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

BRUGES, GROENINGE MUSEUM 413 restoration was carried out by the restorer Edmond Florens in 1977. This showed that the frame was originally painted a uniform brown. Léopold Kockaert described samples taken from the frame as follows: “on top of a greyish ground (200 microns), the brown layer consists of ochre, white and red pigments. On top of this layer come at least three superimposed layers of lightly tinted varnish; black letters are placed on top, on at least two layers of varnish. The text on the inclined sill appears to have been overpainted at least twice. The text on the lower flat strip is original, but with changes likely made soon after its completion.” The various indications published on the polychromy of the frame do not permit an overall assessment. It is probably fortunate that the complexity of the problem halted further restoration. Recorded history relating to the woodworking In 1588 sculptor Jean Rap adapted the work for a frame that had already been planned (probably a mounting with newly made wings and decorative elements for placing the painting on the high altar of the Church of St Donatus). As early as 1795, in the minutes of the reception of the painting in Paris, mention is made of a “join crossing the painting”. In 1813, Parisian restorer Naeguier “brought together the joins”. In 1825, a crack is mentioned “from top to bottom” (from left to right?). In 1876, an estimate for restoration by S. Deheuvel plans to remove “het gebrekkig houtwerk achteraan” (deficient joinery to the back). In 1889, a commission of inquiry noted the existence of a restoration line cutting the painting in half. In 1902, restorer Paul Buéso noted that the join has “slightly come apart” in the centre of the panel and across its entire width. In 1908, Hippolyte Fierens-Gevaert mentions the horizontal “crack” in the panel. The painting was restored by Jef Van der Veken in 1933-1934. The committee notes in its report (30 March 1934) that the panel has been re-glued and reinforced at the back with “the most modern method” which will now prevent swelling and shrinking. In 1983, it was noted by Janssens de Bisthoven that the third join had become open and unstable, and the fourth open over a sixth of its length. What is the reason for this recurrent problem of the joins? Is the “deficient carpentry” which S. Deheuvel mentions in 1876 referring to the embedded bars? Are these bars original or do they replace original ones? What role do they play in the instability of the joins? When was the panel extracted for the first time after sawing back the rear cheek of the groove? The archival texts, even though abundant in the 19th century, provide no clear answer. Furthermore, we ourselves have been unable to inspect the reverse of the panel and we have no argument about the original existence of the embedded laths, but we observe that the insertion of the laths was clumsily done. We note also that the oldest reinforcing bars appear to be “floated” (Bruges, GM , no. 5 and Rogier van der Weyden, Descent from the Cross , Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. no. P02825), while at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, most of the reinforcing bars observed are embedded (Bruges, SJH , no. 1 ; Brussels, RMFAB , no. 11 ; Brussels, RMFAB , no. 21 ; Bruges, GM, no. 23) .