This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in A. Dubois, J. Couvert & T.-H. Borchert (eds), Technical Studies of Paintings: Problems of Attribution (15th-17th Centuries), ISBN 978-90-429-3532-7. The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters Publishers. As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 relations. You may not publish this pdf on the World Wide Web – including websites such as academia.edu and open-access repositories – until three years after publication. Please ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you observes these rules as well. If you wish to publish your article immediately on open- access sites, please contact the publisher with regard to the payment of the article processing fee. For queries about offprints, copyright and republication of your article, please contact the publisher via [email protected] TECHNICAL STUDIES OF PAINTINGS: PROBLEMS OF ATTRIBUTION (15th-17th CENTURIES) Papers Presented at the Nineteenth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting held in Bruges, 11-13 September 2014 Edited by Anne Dubois, Jacqueline Couvert and Till-Holger Borchert PEETERS PARIS – LEUVEN – BRISTOL, CT 2018 Table of Contents Editors’ Preface VII In Memoriam Roger Van Schoute IX 1 KEYNOTE LECTURE – Willem van Aelst and the Market for Still-life Painting in Paris. Reattri bution of an Early Work Melanie Gifford 1 2 The Beaune Last Judgement. Sorting out Rogier van der Weyden and his Assistants Griet Steyaert and Rachel Billinge 26 3 Philip the Good Bare-headed. In Search for Original and Copy Stephan Kemperdick 50 4 The Middendorf Altarpiece by a Follower of Hugo van der Goes Maryan W. Ainsworth 60 5 Albrecht Bouts in Sibiu: a Unique Self-portrait in ‘Memento Mori’ Valentine Henderiks 74 6 Le Triptyque de l’Adoration des Mages (Turin-Gênes) et le mécénat d’Hendrik Keddekin, abbé de Ter Doest Véronique Bücken 86 7 Revising Friedländer. The ‘Underdrawing Connoisseurship’ and the Master of the Turin Adoration Maria Clelia Galassi 98 8 A New Virgo Lactans of the Gold Brocade Group Caterina Virdis Limentani 112 9 The Polyptych of the Seven Sorrows of the Virgin in the Museu Frederic Marés. An Unusual Altarpiece Carmen Sandalinas Linares, Bart Fransen and Elisabeth Van Eyck 122 10 XRF Analysis of Pigments in the Donne Hours (Louvain-la-Neuve, Archives de l’Université, ms. A2) Anne Dubois 138 11 The Saint Michael Altarpiece in Spišská Kapitula. A Preliminary Report Ingrid Ciulisová 150 12 The Goldene Tafel from Lüneburg, c. 1420. New Findings about Painting Process and Characteristics Babette Hartwieg 160 13 Master or Assistant? Painted Alterations in the Pleydenwurff Workshop Dagmar Hirschfelder, Beate Fücker, Katja von Baum, Lisa Eckstein and Joshua P. Waterman 178 14 The Painted Wings of the Passion Altarpiece of Güstrow. A Vast Collective Enterprise Catheline Périer-D’Ieteren 196 15 Reading between the Lines… Attribution Problems regarding Early Sixteenth Century Louvain Painters Marjan Debaene and David Lainé 210 16 The Triptych of the True Cross in Veurne in Connection to a Drawing in Rotterdam. Working Process and Attribution Judith Niessen and Margreet Wolters 224 17 The Contribution of Technical Art History to the Reconstruction of the Oeuvre of Pieter I Claeissens Anne van Oosterwijk 238 18 Two ‘New’ Paintings by Jan de Beer. Technical Studies, Connoisseurship and Provenance Research Peter van den Brink and Dan Ewing 250 19 The Calling of Saint Matthew attributed to the Master of the Abbey of Dielegem Nicola Christie and Lucy Whitaker 268 20 The Oeuvre of Jan Swart van Groningen Reconsidered Katrin Dyballa 284 21 Identifying Two Family Members in Jacob Cornelisz’s Amsterdam Workshop: Cornelis Buys and Cornelis Anthonisz Molly Faries and Daantje Meuwissen 298 22 Who is the Man in Red and Who Painted Him? Mary Kempski and Lucy Whitaker 310 23 Hans Holbein Hans of Antwerp. Findings from the Recent Examination, Cleaning and Restoration Claire Chorley 326 24 A Case of Mistaken Identity. A Version of the Good Shepherd by Pieter Brueghel the Younger Dominique Allart, Christina Currie, Pascale Fraiture and Steven Saverwyns 338 Bibliography 351 List and biographies of contributors 371 Photo Credits 374 A. B. Ill. 24.1. The three known versions of the Good Shepherd by Pieter Brueghel the Younger. A: Kronacker Collection, oil on panel, 40.1 x 54.6 cm, unsigned. B: former Pollack Collection, oil on panel, 40.5 x 59.3 cm, signed ‘·P·BREVGHEL’. C: Brussels, KMSKB/MRBAB, oil on panel, 41.3 x 57 cm, signed and dated ‘P·BREVGHEL ·1616·’ C. 24 A Case of Mistaken Identity A Version of the Good Shepherd by Pieter Brueghel the Younger Dominique Allart, Christina Currie, Pascale Fraiture and Steven Saverwyns ABSTRACT: An unsigned version of the Good Shepherd in time, it belonged to the Princeton University the Kronacker Collection has been variously attributed Museum. Glück’s attribution was later contested by to members of the Bruegel dynasty over the years, and Georges Marlier, the author of an important mono- was offered for sale in 2012 at auction as a painting by Jan Brueghel the Younger (1601-1678). Its attribution was graph on Pieter Brueghel the Younger published in reconsidered after examination at the Royal Institute for 1969.3 Marlier, who examined the work after clean- Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA). Following usual protocol, ing, identified Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s style in all the painting was subjected to a detailed scientific inves- parts of it except the face of the shepherd. Accord- tigation, including infrared reflectography, X-radiography, ing to him, the face was left unfinished by Pieter tracing and dendrochronology. In addition, Raman spec- troscopy was carried out on the underdrawing, without Bruegel the Elder, and probably later completed by sampling. The results of these examinations were com- Jan Brueghel the Elder. This was also the convic- pared with those from a signed and dated version of tion expressed by Fritz Grossmann, in the third edi- the same composition by Pieter Brueghel the Younger tion of his famous book on Bruegel. According to in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (KMSKB/ him, ‘the lively lines of the underdrawing now vis- MRBAB) and from another signed version from the for- mer Pollack Collection. The conclusion drawn as regards ible here [i.e. after cleaning] in the hands, in some the attribution of the Kronacker version was unambi- of the sheep, as well as several pentimenti, indicate guous, and firmly reassigns the painting to the hand of an original work, not a copy’. Therefore, he stated Pieter Brueghel the Younger. that ‘the composition, at least in outline, must —o— have been drawn on the panel by the designing art- ist, obviously Pieter Bruegel the Elder’. He recog- The history of attribution nized the master’s hand in the shepherd’s garment, In 2012, the reappearance of an unsigned version but thought that Jan Brueghel the Elder was of the Good Shepherd on the Paris art market responsible for the completion of the painting. He attracted considerable media attention in France recognized his manner especially in the wolf and (ill. 24.1a). Indeed, this painting, from a private the background landscape.4 Thus, Marlier and Belgian collection, the Kronacker Collection, Grossmann both agreed on an attribution to Pieter had at times been attributed to Pieter Bruegel Bruegel the Elder for an important part of the com- the Elder.1 position. This opinion was reiterated by Philippe The painting was first published by Gustav and Françoise Roberts-Jones in the catalogue of the Glück in 1935 as a copy by Pieter Brueghel the acclaimed exhibition on the Bruegel dynasty held Younger after a lost original by his father.2 At that in Brussels in 1980.5 Jacques Foucart, the reviewer 340 dominique allart, christina currie, pascale fraiture and steven saverwyns of the exhibition catalogue, remained reluctant Technical and stylistic analysis on a total attribution to Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The technical evidence on the Kronacker version but acknowledged the great master’s authorship for will be examined in comparison with the other two the landscape.6 known versions, starting with the paint layer, As usual for a Bruegelian composition, several which is where the confusion first set it.13 versions have come down to us. In this case, three versions are known. The other two are almost iden- Condition tical to the Kronacker version. The second version, The condition of the Kronacker version goes some signed ‘·p·brevghel’, was already mentioned by way to explain why art historians have misjudged Glück in 1935 (ill. 24.1b).7 At that time, it the painting in the past. Although there are belonged to Ernst and Gisela Pollack in Vienna. no significant losses, the paint layer has been Looted by the Nazis in 1942, it was recovered by somewhat abraded during cleaning. This damage the descendants of the Pollack Family in 2001. In influences greatly our perception of the painting. April 2006, it was sold by Christie’s in New York as Because it is not a straightforward loss to paint and a replica by Pieter Brueghel the Younger after a lost ground, it is difficult to quantify. In the head of the composition by his father. Peter van den Brink shepherd, the highlights on the hair curls are brought this version to our attention in 2004.8 mostly lost and the flesh tones are missing some of The third version was unknown until it was their substance (ill. 24.2a). As a result the ground left to the Royal Museums of Fine Arts (KMSKB/ layer is exposed in places.