Articles - Jeroen Bosch Plaza

Vandenbroeck 2009

“Meaningful Caprices. Folk culture, middle-class ideology (ca 1480-1510) and aristocratic recuperation (ca 1530-1570): a series of Brussels tapestries after Hieronymus Bosch” (Paul Vandenbroeck) 2009

[in: Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, 2009 (published in 2011), pp. 212-269]

Today, the Spanish Patrimonio Nacional owns four tapestries ‘after Bosch’. The subjects are: St Martin and the beggars, The Temptations of St Anthony, The Haywain, and The Garden of Delights (a mirror copy of the original in the Prado). Apparently, the only reason why these four tapestries make up a series is because they all represent Boschian themes, which makes them unique. We know of three sixteenth-century owners of a similar series, to which a fifth tapestry representing The Battle Elephant also belonged: the French king Francis I, the Cardinal of Granvelle, and the Duke of Alva. In the first part of this contribution, Vandenbroeck elaborately focuses on the iconography of the five tapestries (including The Battle Elephant, which is known to us in other versions). This offers the author the opportunity to reiterate numerous of his earlier insights into Bosch (written in English and thus aiming at an international public). Noteworthy is that Vandenbroeck here suggests that Bosch painted the Garden of Delights triptych for himself, maybe on the occasion of his marriage in 1484. Some years later, in his monograph Utopia’s Doom, the author clearly came back from this idea (see Vandenbroeck 2017).

In the second part, Vandenbroeck deals with the history of the Spanish tapestries. He concludes that most likely they are the tapestries that were owned by the Cardinal of Granvelle and which were sold by his heirs to Emperor Rudolph II. In which way the series was moved from Prague/Vienna to Madrid in the seventeenth century is not known. The author also argues that the tapestry of The Garden of Delights was not copied after the original but after a copy, probably the copy that was owned by the Comte de Pomereu in Paris some years ago (and by a Geneva art gallery in 2022). Note 169 (pp. 264-265) sums up a number of details of the central panel where this copy and the tapestry together differ from the original. It should be noted, though, that a detail in the lower right corner (the plants above the heads of the three people in a cave) can be seen in the copy, but not (no longer?) in the original and in the tapestry. In the original it is clear that this detail has been retouched.

Hidden in another note (2, p. 214) can be found a concise and handy summary of Vandenbroeck’s view on Bosch literature, which at the same time explains how Bosch should be approached according to Vandenbroeck. I quote this note in full…

'The work of Hieronymus Bosch has been the subject of many international studies and publications in different languages. These studies are, in spite of their authors’ best intentions, often superficial and predictably biased from a linguistic and cultural perspective. In this context, it is worth emphasising the necessity of, first and foremost, research at different levels and pertaining to different layers of late-mediaeval European culture; equally indispensable is detailed regional research that takes into account all folkloric, iconographic, legal-historical, religious-historical and ideological-historical elements (in what follows, frequent reference will be made to very local publications); third, insight is required into Bosch’s visual language; and fourth, due account must be taken of the anthropological and cultural-historical context.'

[explicit July 6, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Withee 2023

“Bosch’s Saint-Germain-en-Laye Conjurer: Autograph, Workshop or Follower? Can the Unrecognized Subject Determine Authorship?” (Diane Withee) 2023

[in: Jos Koldeweij and Willeke Cornelissen (eds.), Jheronimus Bosch – His Workshop and His Followers – 5th International Jheronimus Bosch Conference, May 11-13, 2023, Jheronimus Bosch Art Center, ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. Jheronimus Bosch Art Center, ’s-Hertogenbosch, 2023, pp. 416-438]

Withee argues that the Conjurer panel (Saint-Germain-en-Laye) was partially painted by Bosch and partially by his workshop, but the concept and the composition of the painting are quite complex and unusual and must have come from Bosch himself. She identifies the person clad in green as Jan III van Glymes, Lord of Bergen op Zoom, who was appointed Master of the Hunt of Brabant by Duke Charles the Bold, removed from that title by Duke Philip the Fair but reappointed hunt master from 1509 on. The man and the nun standing to the left of the man in green are Philibert II, Duke of Savoy, and his wife Marguerite of Austria, the sister of Philip the Fair. The couple standing further to the left, are Philip the Fair and his wife Juana of Castile, the little boy is their son, the later emperor Charles V. The conjurer is emperor Maximilian I. The person who is being fooled by the conjurer is French king Louis XII’s minister Cardinal Georges d’Amboise and the cleric who is stealing the purse is Pope Julius II. The man between ‘Marguerite of Austria’ and ‘Philip the Fair’ is probably Ferdinand II of Aragon. The panel in Saint-Germain-en-Laye was painted some time after March 1509 and would thus refer to significant events in the life of Jan III van Glymes: his return to power and the War of the League of Cambrai (1508-1516), of which it is a political satire making fun of the French.

For further details we refer the reader to Withee’s paper, because it will be clear from the summary above that her text does not meet with acceptable scholarly standards at all. A good example of her outrageous approach is this. Withee writes that ‘as the most famous of these figures’ Maximilian should be immediately recognizable in the conjurer, but he does not. She then photoshops the head of the conjuror and concludes that now ‘the conjurer looks more like the portrait of Maximilian’. No further comment.

[explicit May 30, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Van Wamel 2023

“Filling the void. Copies of Bosch’s Ecce Homo” (Marieke van Wamel) 2023

Van Wamel first focuses on the copy of Bosch’s Ecce Homo panel (Frankfurt am Main) that was formerly in the Belgian Van Cuyck collection and is in an Antwerp private collection today. Based on dendrochronological research, she argues that this copy can probably be dated to the second quarter or middle of the sixteenth century. The Antwerp copy can be used as a terminus ante quem for the overpainting of the devotional portraits on the Frankfurt original, meaning that these portraits were probably removed well before the middle of the sixteenth century (relatively early in the history of the painting), but not by Bosch himself. Why else would he have left the inscription salva nos xpiste redemptor untouched?

In 1927 The Burlington Magazine published a black and white photograph of another Ecce Homo copy that for now has not resurfaced. In this copy, the absence of the portraits leaves the composition unbalanced, with only a brick wall filling the space in the lower left. In the lower left of the Ecce Homo copy in the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum, we see a prisoner behind bars. In 1980 Gerd Unverfehrt argued that the painter of the copy filled the gap with the so-called ‘Barabbas motif’. According to Van Wamel, this motif was added later, around 1600. By then, this ‘Barabbas motif’ had become a popular part of the visual tradition of the ‘Ecce Homo’ scene.

[explicit May 29, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Vázquez Dueñas 2023

“Bosch Imitators in Spain during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (Elena Vázquez Dueñas) 2023

In the first part of this paper the author sums up a number of entries in Spanish sixteenth- and seveenteenth-century inventories (from the Escorial, from the Royal House of El pardo and from other locations) that may be related to works by Bosch imitators. The second part draws our attention to two works by Bosch followers currently preserved in Spanish collections: a Last Judgement panel (circa 1550, Tudela, Museum of Tudela’s Cathedral) and a Temptations of St Anthony panel (Spain, Masaveu Collection).

[explicit May 26, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Tomicka 2023

“Between Bosch and Bruegel. Catalepton (‘Trifles’) – What links the engravings Saint Martin after Jheronimus Bosch and Hope after Pieter Bruegel the Elder? (Joanna A. Tomicka) 2023

The Saint Martin engraving after Bosch published by Hieronymus Cock around 1561 shows a port complete with buildings on the left side and on the right side the sea with numerous boats. The vast prospect is presented from an elevated point of view. Because the composition of the Hope engraving after Pieter Bruegel the Elder published by Hieronymus Cock around 1559-60 is similar to the the Saint Martin engraving, Tomicka suggests that the Hope engraving could have been inspired by Bosch. Perhaps not directly through the Saint Martin engraving but through other ways. A Prague archival source dating from 1621 mentions a St Martin painting by Bosch which is now lost.

[explicit May 26, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Tamis 2023

“Family functions: reviewing the Van Aken workshop” (Dorien Tamis) 2023

This paper deals with the question of how what we know of workshop organisation of painters in general compares to what is known about the Van Aken family ‘enterprise’. Most scholars agree that Bosch was a member of a family workshop, but we cannot be sure about workshop collaborators from outside the Van Aken family. There were years during Bosch’s active period in which the family could offer six potential collaborators, and in other years four were available. There is no overlap between documents relating to Bosch’s workshop and his paintings, but his extant oeuvre is generally considered the product of a collaborative workshop organisation. Tell-tale signs of studio collaboration are different ‘hands’ and the recurrent use of motifs. Probably, Bosch’s clientele did not object against the participation of assistants, as long as high-quality workmanship was involved.

[explicit May 21, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Hoogstede 2023

“The Vienna Last Judgement Triptych revisited: notes on comparing paintings” (Luuk Hoogstede) 2023

All the panels of Bosch’s Vienna Last Judgement triptych show numerous minor and major changes in the underdrawing as well as in the painting stages. Later additions, dating from after 1520-25, include numerous retouchings as well as extensive overpainting applied in multiple campaigns of cleaning and restoration in the left and right interior panels. The exterior panels and the central panel are better preserved and therefore more suitable for a comparison of details within the triptych and in other Bosch paintings, although interpretation always remains prone to subjectivity. Hoogstede then sums up six of the major characteristics of the painting in the Vienna triptych’s interior panels. Some of these characteristics can also be found in some other paintings by Bosch, whereas others cannot. However, Bosch’s artistic development is not as clear as we would like, and the chronology of his paintings remains an issue. It seems safe to assume workshop involvement in particular for the largest paintings. The Vienna Last Judgement may help us gain a better understanding of the working practices of Bosch’s studio, but further research of the available technical data is required.

[explicit May 20, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Spronk 2023

“The Vienna Last Judgement revisited: The underdrawings” (Ron Spronk) 2023

Bosch’s Vienna Last Judgement triptych was subjected to multiple technical examinations between 2011 and 2018, in the context of two different research projects. The identification (by Koldeweij) of the saint on the right exterior wing as St Hippolytus and examination of the coat of arms on the same panel led to the conclusion that the triptych was commissioned by Hippolyte de Berthoz, a high-ranking Burgundian courtier from Bruges. The early removal of the arms of De Berthoz and his depiction as underdrawn but never painted patron in the lower left of the central panel were probably instigated by the death of Hippolyte de Berthoz in 1503, which means that the triptych was more than likely produced around that year.

Spronk points out a ‘striking, if not dramatic’ difference between the style of execution and the materials used of the underdrawings on the exterior wings and those on the interior panels. The underdrawings on the exterior wings fit seamlessly within the core group of Bosch works, but the underdrawings of the interior panels do not. Thus, the underdrawings of the opened triptych differ dramatically in style and method from the underdrawings of the exterior wings and of the paintings that belong to the core of Bosch’s oeuvre. That is why the BRCP denies the autograph nature of the underdrawings of the interior panels: they were not done by Bosch himself. The exterior panels were underdrawn and painted by Bosch himself.

Who could have been responsible for the underdrawings of the interior panels? It may have been Jan Provoost, a painter from Bruges (born around 1465), who could have been active in Bosch’s workshop for a short period around 1503. Or did the production of the triptych take place In Bruges, the hometown of the patron, in collaboration with one or more local painters? There were several links between the extended Van Aken family and Bruges. The possibility of Bosch having worked on location on large commissions (see for example the Garden of Delights triptych) deserves more attention.

If the BRCP is right, the ‘Vienna case’ sheds interesting light on Koreny’s conclusions (see Koreny 2012 and Koreny 2023), although it does not necessarily prove that Koreny was altogether wrong.

[explicit May 16, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Scholten 2023

“The painters Jan Claessoen and Ghysbrecht Tyssoen Hoeyen; specialised employees of Jheronimus Bosch?” (Loes Scholten) 2023

After having given a survey of what we know today about the workshops of Bosch’s father and of Bosch himself, Scholten focuses on the altarpiece of the ’s-Hertogenbosch Brotherhood of Our Lady. More than likely, Bosch was assisted by painters who were allowed to take on a job themselves every now and then. Two of these assistants may have been Jan Claessoen and Ghysbrecht Tyssoen Hoeyen, who both worked for a large number of days (respectively 329 and 318) between 1508 and 1510 on the polychroming and gilding of the carved components of the Brotherhood’s altarpiece. This is plausible because in 1508 it were Bosch and Jan Heyns who advised the Brotherhood regarding its altarpiece and because it was common practice for medieval painting workshops to carry out polychrome painting and gilding projects. Jheronimus himself may have had more creative projects to deal with, leaving minor and time-consuming commissions to some of his assistants.

[explicit May 13, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]

Salsi 2023

“The Dream of Raphael or The Allegory of Human Life by Giorgio Ghisi and its pictorial copies: the success of a motif ‘d’après Bosch’ in the second half of the sixteenth century” (Claudio Salsi) 2023

In this essay, Salsi argues that a remarkable portion of Giorgio Ghisi’s engraving The Allegory of Human Life (published in 1561) reproduces ‘almost exactly’ the central composition of the central panel of Bosch’s Lisbon Temptations of St Anthony triptych, even though the reference to Boschian iconography is ‘not explicit and perhaps not directly sought by the Mantuan engraver’. Salsi also introduces five paintings which are based on Ghisi’s print with varying degrees of faithfulness. Personally and with the best will in the world, I do not see any similarity between the Ghisi engraving and Bosch’s Lisbon central panel.

[explicit May 10, 2024 – Eric De Bruyn]