Frames and supports in 15th and 16th-century Southern Netherlandish painting

MASTERS AND MASTERPIECES: bosch 271 117. Garrido and Van Schoute 1985, 59-77; Verougstraete and Van Schoute 2001a, 211-214. 118. Inv. no. P02048. Closed triptych: 146.7 × 84.7 cm. 119. Duquenne 2009, 27-33. E. Hieronymus Bosch in the Prado 117 The frames of the Epiphany Triptych (fig. 141) and the Haywain Triptych (fig. 143), both in Madrid (Museo Nacional del Prado) are very different the one from the other. The frame of the Epiphany is very well crafted, while that of the Haywain is a rather crude piece of joinery. These differences are surprising. There are many possible reasons: production in different places, artists and sponsors moving from one city and country to another, the tight rules applied by the guilds, the need to use local labour, changing practices and know-how over time. Beyond these possible explanations, we cannot help but question the attribution to one and the same master of works painted on very different panels in very different frames. These two works, of which the joinery is so different, have also one point in common, which is the artist’s relationship to his support. On each of these two triptychs the painter represents a unique and frontal scene that occupies the entire width of the altarpiece when closed. The central stiles of the closed altarpiece disturb the reading of it. In the Epiphany , Bosch paints over these stiles, pretending to ignore their relief and the ensuing adverse visual effects; in the Haywain the painter had the joiner remove the central stiles, so as to develop the composition smoothly. This seems to have been a last-minute change, as the joiner’s tracing marks suggest that central stiles were originally planned, but never placed, in order to satisfy the painter. The joinery of the Haywain is, as we shall see below, of poor quality. It is difficult to draw conclusions from just two cases, but both point to the utility of examining a painting’s frames. In the case of Bosch, we are hampered by the very small number of original frames remaining around the works attributed to him. Marked differences in the supports could lead us to question cautiously the generally accepted attributions. Analogies in joinery could, conversely, lead to regroupings. 1. The Epiphany Triptych , 118 c . 1494 (figs. 141-142) Traditionally, art historians have identified the donors as Peeter van Bronchorst and his wife Agnès van Boschuysen. A recent study 119 identifies other donors: Peeter Scheyfve, a prosperous Antwerp clothier and alderman of this city, and his second wife Agnès de Gramme. The persons attending St Gregory’s mass on the closed altarpiece would then be Peeter Scheyfve’s only son Jan, from his first marriage, and Peeter de Gramme, his protector and Agnès’ father, added after 1507, the year of the male donor’s death. Could it be that the donors supplied the support to the painter? If so, this does not necessarily mean that the support was produced in Antwerp. A prosperous merchant commissioning a work from a great master would probably not hesitate to buy the best support, if necessary in another city.