Skip to main content

Main image

An Elderly Couple:
Catalogue entry

Catalogue contents

About the catalogue

Entry details

Full title
An Elderly Couple
Artist
Jan Gossaert (Jean Gossart)
Inventory number
NG1689
Author
Lorne Campbell

Catalogue entry

, 2014

Extracted from:
Lorne Campbell, The Sixteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings with French Paintings before 1600 (London: National Gallery Company and Yale University Press, 2014).

Oil on parchment, laid down on canvas, 48.1 × 69.2 cm,
parchment 47.1 × 67.8 cm,
painted surface approximately 46.0 × 66.9 cm1

Provenance

NG 1689 was possibly the ‘Two Portraits in one Picture – very animated and elaborately finished which, attributed to Quinten Massys, was sold at Christie’s on 21 May 1808 (lot 120) by ‘Burrell’: Sir Charles Merrik Burrell (1774–1862), MP.2 It was bought, for the very high price of £215 5s., by Hill – the dealer Philip Hill ( c. 1766–1836) of Greek Street, Soho. It reappeared as no. 17, ‘Massys, The Portrait of Foger (and his Wife,)…’, in Hill’s exhibition of ‘capital Pictures for Sale by Private Contract’ which began on 16 April 1810 at the Old Academy Room, 118 Pall Mall. It was once again sold at a very high price, 300 guineas (£315).3 NG 1689 was certainly by 1824 in the collection of Landseer’s friend and patron William Wells (1760–1847) of Redleaf in Kent, where it was attributed to Massys. It was sold with the rest of Wells’s pictures at Christie’s on 13 May 1847 (76), bought by Seguier for Mrs Whyte. She was Maria Louisa Simpson (1773–1855), widow of the lawyer Mark Anthony Whyte (died 1838), and lived at Barrow Hill near Rocester in Staffordshire. By her will of 12 January 1855 she bequeathed Barrow Hill and the pictures there to her niece, Louisa Jane Finch Simpson, widow of Henry Dawson (died 1849).4 Mrs Dawson died in 1865; her son, Captain Arthur Finch Dawson (1836–1928), inherited the house and the pictures. NG 1689 was purchased in 1900 for £4,000 through the restorer and dealer Ayerst Hooker Buttery (1868–1929), London.

Fig. 1

After Jean Gossart, version of NG 1689, dated 1559, 23 × 35.5 cm. Edinburgh, sold Dowell’s, 28 April 1917, lot 111. © Photo courtesy of the owner.

Exhibitions

London BI 1824 (28); London BI 1837 (5); London BI 1839 (22); London BI 1848 (88); Derby 1870 (184); London RA 1879 (219); NG 1939 (no catalogue); NG 1947 (33); Rotterdam‐Bruges 1965 (28); NG 1975 (16); NG 1977–8 (not numbered); NG 2008–9 (50); New York 2010–11 (53); NG 2011 (53).

Version

A version of poor quality and uncertain date, measuring 9 × 14 in. (23 × 35.5 cm), was sold at Dowell’s in Edinburgh on 28 April 1917 (lot 111), as ‘Flemish School’ (fig. 1). Above the sitters are the inscriptions RICHARD FFERRIS MD/ CATHERINE FFERRIS/ 1559.5

Technical Notes

NG 1689 was cleaned in 1942, when the backing canvas was partially strip‐lined. The painting is in very good condition, though the man’s black doublet is a little worn and there is a small damage in the lower right section of the woman’s veil. The yellow pins in her veil have been touched out by a restorer, for unexplained reasons. Some of the red lakes, for example in the shadows on the woman’s veil, may have faded slightly.

The support is one piece of parchment which has been laid down on a single piece of fine canvas (14 warp and weft threads per centimetre). The softwood stretcher does not bear any visible maker’s mark. The parchment may have wrinkled when it was laid down: the damage in the lower right corner could have occurred when a wrinkle was smoothed away. The parchment may originally have been laid down on a panel: holes in the edge of the parchment were possibly made when it was tacked or laced to a panel.

The parchment is covered in a thin priming layer of lead white. Infrared reflectography reveals underdrawing in a liquid medium, apparently applied with a brush (fig. 10). The drawing consists of outlines and some hatching in the shadows of the man’s draperies. There are many small changes. In the underdrawing, the man’s hat is larger and the hanging ribbons are further from his face on both sides of his head. The contour of his face is drawn to our left of the painted contour; his neck, on our left, and the point of his nose are narrower in the drawing. His shoulders seem to have been drawn lower and the contour of his left upper arm is drawn to our left of the painted contour. Fewer changes are visible in the woman, apart from slight alterations in some of the folds of her veil. As the black area of her dress is not penetrated by infrared radiation, it is impossible to tell whether there may be further changes there. Lines have been ruled to mark the limits of the composition at the top and bottom and on the left but not on the right. At the top and bottom, these lines are just inside the painted surface; on the left, the line is about one centimetre inside the painted surface and goes through the man’s sleeve.

The green background is underpainted in azurite mixed with lead‐tin yellow and some lead white; the translucent glaze is verdigris, partially dissolved in a medium of linseed oil, which contains some pine resin. The medium of the woman’s veil is walnut oil.6

[page 327]

© The National Gallery, London.

[page 328]
Figs 2 and 3

Enlarged details of the man and woman in NG 1689. © The National Gallery, London.

[page 329]

© The National Gallery, London.

[page 330]
Fig. 4

Photomicrograph of the woman’s left eyebrow. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 5

Photomicrograph of the fur on the man’s left cuff. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 6

Photomicrograph of the blotted glaze on the man’s purple sleeve. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 7

Photomicrograph of a stray hair caught in the man’s headgear. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 8

Photomicrograph of another stray hair caught in the man’s fur collar. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 9

Photomicrograph of the man’s hat badge. © The National Gallery, London.

[page 331]
Fig. 10

Infrared reflectogram of NG 1689. © The National Gallery, London.

The paint has been applied with great skill and, in some areas, for example the man’s shirt, at considerable speed. Some of the hairs of the eyebrows are rendered in sgraffito (fig. 4); in many places the paint is worked wet‐in‐wet; in the fur it is feathered and in places the paint has been made to bead (fig. 5); in the man’s fingernails it is dragged. The glaze on the man’s purple sleeves has been blotted with a cloth (fig. 6): red fibres embedded in the glaze are probably from the woollen textiles from which the dyestuff in the red lake pigment was extracted. The green glaze has also been blotted.

The man’s hat was painted after the green background. Because its reserve is smaller than the underdrawn hat, Gossart must have changed his mind about its shape before he laid in the background. The background glaze, however, was applied after the woman’s veil was painted. The ribbons hanging from the man’s hat were painted after his red collar; his face was painted after the background, but his hair was painted on top of his face and the ribbons. The stray white hairs caught among the ribbons were of course painted after the ribbons and the fur but some of the detailing of the fur was painted after the stray hairs (figs 7, 8).

Description

The man, who has grey hair and brown eyes and is rather inefficiently shaved, wears a black cap with lappets that have been turned up and buttoned to the crown of the cap. The hat badge is a cameo, framed in gold and showing a young man and a young woman, both nude (fig. 9). Standing in front of a tree, they are embracing. The youth may be wearing a wreath and holds a staff in his right hand; the young woman holds a cornucopia in her left hand. They could be Mercury and Fortuna (or Tyche), whose emblem was a cornucopia: they are the gods of trade and prosperity.7 Alternatively, they could be Mars and Venus. Her billowing veil is reminiscent of the headdress of Gossart’s Venus (Brussels),8 and in a painting of Mars, Venus and Cupid by a follower of Gossart, Mars holds a cornucopia.9 From the man’s hat hang two dark grey or black ribbons. Over a white shirt he wears a black garment tied at the neck with an elaborate lace. Over that is a grey or black doublet, complicated in its structure and lined in red. His gown, lined and trimmed with brown fur, is purple. He holds a brown, presumably wooden, staff, its head encased in silver engraved with patterns in the grotesque style (fig. 13). The woman, [page 332]whose eyes are grey and who has brownish hair on her upper lip, wears a white veil held in place with two golden pins (touched out by a restorer) and a black dress lined with brownish fur.

Fig. 11

Attributed to the Master of Alkmaar, Jan, Count of Egmond. Oil on panel transferred to canvas, 41.3 × 24.4 cm. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art . © Image copyright The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Florence , The Friedsam Collection, Bequest of Michael Friedsam, 1931. Digital image courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Open Access policy .

The Identities of the Sitters

If NG 1689 is indeed the portrait offered for sale in 1810 (see ‘Provenance’ above), the sitters were then identified as ‘Foger and his wife’, members of the Fugger family, wealthy bankers of Augsburg. The inscriptions on the version sold in Edinburgh in 1917 and apparently dated 1559 identify the sitters as Catherine Ferris and Richard Ferris, MD, presumably the man of that name who by 1522 was a member of the Barbers’ Company of London, who served Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and who died in 1566.10 Holbein included Ferris’s portrait in his Henry VIII and the Barber‐Surgeons (now with The Worshipful Company of Barbers, London), painted shortly before Holbein’s death in 1543: Ferris is the man on the extreme right in the front row; he was added at a late stage in the evolution of the composition and bears no resemblance to Gossart’s old man.11 As Gossart’s portrait may be dated to the 1510s, the old man must have been born in about 1445, decades before Ferris. Ferris’s wife was not Catherine but Emma Wisdom, whom he married in 1542 and who survived him.12 The inscriptions on the Edinburgh version can be dismissed as baseless invention.

The only indications of the sitters’ identities are provided by their clothes. The man’s hat badge, which may never have existed in reality and was probably created by Gossart, may nonetheless suggest that he took an interest in classical antiquity. His silver‐topped staff and fur‐lined purple gown show that he is prosperous. The cap, with its two trailing ribbons, is of a type found fairly frequently in North Netherlandish portraits;13 it was perhaps a North Netherlandish fashion to wear such hats, which might conceivably have come to denote a certain status (fig. 11). The woman’s veil and dress are very similar to those worn by Maria van Snellenberg in a double portrait of her and her husband Dirck Borre van Amerongen (Rotterdam: fig. 12). It is attributed to the Master of the Amsterdam Death of the Virgin and was probably painted in Utrecht in about 1515.14 Such evidence may suggest that NG 1689 was painted in the northern provinces of the Low Countries, which, given the established facts of Gossart’s biography, is in any case probable.

Attribution and Date

The double portrait sold in 1808 and 1810 was attributed to Quinten Massys. Between 1824 and 1900, NG 1689 was invariably attributed to Massys. In 190l it was catalogued as by Gossart;15 in the 1913 catalogue the idea was put forward that it might be by two different hands, one German and one Netherlandish.16 Although this theory was dropped after 1921, the portrait remained ‘ascribed’ to Gossart until 1945, when it was once more catalogued as by Gossart. The attribution has been accepted by Friedländer, who considered it ‘in many respects his masterpiece’,17 by Davies and by most other art historians.

Weisz dated the portrait in the 1500s, von der Osten towards 1513; Pauwels, Hoetink and Herzog placed it in the 1520s, and Ainsworth between about 1515 and 1530.18 The dress of the couple may indicate that it was painted in the 1510s19 but, because they were old, they may not have kept up assiduously with current fashions. The style is close to that of the signed diptych of Jean Carondelet, dated 1517 (Louvre),20 and the Brussels donor portraits of about 1520; the attention to detail is less startling in the later portraits. The nudes in the man’s hat badge, whose poses derive from engravings by Dürer, are reminiscent of Gossart’s Neptune and Amphitrite (Berlin), dated 1516 (p. 308, fig. 3).21

Such half‐length double portraits were known in the Low Countries in the fifteenth century and appear to have been relatively common in Germany.22 Two portraits by Quinten Massys, which may be cut from one double portrait, were [page 333]painted at about the same time as NG 1689 and show sitters who are similarly failing to communicate with each other.23 According to Smith, Gossart has brought the couple ‘the more together to show them the more apart. Eyes averted, ignoring each other, they choose not to communicate. Thickly clothed as if to defend their bodies one from the other, they make a pitiful contrast to the young lovers in the cameo on the man’s hat. They, like an emblem of honest communication, “eyebeames twisted”, stare into each other’s eyes, baring their souls as they have bared their bodies. Held by the girl, a horn of plenty promises unashamedly physical joys. The elderly couple, haggard and sour, seem, through their incompatibility, never to have experienced such happiness …’.24

Fig. 12

Master of the Amsterdam Death of the Virgin, Dirck Borre van Amerongen and his Wife Maria van Snellenberg. Oil on oak, 21.5 × 38.5 cm. Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen. © Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam.

Although the woman is behind the man, and although, in reality, her head was probably smaller than his, in the portrait her face is only very slightly smaller. Because it is more strongly lit, surrounded by a large area of white veiling and more centrally placed on the horizontal axis of the composition (whereas the man’s head is just contained within the top half), she occupies the dominating position. She appears to be the younger and stronger of the two. She has retained most of her teeth, whereas he has lost his; the whites of her eyes are greyish but his are pink; she is tidily dressed but he is casting white hairs onto his collar. Her hands are concealed but his are clenched, perhaps rather desperately, around his fur collar and his staff – contrasted with the staff casually held by the young god in the hat badge. She makes a bolder pattern of simple shapes, while his contours, as well as his body, are crumpled. He is shrinking – literally, for his body is much too small in proportion to his head. Though the two may not be communicating, she appears to buttress his decaying and shrivelled form.

[page 334]

The parchment support is unusual and may suggest that the portrait was meant to be easily transported.25 That could imply that it was painted not for the sitters themselves but rather for some distant friend or descendant. The two heads are rather differently treated. The woman’s is carefully outlined in the underdrawing and there are very few alterations, though the detail, for example in the hairs on her upper lip, is equally exacting, whereas the man’s head is more sketchily underdrawn and there are many more changes. He may have been painted after the woman. They may never have seen the finished painting, may never have been aware of Gossart’s merciless observation of their physical decrepitude or the pitiful contrast between the young gods on the hat badge and the collapsing flesh of their own bodies. The white hairs which have fallen from the man’s head and which curl over his collar are not just triumphs of illusionistic virtuosity but a dreadful commentary on mortality (figs 7, 8).

Notes

Infrared reflectography was carried out using OSIRIS (InGaAs digital sensor). For further details see p. 18, note 23.

1. A fully illustrated version of this entry is available online at: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/research/jan-ossaert-an-elderly-couple. Readers who wish to see those images available at high resolution, with supplementary detail photographs, photomicrographs and other technical images, are advised to use this address and follow the links given in the text to the ‘Image Viewer’. (Back to text.)

2. B.B. Fredericksen et al. , The Index of Paintings Sold in the British Isles during the Nineteenth Century, vol. 2, 1806–1810, 2 parts, Santa Barbara 1990, I, p. 577. In the copy of the sale catalogue at the Courtauld Institute is the annotation ‘2¼ 2 fine’ which, in the code used by this annotator (who gives very approximate measurements and seems to include frames), means 2¼ feet high by 2 feet wide, or 61 × 68.5 cm. Burton Fredericksen, in a letter of 9 January 1990, kindly drew attention to this and other facts relating to the sale catalogues of 1808 and 1810. (Back to text.)

3. Fredericksen et al. 1990, cited in note 2, I, p. 577. Note in the copy of the sale catalogue at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (information kindly given by Burton Fredericksen). The sale was advertised in The Times of 16 April 1810, p. 1; admission cost 1s., as did the catalogue. (Back to text.)

4. Will proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 16 January 1856: NA , prob/11/2226, sig. 74. (Back to text.)

5. See the sale catalogue; the inscriptions are not completely legible in the accompanying reproduction. (Back to text.)

6. These observations are based on examination of paint samples from the green background. The binding medium was analysed by GC–MS and FTIR microscopy. See reports in the NG Scientific Department files by M. Spring (July 1994) and R. White and J. Pilc (January 1995). (Back to text.)

9. Wetzlar sale, Sotheby Mak Van Waay, Amsterdam, 9 June 1977, lot 121; Friedländer , vol. VIII, no. 46. (Back to text.)

12. London, Guildhall Library, MS 4448, register of St Stephen Coleman Street, 6 July 1542 (Emma’s father was a painter, John Wisdom); will of Richard Ferris, proved 22 April 1566, NA , prob/11/48, 9 Crymes. (Back to text.)

13. Compare the portrait of Jan I, Count of Egmond, who died in 1516, attributed to the Master of Alkmaar (New York: fig. 11); Pieter Jan Foppesz in Heemskerck’s group portrait of him and his family, painted in about 1530 (Kassel); the portrait of Aert van der Goes, Advocate of Holland, dated 1541, in the style of Heemskerck (van der Goes collection, Wassenaar); the portrait of Cornelis Aertsz van der Dussen, attributed to Scorel (Berlin); or the portrait of Jan Diert attributed to Heemskerck (Utrecht, Museum Catharijneconvent). A possible instance of a South Netherlander wearing such a hat is found in Joos van Cleve’s portrait of an unidentified man, dated 1526 (Kassel). For reproductions, see Friedländer , vol. X, no. 59; vol. XII, no. 383; H.P. Fölting, ‘De Landsadvocaten en raadspensionarissen der staten van Holland en West‐Friesland, 1480–1795, I’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor genealogie, vol. XXVII, 1973, pp. 294–343 (p. 315); Friedländer , vol. XII, nos 351, 353; vol. IX, no. 119. (Back to text.)

14. Friedländer , vol. X, no. 153; J. Giltaij in the exh. cat., Rotterdam 1994, pp. 274–7. (Back to text.)

15. NG 1901 catalogue, p. 250. (Back to text.)

16. NG 1913 catalogue, p. 414. (Back to text.)

17. Friedländer , vol. VIII, p. 39 and no. 80. (Back to text.)

18. Weisz 1913, pp. 78–9; von der Osten 1961, pp. 459–60; Pauwels, Hoetink and Herzog 1965, p. 176; Ainsworth in Ainsworth et al. 2010, pp. 276–8. (Back to text.)

20. Ainsworth in Ainsworth et al. 2010, no. 4. (Back to text.)

21. Ibid. , no. 47. The poses derive from Dürer’s Temptation of the Idler ( B. 76) and his Adam and Eve of 1504 ( B. 1). (Back to text.)

22. Campbell 1990, p. 54 and references. (Back to text.)

23. Private collection, Belgium, and Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: ibid. , pp. 34–7. (Back to text.)

24. Smith 1973, p. 32. (Back to text.)

25. Gossart’s Deësis (Prado), sometimes said to be on parchment, is in fact on paper, this time laid down on panel ( Friedländer , vol. VIII, no. 19; exh. cat., Madrid 2006, pp. 102–13). (Back to text.)

[page 335]
Fig. 13

Detail of NG 1689, the man’s hand holding a staff. © The National Gallery, London.

Abbreviations

FTIR
Fourier transform infrared microscopy
GC–MS
Gas chromatography linked to mass‐spectrometry
NA
National Archives, Kew, London
NG
National Gallery, London

List of archive references cited

  • London, Guildhall Library, MS 4448: register of St Stephen Coleman Street, 6 July 1542
  • London, National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/48, 9 Crymes: will of Richard Ferris, proved 22 April 1566
  • London, National Archives, Kew, PROB 11/2226, sig. 74: will of Mrs Maria Louisa Whyte, née Simpson, proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 16 January 1856

List of references cited

Ainsworth et al. 2010
AinsworthMaryan W.et al.Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, The Complete WorksNew York 2010
Bartsch 1803–21
BartschAdam vonLe Peintre graveur (publication date of first volume often given as 1802), 21 volsVienna 1803–21
Campbell 1990
CampbellLorneRenaissance Portraits: European Portrait‐Painting in the 14th, 15th and 16th CenturiesNew Haven and London 1990
Campbell 1998
CampbellLorneNational Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish SchoolsLondon 1998
Currie and Allart 2012
CurrieChristina and Dominique AllartThe Brueg[H]el Phenomenon, Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger with a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice3 volsScientia Artis8Brussels 2012
Davies 1946
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: The French SchoolLondon 1946 (revised 2nd edn, London 1957)
Davies 1957
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: The French School, 2nd edn, revised, London 1957
Davies 1968
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: Early Netherlandish School, 3rd edn, London 1968
Fölting 1973
FöltingH.P., ‘De Landsadvocaten en raadspensionarissen der Staten van Holland en West‐Friesland, 1480–1795. Een genealogische benadering, I’, Jaarboek van het Centraal Bureau voor genealogie en het Iconografisch Bureau, 1973, vol. XXVII294–343
Fredericksen et al. 1990
FredericksenB.B.et al.The Index of Paintings Sold in the British Isles during the Nineteenth Century2 partsSanta Barbara 1990, 2, 1806–1810
Friedländer 1967–76
FriedländerMax JacobEarly Netherlandish Painting, eds Nicole Veronée‐VerhaegenGerard Lemmens and Henri Pauwelstrans. Heinz Norden14 vols in 16Leiden and Brussels 1967–76
Galand et al. 2013
GalandAlexandreet al.Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting: Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, The Flemish Primitives, VI, The Bernard van Orley GroupBrussels
Gordon 1993
GordonDillianMaking and Meaning: The Wilton Diptych (exh. cat. The National Gallery, London), London 1993
Gordon, Monnas and Elam 1997
GordonDillianLisa Monnas and Caroline Elam, eds, The Regal Image of Richard II and the Wilton Diptychwith an introduction by Caroline BarronLondon 1997
Hackenbroch 1996
HackenbrochYvonneEnseignes: Renaissance Hat JewelsFlorence 1996
Koreny 2012
KorenyFritzHieronymus Bosch, Die Zeichnungen, Werkstatt und Nachfolge bis zum Ende des 16. JahrhundertsTurnhout 2012
Lavin 1975
LavinM.A.Seventeenth‐Century Barberini Documents and Inventories of ArtNew York 1975
Levey 1959
LeveyMichaelNational Gallery Catalogues: The German SchoolLondon 1959
Pauwels, Hoetink and Herzog 1965
PauwelsHenriH.R. Hoetink and Sadja HerzogJean Gossaert dit Mabuse (exh. cat.), Rotterdam and Bruges 1965
Saunders et al. 2006
SaundersDavidRachel BillingeJohn CupittNick Atkinson and Haida Liang, ‘A New Camera for High‐Resolution Infrared Imaging of Works of Art’, Studies in Conservation, 2006, 51277–90
Smith 1973
SmithAlistairRenaissance PortraitsThemes and Painters in the National Gallery5London 1973
Strong 1963
StrongR.C., ‘Holbein’s Cartoon for the Barber Surgeons Group Rediscovered – A Preliminary Report’, Burlington Magazine, 1963, 1054–14
Times 16 April 1810
The Times, 16 April 1810, 1
Von der Osten 1961
Von der OstenGert, ‘Studien zu Jan Gossaert’, in Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, ed. M. MeissNew York 1961, 454–75
Weidema and Koopstra 2012
WeidemaSytske and Anna KoopstraJan Gossart, The Documentary Evidencewith a foreword by Maryan W. AinsworthTurnhout 2012
Weisz 1913
WeiszErnstJan Gossart gen. MabuseParchim i.M. 1913
Wine 2001
WineHumphreyNational Gallery Catalogues: The Seventeenth Century French PaintingsLondon 2001
Young 1890
YoungSidneyThe Annals of the Barber‐Surgeons of Londons.l. 1890

List of exhibitions cited

Derby 1870
Derby, Drill Hall, Midland Counties Exhibition, 1870
London
London, Old Academy Room, 118 Pall Mall, capital Pictures for Sale by Private Contract, 16 April 1810
London 1824
London, British Institution, 1824
London 1837
London, British Institution, 1837
London 1839
London, British Institution, 1839
London 1848, British Institution
London, British Institution, 1848
London 1879
London, Royal Academy, Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters and Deceased Masters of the British School, 1879
London 1939
London, National Gallery, Exhibition of Portraits, 1939
London, National Gallery, An Exhibition of Cleaned Pictures (1936–1947), 1947–8
London, National Gallery, The Rival of Nature: Renaissance Painting in its Context, 9 June–28 September 1975
London 1977–8
London, National Gallery, Painting in Focus: Jan van Eyck’s ‘The Arnolfini Marriage’, 1977–8
London, National Gallery, Renaissance Faces: Van Eyck to Titian, 15 October 2008–18 January 2009
London, National Gallery, Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, 2011 (exh. cat.: Ainsworth et al. 2010)
New York 2010–11
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, 2010–11 (exh. cat.: Ainsworth et al. 2010)
Rotterdam and Bruges 1965
Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen; Bruges, Groeninge‐museum, Jean Gossaert dit Mabuse, 1965 (exh. cat.: Pauwels, Hoetink and Herzog 1965)
[page 12]

The Low Countries in the sixteenth century.

[page 13]

The Organisation of the Catalogue

Geographical Boundaries and Chronological Limits

Pieter Bruegel the Elder died in 1569. By that time the Habsburgs had made the Low Countries into an independent political entity, by detaching, in 1529, the counties of Artois and Flanders from the kingdom of France and by separating, in 1548, the other provinces from the Empire. Charles V had annexed to his Burgundian inheritance Tournai, West Frisia, Utrecht and the Oversticht, Groningen and the Ommelanden, Cambrai and the duchy of Guelders. Only the Prince‐Bishopric of Liège and the lordship of Ravenstein remained outside Habsburg control. Under Philip II, in 1559–61, the establishment of three new archdioceses1 and fifteen dioceses2 provided for the newly emancipated region an independent ecclesiastical structure. The Spanish Netherlands, also known as the ‘Burgundian Circle’ of the Empire, with which it maintained vestigial links, or the ‘Seventeen Provinces’, included a large swathe of what is now northern France. Though the present political frontiers, created during later periods, have no relevance for the sixteenth century, the linguistic frontiers have remained in much the same places.

In 1569, the kingdom of France was a good deal smaller than the present French Republic. Although the duchy of Burgundy had been recovered in 1477 and Calais had been taken in 1558, the counties of Artois, Flanders and Hainault and the Free County of Burgundy (Franche Comté) belonged to the Habsburgs. France had annexed in 1552 the cities of Metz, Toul and Verdun, but Alsace and Lorraine remained parts of the Empire and the Dukes of Savoy controlled large areas in the south east. Lyon was a frontier town (though it temporarily ceased to be so between 1536 and 1559, when the French occupied Bresse and much of the rest of Savoy). Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin were enclaves that belonged to the papacy. The viscounty of Béarn remained independent until 1620.

Three years after Bruegel’s death, in 1572, the Dutch ‘Sea Beggars’ captured the little port of Brill, and three thousand Protestants were murdered in Paris early on Saint Bartholomew’s Day. These events initiated periods of dramatic change.

In the present catalogue the sixteenth century has been rather loosely defined, since several pictures certainly painted during the early years of the sixteenth century have already been catalogued with the fifteenth‐century pictures3 and some of the paintings catalogued here may conceivably have been painted before 1500. It seemed sensible to separate pictures that are closely linked with fifteenth‐century traditions from those, for example Bosch’s Christ Mocked (The Crowning with Thorns), NG 4744, that mark new departures in both style and technique and may be associated with Bruegel, rather than van Eyck, van der Weyden and van der Goes. It is this caesura of style and technique that seems very much more significant than the beginning of the new century.

By ‘Early French Pictures’ are meant those that precede the seventeenth‐century paintings already catalogued by Humphrey Wine.4 The Wilton Diptych (NG 4451), catalogued in 1946 and 1957 as ‘French(?) School’,5 has been omitted because it was painted in England by an artist or artists whose nationalities and places of training are not yet established.6 Also omitted from the present catalogue are one picture classed as French by Martin Davies in his French catalogues of 1946–57,7 and four pictures classed by him as Netherlandish in his Netherlandish catalogues of 1945–68.8 One picture classed as German by Michael Levey in 1959, the Virgin and Child with an Angel in a Landscape (NG 2157), is here catalogued as Netherlandish.9 The portrait of Susanna Stefan (NG 184) was painted in Nuremberg in the early 1560s but its painter was beyond question Nicolas de Neufchâtel, who came from Mons and was trained in the Low Countries. The picture is therefore retained in the Netherlandish section of the catalogue, but a revised edition of the entry will be included in the German catalogue.

It has been convenient to catalogue in the same volume the Early French and the sixteenth‐century Netherlandish paintings because the Early French pictures are rather few in number and several of the painters are thought to have received at least part of their training in the Low Countries. Corneille de Lyon certainly came from The Hague; Jean Hey was described as teutonicus and was probably from one of the provinces of the Low Countries that were independent of France; François Clouet’s father Jean Clouet was certainly born outside France and may well have come from the Low Countries. The style of the Master of Saint Giles seemed so Netherlandish that his paintings have previously been treated in the Netherlandish catalogues; there have been attempts to identify him with artists who came from Bruges or Tournai. It is interesting to consider the extents to which the Master of Saint Giles, and indeed Jean Hey, differ in style and technique from contemporary painters working in the Low Countries. François Quesnel was born in Scotland but his father was French and François worked in France. Simon de Mailly came from Châlons‐sur‐Marne and was therefore French, though he worked in Avignon, a city that was not, strictly speaking, part of France.

The Sixteenth‐Century Netherlandish Pictures

The paintings by Bosch, Bruegel and Beuckelaer, together with the unrivalled group of works by Gossart, are all great masterpieces; there are also a few rather undistinguished pictures. Most of those lesser paintings, however, are interesting for reasons other than their modest aesthetic qualities.

[page 14]

The Netherlandish collection has come together almost by accident. There are 69 Netherlandish entries in this catalogue (one of them devoted to all four paintings in Beuckelaer’s Elements series), of which 43 were given or bequeathed (20 gifts, 23 bequests) and 25 were bought, including five acquired through the purchase of the Krüger collection10 and three through that of the Beaucousin collection.11 The remaining item is the very damaged portrait transferred in 1880 from the British Museum.12 The gifts and bequests include all four paintings by Quinten Massys.13 The purchases include many of the most important masterpieces: five of the Gossarts (two from the Beaucousin collection), the Bosch, the Bruegel and the Beuckelaers. In many cases, the Trustees managed to drive down the price. Gossart’s Elderly Couple (NG 1689) was bought in 1900 for £4,000. The vendor and his agent, the dealer Ayerst Hooker Buttery, had hoped for more; the Gallery’s original offer had been £2,500.14 Agnew’s parted with Gossart’s Young Princess (NG 2211) without taking any profit. It was well known that the 9th Earl of Carlisle had expressed a wish that Gossart’s Adoration of the Kings (NG 2790) should be offered to the nation ‘on extremely favourable terms’ or at less than its market value. The dealer Guido Arnot had wanted £50,000 for his Bruegel (now NG 3556) but accepted £15,000, while the Bosch (NG 4744) was cheap at £5,291 16s. 9d.

Though considerable effort had to be made to raise money for Gossart’s Adoration and for Bruegel’s Adoration, and the National Art Collections Fund (now The Art Fund) played a vital part in both acquisitions, it cannot be claimed that the Gallery has spent extravagantly on its sixteenth‐century Netherlandish collection. It must be remembered that the Trustees and Directors were to some extent bound by the Treasury Minute of 27 March 1855:… my Lords are of opinion that, as a general rule, preference should be given to fine pictures for sale abroad. As regards the finer works of art in this country it may be assumed that, although they may change hands, they will not leave our shores … as a general rule, preference should be given to good specimens of the Italian schools, including those of the earlier masters.

Meanwhile, paintings by the most outstanding sixteenth‐century Netherlandish masters had been leaving ‘our shores’ in large numbers since the seventeenth century and continued to do so during the twentieth century. There is little point in listing those great pictures that could have been acquired, at little expense, for the Gallery. It is more important to stress that the collection that we have, despite the glories of its Gossarts, its Bosch and its Bruegel, has come together by happy accident. Though the collection of fifteenth‐century Netherlandish pictures may be, and has been, treated as a random sample of what was produced, it is not possible to claim that the sixteenth‐century Netherlandish paintings constitute a sample that is in any way representative. They must be discussed in rather different ways.

The Early French Pictures

The collection of early French pictures at the National Gallery is small, has come together largely by accident and has no coherence. There are thirteen French entries in this catalogue, one of which is devoted to the two scenes from the life of Saint Giles by the Master of Saint Giles (NG 1419 and NG 4681). The Saint Giles panels and the fragment by Jean Hey, usually known as the Master of Moulins (NG 4092), are pictures of great beauty, importance and interest. The remaining eleven, ten of which are portraits, are considerably less significant. Only two of them were purchased: NG 660, the portrait of the Seigneur d’Andoins from the workshop of François Clouet; and NG 3582, the portrait of a young woman here attributed to the workshop of François Quesnel.

Principles of Investigation

Because the two collections are not in any sense representative, and because they are being treated in one catalogue, I have not attempted to write an introductory essay along the same lines as the Introduction to my catalogue of The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools.15 Instead I have included a study of the ways in which sixteenth‐century Netherlandish paintings were viewed by people of that time. I have concentrated on pictures from the National Gallery Collection and on artists represented there, but it has not been possible to be exclusive and the reader will find many references to painters such as Lucas de Heere and Dominicus Lampsonius, both of whom worked in England but neither of whom is represented at the Gallery. Since the situation of the artist did not alter dramatically from the fifteenth to the sixteenth century, readers will find in my earlier catalogue remarks on various subjects that may be applied to the sixteenth century: for instance, on the art market or on the organisation of the painter’s workshop. The section on ‘The Making of Pictures’16 I amplify below by describing ‘The Processes of Making’ and by including some statistics on the Netherlandish and French pictures. It would, however, be unwise to make many extrapolations from the statistics presented.

The 69 entries in this catalogue for Netherlandish pictures and 13 for French make 82 entries in all, but they cover 108 painted surfaces. One entry is devoted to Beuckelaer’s Elements (NG 6585–NG 6588), four large canvases, and another to the pictures by the Master of Saint Giles (NG 1419 and NG 4681), two panels, each painted on both sides. Only four of the 108 do not include figures.17 Panels from the same polyptych are catalogued as one entry: the Heemskercks (NG 6508.1 and 2), which were the wings of a triptych; the two panels from the workshop of Quinten Massys (NG 295.1 and 2), which were put together as a diptych; the two panels from the workshop of Goossen van der Weyden (NG 1082 and NG 1084), both from the same altarpiece. The three triptychs that survive more or less intact are counted as single entities (NG 1088 and NG 2606, both from the workshop of Pieter Coecke, and NG 1085 by a follower of Quinten Massys).

It is worth pointing out that four of the pictures are undoubtedly fragments18 and that at least another ten have been parted from companion paintings – other parts of altarpieces19 [page 15]or pendants.20 Several more may have had painted reverses, now destroyed. Many of the companion pictures are lost, but others survive and, with much help from colleagues in other galleries and private collections, we have tried to study them with the greatest care and to assemble as much information as possible on their physical states. The two Saint Giles panels in Washington and Jean Hey’s Annunciation in Chicago were reunited in recent exhibitions with their London companions.

The Kingdom of France in the sixteenth century.

The Examination of the Pictures

Working in close association with my colleagues in the Conservation and Scientific Departments, I have studied each picture, brought to the Conservation Department for that purpose. This initial programme of examination began in 1991, conducted in exactly the same ways as for the catalogue of The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools.21 During the time that has elapsed between the initial examinations and the completion of the present catalogue, the technology available for scientific analysis has advanced enormously and it has been possible to take advantage of new techniques in order to improve analyses and make further discoveries. Meanwhile some paintings have been treated in the Conservation Department since their initial examinations, so that we could study them and refine greatly our first conclusions. As a result, some of the entries include more detailed, or more recent, information than do others.

[page 16]

We had already consulted records of any conservation treatments or previous examinations, X‐radiographs, infrared and other technical photographs, and existing reports on the analysis of paint samples. With Rachel Billinge, I studied the structure of any frame that was original and the construction of each support. The support was measured and notes were made of any inscriptions, seals, numbers or other significant marks on the reverse. Using infrared reflectography, Rachel Billinge examined the entire surface of each painting; we took detailed notes and she made reflectograms of any significant passages. Peter Klein is the dendrochronologist who has studied the London panels.

Rachel Billinge and I looked at many of the pictures under ultraviolet light. We examined every paint surface under a binocular microscope and made notes to be used in writing a detailed description of the picture and a report on its condition. What appeared to be underdrawing in the infrared images was scrutinised to ensure that it was in truth underdrawing rather than dark lines in the surface paint. The edges were examined with particular care to establish whether they had been cut, and, if so, how the cuts had been made, as well as to detect any traces of paint or gilding that might have strayed onto the painted surface when the original frame was decorated. Where possible, pigments were identified and layer structures observed. We tried to note, and describe, any unusual or potentially unusual aspects of the painting technique. Our colleagues from the Scientific Department also took part in the microscopic examination, when we decided whether and where it would be possible to obtain paint samples. Ashok Roy, Marika Spring, Raymond White, Jennie Pilc, Catherine Higgitt, David Peggie and Helen Howard took samples for analysis; they and their colleagues Jo Kirby and Rachel Morrison helped with the analyses and re‐examined existing samples from the Department’s archive. Martin Wyld, Larry Keith, David Bomford, Jill Dunkerton, Anthony Reeve, Paul Ackroyd, Britta New and Nele Bordt, all members of the Conservation Department, and the members of the Scientific Department already mentioned, have given particularly helpful advice. Rachel Billinge made many detail photographs and photomicrographs. If X‐radiographs or other technical images were required, they were made at that stage by members of the Photographic Department. The picture was then returned to its place in the Gallery.

Initially, Rachel Billinge made up the computerised reflectogram assemblies from images taken with the Hamamatsu vidicon camera.22 More recent infrared examinations have taken place using one of two cameras with digital sensors based on indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs).23 The paint samples were studied in the Scientific Department. Preparatory layers (grounds and primings), pigments and layer structures were examined by optical microscopy and analysis undertaken by energy‐dispersive X‐ray microanalysis in the scanning electron microscope (SEM–EDX) and by X‐ray powder diffraction (XRD), X‐ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) and attenuated total reflectance – Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopic imaging (ATR–FTIR). Lake pigments were studied with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and paintbinding media were identified by Gas Chromatography (GC), Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS) and the complementary technique of FTIR microscopy in transmission mode. At regular intervals, we discussed and collated our results. Rachel Billinge and Marika Spring have been unfailingly careful in checking, correcting and expanding the Technical Notes drafted by me, partly from their and their colleagues’ work and notes. They have played a vital part in the writing of this catalogue. Without them, it could never have been brought to its present form.

Arrangement

In the introductory chapter on ‘The Processes of Making’, I have commented on the materials that the painters used and the methods they followed to create pictures of differing kinds. In ‘The History of the Collection’ (and the separate, very short history of the French collection), I have tried to examine the history of the National Gallery Collection in the context of the changing interests of British collectors in Netherlandish and French painting. In the third essay, I have attempted to formulate some generalisations on the ways in which sixteenth‐century Netherlandish pictures were viewed by people of that time.

The catalogue entries are arranged, in the Netherlandish as in the French part, under artists’ names in alphabetical order. The four pictures consigned to anonymity are classified under Netherlandish School and French School. All the others are attached to named artists or to artists with ‘names of convenience’, for example the Master of the Female Half‐Lengths or the Master of Saint Giles. In the biographical essays at the start of each entry or group of entries, the facts of the artists’ lives are set out and the signed, documented or otherwise authenticated pictures are listed. Comments on style and on the workshop of each artist may be included. In the essays on Masters with names of convenience, the works after which they are named are described and the style of each Master is characterised. If a painting is described as by a particular artist, it is assumed that he painted it, with the usual amount of help from his assistants. If it is described as by an artist and his workshop, it is implied that the assistants were very largely responsible but that there was some direct intervention by the master. If a painting is described as from an artist’s workshop, it is implied that it was painted by one or more assistants under the master’s supervision, perhaps from his designs but without his direct intervention. If a painting is described as by a ‘follower’, the implication is that the follower was an imitator active outside the workshop, though he may have been a former assistant. A picture described as by an ‘associate’ is by an artist strongly impressed by the style of a particular master and perhaps striving to emulate his work. He may have collaborated with the master, as his journeyman or on a more equal basis, but was not totally dominated by him and retained some distinctive tastes and idiosyncrasies. The last category under each artist’s name comprises copies, where the painter totally abandoned his own individual style as he attempted to reproduce as accurately as possible the work of the named artist. In each category, the paintings are listed in numerical order, by inventory number.

[page 17]

Each entry begins with a section on ‘Provenance’, setting out the recorded history of the picture. If plausible deductions can be made about its earlier history, they are included in the main text of the entry. The patrons who probably commissioned Beuckelaer’s Four Elements, the Bruegel and Gossart’s Adoration of the Kings are discussed not under ‘Provenance’ but in the relevant sections of the entries. Under ‘Technical Notes’, conservation treatments are described, though minor operations, such as consolidations of flaking paint, are not necessarily enumerated. A condition report follows, where we consider in some detail alterations due to ageing that have affected the appearance of the painting in important ways. Information is then given on the support, the ground and priming, the underdrawing, the pigments and the media; particular attention is given to any changes in composition, important in reconstructing the creative processes of the painter. Unusual technical procedures and any notable peculiarities of handling are mentioned in the final section.

Under ‘Description’, I have pointed out details that may not be immediately obvious in the original or in good colour reproductions and have attempted to identify all the objects represented, including articles of clothing. It is perhaps inevitable that some of the smaller pictures have been more intensively studied and more fully described than some of the larger and more complex compositions. The ‘Description’ is usually, though not invariably, followed by a discussion of the subject of the picture: occasionally the discussion of the iconography – for example that of a portrait – finds its logical place after the attribution and date have been established. Commentaries on the function of the painting, its patron, its attribution and its date follow in the order that I considered reasonable and appropriate in that particular case. I have summarised with some care the views of respected authorities such as Passavant, Friedländer and Hulin; I have referred constantly to previous Gallery catalogues and always to those by my predecessor Martin Davies. Any useful observation or comment I have of course taken into account. I have not seen fit, however, to burden the text with endless citations of books, articles or exhibition catalogues where the authors express but do not justify opinions or merely repeat the findings of others. I could not attempt to cite every published reference to every picture. The admirable indexes kept in the National Gallery Library allow exhaustive bibliographies to be compiled. In the Notes I have given essential citations so that anyone can check my sources. Occasionally I have included in the Notes short digressions, which may interest some readers but are not vital for an understanding of the entry. I have employed the abbreviations listed on p. 11 above. Frequently cited books and articles are referred to by the author’s surname and the date of publication: full details will be found in the List of Publications Cited, which is exactly that and which must not be treated as a Bibliography.

The catalogue entries, written at different times, were complete by the end of 2011. In 2012–13, however, the ‘Technical Notes’ sections were thoroughly revised by Rachel Billinge and Marika Spring to take account of recent discoveries and research. The Magdalen (NG 719), from the workshop of the Master of 1518, was cleaned and restored in 2012–13; this entry has been rewritten. I have not been able to include systematically references to books, articles and exhibition catalogues published in 2012 and 2013: for example, the strangely incomplete survey of the documents on Gossart by Sytske Weidema and Anna Koopstra,24 Alexandre Galand’s exemplary volume on van Orley,25 or the study of Bosch’s drawings by Fritz Koreny.26 A few exceptions have been made, notably for the important book on Bruegel by Christina Currie and Dominique Allart.27

Comparative illustrations are included if they are considered essential for an understanding of the entry or if they are not readily accessible elsewhere. Details and photomicrographs are given to illustrate points made in the text. For pictures that survive in damaged condition – for example the portraits by Mor (NG 1231) and Frans Pourbus the Elder (NG 6412) – photomicrographs of well‐preserved areas are used to convey something of the quality of the originals and to allow readers to glimpse a little of the beauty that these paintings once possessed. Photomicrographs of parts of the less good pictures – for example NG 2616, the portrait of a woman by a follower of Corneille de Lyon, and NG 5762, the Cleopatra attributed to Simon de Mailly – will allow readers to observe and assess the massive differences that separate them from the masterpieces of Beuckelaer, Bruegel, Gossart, Massys, Mor and Jean Hey.

Place names have been given in the forms most familiar to the English‐speaking reader: Bruges for Brugge, The Hague for ’s‐Gravenhage (Den Haag), Mechlin for Mechelen (Malines), Ypres for Ieper. By Christie’s and Sotheby’s are meant the London headquarters of those firms. For sales in other locations, the towns are specified, as in Christie’s, New York, or Sotheby’s, Monaco.

In the catalogue entries, I have tried to explain the physical as well as the historical evidence in the most straightforward way, to make it accessible to the interested general reader as well as to the specialist. In presenting my own conclusions, I have endeavoured to make a clear distinction between fact and speculation. Anyone taking issue with my findings will have the relevant evidence at his or her disposal and will, I hope, be in a position to add to it and to refute or develop my arguments.

[page 18]
Notes

1. Mechlin, Cambrai and Utrecht. (Back to text.)

2. St Omer, Arras, Tournai, Namur, Ypres, Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp, ’s‐Hertogenbosch, Middelburg, Haarlem, Roermond, Deventer, Leeuwarden and Groningen. (Back to text.)

3. See Campbell 1998, p. 7. (Back to text.)

5. Davies 1946, pp. 46–9; Davies 1957, pp. 92–101. (Back to text.)

6. Dillian Gordon et al. , Making and Meaning, The Wilton Diptych, exh. cat., National Gallery, London 1993; Dillian Gordon, Lisa Monnas and Caroline Elam, eds, The Regal Image of Richard II and the Wilton Diptych, London 1997. (Back to text.)

7. Davies 1946, p. 49; 1957, p. 101: The Virgin, NG 1335, described as ‘French School. Fifteenth Century (Imitation) (?)’. It is not a fake but is one of several heads of the Virgin painted in and around Valencia in about 1500. It will be catalogued with the other Spanish pictures. (Back to text.)

8. The first is the Three Men and a Little Girl, NG 2597, catalogued by Davies 1968, pp. 9–10, as ‘Ascribed to Dirck Barendsz.’ but now classified as Venetian. It was given by Pope Urban VIII (1568–1644, Pope from 1623) to Cardinal Francesco Barberini and was listed in Barberini inventories of 1629, 1630, 1631–6 and 1692–1704 with an attribution to Titian (Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, Seventeenth‐Century Barberini Documents and Inventories of Art, New York 1975, pp. 92, 99, 111, 440). The second is the Edzard the Great, Count of East Friesland, NG 2209, catalogued by Davies 1968, p. 145, as Netherlandish School. It was probably painted in East Friesland, the region of Germany around Emden, and will be included in the German catalogue. The third is the Magdalen, NG 2615, catalogued by Davies 1968, pp. 150–1, as Netherlandish School. Although its support is Baltic oak (the rings are extremely wide, both boards are from the same tree and the last rings in both were formed in 1442: see Peter Klein’s report of 28 January 2006, in the NG dossier), the ground is calcium sulphate (a mixture of the dihydrate and anhydrite forms) and it is therefore unlikely to be Netherlandish. It will be catalogued as Spanish or Portuguese. The fourth is the Entombment, NG 1151, catalogued by Davies 1968, pp. 178–9, as ‘Style of “Ysenbrandt”’ (Adriaen Isenbrant). It is in fact a slightly damaged print of a well-known engraving by Schongauer ( B. 18). The painter who coloured the print adapted the landscape and included a free version of Marcantonio Raimondi’s engraved copy after Raphael’s Descent from the Cross ( B. 32). Marcantonio’s engraving has been dated around 1521. It seems overambitious to try to guess the nationality of the artist who coloured the print and more sensible to catalogue the coloured print as a version of a Schongauer and classify it as German, even if it may have been painted in the Low Countries. (Back to text.)

9. The Virgin and Child with an Angel in a Landscape, NG 2157, catalogued by Levey 1959, pp. 44–5, who thought that it was a fake, as ‘Ascribed to the German School’. It is here attributed to a late imitator of Rogier van der Weyden. (Back to text.)

10. NG 265 (workshop of Bellegambe), NG 264 (Albrecht Bouts and workshop), NG 266 (Master of the Prodigal Son) and NG 2157 (late imitator of Rogier van der Weyden). (Back to text.)

11. NG 655 (Benson), NG 656 (Gossart), NG 1888 (Gossart). (Back to text.)

12. NG 1094, Netherlandish (or English?) School. (Back to text.)

13. NG 715, NG 3664, NG 5769, NG 6282. (Back to text.)

14. NG Archive, HG NG 7/247, letters of 4 May 1900 (Buttery to Poynter, the Director) and 8 May 1900 (Buttery to Hawes Turner, the Keeper). (Back to text.)

15. Campbell 1998, pp. 18–35. (Back to text.)

16. Ibid. , pp. 29–31. (Back to text.)

17. The reverse of the wing of Saint Ambrose with Ambrosius van Engelen (NG 264), from the workshop of Albrecht Bouts; the reverse of the centre panel of the triptych of The Virgin and Child Enthroned (NG 2606), from the workshop of Pieter Coecke; and the reverses of the wings of the triptych of The Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels in a Garden (NG 1085), by a follower of Quinten Massys. (Back to text.)

18. The Female Head (NG 721) by the Master of the Female Half‐Lengths; the Young Man Praying (NG 1063) from the workshop of the Master of the Holy Blood; the Saint Jerome in a Rocky Landscape from the workshop of Patinir; and the Meeting at the Golden Gate (NG 4092) by Jean Hey. (Back to text.)

19. The Crucifixion (NG 718) by an associate of Jan de Beer and the Adoration of the Kings (NG 2155) after Joos van Cleve are the centre panels of triptychs; the wings without centre panels are the Heemskercks (NG 6508); the Donor (NG 1081) from the workshop of Quinten Massys; the Virgin standing in a Niche (NG 3901) and the Saint Luke painting the Virgin and Child (NG 3902), which are the two sides of the right wing of a triptych also from the Massys workshop. The Visitation (NG 1082) and the Flight into Egypt (NG 1084), from the workshop of Goossen van der Weyden are from an altarpiece from which two other panels have survived; while the panels by the Master of Saint Giles (NG 1419, NG 4681) are likewise from an altarpiece from which two others are known. (Back to text.)

20. For example, the ‘Ugly Duchess’ (NG 5769) by Quinten Massys is one of a pair; while the Susanna Stefan (NG 184) by Nicolas de Neufchâtel was almost certainly paired with a portrait of her husband Wolfgang Furter. (Back to text.)

21. Campbell 1998, pp. 7–9. (Back to text.)

22. Infrared reflectography was carried out using a Hamamatsu C2400 camera with an N2606 series infrared vidicon tube. The camera is fitted with a 36 mm lens to which a Kodak 87A Wratten filter has been attached to exclude visible light. The infrared reflectogram mosaics were assembled on a computer using Vips‐ip software. For further information about the software, see the Vips website at www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk. (Back to text.)

23. SIRIS (Scanning InfraRed Imaging System), which uses an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) array sensor. Developed at the National Gallery in 2005 and in use until 2008. For further details about the camera, see David Saunders, Rachel Billinge, John Cupitt, Nick Atkinson and Haida Liang, ‘A New Camera for High‐Resolution Infrared Imaging of Works of Art’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 51, 2006, pp. 277–90. OSIRIS, which also contains an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) sensor, has been in regular use from 2008. For further details about the camera, see www.opusinstruments.com/index.php. (Back to text.)

24. Jan Gossart, The Documentary Evidence, with a foreword by Maryan W. Ainsworth, Turnhout 2012. (Back to text.)

25. Alexandre Galand et al. , Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting: Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, The Flemish Primitives, VI, The Bernard van Orley Group, Brussels 2013. (Back to text.)

26. Hieronymus Bosch, Die Zeichnungen, Werkstatt und Nachfolge bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, Turnhout 2012. (Back to text.)

About this version

Version 3, generated from files LC_2014__16.xml dated 16/03/2025 and database__16.xml dated 14/03/2025 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 03/01/2025. Links to relevant paintings corrected in entries for NG1689 and NG2790.

Cite this entry

Permalink (this version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIR-000B-0000-0000
Permalink (latest version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/0DFT-000B-0000-0000
Chicago style
Campbell, Lorne. “NG 1689, An Elderly Couple”. 2014, online version 3, March 16, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIR-000B-0000-0000.
Harvard style
Campbell, Lorne (2014) NG 1689, An Elderly Couple. Online version 3, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIR-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).
MHRA style
Campbell, Lorne, NG 1689, An Elderly Couple (National Gallery, 2014; online version 3, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIR-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 19 March 2025]