Illustrations of the Edi-
29-41. tion of Schiedam Reproduced. Preface. London,
Lammers, Joseph. Buchmalerei aus Handschriften 1898.
vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert: Bildhefte des L’officina della maniera. Exh. cat., Galleria degli
Westfälischen Landesmuseums für Kunst und Kul- Uffizi, Florence.Venice, 1996.
turgeschichte Münster 18. Münster, 1982. Longhi, Roberto. ‘I Fiamminghi e l’Italia’. In
Lavigne, E. Kroniek van de Abdij van St.Truiden. Paragone 3(25) (1952), 47-50.
Vol. 2 (1138-1558). Leeuwarden and Maas- Lowden, John. The Making of the Bibles Moral-
tricht, 1988. isées. 2 vols. University Park, PA, 2000.
Leeflang, H., and G. Luijten, eds. Hendrick Golt- Lugard, G. J. ‘Een schilderscontract met den
zius: tekeningen, prenten en schilderijen. Exh. Antwerpschen meester Crispiaen van den
cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Metropoli- Broecke anno 1570’. In Oud Holland 61
tan Museum of Art, New York, and Toledo (1946), 106-10.
Museum of Art,Toledo, Ohio. Zwolle, 2003.
Lunsingh Scheurleer,Theodoor Herman.‘Pieter
Leeflang, Micha. ‘Self-portraits by Joos van Aertsen en Joachim Beuckelaer en hun
Cleve: New Insights’. In Le dessin sous-jacent ontleeningen aan Serlio’s architectuur-
et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIV. prenten’. In Oud-Holland 62 (1947), 123-34.
Jérome Bosch et son entourage et autre études.
Edited by Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Magnani, Lauro. Villa Rosazza (Lo Scoglietto).
Van Schoute, 175-82. Leuven, Paris, and Dud- Guide di Genova, no. 69. Genoa, 1978.
ley, MA, 2003. [Leeflang 2003a] _____. Il tempio di Venere: giardino e villa nella cul-
tura genovese. Genoa, 1987.
____.‘The San Donato-Altarpiece by Joos van
Cleve and His Workshop’. In Indagini tecniche Marcenaro, Caterina.‘Uno sconosciuto ritrat-
sulle opere genovesi di Joos Van Cleve. Edited by to di Andrea Doria nel Palazzo Bianco di
Farida Simonetti and Gianluca Zanelli, 25- Genova’. In Emporium 55 (1949), 243-50.
38. Firenze, 2003. [Leeflang 2003b] Marijnissen, Roger H., with the collaboration
Legaré, Anne-Marie. ‘Les faits de Jacques de of Peter Ruyffelaere. J. Bosch, tout l’œuvre peint
Lalaing enluminés par le Maître d’Antoine et dessiné. Antwerp, 1987.
Rolin’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Marlier, George. La Renaissance flamande: Pierre
Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edit- Coeck d’Alost. Brussels, 1966.
ed by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., 773-93. Leu- Maroto, P. Silva. ‘Le dessin sous-jacent de la
ven, 2002. Sainte Famille de Bernard van Orley et de
_____. ‘Loyset Liédet: un nouveau manuscrit la Vierge de Louvain’. In Le dessin sous-jacent
enluminé’. In Revue de l’art 126 (1999), 36- dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La Peinture
49. et la laboratoire: Procédés, Méthodologie,Appli-
234 BIBLIOGRAPHY
cations. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and Moes, E.W. ‘Cornelis Claesz. Scheveninck en
Hélène Verougstraete, 109-19. Leuven, zijn zoon David Cornelisz’. In Oud Holland
2001. 14 (1896), 61-64.
Marrow, James. Passion Iconography in Northern Moes, E.W. and C. P. Burger. Amsterdamse boek-
European Art of the Late Middle Ages and Ear- drukkers en uitgevers in de zestiende eeuw.Ams-
ly Renaissance:A Study of the Transformation of terdam, 1900. Reprint, Utrecht, 1988.
Sacred Metaphor into Descriptive Narrative. Kor-
trijk, 1979. Monks, Peter Rolfe. The Brussels ‘Horloge de
Sapience’: Iconography and Text of Brussels, Bib-
Martens, Didier.‘De achterzijden van de luiken liothèque Royale Ms IV.111. Leiden, 1990.
en de herkomst van het retabel’. In Uitgelicht
5. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, de Intocht in Jeruza- Montias, John Michael. Artists and Artisans in
lem, retabelfragmenten in diaspora, tijdelijk weer Delft:A Socio-Economic Study of the Seventeenth
bijeen. Edited by H. van Wegen, 21-24. Maas- Century. Princeton, 1982.
tricht, 2000. _____.‘Cost and Value in Seventeenth-Centu-
Martens, Maximiliaan P. J. Artistic Patronage in ry Dutch Art’. In Art History 10 (1987), 455-
Bruges Institutions, ca. 1440-1482. Ph.D. dis- 66.
sertation. University of California, Santa Bar- _____. ‘Socio-Economic Aspects of Nether-
bara, 1992. landish Art from the Fifteenth to the Seven-
_____.‘The Dialogue Between Artistic Tradi- teenth Century:A Survey’. In Art Bulletin 72
tion and Renewal’. In Bruges and the Renais- (1990), 358-73.
sance: Memling to Pourbus. Edited by M. P. _____. ‘Le marché de l’art aux Pays-Bas XVe
J.Martens, 43-63. Exh. cat., Memlingmuse- et XVI siècles’. In Annales Économies Sociétés
um, Bruges. Ghent, 1998. Civilisations 6 (1993), 1541-63.
_____.‘The Master of Guillebert de Mets: an Moxey, Keith P. F. ‘The ‘Humanist’ Market
illuminator between Paris and Ghent?’ In ‘Als Scenes of Joachim Beuckelaer: Moralizing
Ich Can’: Liber Amicorum in Memory of Profes- Exempla or ‘Slices of Life’ ‘. In Jaarboek van
sor Dr. Maurits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Car- het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten
don et al., 2 vols, 921-39. Leuven, 2002. Antwerpen (1976), 109-87.
Martens, Maximiliaan P. J., ed. Bruges and the _____. Pieter Aertsen, Joachim Beuckelaer, and the
Renaissance: Memling to Pourbus. 2 vols. Exh. Rise of Secular Painting in the Context of the
cat., Memlingmuseum, Bruges. Ghent, 1998. Reformation. New York, 1977.
Masai, François, Martin Wittek et al., eds. Manu-
scrits datés conservés en Belgique, 6 vols. Brus- Müller, Christian, ed. From Schongauer to Hol-
sels/Ghent, 1967-87. bein: Master Drawings from Basel and Berlin.
Exh. cat., National Gallery of Art,Washing-
Meiss, Millard. ‘The First Fully Illustrated ton DC.Washington, DC, 1999.
Decameron’. In Essays in the History of Art
Presented to Rudolf Wittkower. Edited by Mulder, R.‘Infrarood reflectografish onderzoek
Douglas Fraser, Howard Hibbard, and Mil- van het Jacobus- en Antoniusretabel in de
ton J. Lewine, 56-61. London, 1967. [Meiss Propsteikirche te Kempen’. In Album discip-
1967a] ulorum J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer. Edited by
P. van den Brink and L. M. Helmus, 137-45.
_____. French Painting in the Time of the Duke Zwolle, 1997.
of Berry:The Late Fourteenth Century and the
Patronage of the Duke. London and New York, Niedzielska, Maria.‘Obraz Jana Massysa Venus
1967. [Meiss 1967b] z Amorkiem i Jego Komserwacja’. In Zeszyty
Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellolskiego (1992),
_____. French Painting in the Time of the Duke 55-66.
of Berry:The Limbourgs and their Contempo-
raries. New York, 1974. Noach, A.‘Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen en
het Geslacht Boelens’. In Historia 6 (1940),
Miedema, Hessel. ‘Over vakonderwijs aan 227-31.
kunstschilders in de Nederlanden tot de
zeventiende eeuw’. In Leids Kunsthistorisch Noordegraaf, L. Daglonen in Alkmaar 1500-
Jaarboek 5-6 (1986-87), 268-82. 1850.The Hague, 1980.
Miner, Dorothy. Anastaise and her Sisters:Women Noordegraaf, L. and J.T. Schoenmakers. Daglo-
Artists of the Middle Ages. Baltimore, 1974. nen in Holland, 1450-1600.Amsterdam, 1984.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
North, H.‘Waldwarenhandel und- Produktion’. Early Netherlandish Painting 1430-1530. Edit-
In The Interactions of Amsterdam and Antwerp ed by Till Borchert, 94-107. Bruges, 2002.
with the Baltic Region 1400-1800. Edited by _____.‘Genova e le Fiandre: le Arti’. In Prim-
Johanna Maria van Winter, 73-83. Leiden, itivi Fiamminghi in Liguria. Edited by Carla
1983. Cavelli Traverso, 32-40. Genoa, 2003.
Oltrogge, Doris. Die Illustrationszyklen zur ‘His-
toire ancienne jusqu’à César’ 1250-1400. Frank- Parma, Elena, ed. La pittura in Liguria: Il Cinque-
furt am Main, 1987. cento. Genoa, 1999.
Ondertekend: onderzoek naar de ondertekening in Parshall, P. and D. Landau. The Renaissance Print.
de schilderijen van Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsa- New Haven, CT, and London, 1994.
nen. Supervised by M. Leeflang and D. Pauwels, M. H., ed. La Toison d’Or: Cinq siècles
Meuwissen. Exh. cat., Harmoniecomplex, d’Art et d’Histoire. Exh. Cat., Groeningemu-
Groningen, and Grote Kerk, Oostzaan. Oost- seum, Bruges.Tielt, 1962.
zaan, 2003. Périer-d’Ieteren, Catheline. ‘Usage du poncif
Orlando, Anna. ‘Il ruolo di Jan Roos: un dans la peinture flamande des XVe et XVIe
fiammingo nella Genova del primo Seicen- siècles’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture.
to’. In Nuovi Studi 2 (1996), 35-57. Colloques I and II. Edited by Dominique Hol-
Ouy, Gibert. ‘Une maquette de manuscrit à landers-Favart and Roger Van Schoute, 46-
peintures’. In Mélanges d’histoire du livre et 48. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1979.
des bibliothèques offerts à Monsieur Frantz Calot. _____.‘Le marché d’exportation et l’organisa-
Introduced by Julien Caen, 43-51. Paris, tion du travail dans les ateliers brabançons
1960. aux XVe et XVIe siècles.’ In Artistes,Artisans
Pächt, Otto, Ulrike Jenni and Dagmar Thoss. et Production Artistique au Moyen Age. Edited
Flämische Schule I: die illuminierten Handschriften by Barral I.Altet, 629-45. Paris, 1990.
und Inkunablen der Österreichischen National- _____.‘Les volet peints des retables anvoirs: état
bibliothek.Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für de la question’. In Antwerpse retabels 15de-
Schrift- und Buchwesen des Mittelalters 6.Vien- 16de eeuw. Under the direction of Hans
na, 1983. Nieuwdorp, 60-88. Exh. cat., Kathedraal van
Pächt, Otto and Dagmar Thoss. Flämische Schule Antwerpen, Antwerp, and Museum voor
II: die illuminierten Handschriften und Inkun- Religieuze Kunst,Antwerp.Antwerp, 1993.
ablen der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Pesenti, Franco Renzo. La pittura in Liguria:
Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Schrift- artisti del primo Seicento. Genoa, 1986.
und Buchwesen des Mittelalters 7.Vienna, 1990.
_____.‘Ottavio Semino e Nicolosio Granello
Panofsky, Erwin. The Life and Art of Albrecht Dür- nella Villa Centurione-Doria a Pegli’. In
er. Princeton, 1955. Trasparenze 16 (2002), 3-19.
Parma, Elena. ‘Il palazzo del principe Andrea Peters, Heinz. Studien über die Altartypen in der
Doria e Fassolo’. In L’Arte 10 (1970), 12- niederländischen Malerei des 15. Jahrhunderts.
63. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cologne,
_____.‘Rapporti artistici tra Genova e le Fian- 1949.
dre nella prima metà del Cinquecento’. In Petroski, Henry. The Pencil:A History of Design
Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608. Edited by and Circumstance. London, 1990.
Nicole Dacos, 41-62. Atti del Convegno
Internazionale, Bruxelles, February 24-25, Petti Balbi, Giovanna. Mercanti e Nationes nelle
1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento (1997). Fiandre: i Genovesi in Età Bassomedievale. Pisa,
1996.
_____. ‘Genoa-Bruges: The Art Market and
Cultural Exchange in the Fifteenth Centu- _____. ‘I rapporti tra Genova e il mondo
ry’. In Italy and the Low Countries:Artistic Rela- fiammingo’. In Primitivi Fiamminghi in Lig-
tions, the Fifteenth Century. Proceedings of the uria. Edited by Carla Cavelli Traverso, 9-18.
Symposium held at Museum Catharijneconvent, Genoa, 2003.
Utrecht, 14 March 1994. Edited by Victor M. Philippot, P. ‘Le Retable des Poissonniers des
Schmidt et al., 79-96. Florence, 1999. Musées royaux, oeuvre de Pierre Pourbus’.
_____.‘Genoa: Gateway to the South’. In The In Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kun-
Age of Van Eyck:The Mediterranean World and sten 22 (1973), 73-84.
236 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pinchart, Alphonse. ‘Thomas Vincidor de der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde. 2 vols.
Bologne: peintre et architecte du XVIe siè- Antwerp, 1864-76.
cle’. In Bulletin de l’Académie Royale des Sci- Rombouts, Philippe and Théodore Van Lerius,
ences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique eds. De Liggeren en andere historische archieven
21 (1854), 538-43. der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde. Photographic
Pittarello, Liliana and Luca Leoncini, eds. I mis- reprint,Amsterdam, 1961.
teri delle tavole fiamminghe. Exh. cat., Palazzo
Reale, Genoa. Genoa, 1996. Rosier, B. The Bible in Print: Netherlandish Bible
Illustration in the Sixteenth Century. 2 vols. Lei-
Poleggi, Ennio.‘Un documento di cultura abi- den, 1997.
tativa’. In Rubens e Genova. Edited by Giu-
liana Biavati et al., 85-146. Exh. cat., Palazzo Rosso del Brenna, Giovanna.‘Arte della pittura
Ducale, Genoa. Genoa, 1977. nella città di Genova’. In La Berio 16(1)
(1976), 5-29. [Rosso del Brenna 1976a]
Poleggi, Ennio and Paolo Cevini. Genova.
Roma, 1981. _____.‘Arte della pittura nella città di Geno-
va’. In La Berio 16(2) (1976), 5-23. [Rosso
Poortenaar, Jan. De Gulden Snede en Goddelijke del Brenna 1976b]
Verhouding. Naarden, n.d.[1941].
_____.‘Arte della pittura nella città di Geno-
Porcher, Jean. Jean Lebègue: les histoires que l’on va’. In La Berio 17 (1977), 5-25.
peut raisonablement faire sur les livres de Salluste.
Introduction. Paris, 1962. Rouse, Richard H. and Mary A. Manuscripts and
their Makers. Commercial Book Production in
Randall, Lilian M. C. Medieval and Renaissance Medieval Paris, 1200-1500. London, 2000.
Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery,Vol. 2:
France 1420-1540. Baltimore, 1992. Sander, Jochen. Niederländische Gemälde im
Städel, 1400-1550. Mainz am Rhein, 1993.
Ratti, Carlo Giuseppe. Instruzione di quanto può
vedersi di oiù bello in Genova in pittura, scultura Sapori, Giovanna.‘Pittori fiamminghi da Roma
ed architettura. Genoa, 1780. in Umbria’. In Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-
Réau, L. L’iconografie de l’art chrétien, vol. 2: Icono- 1608. Edited by Nicole Dacos, 77-92. Atti
graphie de la Bible, part 2: Nouveau Testament. del Convegno Internazionale, Bruxelles, Feb-
Paris, 1956-57. ruary 24-25, 1995. Bollettino d’Arte, Supple-
mento (1997).
Reinhard, Wolfgang, ed. Augsburger Eliten des
16. Jahrhunderts: Prosopographie wirtschaftlicher Savelli, Rodolfo. ‘Di Negro, Ambrogio’. In
und politischer Führungsgruppen 1500-1620. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Edited by
Berlin, 1996. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, under the
direction of Vincenzo Cappelletti, vol. 40,
Restauri in Liguria. Exh. cat., Palazzo Reale, 123-26. Rome, 1991.
Genoa. Genoa, 1978.
Scailliérez, Cecille.‘Joos van Cleve e Genova’.
Reynaud, Nicole. ‘Barthélémy d’Eyck avant In Pittura fiamminga in Liguria, secoli XIV-XVII.
1450’. In Revue de l’Art 84 (1988), 22-43. Edited by Piero Boccardo and Clario Di
Robinson, W. W. and Martha Wolff. ‘The Fabio, 110-25. Genoa, 1997.
Function of Drawings in the Netherlands _____. ‘Un portrait méconnu de François Ier
in the Sixteenth Century’. In The Age of peint par Jean Clouet: le frontispiece des His-
Bruegel: Netherlandish Drawings in the Six- tories de Diodore de Sicile au musée Condé
teenth Century. Edited by J. Hand, J. R. Jud- de Chantilly’. In Revue du Louvre 4 (1996),
son, W. W. Robinson, and Martha Wolff, 47-52.
25-40. Exh. cat., The Pierpont Morgan
Library, New York, and National Gallery of Scailliérez, Cecille, ed. Joos van Cleve au Louvre.
Art, Washington, DC. Washington, DC, Exh. cat., Musée du Louvre, Paris. Paris, 1991.
1986. Scheller, Robert W. Exempla: Model-Book Draw-
Rolf, Rudi. Pieter Coecke van Aelst en zijn ings and the Practice of Artistic Transmission in
architektuuruitgaves van 1539:‘Die Inventie der the Middle Ages (ca. 900-ca.1470).Amsterdam,
Colommen’ en ‘Generale Reglen der Architectvren’. 1995.
Reprint,Amsterdam, 1978. Schiller, Gertrude. Der Ikonographie der christlichen
Rombouts, Philippe and Théodore Van Lerius, Kunst.Vol. 2: Die Passion Jesu Christi. Güter-
eds. De Liggeren en andere historische archieven sloh, 1968.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
Schmid, W. ‘Dürer’s Enterprise: Market Area, ter tijt Schildere der K. Maiesteyt. Antwerp,
Market Potential, Product Range’. In Eco- 1549-53.
nomic History and the Arts. Edited by Michael _____. The Five Books of Architecture: An
North, 27-47. Cologne, 1996. Unabridged Reprint of the English Edition of
Schmidt, H. ‘Der Maler Nicolaus (Clausz) 1611. New York, 1982.
Johansen [Claes Janssen?] von Utrecht’. In _____. Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture,Volume
Oud Holland 35 (1917), 53-55. One: Books I-V of ‘Tutte l’Opere d’Architettura
Schnackenburg, B., ed. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meis- et Prospettiva’. Translated and with an intro-
ter. Catalog. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, duction and commentary by Vaughan Hart
Kassel. Mainz, 1996. and Peter Hicks. New Haven, CT, 1996.
Schneebalg-Perelman, S. Les Chasses de Max- _____. Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture,Volume
imilien: les Énigmes d’un chef d’oeuvre de la tapis- Two: Books VI and VII of ‘Tutte l’Opere d’Ar-
serie. Brussel, 1982. chitettura et Prospettiva’ with ‘Castrametation of
the Romans’ and ‘The Extraordinary Book of
Scholliers, E. Loonarbeid en honger: de levensstan- Doors’.Translated by Vaughan Hart and Peter
daard in de XVe en XVIe eeuw te Antwerpen. Hicks. New Haven, CT, 2001.
Antwerp, 1960.
Shearman, John. Raphael’s Cartoons in the Col-
Scholtens, H. J. J.‘Het te Napels bewaarde Kerst- lection of her Majesty the Queen, and the Tapes-
tafereel van Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen’. tries for the Sistine Chapel. London, 1972.
In Oud Holland 73 (1958), 198-210.
Sievers, Johannes. ‘Joachim Bueckeleer’. In
Schretlen, M. J. ‘Het vroege werk van Jacob Jahrbuch der königlich preuszischen Kunstsamm-
Cornelis’. In Oudheidkundig Jaarboek 5 (1925), lungen 32 (1911), 185-212.
143-49.
Silva Maroto, P. ‘Le dessin sous-jacent de la
_____. ‘Vroeg werk van Jacob Cornelisz’. In Sainte Famille de Bernard van Orley et de la
Oud Holland 55 (1958), 145-54. Vierge de Louvain.’ In Le dessin sous-jacent dans
Schreuder, K. ‘De werkwijze en materiële la peinture. Colloque XIII. La Peinture et la Lab-
geschiedenis van een paneel van Pieter oratoire: Procédés, Méthodologie,Applications. Edit-
Coecke van Aelst’. In Uitgelicht 5. Pieter Coecke ed by Roger Van Schoute and Hélène
van Aelst, de Intocht in Jeruzalem, retabelfrag- Verougstraete, 109-19. Leuven, 2001.
menten in diaspora, tijdelijk weer bijeen. Edited Silver, Larry. The Paintings of Quinten Massys
by H. van Wegen, 7-9. Maastricht, 2000. with Catalogue Raisonné. Oxford, 1984.
Schubert, Dietrich. Die Gemälde des Braun- Silvestri, Nino.‘Indagini stratigrafiche sul trit-
schweiger Monogrammisten: ein Beitrag zur tico di San Donato di Joos van Cleve’. In
Geschichte der Niederländischen Malerei des 16. Indagini tecniche sulle opere genovesi di Joos van
Jahrhunderts. Cologne, 1970. Cleve. Edited by Farida Simonetti et al., 71-
Schwall-Hoummady, Christine. Bilderzählung 74. Florence, 2003.
im 15. Jahrhundert: Boccaccios Decamerone in Simonetti, Farida and Gianluca Zanelli, eds. Joos
Frankreich. Frankfurt am Main, 1999. van Cleve a Genova: intorno al ritratto di Stefano
Sciolla, Gianni Carlo. ‘Il trittico del Maestro Raggio. Exh. cat., Galleria Nazionale di Palaz-
di Hoogstraeten’. In Un’isola di devozione a zo Spinola, Genoa. Florence, 2003.
Savona: il complesso monumentale della cattedrale Simson, Paul. Geschichte der Stadt Danzig.
dell’Assunta. Edited by Giovanna Rotondi Danzig, 1900.
Terminiello, 253-54. Savona, 2001.
Six, J.‘Adriaan van Conflans’. In Oud Holland
Serck-Dewaide, Myriam. ‘Les retables anver- 29 (1911), 198-200.
sois sous le regard des restaurateurs’. In
Antwerpse retabels, 15de-16de eeuw. Under the _____.‘Dirk Jacobsz.: twee Amsterdamse schut-
direction of Hans Nieuwdorp, 114-28. Exh. terstukken te St Petersburg’. In Oud Holland
cat., Kathedraal van Antwerpen,Antwerp, and 13 (1895), 91-111.
Museum voor Religieuze Kunst, Antwerp. Smekens, F.‘De beeldhouwkunst (1500-1550)’.
Antwerp, 1993. In Antwerpen in de 16e eeuw. Edited by W.
Serlio, Sebastiano. Den eersten [-den vijfsten] boeck Couvreur et al., 398-99.Antwerp, 1975.
van architecturen: ouergesedt wten Italiaenschen Snijders, C. J. De Gulden Snede. Amsterdam,
in nederlandts duer Peeter Coeke van Aelst doen 1969.
238 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Soly, Hugo. ‘De groei van een metropool’. In anciens Pays-Bas Méridionaux et la région de
Antwerpen, twaalf eeuwen cultuur en geschied- Gdansk au début du XVIe siècle. Verhandelingen
enis. Edited by Karel van Isacker and Ray- van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschap-
mond van Uyten, 84-92.Antwerp, 1986. pen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Vol.
Sosson, Jean Pierre. ‘Une approche des struc- 48, no. 40 (1986), 23-125. [Szmydki 1986b]
tures économiques d’un métier d’art: la cor- Szpakiewicz,A. The Artus Court. Gdansk, 1996.
poration des Peintres et Selliers de Bruges Taburet-Delahaye, Elisabeth, François Avril et
(XVe-XVIe siècles)’. In Revue des archéologues al., eds. Paris 1400: Les Arts Sous Charles VI.
et historiens d’art de Louvain, 3 (1970), 91-100. Exh. cat., Réunion des Musées Nationaux,
Spronk, Ron. ‘The Underdrawing of Jan Paris. Paris, 2004.
Provoost’s Crucifxion’. In Le dessin sous-jacent Tagliaferro, Laura. Il dipinto e il suo rovescio: Pro-
et la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XII. posta di lettura per dipinto a supporto ligneo del-
La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16e siècle. Pra- la Galleria di Palazzo Bianco. Genova, 1991.
tiques d’atelier. Infrarouges et autres méthodes d’in-
vestigation. Edited by Hélène Verougstraete _____. La magnificenza privata. Genoa, 1995.
and Roger Van Schoute, 37-48. Leuven, 1999. Tamis, Dorien.‘The genesis of Albert Cornelis’s
Stagno, Laura. ‘Sovrani spagnoli a Genova: Coronation of the Virgin in Bruges’. In Burling-
entrate trionfali e hospitaggi in casa Doria’. ton Magazine 142 (2000), 672-80.
In Genova e la Spagna: Opere, artisti, commit- _____. ‘ ‘In kompagnie geordonneert en
tenti, collezionisti. Edited by Piero Boccardo, geschildert’, een onderzoek naar de ontstaans-
José Luis Colomer and Clario Di Fabio, 73- geschiedenis van het Aardse Paradijs van Peter
87. Milan, 2002. Paul Rubens en Jan Brueghel d.O.’. In Oud
Standen, Edith. ‘Some Sixteenth-Century Holland 115 (2001-02), 111-30.
Tapestries Related to Raphael’s Workshop’. Thieme, U., and F. Becker. Allgemeines Lexikon
In Metropolitan Museum Journal 4 (1971), 109- der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur
21. Gegenwart. 37 vols. Leipzig, 1907-50.
Steinbart, K. Die Tafelgemälde des Jakob Cornelisz Thomas, Marcel. Histoire de la destruction de Troye
von Amsterdam. Strassbourg, 1922. la Grant: reproduction du manuscrit Bibliothèque
nationale nouvelles acquisitions françaises 24920.
_____.‘Nachlese im Werk des Jakob Cornelisz’. Paris, 1973.
In Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft
(1929), 213-60. Thompson, Daniel V. The Materials and Tech-
nique of Medieval Paintings. New York, 1956.
_____. Das Holzschnittwerk des Jakob Cornelisz
von Amsterdam. Magdeburg, 1937. Thoss, Dagmar. Das Epos des Burgunderreiches,
Girart de Roussillon. Graz, 1989.
Steppe, Jan K.‘Jheronimus Bosch. Bijdragen tot
de historische en de chronografische studie Thijs, A. K. L. ‘De Antwerpse luxenijverheid:
van zijn werk’. In Jheronimus Bosch. Bijdragen winstbejag en kunstzin’. In Antwerpen, verhaal
bij gelegenheid van de herdenkingstentoonstelling van een metropool. Edited by J.Van der Stock,
te ‘s-Hertogenbosch 1967, 5-41. ‘s-Hertogen- 105-14. Exh. cat., Hessenhuis, Antwerp.
bosch, 1967. Ghent, 1993.
Stroo, Cyriel et al. The Flemish Primitives: Toussaint, Jacques, ed. Autour de Henri Bles.
Hieronymus Bosch,Albrecht Bouts, Colijn de Cot- Monographies du Musée des Arts Anciens du
er, Goossen van der Weyden.Vol. 3.Turnhout, Namurois 20. Namur, 2000.
2001. Unger, Richard W. ‘Integration of Baltic and
Szmydki, Ryszard. ‘Jan de Molder, peintre et Low Countries Grain Markets,1400-1800’.In
sculpteur d’Anvers du XVIe siecle’. In Jaar- The Interactions of Amsterdam and Antwerp with
boek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone the Baltic Region 1400-1800. Edited by Johan-
Kunsten Antwerpen (1986), 31-58. [Szmydki na Maria van Winter, 1-10. Leiden, 1983.
1986a] Unverfehrt, Gerd. Hieronymus Bosch: die Rezep-
_____.‘Retable Anversois situé anciennement tion seiner Kunst im Frühen 16. Jahrhundert.
dans la Chapelle de Saint-Reinhold en Berlin, 1980.
l’Église Notre-Dame de Gdansk (1515- Urbach, Susan. ‘Research Report on Under-
1516)’. In Retables anversois en Pologne. Con- drawings of Netherlandish and German
tribution à l’étude des rapports artistiques entre Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
Budapest: Part IV’. In Le dessin sous-jacent et van Buren,Anne H., James H. Marrow, and Sil-
la technologie dans la peinture. Colloque XIII. La vana Pettenati. Heures de Turin-Milan. Lucerne,
peinture et le laboratoire: Procédés, Méthodologie, 1996.
Applications. Edited by Roger Van Schoute Van de Velde, Carl. ‘The Labours of Hercules: A
and Hélène Verougstraete, 93-108. Leuven, Lost Series of Paintings by Frans Floris’. In
2001. Burlington Magazine 107 (1965), 114-23.
van Asperen de Boer, J. R. J. and Molly Faries. _____.‘The Grotesque Initials in the First Lig-
‘La Vierge au chancelier Rolin de Van Eyck: ger and in the Busboek of the Antwerp Guild
examen au moyen de réflectographie à of Saint Luke’. In Bulletin van de Koninklijke
infrarouge’. In La revue du Louvre 40 (1990), Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis 45 (1973),
37-49. 252-77.
van Asperen de Boer, J. R. J., J. Dijkstra, and _____. Frans Floris (1519/20-1570): Leven en
R.Van Schoute.‘Underdrawing in Paintings Werken. Verhandelingen van Koninklijke Acad-
of the Rogier van der Weyden and Master of emie voor Wetenshappen, Letteren en Schone Kun-
Flémalle Groups’. In Nederlands Kunsthistorisch sten van Belgie. Klasse der Schone Kunsten 30.
Jaarboek 41 (1992). Brussels, 1975. [Van de Velde 1975a]
van Biema, E.‘Nalezing van de stadsrekening- _____. ‘De Schilderkunst’. In Antwerpen in de
en van Amsterdam van af het jaar 1531’. In XVIe Eeuw, 419-45.Antwerp, 1975. [Van de
Oud Holland 23 (1905), 150-62. Velde 1975b]
van Bueren,Truus, with contributions by W. C. van den Brink, Peter. ‘Underdrawing in the
M.Wüstefeld. Leven na de dood: gedenken in de Workshop Production of Bernart van Orley:
late middeleeuwen. Exh. cat., Catharijne- A First Impression’. In Le dessin sous-jacent
convent, Utrecht.Turnhout, 1999. dans la peinture. Colloque X. Le dessin sous-jacent
dans le processus de creation. Edited by H.Ver-
van Bueren, Truus and M. Faries. ‘The ‘Por- ougstraete and R.Van Schoute, 177-85. Lou-
traits’ in Geertgen tot St. Jans’Vienna Pan- vain-la-Neuve, 1995.
els’. In Le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture.
Colloque VII. Géographie et chronologie du dessin _____. ‘Da Josef Timmert: Een Antwerps
sous-jacent. Edited by Roger Van Schoute and paneeltje in Delft’. In Album Discipulorum:
Hélène Verougstaete Marcq, 141-50. Lou- J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer. Edited by Peter van
vain-la-Neuve, 1991. den Brink and Liesbeth M. Helmus, 27-35.
Zwolle, 1997.
van Buren, Anne H. ‘New Evidence for the _____. ‘De ondertekening van de Intocht in
Activity of Jean Wauquelin in the Chroniques Jeruzalem en de Hemelvaart van Christus’. In
de Hainaut’. In Scriptorium 26 (1972), 249-68, Uitgelicht 5. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, de Intocht
and 27(1973), 318. in Jeruzalem, retabelfragmenten in diaspora, tijdelijk
_____.‘Willem Vrelant: Questions and Issues’. weer bijeen. Edited by H. van Wegen, 25-31.
In Revue Belge d’Archéologie et de l’Histoire de Maastricht, 2000.
l’Art 68 (1999), 3-30. _____.‘De kunst van het kopiëren: het waarom
_____. ‘The Date of the Miniatures’, ‘The en hoe van het vervaardigen van kopieën
Artists of Volume I’, and ‘Dress and Costume’. en schilderijen in oplage in de Nederlanden
In Les Chroniques de Hainaut ou les Ambitions in de zestiende eeuw en zeventiende eeuw’.
d’un Prince Bourguignon. Edited by Christiane In De Firma Brueghel. Edited by P. van den
Van den Bergen-Pantens, 61-74, 111-17. Brink, 12-42. Exh. cat., Bonnefantenmuse-
Turnhout, 2000. um, Maastricht, and Koninklijke Musea voor
Schone Kunsten van België, Brussels. Ghent,
_____.‘Dreux Jehan and the Grandes Heures 2001. [van den Brink 2001a]
of Philip the Bold’. In ‘Als Ich Can’: In Liber
Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits _____.‘Das von Grootesche Triptychon: Ein-
Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 vols., blicke in den Schaffensprozess’. In Kabi-
1377-1414. Leuven, 2002. nettstücke, Gold,Weihrauch und Myrrhe: Die von
Grootesche Anbetung der Heiligen Drei Könige
van Buren,Anne H. and Sheila Edmunds.‘Play- - ein wiederentdecktes Meisterwerk der Renais-
ing Cards and Manuscripts: Some Widely sance in Antwerpen. Edited by Jochen Sander,
Disseminated Fifteenth-Century Model 47-61. Frankfurt am Main, 2001. [van den
Sheets’. In Art Bulletin 56 (1974), 12-30. Brink 2001b]
240 BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____.‘Two Unknown Wings from a Triptych Van Eyck to Bruegel, 1400 to 1550: Dutch and
by the Master of the Antwerp Adoration’. Flemish painting in the Collection of the Museum
In Art Matters: Netherlands Technical Studies in Boymans-van Beuningen. Museum Boijmans-
Art 1 (2002), 6-20. van Beuningen, Rotterdam. Rotterdam,
_____.‘Hieronymus Bosch as Model Provider 1994.
for a Copyright Free Market’. In Le dessin van Gelder, E.H.E. De Nederlandse munten.
sous-jacent et la technologie dans la peinture. Utrecht and Antwerp, 1980.
Colloque XIV. Jérôme Bosch et son entourage et Van Houtte, Jan.V. ‘Mercanti, imprenditori e
autres études. Edited by Hélène Verougstraete banchieri italiani nelle Fiandre’. In Aspetti del-
and Roger Van Schoute, 84-101. Leuven, la vita economica medieval.Atti del Convegno di
2003. Studi nel X Anniversario della morte di F. Melis
van den Brink, P. and L. M. Helmus, eds. Album (Florence, Pisa, Prato, 1984), 123-26. Flo-
discipulorum J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer. Zwolle, rence, 1985.
1997. Van Mander, Karel. Het Schilder-boeck. Haarlem,
Van der Haeghen, V. ‘Notes sur l’atelier de 1604.
Gérard Horenbault’. In Bulletijn der Maatschap- _____. Den Grondt der edel vry Schilder-Const.
pij van Geschied- en Oudheidkunde te Gent 22 Translated and edited by Hessel Miedema, 2
(1914), 26-30. vols. Utrecht, 1973.
Van der Stock, Jan. ‘De organisatie van het _____. The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish
beeldensnijders- en schildersatelier te Ant- and German Painters, from the first edition of
werpen. Documenten 1480-1530’. In the Schilder-boeck (1603-1604).Translated and
Antwerpse Retabels 15de-16de eeuw. Under the edited by Hessel Miedema, 6 vols. Doorn-
direction of Hans Nieuwdorp, 47-53. Exh. spijk, 1994-99.
cat., Kathedraal van Antwerpen,Antwerp, and
Museum voor Religieuze Kunst, Antwerp. Van Miegroet, H., and N. de Marchi.‘Explor-
Antwerp, 1993. ing markets for Netherlandish paintings in
Spain and Nueva España’. In Nederlands
_____. Printing Images in Antwerp:The Introduc- Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999), 80-111.
tion of Printmaking in a City, Fifteenth Centu-
ry to 1585. Rotterdam, 1998. Van Puyvelde, L. ‘Het altaarstuk van het
ambacht van de visverkopers te Antwerpen’.
Van der Stock, J., ed. Antwerpen, verhaal van een In Bulletin Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kun-
metropool. Exh. cat., Hessenhuis, Antwerp. sten 12 (1963), 35-50.
Ghent, 1993.
van Regteren Altena, J. Q.‘Un incunable de la
Van der Straelen, J. B. Jaerboek der eermaerde en connaissance des graveurs’. In De gulden pass-
kunstrijke gilde van Sint-Lucas binnen de stad er 53 (1975), 269-76.
Antwerpen.Antwerp, 1855.
Van Roey, J.‘De bevolking’. In Antwerpen in de
Van der Wee, Herman.‘Money and economic XVIe eeuw, 95-108.Antwerp, 1975.
interdependence between the Northern and
Southern Netherlands and the Baltic (Fif- Van Schoute, Roger, HélèneVerougstraete and
teenth to Seventeenth Centuries)’. In The Carmen Garrido. ‘Bosch and his Sphere:
Interactions of Amsterdam and Antwerp with the Technique’. In Hieronymus Bosch: New Insights
Baltic Region 1400-1800. Edited by Johanna into his Life and Work. Edited by Jos Kold-
Maria van Winter, 11-18. Leiden, 1983. eweij, BernardVermet, and Barbara van Kooij,
103-19. Ghent, 2001.
Van der Wee, Herman and Jan Materné.
‘Antwerp as a World Market in the Six- Van Schoute, Roger and M.Verboomen. Jérôme
teenth and Seventeenth Centuries’. In Bosch. Paris, 2003.
Antwerp: Story of a Metropolis, Sixteenth and Vandamme, E. ‘Een 16de-eeuws Zuidneder-
Seventeenth Century. Edited by Jan Van der lands receptenboek’. In Jaarboek van het
Stock, 19-31. Exh. cat., Hessenhuis, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten
Antwerp. Ghent, 1993. Antwerpen (1974), 101-37.
van Eeghen, I. H. ‘Jacob Cornelisz., Cor- Vandenabeele, Peter, and Luc Moens.‘Spectro-
nelisz.Anthonisz., en hun familierelaties’. In scopic Pigment Investigations in the Mayer
Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (1986), van den Bergh Breviary’. In ‘Als Ich Can’.
95-132. Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Mau-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 241
rits Smeyers. Edited by Bert Cardon et al., 2 Paintings:Proceedings of a Symposium at the J.Paul
vols., 1443-55. Leuven, 2002. Getty Museum, 24-28 April 1995. Edited by
Varni, Santo. Spigolature artistiche nell’archivio del- Kathleen Dardes and Andrea Rothe, 149-77.
la Biblioteca della Basilica di Carignano. Genoa, Los Angeles, 1995. [Wadum 1995a]
1877. _____.‘Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) and his
Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, Use of Perspective’. In Historical Painting Tech-
scultori et architettori. Florence, 1568. New edi- niques, Materials, and Studio Practice: Preprints
tion Le opere de Giorgio Vasari. Edited by Gae- of a Symposium, University of Leiden, the Nether-
tano Milanesi, 9 vols. Florence, 1981. lands, 26-29 June 1995. Edited by Arie Wallert,
Erma Hermens, and Marja Peek, 148-54.
Veldman, I.‘De boekillustratie als inspiratiebron Marina Del Rey, CA, 1995. [Wadum 1995b]
voor de Nederlandse prentkunst van de
zestiende eeuw’. In Eer is het lof des deuchts: Weale, J.‘Albert Cornelis: Hiérarchie des anges’.
opstellen over renaissance en classicisme aangebo- In Le Beffroi,Arts, Héraldique,Archéologie, Brugge
den aan dr. Fokke Veenstra, 261-77.Amsterdam, 1 (1863), 1-22.
1985. Wilenski, R. H. Flemish Painters 1430-1830. 2
Verbraeken, Paul, ed. Joachim Beuckelaer: het vols. London, 1960.
markt- en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 1550- Wilson, Adrien, and Joyce Lancaster Wilson.
1650. Exh. cat., Museum voor Schone Kun- A Medieval Mirror: Speculum humanae salvatio-
sten, Ghent. Ghent, 1986. nis, 1324-1500. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and
Verdino, Stefano. ‘Cultura e Letteratura nel London, 1984.
Cinquecento’. In La Letteratura Ligure: La Wolff-Thomsen, U. Jan Joest von Kalkar: ein
Repubblica Aristocratica (1528-1797).Vol 1, 83- niederländische Maler um 1500. Bielefeld,
132. Genoa, 1992. 1997.
Vermet, Bernard. ‘Architectuurschilders in Wolters, Margreet. ‘Twee Kruisdragingen
Dantzig. Hendrick Aerts en Hans en Paul toegeschreven aan Joachim Beuckelaer:
Vredeman de Vries’. In Gentse Bijdragen tot de infraroodreflectografisch onderzoek van
Kunstgeschiedenis en Oudheidkunde 31 (1996), de schilderijen te Älvkarleby en Hamburg’.
27-57. In Onverwacht bijeengebracht: opstellen voor
Vermeylen, Filip. ‘The Commercialization of Ed Taverne en Lyckle de Vries ter gelegenheid
Art: Painting and Sculpture in Sixteenth- van hun 25-jarig jubileum in dienst van de
Century Antwerp’. In Early Netherlandish Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Edited by J. L.
Painting at the Crossroads: A Critical Look at de Jong and E.A. Koster, 149-57. Gronin-
Current Methodologies. Edited by Maryan W. gen, 1996.
Ainsworth, 46-61. New York, 2001.
_____.‘De Monogrammist HB geïdentificeerd:
_____. Painting for the Market: Commercializa- Huybrecht Beuckeleer’. In Album Discipulo-
tion of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age. Studies in rum J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer. Edited by Peter
European Urban History 2. Turnhout, 2003. van den Brink and Liesbeth Helmus, 231-
Verougstraete-Marcq, Hélène and Roger Van 37. Zwolle, 1997.
Schoute. Cadres et supports dans la peinture fla- Wood, Kim W.‘Molder, Jan de’. In The Dictio-
mande aux 15e et 16e siècles. Heure-le- nary of Art. Edited by Jane Turner, vol. 21, 809.
Romain, 1989. New York, 1996.
Vroom,W.H.‘Een retabelcontract uit 1493’. In Zanelli, Gianluca.‘Pittura fiamminga a Geno-
Miscellanea I. Q. van Regteren Altena. Edited va all’inizio del XVI secolo: il ‘caso’ Joos van
by H. Miedema, R.W. Scheller, and P. J. J. van Cleve’. In Joos van Cleve a Genova: intorno al
Thiel, 27-31.Amsterdam, 1969. ritratto di Stefano Raggio. Edited by Farida
Wadum, Jørgen.‘Historical Overview of Panel- Simonetti and Gianluca Zanelli, 11-81. Exh.
Making Techniques in the Northern Coun- cat., Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola,
tries’. In The Structural Conservation of Panel Genoa. Florence, 2003.
242 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Color plates
Leeflang – Plate 1. Joos van Cleve and Workshop, Reinhold Altarpiece, exterior wings and predella.Warsaw, Muzeum
Narodowe.
244 COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES
Leeflang – Plate 2. Joos van Cleve and Workshop, Reinhold Altarpiece, interior painted wings with scenes from the Passion of
Christ.Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe.
245
Leeflang – Plate 3. Joos van Cleve and workshop, Carrying of the Cross, detail of plate 2.
246 COLOR PLATES

Leeflang – Plate 4. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of plate 3, detail. (IRR: Molly Faries; digital composite:
Micha Leeflang).
COLOR PLATES 247

Spronk/Van Daalen – Plate 1. Arrest of Christ. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard
University Art Museums, BR1952.15. Gift of Charles L. Kuhn.
Spronk/Van Daalen – Plate 2. Agony in the Garden. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University
Art Museums, 2001.193. Bequest of Grenville L.Winthrop, by exchange.
248 COLOR PLATES

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

3a. X-ray transparent area 1.Varnish
1. Blue surface layer, azurite and lead white 2. Blue surface layer, azurite and lead white
2. Single layer of calcium carbonate ground 3. Multiple layers of calcium carbonate ground
3.Wood of support
Spronk/Van Daalen – Plate 4a-b. Agony in the Garden, detail, photographed at 22x. (Photomacrograph: Catharina
van Daalen).
4a. photomacrograph. 4b. infrared digital photomacrograph (circa 1000-1100

nanometer).
COLOR PLATES 249

Meuwissen – Plate 1.Attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Crucifixion, dated 1507. New York, private col-
lection, 99.1 x 78 cm.
250 COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES
Meuwissen – Plate 2. Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Nativity, dated 1512. Naples, Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, 3,128 x 177 cm.
251
Meuwissen – Plate 3. Attributed to Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, Virgin and Child with Musical Angels. Sold at
Sotheby´s, New York, January 2001, lot 39 A, 71.8 x 55.3 cm.
252 COLOR PLATES

a.
b.
c.
Meuwissen – Plates 4a-d.
a) Detail of angel holding music in plate 2.
b) Detail of angel in plate 3. d.
c) Detail of plate 1.
d) Detail of plate 1.
COLOR PLATES 253

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

Van Buren – Plate 1. The Dauphin attends a Celebration of Mass, Missal of Louis de Guyenne. Paris, Bibliothèque
Mazarine, ms 406, fol. 7.
COLOR PLATES 255

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

Van Buren – Plate 3. The Duke of Cleves asks Permission to take Jacques to the Court of Philip the Good, Livre des faits de
Jacques de Lalaing. Private collection, fol. 5v.
COLOR PLATES 257

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

Ainsworth – Plate 1. Bernard van Orley, Last Judgment Triptych (interior).Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten.
COLOR PLATES
259
260
COLOR PLATES
Ainsworth – Plate 2a. Bernard van Orley, Virgin and Child. European Private Collection. Ainsworth – Plate 2b. Infrared reflectogram digital composite of plate 2a. (IRR: Maryan
Ainsworth; digital composite:Alison Gilchrest).
COLOR PLATES
Jansen – Plate 1. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Triptych with the Crucifixion. Utrecht, Rijksmuseum Catherijneconvent,ABM s00107.
261
262
COLOR PLATES
Jansen – Plate 2. Group Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Crucifixion.Warsaw, Museum Narodowe.
Jansen – Plate 3. Detail of the city of Jerusalem in the Warsaw Crucifixion (plate 2).
COLOR PLATES 263

Jansen – Plate 4. Detail of the city of Jerusalem in the Bonn Crucifixion (fig. 2).
Jansen – Plate 5. Detail of the city of Jerusalem in the Utrecht Crucifixion (plate 1).
264 COLOR PLATES

Wolters – Plate 1. Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo.Vienna, Museum im Schottenstift.
COLOR PLATES
265
Wolters – Plate 2. Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.
266 COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES
Wolters – Plate 3. Joachim Beuckelaer, Market Scene with Ecce Homo. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi.
267
Wolters – Plates 4a-b. Infrared reflectogram and detail of vanishing point in plate 2.
268 COLOR PLATES

COLOR PLATES
Galassi – Plate 1. Joos van Cleve, The Adoration of the Kings Altarpiece. Genoa, Church of San Donato.
269
Galassi – Plate 2. Jan Massys, Madonna and Child. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco.
270 COLOR PLATES

Galassi – Plate 3. Jan Massys, Charity. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco.
COLOR PLATES 271

272
COLOR PLATES
Galassi – Plate 4. Detail of fig. 9, the so-called Portrait of Andrea Doria. Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco. Galassi – Plate 5. Jan Massys, Lot and his Daughters, detail.
Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
COLOR PLATES
Galassi – Plate 6. Jan Massys, Venus Cythereia. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.
273
a.
b. c.
d.
Galassi – Plates 7a-d.
a) Detail of plate 6, Palazzo del Principe.
b) Detail of plate 6, the Villa Durazzo.
c) Detail of plate 6, the Villa dello Scoglietto.
d) Detail of plate 6, Basilica di Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano.
274 COLOR PLATES

Martens/Peeters – Plate 1.
Graph showing masters and
apprentices enrolled in the
Liggeren, 1501-1579 (nominal
and running average by 5 years).
Graph showing master painters
and apprentices enrolled in the
Liggeren, 1501-1579 (nominal
and running average by 5 years).
Graph showing masters and
apprentices (in total and painters
only) enrolled in the Liggeren,
1501-1579 (running average by
5 years).
COLOR PLATES 275

Martens/Peeters – Plate 4. Graph showing the professional distribution of masters, 1500-1579.
Martens/Peeters – Plate 5. Graph showing the professional distribution of apprentices, 1500-1579.
276 COLOR PLATES

Illustration Credits
Cover design:
© Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,Antwerp
Faries
Figs. 1, 2, 3 © Molly Faries/Stichting RKD
Fig. 4 from Sotheby’s Arts of the Renaissance, Jan. 25, 2001
Fig. 5 © Molly Faries
Leeflang
Figs. 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 15 courtesy Micha Leeflang
Figs. 2, 9-11, 13, 16, 18-19, 21; plate 4 © Molly Faries/Stichting RKD
Figs. 4-5, 14 from Kurth 1963
Fig. 17, 22 © Stichting RKD
Fig. 20 © J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer/Stichting RKD
plates 1-3 © Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie,Warsaw
Spronk/van Daalen
Figs. 1-3, 8, 11, 13; plates 1-4 Catharina van Daalen © President and Fellows of Harvard College
Figs. 4-5 Eugene Farrell and Ron Spronk © President and Fellows of Harvard College
Figs. 6-7 Henry Lie,Amy Powell and Ron Spronk © President and Fellows of Harvard College
Figs. 9-10 Henry Lie © President and Fellows of Harvard College
Fig. 12 Allan Macintyre, Digital Imaging and Visual Resources, Harvard University Art Museums
© President and Fellows of Harvard College
Meuwissen
Figs. 1-2 © Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam
Fig. 3 © Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart
Fig. 4 © Sammlungen des Fürsten von Liechtenstein,Vaduz
Figs. 5-6a © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Figs. 6b, 7-8 courtesy of Daantje Meuwissen
Figs. 9-10 © Molly Faries/Stichting RKD
Plate 1 courtesy Greg Kitchen
Plate 2 © Museo e Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples
Plates 3, 4a-d courtesy Daantje Meuwissen
Plate 5 © Staatliche Museen, Kassel
van Buren
Figs. 1, 7-8 © Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique/Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, Brussels
Fig. 2 © Museum of Fine Arts Boston
Fig. 3a-b © Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.
Figs. 4, 5 © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,Vienna
Fig. 6 © Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris.
Plates 1-2 © Bibliothèque Mazarine, Paris
Plate 3 © Anne Marie Legaré
Plate 4 © Réunion des Musées Nationaux
Ainsworth
Fig. 1, 20 © Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna
Figs. 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 18, 21-23; plate 2b © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS 277

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

Plate 5 © Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna
Helmus
Fig. 1 © Centraal Museum, Utrecht
Figs. 2-3 © IRPA-KIK, Brussels
Martens/Peeters
Fig. 1 from Kint 1996
Figs. 2-13 © Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters
Plates 1-5 © Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS 279

FARIES - Making and Marketing Studies of The Painting Process in Netherlandish Workshops

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FARIES - Making and Marketing Studies of The Painting Process in Netherlandish Workshops

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making and Marketing:

Studies of the Painting Process in

Edited by Molly Faries

© 2006, Brepols Publishers n.v.,Turnhout, Belgium.

Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

Ron Spronk and Catharina van Daalen

Anne H. van Buren

Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute

Maximiliaan P.J. Martens and Natasja Peeters

Color Plates 244

Illustration Credits 277

1.The session, held Friday, March 15, 2002, was chaired by

VIII EDITOR’S FOREWORD

This publication is about workshop practice. It is intended to highlight the contributions of

Recognizing Workshop Practices

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 1

2 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 3

Examples of Making and Marketing

4 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 5

6 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 7

8 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 9

10 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 11

12 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS 13

14 MAKING AND MARKETING: STUDIES OF THE PAINTING PROCESS

Other elements that Van Cleve adapted from

tee of the quality of the panels.35 The deacons’

The Reinhold Brotherhood and the Sankt Marienkirche

Study of the Reinhold Altarpiece with Infrared Reflectography (IRR)

Van Cleve may also have had some of Dürer’s

The Function of Underdrawing in the Woodcut Convention

Realization of the Reinhold Altarpiece: the Role of Shop Assistants

The Woodcut Convention: a Well Known Working Procedure

The woodcut convention has also been found

Van den Brink’s IRR study of the Master of

38. Szmydki 1986a, 27. 68. Kirby 2000, 19-42.

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS 43

reflectography as well as with high-resolution infrared photography.A limited number of cross-

44 TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS 45

46 TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS 47

48 TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

Prints by Albrecht Dürer served as compo-

The Dürer prints were followed more close-

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS 49

The great popularity and artistic influence

50 TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS 51

52 TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS

TWO SCENES FROM THE PASSION AT THE HARVARD ART MUSEUMS 53

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’ 55

56 A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’ 57

58 A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’

A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’ 59

The Life of the Virgin (1507)

60 A ‘PAINTER IN BLACK AND WHITE’