Skip to main content

Main image

Two Shutters from a Triptych:
Catalogue entry

Catalogue contents

About the catalogue

Entry details

Full title
Two Shutters from a Triptych
Artist
Marten van Heemskerck
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

Wings of a triptych

Oil on oak panels, 125.7 × 47.8 cm and 125.7 × 47.7 cm

Painted surfaces of the obverses:

123.5 × 46.4 cm and 123.6 × 46.7 cm

Painted surfaces of the reverses:

124.0 × 45.9 cm and 124.0 × 45.7 cm On the reverses, two bishop saints and two coats of arms (figs 1, 2)

Provenance

The wing panels were in the collection of the Marquesses of Bath at Longleat in Wiltshire. The earliest reference to them [page 389][page 390][page 391]so far discovered is in a booklet of 1872 that gives rough diagrams of the picture hangs at Longleat.1 On p. 4, where the pictures at the western end of the Upper South Corridor are listed, two paper strips are pasted in which are inscribed ‘Nun in distress’ and ‘Priest Kneeling in Confession’. The fact that these slips of paper are pasted in could indicate that the paintings had been recently acquired or that they had been moved. No other references, however, have been found either in the booklet of 1872 or in earlier Longleat lists and inventories. The two panels are described with the same titles in a schedule of heirlooms created shortly after 1896 under the will of the 4th Marquess; measurements are given: 49 × 19 inches, the dimensions of the two National Gallery paintings. They therefore belonged to, and may have been acquired by, John Alexander Thynne (1831–1896), 4th Marquess of Bath. They passed to his son Thomas Henry Thynne (1862–1946), the 5th Marquess, and his son Henry Frederick Thynne (1905–1992), the 6th Marquess, who lent them to the Manchester exhibition of 1957. They were bought for the Gallery in 1986 for £145,000 from David Carritt Ltd, London, the Trustees having agreed on 6 November 1986 to make the purchase.2

Fig. 1

Reverse of NG 6508.1 in its present frame. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 2

Reverse of NG 6508.2 in its present frame. © The National Gallery, London.

Exhibition

Manchester 1957 (69, 73).

Technical Notes

Both panels were cleaned in 1986–7.3 On the obverses, the uppermost red lake paint layer in the background has faded and become cloudy in places (it is a stronger colour where it has been protected by a frame rebate). The red lake in the Magdalen’s dress may also have faded. Flake losses and losses along splits and in worn areas have been retouched; obtrusive underdrawing, for example in Saint John’s head, has been muted. Circular orange‐brown stains, apparently splash marks, could not be safely removed and the most disturbing have been touched out. The reverses are a little more battered. The coats of arms had been overpainted: a single layer of red earth, bound in egg tempera, was removed to reveal the shields now visible. The red areas of the coats of arms had been damaged before the overpaint was applied.4

The panels are about 0.6 cm thick, measured at the centres of the top edges. The left wing consists of two boards of oak, butt‐joined, and the right wing of four boards, also butt‐joined. The joins are reinforced with dowels. Dendrochronological investigation has established that all six boards are from the same tree and that it grew in the Baltic region. The 93 rings of the first board of the left wing were formed between 1420 and 1512, the 90 rings of the second board between 1426 and 1515. The 54 rings of the first board of the right wing were formed between 1414 and 1467, the 56 rings of the second board between 1467 and 1522, the 54 rings of the third between 1470 and 1523, and the 53 rings of the fourth between 1414 and 1466. The last heartwood ring, in the third board of the right wing, was formed in 1523.5

The oak frames are old but not original. They measure 143.0 × 60.8 cm and 143.8 × 61.1 cm. It is likely that the corresponding frame of the central section would have measured about 144 × 122 cm. Both of the extant frames bear the marks of two hinges, each of which was secured with five nails and which were almost certainly in place when the wings were still fixed to the missing centrepiece. The hinge marks are between 17.9 and 21.9 cm and between 119.3 and 124.0 cm from the top of the inside edge of the left wing; between 19.0 and 23.0 cm and between 120.0 and 124.2 cm from the top of the inside edge of the right wing. When the wings were closed, a raised beading on the frame of the left wing locked into a groove in the frame of the right wing. These frames had been engaged; each of the mitred joins had been secured with at least two nails, some of which were over 8 cm long. The frames had to be removed before the panels were treated. They were then altered. Their thickness has been increased from about 4.5 cm to 5.8 cm, so that they can allow the panels greater freedom of movement.6

Barbes and unpainted edges show that the original frames had also been engaged. They were secured with pegs that fitted into holes in the unpainted edges. In the holes second from the left at the lower edge of the left wing and second from the top in the right edge of the right wing, parts of the pegs remain in place. In the top edge of the left wing are 5 holes; in the lateral edges, 7 holes; in the lower edge, 4 holes. In the right wing, there are 4 holes in the upper and lower edges and 7 holes in the lateral edges.7 The unpainted edges have been irregularly trimmed and the one at the top right corner of the left wing is damaged. The left edges of both panels have been trimmed, through the holes, and on the obverses planed, shaving off the barbes. On the reverses, the trimmed edges have been rather untidily bevelled but the painted surfaces have not been affected. The extant frames have never been pegged into the panels.

This provides sufficient physical evidence that the extant frames cannot have been the original ones. Their carpentry is rather crude and, before treatment in 1986–7, neither panel fitted well into its frame. The left wing was so tightly jammed into its frame that the wood could not expand or contract and had developed several splits, while one of the joins in the boards of the right wing had opened along most of its length. All these problems were addressed and solved in 1986–7. It remains to discover exactly when and why the original frames were removed and replaced, apparently when the wings were still attached to the missing centre panel.8

The grounds were applied after the panels had been pegged into their original frames. They consist of natural chalk (confirmed by XRD analysis), with coccoliths, bound in animal glue. A warm, light greyish‐brown priming has been applied on top of the grounds on both sides of the panels. It is variable in thickness, containing a mixture of lead white, black, red and yellow earths and colourless powdered glass.9 On the obverses, [page 392]on top of the grounds and primings, are drawn grids (figs 3, 4): the squares are about 7.9 × 7.9 cm.10 It is known from a squared drawing on paper that Heemskerck used the squaring technique to transfer and enlarge designs from paper to panel. No drawings on paper have been found that correspond to the squared underdrawings on the obverses of the London panels. A sample from the very edge of The Virgin and Saint John the Evangelist indicates that the slightly smudged black mark visible in the infrared reflectogram, made when measuring and marking out the intervals of the grid, is in charcoal; the lines of the grid are narrower and fainter than the mark and it is possible that they were drawn in a different material.

The infrared reflectograms reveal two types of underdrawing on the obverses of the panels: one appearing fainter, the other more intensely black and refining and correcting the first (fig. 3). In a sample from an area coinciding with one of the intensely black lines, the underdrawing can be seen to be relatively thick, perhaps accounting for its appearance in the infrared image. Analysis revealed that the pigment is a carbonaceous clay that can be termed a black earth.11 The substantial and coherent nature of this layer in the cross‐section might suggest that it is a black paint rather than a dry drawing material – a supposition that the reflectogram seems to support, although it is difficult to be certain.12 Since no sample was available from the fainter lines, the material is not known. Lines of a different character could have been made with the same material, although the possibility that a different drawing medium was used should be considered. ‘The main outlines of the forms have been established with considerable freedom and confidence but they have seldom been adhered to at the painting stage.’13 Saint John’s head is underdrawn in faint lines above and on the left of its painted position; and then, in darker lines, below and on the left of its painted position. The underdrawn Saint John held in his left hand a chalice from which a serpent was escaping.14 The chalice was not painted. The Virgin’s head is underdrawn slightly below and slightly to the left of its painted position; her underdrawn veil appears to be striped. Her hands have been altered, the painted fingers being larger than the underdrawn fingers. The Magdalen’s head is underdrawn on the left of the painted head and at more of an angle. Her skirt is tiered in the underdrawing, with a frill crossing her right thigh. The contours of her right leg and thigh are outlined beneath her draperies. The painted donor joins his hands in prayer, but the underdrawn donor separates his hands in a gesture of admiration and adoration. The palm of his right hand is revealed in the underdrawing. His eyes are underdrawn in different, slightly lower positions; his chin recedes more and his jowls are flabbier. Indeed the underdrawn donor looks like a completely different person.

The reflectograms of the reverses are not very informative: drawn lines are visible but so much is masked by the paint that it seems impossible to make sense of them. Very few changes are made visible but there are alterations in the paint underneath the shields (figs 5, 6) and the second key of the bishop on our left has been added at a late stage in the painting process. The crosier of the bishop on the right and his morse are not underdrawn or reserved in their present positions (fig. 6). The crosier, however, is painted far to our left of its underdrawn position. The whole figure has been moved up and to the left. The bishops originally stood on projecting, semicircular platforms, altered when the present shields were added.15

The only blue pigment used is azurite, of relatively small particle size and therefore tending towards a turquoise blue hue. It is mixed with lead white in the clouds, in the Virgin’s blue mantle and in the blue stripes of the Magdalen’s mantle. In the Virgin’s maroon dress, the blue component is again the same azurite; mixed with lead white and red lake, it gives a cold, metallic appearance. In Saint John’s green drapery, a green mineral pigment composed mainly of copper sulphate has been used in the underpaint.16 It is mixed with a little lead white in the shadows, while in the lightest areas the underpaint is a very pale green consisting of only a little copper sulphate mixed with lead white. This undermodelling has been glazed with verdigris.17

The reds and pinks are mixed from red lake, vermilion and red earth. The Magdalen’s pink robe is painted with only red lake and lead white. Saint John’s more orange‐red robe, however, has a modelled underpaint composed of vermilion and red lake, with red earth added to the shadows and lead white to the lighter areas. It has been glazed with red lake, very thinly in the light areas and mid‐tones. Charcoal black has been added and has been applied much more thickly in the shadows to make a deeper red. Both layers also contain colourless powdered glass.18 The dull red of the background does not contain any vermilion but instead consists of red lake, red earth and colourless powdered glass in the underpaint, again glazed with a thin layer of red lake.

The flesh of the two male figures is painted in mixtures of lead white, vermilion, red lake and a little yellow earth, with additions of charcoal in the shadows. The grey pallor of the Virgin’s face is achieved by adding azurite to the usual flesh mixture and reducing the amount of red pigments, especially red lake.

The grisailles on the reverses differ in colour: in the warm grey paint of the bishop on the left wing, bone black as well as charcoal black and red earth is mixed with lead white. The pigment mixture could be responsible for the warmer hue but, in addition, analysis of a sample from a light, almost white, area shows that the binder is the more yellowing linseed oil and the paint is less thick and opaque than on the reverse of the right wing, where the whites are bound in walnut oil. The artist may have wished to make a distinction between the two reverses, though it is difficult to think of a reason; or the two reverses may have been entrusted to two different assistants who had differing tastes in colour.19

Medium samples show that both linseed oil (usually in dark colours) and walnut oil (usually in light colours) have been used. In some samples the walnut oil has been heatbodied. This is in accord with earlier Netherlandish practice.20

Description

White clouds encircle a brown‐red sky. The figures seem to rest on a strip of rudimentary landscape and the original frames must have appeared to support the Virgin’s left knee, [page 393][page 394]Saint John’s left foot and the whole figure of the kneeling donor. Saint John is evidently dropping to kneel on his right knee to support the Virgin, who is kneeling on her right knee but seems also to be lowering her left knee to the ground. Saint John is taking some of her weight in his left hand which grasps her left armpit, and on his left knee which appears to be supporting her left arm. The Magdalen is richly dressed. The circlet around her head is set with jewels of many colours; her hair is elaborately arranged and plaited into a pigtail; her striped mantle is secured at her left shoulder by a brooch of yellow metal ornamented with the figure of a woman embracing another figure, possibly another woman (fig. 10). In her left hand, the Magdalen holds with miraculous ease a vase of yellow metal. The finial is an image of a nude woman holding a shield(?) in her right hand; the vase itself is decorated with three lions’ heads with rings in their mouths. The Magdalen’s pearls are threaded on an orange string and her armband is of yellow metal and is set with blue jewels alternating with pink ones.

Fig. 3

Infrared reflectogram mosaic, left wing, obverse. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 4

Infrared reflectogram mosaic, right wing, obverse. © The National Gallery, London.

The donor appears to be both balding and tonsured; his hair is brownish; his eyes are blue, with pale blue whites; he may be toothless or he may retain only a few of his teeth. He wears a shirt and two blackish robes. Two collars are visible, the outer one patterned in black on grey and turned back to reveal its lining. Over his robe he wears a white rochet (a sort of surplice) and over his left arm he has a grey almuce. He is wearing canon’s robes.

The normal tonal range has been extended by including in the draperies pure white highlights as well as deep glazed shadows. This procedure, apparently inspired by Italian practice, gives the draperies an unnatural sheen and increases the impression that they cling very tightly around the bodies beneath.21

On the reverse of the left wing is a bishop holding an open book. Two keys hang from a cord suspended around his left wrist. On his morse there seem to be two standing figures but the detail is difficult to decipher. A veil is tied to his crosier [page 395]which rests against his right shoulder. Strongly lit from our right, everything except the shield below the bishop is rendered in tones of black, grey and white. The painter has made some effort to make his greys appear slightly warm in colour.

Fig. 5

Infrared reflectogram mosaic, detail of the shield on the reverse of the left wing. © The National Gallery, London.

Fig. 6

Infrared reflectogram mosaic, right wing, reverse. © The National Gallery, London.

On the reverse of the right wing is a second bishop holding in his left hand a book in a chemise binding. He raises his right hand in an attitude of benediction. On his morse are representations of two figures: a standing man raising one of his arms and a seated woman. Against his left shoulder rests a crosier. Around the top of its staff are three crowns: the uppermost with three prongs, the middle with four and the lowest with three. Once again, everything is rendered in tones of black, grey and white; there is no attempt here to make the greys appear warm in colour.

The coats of arms are: on the left wing, gules five fusils (elongated lozenges) conjoined in fess argent (but not touching the lateral edges of the shield) (figs 1, 5); on the right wing, argent a label of five points gules (but touching the lateral edges of the shield) (figs 2, 6).

Iconography

The Magdalen’s vase is the pot of ointment with which she anointed Christ’s feet.22 The underdrawn chalice and serpent, though never painted, confirm that the male saint is indeed John the Evangelist. The bishop saint on the reverse of the left wing holds two keys. He may be Saint Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the keys of the kingdom of Heaven;23 Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and might therefore be represented wearing a mitre. Normally, however, he was shown bearded and wearing a papal tiara. The only other male saint depicted holding two keys seems to have been Riquier, who was an abbot, not a bishop.24 Saint Servatius was a bishop; one of his emblems was a key and he was the patron of locksmiths; but he was shown holding only one key and was often accompanied by a dragon.25 Heemskerck’s saint may be Peter but the question of his identity remains unsolved.

The saint on the reverse of the right wing is also a bishop. The three crowns on the shaft of his crosier could perhaps stand for the crowns of the three kingdoms renounced by Saint Louis of Toulouse (1275–1298) in 1296, when he was made Bishop of Toulouse. The crowns were those of Naples, Sicily and Jerusalem, all held by Louis’s father, Charles II of Anjou, King of Naples, and renounced by Louis in favour of his younger brother Robert. The Angevin title of King of Jerusalem resulted from its sale in 1277 to Charles I of Naples by Maria of Antioch, whose claim to be Queen of Jerusalem was dubious and was not widely recognised.26 Louis of Toulouse, who died young, was normally depicted as a youth, but the painter of NG 6508 may not have known much about Louis, who was not particularly celebrated in the Low Countries or indeed in northern France.

The Identity of the Donor

Neither of the coats of arms on the reverses of the wing panels can be identified (figs 1, 2). If there are mistakes, however, in the ways in which the two coats are depicted, it may be possible that they stand for Hamal (the lozenges should extend across the field to touch both the lateral edges)27 and Kersbeke (the label should stop short of the lateral edges).28 The donor may therefore be a canon whose father was a Hamal and whose mother was a Kersbeke. The noble family of Hamal took their name from Hamal, just south of Tongeren, and bore the arms gules five fusils conjoined in fess argent. A great number of families bore the same arms, for example the Hauweels at Ghent and Dendermonde.29 The noble family of Kersbeke took their name from Kersbeek, now part of Kersbeek‐Miskom, about halfway between Tienen and Diest. For a time, members of the Hamal family were the overlords of Kersbeek.30

Fig. 7

Marten van Heemskerck, The Man of Sorrows, 1532. Oil on panel, 84.2 × 72.5 cm. Ghent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten. © Lukas — Art in Flanders VZW/Photo: Hugo Maertens/The Bridgeman Art Library.

At least two canons named Hamal or de Hamal have been found who could have been the donor of the two panels. Their mothers’ names are not known. The first was Arnout de Hamale, canon of the Collegiate Church of St Gertrude at Bergen op Zoom; he was mentioned in 1545.31 Two brothers named Johannes de Hamalia, from Bergeijk in North Brabant, matriculated at the University of Leuven on 27 August 1516.32 One of them was afterwards canon of the Collegiate Church of St Salvator at Harelbeke, north of Kortrijk, and died at Leuven on 24 May 1568.33

Attribution and Date

The attribution to Heemskerck was made in 1952 by Sturla Jonasson Gudlaugsson and has been generally accepted, for example by Grosshans in 1980 and by Dunkerton and Smith in 1988.34 Gudlaugson and Grosshans thought that the missing centrepiece might have looked like Heemskerck’s Man of Sorrows (Ghent: fig. 7), which is signed and dated 1532. In his catalogue, Grosshans placed the London panels between [page 396]the Ghent picture and the Haarlem Saint Luke painting the Virgin, also of 1532. Smith and Dunkerton in 1988 considered the London panels later, painted after Heemskerck’s return from Italy in 1536–7.35 According to the dendrochronological findings, the last ring in the panels was formed in 1523. The earliest possible date of execution would be 1534 but a more likely date would be 1540 or later.36

The style has something in common with that of the documented Linköping altarpiece of 1538–42, and perhaps closer affinities with the documented Haarlem wing panels of 1546–7. The Magdalen, for example, is like the angel on the reverse of the Haarlem Adoration of the Kings.37 Further comparisons may be made with the Ghent Crucifixion, signed and dated 1543.38

Reconstruction

Gudlaugsson in 1952 and Grosshans in 1980 thought that the missing central section might have been a larger version of the Ghent Man of Sorrows, signed and dated 1532 (panel, 84.2 × 72.5 cm: fig. 7).39 Smith suggested that a small Man of Sorrows, neither signed nor dated, might be a version of the lost centrepiece.40

The missing central section was probably, but not necessarily, a painting. If, as seems likely, it was a painting and was put into a frame made at the same time as the present old, though not original, frames on the wing panels, it would have measured in its frame about 144 × 122 cm. If its frame was like those on the wing panels, its painted surface would have measured about 123.5 × 107.5 cm. It would have shown the suffering Christ, who might have been standing, like the Magdalen, or seated, with his head on approximately the same level as the heads of the Virgin and the donor. The background would have been brownish red, with whitish clouds at the lower corners, to unite the spaces suggested in the wing panels. A figure of Christ, even if he were accompanied by angels, would not have filled the relatively large space. A painting in the Collegiate Church of St Waldetrudis at Herentals, east of Antwerp, is almost certainly by Heemskerck and may have been painted at about the same time as the wing panels.41 It shows Christ seated on the Cold Stone, waiting to be crucified; in the background are further Passion scenes. The Carrying of the Cross, with Saint Veronica, and the Raising of the Cross are on the left; on the right are Saint John, the fainting Virgin and the other Holy Women (fig. 9). Since the panel measures 71 × 88 cm, it cannot be the missing centrepiece. Even if it has been drastically cut down – and there is no evidence that it is a fragment – it would not complement the wing panels. Saint John and the fainting Virgin would duplicate the left wing and Christ would be turning his back on the Magdalen and the donor in the right wing. It is possible, however, that the missing centrepiece could have been a composition of the same kind, with the suffering Christ appearing among clouds and surrounded by subsidiary scenes from his Passion.

Alternatively, a Christ Mocked at Pommersfelden, signed and dated 1545 (fig. 8), is approximately the appropriate size, 130 × 103.5 cm, and would complement the wing panels, though there are no clouds in the lower corners and Christ would be turning his back on Saint John and the Virgin.42

Fig. 8

Marten van Heemskerck, Christ Mocked, 1545. Oil on panel, 130 × 103.5 cm. Pommersfelden, Kunstsammlungen, Graf von Schönborn‐Wiesentheid. © Pommersfelden, Kunstsammlungen, Graf von Schönborn‐Wiesentheid

I would like to thank Christiane Van den Bergen‐Pantens and Jill Dunkerton for their help with this entry. [page 397]
Fig. 9

Marten van Heemskerck, Christ on the Cold Stone. Oil on panel, 71 × 88 cm. Herentals, Church of Saint Waldetrudis. © IRPA‐KIK, Brussels.

Notes

Infrared reflectography was carried out using a Hamamatsu vidicon. For details see p. 18, note 22.

1. Longleat Archive, 4th Marquess of Bath 215, 1/1/1872. For information on the documents at Longleat, I am indebted to Dr Kate Harris, Librarian and Archivist to the Marquess of Bath, whose letter of 9 May 1994 gives all the information here set out on the history of the pictures at Longleat. According to the catalogue of the Manchester exhibition of 1957, p. 20, the panels were ‘at Longleat by 1887; probably bought by the 4th Marquess between 1860 and 1880’. The sources on which these statements are based have not been traced. (Back to text.)

3. Jill Dunkerton, Aviva Burnstock and Alistair Smith, ‘Two Wings of an Altarpiece by Martin van Heemskerck’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, vol. 12, 1988, pp. 16–35. (Back to text.)

4. Ibid. , pp. 32, 40–1 (plates 6a, 6b). (Back to text.)

5. Report by Peter Klein, dated 17 January 2006, in the NG dossier. (Back to text.)

6. Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 20. There it is explained how the frames were removed, by gradually opening two of the mitred corners of each frame and reducing each frame to two L‐shaped sections. (Back to text.)

7. Further measurements have been taken and are available in the NG dossier. (Back to text.)

8. It is possible that the patron considered the original frames too ornate and had them replaced almost immediately with simpler frames that were not well finished and were hastily and crudely fitted. Alternatively, the triptych may have been vandalised, though there are no signs on the two wing panels of deliberate damage; or it may have been unframed to rescue it from iconoclasts. It is conceivable that a dealer attached the wings to a different central panel and changed the frames to match that of the new centrepiece. (Back to text.)

9. According to Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 28, the binding medium of the priming is glue size. Their conclusion was based on staining tests; but recent re‐examination has shown that the priming contains colourless glass particles, an additive usually associated with oil paint. As staining tests can sometimes give false positive results, a cross‐section was reanalysed using ATR–FTIR imaging. This did not give conclusive evidence of a proteinaceous binder. It is therefore possible that the priming has an oil medium. (Back to text.)

10. This measurement was taken from the square above the Virgin’s left knee. (Back to text.)

11. Recent SEM–EDX analysis identified, in addition to carbon, a clay‐like material containing silicon and aluminium as well as traces of potassium, titanium, magnesium and iron. (Back to text.)

[page 398]

12. Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, pp. 27–8, 34 note 18, state that the faint lines are in charcoal and the darker lines in black chalk. This rather implies a dry drawing material but, since it may be instead a wet drawing material, it is here called a black earth, the term used in documentary sources to describe this type of black pigment. (Back to text.)

14. According to the apocryphal Acts of John, the saint was made to drink poison but survived: see James 1953, pp. 262–3. (Back to text.)

16. Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 28, state that the underpaint contains azurite but recent SEM–EDX analysis has revealed that the bluish‐green pigment is in fact copper sulphate. This was confirmed by ATR–FTIR imaging on cross‐sections. (Back to text.)

17. Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 28, state that, as the translucent green paint contains some pine resin in addition to oil, it is a true ‘copper resinate’ glaze. Recent ATR–FTIR analysis of the cross‐section indicates that there is indeed a compound of copper and resin‐acids present in the paint. It is more likely to be a consequence of reaction over time of the verdigris with resin in the medium rather than a ‘copper resinate’ pigment created by heating the pigment with the medium before application. (Back to text.)

18. Spring 20122, pp. 10–11 and p. 23. (Back to text.)

20. Campbell 1998, p. 30; compare Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 29, where it is perceived as reflecting Italian practice, learned by Heemskerck during his stay in Rome. (Back to text.)

22. John 11:2. (Back to text.)

23. Matthew 16:19. (Back to text.)

24. Réau 1955–9, vol. III, iii, p. 1153. According to Revelation 1:18, Saint John the Evangelist held ‘the keys of hell and of death’, but he cannot be the saint represented here. (Back to text.)

25. Réau 1955–9, vol. III, iii, pp. 1205–7; Didier Martens, ‘Saint Servais de Maastricht ou Saint Eucher d’Orléans?’ in Als Ich Can’, Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers, ed. Bert Cardon et al. (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, vols 11–12, Low Countries series 8), Leuven 2002, pp. 903–20, esp. pp. 903–10. (Back to text.)

26. Steven Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers, A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later Thirteenth Century, Harmondsworth 1960, pp. 188–9. (Back to text.)

27. Rietstap 1884–7, vol. I, p. 878, wrongly stated that the five fusils should extend to all sides of the field. Compare De Raadt 1898–1903, vol. I, p. 112; vol. II, p. 25. (Back to text.)

28. Rietstap 1884–7, vol. I, p. 1082; De Raadt 1898–1903, vol. II, pp. 203–4. (Back to text.)

29. De Raadt 1898–1903, vol. I, p. 112. (Back to text.)

30. Gilles de Hamal, who died in 1354, had married Margareta van Kersbeke; their descendants Arnoul van Hamal called d’Elderen in 1495 and in 1563 the children of Philippe de Hamal, Lord of Monchereau, held rights over Kersbeek: see Galesloot 1870–84, vol. II, p. 174 and vol. I, p. 316. For the Hamal family, see ‘Hamal’, Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique, XXIIe année, 1868, pp. 167–213; Schwennicke 1978–[in progress], vol. XXVII, Zwischen Maas und Rhein, part 3, Frankfurt 2010, tables 72–76. (Back to text.)

31. Galesloot 1870–84, vol. II, p. 321. (Back to text.)

32. Schillings 1958, p. 534 (186, 187). (Back to text.)

33. J. Fruytier, ‘Hamele (Joannes de) of de Hamalia’ in Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, vol. VI, Leiden 1924, col. 693. (Back to text.)

34. Gudlaugsson’s opinion is cited in the catalogue of the Manchester exhibition of 1957, p. 20; Grosshans 1980, p. 109 (no. 17); Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 16, etc. (Back to text.)

35. Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 16, etc. (Back to text.)

37. Köhler 1991, p.1. (Back to text.)

38. Friedländer, vol. XIII, no. 198; Grosshans 1980, no. 45. (Back to text.)

39. Manchester exh. cat. of 1957, p. 20; Grosshans 1980, p. 109. (Back to text.)

40. Smith in Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith, cited in note 3, p. 16 and p. 19, fig. 6. This Man of Sorrows is or was at Greenville, South Carolina, and measures 77.6 × 54 cm. See Grosshans 1980, p. 186 no. 65, plate 95. (Back to text.)

41. Grosshans 1980, pp. 181–2, no. 62, plate 92. Grosshans did not know the dimensions; he suggested a date of around 1545/50. (Back to text.)

42. Grosshans 1980, pp. 165–6, no. 49, plate 73; Die Grafen von Schönborn, Kirchenfürsten, Sammler, Mäzene, exh. cat., Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg 1989, p. 411 (no. 315). (Back to text.)

Abbreviations

ATR–FTIR imaging
Attenuated total reflectance–Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopic imaging
FTIR
Fourier transform infrared microscopy
NG
National Gallery, London
SEM–EDX
Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X‐ray
XRD
X‐ray powder diffraction

List of archive references cited

  • Warminster, Longleat, Archive, 4th Marquess of Bath, 215, 1/1/1872

List of references cited

Annuaire 1868
Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique, 1868, 22
Bartsch 1803–21
BartschAdam vonLe Peintre graveur (publication date of first volume often given as 1802), 21 volsVienna 1803–21
Campbell 1998
CampbellLorneNational Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish SchoolsLondon 1998
Currie and Allart 2012
CurrieChristina and Dominique AllartThe Brueg[H]el Phenomenon, Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger with a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice3 volsScientia Artis8Brussels 2012
Davies 1946
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: The French SchoolLondon 1946 (revised 2nd edn, London 1957)
Davies 1957
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: The French School, 2nd edn, revised, London 1957
Davies 1968
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: Early Netherlandish School, 3rd edn, London 1968
De Raadt 1898–1903
De RaadtJean‐ThéodoreSceaux armoriés des Pays‐Bas et des pays avoisinantsBrussels 1898–1903
Die Grafen von Schönborn 1989
Die Grafen von Schönborn, Kirchenfürsten, Sammler, Mäzene (exh. cat. Germanisches Nationalmuseum), Nuremberg 1989
Dunkerton, Burnstock and Smith 1988
DunkertonJillAviva Burnstock and Alistair Smith, ‘Two Wings of an Altarpiece by Martin van Heemskerck’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 1988, 12
Friedländer 1967–76
FriedländerMax JacobEarly Netherlandish Painting, eds Nicole Veronée‐VerhaegenGerard Lemmens and Henri Pauwelstrans. Heinz Norden14 vols in 16Leiden and Brussels 1967–76
Fruytier 1924
FruytierJ., ‘Hamele (Joannes de) of de Hamalia’, in Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch WoordenboekLeiden 1924, 6
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
Galesloot 1870–84
GaleslootLouisInventaire des archives de la Cour Féodale de Brabant2 volsBrussels 1870–84
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
Grosshans 1980
GrosshansRainaldMaerten van Heemskerk, Die GemäldeBerlin 1980
James 1953
JamesMontague Rhodes, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament, rev. edn, Oxford 1953
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
Martens 2002
MartensDidier, ‘Saint Servais de Maastricht ou Saint Eucher d’Orléans?’, in ‘Als Ich Can’, Liber Amicorum in Memory of Professor Dr. Maurits Smeyers, eds Bert Cardonet al.Corpus of Illuminated Manuscriptsvols 11–12, Low Countries series 8Leuven 2002, 903–20
National GalleryNational Gallery Report, January 1985 – December 1987London 1988
Réau 1955–9
RéauLouisIconographie de l’art chrétien3 vols (vol. 2 in 2 parts, vol. 3 in 3 parts)Paris 1955–9
Rietstap 1884–7
RietstapJohannes BaptistaArmorial général: précédé d’un dictionnaire des termes du blazon2 vols, 2nd edn, Gouda 1884–7
Runciman 1960
RuncimanStevenThe Sicilian Vespers, A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later Thirteenth CenturyHarmondsworth 1960
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
Schillings 1958[–62]
SchillingsA.Matricule de l’Université de LouvainCommission royale d’histoireBrussels 1958[–62], III
Schwennicke 1978
SchwennickeDetlevEuropäische Stammtafeln, Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der europäischen Staatenmany vols, Neue Folge, Marburg 1978– [in progress]
Spring 2012
SpringMarika, ‘Colourless Powdered Glass as an Additive in Fifteenth‐ and Sixteenth‐Century European Paintings’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2012, 334–26
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

List of exhibitions cited

Manchester 1957
Manchester, City of Manchester Art Gallery, Art Treasures Centenary: European Old Masters, 30 October–31 December 1957
[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/0EIQ-000B-0000-0000
Permalink (latest version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/0DG1-000B-0000-0000
Chicago style
Campbell, Lorne. “NG 6508.1–2, The Virgin and Saint John the Evangelist; The Donor and Saint Mary Magdalene”. 2014, online version 3, March 16, 2025. https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIQ-000B-0000-0000.
Harvard style
Campbell, Lorne (2014) NG 6508.1–2, The Virgin and Saint John the Evangelist; The Donor and Saint Mary Magdalene. Online version 3, London: National Gallery, 2025. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIQ-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).
MHRA style
Campbell, Lorne, NG 6508.1–2, The Virgin and Saint John the Evangelist; The Donor and Saint Mary Magdalene (National Gallery, 2014; online version 3, 2025) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/0EIQ-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 19 March 2025]