Skip to main content

Main image

The Four Elements:
Catalogue entry

Catalogue contents

About the catalogue

Entry details

Full title
The Four Elements
Artist
Joachim Beuckelaer
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).

© The National Gallery, London

© The National Gallery, London

NG 6585 
Earth

Oil on canvas, 158 × 215.4 cm

Signature and Date

Signed and monogrammed on the wheelbarrow: Joahim IB (in monogram) buekeleer (fig. 1); dated on the well‐head: (fig. 2).

NG 6586 
Water

Oil on canvas, 158.1 × 214.9 cm

Signature and Date

Signed, monogrammed and dated on the edge of the table on the left of the basket of cod: Joahim buekeleer/15 · IB (in monogram) · (fig. 3).

NG 6587 
Air

Oil on canvas, 158 × 216 cm

Signature and Date

Signed and dated on the barrel beneath the brass vessel: Joahim buekeleer/ (fig. 4).

NG 6588 
Fire

Oil on canvas, 158.2 × 215.4 cm

Signature and Date

Signed and monogrammed on the table edge between the woman on the right and the turkey: Joahim buek[el]eer/ .IB (in monogram) (fig. 5); dated above the doorway in the top left corner: (fig. 6).

Provenance

By 1884, the four paintings, with a fifth also attributed to Beuckelaer, were in Room 12 of the gallery of the Palazzo Panciatichi (entrance via di Pinti 62), Florence.1 The palace and the paintings belonged to Ferdinando Panciatichi Ximenes d’Aragona (1813–1897), Marchese di Saturnia e d’Esche (Esche being in Bavaria). Ferdinando had made important additions to the ‘already considerable’ collections formed by his ancestors.2The Four Elements could have come to him from his Panciatichi ancestors or from the Ximenes d’Aragona; alternatively, he could have inherited them from the Guicciardini, Valori or Pecori families.3 The Marchese died in 1897, leaving his property to his great‐grandchildren. Their grandmother, the Marchese’s daughter Marianna Paolucci, had a life interest and decided to sell the collection – except portraits of members of the Panciatichi and Ximenes families and objects decorated with their coats of arms. The sale, directed by Galardelli and Mazzoni, took place on 3 April 1902 and the following days. The Beuckelaers, still in Room 12 (‘Salle L’), were sold as lot 165 on 11 April: ‘BEUCKELAER JOACHIM (1570) (Signé) LE MARCHE au gibier – le Marché aux légumes – le Marché aux poissons et la Cuisine. Quatre magnifiques compositions sur toile, pour décoration de salle à manger. Cadres dorés. M. 1.55 × 2.12.’ Air was reproduced in the sale catalogue. The next lot, 166, was obviously the fifth painting mentioned in 1884: ‘BEUCKELAER JOACHIM (1570) JEUNE BONNE au Marché. Cadre doré. Bois. M.1.55 × 1.95.’4 The names of the purchasers have not been discovered; the fifth painting has not been traced.

In the Friedländer Archives at the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The Hague, are old photographs of three of the Four Elements. On the back of the photograph of Air, someone – probably not Friedländer himself – has written ‘Verz[ameling] Langevelt‐Campens/Bruxelles/Rue Royale/161 [or 61]’.5 Modeste Langevelt (1871–1914) dealt in pictures and in 1912 was living at 202 rue Royale in Brussels. In 1899 he married, as his second wife, Elvire Marthe Campens (born 1871).6 She would appear to have been the ‘Langevelt‐Campens’ whose name is written on the back of Friedländer’s photograph.

By 1942 the four pictures were in the possession of Robert Goffinet (1886–1945) who owned two adjoining houses at 167–169 rue de la Loi, Brussels. His nephew Jean Goffinet remembered seeing them in that year at 167 rue de la Loi. This house had belonged to Robert Goffinet’s mother Jeanne Quairier, widow of General Théodule Goffinet (1851–1907) and daughter of Joseph Quairier, Avocat à la Cour de Cassation and Directeur de la Société Générale de Belgique. It seems likely that the pictures had belonged to Jeanne Goffinet‐Quairier, who might have inherited them from her father. She died in 1930.7 At the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique in Brussels are old photographs of the four paintings ‘possibly taken about 1930–40 by the photographer Becker of Brussels’: no one knows when or where the negatives were made.8

The four pictures, probably in the possession of the Goffinet family by 1930 and certainly owned by Robert Goffinet in 1942, passed to Robert’s brother Louis Goffinet (1892–1959), who lived at the château of Hyon, south of Mons. He left his property to his wife (Marie‐Louise‐Augusta Bouilliart de Saint‐Symphorien); after her death in February 1979, their heirs sold the paintings and the château (bought from them on 14 November 1980 and demolished in 1983).9

The paintings were eventually taken to a bank in Brussels, where they were under the care of two dealers, René Reding and F. De Scheemaecker. Offered for sale to the City of Antwerp, they were shown on 4 November 1981 to Carl Van de Velde. He was told that they had come from a castle near Mons; the [page 104][page 105][page 106][page 107]owner’s name was not disclosed.10 Shortly afterwards, apparently in 1982, they were sold to Herman Van Roey, a collector, who was advised by the art historian Paul Verbraeken and who in 1986 lent them to the Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Ghent. They were the centrepiece of the exhibition Joachim Beuckelaer, Het markt‐en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 1550–1650, 12 December 1986 to 8 March 1987, and remained on public view at the museum until Mr Van Roey sent them to Christie’s, London, where they were sold on 13 December 2000 (lot 25) to the dealer Robert Noortman, Maastricht. They were bought for £3,323,821.88 from Robert Noortman in 2001, the purchase funded by the American Friends of the National Gallery, London.

Fig. 1

Detail from NG 6585, showing signature. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 2

Detail from NG 6585, showing date. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 3

Detail from NG 6586, signature and date. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 4

Detail from NG 6587, signature and date. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 5

Detail from NG 6588, showing signature. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 6

Detail from NG 6588, showing date. © The National Gallery, London

Exhibitions

Ghent 1986–7 (8–11); Antwerp 1993 (B 57: NG 6585 only); Antwerp and Lisbon 1998–9 (D 5–8); Bristol 2005 (NG 6585 and NG 6588 only); Newcastle 2005 (all four); NG 2005 (all four).

Versions

  • A copy after NG 6586, Water, was sold at Christie’s South Kensington, 20 April 1989 (lot 216), as ‘Manner of Pieter Aertsen’. Canvas, 147.9 × 212.7 cm.
  • A free copy after NG 6586, Water, was exhibited in 1926 at the Malmö Museum, Sweden, ‘Utställning av en samling äldre målningar’ , no. 7: panel, 172 × 232 cm (fig. 7).
  • The figure of the old lady in the lower left corner of NG 6586, Water, was adapted in a Poultry Market by a follower of Beuckelaer once with the dealer Heineman in Wiesbaden (panel, 111 × 132 cm).11
  • A painting similar to no. 3 above was once with a London dealer named S. Bolton.12
  • A copy after NG 6588, Fire, is in the Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko Museum of Arts, Kiev, 1961 catalogue no. 66, canvas, 161 × 215 cm, monogrammed GT (fig. 8). Acquired in 1956 from the Direction of Art Exhibitions and Panoramas of the Ministry of Culture of the USSR.

As these versions are known only from black and white photographs or reproductions, it is not possible to say whether any of them reproduces its original in a state before the smalt became badly deteriorated.

Many of the objects, birds, animals and buildings depicted in the Four Elements recur in other paintings by Beuckelaer and his followers. The same workshop drawings or studies were probably being re‐used: see pp. 133–4 below.

Technical Notes

All four canvases have been lined and restretched. The only restoration of which any record is known took place shortly before the Ghent exhibition of 1986–7. It was carried out by Jan Van Looveren and Martine Brodelet and has been described in a report by Jan Van Looveren. He commented on a previous restoration, thought to have taken place towards the end of the nineteenth century, presumably in Florence.13 Van Looveren praised the skill and thoroughness of the earlier treatment and the excellent quality of the materials used. He described his own intervention as minimal. The old varnish was thinned or removed, old overpaint and loose fillings were removed, all losses were filled and retouched. Included in his study are useful diagrams that indicate losses, fillings and areas from which overpaint has been removed. The four pictures may all be described as well preserved, though they have suffered small accidental damages and the lining process has flattened several areas of impasted paint.

The appearance of all four pictures has been seriously affected by the deterioration of the areas painted with smalt, which were once blue and purple. In samples it is apparent that most of the smalt particles have lost their blue colour and are now colourless; the oil medium around the particles is a heavily discoloured yellow or yellow‐brown. In addition to this colour change, the paint has become blanched and [page 108]cloudy: this is evident in the patchy appearance of these areas. In the ‘Description’ below, attempts have been made to indicate the probable original colours of the areas of degraded paint.

Fig. 7

After Joachim Beuckelaer, copy of Water. Oil on panel, 172 × 232 cm. Exhibited at Malmö in 1926. Private collection © Photo courtesy of the owner

Fig. 8

After Joachim Beuckelaer, copy of Fire. Oil on canvas, 161 × 215 cm. Kiev, Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko Museum of Arts. © Bodgan and Varvara Khanenko Museum of Arts, Kiev

Fig. 9

Detail from NG 6586, painted black border. © The National Gallery, London

All four pictures are canvases, each with one horizontal seam. All four have been lined with canvas of similar weave and weight.14 They were then mounted on softwood stretchers;15 but none is perfectly aligned with its stretcher. Narrow strips of the lining canvases are visible at some edges, as are small areas of the painted black bands that enclosed each composition. The stretcher sizes are: Earth, 157.8 cm (left) – 158.0 cm (right) × 215.4 cm (top) – 215.2 cm (bottom); Water, 157.9 cm (left) – 158.1 cm (right) × 214.7 cm (top) – 214.9 cm (bottom); Air, 157.8 cm (left) – 158.0 (right) × 215.6 cm (top) – 216.0 cm (bottom); Fire, 157.5 cm (left) – 158.2 cm (right) × 215.4 cm (top) – 215.0 cm (bottom).

The canvases are tabby woven. Those of Earth and Water, both dated 1569, are less fine than those of Air and Fire, both dated 1570. In all cases, strips of canvas of the same weight have been sewn together. Earth and Water have 15 horizontal threads per cm and between 15 and 16 vertical threads per cm. Air and Fire have between 17 and 18 horizontal threads per cm and between 18 and 20 vertical threads per cm. None of the seams is perfectly horizontal. The measurements from the lower edges of the stretchers are: Earth, 44.7 cm (left) – 43.7 cm (right); Water, 51.1 cm (left) – 53.0 cm (right); Air, 44.5 cm (left) – 46.4 cm (right); and Fire, 51.6 cm (left) – 49.4 cm (right).

Bands of black paint are visible at many of the edges of the original canvases (fig. 9). This black paint is in some, if not all, places applied on top of original paint but it seems itself to be original and to have defined the painted surfaces, framing the area to be shown. They were at least 1.3 cm wide – the width of the widest surviving area of black, at the left side of the lower edge of Water. The missing black bands would have been trimmed away as part of the lining process. The measurements within the black bands are: Earth, 157.3 × 215.4 cm; Water, 157.8 × 214.9 cm; Air, 157.2 × 214.8 cm; and Fire, 157.9 × 214.8 cm. As the Antwerp foot measured 28.68 cm, the images were 5½ × 7½ Antwerp feet (=157.74 × 215.1cm).

Marks left by old stretcher bars lie diagonally across all four corners of Fire; but this old stretcher was probably not original. The first owners may have had them stretched over panels or on strainers with fixed corners. On the reverses of the present stretchers and the modern frames are various stencils, labels and chalk marks, none of which is of any immediate interest. The Christie’s stencil TG 559 is on the stretchers of Water and Fire.

The canvas for the two paintings dated 1569 has been prepared with a red ground bound in oil consisting of calcium carbonate (probably in the form of chalk), red earth, some silica (quartz) and some red lead. The red lead has reacted with the oil medium forming large agglomerates of lead soaps that protrude through the layers above. These agglomerates are large enough to be visible to the naked eye and to make the paint surface look lumpy. A further preparation layer of lead white, perhaps with traces of red lead, lies over the first red layer. Where the preparation is not covered by paint it is evident that, together, these layers give a salmon‐pink colour.

The preparation on the two canvases dated 1570 is of a similar hue but of a slightly lighter colour. The first layer is predominantly calcium carbonate (chalk) with some poorly dispersed red lead pigment in agglomerates, some silica (quartz) and a very small amount of earth pigment. The lower proportion of red pigment and the greater amount of calcium carbonate explain why it is lighter than in the earlier paintings. This ground appears to be bound in oil and again there is significant lead soap formation, although overall it is not as extensive as in the earlier paintings, probably because there is less red lead. This first layer is again covered by a second white or off‐white layer.

A great deal of freely executed underdrawing is present in all four paintings (figs 11, 12); it is visible in places where the paint has become more transparent with age and, more completely, in infrared reflectograms. This sketchy underdrawing is in black, over the primings, and the character of the lines, as well as its appearance in a sample, suggests a liquid medium (fig. 11). There are also ruled lines, mainly in the architecture (fig. 10). In one sample, from a line ruled for the edge of a building, in the sky in the top left section of Water, the material of the black underdrawing seems to be graphite, which would be a sensible choice for ruling lines.

For still‐life elements preliminary drawings have been employed that Beuckelaer also used in other pictures, but there are no signs that mechanical techniques of reproduction such as tracing were used. They would have been copied freehand, sometimes on much the same scale as in the other paintings; but comparison of traced overlays confirms that Beuckelaer reproduced his own drawings freehand and adjusted scale and detail as he wished.16 The artichokes in [page 109][page 110]Earth, for example (fig. 13), match very closely artichokes in the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Antwerp), dated 1567 (fig. 14), but the drawing made visible in infrared images is very sketchy, merely an indication that artichokes were to be placed there. No underdrawing could be found for the painted artichokes, which must have been copied and adjusted by eye (fig. 15).

Fig. 10

Infrared reflectogram of NG 6586. detail of the street. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 11

Infrared reflectogram of NG 6586, detail of the Miraculous Draught of Fishes. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 12

Infrared reflectogram of NG 6587, detail of the quayside. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 13

Detail from NG 6585, artichokes. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 14

Detail from NG 6585, artichokes, with overlay, tracing of the artichokes in the painting reproduced on p. 97 as fig. 7.

Fig. 15

Infrared reflectogram of NG 6585, detail of the artichokes. © The National Gallery, London

The figures in the fore‐ and middle grounds are underdrawn with very bold black lines which are similar in style to Beuckelaer’s grisaille ‘drawings’ in oil on paper, for example the Joshua tricked by the Gibeonites in the J. Paul Getty Museum (90.GG.133) (fig. 16).17 That these lines are underdrawings is confirmed in the two main figures in Earth, whose heads were drawn, in this style, facing away from each other (figs 17, 18). No black drawing was used for the heads as they were finally painted. In Air , the boy and the women in the middle ground have this bold black underdrawing, but the two main foreground figures do not (fig. 19). Why this picture should be different is not clear.

The changes to the heads of the women in Earth were made after painting had begun (white paint for the head covering of the woman on the right is clearly visible in infrared images: fig. 18). Numerous other changes, made during painting, can be seen in all four paintings.

The consequences of Beuckelaer’s use of the unstable blue pigment smalt have already been mentioned. It is present in the sky of all the paintings, now generally a greyish‐cream colour, except for small patches in Air where the blue colour is better preserved. The creamy‐pink clouds are a mixture of lead white, red lake and smalt and may have been more mauve in colour originally. Beuckelaer also used smalt extensively in the garments of the figures, which now range in colour from pinkish brown to bluish grey but would originally have been a variety of purple and blue hues.18 Although the smalt‐containing paint is sometimes mixed with some red lake to make purple or mauve, the range of tones was generally achieved by varying the colour of the undermodelling. The sleeves of the woman standing in the foreground of Air, for example (figs 19, 38), have an undermodelling that is purplish pink in the mid‐tones, just visible at the surface where the paint is thin. The undermodelling darkens in the shadows to a deep red, containing only red lake – as seen in a paint cross‐section where it lies beneath greyish‐brown smalt‐containing paint. Not only has the smalt lost its colour, but the paint as a whole has blanched and become more opaque, so that the effect of transparent blue over red producing a deep purple blue has been lost. In her bodice the underpaint is darker, consisting of red lake mixed with some black, and is again covered with smalt‐containing paint which would once have given a slightly different, deeper purple‐blue shade. There is also pink undermodelling in her apron, covered more completely by the upper smalt‐containing paint, which has developed a more yellow‐brown colour than in her other garments; this was evidently intended to be yet another shade of purple‐blue or mauve. These techniques are repeated in the other paintings.

Smalt was not the only blue pigment used in the paintings. Azurite of small particle size and greenish‐blue colour is a [page 111]component of the mixed greens in the backgrounds and some of the green or blue‐green paint of the fruit and vegetables in the still lifes. It is mixed with lead white and lead‐tin yellow in the lighter, more opaque areas, or mixed with yellow lake in the deeper greens, such as those of the leaves of the trees. Similar mixtures are used for the green draperies of small figures in the backgrounds, like the dress of the woman sitting by the hearth in Fire. The deep, more saturated green garments of the foreground figures are instead based on verdigris mixed with a little lead‐tin yellow. In the skirt of the woman standing [page 112]on the left in Air (fig. 38), it is thickly applied on a relatively thin warm grey underpaint of lead white, black and a little vermilion. In the green skirt of the woman in the centre of Fire, the underpaint is a greener grey of lead white, black, azurite and a little lead‐tin yellow.

Fig. 16

Joachim Beuckelaer, Joshua tricked by the Gibeonites, 1565. Oil on paper, 26.1 × 19 cm. Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum (inv. 90.GG.133). © The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

Fig. 17

Infrared reflectogram of NG 6585, detail of the head of the woman on the left. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 18

Infrared reflectogram of NG 6585, detail of the head of the woman on the right. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 19

Infrared reflectogram of NG 6587, detail of the women on the left. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 20

Detail from NG 6585, the two women in the foreground. © The National Gallery, London

Red lake was used not only in purples but also for pink and red draperies, where it was shown to have been prepared with cochineal dyestuff, most probably of the New World variety, extracted from dyed silk shearings.19 Both the pinkish‐red and the more orange‐red hues are generally underpainted in an opaque mixture of red earth, lead white, red lead and red lake. In the former, however, there is further modelling based mainly on red lake, while the latter is modelled with a mixture similar in all respects but one to that of the underpaint: it contains vermilion instead of red earth. In the deepest shadows, both are glazed with red lake mixed with colourless powdered glass.20 The strong yellows in some of the garments consist of a yellow earth of unusually intense hue mixed with lead‐tin yellow.

The theory that Beuckelaer was impecunious and therefore economised by using the cheapest pigments is not borne out by examination of the Four Elements.21

The medium was identified as heat‐bodied linseed oil in the majority of the samples analysed, although walnut oil, generally heat‐bodied, was found in samples of white paint. In one sample, from translucent green paint on the drapery of the woman in the foreground of NG 6588, there was evidence of the addition of a small amount of pine resin.

Beuckelaer’s brushwork and the remarkable and apparently effortless skill of his application of paint are discussed on pp. 133–4 below.

Description

Earth

The two women in the foreground, often called stall‐holders, appear to be buying, rather than selling, fruit and vegetables. The woman on our left has half‐filled her shopping basket with apples; the woman on our right holds up a huge cabbage, perhaps for her companion’s approval. The sellers, who should logically be with the spectator on the other side of the produce, are probably the couple on our right, who seem to be preparing vegetables for display and sale. In the background on our left, Joseph, Mary and the Christ Child cross a bridge, evidently on their way into Egypt.

The woman on the left, who may be standing in a hollow in the landscape, has yellowish‐brown hair, brown eyes with slightly greyish lights and very dark eyebrows (fig. 20). She is painted from a model frequently used by Beuckelaer,22 for example for the woman second from our left in Water and probably also for the central figure in Fire, where she wears the same red jacket that appears in Earth and reappears, worn by another model, in Air. This jacket, seen in several other [page 113]paintings by Beuckelaer, seems to have been one of his studio props.23 Under the red jacket, the woman in Earth wears a white partlet with a ruched high collar and a yellow stomacher over which are grey laces. She has rolled up her sleeves to expose the cuffs of her white chemise and protects her purplish skirt (just visible below her shopping basket) with a long apron, which was once purple or purple‐blue but is now, because the paint has discoloured, yellowish brown. The apron and rolled‐up sleeves show that she is a servant who does manual work, though her clothes seem to be made of good quality materials and she is by no means poor. Her companion, evidently of similar status, has blue eyes and yellowish, frizzy hair (fig. 20). The same model reappears, similarly dressed, on the left in Fire, where her eyes are brownish with greyish lights, and perhaps also on the extreme right in Water, where her eyes are hazel. In Earth she wears an elaborate headdress made of nearly transparent, and therefore expensive, white cloths. In places the hanging veils are so diaphanous that the well‐head is clearly visible through at least two thicknesses of fabric. The veils, worn over a cap of similar material, are held in shape with wires and secured to her head with clips. Like her companion, she has a white shirt, exposed at the cuffs and here also at the armpit, where it is pulled through the gap between the separate yellow sleeve and the yellow‐brown bodice, which was originally blue or purplish blue. The bodice is open at the front to reveal a reddish stomacher supported by blackish laces. Over this is a white partlet with a ruched high collar; the partlet is not secured at the back. The woman’s dull red skirt is protected by an apron, now discoloured but once purplish or purplish blue, of a hue different from that of her bodice.

Fig. 21

After Joachim Beuckelaer, Women selling Fruit and Vegetables. Oil on canvas, 145 × 210.5 cm. Bratislava, Slovak National Gallery. © Slovak Museum, Bratislava

The enormous cabbage that she holds occupies so central and so important a position that it invites some comment. Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, cabbages were imported into England by the hundreds and thousands from the Low Countries and elsewhere.24 Whether these cabbages were of spectacular size or of special varieties is not clear. The large one in NG 6585 is a ‘Tritian cabbage’, which, according to Pliny, had ‘outstanding flavour’ but which, by the time of Rembert Dodoens (1517–1585), the physician and botanist, was the Latin name for the ordinary white cabbage. Pliny stated that the Tritian cabbage was produced by earthing up the shoots as soon as they appeared: this took twice the usual outlay and trouble and the product was therefore a luxury food.25 Dodoens reported that cabbages, like radishes, encouraged menstruation. They may have been credited with contraceptive properties.26 Cabbages were also seen as enemies of the vineyards and of mirth, playfulness and delight.27 Beuckelaer’s prominent cabbage could have been interpreted in many different ways. Obviously he must have liked its colour and shape and must have thought that it would look well in its central position.

[page 114]
Fig. 22

Detail from NG 6585, the still life on the right. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 23

Joachim Beuckelaer, Still Life with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, 1569. Oil on canvas, 81 × 104 cm. Lemgo, Weserrenaissance‐Museum (lent from the Staff Stiftung). © Lemgo, Weserrenaissance‐Museum Schloss Brake, Staff‐Stiftung

[page 115]

The woman holding the cabbage is sitting on a conveniently placed hillock. Beside her is a wooden wheelbarrow, its wheel bound with iron; its shafts are level with the bottom of the box. The signature and monogram are on the diagonal strut (fig. 1). A similar wheelbarrow is seen in the foreground of the Market Square with the Ecce Homo (Vienna, Schottenstift), dated 1564, while similar, though not identical, barrows appear in the Woman selling Fruit and Vegetables (Valenciennes), dated 1563, and the Women selling Fruit and Vegetables (known from copies, for example at Bratislava: fig. 21). In Earth, there are on top of the barrow three circular trays made of wicker (fig. 22). They are similar in design but differ in scale, the one on our right being the largest. On the tray on our left are a cauliflower, trimmed of its outer leaves, apples and pea‐pods. Similar cauliflowers, evidently painted from the same preliminary sketch, appear in other pictures by Beuckelaer.28 On the smaller tray are green and purple grapes, peaches and plums of different varieties. Similar grapes, evidently painted from the same preliminary sketches, appear in at least one other painting by Beuckelaer (fig. 23).29 On the large tray are peapods, apples, pears, cherries and gooseberries. Resting on top of the last two trays are two dishes made of glazed earthenware. One contains strawberries, the other mulberries.

On the left is a tower of baskets and vegetables. In the lower left corner, the basket with a handle appears to be empty; it seems to be supported on a small shelf but tilts below the frame. Next to it, the very large circular(?) basket contains pink and orange carrots, two marrows, several gherkins or cucumbers, two white radishes and a bunch of shallots. In a shallower, round basket resting on top of the last are a pumpkin, several cabbages and at least one cucumber. In the round wicker tray behind, similar in structure to those resting in the wheelbarrow, are three more green and four pink cabbages. Behind, in a rectangular(?) basket with a handle, are two(?) melons and several artichokes (fig. 13). Similar artichokes, evidently painted from the same preliminary sketch, appear in at least five other pictures by Beuckelaer (figs 14, 23).30 Behind the last basket is another, half hidden in shadow, containing two red cabbages.

Behind the woman with yellow sleeves is a well, the well‐head surrounded by a wall of greyish stone(?), stained brown and green. The date 1569, in yellow‐brown, appears on the well‐head (fig. 2). Similar well‐heads appear in several other pictures by Beuckelaer.31 Against the wall of the well‐head hangs a wooden bucket, bound with iron hoops and secured to an iron chain, fixed with a ring to a rope suspended from a pulley. This hangs from the wooden pole, covered with moss or fungus, directly behind the woman’s head. Her hat conceals the other end of the rope. Between her and the well is a stone basin that contains a cabbage. Strewn on the ground in front of the basin and the well are more cabbages, carrots, turnips, a pumpkin and a marrow. The wooden tub contains more cabbages and a carrot; another three carrots lie on the ground under the wheelbarrow beneath the trees. Leaning on the well‐head is a man with red‐brown hair and a reddish, snub nose (fig. 55). He wears a red cap, a yellow jacket, a grey shirt and red hose or trousers. His companion has her hair plaited and wound around her head (fig. 24). Her partlet is white, her bodice and skirt are pink, her chemise is white, she does not wear separate sleeves, and her discoloured apron, originally blue, is now yellowish. She would seem to have brought vegetables to the well in her basket and wheelbarrow and to be washing them before displaying them for sale with the produce in the foreground.

Fig. 24

Detail of NG 6585, woman in the background. © The National Gallery, London

Among the trees in the top left corner is a grey house with a chimney and a steeply pitched roof. Behind is a group of brownish, gabled houses, beyond which a large pepper‐pot tower rises above the horizon. This settlement is divided from the rest of the landscape by a ravine spanned by an arched stone bridge (fig. 25). Its stepped parapets seem inadequate and it is not clear how it is connected with the small grey stone building on the near side of the ravine. Its entrance is in the wall on our right and is approached from a flight of steps stained with green. On one of the steps is a white bowl, perhaps a receptacle for offerings. In the niche in the wall facing the bridge is a statue of a scantily clad woman with a spear in her left hand and an oval shield resting against her right hand and leg. The building is perhaps a small temple; the statue is perhaps an image of a goddess of antiquity – possibly Minerva or one of the idols of Egypt that fell from their pedestals as the Holy Family passed (compare Isaiah 19:1). Similar landscapes and bridges appear in the Two Women and a Man selling Poultry, dated 1563 (Salzburg), in the painting of the same subject dated 1564 (Moscow), in the Woman selling Fruit and Vegetables dated 1564 (Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh), in the undated Couple selling Vegetables (Budapest), [page 116]and in the versions of the Couple selling Poultry, Fruit and Vegetables (fig. 26).32

Fig. 25

Detail from NG 6585, the Holy Family on their way to Egypt. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 26

After Joachim Beuckelaer, Couple selling Poultry, Fruit and Vegetables. Oil on panel, 110.5 × 139.5 cm. Osterley Park, The National Trust. © National Trust Images/Christopher Warleigh‐Lack Photo National Trust Photographic Library / Bridgeman Images

The Virgin, seated on a donkey, wears a white veil and a blue mantle; a yellowish (straw?) hat is tied across her back; the Child’s head is just visible above her right shoulder (fig. 25). Both she and the Child have circular yellow haloes which float above their heads. Saint Joseph leads the donkey. He wears a red mantle over a bluish robe and grey trousers and approaches a figure who seems to be seated on the parapet of the bridge and who is probably a beggar. The beggar’s hair, or perhaps his hat, is white; his shirt is red; his legs are bare. He gestures with his left hand towards his basket. It is not clear in which direction the Holy Family will advance; the road may sweep round towards us along the near bank of the ravine.

In the centre is a large building constructed mainly of wattle and daub. The crow‐stepped gable at the far end, however, is of red brick and there is a central brick chimney stack, without chimney pots. The thatched roof is broken by a dormer window from which hang two glazed, long‐necked [page 117]pots and from which rises a knotty pole. The pots are apparently ‘starling‐pots’ or nesting‐boxes and the pole is probably a perch, put there to encourage small birds to frequent the site. This building may provide living accommodation for servants.

The red brick building behind and perpendicular to the last has a brick crow‐stepped gable, a grey, probably slated, roof and a chimney‐stack without visible chimney‐pots. It is possibly a small country mansion. The two wooden gates between these buildings and the well‐head differ in design and do not appear to close together in any very adequate way. Both are hung on hinges; they may be constructed in this way so that they can be used for separating animals from the main flock, as in certain sheep‐pens or fanks.33 Beyond the well, the roofed structure, supported on poles but apparently without walls, may be a covered gate or barn for sheltering farm vehicles.34 Behind are more buildings – apparently a village on the horizon.

Water

The fish are being sold from a sandy beach, scattered with mussel shells, marked by rippling waves and drained by a small stream which meanders under the arch and across the sandy shore to the sea: the Sea of Galilee or Tiberias, where the (second) miraculous draught of fishes takes place (John 21:1–11).35

The old woman on the left and the man on the right are selling the fish: the woman seems to specialise in freshwater fish, the man in sea fish. They ignore their customers, who are behind them, and appear to be offering their fish to the spectator. Old women similarly dressed appear in other paintings by Beuckelaer, for example at the centre right of the Market Square with the Calling of Matthew (Naples), dated 1566, and on the extreme right of the Fish Market (private collection), dated 1568. In Water, she has blue‐grey eyes and wears a shaggy red hat over a white cap and a white veil.36 What may seem to be black veils are in fact shadows wrongly reconstructed by a restorer. Over a white shirt she wears a white partlet and over that a V‐shaped garment of black, quilted(?) material with an attached pink collar. Only the shoulders and skirt of her dress are visible. They are green; her stomacher is yellow and is held under brownish laces that pass through metal eyelets; her apron is now pinkish red but has altered. The man, who has widely spaced brown eyes, asymmetrical eyebrows, a straight nose, a rather large ear, curly brown hair and an irregularly distributed beard, reappears in other paintings by Beuckelaer: for example, the Poultry Sellers, dated 1 September 1563 (sold at Phillips’s, London, 3 July 1990, lot 74); the Augsburg and Osterley versions of a Couple selling Poultry, Fruit and Vegetables (fig. 26);37 or the Genoa Two Women and a Man selling Poultry (see p. 93, fig. 2). Since all these heads look like self portraits, and the Genoa head in particular resembles rather closely the portrait of Beuckelaer engraved in 1610 by Hendrik Hondius,38 it is possible that Beuckelaer used himself as a model for all these figures. The man is kneeling on one knee – his right knee touches the ground behind the ray in the lower right corner. His bolero is red and is tied with a greyish lace; his sleeves are yellow; his loose trousers are red and are protected by a pleated grey skirt, evidently worn as an apron.39 From his black, plaited(?) belt, tied behind his left elbow, hangs from a metal ring a brown, pleated bag, very similar to the bag in the Osterley Couple selling Poultry (fig. 26). He has evidently been chopping up fish with the large knife resting on the table behind his right arm. Similar knives are found in other paintings by Beuckelaer.40

The fish are displayed in various containers that rest on trestles and tables. In the lower left corner, three mussel shells may be resting on the sand. On the thickness of the board in front of the old woman are the signature, monogram and date, painted in grey (fig. 3). On the extreme left, an earthenware dish of sprats and/or immature herring rests in a circular wooden platter supported on trestles. A comparable large wooden platter lies in front of the woman and contains three carp, two pike (figs 27, 28) and two tench. She lays her left hand on the twisted metal handle of a wooden bucket that is filled with water and contains one unidentified fish. Behind her left arm is a tub of plaice. In front of the man is a basket of large cod. Behind them are two steaks cut from a salmon; behind them, in a round wooden platter, are a silver bream, a rudd and two perch. In the metal pan behind is another carp. In the lower right corner, resting on an earthenware [page 118]plate supported on a wooden block or box, is a female thornback ray (raja clavata); its body cavity has been opened and the lobes of its liver protrude (fig. 30). In the top right corner, on a wooden platter, are three herring (fig. 29). They have been gutted. As they look soft and flabby, they may not be very fresh.41 Similar fish, evidently painted from the same sketches, appear in several other paintings by Beuckelaer.42

Fig. 27

Detail of NG 6586, pike. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 28

Detail of NG 6586, pike. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 29

Detail of NG 6586, three gutted herring. © The National Gallery, London

The five women behind the trestles and tables are prospective customers. The woman on the left, painted from the same model as the first woman in Earth, wears a white partlet over a blue bodice, a red stomacher secured with green laces, a red skirt and a discoloured, brownish apron that was originally purple‐blue. On her head she balances a wicker tray of cheese and perhaps also butter, partially wrapped in white cloths, while over her left arm she carries a dented brass(?) vessel which is evidently empty. The woman behind her carries on her head a similar brass(?) vessel which may be full of liquid. She wears a white snood and a red jacket and carries a basket over her right arm. The next figure, evidently a lady of higher rank, wears a black mantle or huik that falls from her head across a white, wired headdress (fig. 31). Her bodice is brownish grey and she may be wearing a grey apron; from her necklace hangs a pendant pearl. Beside her, the young lady in profile also wears a black huik. The woman on the right, who has hazel eyes and light brown hair, may have been painted from the same model as the central figure in Earth and the woman on the left in Fire. All are similarly dressed. The woman in Water wears a hat made of a fabric so fine and transparent that the coils of hair behind her right ear are visible through two thicknesses of the material. Her partlet and shirt are white. Her bodice would once have been a stronger blue and her sleeves, which are a light greyish pink in the highlights and mid‐tones and grey in the shadows, would have been a stronger mauve or purplish blue: the paint in these areas seems to have discoloured. She rests her right hand – which is disproportionately large – on the metal pan containing a carp. It is difficult to make sense of the edifice [page 119]in the top right corner which, altered during the course of painting, appears to be built of brown brick and to defy logic of structure.

Fig. 30

Detail of NG 6586, ray. © The National Gallery, London

Behind the three women are trees, a stone gable and two stone towers. Nothing separates these buildings from the fish market, though the stone and brick arch, overgrown with ivy and other plants, divides the market from the sandy seashore. The sea is the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias, on which takes place the second Miraculous Draught of Fishes (fig. 32).43 Peter, James and John, Thomas, Nathaniel and two other disciples, who had had an unsuccessful night’s fishing, saw on the shore the resurrected Christ, whom they did not at first recognise. He told them to cast the net on the right side of the ship, where they caught a great multitude of fish. Realising that the man on the shore was Christ, Peter cast himself into the sea. Here two of the disciples are hauling in their catch; Peter, raising his hands in prayer, advances through the water towards Christ who, apparently naked but for his shroud, raises both hands in greeting. A second ship, its anchor weighed, appears to have been beached.

The arch connects uneasily with a large house built of brick and grey stone; its windows are glazed or protected by shutters decorated with patterns of triangles. From the cellar emerges, through a door similarly decorated, a man wearing a green jacket and a long apron (fig. 34). Such angled entries to cellar staircases were once common in Brabant and Flanders.44 On the left a broad street leads towards a city gate.

Fig. 31

Detail of NG 6586, woman on the right in the background. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 32

Detail of NG 6586, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes. © The National Gallery, London

[page 120]
Fig. 33

Detail of NG 6586, street leading to the city gate. © The National Gallery, London

[page 121]

The buildings are brick except the greenish stone tower, identifiable as the medieval Rode Poort or ‘Red Gate’ of Antwerp (fig. 33).45 The true name of the gate, which was not red, was the Roederpoort, the gate of the reclaimed land. Built in 1317, it was replaced in about 1550 by a modern gate but the tower with its surmounting ‘observatory’ was retained until all the old fortifications were demolished during the 1860s.46

Beuckelaer’s workshop was probably in the Ossenmarkt, from which he could have looked along the Rodestraat, past the Begijnenhof, towards the Rode Poort. The street, however, is not to be taken as an accurate rendering of the Rodestraat. The buildings on our left cast very distinct shadows across the street and on the houses on the right. In the street, the foremost man appears to be a soldier, walking with a mincing gait and wearing slashed yellow breeches and pink bands crossed over his blue jacket. A man turns and gestures with his right hand as he addresses a woman in a pink dress which she has kilted up to reveal its blue lining. Near the gate stands a tall sentry who wears a Spanish morion, a visorless helmet. Crossing his feet, he leans on a halberd and wears a sword. No face has been painted.

Comparable views of similar buildings and a similar arch are included in Beuckelaer’s Couple selling Poultry, also dated 1569 (Naples: fig. 35).

Fig. 34

Detail of NG 6586, man emerging from a cellar. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 35

Joachim Beuckelaer, Couple selling Poultry, 1569. Oil on canvas, 162.4 × 219.6 cm. Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte (inv. Q.660). © Photo Scala, Florence – courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali

[page 122]
Air

A youth is selling poultry and other produce, apparently in the corner of a market square in a town built on the banks of a river or estuary. In the opposite corner of the square another young man, evidently the Prodigal Son, dallies with a woman of the market. He is wasting ‘his substance with riotous living … with harlots’ (Luke 15:13 and 15:30).

The youth in the foreground has curly brown hair and brown eyes (fig. 40). His mouth is open, perhaps to imply that he is speaking, though the impression that his teeth and tongue are visible is deceptive – the ‘teeth’ are in fact damages. He seems to have been painted from the same model as the young man, there bearded, in Beuckelaer’s Couple selling Poultry, Vegetables, etc., dated 1567 (Antwerp, Rockoxhuis: p. 97, fig. 6) and in his Butcher’s Shop (Naples), dated 1568 (fig. 36). He wears a jacket of pink silk or satin, a surprisingly rich garment for a street vendor. Similar jackets are worn by the young man in the Rockoxhuis picture, beneath his bolero, and by the youth in the lower left corner of Beuckelaer’s Vegetable and Fruit Market, also dated 1567, in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerp (p. 97, fig. 7). In Air, the jacket is worn over a green garment. The youth’s loose trousers are purple‐pink and seem to be made of woollen cloth; he is seated and splays his legs around the hen‐coop, his right leg being visible through the coop. In his left hand he holds by the feet two hens, one pale brown, the other white and black. He exhibits them for sale and from their flapping wings drift small feathers which float across the coop and the wicker tray below (fig. 37). Beuckelaer has referred to drawings of hands and hens that he used in the Naples Couple selling Poultry of 1569 (fig. 35) and in the Genoa Poultry Sellers of 1564 (see p. 93, fig. 2: compare the standing woman’s left hand and the hens in her right hand). Similar coops reappear in many of Beuckelaer’s pictures, for example the Naples and Genoa paintings, where the dead ducks draped across the coops resemble the duck placed, in Air, on the barrel in front of the young man. The duck draped across his coop recurs in the lower left corners of the Naples and Genoa compositions. All these ducks are evidently domesticated rather than wild birds. Behind the coop are a large glazed earthenware pot and a wooden barrel lying on its side. Behind the youth’s stool is a wooden table or box, on which he rests his right hand and on which is placed a basket containing goods wrapped in a white cloth. The coop rests on another, smaller barrel. In the lower right corner are stacked a cylindrical, greyish cheese and three yellowish, disc‐shaped cheeses, very like the three cheeses similarly stacked behind the dead duck in the Genoa painting. Next to the cheeses is another barrel on top of which is a red glazed plate supporting two prints of butter(?), partially wrapped in a (wet?) white cloth. Similar dishes of butter, differently marked, are found in other paintings by Beuckelaer, Aertsen and their contemporaries (see p. 96, fig. 5).47 In the centre of the foreground, resting on a fifth barrel, is a wicker tray, similar to those seen in Earth. It is partially covered by a pink cloth and [page 123]on it lie the bodies of two domesticated pigeons (they differ in plumage from their feral ancestor the rock dove), a small cockerel and a quail. On the earthenware plate, which is partially glazed in dark green, are two dead domesticated grey rabbits (wild rabbits are brown). Next to them is a basket of eggs, big enough to be ducks’ rather than hens’ eggs; they are packed in straw.

Fig. 36

Joachim Beuckelaer, Butcher’s Shop, 1568. Oil on canvas, 146.5 × 204.7 cm. Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte (inv. Q.662). © Alinari Archives, Florence–courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali. Photo: Luciano Pedicini

In the foreground on the left are two women shoppers, dressed in much the same way as the principals of Earth and presumably of similar status. The younger woman on the left has grey‐brown eyes and reddish‐brown hair, plaited and tied with a grey ribbon (fig. 38). She seems to have been painted from the same model who reappears in several other paintings by Beuckelaer, for example the Couple selling Poultry and Vegetables in the Rockoxhuis (p. 97, fig. 6). She is probably also the woman on the left in Earth and the central figure in the Genoa Two Women and a Man selling Poultry (see p. 93, fig. 2). In Air, she wears a white partlet over a bodice that was once purple or purple‐blue and a white shirt; her detachable sleeves, now greyish pink in the highlights and grey in the shadows, were originally of a mauve hue (with bluer shadows) and her bodice is tied with greenish and black laces across a reddish stomacher. Her skirt is green and her apron appears to have been purple or purple‐blue, but of a shade different from that in the bodice and sleeves. Over her right arm, she carries a shopping basket partially covered by a white cloth. In her right hand she holds by the feet a handsome cockerel (fig. 39); she rests her left hand on a brass vessel similar to that carried by the young woman on the left in Water and that behind the turkey in Fire. Here it rests on yet another – a sixth – barrel, on which are inscribed the signature and date (fig. 4). The basket behind her contains nothing except a few wisps of straw. The older woman, seated behind the brass vessel, has brown eyes and brown hair; she may have been painted from the same model as the older of Beuckelaer’s Two Market Women, dated 1561 (Vienna: p. 93, fig. 1); she wears the same [page 124][page 125]red jacket that reappears there, in Earth and in Fire, as well as in several other paintings by Beuckelaer. Here the jacket has a pink lining. Her stomacher is dull green; her apron, now brown, was once blue or purple‐blue. The women in the middle ground, three on our left, two on our right, are ladies of higher status, each of whom wears a black huik.

Fig. 37

Detail of NG 6587, hen‐coop and feather. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 38

Detail from NG 6587, head of the young woman on the left. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 39

Detail of NG 6587, cockerel in the lower left corner. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 40

Detail of NG 6587, the top right corner. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 41

Joachim Beuckelaer, Fish Market with the Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 1570. Oil on canvas, 155 × 214 cm. Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte (inv. Q.163). © Photo Scala, Florence ‐courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali

In the street behind, people of various ranks go about their business. The Prodigal Son, who has brown hair and a short brown beard, wears a yellowish jacket over a green vest; his loose trousers are light red. In his left hand he holds up two white cockerels, which he may have removed from the coop at his feet. With his right hand he fondles the knee of the woman behind him, who touches his arms and rests her left hand on her baskets of dairy produce. The brown object beneath her skirts may be a foot‐warmer, similar to the one used by the young woman in the Couple selling Poultry and Vegetables of 1567 (Rockoxhuis: p. 97, fig. 6). Another woman, whose head is uncovered, bends over the coop to remove or replace a bird. Behind her are two men: the man on our right appears to carry a sword but this is in fact a damage. Next to him are two people conversing with each other and a seated man wearing a black hat and a blue mantle. A white‐haired workman is transporting cheeses on a sled (fig. 40). They have perhaps been unloaded from the boat behind them, where a mariner lowers a furled sail. The barrels on the quay may have been part of the cargo of this boat, which, unfreighted, floats higher in the water than the boat alongside.

The buildings on the left are constructed from brick and stone, though wooden extensions are attached to some of them. The upper lights of the windows are usually glazed, while the lower lights have shutters. A stone archway, through which three persons are passing, must give onto a side street or a courtyard. The large house behind, with its round turret, is very similar to the building in the centre of Beuckelaer’s Naples Fish Market, dated 1570 (fig. 41). The round tower near the quay is similar to the tower in the top left corner of Beuckelaer’s Stockholm Fish Market, also dated 1570. The poles projecting from the crow‐stepped gables may be perches for birds. On the shore, the gateway flanked by two towers may give onto a causeway leading across the estuary. People are passing under the raised portcullis. More buildings are just visible on the further shore and another boat, under full sail, floats in the centre of the water.

Like the gateway on the shore, the stone archway on our right, overgrown with moss, ivy and small trees, has no immediately obvious defensive purpose. A wall links the archway with the tower by the quay, perhaps one of several bastions defending a large walled enclosure surrounding the fortified palatial edifices built of brick that are seen through the arch. All the towers are surmounted by spikes, which, as they cannot be lightning conductors, may be purely ornamental.

Fire

In a large and well‐stocked kitchen, four female servants are preparing and cooking food. In the spacious adjoining room, Christ speaks to Martha and Mary (Luke 10: 38–42).

The kitchen, which has a brick floor48 and a wooden ceiling, occupies the entire width of a commodious house, apparently in the country. The window on our left and the door on our right give onto open landscape. An outside staircase near this door must lead to an upper storey; the door on the left opens into a passage from which two steps lead upwards into the room where Christ is seated (fig. 42). The window frame is of grey stone. The upper lights are glazed and barred; each of the lower lights has two wooden shutters that can be closed by attaching them to the metal catches in the mullion. Below the window is a narrow wooden table on which rests a basket containing cheeses and rolls and an earthenware jug with a hinged metal lid. An identical jug is near the right edge, above the basket. On the lintel above the doorway on our left is the date 1570, written in brownish‐grey figures [page 126][page 127](fig. 6). The elaborate fireplace is of grey stone; the architectural ornament derives from woodcuts in editions of Serlio’s Architettura. On the mantelshelf is an unlit candle in a brass candlestick (fig. 43). On the far side of the fireplace is a wooden sideboard with metal fittings. A similar, though not the same, sideboard appears in the Kitchen Scene, dated 1569, which was sold in New York in 2005. In Fire, an open lattice door reveals that the sideboard contains a brown earthenware jug, a white cloth and a stack of pewter dishes. On top of the sideboard are pewter plates standing against the wall, two glazed earthenware vessels and four two‐handled brass pots, one of which lies sideways across the mouth of another. In front are two brass candlesticks and a pewter flagon. On the shelf above are pewter plates and two pewter flagons; a pewter tankard hangs from the centre of the shelf. Above the outside door hang three glazed earthenware tankards with hinged metal lids (a tankard very like the central one appears on the right, above the partridge). A ham hangs from the beam above the doorway.

Fig. 42

Detail of NG 6588, Christ in the House of Martha and Mary. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 43

Detail of NG 6588, the fireplace in the background. © The National Gallery, London

On the right is a wooden dresser. Comparable dressers appear on the left of Beuckelaer’s Kitchen, dated 1566 (Louvre), in some of his other kitchen scenes and in his Butcher’s Shop of 1568 (Naples: fig. 36). The dresser here does not seem to fit squarely into the kitchen, perhaps because Beuckelaer has severely distorted the perspective. From metal hooks along the upper sections of the dresser hang a brass pot or ewer (suspended from a metal chain), a hind‐quarter of mutton (fig. 45), a dead female(?) turkey (fig. 44), a glazed pot with a handle, and a dead hen with rather exotic orange‐brown and grey plumage (fig. 46). A similar turkey, seen from a [page 128]different angle and perhaps based on another drawing of the same bird, appears in the undated Still Life with Christ on the Road to Emmaus (Mauritshuis). Turkeys, introduced into Europe from the New World, evidently bred well, were quickly established and soon became readily and fairly cheaply available. Preparing for a banquet in London in 1555, the cooks were able to buy two adult turkeys and four turkey chicks for 4 shillings each. Swans, in contrast, cost 10 shillings each, while pike cost 2s. 6d. or 3s. apiece.49 In Fire, a white cloth, ironed into an intricate pattern of folds, is pinned behind the turkey. Similar cloths are found, in association with uncooked meats, in paintings by Aertsen and Beuckelaer, for instance Beuckelaer’s Flayed Pig of 1563 (Cologne), his Christ in the House of Martha and Mary of 1565 (Stockholm), his Kitchen of 1566 (Louvre) and his Butcher’s Shop dated 1568 (Naples: fig. 36). On the flat surface below the cloth rest a basket of lemons (or oranges?), a pewter flagon, a glazed earthenware tankard with a hinged metal lid and an earthenware bowl, its exterior glazed in brown, its interior glazed in dull green. The signature and monogram appear on the edge of this shelf, [page 129]on the left of the turkey (fig. 5). On a rectangular table in front of the dresser are a large brass vessel, similar to those represented in Water and Air, a large glazed pot and a glazed jug with a hinged metal lid. On top of the pot rests a red glazed plate on which lies a dead common or grey partridge (perdix perdix: fig. 46). Similar partridges, always with longer legs, reappear frequently in Beuckelaer’s work, for example in the Naples Seller of Exotic Animals, dated 1566 (fig. 48), the Lemgo Still Life with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, dated 1569 (fig. 23), and the Naples Couple selling Poultry, also dated 1569 (fig. 35). In Fire, in front of the rectangular table and in the lower right corner of the composition is a round wooden table. On this table rest a dead mallard drake and two dead woodcock, lying on top of folded white napkins (fig. 49). The woodcock, which reappear in at least six other paintings by Beuckelaer, are discussed below. In Fire, they are lying in a red glazed dish. Beside them are three glasses and a covered basket containing two glasses and several bread rolls. The stacked glasses are similar to those in the Stockholm Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, dated 1565. Similar covered baskets appear, for example, in the Seller of Exotic Animals (Naples), dated 1566 (fig. 48), and the Fish Market (Stockholm), dated 1570.

Fig. 44

Detail of NG 6588, tail of the turkey. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 45

Detail of NG 6588, part of the hindquarter of mutton and a brass pan. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 46

Detail of NG 6588, fowl with exotic plumage. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 47

Detail of NG 6588, the partridge. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 48

Joachim Beuckelaer, Seller of Exotic Animals, 1566. Oil on canvas, 139.5 × 204.5 cm. Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte (inv. Q.659). © Photo Scala, Florence – courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali

The woman on our left, who has red‐brown hair and grey‐brown eyes, looks very like the woman on our right in Earth and may have been painted from the same model. She wears a white partlet over a red stomacher edged with black and contained by green laces. Her sleeves are blue; before the paint discoloured, they would have been more intense in colour. Because of the discoloration, it is difficult to be sure of the hues of her bodice and apron, but they appear to have been different shades of a light purple or mauve. Her skirt is red. In her right hand she holds a plucked fowl, its wings cut and trussed, over an earthenware bowl, glazed in light green. It rests on a wooden three‐legged(?) stool. She seems to be about to impale the fowl on the spit that she holds in her left hand. It is rectangular in cross‐section, so that meat skewered upon it will revolve with it when it is turned. A haunch of mutton lies in front of her on the green glazed earthenware dish, itself resting on a three‐legged wooden stool. The woman [page 130]in the centre (fig. 53), who has brown hair and brown‐grey eyes, may have been painted from the same model used for the woman on our left in Earth and the standing woman on our left in Water. The woman in Earth wears the same red jacket that reappears here and, on a different model, in Air, as well as in other pictures by Beuckelaer.50 In Fire, as in Earth, she wears her jacket over a partlet, of which only the neck ruffle is here visible. Her apron seems to have been purple; her skirt is dull green. She has just plucked a fowl (fig. 50): the feathered wings and tail will be cut off before it is cooked. A few small feathers, just plucked, are flying out of the picture across the apron on the right (fig. 51) and below the right foot of the fowl.

Fig. 49

Detail of NG 6588, the lower right corner. © The National Gallery, London

The floor behind the two women is littered with empty mussel shells and piled with dishes, perhaps waiting to be removed and washed outside. (This kitchen has no obvious water supply.) The blackish cauldron, which has a glazed yellow‐brown interior, is partially covered by a brown glazed lid or plate on which lie two empty mussel shells. A skimmer or draining ladle, made of iron and brass, lies across the cauldron, under its handle. In the basket are a reddish glazed pot and three pewter plates. Leaning against the basket are a glazed pot, brown outside and green inside, and two more pewter plates. A wooden spoon lies across the glazed pot. A large glazed bowl, red‐brown inside and yellowish outside, lies against a pile of five(?) red, glazed plates. Behind, a reddish dish rests on another pile of four(?) red plates.

Fig. 50

Detail of NG 6588, the right hand of the woman in the centre. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 51

Detail of NG 6588, apron, plucked fowl and flying feather. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 52

Photomicrograph of Christ’s face. © The National Gallery, London

Near the fire, an ungainly young man with curly yellowish hair and darker thin side‐whiskers drinks from an earthenware jug, the top half of which is covered in a brown glaze (fig. 43). His tunic is green and he carries a grey‐brown satchel attached to his belt with a metal hook. His hose are a slightly greenish grey, his shoes blackish, and he turns in his toes. Seated on a three‐legged stool, he rests his right hand upon a cut loaf(?) that lies on a round table covered by a thin whitish cloth. It is semi‐transparent in the firelight. The pinkish object on the table, which seems to rest on a grey plate, is perhaps a lump of butter or lard, to be used for basting roasting meat. In the hearth, a fire is blazing beneath a metal contraption from which cooking pots may be suspended. The standing woman braves the flames and smoke to remove a brown pot or to raise or lower it on its ratchet. She wears a pink dress over a white shirt; her apron is light brown. Her companion, seated on a low chair with an inclined back, seems to be poking the fire with a stick held in her right hand and shielding her face from its heat with her left hand. She wears a white partlet over a green dress with detachable yellow sleeves. Her apron is white and her skirt is kilted up to reveal a pink underdress. Her shoes are black and, like the young man, she turns her toes inwards in an ungainly manner.

The inner room (fig. 42) is decorated in a fashionably antique style.51 The relief on the end wall, which, like the roundels on the ceiling, is touched with pale yellow and may be intended to look gilded, represents Moses with the Tables of the Law. It is so schematically rendered that it would be difficult to recognise the subject without comparing the more carefully rendered relief in another painting by Beuckelaer, Christ in the House of Martha and Mary – this, dated 1568, was formerly with the Galerie Hoogsteder in The Hague. In Fire, the three white‐ or grey‐haired and bearded men beneath the relief are presumably apostles. They are dressed in yellow, [page 131]blue and light red. The table is covered by a green cloth. Christ, whose halo is formed of rays of whitish light (fig. 52), is dressed in a blue robe and sits in a chair draped with a light red cloth. The woman at his left hand is Mary, who ‘sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word’. Her dress is yellow; she holds a book in her right hand and rests her left hand on a greyish object, perhaps the pot from which she took ‘a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus’ (John 12: 3). The two seated women on our left are presumably disciples; the praying woman, who wears a white veil and a blue dress, is conceivably the Virgin Mary. The standing woman on our right is Martha, ‘cumbered about much serving’. She wears a white headdress, a blue dress kilted up over a green underdress, a whitish apron and black shoes. She remonstrates with Christ: ‘Lord, dost Thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? Bid her therefore that she help me.’ Christ replies: ‘Mary hath chosen that good part which shall not be taken away from her.’

Fig. 53

Detail of NG 6588, head of the woman in the centre. © The National Gallery, London

[page 132]

Beuckelaer’s Patron

Joachim normally painted on panel, but occasionally on canvas. He evidently preferred to paint on panel but would have used canvas for large pictures that were to be exported. All his canvases may have been commissioned for or by foreign patrons.52 The Four Elements were by 1884 in Florence, in the Palazzo Panciatichi‐Ximenes d’Aragona. They are unlikely to have been brought to Italy after about 1600. As they are on canvas, they may well have been commissioned in Antwerp by a foreigner who intended to send them abroad.

Ferdinando Panciatichi (1813–1897), who in 1884 owned the Four Elements and the palace in which they hung, was said to have added valuable and old paintings to the already important collection of his family.53 He had inherited the palace, and presumably many of the pictures, from his great‐uncle Ferdinando Ximenes d’Aragona (1747–1816), the last of his line. The palace had been bought in 1603 by their ancestor Sebastiano Ximenes d’Aragona (1566–1633). In 1569–70, when the Four Elements were painted, two of Sebastiano’s uncles were living in Antwerp.54 There is a strong possibility that one of them commissioned Beuckelaer to paint the Elements.

The family descended from a Spanish Jew called Innico who, converted to Christianity, took the surname of his godfather, a Castilian nobleman. Innico’s son Ferdinando moved to Portugal; Ferdinando’s son Duarte ( c. 1500– c. 1560), a lawyer and merchant, ran his business from Lisbon but had a branch in Antwerp. It was his sons Fernão (Ferdinand, 1525–1600)55 and Rui (Rodrigo) Nunes (1529–1581) who settled in Antwerp but who traded with most parts of the known world, from the White Sea to the Indian Ocean, from Angola to Argentina. They dealt in various commodities including spices, sugar, corn, jewels, wood, dyestuffs, textiles, books and slaves. Many other members of the family were involved in the enterprise, which had branches in Cadiz, Seville, Venice, Florence, Hamburg, Gdańsk, Cologne and elsewhere.56

Fernão Ximenes and his brother Rui Nunes were in Antwerp by 1564. Fernão left during the iconoclast riots of 1566 and retreated to Cologne but he soon returned.57 Listed in 1571 among the Portuguese residents in Antwerp,58 he was in 1573 Consul of the Portuguese Nation there.59 He left again in 1576 for France but was back in Antwerp by the summer of 1577.60 In 1583, when the Calvinists were in control of the city, he bought a large house in the Meir.61 During the siege of 1585 he once more left for Cologne,62 but in 1586 and 1590 he was again Consul of the Portuguese Nation in Antwerp.63 In 1586, Pope Sixtus V granted to Fernão and his whole family the right to use the Pope’s name, Peretti, and his coat of arms. When Sixtus discovered that the Ximenes were not Old Christians but descendants of a converted Jew, he withdrew the privileges.64 The Grand Duke of Tuscany, anxious to attract to his domains men of vast wealth, gave Fernão Ximenes a palace in Pisa in 1591 and made him a Knight of Santo Stefano. Fernão and his wife Anna Lopez both died in Florence in 1600 but in 1611 their bodies were brought to Antwerp and reinterred in the cathedral.65 Fernão was said to have left 248,000 florins to four of his nephews.66

Fernão was a friend of the printer Plantin,67 while the Spanish theologian and orientalist Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598), who was in Antwerp to supervise the production of the ‘Polyglot Bible’, was godfather in 1575 to Rui Nunes’s son Gonçalo Ximenes (1575–1638). Gonçalo married in 1596 Catharina van Eeckeren (1575–1635)68 and so established connections with many of the great families of Antwerp.69

An inventory was taken in 1617 of the contents of the house in the Meir, which had passed from Fernão to another of Rui Nunes’s sons, Emmanuel Ximenes (1564–1632).70 Some of the pictures may have been there when the house belonged to Fernão, for example a Hercules and the Centaurs by Floris and three heads of Susanna and the Elders, also by Floris, and a portrait of Fernão and various other family portraits.71 Fernão may have established the remarkable library of books in Latin, Italian, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Portuguese and English. The subjects covered were theology, law, astrology, mathematics, history, medicine, chemistry and classical and later literature.72

In 1569–70, when Beuckelaer was painting the Four Elements, Fernão was in Antwerp. In June 1570 he was one of the six deputies of the Portuguese Consul;73 and on 12 June 1571 both he and his brother Rui Nunes were listed among the Portuguese resident in Antwerp.74 Since Fernão had had to leave the city in a hurry at the time of the iconoclast riots of 1566, he must have been aware that easily portable paintings on canvas were preferable to large, heavy and cumbersome panels. If, as seems likely, he did indeed commission the Four Elements, he may not have had in mind any particular destination for them. They could have been taken from Antwerp to Florence by him or by one of his nephews and installed in the Palazzo Ximenes shortly after it was purchased in 1603 by Sebastiano Ximenes d’Aragona.

Iconography

Whether the subject of the Four Elements was chosen by the patron, probably Fernão Ximenes, or offered by Beuckelaer himself, it gave him a remarkable opportunity not only to display his talents but also to develop several of his recurring and perhaps favourite themes. It is possible that his panels of Two Women and a Man selling Poultry, dated 1564, and Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, dated 1565, came from a similar series. They are the same size, 113 × 163 cm, and both were acquired in 1910 for the Brussels museum from Madame E. Wanner at Le Havre. They could be from a very much less complex series. Though the former painting makes no obvious reference to a biblical narrative, it may conceivably represent the Prodigal Son. The two panels could have depicted Air and Fire in an earlier and smaller series of the Four Elements, painted on panel. Though that may seem dubious, it is difficult to find another explanation for the pairing of the two Brussels panels.

Earth marks the culmination of a development which started with Beuckelaer’s Two Market Women (Vienna), dated 1561 (see p. 93, fig. 1), his canvas of a Woman selling Fruit and Vegetables (Valenciennes), dated 1563, and the version on panel (Kassel), dated 1564, the Woman selling Fruit and[page 133]Vegetables (Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh), dated 1565, and the painting of the same subject (Göteborg), dated 1566, and the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Antwerp), dated 1567 (p. 97, fig. 7). The Women selling Fruit and Vegetables (Bratislava: fig. 21) is apparently a copy after a lost, independent development of the same theme.

In Water, Beuckelaer looked back to his earlier depictions of Market Squares executed between 1561 and 1566 (see p. 94, fig. 3), to his Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Getty Museum), dated 1563, and to his Fish Market with the Miraculous Draught of 1568 (private collection) and his Couple selling Fish of 1568 (versions at Strasbourg, Maastricht and elsewhere). His Fish Market (Naples), dated 1569, is closely related, while the theme is further developed in the Fish Market with the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Naples: fig. 41) and the Fish Market with the Ecce Homo (Stockholm), both dated 1570, and in the Fish Market (Antwerp), dated 1574.

In Air, Beuckelaer developed two themes: that of his Market Squares, executed between 1561 and 1566; and that of his many pictures of Poultry Sellers, executed between 1563 (Salzburg) and 1569 (Naples: fig. 35). The Two Women and a Man selling Poultry, dated 1564 (Genoa: see p. 93, fig. 2), is particularly close to NG 6587. After 1570, Beuckelaer seems to have produced only a Poultry Seller with a Woman, which was signed and dated 1574. Now lost, this was mentioned in 1911; no photograph or reproduction has been found.75

In Fire, Beuckelaer used ideas already expressed in various still lifes (for example that dated 1562, formerly in the Held Collection) and kitchen scenes (for example the Louvre Kitchen, dated 1566). Like NG 6588, they often have subsidiary religious subjects: Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Brussels, 1565; Stockholm, 1565; Amsterdam, 1566; formerly with Hoogsteder, 1568; Lemgo, 1569 [fig. 23]; Vienna, 1574), the Way to Emmaus (Mauritshuis, not dated) and the Supper at Emmaus (Brno, 1565).

All four of the London paintings are composed in similar ways. The foreground is dominated by two people: two women in Earth and Fire; a woman and a man in Water and Air. They are surrounded by still lifes heaped on baskets and a barrow (Earth), tables (Water), barrels (Air) and stools and shelves (Fire), Fire being the only scene set in an interior. In the backgrounds are the four religious subjects and four more subsidiary scenes: the couple at the well (Earth), the street (Water), the quay (Air), and the man and two women by the fireplace (Fire). All the paintings are staged by contrived and artificial means. There is no logic of space: the woman on the right in Water has no lower legs, the landscapes have little or no continuity; the interior in Fire is seen in an uneasily distorted and totally artificial perspective. Because of the accuracy of detail, however, all four scenes seem completely credible. Objects seem in danger of falling out of pictures into the spectator’s space and indeed the feathers from the flapping fowl in Air and the plucked fowl in Fire seem to float between pictorial and real space. In Water, Air and Fire, several protagonists look out of the picture at the spectator. The colours fade and become paler as they recede, which helps to clarify the complicated arrangements in depth.

In all four paintings the season is summer, for the trees are fully in leaf. In Earth, however, Beuckelaer has assembled vegetables and fruits that ripen at different times of year. As the historical evidence shows and as the archaeological evidence of excavated cesspits confirms, the fruit and vegetables were readily available in their seasons and were consumed by the ordinary people of Flanders and Brabant, where agricultural technologies were the most advanced in Europe.76 Similarly, the foods represented in Water, Air and Fire – even the turkey in Fire – did not include any exotic or expensive items. Beuckelaer has aimed to give impressions of great abundance and enormous variety, without ostentation or extravagance. It is perhaps worth emphasising that he has not made any reference to payment in any of the four pictures.

Executed in 1569–70, the Four Elements were created in a time of cruel political and religious repression and severe economic recession. The dreadful winter of 1564–5 was followed by more bad weather and poor harvests.77 The people of the Low Countries depended on imports, particularly of Baltic grain, for about one quarter of their food. Wars in the Baltic, as well as pirates and privateers, disrupted shipping. The Duke of Alba, Captain‐General in the Netherlands between 1567 and 1573, imposed high taxes and was to be satirised in a parody of the Lord’s Prayer, circulated in Ghent in March 1572, over a year after Beuckelaer had completed his Elements, as:

Hellish father, who in Brussels do dwell,
Cursed be your name in Heaven and in Hell; …
You take away our daily bread
While our wives and children lie starving or dead.
No man’s trespasses do you forgive;
Revenge is the food on which you live.78

Beuckelaer’s paintings may represent a vanished or imaginary Golden Age, when all kinds of food were easily available.

Beuckelaer at Work

Beuckelaer must have worked constantly from life and would have made drawn and painted sketches.79 He knew several models whom he used frequently and kept a wardrobe of clothes in which he dressed them. He also studied animals, birds, fish, household objects, interiors and landscapes. None of these sketches has been identified. We can, however, deduce that he kept and exploited with great efficiency his archive of sketches, though he rarely repeated exactly the same figure, the same landscape or the same interior. The baby who is Saint Matthew’s angel in the Four Evangelists (Dresden), dated 1567, recurs, reversed and with a different arm, in the Holy Kindred with Saint Anne (Copenhagen), also dated 1567. The street on the left of Water was used again in the Couple selling Poultry of 1569 (Naples: fig. 35): this street is unusual in showing a recognisable building, the Rode Poort of Antwerp. The only other building recognised in Beuckelaer’s paintings is the Antwerp Exchange, seen in the Seller of Exotic Animals (Naples: fig. 48), dated 1566. Some of his interiors and fireplaces are taken from woodcuts in various editions of Serlio’s Architettura.

[page 134]

A few objects reappear several times. The artichokes in Earth, for instance, recur in the Seller of Exotic Animals (Naples: fig. 48), dated 1566, the Two Men and Two Women selling Poultry (Naples), also dated 1566, the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Antwerp), dated 1567 (see p. 97, fig. 7), the Women selling Fruit and Vegetables (known from a version at Bratislava: fig. 21), the Still Life with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Lemgo: fig. 23), dated 1569, and the Couple selling Vegetables (Budapest), which is not dated. The ray in Water (fig. 30) reappears in the Fish Market with the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Naples: fig. 41), dated 1570, and, slightly varied, in the Antwerp Fish Market of 1574. Several of the hens and ducks in Air reappear in the Two Women and a Man selling Poultry of 1564 (Genoa: see p. 93, fig. 2), which also includes the same coop containing the same cockerel. The perspective of the coop is shifted slightly and similar coops recur in many of Beuckelaer’s paintings. The leg of mutton in the lower left corner of Fire is similar, though not identical, to joints of meat in several of the kitchen scenes. The two woodcock in Fire, however, are found again in the Seller of Exotic Animals (Naples: fig. 48), dated 1566, the Two Men and Two Women selling Poultry (Naples), also dated 1566, the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Antwerp: p. 97, fig. 7), dated 1567, the Couple selling Poultry (Naples: fig. 35) of 1569 and the Still Life with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Lemgo: fig. 23), also dated 1569.

It seems that, for familiar objects and common birds and animals, Beuckelaer could refer to the real thing as well as to his sketches. He would improvise and make variations on the themes recorded in his archive. For less familiar objects, such as the artichokes and the woodcock, he generally followed his preliminary studies more faithfully. There is no suggestion, at least in the Four Elements, that he used tracings or other mechanical methods of transfer. He copied his sketches freehand and at will he enlarged, reduced, reversed, turned or varied his patterns.

Since Beuckelaer has not thought it necessary to bring to the same degree of finish all the heads in the Four Elements, it is possible to observe most of the stages through which he worked. The infrared reflectograms of the two principal heads in Earth (figs 17, 18) show the bold black brushstrokes by which some of the faces were suggested before being repositioned for the finished version of the composition. In Air, the two women on the left of the middle ground have been taken one stage further; while in Water the beautiful head of the lady third from the left (fig. 31) has been more fully worked up, though it remains unfinished. The young woman on the left of Air provides an excellent example of a head that Beuckelaer has completed (fig. 38).

Beuckelaer’s ability as a painter is perhaps most apparent in Water. He has painted very quickly, usually thinly and with remarkable economy, for he did not expend his energies without purpose. With surprising boldness and confidence, he laid in the paint in broad brushstrokes and was not nervous of daringly extreme contrasts of tone. The three gutted and not very fresh herring in the top right corner (fig. 29) would not look out of place in paintings by Manet or Cézanne – though they were less spontaneous artists than the effortless Beuckelaer. In the two pike in the lower left corner, Beuckelaer indicated the patterns of the scales by painting, with easy regularity and accuracy, and doubtless at great speed, grids of dark lines; next he placed tiny pale blue dots at the interstices of the grids which, with the hatched white highlights, gave glistening texture to the skins as well as form to the bodies (figs 27, 28, 54). Sometimes he left exposed small areas of priming and, as we have seen, he did not always bring all parts of a single picture to the same degree of finish. Even in his completely finished heads, there are surprisingly bold and broad brushstrokes and abrupt tonal contrasts.

Margreet Wolters has given constant help in the preparation of this entry; her assistance has been vital. Roland de Lathuy investigated the history of the paintings between 1902 and 1986; his help has been invaluable. I am grateful also, for assistance of various kinds, to the following: Arnout Balis; Raffaele Becherucci; Edwin Buijsen; Elisabeth Dhanens; Jacqueline Folie; Burton Fredericksen; Robert Hoozee; David Jaffé; Jaak Jansen; Brian John; Alastair Laing; Irène, Lady Logan; Iain MacCallum; Eric MacDonald; Jan de Maere; Gregory Martin; Ian McClure; Bert Meijer; Axel Rüger; Paul Spencer‐Longhurst; Geoffrey Swinney; A. Vandebulcke; Carl Van de Velde; Elena Zhivkova.
Fig. 54

Detail of NG 6586, the tail of a pike. © The National Gallery, London

[page 135]

Notes

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

1. Gaetan Ostoya, Les anciens maîtres et leurs œuvres à Florence, Guide artistique, Florence 1884, p. 298: ‘12e salle, 254, 255, 267, 269 et 270. BEUCKELAER JAN, d’Anvers, cinq grands et beaux tableaux, de 1566, représentant les marchés, de la volaille, de poissons, de légumes et de fruits, avec les vendeuses, cuisinières et servantes.’ (Back to text.)

2. Litta et al. 1819–1923, vol. XIII, Panciatichi di Pistoia, Tavola XV, dated 1868. See also Luigi Passerini, Genealogia e storia della famiglia Panciatichi, Florence 1858. (Back to text.)

3. Passerini, cited above; Litta et al. , cited above; Pietro Berti, ‘Dono Panciatichi al R. Archivio Fiorentino’, Archivio storico italiano, 4a ser. XIII, 1884, pp. 455–62. (Back to text.)

4. Catalogue des tableaux anciens et objets d’artcomposant la galerie et le musée du feu le Marquis Ferdinand Panciatichi Ximenes d’Aragona dans le palais Borgo Pinti, 68, pp. VI–VII, 27 and plate showing Air in its frame; compare Ostoya 1884, cited in note 1 above. Beuckelaers in the Panciatichi collection (subjects not specified) were mentioned by A. von Wurzbach, Niederländisches Künstler‐Lexikon, I, Vienna and Leipzig 1906, p. 221. They are not cited thereafter and are not mentioned by J. Sievers in his article on Beuckelaer, Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen, XIII, 1911, pp. 185–212. (Back to text.)

5. Email message of 18 January 2001 from Edwin Buijsen; copy faxed by Margreet Wolters. (Back to text.)

6. Information on Modeste Langevelt and Elvire Marthe Campens was collected and sent in a letter of 6 August 2001 by A. Vandenbulcke, archivist and curator at the Archives de la Ville de Bruxelles. (Back to text.)

7. Information from Roland de Lathuy, fax of 26 January 2001. On the Goffinet family and their residences, see Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique, XXIII, 1869, pp. 91–6; F. Koller and S. Mella, Armorial général de Belgique, Brussels, s.d., p. 613; O. Coomans de Brachène and Georges de Hemptinne, Etat présent de la noblesse du Royaume de Belgique, VII, Brussels 1963, pp. 111–13; and particularly Gustaaf Janssens and Jean Stengers, eds, Nouveaux regards sur Léopold Ier and Léopold II. Fonds d’Archives Goffinet, Fondation du Roi Baudouin, Brussels 1997. (Back to text.)

8. Letter of 19 January 2001 from Jaak Janssen, Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique. (Back to text.)

9. The dealer Jan de Maere in Brussels went to Hyon at this time and saw the four paintings; he remembers asking a member of the Goffinet family (an elderly man, he recalls) about the history of the four pictures; he was told that they had been purchased in Italy at the beginning of the twentieth century (his fax to Christie’s, 11 December 2000; telephone conversations of 10 and 26 January 2001). It would therefore appear that the four pictures were brought from Italy shortly after the Panciatichi sale of 1902, that they were for a time in the possession of the dealer Modeste Langevelt and his wife and that they were subsequently purchased by an ancestor of Robert Goffinet – perhaps his maternal grandfather Joseph Quairier. It is conceivable that Robert Goffinet acquired the four paintings from his father’s first cousins the twin brothers Auguste (1857–1927) and Constant (1857–1931) Goffinet. Robert was Constant’s executor and acquired from his heirs, his great‐nephew Baron Jacques de Fierlant Dormer (1908–1995) and his two sisters, Constant’s house in the rue de la Science, Brussels. Robert seems to have acquired the house with its contents, including the secret archives entrusted to the Goffinets by Leopold I and Leopold II; and, though he did not live there, used the house as offices. It was finally sold in 1949 by Robert’s heirs (Janssens and Stengers, cited in note 7, pp. 25–6). The Barons Auguste and Constant Goffinet were both collectors and lent to exhibitions in Brussels in 1905 and 1910 ( Exposition d’art ancien bruxellois, Cercle artistique et littéraire de Bruxelles, 1905 , Tapisseries No. 30 and Faïences Nos 7, 8, 16; Exposition rétrospective de l’art belge, 1905 , Nos 197, 242, 319; L’art belge au XVIIe siècle, Nouveau Palais, Parc du Cinquantenaire, Brussels 1910 , Sculptures No. 18, Tapisseries No. 5). Baron Constant Goffinet bought at the Fétis sale in Brussels in 1909. The Goffinets were very closely associated with the Belgian royal family. Robert Goffinet (1886–1945) was from 1932 in the service of Prince Charles, Count of Flanders and afterwards Regent, ‘dont il allait devenir le bras droit’ and from whom he was almost inseparable. During the German occupation of Belgium, he appears to have remained in Brussels; his nephew Adrien Goffinet (1924–1977), a member of the ‘Armée secrète’, lived for two years in his houses in the rue de la Loi (Janssens and Stengers, cited in note 7, pp. 25–7). The Regent Charles, of course, had fought in the Belgian Resistance. (Back to text.)

10. Report in the Rubenianum: copy sent by Arnout Balis with his letter of 17 January 2001. (Back to text.)

11. Reproduced in Verbraeken et al. 1986, p. 126. (Back to text.)

12. See Verbraeken et al. 1986, p. 126, note 10. (Back to text.)

13. Jan Van Looveren, ‘Toelichtingen bij de restauratie van vier schilderijen van Joachim Beuckelaer’ in Verbraeken et al. 1986, pp. 78–86 (summary in English on p. 89). (Back to text.)

14. Van Looveren, cited in note 13, p. 79. (Back to text.)

15. The stretchers are described in some detail in Van Looveren, cited in note 13, pp. 83–6. (Back to text.)

16. Margreet Wolters, present when we examined Earth in December 2001, kindly brought tracings that she had made from x‐radiographs of relevant details of pictures in Kassel and Antwerp. (Back to text.)

17. Kloek 1989, pp. 161–2, no. B.9b. (Back to text.)

18. Marika Spring, Catherine Higgitt and David Saunders, ‘Investigation of Pigment‐Medium Interaction Processes in Oil Paint containing Degraded Smalt’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 26 (2005) pp. 56–70. (Back to text.)

20. Spring 20122, p. 23. (Back to text.)

21. Margreet Wolters and Arie Wallert on the Kitchen with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, dated 1566 (Amsterdam), in Arie Wallert, ed., Still Lifes: Techniques and Style, An Examination of Paintings from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam and Zwolle 1999. pp. 41–3. (Back to text.)

22. She may also have been used for the central figure in the Two Men and Two Women selling Poultry, dated 1566, in Naples and for the central figure in the Fish Market dated 1570, also in Naples (fig. 41). (Back to text.)

23. It recurs, for example, in the Two Market Women, dated 1561 (Vienna: p. 93, fig. 1), the Genoa group (p. 93, fig. 2), the Valenciennes Woman selling Fruit and Vegetables, dated 1563, and the Naples Fish Market of 1570 (fig. 41). (Back to text.)

24. Gras 1918, pp. 499, 502, 504–6; references from the London Customs records generously provided by Jo Kirby (letter in the NG dossier). (Back to text.)

25. Natural History, XIX.xli.139–40; Sullivan 1999, p. 241. (Back to text.)

26. Dodoens 1554 , pp. 591, 639. (Back to text.)

27. Van Mander 1604, fol. 135, cited by Wuyts in Verbraeken 1986, p. 29. Whereas English‐speaking children used to be told that babies were found under gooseberry bushes, Dutch‐speaking children heard that babies came out of cabbages ( ibid. ). It seems not to have been established, however, that such stories circulated during the sixteenth century. (Back to text.)

28. For example the Antwerp Vegetable and Fruit Market, dated 1567. (Back to text.)

29. The Still Life with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, dated 1569 (Lemgo). (Back to text.)

30. The Two Men and Two Women selling Poultry of 1566 (Naples), the Seller of Exotic Animals also of 1566 (Naples), the Antwerp Vegetable and Fruit Market of 1567, the Still Life with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary dated 1569 (Lemgo) and the undated Couple selling Vegetables (Budapest). (Back to text.)

31. For example, the paintings of Market Squares with the Ecce Homo of 1561 (Stockholm), 1564 (Vienna, Schottenstift), 1565 (Stockholm) and 1566 (formerly at Nuremberg). (Back to text.)

32. At Augsburg (Sievers 1911, pp. 209, 203) and at Osterley Park (Osterley Park, List of Pictures in the Long Gallery, London 2000, not paginated). (Back to text.)

33. Similar gates appear in the Woman selling Fruit and Vegetables (Kassel), dated 1564. (Back to text.)

34. Compare the similar structure in the Woman selling Fruit and Vegetables (Valenciennes), dated 1563, the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Antwerp), dated 1567, and the Women selling Fruit and Vegetables known from the copy at Bratislava (p. 113, fig. 21). (Back to text.)

35. For the first Miraculous Draught, see Luke 5:4–11. (Back to text.)

[page 136]
Fig. 55

Detail of NG 6585, the top right corner. © The National Gallery, London

[page 137]

36. Similar hats occur in the Village Fair with the Flight into Egypt (Brussels), dated 1563; in the Christ carrying the Cross, dated 1563–4 (Älvkarleby kyrka); and in the Market Square with the Ecce Homo, dated 1565 (Stockholm). (Back to text.)

37. For the Augsburg painting, see note 32 above. (Back to text.)

39. Compare the man in the centre of the Fish Market with the Miraculous Draught of 1568 (private collection). (Back to text.)

40. For example, the Two Women and a Man selling Fish of 1568 (versions at Dieppe and Naples), the Couple selling Fish of 1568 (versions at Strasbourg, Maastricht and elsewhere) and the Fish Market with the Ecce Homo of 1570 (Stockholm). (Back to text.)

41. The fish were identified by Geoffrey N. Swinney of the National Museum of Scotland; his report is in the NG dossier. (Back to text.)

42. For example, the Two Women and a Man selling Fish of 1568 (versions at Dieppe and Naples), the Couple selling Fish of 1568 (versions at Strasbourg, Maastricht and elsewhere), the Fish Markets of 1569 and 1570 (both in Naples), the Fish Market with the Ecce Homo of 1570 (Stockholm) and the Fish Market of 1574 (Antwerp). See further pp. 133–4. (Back to text.)

43. John 21:1–11; for the First Miraculous Draught, see Luke 5:4–11. (Back to text.)

44. Compare, for example, Gillis Mostaert’s painting of the Grote Markt in Antwerp with scenes from the Passion of Christ (Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum: reproduced in Voet 1973, p. 441). (Back to text.)

45. Compare the engraving by Adriaen Collaert of about 1580 (reproduced in Voet 1973, p. 178); see also the other views, ibid. , pp. 210, 221–2, and the rough plan of the area, p. 310. (Back to text.)

46. L. Torfs and A. Casterman, ‘Les agrandissements et les fortifications d’Anvers depuis l’origine de cette ville’, Annales de l’Académie d’archéologie de Belgique, vol. XXVII, 1871, pp. 5–107, esp. pp. 56–7 and plates between pp. 56–7 and 74–5; Génard 1888–92, vol. II, p. 33. Compare also the views of the old Rode Poort in the woodcut of Antwerp in 1515 (Voet 1973, pp. 131–2), the view of Antwerp painted shortly after 1518 (Antwerp, Nationaal Scheepvaartmuseum: ibid. , pp. 145, 155), a view of Antwerp engraved before 1532 ( ibid. , pp. 64–5) and prints by Frans Huys (1557: ibid. , pp. 221–2), Adriaan Collaert (about 1580: ibid. , p. 178) and Hogenberg ( ibid. , p. 210). For a panoramic plan of the Ossenmarkt district in 1539, see ibid. , p. 310. A view of the Oude Ossenmarkt by Peter Van Bredael (1629–1719) is in the Antwerp museum, no. 784. (Back to text.)

47. In some of Beuckelaer’s pictures, the pats of butter are similarly marked: for example, the Market Scene with the Calling of Matthew (Naples), dated 1566, and the Two Women and a Man selling Poultry (Vienna), dated 1567. (Back to text.)

48. Though most of Beuckelaer’s kitchens have tiled floors, the pig in the Flayed Pig (Cologne), dated 1563, hangs over a brick floor and the Butcher’s Shop (Naples), dated 1568, has a brick floor. (Back to text.)

49. ‘The ordering of the Serjeants Feast … 16 October 1555’ printed in William Dugdale, Origines Judiciales, 3rd edn, London 1680, pp. 134–5. (Back to text.)

51. Jan Vandamme, ‘Een keukentafereel van Joachim Beuckelaer: interieur tussen theorie en realiteit’ in Verbraeken et al. 1986, pp. 49–52. (Back to text.)

52. See above, pp. 99–100. (Back to text.)

54. The history of the Ximenes family is put together from de Vegiano 1865, II, pp. 2167–8; J. Denucé, ‘Iets over Spaansch‐Portugeesche geslachten in Nederland, en het plaatwerk van D. Henriques de Castro’, Antwerpsch Archievenblad, tweede reeks, vol. II, 1927, pp. 37–52, Bijlage II, facing p. 52, Stamboom; and from C. Sebregondi, Famiglie patrizie fiorentine, vol. I, Florence 1958, Ximenes de Aragona, Tavole I–VI. (Back to text.)

55. Not to be confused with Francisco Ximenes de Leon ( c. 1520–1560), who also lived in Antwerp but who was not related: see J.A. Goris, Etude sur les colonies marchandes méridionales (Portugais, Espagnols, Italiens) à Anvers de 1488 à 1567, Contribution à l’histoire des débuts du capitalisme moderne (Université de Louvain, Recueil de travaux publiés par les membres des conférences d’histoire et de philologie, 2me série, 4me fasc.), Leuven 1925, pp. 307, 314–15, 411, 612; Verzameling der Graf‐en Gedenkschriften van de Provincie Antwerpen, Arrondissement Antwerpen, vol. I, Antwerpen, Cathedrale kerk, Antwerp 1856, p. 95. (Back to text.)

56. J. Denucé, L’Afrique au XVIe siècle et le commerce anversois avec reproduction de la carte murale de Blaeu‐Verbist de 1644 (Collection de documents pour l’histoire du commerce, II), Antwerp 1937, pp. 22, 50, 54–5; H. Kellenbenz, ‘Die Geschäfte der Firma “Ferdinand Ximenes und Erben des Rui Nunes” in Köln’ in L. de Rosa, ed., Ricerche storiche ed economiche in memoria di Corrado Barbagallo, Naples 1970, vol. II, pp. 291–314; V. Vazquez de Prada, Lettres marchandes d’Anvers, 4 vols (Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, VIe Section, Centre de recherches historiques, Affaires et gens d’affaires, XV, XVIII 1,2,3), n.d., vol. I, pp. 204–7; H. Pohl, Die Portugiesen in Antwerpen (1567–1648), Zur Geschichte einer Minderheit (Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial‐und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beihefte, Nr. 63), Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 80–1. (Back to text.)

57. Kellenbenz, cited in note 56, pp. 293–5. (Back to text.)

58. I.S. Révar, ‘Pour l’histoire des marranes à Anvers: recensements de la “Nation portugaise” de 1571 à 1666’, Revue des études juives, 4e sér. vol. II (CXXII) 1963, pp. 123–47, p. 132. (Back to text.)

59. Pohl, cited in note 56, p. 353. (Back to text.)

60. Kellenbenz, cited in note 56, p. 295. (Back to text.)

61. Ibid. , p. 296. (Back to text.)

62. Vazquez de Prada, cited in note 56, vol. I, p. 205. (Back to text.)

63. Pohl , cited in note 56, p. 353. (Back to text.)

64. Denucé 1927, cited in note 54, Stamboom; Sebregondi, cited in note 54, Tavola I. (Back to text.)

66. Kellenbenz, cited in note 56, p. 301. (Back to text.)

67. Vazquez de Prada, cited in note 56, p. 207. (Back to text.)

68. Denucé 1927, cited in note 54, p. 47. (Back to text.)

69. Her aunt Esther van Eeckeren married Jan Noirot, who owned paintings by Bruegel and a Christ in the House of Martha and Mary which was probably by Beuckelaer. Her mother Anna della Faille was the niece of Jacques della Faille, who had Cornelis de Zeeuw paint portraits of himself (dated 1569) and his wife (now in Brussels). Catharina’s sister Maria married in 1587 Philippe Praets, Secretary to the Privy Council in Brussels. His ‘cousin’, possibly one of the Noirots, owned Bruegel’s Peasant Wedding (now in Vienna). See Denucé 1927, cited in note 54, p. 47; Jongbloet‐Van Houtte 1986, p. CXXIII. (Back to text.)

70. Duverger 1984–2006, vol. I, pp. 400–61. (Back to text.)

71. Ibid. , pp. 402, 432, 412. (Back to text.)

72. Ibid. , pp. 434–57. (Back to text.)

73. Pohl, cited in note 56, p. 37. (Back to text.)

74. Révar, cited in note 58, p. 132. (Back to text.)

75. Sievers 1911, p. 209. (Back to text.)

76. Voet 1973, p. 58; Reindert Falkenburg, ‘Matters of Taste: Pieter Aertsen’s Market Scenes, Eating Habits, and Pictorial Rhetoric in the Sixteenth Century’ in Anne W. Lowenthal, ed., The Object as Subject, Studies in the Interpretation of Still Life, Princeton 1996, pp. 13–27; for further information on diet, see Wim De Clercq et al. , ‘Living in Times of War: Waste of c. 1600 from Two Garderobe Chutes in the Castle of Middelburg‐in‐Flanders (Belgium)’, Post‐Medieval Archaeology, vol. 41 part 1, 2007, pp. 1–63. (Back to text.)

77. Parker 1979, pp. 56–7, etc. (Back to text.)

78. The translation is adapted from Parker 1979, p. 127. (Back to text.)

79. See pp. 98–9 on his working procedures. (Back to text.)

Abbreviations

FTIR
Fourier transform infrared microscopy
NG
National Gallery, London

List of archive references cited

  • Brussels, Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique: Letter of 19 January 2001 from Jaak Janssen

List of references cited

Annuaire 1869
Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique, 1869, 23
Bartsch 1803–21
BartschAdam vonLe Peintre graveur (publication date of first volume often given as 1802), 21 volsVienna 1803–21
Berti 1884
BertiPietro, ‘Dono Panciatichi al R. Archivio Fiorentino’, Archivio storico italiano, 1884, 4a ser. XIII455–62
Brachène and Hemptinne 1963
BrachèneO. Coomans de and Georges de HemptinneEtat présent de la noblesse du Royaume de BelgiqueBrussels 1963, 7
Campbell 1998
CampbellLorneNational Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish SchoolsLondon 1998
Catalogue Borgo Pinti 1902
Catalogue des tableaux anciens et objets d’art … composant la galerie et le musée du feu le Marquis Ferdinand Panciatichi Ximenes d’Aragona dans le palais Borgo Pinti, 1902
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
De Clercq 2007
De ClercqWimet al., ‘Living in Times of War: Waste of c. 1600 from Two Garderobe Chutes in the Castle of Middelburg‐in‐Flanders (Belgium)’, Post‐Medieval Archaeology, 2007, 4111–63
Denucé 1837
DenucéJ.L’Afrique au XVIe siècle et le commerce anversois avec reproduction de la carte murale de Blaeu‐Verbist de 1644Collection de documents pour l’histoire du commerceIIAntwerp 1937
Denucé 1927
DenucéJ., ‘Iets over Spaansch‐Portugeesche geslachten in Nederland, en het plaatwerk van D. Henriques de Castro’, Antwerpsch Archievenblad, 1927, tweede reeks2
Dodoens 1554
DodoensRembertCruÿde boeckAntwerp 1554
Dugdale 1680
The ordering of the Serjeants Feast … 16 October 1555’, in Origines JudicialesWilliam Dugdale, 3rd edn, London 1680
Duverger 1984–2006
DuvergerErikAntwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende eeuw14 volsFontes Historiae Artis NeerlandicaeThe Hague 1984–2006
Falkenburg 1996
FalkenburgReindert, ‘Matters of Taste: Pieter Aertsen’s Market Scenes, Eating Habits, and Pictorial Rhetoric in the Sixteenth Century’, in The Object as Subject, Studies in the Interpretation of Still Life, ed. Anne W. LowenthalPrinceton 1996, 13–27
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
Goris 1925
GorisJ.A.Etude sur les colonies marchandes méridionales (Portugais, Espagnols, Italiens) à Anvers de 1488 à 1567, Contribution à l’histoire des débuts du capitalisme moderneUniversité de Louvain, Recueil de travaux publiés par les membres des conférences d’histoire et de philologie2me série4me fasc.Leuven 1925
Gras 1918
GrasNorman Scott BrienThe Early English Customs SystemCambridge (Massachusetts) 1918
Janssens and Stengers 1997
JanssensGustArchives de l’Art français and Jean Stengers, eds, Nouveaux regards sur Léopold Ier and Léopold II. Fonds d’Archives GoffinetBrussels, Fondation du Roi Baudouin, 1997
Jongbloet‐van Houtte 1986
Jongbloet‐van HoutteGiselaBrieven en andere bescheiden betreffende Daniel van der Meulen 1584–1600Rijks Geschiedkundige PublicatiënGrote Serie196The Hague 1986, 1
Kellenbenz 1970
KellenbenzH., ‘Die Geschäfte der Firma “Ferdinand Ximenes und Erben des Rui Nunes” in Köln’, in Ricerche storiche ed economiche in memoria di Corrado BarbagalloL. de RosaNaples 1970, 2291–314
Kirby, Spring and Higgitt 2005
KirbyJoMarika Spring and Catherine Higgitt, ‘The Technology of Red Lake Pigment Manufacture: Study of the Dyestuff Substrate’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2005, 2671–87
Kloek 1989
KloekWouter, ‘De tekeningen van Pieter Aertsen en Joachim Beuckelaer’, Pieter Aertsen, 1989, 129–66 (Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 1989, 40)
Koller and Mella
KollerF. and S. MellaArmorial général de BelgiqueBrussels s.d.
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
Litta et al. 1819–1923
LittaPompeoet al.Famiglie celebri d’Italia2 seriesMilan and Turin 1819–1923
Osterley 2000
Osterley Park, List of Pictures in the Long GalleryLondon 2000
Ostoya 1884
OstoyaGaetanLes anciens maîtres et leurs œuvres à Florence, Guide artistiqueFlorence 1884
Parker 1979
ParkerGeoffreyThe Dutch RevoltHarmondsworth 1979
Passerini 1858
PasseriniLuigiGenealogia e storia della famiglia PanciatichiFlorence 1858
Pliny
PlinyNatural History
Pohl 1977
PohlH.Die Portugiesen in Antwerpen (1567–1648), Zur Geschichte einer MinderheitVierteljahrschrift für Sozial‐und WirtschaftsgeschichteBeihefteNr. 63Wiesbaden 1977
Révar 1963
RévarI.S., ‘Pour l’histoire des marranes à Anvers: recensements de la “Nation portugaise” de 1571 à 1666’, Revue des études juives, 1963, 4e sér.2 (122)123–47
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
Sebregondi 1958
SebregondiC.Famiglie patrizie fiorentineFlorence 1958, 1
Sievers 1911
SieversJohannes, ‘Joachim Beuckelaer’, Jahrbuch der königlich Preuſzischen Kunstsammlungen, 1911, 13185–212
Spring 2012
SpringMarika, ‘Colourless Powdered Glass as an Additive in Fifteenth‐ and Sixteenth‐Century European Paintings’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2012, 334–26
Spring, Higgitt and Saunders 2005
SpringMarikaCatherine Higgitt and David Saunders, ‘Investigation of Pigment‐Medium Interaction Processes in Oil Paint containing Degraded Smalt’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2005, 2656–70
Torfs and Casterman 1871
TorfsL. and A. Casterman, ‘Les agrandissements et les fortifications d’Anvers depuis l’origine de cette ville’, Annales de l’Académie d’archéologie de Belgique, 1871, 275–107
Van Looveren 1986
Van LooverenJan, ‘Toelichtingen bij de restauratie van vier schilderijen van Joachim Beuckelaer’, in Joachim Beuckelaer: Het markt‐en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 1550–1650, eds Paul Verbraekenet al. (summary in English on p. 89), 1986, 78–86
Van Mander 1604
van ManderKarelHet Schilder‐BoeckHaarlem 1604
Vandamme 1986
VandammeJan, ‘Een keukentafereel van Joachim Beuckelaer: interieur tussen theorie en realiteit’, in Joachim Beuckelaer: Het markt‐en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 1550–1650, eds Paul Verbraekenet al., 1986
Vazquez de Prada
Vazquez de PradaV.Lettres marchandes d’Anvers4 volsEcole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, VIe Section, Centre de recherches historiques, Affaires et gens d’affairesXV, XVIII 1,2,3, n.d., 1
Verbraeken et al. 1986
VerbraekenPaulet al.Joachim Beuckelaer, Het markt‐en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 1550–1650 (exh. cat. Museum voor Schone Kunsten), Ghent 1986
Verzameling 1856
Verzameling der Graf‐en Gedenkschriften van de Provincie Antwerpen, Arrondissement AntwerpenAntwerp 1856, 1, Antwerpen, Cathedrale kerk
Voet 1973
VoetLeonAntwerp, The Golden Age: The Rise and Glory of the Metropolis in the Sixteenth CenturyAntwerp 1973
Von Wurzbach 1906
WurzbachA. vonNiederländisches Künstler‐LexikonVienna and Leipzig 1906, 1
Weidema and Koopstra 2012
WeidemaSytske and Anna KoopstraJan Gossart, The Documentary Evidencewith a foreword by Maryan W. AinsworthTurnhout 2012
Wine 2001
WineHumphreyNational Gallery Catalogues: The Seventeenth Century French PaintingsLondon 2001
Wolters and Wallert 1999
WoltersMargreet and Arie Wallert, in Still Lifes: Techniques and Style, An Examination of Paintings from the Rijksmuseum, ed. Arie WallertAmsterdam and Zwolle 1999, 41–3

List of exhibitions cited

Antwerp 1993
Antwerp, Cathedral, Les retables anversois XVe–XVIe siècles, 1993
Antwerp and Lisbon 1998–9
Antwerp, Hessenhuis; Lisbon, Centro Cultural de Belém, The Fascinating Faces of Flanders: Through Art and Society, 1998–9
Bristol, Newcastle and London 2005
Bristol, Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery; Newcastle, Laing Art Gallery; London, National Gallery, The Stuff of Life, 2005
Ghent 1986–7
Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Joachim Beuckelaer, Het markt‐en keukenstuk in de Nederlanden 1550 – 1650, 1986–7 (exh. cat.: Verbraeken et al. 1986)
[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. Structural mark-up applied to skeleton document in full; document updated to use external database of archival and bibliographic references; taster biography for Gossaert and entries for NG656, NG946, NG1689, NG1888, NG2211, NG2790 and NG2163 prepared for publication; print entries for NG713, NG1419 & NG4681, NG3556, NG3604, NG4092, NG4732, NG4744, NG5769, NG6508 and NG6585-NG6588 prepared for publication; taster entries for NG1689 and NG2790 and print entries for NG713, NG1419 & NG4681, NG3556, NG3604, NG4092, NG4732, NG4744, NG5769, NG6508 and NG6585-NG6588 proofread and corrected.

Cite this entry

Permalink (this version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIN-000B-0000-0000
Permalink (latest version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/0DG2-000B-0000-0000
Chicago style
Campbell, Lorne. “The Four Elements”. 2014, online version 3, March 16, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIN-000B-0000-0000.
Harvard style
Campbell, Lorne (2014) The Four Elements. Online version 3, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIN-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).
MHRA style
Campbell, Lorne, The Four Elements (National Gallery, 2014; online version 3, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIN-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 19 March 2025]