{"id":5536,"date":"2019-11-22T13:28:00","date_gmt":"2019-11-22T18:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/?p=5536"},"modified":"2020-12-01T08:30:28","modified_gmt":"2020-12-01T13:30:28","slug":"a-previously-unknown-early-netherlandish-genre-panel-painting-by-pieter-bruegel-the-elder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/2019\/11\/22\/a-previously-unknown-early-netherlandish-genre-panel-painting-by-pieter-bruegel-the-elder\/","title":{"rendered":"A Previously Unknown Early Netherlandish Genre Panel Painting\u2014Pieter Bruegel the Elder?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Close-up
Figure 1: Panel Painting, Peasants At Day\u2019s End (private collection).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Peasants
Figure 2: Panel Painting, Peasants At Day\u2019s End, frame and cradle.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A small previously unknown panel painting, Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em>, named for the sunset motif that forms part of its setting, is typical of 16th and 17th c. Early Netherlandish Genre Painting<\/a> influenced by the pictorial language and style of Pieter Bruegel the Elder<\/a>. Active in the 1550s and 60s, Bruegel worked in several media, but he is acclaimed for being among the first to paint scenes of everyday life, notably landscapes and the peasant class in a secular context. The popularity of Bruegel in his own lifetime was great, but the fervor for collecting his works after his untimely death in 1569 precipitated an art market in Antwerp and the Southern Netherlands at the end of the 16th<\/sup> and in the first third of the 17th<\/sup> c. in which copies, pastiches, and even forgeries circulated; many bore the name, Bruegel, though more often as a way of honoring the master than as a deliberate deception.[1]<\/a> It might be tempting to relegate Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em> to the efforts of an ardent follower or forger, but a signature recently found in an unusual location, together with its comparison to a landscape by Bruegel The Elder, have prompted the question of whether the painting may be by Pieter Bruegel the Elder himself. [2]<\/a><\/p>\n

The pocketsize picture, in many ways reminiscent of a late medieval miniature, measures a scant 5.5 x 7.75 inches. It appears to be oil on oak panel and is darkened due to grime and old varnish. Gilding is visible in places beneath flaking varnish on the frame. Both the cradling<\/a> of the wooden support\u2014a popular 19th<\/sup> c. conservation practice\u2014and the once-gold frame suggest the painting held value for past owners, although owing to its lack of provenance and believed lack of a signature, it was assumed to have little more than aesthetic value.<\/p>\n

\"Close-up
Figure 3:\u00a0 Detail of walker\u2019s hat with signature visible on brim, lightened and annotated, Peasants At Day\u2019s End.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Close-up
Figure 4: Detail of signature, further lightened and annotated, Peasants At Day\u2019s End.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Examined for the first time using high-resolution photography, the painting was discovered to have a signature that is, for all practical purposes, much too small to have been of use to a 16th<\/sup> or 17th<\/sup> c. forger. In addition to creating a signature large enough to easily see, such a forger would surely have (1) placed it in an expected location and (2) borrowed a more complete form of Bruegel\u2019s signature. The extant signature appears somewhat abbreviated, which is the case with a handful of Bruegel the Elder\u2019s known signatures. That it is found on the hat brim of the walking figure is unusual and yet intentional to the whole artistic plan as we will see further below. Barely detectable by zooming in on the highest resolution photo (Figure 3 and Figure 4) the signature appears to read, B<\/em>, followed by an unclear letter or mark, then VE<\/em> (in ligature, unusually with V above E), G<\/em>, and perhaps another E<\/em>: \u201cB(?)VEGE\u201d. Bruegel is known to have signed works, BRVEGEL, sometimes with the VE in ligature, albeit side-by-side in the usual manner, but his signature is also known to vary significantly. In early drawings he signed in lower case letters, sometimes, brueghel, sometimes with a circumflex above \u201cu\u201d. Later he dropped the \u201ch\u201d and, on both drawings and paintings, began to use roman capitals. On The Temptation of St. Anthony<\/em> (1556), he unusually signed, Brueggel. On Head of a Peasant Woman<\/em> (1568), only \u201cPb\u201d was uncovered in 2018 on the top right corner. [3]<\/a> On The Drunkard Pushed Into The Pigsty<\/em> (1557), a microscopic signature was found on the pigsty, BRVEG, with the VE in ligature and EL missing. [4]<\/a> On Winter Landscape with Bird Trap<\/em> (1565), x-radiography revealed an abbreviated signature beneath a later more complete signature; the hidden, first signature, reads only, BVG. [5]<\/a>\u00a0On The Fall of the Magician Hermogenes<\/em> (1564), Bruegel mistakenly inverted the order of two roman numerals in the date. [6]<\/a>\u00a0On Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em>, what appears to be an unusual form of ligature with V\u00a0<\/em>placed above E<\/em> might be explained by similar absentmindedness (forgetting the V in the first instance), or by the need to conserve space by further abbreviating his signature as he did elsewhere. Bruegel often dated his works variously using either arabic or roman numerals. So far, no date has been found on Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Due to its very small format, Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em> should perhaps not be expected to offer the same scope for detail and brushwork as Bruegel\u2019s larger works. Cleaning may uncover more distinctive features, and yet some incredible attention to detail, such as fingernails painted on the tiny hands of the figures, are already discernable. [7]<\/a>\u00a0We are also reminded that not all of his paintings were painted to the same standard. The Drunkard Pushed Into The Pigsty<\/em> (1557, private collection), a small wooden plate attributed in 2000, was at first disputed even after a signature was found. It is now considered one of his two earliest paintings, though not as expertly painted as later masterpieces. It measures a comparable 20 cm (7.8\u201d) in diameter. Early Netherlandish art historian and curator, Manfred Sellink, says the pigsty roundel \u201cbetrays his lack of experience as a painter,\u201d and art historians, Christina Currie and Dominique Allart, tell us \u201cit is likely that Bruegel produced paintings from the very beginning of his career, even if the earliest surviving works do not date from before 1557,\u201d pointing to the likelihood that there once existed other less masterful paintings. [8]<\/a>\u00a0This leaves us with the possibility that there are more to be uncovered. Bruegel had early training as a miniaturist. [9]<\/a>\u00a0Several small-format works by him survive and others, now lost, are noted in historical inventories; some are neither described nor named. [10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Sellink mentions Bruegel\u2019s use and reuse of compositional types, schemes and motifs as well as his reuse of individual figures throughout his career and in different media. Also considered a small panel, Bruegel\u2019s Landscape With The Flight Into Egypt<\/em> (1563) is nearly three times the dimensions of Peasants at Day\u2019s End<\/em>, yet the repeated arrangement of the two compositions is unmistakable. Sellink used The Flight Into Egypt<\/em> as a case in point to illustrate Bruegel\u2019s repetition of compositional schemes, comparing some of its features to his pen and ink drawing, Mountain Landscape with River and Travellers <\/em>(1553, The British Museum) [11]<\/a>, but Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em> offers points of comparison that are even more closely related (Figure 5).<\/p>\n

\"Paintings
Figure 5: Peasants At Day\u2019s End, approximately 13.5 x 19.5 cm (left, annotated); Landscape with the Flight into Egypt, 37.1 x 55.6 cm, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, c. 1525-1569, The Courtauld Gallery, 207067 (right, annotated).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The mass of darker rocks in The Flight Into Egypt<\/em> can be compared to the mass of dark buildings in Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em>. The lines pointing us to the Virgin in The Flight Into Egypt<\/em>, point instead to the sitting figure; each wear red and anchor their respective compositions. Each are also similarly framed above-left and below by smaller dark shapes. There is a line of lighter rocks (bottom left quadrant) that runs roughly parallel to the more central diagonal line, and in each painting, both the tree on the right (in each the foliage begins just above the horizon, a similarly shaped swath of horizontal blue beneath) and the darker triangle across the bottom right corner, serve to keep the eye in the picture: Bruegel\u2019s use of the tree in repoussoir<\/em> is traditional. [12]<\/a> The chimney and smoke in Day\u2019s End<\/em> appears to have the same compositional function as the prominent mountain peak with the vertical cloud formation directly above it; it is surprisingly chimney-like as well, and is found in the upper left quadrant of Flight into Egypt<\/em>; it is a visual extension of a darker chimney-shaped rock further below it. The warm glow on the patch of rocks (middle far left) in Flight Into Egypt<\/em> can be compared to the warm glow on the upper facade of the house in Day\u2019s End<\/em>, which approaches a trapezoidal shape.\u00a0 Though they are faded or obstructed by the dirty condition of the panel, what appear to be clouds in the background of Peasants at Day\u2019s End<\/em> (grayer and to the right) are separated from a bluer sky (left) by the line of the cloud formation which trails back and forth in a wide zigzag, similar to the lines of the distant landscape in Landscape With The Flight Into Egypt<\/em>. The zigzag of the middle distance in each also leads the eye to the anchor figure in red. In addition to these, one of the most compelling comparisons is the walking figure. Instead of Joseph, whose turned back leads us toward a dark grotto, our walker in Day\u2019s End<\/em> leads us toward the dark house. Each is partially framed within a darker triangle, the right side of which echoes the angle of the back and helps to accentuate the leaning, active posture. It adds to the illusion of psychological and physical fatigue carried \u201con the back\u201d of each tired figure in their respective narratives, and at the same time provides a visual push forward. The left side of the triangle is the line at which the front edge of the hat and knee line up. The contextual similarity of the two walking figures is extraordinary, and is characteristic of Bruegel.\u00a0 An example of his use of the triangular or lean-to effect can also be seen in The Conversion of Saul <\/em>(1567), where a much larger scale figure is similarly framed by a darker partial triangle formed by the rock behind and above; the line of the rock echoes the line of the back and leg and similarly helps to push the figure along visually (Figure 6 left). The same effect can be seen in Parable of the Blind<\/em> (1568), where the last two figures in a line of stumbling blind men are visually pushed by the angle of the triangles above and behind them (Figure 6 right).\u00a0 In their case the triangles push forward, but also backward again (the darker plane of each), adding to the illusion of motion, but also of hesitation\u2014to the topsy-turvy, precarious balance of the two who are doomed to fall like those leading them.<\/p>\n

\"Bruegel
Figure 6:\u00a0Detail (left) from Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Conversion of Saul<\/em> (1567), www.insidebruegel.net<\/a>, KHM-Museumsverband, GG3690; Detail (right) from Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Parable of the Blind<\/em> (1568) Naples: Mus. di Capodimonte (artwork in the public domain).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The schemes of the two compositions being compared, Landscape with the<\/em> Flight into Egypt<\/em>, and Peasants <\/em>At Day\u2019s End<\/em> are so closely related that it is difficult to imagine one being produced without direct knowledge of or access to the other, and there is no evidence that Bruegel had a large workshop or apprentices\u2014he worked alone. [13]<\/a>\u00a0We know that Pieter Brueghel the Younger carefully copied some of his father\u2019s works after his death; he did not have direct access to most of them, and likely based several of his reproductions on a store of drawings and cartoons preserved by the family along with explicit instructions for close replication. [14]<\/a>\u00a0In our case, the two compositional schemes are astoundingly similar, but the theme and subject matter of each is very different; if one informed the other it didn\u2019t preclude the free creative process of an artist whose intent was not simply to copy a painting. The comparison speaks to the practice of an artist who is known to have borrowed from an arsenal of his own compositional schemes, motifs, and figure types in creation of uniquely different works\u2014Bruegel the Elder. Because Peasants At Days End<\/em> has not yet been dated, we should not assume which of the two came first.<\/p>\n

Peasants At Day\u2019s End<\/em> engages the classical, end-of-day motif that represents the waning of a full life lived\u2014the reason for its title. The older men grouped at the focal center of the composition in the sunset of their years are literally highlighted by the setting sun, which also casts long shadows and glows warmly on the facades of the rural architecture behind them. In this way, nature and the cycle of life become an important part of the compositional setting married to the narrative. The fact that it is day\u2019s end is further emphasized by the plodding figure returning home. The composition is built on a series of triangular planes (echoes of the rooflines) that zigzag across the entire picture. We are drawn in by the sitting figure in red. The eye then follows his raised hand that sends us directly to the face of the middle figure, which stares straight out of the picture, fully engaging the viewer by making eye contact. From the group of three, a pathway of light leads the eye to the walking figure, to the reflection of light on his back, and to a brighter spot of light on his collar that serves as a proverbial \u201cx marks the spot,\u201d because it underscores where we find the signature on the more subtly lighted hat brim. How the eye ends up at this location depends on the viewer\u2019s full investment in the picture narrative and willingness to be led by the artist. We understand that if the walking figure looks up or changes direction, the signature will disappear. We see it only in a peek-a-boo moment as the walker, with his bobbing hat, is focused on the ground ahead, and we smile when we realize the artist is having some fun with us; finding the cleverly placed signature is our reward for playing along.<\/p>\n

The signature is so small it is fated to go undetected unless we follow the clues\u2014follow the light, as it were\u2014and even then, we are able to read it only with the help of magnification. The viewer is fully engaged and thoroughly entertained by the discovery. In addition to the extremely small size of the signature, its unusual location, and abbreviated form, a forger would also be less likely to employ as much creative freedom and compositional intentionality in the placement of the signature as would Pieter Bruegel the Elder himself. Scholars repeatedly speak of Bruegel\u2019s humor and sharp wit. We know he based many of his works on proverbial sayings as well as biblical and classical mythology.\u00a0A well-known classical metaphor for old age\u2014the end of the day\u2014is part of the setting of Peasants At Days End<\/em>. How the little painting rather astoundingly mirrors the scheme of one of Bruegel\u2019s landscapes and other points of comparison that speak to the painterly practice, but also the spirit of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, warrant further investigation. Continued research of the previously unknown genre painting is pending further imaging and technical analysis.<\/p>\n

Heather A. Reid, PhD<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Christina Currie and Dominique Allart, The Brueg[H]el Phenomenon: Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the <\/em>Elderand Pieter Brueghel the Younger with Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice<\/em>, Vol. I (Brussels: Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, 2012) 29, and on artistic works by others that bear the name Breugel, 45-46; on which also see Larry Silver, \u201cThe Importance of Being Bruegel: The Posthumous Survival of the Art of Pieter Bruegel the Elder,\u201d in Pieter Bruegel the Elder Drawings and Prints<\/em>, ed. Nadine M. Orenstein (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, and New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001) 67.\u00a0 According to both of these sources, Jacob Savery is the only known deliberate forger of Bruegel the Elder\u2019s works.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> I am very grateful for the insight and suggestions of medieval art specialist, Dr. Maidie Hilmo, Victoria, Canada, who read early versions of this essay.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Elke Oberthaler, Sabine P\u00e9not, Manfred Sellink, and Ron Spronk, Bruegel: The Master<\/em> (London: Thames & Hudson, 2018) 272, item 82.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Roger van Schoute and H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Verougstraete, \u201cA Painted Wooden Roundel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder,\u201d\u2028The Burlington Magazine<\/em> 142:1164 (March 2000): 140-46, esp. 140-41, and Oberthaler, P\u00e9not, Sellink, and Spronk, 73.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Currie and Allart, 184.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Currie and Allart, 74. On Bruegel the Elder\u2019s signature, including inconsistencies, 73-79, and van Schoute and Verougstraete, 144-45.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Other details are observable to varying degrees prior to the cleaning of the panel, but their discussion in the present article is prohibitive for reasons of space.\u00a0 In addition to fingernail details, of note are the other figure types (comparable to types Bruegel the Elder reused), architectural features such as the paned glass, thatched roofing and chimney, what appears to be the tail end of a ribbon-like banner flying from the upper story of the house (visible only over the sky portion beyond the roofline so far), what appears to be a nearly microscopic dog and copper pan on the extreme left margin, doorway hinges and entry hardware, as well as an axe leaning near the entry, and three hoes the walking figure is carrying.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Oberthaler, P\u00e9not, Sellink, and Spronk, 73. Currie and Allart, 38.\u00a0 Sellink also tells us, Bruegel \u201ctrained, and started his career, as a painter\u201d before turning his attention to working as a draughtsman and designer of compositions to be engraved.\u00a0 See his, \u201cLeading the Eye and Staging the Composition: Some Remarks on Pieter Bruegel the Elder\u2019s Compositional Techniques,\u201d in Oberthaler, P\u00e9not, Sellink, and Spronk, 295-313, esp. 302-303.\u00a0 Sellink\u2019s essay is only found in the electronic edition accessed by using a code provided in the print edition. Although it is not known if his father, who worked alone, initiated such a practice, we know that Pieter Brueghel the Younger\u2019s workshop catered to a mixed clientele, including those content with less premium productions (Currie and Allart, 62).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Currie and Allart, \u201cAnother figure who would have had an influence on his early training was Pieter Coecke\u2019s wife, Mayken Verhulst, herself a well-known miniaturist\u201d (39). Pieter Coecke van Aelst (d. 1550) was Bruegel\u2019s master and Bruegel later married their daughter.\u00a0 On his training as a miniaturist, likely by Verhulst, also see Sellink, \u201cLeading the Eye,\u201d 303.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Dominique Allart, \u201cDid Pieter Brueghel the Younger See his Father\u2019s Paintings? Some Methodological and Critical Reflections,\u201d in Brueghel Enterprises<\/em>, ed. Peter van den Brink (Maastricht: Bonnefantenmuseum; Brussels: Mus\u00e9es Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique; Amsterdam: Ludion Ghent, 2001) 47-57.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Sellink, \u201cLeading the Eye,\u201d 299.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Sellink, \u201cLeading the Eye,\u201d 301.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Currie and Allart, 64.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Allart, 2001, 55-56.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A small previously unknown panel painting, Peasants At Day\u2019s End, named for the sunset motif that forms part of its setting, is typical of 16th and 17th c. Early Netherlandish Genre Painting influenced by the pictorial language and style of Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Active in the 1550s and 60s, Bruegel worked in several media, … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “A Previously Unknown Early Netherlandish Genre Panel Painting\u2014Pieter Bruegel the Elder?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1846,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[67956,264204],"tags":[324781,324783,76046,324782,303839,324784],"class_list":["post-5536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-art-history","category-disciplines","tag-bruegel-the-elder","tag-genre-painting","tag-material-culture","tag-netherland","tag-oil-painting","tag-panel-painting"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5536","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1846"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5536"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5536\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5572,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5536\/revisions\/5572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/manuscript-studies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}