Bruegel & l'Italia / Bruegel and Italy: Proceedings of the International Conference Held in the Academia Belgica in Rome, 26-28 September 2019 9789042950306, 9042950307

Table of contents :
Bruegel and Italy: A Cold Case?
Bruegel et le milieu international de la tapisserie à Bruxelles : l’émulation des modèles italiens
Hieronymus Cock, Pieter Bruegel and the Printed Image in Art History*
Pieter Bruegel’s Italian Journey:
Italiani ad Anversa al tempo di Bruegel: Frans Floris e i suoi committenti genovesi
Giulio Clovio e Bruegel: le possibili circostanze di un incontro
Bruegel as a Landscape Draughtsman, and His Italian Connections
Bruegel’s
Italian Landscapes, and Villa Culture
‘La più delicata cosa del mondo’: Pieter Bruegel’s
La tecnica del «guazzo» nel collezionismo italiano:
e
del Museo di Capodimonte
Paintings by Bruegel in two Early SeventeenthCentury Genoese Collections

Citation preview

Bruegel & l’Italia Bruegel and Italy Tine Luk Meganck and Sabine van Sprang (eds.) in collaboration with Maria Clelia Galassi

PEETERS

BRUEGEL & L’ITALIA / BRUEGEL AND ITALY

STUDIA ACADEMIAE BELGICAE 3 Studia Academiae Belgicae is a scientific collection edited by the Academia Belgica, Centre for History, the Arts and Sciences in Rome, dedicated to research in the fields of historical sciences, history of art, architecture and literature concentrating on the relationship between Italy and Belgium. The editorial board consists of members of its Scientific Committee and all contributions are subjected to peer review.

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Karel Velle (Algemeen Rijksarchief en Rijksarchieven in de Provinciën / Archives générales du Royaume et Archives de l’État dans les Provinces) Ralph Dekoninck (Université catholique de Louvain) Dominique Allart (Université de Liège) Véronique Bücken (Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België / Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique) Aude Busine (Université libre de Bruxelles) Bruno Demoulin (Koninklijke Commissie voor Geschiedenis / Commission royale d’Histoire) Brigitte D’Hainaut-Zvény (Belgisch Comité voor Kunstgeschiedenis / Comité belge d’Histoire de l’Art) Paul Fontaine (Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles) Koenraad Jonckheere (Universiteit Gent) Christian Laes (Universiteit Antwerpen) Tine Luk Meganck (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) Anne-Françoise Morel (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) Danny Praet (Universiteit Gent) Julian Richard (Université de Namur) Koenraad Van Cleempoel (Universiteit Hasselt) Bart Van den Bossche (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) Henri Vanhulst (Belgische Vereniging voor Muziekwetenschap / Société belge de Musicologie) Stijn Verwulgen (Universiteit Antwerpen)

STUDIA ACADEMIAE BELGICAE ——————— 3 ———————

BRUEGEL & L’ITALIA BRUEGEL AND ITALY Proceedings of the International Conference held in the Academia Belgica in Rome, 27–28 September 2019

Edited by

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG in collaboration with MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2023

Cover illustration: Pieter Bruegel the Elder, View of the Ripa Grande, ca. 1552–1553, pen and brown ink, Chatsworth, The Devonshire Collections. © The Devonshire Collections, Chatsworth / Reproduced by permission of Chatsworth Settlement Trustees / Bridgeman Images

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 󰀉󰀇󰀈-󰀉󰀀-󰀄󰀂󰀉-󰀅󰀀󰀃󰀀-󰀆 eISBN 󰀉󰀇󰀈-󰀉󰀀-󰀄󰀂󰀉-󰀅󰀀󰀃󰀁-󰀃 D/󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀃/󰀀󰀆󰀀󰀂/󰀁󰀄 © 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀃, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 󰀁󰀅󰀃, B-󰀃󰀀󰀀󰀀 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes. Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders of material reproduced in this book. We would be pleased to rectify any omissions in subsequent editions should they be drawn to our attention.

CONTENTS

Introduction. Bruegel and Italy: A Cold Case? Tine Luk Meganck and Sabine van Sprang. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

PART I ITALIAN ART AND ITALIANISM IN THE LOW COUNTRIES BEFORE AND DURING BRUEGEL’S TIME Bruegel et le milieu international de la tapisserie à Bruxelles : l’émulation des modèles italiens Véronique Bücken. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁

Hieronymus Cock, Pieter Bruegel and the Printed Image in Art History Edward Wouk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀁

PART II BRUEGEL’S JOURNEY AND SOJOURN IN ITALY Pieter Bruegel’s Italian Journey: Ad Fontes Nils Büttner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀃

Italiani ad Anversa al tempo di Bruegel: Frans Floris e i suoi committenti genovesi Elena Parma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀇

Giulio Clovio e Bruegel: le possibili circostanze di un incontro Stefano Onofri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀈󰀃

Bruegel as a Landscape Draughtsman, and His Italian Connections New Observations on Stream with an Angler from the ‘Lugt Group’ Dominique Allart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀉󰀅

PART III THE CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE WITH ITALY IN BRUEGEL’S LATER LIFE AND WORK Bruegel’s Seasons, Italian Landscapes, and Villa Culture Tine Luk Meganck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀁󰀇

La più delicata cosa del mondo’: Pieter Bruegel’s Bay of Naples Tanja Michalsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀃󰀉

VI

CONTENTS

PART IV

BRUEGEL’S EARLY RECEPTION AND FAME IN ITALY La tecnica del «guazzo» nel collezionismo italiano: La parabola dei ciechi e Il Misantropo del Museo di Capodimonte Angela Cerasuolo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀆󰀃

Paintings by Bruegel in two Early Seventeenth-Century Genoese Collections Maria Clelia Galassi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀈󰀁

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀉󰀉

Bruegel and Italy: A Cold Case? Tine Luk MEGANCK and Sabine VAN SPRANG, in collaboration with Maria Clelia Galassi

‘L’Italie pour Bruegel n’est plus le musée des antiquités et des œuvres d’art moderne, mais une partie de la terre.’1

In 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, the 󰀄󰀅󰀀th anniversary of Pieter Bruegel’s death was celebrated by several cultural events. Taking stock of the new findings at the close of the Bruegel year, the Academia Belgica, in collaboration with the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium and the Università degli Studi di Genova, decided to devote a symposium to Bruegel and Italy in the autumn of 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. It is the mission of the Academia Belgica, Centre for History, the Arts and Sciences in Rome, to stimulate innovative research on the relationships between the peninsula and Belgium. Since its foundation in 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀉, the study of fiamminghi a Roma, especially in the arts, has been one of its spearheads.󰀂 The aim of the conference, held in Rome on 󰀂󰀇 and 󰀂󰀈 September 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, was to review Bruegel’s encounter with Italian art and culture by considering the wider context of his Italian travels, opening new avenues for future research. Communication between Italy and the Low Countries was intense during Bruegel’s time, as were artistic, political, and economic relations. During a fair share of Bruegel’s life, the Low Countries were governed by Margaret of Parma (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆; gov. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀉–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇), wife of Ottavio Farnese (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀄–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆), Duke of Parma, Piacenza, and Castro. Margaret was advised by Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆), a major political player as well as a grand Maecenas of Italian and Netherlandish art, including, most probably, works by Bruegel.󰀃 While Italo-Netherlandish ties interconnected Bruegel’s world on multiple levels, Bruegel’s relationship with Italy has mostly been looked at from the perspective of his individual travels through the peninsula. Most authors have phrased it as a negation, reiterating that, unlike many of his 󰀁. 󰀂. 󰀃. (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂)

DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀁. See: https://www.academiabelgica.it/progetti-di-ricerca: ‘I fiamminghi e l’Italia’. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, where it is argued that Bruegel may have painted the Fall of the Rebel Angels for Cardinal Granvelle.

VIII

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

fellow artist travellers, no copies after antique or modern Italian artworks by his hand are known, and that the impact of Bruegel’s encounter with Italy is not immediately evident from his work. Our proposition is to interrogate this dominant line of thought, starting with a simple question: Why did Bruegel travel to Italy? By the time he left Antwerp around 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, prints after ancient statuary and modern Italian masters such as Raphael and Michelangelo were already circulating in the Low Countries, where they were frequently referenced and reformulated by local masters.󰀄 Even if Bruegel had wanted to see these works with his own eyes, the few remaining traces of his Italian travels are landscape drawings, some topographic, such as the View of the Ripa Grande in Rome (Chatsworth House, Collection of the Duke of Devonshire), the cover image of our volume. What, then, was Bruegel looking for during his transalpine journey that he could not find in Brussels or Antwerp? It is generally accepted that Bruegel, like his compatriots, travelled to Italy ‘to learn the Italian manner’, as Martin Royalton-Kisch aptly quotes from Giorgio Vasari (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀄). Among other things, the British art historian showed how Bruegel not only studied the diversity of nature on his transalpine trip, but also the work of those Italian peers – Titian and Domenico Campagnola among others – who excelled in poetically depicting nature.󰀅 Our conference yielded new examples in which Bruegel can be seen measuring his work against that of Italian landscape artists of his day. Several contributions suggest, moreover, that he did not go to Italy merely to nourish himself with the abundant ancient and modern artworks of the peninsula; rather, his travels were equally stimulated by an appreciation of Netherlandish art, especially its landscape art. Bruegel may therefore have undertaken his journey to market his talent abroad. Since only drawings from his sojourn in Italy survive, some scholars have suggested that Bruegel may have undertaken his travels at the instigation of the Antwerp printer-publisher Hieronymus Cock (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀), to bring back vedute to be engraved and issued by his publishing house Aux Quatre Vents.󰀆 Charles de Tolnay already noted that Cock published a map of Piemonte in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, the year Bruegel departed. The explanatory caption proclaims its veracity, indicating that the editor accorded much importance to precise, in-situ recordings.󰀇 It is to be noted, moreover, that Cock marketed

󰀄. 󰀅. 󰀆. 󰀇.

Among the recent publications on the subject, see A LLART, GEREMICCA 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁. ROYALTON-KISCH 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, especially pp. 󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀆 (‘Bruegel and Italy: The Making of Landscape’). SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀃. See also the contribution of Nils Büttner in this volume. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀂.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

IX

Italianate landscapes in Antwerp before Bruegel embarked to the peninsula: he first issued the Praecipua Aliquot Romanae Antiquitatis Ruinarum Monimenta, an innovative landscape series with views of Roman ruins, etched by his own hand, in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁. This series was highly successful and reprinted several times.󰀈 In his lecture at the symposium, Joris Van Grieken suggested that Bruegel may have been on a secret cartographic mission in service of Cock.󰀉 While this hypothesis remains difficult to document, several contributors underline the fact that the Italo-Netherlandish networks of Bruegel and Cock were interconnected and functioned as a major channel of information between Italy and the Low Countries. As such, the present volume seeks to reformulate Bruegel’s relationship with the peninsula as a two-ways street of reciprocal exchange. To embed Bruegel’s Italian voyage in a wider context and tradition, the symposium Bruegel and Italy/Bruegel e l’Italia cast its net beyond the master and his oeuvre, welcoming discussions of cultural and artistic exchange before, contemporary to, and following Bruegel’s Italian travels and activity. It was organised in four sessions: Bruegel and the Italian Model before His Italian Sojourn; Bruegel’s Encounter with Italy; The Continuous Dialogue with Italy in Bruegel’s Later Life and Work, and Bruegel’s Early Reception and Fame in Italy. The proceedings largely preserve this chronological structure, even if some essays transgress the proposed periodisation. Bruegel’s vision of, encounter, and dialogue with Italy was a continuous process, and mapping this process is precisely one of the aims of the conference and ensuing publication. Part I sheds light on Bruegel’s view of Italy before his transalpine sojourn and how it was shaped by Italianisms in the work of his predecessors, by Italian models that circulated in the Low Countries, by tapestry designs in Brussels, and by prints after Italian masters published in Antwerp—by Cock, among others—as well as by exchanges with Italians living in the Netherlands. While art historians have traced Italian models in Bruegel’s oeuvre before, relatively little attention has been devoted to their early availability to him, in part because their impact is more manifest in his late work. As Véronique Bücken argues in the opening essay, Bruegel’s transfer and transformation of Italian motifs deserve closer attention. She reminds us that Bruegel could easily have

󰀈. Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀉󰀀–󰀉󰀅, cat. 󰀉. 󰀉. As Van Grieken published these findings in the exhibition catalogue Bruegel in zwart en wit (KBR), this contribution could not be included in the present volume. See VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉– 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀.

X

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

become acquainted with Italian models before he travelled to Italy, given that his early career was related to the worlds of tapestry and print. He was apprenticed with Pieter Coecke van Aelst (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀), the illustrious tapestry designer whose work is rife with Italian innovations, and this would have ensured him privileged access.󰀁󰀀 From 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀅 onwards, Italian tapestry cartoons and so-called petits patrons were sent to Brussels weavers, often under the supervision of Italian artists who travelled along with them. These innovative designs inevitably influenced local painters, some of whom wholeheartedly embraced this new artistic repertory. Bücken shows that these painters were not merely reproducing models and compositional ideas; rather, they freely appropriated representational schemes, such as the sequencing of figures in motion, which in turn impacted Bruegel’s designs. Bruegel’s negotiations with Italian art can thus be inscribed in an earlier affiliation, going back as far as the artist and tapestry designer Bernard van Orley (c. 󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀁). Her observation substantiates the assertion that for a fair share of the figural sequences and poses in his work that have been identified as of Italian origin, Bruegel did not need to travel abroad. Though it remains hard to substantiate the claim of Van Mander that Bruegel started to work for Cock before he travelled on to Italy,󰀁󰀁 the contribution of Edward Wouk illustrates how the collaboration between the artist and the publisher after his return was gradually defined by their common interest in a comprehensive visual art history. Bruegel and Cock did not merely use and reproduce Italian designs as models but adopted the medium of print to forge a distinct Netherlandish artistic identity. Wouk contends that Cock conceived his portfolio as an alternative to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects first published by Vasari in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀. Vasari’s selection, as is well known, favoured Tuscan art and was unillustrated.󰀁󰀂 In response, Cock compiled a catalogue of prints in a variety of styles and subjects, with the aim to visualise the diversity of Netherlandish artistic practice: adaptations of ancient and modern Italian art as well as prints after Netherlandish painters; reworkings of old masters such as Bosch and Van de Weyden as well as contemporary designs; history painters such as Frans Floris as well as painters of landscapes and popular allegories such as Bruegel. Bruegel himself would display a similarly inclusive art historical awareness throughout his career. For instance, in the Road to 󰀁󰀀. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a. 󰀁󰀁. VAN M ANDER, MIEDEMA 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉) I: 󰀁󰀉󰀀: ‘Hy is van hier gaen wercken by Ieroon Kock, en is voorts ghereyst in Vranckrijck, en van daer in Italien.’ 󰀁󰀂. The second edition of 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 was illustrated with portraits of the artists, not artworks, see essay of Wouk for references.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

XI

Calvary (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum) the archaic figures on the promontory invoke the local tradition, exemplified by the Deposition by Rogier Van der Weyden (󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀄), a work Cock reproduced a year later (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅).󰀁󰀃 Even so, Bruegel’s idea of transporting the group around the Virgin Mary to the foreground goes back to Raphael’s illustrious Spasimo di Sicilia (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇, Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado), 󰀁󰀄 a composition Bruegel knew, as did his predecessors Bernard van Orley and Pieter Coecke, probably from tapestry designs that circulated in Brussels, as Bücken demonstrates in this volume. Another source for the latest artistic trends in Italy that Bruegel could have accessed before undertaking his journey was the Italian community in Antwerp. In 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀁, the Florentine merchant-historian Lodovico Guicciardini (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀉) settled in Antwerp, where he steadily compiled the successful Descrittione di Tutti i Paesi Bassi, first published by Willem Sylvius (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀀) in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇. Gaspar Ducci (󰀁󰀄󰀉󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀇), a powerful—if controversial—participant in the Antwerp business world whose network intersected with that of Bruegel’s later patrons, was active from the 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀀s onwards.󰀁󰀅 Particularly well represented in Antwerp were the Genoese: in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁, the year Bruegel became a master, the city on the Scheldt counted no less than thirty-seven commercial and financial enterprises controlled by this northern Italian community.󰀁󰀆 Among the Netherlandish artists who maintained a particular relationship with the Genoese merchants was Frans Floris (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇-󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀), who, much like Bruegel six years later, began working for the publishing house of Hieronymus Cock immediately upon his return from Italy in 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇. Another figure that should be mentioned here is the Mantuan Giorgio Ghisi (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀂). Already famous at the time, he was called to Antwerp by Cock around 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, perhaps through the mediation of Granvelle, to whom several engravings by Ghisi published by Cock are dedicated.󰀁󰀇 Ghisi joined the Antwerp painters’ guild in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁, the same year Bruegel did.󰀁󰀈 The two artists must therefore have known each other, and it is likely, as Büttner suggests in his essay in part II of this volume, that Ghisi advised Bruegel on his trip to Italy. 󰀁󰀃. Additional examples include references to Van der Weyden in the Fall of the Rebel Angels (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂, Brussels), see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀆 and in the Dormition of the Virgin (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, Banbury) to Van Eyck and Van der Weyden, see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀇-󰀁󰀆󰀈. 󰀁󰀄. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀁. 󰀁󰀅. SOLY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄; GOLDSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀃–󰀃󰀆. 󰀁󰀆. See Elena Parma’s contribution in this volume. 󰀁󰀇. VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀; A LLART, GEREMICCA 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, p. 󰀈󰀄. See also Edward Wouk’s contribution in this volume. 󰀁󰀈. BOORSCH 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀇; see also Nils Büttner’s contribution in this volume.

XII

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

Part II turns to this physical encounter with the peninsula by reviewing Bruegel’s itinerary, the contacts he made, and artworks he produced during his stay in Italy from 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 to 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄. Even if we contend that Bruegel undertook his journey to market his talent and discover and study landscapes—both natural and artistic—the desire to see the masterpieces of Italian and ancient art in situ undoubtedly motivated him as well. Remarkably, as will be further discussed in part III, echoes of Italian artworks, some of which he may have seen with his own eyes for the first time during his Italian years, are mainly found in his late panel paintings. Like most painters, Bruegel must have kept a sketchbook to jot down impressions and compositions while travelling. Some of his early drawings share this spontaneous and impromptu character, but no actual sketchbook has been preserved. As mentioned earlier, the first known works Bruegel executed during his journey or immediately upon his return to his home country are landscape drawings, some of which are distinctly topographic and all of which evoke the natural beauty and diversity of the places the artist traversed between the Low Countries and Italy.󰀁󰀉 They substantiate the earliest account of Bruegel’s life and travels by Karel van Mander, who in the Schilder-boeck (󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄) famously asserts that ‘On his travels he drew many views from life so that it is said that when he was in the Alps he swallowed all those mountains and rocks which, upon returning home, he spat out again [regurgitated] onto canvas and panels, so faithfully was he able, in this respect and others, to follow Nature.’󰀂󰀀 Van Mander, curiously, remains silent on the people, places, artworks, and other sites Bruegel visited. Given the scarcity of documentary sources on Bruegel’s trajectory, the topographic drawings are of great importance in reconstructing the itinerary of the artist. In the first contribution to this section, Nils Büttner draws up the status quaestionis of the available sources for retracing the route Bruegel took. His synthesis confirms the many lacunae in the painter’s biography. Visual evidence in his work suggests that Bruegel not only stayed in Rome, but also that he most probably visited Naples, Reggio Calabria, and Messina. Regarding his inbound journey, only one element is almost certain—namely, that Bruegel travelled to Italy via Lyon. A painting in tempera ( “un quadro a guazzo”) of Lyon by Bruegel, regrettably no longer 󰀁󰀉. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃b. 󰀂󰀀. ‘In zijn reysen heeft hij veel ghesichten nae t’leven gheconterfeyt, soo datter gheseyt wort, dat hy in d’Alpes wesende, al die berghen en rotsen had in gheswolghen en t’huys ghecomen op doecken en Penneelen uytghespogen hadde, soo eyghentlijck con hy te desen en ander deelen de Natuere nae volghen.’ Karel van Mander, Het Schilder-Boeck, Haarlem, 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, fol. 󰀂󰀃󰀃r. See VAN M ANDER, MIEDEMA 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉) I: 󰀁󰀉󰀀. A recent analysis of Van Mander’s quote is R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

XIII

extant, is mentioned in the inventory of miniatures that belonged to the Croatian miniaturist Giulio Clovio (󰀁󰀄󰀉󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈).󰀂󰀁 The same inventory mentions also a Tower of Babel on ivory (?) by Bruegel and a miniature painted by both artists in collaboration.󰀂󰀂 As Clovio worked at the time for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀉) to whom he eventually bequeathed the said miniatures, it has been assumed that the artists met in the papal city. In his contribution, however, Stefano Onofri suggests that both masters met in Lyon, where Clovio probably travelled in the service of Farnese in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, around the time Bruegel was passing through the French mercantile city on his way south. The likelihood of their meeting in Lyon sheds light on the importance of chance encounters and unexpected opportunities for the early modern travelling artist. However, the question remains as to how Bruegel was introduced to Clovio. Given that the latter would have travelled in a princely entourage, we may assume Bruegel was not touring as a lone, obscure painter, but in a company influential enough to provide access to the Farnese circle. On the other hand, Clovio’s interest in Netherlandish art may have preceded his encounter with Bruegel: the same inventory of his belongings mentions a (untraced) self-portrait by Levina Teerlinc (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀆), the youngest daughter of the Bruges illuminator Simon Bening (󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀃–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁), whose work had such a strong influence on Bruegel that Till-Holger Borchert recently wondered whether he did not have direct access to his studio models.󰀂󰀃 That Bruegel could collaborate with Clovio at all says a great deal about Bruegel’s skills as a miniaturist and his favourable reception in Italy. By the time of his encounter with Bruegel, Clovio’s fame was a par with that of Titian and Michelangelo— Vasari called him ‘the small and new Michelangelo’ in reference to his miniature art󰀂󰀄. As such, Onofrio’s recalibration suggests that Bruegel’s lost painting of Lyon did not merely record a town on Bruegel’s route, but rather commemorated a place where new artistic ties and bonds of friendship had been forged. Bruegel, in turn, prepared the path for others: Clovio would later mentor the young Bartholomeus Spranger (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀁), trained in Antwerp as a landscape 󰀂󰀁. See the essays of Büttner and Onofrio for additional literature. The inventory mentions a ‘quadro di Leon di Francia a guazzo’, which was probably, as F. Grossmann already stated in 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆 (GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀆), a small Tüchlein ; see on the terminology ‘guazzo’ the essay of Angela Cerasualo in this volume. 󰀂󰀂. The inventory states ‘una torre di Babilonia fatta di auolio di mano di M.ro Pietro Brugole.’ For further references on the inventory, see the contributions of Onofrio and Cerasuolo to this volume. Cerasuolo raises the question if the term auolio, commonly read as avorio (ivory) could also be read as a olio (in oil). 󰀂󰀃. LEEMANS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄; BORCHERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. 󰀂󰀄. VASARI 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀈–󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀅, VII, p. 󰀅󰀆󰀉.

XIV

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

painter by Cornelis van Dalem (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀/󰀃󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀃), the gentleman-painter who financed the first edition of Bruegel’s print of the Naval Battle in the Strait of Messina.󰀂󰀅 The route via Lyon allows us to envisage two pathways: Bruegel may have embarked on the Rhône River, descending to Avignon before taking the route to Aix on the way to Marseille and Toulon, whence he could reach Italy by sea; alternatively, he traversed the Alps via the Col du Mont-Cenis, the most common way in early modern times,󰀂󰀆 and continued his journey via Turin.󰀂󰀇 Whatever his itinerary, it is likely that Bruegel passed through Genoa. Maria Teresa Caracciolo and François Brizay have shown that the Ligurian city was a customary stop on most transalpine voyages, whether one travelled across the mountains or along the coast.󰀂󰀈 This is illustrated by the second contribution to this section, in which Elena Parma maps Frans Floris’s presence in Genoa before the master travelled on to Rome. Considering the city’s situation, tradition, and abundant artistic attractions—including, among other things, the new suburban villa of the famous admiral of Charles V, Andrea Doria (󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀆–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀)—it is easy to imagine that Bruegel might have made his way to Genoa. Visual evidence testifies to such an artistic exchange, even if it is not always possible to ascertain whom inspired whom.󰀂󰀉 Arriving in Genoa in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂-󰀃, Bruegel would not only have been able to admire Perino del Vaga’s frescoes at Doria’s villa, but also those just completed, or perhaps nearing completion, at the villa of Adamo Centurione (ca. 󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀄-󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), one of Charles V’s major bankers and one of Doria’s close allies. Some of the decorative frescoes in this villa (Fig. 󰀁) reveal stylistic similarities to works by Bruegel, such as the Fall of Icarus in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels. The attribution of this painting is still topic of debate among scholars, but it is generally agreed that the composition is a Bruegelian invention. Most probably on his outbound journey, Bruegel crossed the Alps, which made such an indelible impression on the artist. On his way back from Rome, he may have visited Bologna, where he would have met Scipio Fabius, a medical 󰀂󰀅. On Spranger, see most recently New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄b. On the Naval Battle in the Strait of Messina, see Büttner’s contribution in this volume, with references to additional literature. 󰀂󰀆. C ARACCIOLO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀃; BRIZAY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, p. 󰀂󰀀. 󰀂󰀇. C ARACCIOLO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀄; BRIZAY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀀–󰀂󰀁. 󰀂󰀈. Travellers preferred to follow the coast to avoid piracy. C AR ACCIOLO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀂󰀅–󰀂󰀆; BRIZAY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀅–󰀂󰀁󰀆. 󰀂󰀉. A telling example of the villa’s swift reception chorographic art from Antwerp is the frescoed map of the Netherlandish port city based on the new map of Antwerp oriented towards the new, Italianate fortified city wall that was published by Cock in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇. M ARTENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

XV

Fig. 󰀁. Ottavio Semino, Andromeda (detail of the frescoes in the staircase). Genova, Villa di Adam Centurione Artwork in the public domain (Photo: M. Serando)

doctor in the entourage of the young Ulisse Aldrovandi (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀆).󰀃󰀀 Bologna would have been a logical stop, as would the city of Mantua, from which Giorgio Ghisi hailed, and Trent, where Bruegel could have seen the Cycle of the Seasons in the Torre dell’Aquila of the bishop’s castle—an early predecessor of his own Cycle of the Seasons (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅), painted long after his return to the Low Countries.󰀃󰀁 As stated earlier, Bruegel’s engagement with Italy did not end after his return. Part III, therefore, excavates his ongoing dialogue with Italian art in his later life and work. Scholars have largely focussed on tracing Italian influence in Bruegel’s late paintings. Max Dvořák, for example, was one of the first to point at compositional similarities between Bruegel’s Peasant Wedding (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum) and Jacopo Tintoretto’s Wedding at Cana (Venice, Scuola Grande di San Rocco), a work that the Fleming must have known through a drawing or print, as it was only painted in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁.󰀃󰀂 Fritz 󰀃󰀀. Fabius sends Bruegel his greetings in two later letters to Abraham Ortelius (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀈), the Antwerp cartographer who may have accompanied Bruegel on his travels, see the contribution of Büttner in this volume and MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀅󰀄–󰀅󰀇, who identified Fabius. 󰀃󰀁. See the contribution of Tine Meganck in this volume. 󰀃󰀂. DVOŘÁK 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀅󰀇, esp. 󰀂󰀅󰀀–󰀂󰀅󰀁.

XVI

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

Grossmann identified Bruegel’s imitation of Raphael and his followers.󰀃󰀃 In addition to the imprint of Italian Renaissance masters, Gerald Volker Grimm singled ancient artworks that may have inspired Bruegel.󰀃󰀄 For instance, building on the observations of Yona Pinson, he proposed ancient models for the grotesque pattern decorating the garb of one of the magi in Bruegel’s London Adoration (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄; The National Gallery).󰀃󰀅 More recently, Todd Richardson and Jürgen Müller have argued that Bruegel not only emulated, but at times inverted or parodied Raphael and Michelangelo.󰀃󰀆 Whereas the authors just mentioned mainly sought Bruegel’s borrowing in Italian figural compositions, the three contributors to the third section testify to his continued negotiation with the Italian landscape tradition. Bruegel drew several Italian sites, not so much for the sake of topographical registration, but rather to extract their expressive qualities. He captured the deserted stillness of the once bustling Roman customs wharf, the Dogana Vecchia near the Ripa Grande; the refreshing yet dangerously swirling waterfalls at Tivoli; the grandiose bay of Naples, praised since antiquity but an arena of conflict in Bruegel’s time; and of course, the Alps, as daunting as they are breath-taking. Bruegel was not the first or only artist to depict these places of delight, nor would he be the last. Ortelius famously cast Bruegel as pure ‘Nature’ in his elegy for his deceased friend, but Bruegel himself consciously measured his depictions of nature against those of his Italian peers. In her essay, Dominique Allart points out that the print Prospectus Tyburtinus after Bruegel—referenced later by Joris Hoefnagel (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀) as more natural than nature herself—is so closely related to drawings by Gerolamo Muziano (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂) that it is not possible to establish who imitated whom stylistically. Moreover, in one of the frescoes in the nearby Villa d’Este in Tivoli, which was built shortly after Bruegel’s departure from Italy, she discovered a scene with a fisherman that undeniably echoes Bruegel’s early drawing of the Stream with an Angler presently kept in the Royal Library in Brussels. The fresco painter, possibly the Fleming Cornelis Loots, may have known Bruegel’s original or one of several copies that may have circulated, as Allart suggests, through Muziano, who was also involved in the Villa’s decoration, or maybe through Clovio and the circle of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, for whom Loots frequently worked. Either way, the frescoed reference affirms Bruegel’s fame in Italy in the decades immediately following his travels and activity there. 󰀃󰀃. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁. 󰀃󰀄. GRIMM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. 󰀃󰀅. GRIMM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, pp. 󰀅󰀅–󰀈󰀄; PINSON 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄. 󰀃󰀆. R ICHARDSON 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, p. 󰀉󰀂; MÜLLER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀄󰀄-󰀄󰀈.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

XVII

Villa culture thus emerges as yet another phenomenon connecting Italy and the Low Countries in Bruegel’s time, but also in his work. Elaborating on her recent proposition that Bruegel’s Cycle of the Seasons (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅) was conceived as a room-enveloping installation on four walls in the villa suburbana of the Antwerp merchant Nicolaes Jonghelinck, Tine Meganck traces Italian sources for this type of artistic experience, from trecento palaces to cinquecento villas. Taking Bruegel’s print Spring, published by Cock the same year, as a good indication of the lost panel painting, she argues that the view of the garden supervised by the patroness of the house originally functioned as a trompe l’oeil perspective, comparable to contemporary frescoes by Paolo Veronese (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀈) in Palladio’s famous Villa Barbaro. Information continued to flow between Antwerp and the Veneto in both directions: some of Veronese’s frescoed landscapes employed Cock’s printed landscape series with ruins, Praecipua Aliquot Romanae Antiquitatis Ruinarum Monimenta, as a model. The notion that painted landscapes—an area in which fiamminghi excelled, as contemporary accounts assert—could function as an illusion of an actual view, un quadro come prospettiva, returns in the contribution of Tanja Michalsky. She reviews the Bay of Naples, the oil painting in the Roman collection of Doria Pamphilj that Manfred Sellink recently—though somewhat controversially—reattributed to Bruegel and dated it to ca. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃.󰀃󰀇 As she examines the detailed buildings and urban constructions in light of contemporary chorographies of Naples, she identifies key buildings that reshaped the layout and identity of Naples as the capital of the viceroyalty in Bruegel’s time. The painting’s topographic precision — despite an oversized semi-circular pier — suggests that the artist enhanced his personal observations with information from maps. Yet, while expecting spectators to scrutinise the townscape for veracity, Bruegel transformed his view into an atmospheric evocation of the bay and as such, Michalsky contends, his colourful depiction simultaneously enabled contemplation of the natural beauty of the bay of Naples as a view from a window of an imagined villa on a hill overlooking the port city. Bruegel’s engagement with the Italian landscape and Italian landscape art compels one further reflection. Of all the landscapes by Bruegel that have come down to us, be they drawings from his Italian period or landscapes executed thereafter, not one contains Roman archaeological remains. The artist seems to have concentrated on another type of landscape, one that exalted the beauty of nature, wild or cultivated. It has been proposed that Bruegel’s Tower of Babel (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃; Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum; Fig. 󰀂) was inspired, 󰀃󰀇. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀁󰀄󰀅.

XVIII

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

Fig. 󰀂. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Tower of Babel, signed, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, oil on panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum © KHM-Museumsverband

at least in part, by the Colosseum. But the reference to this illustrious antiquity is rather generic, and Bruegel hardly needed to draw the amphitheatre from life. He could have drawn inspiration from already existing images of the Colosseum, among others, the ones Cock included in Praecipua Aliquot Romanae Antiquitatis Ruinarum Monimenta. This becomes evident when comparing Bruegel’s Tower of Babel with a print of the same subject by Cornelis Anthonisz (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇), in which the citations of the Colosseum are much more forthright (Fig. 󰀃). As Koenraad Jonckheere has observed, the Vienna Tower fuses the style of ancient buildings like the Colosseum with allusions to Romanesque architecture.󰀃󰀈 Along these lines, Hubertus Günther has pointed to correspondences with Late Antique remains in Trier, which in Bruegel’s time was considered the most ancient city north of the Alps, said to date from ‘Babylonian’ times.󰀃󰀉 As proof of these alleged origins, the northern German city claimed its ancient edifices, such as the Porta Nigra, which, like Bruegel’s 󰀃󰀈. JONCKHEERE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀇󰀀. 󰀃󰀉. GÜNTHER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

XIX

Fig. 󰀃. Cornelis Anthonisz., The Destruction of the Tower of Babel, 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇, etching. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

Tower, features round arcades, blind arches, and pilasters. Bruegel clearly asserts the ‘antiquity’ of his tower with a prominent signature followed by ‘fe(cit)’ and the date in Roman numerals on a stone on the foreground.󰀄󰀀 But in tune with local antiquarians such as Lambert Lombard (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆) and Abraham Ortelius, who were searching for remains of Gallia Belgica from Antwerp to Trier, he invokes a local rather than a Roman past󰀄󰀁, and in doing so, echoes the Netherlandish canon compiled at that very moment by his publisher Cock. Bruegel nevertheless translates the biblical story into his own place and time by inserting his Tower of Babel in the urban fabric of a sixteenth-century port city. As observed elsewhere, the fortress with four corner towers depicted to the right of the foot of the Vienna Tower of Babel is reminiscent of the Castel Nuovo at the port of Naples, which Bruegel may have sketched during his stay 󰀄󰀀. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀁. 󰀄󰀁. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀉–󰀆󰀃.

XX

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

in the Italian city.󰀄󰀂 Most buildings surrounding the tower of Babel, however, are typically Netherlandish, such as the brick houses with stepped gables. Here Bruegel follows Flemish illuminators such as Gerard Horenbout (󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀁), who painted a Tower of Babel in the Grimani Breviary (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀀; Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana). This miniature was known to Clovio, who used it as a source for his own Tower of Babel in the Farnese Hours of 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀆 (New York, The Morgan Library & Museum), and he might have shown Bruegel a copy after it.󰀄󰀃 This is all the more plausible given that Clovio would eventually own a Tower of Babel painted by Bruegel. Unlike the Horenbout miniature, Bruegel’s Vienna Tower is enclosed by city walls, visible in the left background, beyond which a hybrid landscape extends to the horizon. They may allude to the circular walls of Babel, the ‘Babylonis Muri’ described as wonders of the world by the ancients Strabo and Martial, and closer to Bruegel’s time by Cesariano and Luca Contile.󰀄󰀄 Like most Netherlandish cities, Antwerp, where the Vienna Tower hung in Jonghelinck’s villa suburbana, was a walled city. Between 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀂 and 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅, moreover, its medieval rampart was replaced by a new fortification to encompass a town that had grown to become one of the largest in Europe during those years. This innovative construction with Italianate bastions was a point of great pride locally and amazement abroad.󰀄󰀅 Bruegel would have witnessed the demolition and rebuilding works in Antwerp, yet the wall around the city depicted in the Vienna Tower of Babel is not a bastioned, Italianate enceinte; rather, it is more akin to its medieval predecessor. Once again, Bruegel anchored his work in the Northern tradition. Turning from the flow of art and ideas between Italy and the Low Countries in Bruegel’s late work, part IV looks at the artist’s reception in Italy in the decades immediately following his premature death. Both essays in this section reinforce earlier contributions stating that Bruegel was appreciated in Italy as a painter of Netherlandish origin, born out by both his subjects—landscapes, popular celebrations, and proverbs embedded in rural settings—and, 󰀄󰀂. BRACKE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀅󰀀. 󰀄󰀃. BORCHERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀀󰀅. As is well known, before serving Alessandro Farnese, Clovio worked for Marinus Grimany, who had inherited the breviary in 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀃 from his uncle, Cardinal Domenico Grimani. Clovio adapted the figures types, costumes and the surroundings according to the Italian mode. See the useful facsimile The Farnese Hours. The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York. Introduction and Commentaries by Webster Smith (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃), fol. 󰀁󰀀󰀇r. 󰀄󰀄. GRIETEN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀄. 󰀄󰀅. As we have seen, in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇, Cock specially issued a new map of the city, in which Antwerp was no longer viewed from the Scheldt, but from the east, frontally displaying the impressive enceinte. See note 󰀂󰀉 as well as the recent publication on the subject DE JONGE , L OMBAERDE , M ACLOT 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, esp. pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

XXI

interestingly, his technique. In her analysis of Bruegel’s Misanthrope (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈) and Parable of the Blind (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), now kept in the Capodimonte Museum in Naples, Angela Cerasuolo emphasises just how much glue-tempera canvases, also known as Tüchlein and called in Italian ‘quadri a guazzo’, in particular those produced in the Low Countries, were appreciated among transalpine collectors at the time. The city of Mechelen, where Bruegel is documented as having made his first, now lost, paintings (the wings of an altarpiece), was known for this technique.󰀄󰀆 It is probably no coincidence that the wife of Bruegel’s master Pieter Coecke (and his future mother-in-law), Mayken Verhulst, a talented ‘water-verwe’ painter who may have taught him her specialty, came from Mechelen.󰀄󰀇 Cerasuolo’s careful technical analysis of both Capodimonte paintings reveals Bruegel’s incredible mastery, which undoubtedly contributed to his fame in Italy. It should also be noted, as the author points out, that among the works by Bruegel in Clovio’s possession, two are identified in his inventory as being glue-tempera paintings. If Bruegel’s Tüchlein were from their inception destined for export, one reason for choosing this technique might have been that canvases were easy to transport. Moreover, the two canvases in Naples have the same height, as if they had been designed for the same location. While the proverbial scenes of The Misanthrope and The Parable of the Blind were typically Netherlandish,󰀄󰀈 the monumental figures clearly pay tribute to Italian masters such as Raphael and Michelangelo. This site-specificity, reminiscent of the proposed original arrangement of the Cycle of the Seasons, echoes Italian fresco tradition. Once again, Bruegel appropriated Italian models and turned them into Netherlandish novelties—in this case, perhaps, to be marketed to Italians. Both paintings came from the collection of Giambattista Masi (󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀄/󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀅– 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂), who most probably inherited them from his father, Cosimo Masi (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀇?– 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀). The latter had been a page at the court of Margaret of Parma, and from 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆 onwards secretary to her son, Prince Alessandro Farnese (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂). 󰀄󰀆. MONBALLIEU 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀀󰀉. 󰀄󰀇. As Till-Holger Borchert recently stated, the notion that Mayken Verhulst specialised in watercolour originated with Van Mander, who says that she taught Bruegel’s youngest son, Jan, in ‘water-verwe’. Nowhere is Mayken qualified by the appellation ‘miniaturist’ as is generally claimed. This assumption is based solely upon assumed similarities with illuminators such as Livina Teerlinc or Susanna Horenbout (BORCHERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀉󰀇). It should be noted, moreover, that in Van Mander’s view, the term ‘water-verwe’ refers both to ‘watercolour’ and to ‘tempera’. For instance, he cites ‘twee doecken van Water-verwe’ by Bruegel, which at the time belonged to Willem Jacobs in Amsterdam (VAN MANDER, MIEDEMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, vol. I, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀃). 󰀄󰀈. The church in the background of the Parable of the Blind is moreover typically Flemish, and has been identified as Saint-Anna-Pede in the Pajottenland region, near Brussels. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀅󰀃.

XXII

TINE LUK MEGANCK and SABINE VAN SPRANG

When the latter became governor of the Netherlands in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈, Cosimo Masi accompanied him to the Netherlands and stayed there until 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀄, a sojourn during which he could easily have become acquainted with Bruegel’s work. The presence of Alessandro Farnese and his court in Brussels thus seems to have played a decisive role in the dissemination of Bruegel’s paintings in Italy immediately after the artist’s death. This is also Antonio Ernesto Denunzio’s recently formulated hypothesis concerning Bruegel’s Triumph of Death (Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado), which could have been acquired by Vespasiano Gonzaga (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀁) for his collection in Sabbioneta through the Italian governor of the Low Countries.󰀄󰀉 At any rate, interest in Bruegel seems to have increased among distinguished Italian amateurs at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as is also evident from Maria Clelia Galassi’s concluding essay on Genoese collections. Rather surprisingly, although Flemish paintings were acquired by Genoese from at least the mid-sixteenth century—as Elena Parma also illustrates in her contribution to this volume—Galassi found that works by or in the style of Pieter Bruegel the Elder only turn up in Genoese inventories around the close of the sixteenth century, in parallel with the growing appreciation of genre and landscape painting. Gian Vincenzo Imperiale, a Genoese banker and moneylender on whom the Gonzagas relied for military expenses, owned a Saint Martin, perhaps another version of the Wine of Saint Martin’s Day that recently resurfaced in Spain and is now held by the Prado in Madrid. Though the Imperiale inventory does not specify the medium, the Spanish version is, like the Masi-Farnese Bruegels, a monumental Tüchlein in glue-tempera on canvas. Its subject is the celebration of the wine harvest on a local saint’s day in a typical Brabantine landscape. Bruegel depicted this popular feast with local flavour, but his rendering resonated with the interests of Gian Vincenzo Imperiale, who wrote a bucolic poem titled Lo stato rustico and was appointed governor of the captaincy of Polcevera, a territory of the Genoese Republic whose economy was strongly linked to wine production, and where there were at least four churches dedicated to St. Martin. From a singular artist who produced art for a select network of connoisseurs, Brueg(h)el had become, thanks to the so-called ‘Firma Brueg(h)el’, a generic name for Netherlandish genre and landscape painting. It is as such that several works de Brugeli and del Brughel Vecchio are mentioned in two inventories of Giovanni Carlo Doria, a very distant relation of the famous Genoese admiral of Bruegel’s time, and 󰀄󰀉. DENUNZIO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. We thank Antonio Ernesto Denunzio for reiterating his findings on the occasion of our symposium.

BRUEGEL AND ITALY: A COLD CASE?

XXIII

an art lover on his own terms. More than a reliable source for attribution, the specification affirms that, at the turn of the century, Bruegel’s fame in Italy was greater than ever. With the image of Bruegel’s delirious feasting in mind, let us briefly assess the harvest of our labours and indicate potential avenues for further investigation. Casting the net wider than the master himself proves that Bruegel’s enigmatic relationship with Italy is by no means a cold case. Tracing the networks around Bruegel enables us to go beyond pattern recognition and contextualise the motivations of artistic borrowing. While Bruegel has been praised as a landscape painter ever since Van Mander, our findings suggest that Bruegel did not merely return from Italy as a landscape painter, as Van Mander implies, but left Antwerp for this very reason: to market his talent abroad, as well as to learn from the Italian landscape tradition. His travels between two artistic poles of early modern Europe thus exemplifies the lively and reciprocal cultural exchange between the Low Countries and Italy. From both sides of the Alps, artists, patrons, and intermediaries such as publishers looked to one other, searching for connections while also distinguishing themselves and crafting their own identities. Two networks promoting Bruegel’s merger of Italian and Netherlandish traditions stand out: the printing business of Hieronymus Cock and the Farnese family. Intriguingly, while the role of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese and his circle as well as that of this nephew and namesake, Prince Alessandro Farnese, can be documented to some extent, there is still no evidence that Margaret of Parma, who governed the Low Countries during Bruegel’s most productive years, commissioned work from him. Yet in a curious way, Margaret’s life resonates with that of Bruegel: she was born in the Low Countries and married into the art-loving Farnese family.󰀅󰀀 In his own way, Bruegel appropriated Italian art and transformed it into what was then perceived as a quintessentially Netherlandish product—but one that would soon be, and still is today, celebrated as universal.

󰀅󰀀. Perhaps the exhibition on Margaret of Parma scheduled in Oudenaarde in 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀄 will shed new light on the topic.

PART I ITALIAN A RT AND ITALIANISM IN THE L OW C OUNTRIES BEFORE AND DURING BRUEGEL’S TIME

Bruegel et le milieu international de la tapisserie à Bruxelles : l’émulation des modèles italiens Véronique BÜCKEN L’abondante littérature consacrée à Pieter Bruegel l’ancien aborde régulièrement la problématique des liens éventuels que le peintre aurait pu entretenir avec les milieux bruxellois de la tapisserie. La question est certainement pertinente si l’on considère, d’une part, le rôle de la tapisserie dans la stratégie de communication de la cour des Habsbourg et d’autre part, la place prépondérante de cette industrie à Bruxelles, qui en tant que moteur économique, transformait la ville en pôle d’attraction artistique. Par son mode de production et les nombreux intervenants impliqués, la tapisserie fut à cette époque un formidable vecteur de transmission des formes et des idées alors les plus novatrices. Dès 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇, René van Bastelaer avait évoqué la possibilité que Bruegel ait pu apprendre ou du moins, ait pu perfectionner chez Pieter Coecke van Aelst la technique de la peinture sur toile, parfois utilisée pour les patrons de tapisseries󰀁. La question des rapports de Bruegel avec l’art italien avait été évoquée à plusieurs reprises par Fritz Grossmann󰀂, surtout en lien avec la présence à Bruxelles des fameux cartons de Raphaël pour la tenture des Actes des Apôtres. En 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀆, on doit à Karl Gustav Stridbek l’idée que l’art de Raphaël, transmis par l’intermédiaire des célèbres cartons, aurait influencé Bruegel essentiellement après l’installation de l’artiste à Bruxelles. Selon l’auteur, ces exemples italiens auraient incité Bruegel à imaginer des compositions plus centralisées et à conférer davantage de monumentalité à la figure humaine󰀃. Fritz Grossmann en revanche situe l’influence des modèles italiens chez Bruegel avant son installation à Bruxelles, dès son passage dans l’atelier de Pieter Coecke, dont le travail est déjà imprégné des nouveautés importées de la Péninsule par le truchement des cartons italiens󰀄. Plus récemment, Stijn Alsteens a plaidé pour une transmission des modèles de Raphaël vers Bruegel par l’entremise 󰀁. 󰀂. 󰀃. 󰀄.

VAN BASTELAER, HULIN DE L OO 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀅󰀀. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅a, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀇. STRIDBEK 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀆, p. 󰀂󰀆󰀆-󰀂󰀇󰀀. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁.

VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

2

non seulement de Pieter Coecke mais aussi de Bernard van Orley󰀅. L’idée que l’italianisme de Bernard van Orley, mêlé à un réalisme de l’expression populaire, ait pu nourrir l’art de Bruegel a été soulignée dernièrement encore par Ethan Matt Kavaler󰀆. Ce bref rappel, très incomplet, de l’évocation de cette problématique dans la littérature, montre combien les questions de l’influence des modèles italiens de tapisseries sur Bruegel restent pleinement d’actualité. La période durant laquelle cette influence aurait eu lieu – soit dès son apprentissage dans l’atelier de Coecke ou plus tard lors de son installation à Bruxelles – ainsi que les modalités de transmission de ces modèles, de manière directe ou par l’entremise des prédécesseurs flamands de Bruegel, sont des problèmes qui restent ouverts et qui méritent d’être investigués davantage.

L ES

MODÈLES ITALIENS

Dans la première moitié du XVIe siècle, Bruxelles connait un âge d’or qui, avec le règne de Charles Quint, se traduit par un rayonnement politique, économique et culturel exceptionnel. La ville se positionne comme le centre européen de la tapisserie et bénéficie de commandes fastueuses émanant de toutes les cours d’Europe. L’arrivée à Bruxelles en 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀆/󰀁󰀇 des cartons des Actes des Apôtres de Raphaël est souvent considérée comme un point de rupture avec le passé. Pourtant, des copies tissées de prestigieux modèles italiens avaient déjà été réalisées par les liciers bruxellois quelques années auparavant. Dès 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀄, une reproduction de La Cène d’après la fresque peinte par Léonard de Vinci dans le réfectoire du couvent de Santa Maria delle Grazie à Milan, avait été commandée par François d’Angoulême, futur François Ier, et Louise de Savoie. Un Portement de Croix d’après le tableau de Raphaël pour l’église Santa Maria dello Spasimo à Palerme, fut tissé à peu près à la même époque pour le cardinal Bibbiena et réédité vers 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀󰀇. On n’a peut-être pas assez souligné que l’impact désormais bien connu des dix tapisseries des Actes des Apôtres, commandées à Raphaël par Léon X pour la chapelle Sixtine, tient non seulement à la nouveauté et à la monumentalité des compositions, mais surtout au fait que ce sont les cartons à échelle en couleurs, exécutés à Rome, qui ont été envoyés dans les Flandres󰀈. Ces cartons fournissant ainsi à la ville et à toute la région, 󰀅. 󰀆. 󰀇. 󰀈.

S. Alsteens dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, p. 󰀆󰀂. K AVALER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀇󰀀 (Cène) et p. 󰀂󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀂󰀃, n° 󰀂󰀅 (Portement de Croix). EVANS, BROWN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀.

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

3

des exemples de première main, en grand format, de ce qui se faisait de plus nouveau en Italie. La série rencontra le succès phénoménal que l’on sait et fut régulièrement retissée, servant de référence et d’inspiration à plusieurs générations d’artistes flamands󰀉. Par la suite, une autre stratégie fut adoptée le plus souvent par les nombreux intervenants qui prenaient part à la production des ensembles de tapisseries – commanditaires, marchands, entrepreneurs, artistes, liciers. Seuls les « petits patrons » seront désormais envoyés à Bruxelles, probablement accompagnés de matériel graphique et de dessins de détails󰀁󰀀. La réalisation des cartons à échelle en couleurs sera confiée, en revanche, à des peintres cartonniers locaux qui travaillaient en collaboration ou sous la supervision d’artistes italiens spécialement venus dans les Flandres à cet effet. Cette manière de procéder a entrainé la présence permanente de peintres italiens dans les Pays-Bas à cette époque, un phénomène qui reste encore mal évalué󰀁󰀁. Le séjour et l’activité de Tommaso Vincidor sont en revanche bien connus󰀁󰀂. Cet élève de Raphaël, présent dans les Pays-Bas sans doute à partir de 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀 et jusqu’à sa mort en 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀆, avait été chargé par Léon X de superviser la réalisation des commandes de tapisseries du Vatican : la tenture en sept pièces du Triomphe des dieux, tissée entre 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇 et 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀 d’après des modèles de Francesco Penni et Giovanni da Udine ; les vingt pièces des Jeux d’Enfants tissées entre 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀁 et 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀄 d’après des projets de Udine développés par Vincidor; les tapisseries du Letto de paramento, aujourd’hui perdues, et surtout la tenture de La Vie du Christ, dite Scuola Nuova (Fig. 󰀁), tissée entre 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀄 et 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁, qui comptait douze tapisseries d’après des modèles de Giulio Romano dérivés de Raphaël, une série qui eut un impact considérable sur les peintres des Pays-Bas durant plusieurs décennies󰀁󰀃. Il convient de rappeler aussi que dès 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀂, le jeune Francesco Primaticcio, à peine arrivé en France, fut envoyé à Bruxelles pour apporter de nouveaux modèles de Giulio Romano et superviser la réalisation d’une partie des cartons de la somptueuse tenture des Gestes et triomphes de Scipion, une série en vingtdeux pièces tissée pour François Ier󰀁󰀄. Dans un document daté d’avril 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀃, 󰀉.  DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇 et Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀇-󰀂󰀀󰀃. 󰀁󰀀. Sur la présence des modèles italiens à Bruxelles vers 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀, voir Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀄󰀁-󰀃󰀆󰀃. 󰀁󰀁. DELMARCEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀉󰀄 a attiré l’attention sur ce fait important trop peu connu, qui n’a toujours pas bénéficié d’une étude d’ensemble. 󰀁󰀂. DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀. 󰀁󰀃. Sur l’importance de la Suola Nuova à Bruxelles, voir DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇. A propos des commandes de tapisseries du Pape à l’atelier de Raphaël, voir Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀂󰀅-󰀂󰀄󰀅. 󰀁󰀄. Les cartons des Triomphes au moins, ont dû être réalisés à Bruxelles, probablement sous la supervision de Primaticcio. Voir Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀃󰀄󰀃 et 󰀃󰀄󰀇 et D. Cordellier dans Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄-󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, pp. 󰀇󰀇-󰀇󰀈.

Fig. 󰀁. D’après Giulio Romano, atelier de Pieter van Aelst, Le Massacre des Innocents, 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀-󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀁, tapisseries de la série de La Vie du Christ (Scuola Nuova ; parties gauche et centrale). Cité du Vatican, Musei Vaticani © Governatorato dello S.C.V. - Direzione dei Musei

4 VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

5

Fig. 󰀂. Pieter Bruegel l’Ancien, L’Ivrogne poussé dans la bauge à pourceaux, signé, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇, huile sur bois. Collection particulière

Primaticcio certifie que deux mois plus tôt, il a vu à Bruxelles dans l’atelier de Pieter de Pannemaker, plus de trente personnes travaillant à une autre commande du roi de France, six grandes tapisseries dont le sujet n’est pas précisé, réalisées d’après les modèles de Matteo del Nassaro. Ce peintre originaire de Vérone, connu surtout pour des modèles de médailles et de monnaies, travaillait pour François Ier en France où il mourut en 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀇. Primaticcio et Nassaro semblent avoir joué pour les tapisseries de François Ier un rôle identique à celui endossé par Vincidor pour Léon X 󰀁󰀅. Citons encore la présence à Bruxelles de Gian Baptista Lodi da Cremona, documenté dans les Pays-Bas à partir de 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀀 jusqu’en 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, dont le nom est lié à la réalisation de certaines des plus importantes tentures tissées à Bruxelles à la demande de Ferrante Gonzaga. Lodi en avait soit exécuté les cartons lui-même, soit supervisé la fabrication par des peintres flamands󰀁󰀆. Parmi les plus célèbres, la tenture en huit pièces des Fructus Belli, les Fruits de la guerre, réalisée entre 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅 et 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉 pour laquelle Lodi s’est sans doute inspiré de projets de Giulio Romano; ou encore une Vie de Moïse, une série de douze tapisseries tissée entre 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅 et 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀. On doit aussi à Lodi L’Histoire de Mercure et Herse 󰀁󰀅. D. Cordellier dans Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄-󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, p. 󰀇󰀆. 󰀁󰀆. DELMARCEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀉󰀄 ; BUCHANAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅.

6

VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

en huit épisodes, tissée durant les mêmes années et rééditée à deux reprises vers 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀󰀁󰀇. Toutes ces tapisseries ont donné lieu à de nombreux retissages tout au long du XVIe siècle et même encore au siècle suivant de sorte que les modèles parfois vieux de plusieurs décennies étaient encore bien connus et utilisés par les liciers bruxellois à l’époque où Bruegel a fréquenté l’atelier de Pieter Coecke et plus tard encore lorsqu’il s’est établi à Bruxelles. La question de ses rapports avec les modèles italiens utilisés dans les milieux de la tapisserie bruxelloise a donc toute sa pertinence.

ORGANISATION

SPATIALE

Le rapport le plus immédiat entre Bruegel et les modèles italiens de tapisserie a été souligné dès 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁 par Fritz Grossmann qui avait mis en parallèle le Tüchlein de l’Adoration des Mages󰀁󰀈 de Bruegel et la tapisserie de même sujet de la série de la Vie du Christ dite Scuola Nuova, d’après des projets de Giulio Romano mis au point par Vincidor󰀁󰀉. L’auteur avait montré comment Bruegel ne s’était pas contenté de s’inspirer de détails ou de motifs, mais s’était intéressé bien davantage à la composition d’ensemble et à la manière dont s’agençaient les différentes parties. Le peintre flamand a repris le concept d’une foule compacte organisée de façon claire de part et d’autre de l’étable. Comme sur le modèle italien, il a placé les protagonistes au centre de l’image, ce qui ne lui est pas habituel. Pour autant, Bruegel n’abdique pas sa propre vision du monde : il modifie radicalement son modèle en adoptant un point de vue élevé et en y mêlant de nombreux détails d’inspiration diverse, tels ceux alors très en vogue puisés au répertoire de Jérôme Bosch󰀂󰀀. Aux observations de Grossmann, il faut ajouter que Bruegel réitérera à plusieurs reprises ce principe d’organisation spatiale d’une foule compacte : on l’observe aussi bien dans le petit panneau en grisaille de La Mort de la Vierge (vers 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄)󰀂󰀁 que dans l’ambitieux Tüchlein Le Vin de la saint Martin (vers 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅-󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 ; voir Fig. 󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀆)󰀂󰀂. 󰀁󰀇. Trois tapisseries sont conservées au Palazzo del Quirinale. Voir BUCHANAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀉. 󰀁󰀈. Bruxelles, Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 󰀃󰀉󰀂󰀉. L’attribution à Bruegel est toujours discutée. Pour un état de la question, voir S. Pénot dans Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀆󰀀-󰀆󰀃 et BÜCKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁. 󰀁󰀉. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀉 et ill. 󰀃 et 󰀄. 󰀂󰀀. Ces emprunts à Bosch, souvent mis en avant, sont pourtant bien plus superficiels que la mise en page issue de la tapisserie. Il faut y voir une expression de la mode des « droleries » dérivées de Bosch, alors très en vogue, qui avaient permis à Bruegel de lancer sa carrière. 󰀂󰀁. 󰀃󰀆 × 󰀅󰀅 cm. Banbury, Upton House, inv. 󰀄󰀄󰀆󰀇󰀄󰀉. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀄. 󰀂󰀂. 󰀁󰀄󰀈 × 󰀂󰀇󰀀,󰀅 cm. Madrid, Prado, inv. P󰀀󰀀󰀈󰀀󰀄󰀀.

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

7

La composition mouvementée du Massacre des Innocents, une tapisserie en trois parties de la même série de la Scuola Nuova, a fait forte impression dans les Pays-Bas, notamment chez des peintres comme Bernard van Orley et Pieter Coecke tant dans leurs compositions peintes que pour leurs projets de tapisseries󰀂󰀃. Bruegel semble y avoir été sensible à plus d’un égard. Dès 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁, Grossmann avait déjà relevé que la femme assise les mains jointes, pleurant son enfant mort, de la partie centrale (Fig. 󰀁), apparaît dans une posture identique mais revêtue d’un costume bien plus populaire, au centre du Massacre des innocents󰀂󰀄 peint par Bruegel probablement en 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆󰀂󰀅. On pourrait ajouter que l’homme penché en avant au premier plan qui tente de se saisir d’un enfant, dans le fragment gauche de la tapisserie (Fig. 󰀁), est repris par Bruegel dans la grande figure de l’avant plan du dessin Le Printemps (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅 ; voir Fig. 󰀃, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀁)󰀂󰀆, la dague meurtrière du bourreau d’enfant ayant été remplacée plus prosaïquement par une bêche. Au-delà de la reprise ponctuelle de motifs, la composition générale de la tapisserie et surtout le mouvement qui l’anime ont retenu l’intérêt du peintre. Ainsi, dans la partie centrale de la tapisserie, les trois femmes bras levés et bouches ouvertes (Fig. 󰀁), sont emportées dans leur veine tentative pour refouler leurs assaillants, par un élan identique à celui qui galvanise la foule agitée repoussant l’Ivrogne dans la bauge à pourceaux (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇)󰀂󰀇 (Fig. 󰀂). La transposition de la tragédie biblique dans l’idiome paysan et satirique cher à Bruegel imprime une métamorphose si profonde à la mise en page que l’on peine à convoquer un modèle italien. C’est pourtant lui qui permet de comprendre l’origine du mouvement qui anime ce petit tondo.

DÉCOMPOSITION

DU MOUVEMENT

Les tapisseries de la Scuola Nuova, et singulièrement à nouveau l’épisode du Massacre des Innocents (Fig. 󰀁), offrent l’exemple précoce d’un autre procédé de composition qui sera adopté par nombre de peintres flamands et par Bruegel en particulier. On pourrait appeler « décomposition du mouvement » le processus qui, pour suggérer le mouvement, juxtapose plusieurs personnages qui se suivent dans des moments différents d’une même action󰀂󰀈. Ainsi, les trois 󰀂󰀃. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀅󰀈-󰀂󰀆󰀁 et BÜCKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀃󰀁. 󰀂󰀄. Londres, The Royal Collection, inv. LC󰀉 HC 󰀁󰀂󰀉󰀀. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀃󰀆. 󰀂󰀅. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀆. 󰀂󰀆. Vienne, Albertina, inv. 󰀂󰀃.󰀇󰀅󰀀. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀂󰀄. 󰀂󰀇. Collection privée. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀂. 󰀂󰀈. P. Philippot a analysé la manière dont Bruegel utilise ce procédé. PHILIPPOT 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀁-󰀁󰀉󰀂.

8

VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

hommes placés en diagonale dans la partie gauche de la tapisserie décomposent en trois phases l’action de saisir les innocents. De même, les trois femmes qui se succèdent au centre illustrent trois stades différents de l’effroi et de la résistance. On voit comment les suiveurs de Raphaël se sont emparés de ce procédé, qui remonte à l’antiquité, pour suggérer un mouvement plein de fougue et de vivacité, en train de s’accomplir. Cette dynamique de décomposition du mouvement a souvent été utilisée dans la tapisserie par Bernard van Orley : on en trouve de nombreux exemples dans la tenture des Chasses de Charles Quint tissée à Bruxelles entre 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁 et 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀃 ou dans celle de la Bataille de Pavie offerte à Charles Quint en 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁󰀂󰀉. Ainsi, la tapisserie du Mois de décembre des Chasses󰀃󰀀 montre comment l’artiste applique le procédé aussi bien pour suggérer la marche des chasseurs pointant leurs lances à gauche que pour décomposer en trois phases le saut des grands chiens qui attaquent le sanglier : le premier s’apprête à sauter, le deuxième mort le gibier en appuyant des deux pattes avant sur son arrière train tandis que le troisième, juché sur le dos de la bête, lui plante les crocs dans l’échine. La formule apparaît dans plusieurs tapisseries de la Bataille de Pavie, notamment pour suggérer la course des chevaux. Elle est particulièrement explicite dans La déroute des Suisses devant Pavie󰀃󰀁 où la culbute de quatre soldats dans la rivière, à droite de la composition, est décomposée en quatre étapes successives, depuis le déséquilibre sur la berge jusqu’au vol plané dans l’eau, en passant par deux moments intermédiaires de la chute (Fig. 󰀃). La décomposition du mouvement qui fait défiler l’action dans l’espace, est un procédé qui se révèle particulièrement approprié aux développements narratifs autorisés par les immenses surfaces déployées dans les tentures à multiples épisodes. Il va être adopté par les artistes concepteurs de tapisseries, tels Pieter Coecke ou Jan Vermeyen󰀃󰀂. Dans la seconde tapisserie de la série des Sphères conçue par un suiveur de Van Orley et tissée à Bruxelles entre 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀 et 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀, Atlas portant la sphère Armillaire, l’élégant détail des Heures versant de l’eau dans le courant du temps, décompose le geste de verser l’eau en quatre attitudes différentes, dans une démarche similaire à celle décrite ci-dessus󰀃󰀃. 󰀂󰀉. Pour les Chasses de Charles Quint, voir G. Demarcel dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀂󰀉-󰀃󰀃󰀉 et I. De Meûter dans Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀂-󰀂󰀀󰀅. Pour La Bataille de Pavie, voir I. Buchanan dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀂󰀁-󰀃󰀂󰀈 et C. Paredes dans Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀀-󰀁󰀈󰀇. 󰀃󰀀. Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀇, fig. 󰀈. 󰀃󰀁. Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀃, fig. 󰀅. 󰀃󰀂. Par exemple les six Juifs ramassant les douze pierres au premier plan de la tapisserie de La Traversée du Jourdain de L’Histoire de Josué conçue par Pieter Coecke (New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, p. 󰀂󰀁󰀅, fig. 󰀁󰀅󰀈) ou les trois porteurs de ballots au centre du Sac de Tunis de la tenture de La Conquête de Tunis par Jan Vermeyen et Pieter Coecke (New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀄󰀃󰀃, cat. 󰀅󰀀). 󰀃󰀃. New York 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, pp. 󰀅󰀈-󰀆󰀁.

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

9

Fig. 󰀃. D’après Bernard van Orley, atelier Dermoyen, La Fuite et la déroute des Suisses devant Pavie (détail), 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀅-󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁, tapisserie de la série de La Bataille de Pavie. Naples, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte Per gentile concessione del Mic - Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

Le procédé de décomposition du mouvement traverse tout l’œuvre de Bruegel qui comprend mieux que tout autre artiste combien les solutions formelles qu’il offre permettent de dérouler le temps du mouvement dans l’espace de l’image. On l’observe dès ses tableaux à petits personnages peints à Anvers et l’artiste l’utilisera tout au long de sa carrière. Aux exemples relevés par Paul Philippot󰀃󰀄 dans le Combat de Carême et Carnaval, on peut ajouter, parmi d’autres, les différentes phases du jeu de la toupie et du saut de mouton dans les Jeux d’enfants (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀)󰀃󰀅 ou les mouvements successifs de la bataille de boules de neige ainsi que la progression des porteurs de ballots sur la glace󰀃󰀆 dans le Dénombrement de Bethléem (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆)󰀃󰀇. Dans la série des Mois, les trois jeunes 󰀃󰀄. PHILIPPOT 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀂. 󰀃󰀅. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀀󰀁󰀇. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀃. 󰀃󰀆. Ces figurines de Bruegel ne sont pas sans évoquer les porteurs de ballot du Sac de Tunis signalés note 󰀃󰀂. 󰀃󰀇. Bruxelles, Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, inv. 󰀃󰀆󰀃󰀇. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀃󰀀-󰀂󰀃󰀁.

10

VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

filles de la Fenaison󰀃󰀈 offrent un des plus jolis exemples de ce procédé chez Bruegel, appliqué à des figures plus grandes, une interprétation qui n’est pas rappeler les Heures versant l’eau dans le cours du temps. La Parabole des Aveugles (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 ; voir Fig. 󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀄)󰀃󰀉 témoigne de la manière dont Bruegel maîtrise désormais le procédé appliqué à des figures de grandes dimensions. L’artiste excelle dans l’enchainement des attitudes qui égrènent les étapes de la marche vers la chute fatidique󰀄󰀀. Ce qui rend l’image vraiment unique et novatrice, c’est la capacité du peintre à investir le procédé d’un contenu moral où les phases de la chute des aveugles se confondent avec celles, tragiques et inexorables, de la condition humaine.

R ÉPÉTITION

RYTHMIQUE

Il faut chercher dans une autre série de tapisseries réalisées d’après des modèles italiens l’origine du procédé de composition qui consiste à utiliser la succession répétitive d’un objet donné pour accentuer le rythme. Bruegel adopte un tel dispositif à plusieurs reprises󰀄󰀁. Ainsi, le Suicide de Saül (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂)󰀄󰀂 ou le Massacre des innocents (vers 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆)󰀄󰀃 illustrent comment la scansion verticale et répétitive des lances peut accroitre de façon significative la dimension dramatique et angoissante des événements dépeints. La tenture des Gestes et Triomphes de Scipion offre une série de précédents qui semblent avoir retenus l’attention des artistes flamands actifs dans le domaine de la tapisserie 󰀄󰀄. Cet ensemble grandiose de vingt-deux tapisseries rehaussées d’or et d’argent, illustrant treize Gestes et neuf Triomphes de Scipion l’Africain, fut tissé à Bruxelles d’après les projets de Giulio Romano et livré à François Ier. Les petits patrons, dont on se souvient que certains furent apportés à Bruxelles par Primaticcio, étaient très certainement accompagnés de dessins complémentaires, qui ont dû circuler et être disponibles pour les artistes dès le milieu des années 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀. D’une ampleur et d’un luxe exceptionnels, cette tenture constitue 󰀃󰀈. Pragues, Palais Lobkowicz. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀆. 󰀃󰀉. Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, inv. 󰀈󰀄.󰀄󰀉󰀀. 󰀄󰀀. C AMPBELL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀅󰀀󰀁. 󰀄󰀁. L’importance du rythme chez Bruegel a été soulignée récemment par SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀄󰀁󰀃󰀄󰀃. 󰀄󰀂. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀀󰀁󰀁. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀃. 󰀄󰀃. Voir note 󰀂󰀄. 󰀄󰀄. L’importance de cette tenture pour la tapisserie bruxelloise a été soulignée par DELMARCEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀉󰀂-󰀉󰀃 et DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇. Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀃󰀄󰀈 relève que tant le thème que la structure de cet ensemble ont exercé un impact extrêmement stimulant sur Coecke et Coxcie et que les innovations de La Batailles de Pavie de Van Orley ne peuvent s’expliquer sans la présence précoce à Bruxelles des modelli et des dessins préparatoires de Penni et Giulio Romano.

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

11

un chaînon essentiel de la production bruxelloise du XVIe siècle. Suite à l’editio princeps de François Ier, de nombreux retissages, souvent partiels, ont eu lieu tout au long des XVIe et XVIIe siècles parmi lesquels on peut citer l’édition exécutée en 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀄 pour Marie de Hongrie (conservée à Madrid), les dix pièces tissées entre 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 et 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀉 pour le maréchal de France Jacques d’Albon ou encore l’édition partielle réalisée probablement peu après 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁 pour le cardinal Ippolito II d’Este󰀄󰀅. Le matériel graphique encore préservé de nos jours témoigne de la richesse et de l’abondance des dessins qui ont dû exister autrefois et être disponibles pour les artistes󰀄󰀆. Dans plusieurs tapisseries de cette série, les lances rythment l’espace par des scansions verticales répétitives qui accroissent la tension des batailles. Cette idée fut reprise de manière extensive par Bernard van Orley pour différents épisodes de la Bataille de Pavie (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀅-󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁), par exemple L’Affrontement de la cavalerie impériale et de la gendarmerie française 󰀄󰀇; Pieter Coecke s’en est également inspiré à maintes reprises, entre autres dans L’Histoire de Josué, la tenture en huit pièces enrichie d’or et d’argent, livrée en 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀈 à François Ier, et dont Charles Quint acquit une seconde édition six ans plus tard󰀄󰀈. Un immense cortège d’où s’élèvent les lances dressées côte à côte traverse de part en part, en la structurant de manière dynamique, toute la composition des Juifs traversant le Jourdain et ramassant les douze pierres. C’est aussi une profusion de lances dressées qui guide le regard vers le lointain horizon de l’épisode de La Chute de Jérico󰀄󰀉. Jan Vermeyen, assisté de Pieter Coecke, reprendra à son tour ce procédé de composition et d’animation dynamique de l’espace dans plusieurs tapisseries de la Conquête de Tunis󰀅󰀀. Il l’utilise à foison dans La Revue des troupes à Barcelone et d’une manière plus mesurée quoique plus menaçante dans L’Attaque des Maures à la Goulette 󰀅󰀁. À la lumière de ce cheminement, on comprend comment Bruegel s’inscrit dans la lignée de Van Orley, Coecke et Vermeyen et perpétue la lecture des modèles italiens de tapisseries présents à Bruxelles. L’extraordinaire interprétation proposée par le Suicide de Saul (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂) 󰀄󰀅. Six pièces de cette édition sont conservées à l’Academia Belgica à Rome. Voir DELMARCEL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂. 󰀄󰀆. Voir DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀄󰀁-󰀃󰀄󰀉 et D. Cordellier dans Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄-󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, pp. 󰀇󰀆-󰀈󰀀. 󰀄󰀇. Voir Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀁, fig. 󰀃. 󰀄󰀈. Sur l’Histoire de Josué, voir I. Buchanan dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀄-󰀂󰀂󰀀. 󰀄󰀉. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, p. 󰀂󰀁󰀅, fig. 󰀁󰀅󰀈 et p. 󰀂󰀂󰀇, n° 󰀅󰀆. Un lien entre Bruegel et la tenture de l’Histoire de Josué est relevé par SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀃󰀄󰀅, note 󰀁󰀆. 󰀅󰀀. Sur La Conquète de Tunis, voir HORN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉 et I. Buchanan dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, pp. 󰀃󰀂󰀀-󰀃󰀃󰀁. 󰀅󰀁. HORN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉, vol. 󰀂, pl. XX et XXIV, New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀀 et 󰀃󰀃󰀂/󰀃󰀃󰀃. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀄󰀆-󰀃󰀄󰀇 et fig. 󰀁󰀈 donne d’autres exemples de répétitions rythmiques d’objets dans la tenture de la Conquête de Tunis.

12

VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

en témoigne. Bruegel exploitera à nouveau la formule, avec une économie de moyen qui lui est propre, dans le Massacre des Innocents (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆) où la tension dramatique qui se dégage des lances dressées semble inversement proportionnelle à leur nombre, à l’instar de Vermeyen dans l’Attaque de la Goulette, mais avec plus d’efficacité. Grâce à une meilleure maîtrise des proportions, Bruegel accroît le poids de la menace incarnée par le groupe compacte des soldats tenant leurs lances. On l’a vu, l’impact considérable de la tenture de Scipion s’explique par le fait que les petits patrons et les dessins complémentaires de Giulio Romano et ses émules ont continué de circuler dans les ateliers flamands pendant plusieurs décennies. Les retouches tardives visibles sur le petit patron de la Prise de Carthagène, qui furent apposées par Rubens à qui le dessin a appartenu, en sont la preuve󰀅󰀂 tout autant que l’utilisation de ce modello comme source d’inspiration par Bernard van Orley󰀅󰀃. La reprise, dans des tapisseries bruxelloises, du motif particulier des spectateurs accrochés aux arbres, confirme ce succès. Le motif apparaît dans les petits patrons du Triomphes des secrétaires, des assistants ainsi que des Soldats conduisant les prisonniers󰀅󰀄. Sur ces deux feuilles, on observe des spectateurs agrippés aux branches des arbres afin de se hisser au-dessus de la foule pour mieux observer le cortège triomphal. Ce motif pittoresque fut diversement interprété dans les tapisseries bruxelloises. Pieter Coecke le reprend dans Le Martyre de Saint Paul de la série de la Vie de saint Paul, conçue vers 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁 et tissée à neuf reprises au cours du XVIe siècle󰀅󰀅. Dans cet exemple, on ne sait si les personnages agrippés aux branches se servent des arbres comme poste d’observation ou comme refuge. Cette deuxième option prévaut chez Michel Coxcie qui confère au motif une dimension dramatique nouvelle dans Le Déluge, une des tapisseries de l’Histoire de Noé, tissée à Bruxelles vers 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀󰀅󰀆. Bruegel intègrera des figures anecdotiques d’hommes agrippés aux branches des arbres dans plusieurs de ses compositions. L’interprétation pleine 󰀅󰀂. Louvre, Département des arts graphiques, inv. 󰀃󰀅󰀃󰀅. Fiche inventaire en ligne : http://artsgraphiques.louvre.fr/detail/oeuvres/󰀁/󰀁󰀀󰀀󰀇󰀄󰀄-Gestes-de-Scipion-Prise-de-Carthagene (consulté le 󰀂󰀅 /󰀀󰀃/󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁). 󰀅󰀃. Th. Campbell dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀃󰀄󰀄, relève l’influence de la Prise de Carthage sur un dessin de la série de Romulus et Rémus de Van Orley. L’auteur suppose qu’une copie de ce projet était parvenue dès le début des années 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀 à Bruxelles, peut-être par l’entremise de Vincidor. Il suggère que la première conception des Gestes remonterait au début des années 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀. 󰀅󰀄. Louvre, Département des arts graphiques, 󰀃󰀅󰀃󰀇 et 󰀃󰀅󰀄󰀁. Fiches inventaire en ligne: http://artsgraphiques.louvre.fr/detail/oeuvres/󰀁/󰀁󰀀󰀀󰀇󰀄󰀆-Triomphe-de-Scipion-les-secretaires-les-assistants-etles-gardes-du-corps-du-general et http://arts-graphiques.louvre.fr/detail/oeuvres/󰀁/󰀁󰀀󰀀󰀇󰀅󰀀-Triomphede-Scipion-soldats-conduisant-les-chefs-prisonniers# (consulté le 󰀂󰀅/󰀀󰀃/󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁). 󰀅󰀅. Sur la tenture de La Vie de saint Paul, voir G. Delmarcel dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀀-󰀁󰀇󰀅. 󰀅󰀆. Sur cette tenture, voir M. Hennel-Bernasikowa dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀄󰀄󰀁-󰀄󰀄󰀇 et p. 󰀄󰀄󰀂󰀄󰀄󰀃 pour l’illustration du Déluge.

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

13

d’humour qu’il en donne dans la Prédication de saint Jean (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆)󰀅󰀇, le Dénicheur󰀅󰀈 et le dessin des Apiculteurs󰀅󰀉 (tous deux 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈) s’éloigne du caractère dramatique relevé chez ses prédécesseurs flamands et semble retourner davantage à la légèreté joyeuse des modèles italiens.

MOUVEMENT

SUSPENDU

La maîtrise dont Bruegel fait preuve dans l’art de la composition s’observe également dans sa capacité à restituer le mouvement par des figures saisies dans une sorte « mouvement suspendu » et parfaitement intégrées à l’ensemble. Le recourt à ce procédé qui évoque l’accomplissement d’un mouvement dans sa totalité par la représentation d’un moment ponctuel de l’action est récurrent dans l’œuvre de Bruegel comme Carl Gustaf Stridbeck l’avait déjà mis en évidence󰀆󰀀. Les premiers exemples de ces figures dont les gestes sont suspendus dans le temps, sont arrivés à Bruxelles avec les cartons et les modèles italiens de tapisseries de Raphaël et ses suiveurs. Le soldat tenant une lance au premier plan de la Conversion de Paul de la série des Actes des Apôtres, ou celui fuyant à côté du cheval dans le fond à gauche en fournissent deux exemples typiques󰀆󰀁. Le soldat effrayé qui s’échappe en courant à gauche de la Résurrection du Christ de la Scuola Nuova en fournit une autre illustration (Fig. 󰀄a)󰀆󰀂. Des personnages arrêtés en plein mouvement apparaissent aussi dans plusieurs compositions des Gestes et Triomphes de Scipion󰀆󰀃. À Bruxelles, ce procédé a été amplement exploité par Bernard van Orley qui l’a porté à un niveau d’éloquence rarement égalé dans les somptueuses séries de tapisseries créées pour Charles Quint󰀆󰀄. Les figures saisies en plein mouvement abondent dans Les Chasses de Charles Quint et la Bataille de Pavie, qu’elles soient traitées à grande échelle à l’avant des compositions (Fig. 󰀄b) ou qu’elles animent de leur petite taille les fonds des scènes de chasse ou de bataille. Pieter Coecke aura aussi recours au 󰀅󰀇. Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. 󰀅󰀁.󰀂󰀈󰀂󰀉. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀃󰀂-󰀂󰀃󰀃. 󰀅󰀈. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀀. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀄󰀈-󰀂󰀄󰀉. 󰀅󰀉. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. KdZ 󰀇󰀁󰀃. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀅󰀈. 󰀆󰀀. STRIDBECK 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀆, p. 󰀂󰀈󰀁-󰀂󰀈󰀂 parle de « Fliehende Gestalt » (figure fuyante) empruntée à l’antiquité. Nous préférons l’expression « mouvement suspendu » car plusieurs figures concernées ne sont pas « fuyantes ». 󰀆󰀁. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀁󰀁 et EVANS, BROWNE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀀-󰀁󰀀󰀄. 󰀆󰀂. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀃󰀉, fig. 󰀁󰀀󰀀. 󰀆󰀃. On peut citer en autres l’homme qui se retourne, à gauche en tête du cortège des Soldats conduisant des prisonniers. Louvre, Département des arts graphiques, inv. 󰀃󰀅󰀄󰀀. Voir http://artsgraphiques.louvre.fr/detail/oeuvres/󰀁/󰀁󰀀󰀀󰀇󰀄󰀉-Triomphe-de-Scipion-soldats-conduisant-les-prisonniers# consulté le 󰀂󰀆/󰀀󰀃/󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁. 󰀆󰀄. C AMPBELL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀅󰀀󰀀-󰀅󰀀󰀁.

Fig. 󰀄a. D’après Raphaël, atelier de Pieter van Aelst, La Résurrection du Christ (détail), 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀅-󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁, tapisserie de la série de La Vie du Christ (Scuola Nuova). Cité du Vatican, Musei Vaticani © Governatorato dello S.C.V. Direzione dei Musei

Fig. 󰀄b. D’après Bernard van Orley, atelier Dermoyen, L’Attaque du camp français et la fuite des civils (détail inversé), 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀅-󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁, tapisserie de la série de La Bataille de Pavie. Naples, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte Per gentile concessione del Mic - Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

Fig. 󰀄c. Pieter Bruegel l’Ancien, Le Portement de Croix (détail), signé, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄, huile sur chêne. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum Picture Gallery © KHM-Museumsverband

14 VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

15

« mouvement suspendu » en particulier dans les tapisseries des années 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀 qui se caractérisent par une plus grande tension dramatique et davantage de mouvement. On peut citer entre autres le soldat qui semble s’élancer hors de la composition à l’avant à droite de la Conversion de Saul 󰀆󰀅 ou la figure féminine qui suit directement le char de la Luxure dans la série des Sept péchés capitaux, conçue par Coecke au début des années 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀󰀆󰀆. La manière dont Bruegel développe et adapte ces figures en mouvement a été étudiée encore récemment par Matt Kavaler. L’auteur a mis en exergue le parallèle qui existe entre le protagoniste de La Kermesse de Bruegel (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇)󰀆󰀇 et le lansquenet qui court au premier plan à droite de la tapisserie L’Arrestation du roi󰀆󰀈 dans la tenture de La bataille de Pavie de Bernard van Orley󰀆󰀉. Le « mouvement suspendu » de ces deux figures ne peut se concevoir sans l’influence des modèles italiens. Le soldat en fuite de La Résurrection du Christ de la Scola Nuova offre une source possible pour les figures de Van Orley et Bruegel (Fig. 󰀄a). Contrairement à ce que l’on a souvent écrit, les figures arrêtées dans un « mouvement suspendu » s’imposent dans toutes les compositions de Bruegel, que les personnages soient traités de façon monumentale ou dans des échelles plus restreintes. L’homme qui court avec un sac sur l’épaule au premier plan du Portement de croix (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄)󰀇󰀀 (Fig. 󰀄c) ou le soldat qui poursuit une femme à gauche du Massacre des Innocents (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆), tout autant que les deux chasseurs des Chasseurs dans la neige (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅) ou le berger à l’avant à gauche du Retour du troupeau (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅)󰀇󰀁 sont redevables dans le rendu du mouvement aux exemples italiens, revisités par Van Orley et Pieter Coecke.

TR ANSMISSION

DES MODÈLES

La transposition du « mouvement suspendu » issu des figures italiennes, dans l’idiome populaire de Bruegel s’observe de manière éloquente à partir d’un exemple qui rencontra un immense succès dans les Pays-Bas. Il s’agit du soldat placé en tête du cortège du Portement de Croix, la tapisserie tissée à deux reprises à Bruxelles d’après le tableau dit Spasimo di Sicilia peint par Raphaël󰀇󰀂 󰀆󰀅. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀁, n° 󰀂󰀉. 󰀆󰀆. Sur Les sept péchés capitaux, voir E. Cleland dans New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀇-󰀁󰀉󰀇 et n° 󰀄󰀉, ill. p. 󰀂󰀀󰀁 pour La Luxure. 󰀆󰀇. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀀󰀅󰀉. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀂󰀄󰀆-󰀂󰀄󰀇. 󰀆󰀈. Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀁, fig. 󰀂. 󰀆󰀉. K AVALER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, p. 󰀇󰀅, ill. 󰀂 et 󰀃. 󰀇󰀀. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀅. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀁. 󰀇󰀁. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀈󰀃󰀈 et 󰀁󰀀󰀁󰀈. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀉 et 󰀂󰀀󰀈. 󰀇󰀂. Voir note 󰀇.

Fig. 󰀅a. D’après Raphaël, atelier bruxellois, Le Portement de Croix (détail), vers 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇-󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀, tapisserie. Cité du Vatican, Musei Vaticani © Governatorato dello S.C.V. Direzione dei Musei

Fig. 󰀅b. D’après Bernard van Orley, atelier Dermoyen, Le Départ pour la chasse (détail), 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁-󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀃, tapisserie de la série Les Chasses de Charles Quint. Paris, musée du Louvre Photo © RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) /Daniel Arnaudet

Fig. 󰀅c. Atelier de Pieter Coecke, Riccordo du dessin pour la tapisserie La Luxure (détail), après 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀄, plume et encres brune et grise, lavis gris. New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, Egmont Collection, Yale Library Transfer © Yale University Art Gallery

16 VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

Fig. 󰀅d. Jan Cornelis Vermeyen, carton pour la tapisserie Le Siège de la Goulette (détail), 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀆-󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, fusain et aquarelle sur papier ; monté sur toile. Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum Picture Gallery © KHM-Museumsverband

Fig. 󰀅e. Pieter Bruegel l’Ancien, Le Dénombrement de Bethléem (détail), signé, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, huile sur chêne. Bruxelles, Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique ©MRBAB/KMSKB

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

17

18

VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

(Fig. 󰀅a). Ce personnage plein d’énergie, arrêté dans un contrapposto dynamique tiré de la statuaire antique, a frappé de nombreux artistes flamands󰀇󰀃. On n’a jamais remarqué que Bruegel aussi le cite, en miroir, dans le Dénombrement de Bethléem (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆) (Fig. 󰀅e). En effet, l’homme vêtu d’un justaucorps bleu et de chausses rouges dans l’angle inférieur gauche du tableau, figé dans une posture identique à celle du soldat raphaelesque, est arrêté dans un élan qu’aucune occupation ne justifie. Cette reprise pose la question des modalités de transmission des modèles : Bruegel retourne-t-il directement aux exemples italiens encore disponibles dans les Flandres et à Bruxelles ou bien les envisaget-il via une chaine de transmission qui passerait par ses prédécesseurs ? Bernard van Orley s’en était déjà inspiré pour un des chasseurs placés à gauche du Départ pour la chasse (Fig. 󰀅b), la première tapisserie des Chasses de Charles Quint󰀇󰀄 . On le retrouve chez Pieter Coecke, transformé en Hercule, dans la tapisserie de La Luxure de la série des Sept péchés capitaux, dont le modèle était aussi connu grâce au ricordo que Coecke conservait sans doute dans son atelier (Fig. 󰀅c)󰀇󰀅. Jan Vermeyen l’a utilisé à son tour comme modèle pour le soldat vêtu de rouge debout sur le promontoire qui surplombe la bataille navale du Siège de la Goulette de la Conquête de Tunis (Fig. 󰀅d). L’interprétation qu’en donne Bruegel semble donc s’inscrire dans une tradition largement répandue de sorte qu’il n’est pas aisé de démêler les fils de la transmission. Bruegel peut avoir eu connaissance du carton de la tapisserie du Portement de Croix, probablement conservé par les liciers. Il est tout aussi possible qu’il se soit basé sur des cartons de tapisseries de Van Orley, Coecke ou Vermeyen ou encore sur du matériel graphique, dessins préparatoires et ricordi, conservés dans les ateliers. Un autre motif illustre la complexité des canaux de transmission. On a déjà montré combien la jeune fille portant un panier sur la tête de La Fenaison (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅)󰀇󰀆 chez Bruegel, est tributaire de la femme maintenant une corbeille de fruits dans le carton de La Marche sur Radès de la Conquête de Tunis󰀇󰀇. Cette dernière dérive à son tour de la figure féminine drapée de bleu et de rouge et portant une corbeille sur la tête qui apparaît à gauche dans le carton de la 󰀇󰀃. L. Hendrikman a attiré le premier l’attention sur cette figure qui fut reprise par Van Orley et/ou son atelier sur un volet du Retable de la Crucifixion initialement destiné au Monastère royal de Brou et conservé aujourd’hui dans l’église Notre-Dame à Bruges. Voir HENDRIKMAN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀀. Pour la reprise et l’interprétation du motif par les suiveurs de Van Orley et les maniéristes anversois, voir ZDANOV 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. 󰀇󰀄. La partie gauche de la tapisserie, qui compte deux chasseurs accompagnés d’un chien, ne figure sur aucun des deux dessins liés à cet épisode des Chasses. Dans ce cas précis, la transmission du modèle n’a pu se faire que par le truchement des cartons. Voir Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀂-󰀂󰀀󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀇 et 󰀂󰀁󰀅. 󰀇󰀅. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀀-󰀂󰀀󰀂 et ZDANOV 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀂󰀂. 󰀇󰀆. Voir note 󰀃󰀈. 󰀇󰀇. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀂󰀈󰀆, fig. 󰀂.

BRUEGEL ET LE MILIEU INTERNATIONAL DE LA TAPISSERIE À BRUXELLES

19

Guérison du paralytique des Actes des Apôtres de Raphaël󰀇󰀈. Dans ce cas, Bruegel reste proche de l’interprétation de Vermeyen pour le mouvement des jambes, mais préfère l’exemple de Raphaël pour les bras dont un seul tient le panier. Bruegel transforme en outre la jeune femme d’une manière qui lui est profondément personnelle. Dans un processus d’anonymisation dont il est coutumier, il modifie légèrement la position de la tête supprimant ainsi le regard accrocheur lancé au spectateur qui caractérisait les figures de Raphaël et de Vermeyen.

C ONCLUSION Les liens entre Bruegel et le milieu international de la tapisserie à Bruxelles, mainte fois évoqués dans la littérature, sont nombreux et constants quoique difficiles à déceler. Les différents exemples abordés montrent que la connaissance qu’avait Bruegel des modèles italiens de tapisseries était vaste et a dû survenir tôt dans sa courte carrière. Comme l’avait établi Grossmann󰀇󰀉, l’intérêt de l’artiste pour les compositions issues de la Péninsule est antérieur à son installation à Bruxelles et se manifeste dès ses œuvres précoces, certainement stimulé par son apprentissage chez Pieter Coecke. Certes, Bruegel emprunte de nombreux motifs ponctuels aux modèles italiens, suivant une pratique largement adoptée par ses prédécesseurs et ses contemporains. Pourtant, les procédés de compositions vont bien davantage retenir son attention et lui offrir des solutions formelles pour structurer l’espace et rythmer l’action. Par-dessus tout, les processus de « décomposition du mouvement » et de « mouvement suspendu » qu’appliquaient les Italiens, lui offrent un formidable moyen d’animer les personnages de ses compositions. En recourant à des séries de figures représentées dans des phases différentes d’une action ou à des personnages « arrêtés » dans leur élan, Bruegel développe des formules qui lui permettent d’inscrire le passage du temps dans l’espace du tableau. En cela, Bruegel se positionne dans le sillage des artistes qui, avant lui, se sont imprégnés des modèles italiens de tapisseries présents à Bruxelles. Van Orley, Coecke, Vermeyen ou encore Coxcie ont ainsi tiré profit des exemples italiens et les ont interprétés chaque fois d’une manière qui leur était propre mais qui veillait à maintenir reconnaissable la référence aux modèles souvent prestigieux, dans une démarche assumée de citation érudite. Tout aussi érudit, Bruegel assimile l’influence italienne d’une façon telle qu’elle se laisse moins aisément appréhender. Tout 󰀇󰀈. EVANS, BROWNE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, p. 󰀈󰀄. 󰀇󰀉. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁.

20

VÉRONIQUE BÜCKEN

en reproduisant les attitudes et les mouvements, il transforme si radicalement l’esprit et la signification des figures, souvent rendues anonymes, qu’il est difficile d’y retrouver ses sources. Les canaux de transmission des modèles italiens depuis leur arrivée à Bruxelles jusqu’à Bruegel ont été multiples et ont emprunté aussi bien des voies directes que des détours par des intermédiaires. Une fois tombées du métier, les tapisseries étaient expédiées dans toutes les cours d’Europe et n’étaient plus visibles à Bruxelles. On ne peut exclure que Bruegel ait eu un accès aux cartons qui étaient gardés dans les ateliers de liciers et réutilisés, parfois régulièrement et à plusieurs reprises, pour livrer des rééditions complètes ou partielles des tentures prestigieuses. Le matériel graphique et les « petits patrons », également précieusement conservés, ont assurément servi de sources. Bruegel s’est également familiarisé avec les motifs et les procédés de composition italiens par le truchement de Van Orley, Coecke et Vermeyen et ce, dès son apprentissage chez Coecke. Les compositions qu’ils ont imaginées pour tant de splendides tentures ont été transposées dans des cartons à échelle qui étaient préservés à Bruxelles et souvent réutilisés. Truffés de motifs et de procédés tirés des modèles italiens, ils ont nourri l’art de Bruegel. On sait que les modelli et les ricordi de plusieurs de ces tentures, telles Les Chasses de Charles Quint et La Bataille de Pavie󰀈󰀀 ainsi que de nombreuses composition de Coecke ont été jalousement collectés et ont circulé dans les Pays-Bas parfois jusqu’au XVIIe siècle. Bruegel pouvait facilement y avoir accès. Compte tenu du nombre et de la diversité des canaux de diffusion possibles, il semble hasardeux dans l’état actuel des connaissances de privilégier l’un au détriment de l’autre. Ce parcours dans les relations entre l’art de Bruegel et les modèles italiens de tapisseries présents à Bruxelles durant la première partie du XVIe siècle est loin d’être exhaustif. Il demanderait à être mené de manière plus systématique. Ce texte est issu d’une communication présentée dans le cadre d’un colloque qui explorait les relations entre Bruegel et l’Italie. Dès lors, seuls les modèles italiens de tapisseries et leurs liens avec Bruegel ont été envisagés. Il est clair cependant que les connexions entre Bruegel et la tapisserie ne se limitent pas aux modèles italiens. Il conviendrait d’interroger de la même manière ses rapports avec les modèles flamands et allemands, ceux de Dürer entre autres.

󰀈󰀀. Deux jeux de dessins ou « petits patrons » existaient en lien avec les tentures des Chasses de Charles Quint et de La Bataille de Pavie. On sait que ces dessins ont été conservés dans les Pays-Bas jusqu’au XVIIe siècle au moins car certains d’entre eux ont appartenu à Rubens qui les a retouchés. Voir Paredes dans Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀀 et 󰀂󰀁󰀂-󰀂󰀁󰀃. J’ai montré ailleurs que Bruegel avait dû avoir connaissance de ces « petits patrons ». BÜCKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀃󰀆.

Hieronymus Cock, Pieter Bruegel and the Printed Image in Art History* Edward WOUK In her 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁 study on the origins of illustrated art history books, Ingrid Vermeulen examines the importance of printed images to a revolution in arthistorical practice in the eighteenth century.󰀁 Vermeulen’s central argument is that the illustrated historical study of art arose from the combination of two separate but parallel traditions rooted in the sixteenth century. One tradition was the publication of printed images after other works of art and the attendant rise of print collections.󰀂 The other was the publication of texts on art, which predominantly focused on artists’ biographies, following a model closely associated with Giorgio Vasari’s foundational Lives of the Artists.󰀃 Vasari’s text first appeared in unillustrated form in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀. The second, expanded edition of the text, which was published in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, contained portraits of artists but still lacked reproductions of any of their works.󰀄 For Vermeulen, the convergence of printed images of artworks and art-historical writing in the eighteenth century produced a compelling alternative to Vasari. Illustrated histories of art not only provided new images of the artworks they discussed, but also mobilised those images in ways that envisaged the history of art as a history of artworks rather than a history of artists’ lives.󰀅 Yet, already in Vasari’s time, print publishers were producing graphic images—in particular etchings and engravings—as a means to visualise the history of art. In this essay, I will focus on Hieronymus Cock, the most important print publisher in the early modern Low Countries. His press contributed significantly to the proliferation of prints that made up the collections Vermeulen analyses. But Cock’s impact on the history of art cannot be reduced *  The author wishes to thank the editors of this special issue and Alexandra Onuf for feedback on earlier versions of this essay. 󰀁. VERMEULEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀. 󰀂. VERMEULEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀂–󰀅󰀈. See also PARSHALL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄; GRIFFITHS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀄󰀂󰀇–󰀄󰀄󰀅. 󰀃. On Vasari’s biographical model, see RUBIN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅; RUFFINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, with earlier references. 󰀄. PRINZ 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆; PON 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁; GREGORY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃; GREGORY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀇󰀅–󰀁󰀁󰀄; LOH 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, esp. 󰀂󰀀–󰀂󰀂; MORETTI, ROBERTS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. 󰀅. K AUFMANN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁.

22

EDWARD WOUK

to the history of collecting. Long before the advent of illustrated books about art history, this Antwerp painter-turned-publisher produced a stock of etchings and engravings through which he constructed the basis for a pictorial history of art around portable, handheld printed images. In contrast to Vasari, who drew upon a wide range of literary practices to bring images into the mind’s eye of his readers, Cock provided his public with printed artworks that they could examine and compare for themselves.󰀆 Cock’s goal of using printed images to envision new histories of art developed gradually, in dialogue with patrons, artists, and a circle of humanists based primarily in the Low Countries, and it took on different contours over the course of his publishing career. As scholars have noted, during the first years of its operation, Cock’s press, Aux Quatre Vents, offered its learned customers prints that represented antiquities, Italian Renaissance paintings, and the designs of contemporary Netherlandish artists who foregrounded knowledge of ancient and Italian art in their work. Around the mid-󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s, Cock’s press began to shift focus.󰀇 Along with publishing an increasing number of cartographic and chorographic images, including famous views of Antwerp, the press began to feature prints associated with local culture.󰀈 In particular, it brought the creative talents of Pieter Bruegel the Elder to the fore.󰀉 Cock thus augmented his earlier stock in ways that showcased a distinctly Netherlandish pictorial ingenium, or innate creativity, which centred on landscapes, densely populated allegories, and images that recalled and often paraphrased the art of Hieronymus Bosch.󰀁󰀀 A variety of factors may have motivated this shift, including new preoccupations with Netherlandish political identity and a competitive drive to secure international fame for Netherlandish artists, particularly in light of Vasari’s near-total exclusion of northern European artists from the first edition of his Lives. But the aims of Cock’s project extended beyond developing a classificatory scheme juxtaposing Italian and Netherlandish art, even if at times his publications played an important part in constructing Netherlandish artistic identities and promoting Netherlandish artists internationally. Cock did not stop at producing a roster of images by Netherlandish artists who could compete with Italians on their own terms (for instance in the depiction of the 󰀆. On Vasari’s literary strategies, see RUBIN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀁–󰀆󰀅, 󰀂󰀇󰀅–󰀇󰀉; RUFFINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀃󰀆. See also A LPERS 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀. 󰀇. R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀀. 󰀈. On Cock’s cartographic output, see DENUCÉ 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀃, vol. 󰀁 pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀄󰀁; R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀃󰀇󰀉–󰀃󰀈󰀃, no. 󰀂󰀇󰀀–󰀂󰀉󰀁; BRACKE, M ARTENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃; M ARTENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. 󰀉. TEN BRINK GOLDSMITH 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀅–󰀂󰀀󰀆. 󰀁󰀀. On the concept of a distinctly Netherlandish ingenium, see MOXEY 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄; BASS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

23

body), nor was he simply concerned with challenging Italian rules of art by embracing other subjects (for instance landscapes). Rather, over two decades of activity and experimentation, Cock’s press introduced a novel model for thinking beyond such dichotomies, using printed images to position both Netherlandish and Italian art within a broader and more inclusive field of artistic creativity. This model was at once cosmopolitan in its transnational outlook and grounded in local cultures. Starting with his earliest publications of images depicting Roman ruins from a Northern perspective, and continuing through his cycle of portraits of Netherlandish painters entitled the Effigies, published posthumously in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂, Cock invested in projects that went against the grain of prevailing historiographical constructions of Renaissance art centred on Italy or the classical past. As publisher of a substantial and diverse stock of printed images, Cock advanced a pluralistic vision of art’s histories that took shape collaboratively and celebrated technical innovation as well as pictorial invention. In so doing, Cock’s press gave printmaking and print publishing a new status as humanistic enterprises engaged in scholarly practices of rigorous historical study, translation, and the production of knowledge in visual and material form.󰀁󰀁 This essay examines Cock’s publishing activities and the roles that he and his team of professional printmakers, in dialogue with patrons, scholars, and purchasers, played in creating and disseminating a long-overlooked model of visualising the history of art through print. Since the 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀s, Aux Quatre Vents has been the subject of important studies focusing on the scope of its output, its commercial success, and its creative marketing strategies.󰀁󰀂 Without discounting Cock’s entrepreneurial acumen, I seek to shift attention away from his market strategies to his historical and cultural ambitions. I will consider the press’s approach to the representation, interpretation, and diffusion of images associated with specific artists together with the press’s promotion of graphic works that offered new ways of thinking about regional and chronological distinctions.󰀁󰀃 My analysis will concentrate on Cock’s three key interventions in the historiography and theory of art: the conception of printmaking as artistic practice, the elevation of the printed image to the status of work of art, and finally the critical model of art history which Aux Quatre Vents at one and the same time produced and broadcast in print. 󰀁󰀁. My argument resonates with printmaking’s humanist associations in a slightly earlier context examined in H AYUM 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅. See also the relevant discussion in GÖTTLER, MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. 󰀁󰀂. Bruxelles 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀; R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇; BURGERS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈; VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀; Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃; WYCKOFF 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. 󰀁󰀃. For a recent study of the historiography of art-historical writing in this period, see WOOD 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀀󰀅, with further references.

24

EDWARD WOUK

A NTWERP

AS THE

NEW ROME

I begin my investigation at the outset of Cock’s publishing career, with a series of etchings entitled Praecipua Aliquot Romanae Antiquitatis Ruinarum Monimenta (Views of the Ruins of Some Roman Monuments), completed in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁, which dramatically transformed the image of Rome in print at the time. The etching entitled Ruinarum templum pacis prospectus 󰀁 (Fig. 󰀁), showing a view of the remains of the Basilica of Constantine, exemplifies Cock’s approach to representing the current conditions of Rome’s built environment in expansive vistas filled with ruins. Overrun with vegetation and caught in an ongoing process of decay, the monuments of the classical past are portrayed not as representatives of a universal ideal, but rather as the remnants of a lost civilisation. The tentative lines of the etcher’s needle lend the print a sketch-like quality, emphasising transience in this fleeting glimpse of a landscape littered with decomposing architecture. The etching Ruinarum templum pacis prospectus 󰀁 provides an example of how the Praecipua cycle of etchings diverged remarkably from earlier prints of ancient Roman architecture produced in Italy. Starting in the 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀s, the Roman publishing house of Antonio Salamanca, often cited as an important precedent for Aux Quatre Vents in terms of scale and professionalisation, had been catering to audiences eager for images of Roman monuments.󰀁󰀄 Salamanca’s press, later expanded through collaboration with Antonio Lafréry, produced images primarily of Roman architecture complete with intricate detail and precise measurements, which would permit educated viewers to mentally reconstruct the ruined edifices depicted in the engravings.󰀁󰀅 While these Italian publications purported to offer precision and suggest the possibility of envisioning wholeness out of loss, the images in Cock’s print cycle, such as Ruinarum templum pacis prospectus 󰀁, treated ruins as ruins, placing them in the context of a cultural history transformed by human agency as well as natural forces. To be sure, Cock later published impressively precise prints of Roman architecture along the lines of his Italian predecessors.󰀁󰀆 But in his earliest images 󰀁󰀄. On Salamanca as precedent for Cock’s press, see R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀅–󰀁󰀇, 󰀃󰀀; LUIJTEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀀–󰀃󰀁. 󰀁󰀅. By the 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀s, Lafréry, who inherited Salamanca’s business and issued its first catalogue, began to sell these large engravings to customers who could choose from the range of images in his stock to form distinctive portfolios to which he affixed a title page proclaiming the prints to be a Mirror of Roman Magnificence (Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae) and, in some cases, explicitly advertising the images as ‘accurately drawn’. See PARSHALL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆; ZORACH, DUBIN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. 󰀁󰀆. Cock later produced a precise archaeological study of the Baths of Diocletian after designs by Sebastian van Noyen, completed in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀈 with the support of his patron Granvelle, introduced below. See most recently WATERS 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

25

Fig. 󰀁. Hieronymus Cock, The Basilica of Constantine on the Roman Forum, inscribed Ruinarum templum pacis prospectus 󰀁 from Praecipua Aliquot Romanae Antiquitatis Ruinarum Monimenta (Views of the Ruins of Some Roman Monuments), 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁, etching Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

of Rome he deliberately turned aside from archaeological impulses, fusing dramatic ruin motifs with panoramic landscape views typical of the Netherlandish tradition in which he trained and in which his brother Mathys excelled.󰀁󰀇 These hybrid landscapes with ruins have an atmosphere that scholars have described both in terms of a ‘menacing’ image of loss and a fertile ground for poetic imagination.󰀁󰀈 Some prints in the Praecipua include figures of pilgrims passing through the landscape oblivious to its classical past yet intent on reaching its enduring Christian monuments. Others show scenes of armed robbery or assault, warning against the unsafe conditions of the decaying city and the dangers that 󰀁󰀇. On Cock’s affiliation with landscape imagery, see SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃a. Cock celebrated the landscapes of his brother when including him in the Effigies cycle as portrait number 󰀁󰀃. 󰀁󰀈. Bruxelles 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀, p. 󰀆󰀉; HEUER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀; Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀉󰀀–󰀉󰀅, no. 󰀉 (entry P. Fuhring).

26

EDWARD WOUK

await unsuspecting visitors. But most of the etchings, such as Ruinarum templum pacis prospectus 󰀁, show well-to-do travellers preoccupied with the study of ruins. Clusters of men in the foreground point at, discuss, and sketch the ruinous vaults, while at the far left, a figure crouches near a stone, possibly to decipher an inscription. Far from mere staffage, these figures in contemporary dress situate the ruins as artefacts of the past in the present, establishing a temporal distance between the decaying ancient world and the present one. As Susan Stewart has recently argued, the human inhabitants of these prints also parallel and model the position of the beholder, who is invited to engage in similar processes of observation, contemplation, and discussion.󰀁󰀉 The Praecipua cycle represents one of the first steps Cock took towards using the medium of printed images to construct a self-consciously different tradition of art history and criticism in visual form. In this early publication, Cock deliberately shifted focus away from the contemporary Italian production of archaeological prints, with their fixation on individual monuments, measurements, and the quest to restore Rome, toward a poetic ideal focused on ruins as subjects. The cycle’s copious display of deterioration and loss reveals a distinctly Northern approach to the subject of the ruin with deep resonances in poetic, political, and religious texts. The successive images of crumbling monuments conjure up well-established tropes on the loss of Rome appearing in the writings of Jean du Bellay (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀), among others, as well as spiritually motivated polemics against the degeneracy of Rome and its modern institution, the Roman Catholic Church.󰀂󰀀 A dedicatory verse, composed by the Antwerp secretary Cornelis Grapheus and printed in letterpress, makes the cycle’s cultural critique explicit:󰀂󰀁 Thus Barbarian rage and the terrible gulf of passing years Laid waste, with the indisputable urgency of fate, to Rome, That queen of the world. How mournful! Are there any, Anywhere, who have faith that her remains will be protected?22

Grapheus, a friend of Erasmus, faced public censure earlier in life for embracing the Lutheran Reform.󰀂󰀃 By asking what civilisation could avoid such a fate of destruction and decay, Grapheus gave new currency to a familiar topos on 󰀁󰀉. STEWART 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀂. 󰀂󰀀. STEWART 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀁–󰀁󰀄󰀃. See also CHASTEL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, esp. pp. 󰀂󰀁–󰀄󰀈 and, more generally, ZUCKER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈. 󰀂󰀁. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅a, pp. 󰀄󰀇–󰀄󰀉. The dedications appearing on Cock’s print cycles are studied in BAKKER, HOYLE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. 󰀂󰀂. Translation from STEWART 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀁. 󰀂󰀃. BUSSELS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀁–󰀁󰀄󰀂.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

27

the loss of Rome and nostalgia for its bygone greatness.󰀂󰀄 His verses invite an allegorical and moralising reading of the cycle they introduce. They interpret the desuetude of Rome’s built environment as a warning against hubris and an emblem of the downfall that awaits the mighty in any age. Grapheus’s lament appears on the same page as Cock’s dedication of the cycle to his important early patron, the powerful statesman and cleric Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle. Juxtaposed with Grapheus’s plea for the preservation of Rome’s remains, this dedication celebrates Granvelle as ‘guardian of all virtue and erudition and admirer of the venerable antiquity’.󰀂󰀅 It further establishes Granvelle’s interest in preserving the ancient heritage of Rome, including through the publication of printed images.󰀂󰀆 Granvelle, one of the most important collectors of the arts in the Low Countries, nurtured Cock’s press in its formative years, specifically by supporting projects associated with antique culture, Italian Renaissance art, and the work of Netherlandish artists responsive to ancient and more recent Italian models. In turn, Cock helped to shape Granvelle’s public image through prominent dedications on prints associated with antiquity and erudition.󰀂󰀇 Later, when resistance to the imposition of Catholic, Habsburg authority grew, Granvelle would be expelled from the region in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄, leaving behind large parts of his art collection, which at the time included works by Bruegel and tapestries after Bosch.󰀂󰀈 It is highly significant that this cycle of prints depicting Roman ruins sponsored by Granvelle appeared not in Rome, but rather in Antwerp, a city that occasionally and contentiously presented itself as a new Rome. Just two years before the Praecipua cycle appeared in print, Antwerp had staged a monumental triumphal entry for the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and his son Philip II that explicitly advertised the city’s self-image as a new Rome.󰀂󰀉 Granvelle played an outsize role in orchestrating this entry and presented himself as mediator between this new Rome and its Holy Roman Emperor.󰀃󰀀 Cock was involved in the designs for these festivities. He was familiar with the entry’s iconography as well as its overarching argument that Antwerp was becoming 󰀂󰀄. DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. 󰀂󰀅. MAGNO HEROI, D. ANTONIO / Peronoto, Episcopo Atrebatn. Caroli. V. Caes. ab intimis consiliis primario, ut omnis virtutis eruditionisq[ae]; cultori eximio, ita & venerandae antiquitatis admiratori, atque ad huius designationis aeditionem impulsori praecipuo, / HIERONYMUS COCK, PICTOR, TYPOGRAPH. OPTIMO SUO MECOENATI DICAVIT. 󰀂󰀆. On the role of engravings in preserving antiquities, see VILJOEN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁. 󰀂󰀇. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅a, pp. 󰀄󰀄–󰀄󰀆. 󰀂󰀈. RODRIGUEZ-SALGADO 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. On Granvelle’s collection, see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀈, with further references. 󰀂󰀉. HEUER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, pp. 󰀅󰀇–󰀅󰀉. 󰀃󰀀. WOODALL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀁–󰀁󰀇󰀃.

EDWARD WOUK

28

a modern caput mundi. Situated on the banks of the river Scheldt, this new Rome was the hub of a vast empire constituted through its commerce and technical innovations such as print.󰀃󰀁 In close parallel to the themes of the Praecipua cycle, the iconography of Charles’s and Philip’s entry of 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉 did not herald an Italian vision of Rome reborn from still-crumbling ruins, but rather a Netherlandish assertion of cosmopolitanism and cultural autonomy.󰀃󰀂 In this context, Cock’s decision to launch his press with images of Rome, one year after the imperial triumphal entry, emerges as a significant act of cultural appropriation with powerful implications for how Roman art and culture would be understood. Cock’s Praecipua cycle reframed Rome’s ruins as picturesque landscapes of decay. They treated Rome’s heritage not as fixed and eternal, but rather as mutable and translatable into print, drawing on classical antiquity to launch a publishing venture dedicated to the creation of new artistic monuments in printed images. Along with publishing the Praecipua cycle, and likewise supported by Granvelle, Cock was able to bring the Mantuan engraver Giorgio Ghisi to Antwerp.󰀃󰀃 There, Ghisi produced some of the most sophisticated and detailed engravings after Italian Renaissance paintings available at the time. These included prints of two of Raphael’s frescoes painted some forty years earlier in the Vatican Stanze—The School of Athens, published in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 (Fig. 󰀂) and The Dispute on the Holy Sacrament, of 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂.󰀃󰀄 Prior to these publications, Raphael’s frescoes would only have been seen by an elevated circle of clerics and a few artists who had access to the pope’s apartments, but now, through Ghisi’s highly tonal engravings, these images would reach a new audience of collectors who could possess outstanding representations of two key examples of Raphael’s Roman work.󰀃󰀅 Raphael’s original commissions were embedded in the ideology of papal power and the restoration of Rome, but Cock’s project dislodged these paintings from their institutional roots and gave them new currency in print. Cock’s bringing Ghisi to Antwerp constituted a performance of technical as well as cultural translation. The Italian engraver’s skills became an asset to Cock’s press—one which he used to reconfigure Italian Renaissance art into a publishable commodity. Ghisi’s tenure in Antwerp provides another example of the ways in which Cock transformed Italian art into an international, 󰀃󰀁. 󰀃󰀂. 󰀃󰀃. 󰀃󰀄. 󰀃󰀅.

MEADOW 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀄󰀀; more generally, see BUSSELS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. VANDOMMELE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅a, pp. 󰀄󰀃–󰀄󰀄. See BOORSCH, LEWIS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, pp. 󰀆󰀁–󰀆󰀅, no. 󰀁󰀁; pp. 󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀀, no. 󰀁󰀃. WOOD 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, p. 󰀂󰀁󰀁.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

29

Fig. 󰀂. Giorgio Ghisi after Raphael, The School of Athens, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, engraving printed from two plates. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

circulating commodity that he could claim originated from a new source, namely Antwerp. Vasari would note in the second edition of his Lives that Cock’s publications raised the status and understanding of major works of Italian art in the Low Countries. According to Vasari, Cock brought images to those unable to travel, particularly northern Europeans, who could now gain ‘knowledge of many things they did not know’.󰀃󰀆 But the portability and significance of Cock’s images was not limited to Netherlandish audiences. Instead, these engravings assured a new canonical status for such major Italian frescos. They provided a visual experience of artworks that had been described in printed texts but had not yet been seen in graphic prints. They also opened those artworks to new interpretations provided directly on the engravings themselves. Most notably, the inscription on the print of Raphael’s School of Athens, as the fresco is now known, identifies the subject not as the gathering of ancient philosophers that Raphael envisioned, but rather as Saint Paul preaching. This biblical subject would have been more familiar to Netherlandish audiences, some of whom may have known Raphael’s treatment of the theme in his tapestry cartoon sent to Brussels for weaving decades earlier and 󰀃󰀆.

VASARI 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀈–󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀅, vol. 󰀅, p. 󰀄󰀃󰀀; trans. VASARI 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀅, vol. 󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀂.

30

EDWARD WOUK

widely copied.󰀃󰀇 The significant revision of the engraving’s ostensible subject evinces the power of print to remake art for new audiences. It also reveals the roles that inscriptions on prints were playing in enhancing or subverting earlier meanings. Put another way, the inscribed print carries the image and its own textual interpretation, addressing its beholder as both viewer and reader. For print collectors, these meticulous engravings produced a new image of Raphael mediated through the press. These engravings elevated the reputation of Cock’s publishing house as a venue for the production, publication, and interpretation of sophisticated images of Italian art, contributing to Antwerp’s status as an international centre of humanist artistic creativity, print publishing, and cultural critique.

SIMILITUDES

IN

P RINT

Between the completion of The School of Athens and The Dispute on the Holy Sacrament prints, Ghisi also engraved a now-lost wall painting by the Liège artist Lambert Lombard in the church of Saint-Paul, Liège, depicting The Last Supper (Fig. 󰀃). Like The Dispute on the Holy Sacrament and the Praecipua cycle, this engraving bears a prominent dedication to Granvelle. Seen side by side, the intense tonality and sculptural treatment of form in The Last Supper and The Dispute on the Holy Sacrament establish a visual correspondence between the art of Raphael—an artist already ensconced in Italian art literature as a luminary of the modern era—and Lombard, who was little known beyond a small circle of humanist patrons in the North.󰀃󰀈 Lombard became familiar with Raphael’s art during his travels and from the circulation of earlier prints and tapestry cartoons. He sought to emulate aspects of Raphael’s decorous approach to composition and design.󰀃󰀉 In The Last Supper, Lombard constructed a sacred history reflecting his close study of Raphael’s figural language. Adhering to the conventions of the isocephalic composition, he arranged figures in antique dress with their heads at approximately the same height. Their legible rhetorical gestures conjure a scene of animated dialogue. Yet, Lombard staged this sacred history in an indoor setting that coincided with 󰀃󰀇. BOORSCH, LEWIS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, p. 󰀆󰀃; Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀆, no. 󰀂󰀀 (entry G. Luijten). On the diffusion of Raphael’s tapestry cartoon designs in the Low Countries, see DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇. 󰀃󰀈. The fundamental studies of Lombard remain DENHAENE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀 and DENHAENE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. 󰀃󰀉. On Lombard’s interest in the art of Raphael, see M ARLIER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈; DENHAENE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, p. 󰀈󰀅; DENHAENE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀃󰀆󰀄–󰀃󰀆󰀅, no. 󰀂󰀃 (entry G. Denhaene); A LLART, GEREMICCA 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, especially pp. 󰀉󰀄–󰀉󰀅.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

31

Fig. 󰀃. Giorgio Ghisi after Lambert Lombard, The Last Supper, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁, engraving. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

the actual surface of his lost wall painting in Liège, personalising his translation of Raphael’s art and situating it within the local context in which he worked. Ghisi’s engravings detached both Lombard’s and Raphael’s paintings from their original contexts and made it possible to assess the work of these two artists side by side in the graphic language of print. Equally monumental in scale and treatment of form, the prints imply an equivalence between Raphael’s Dispute on the Holy Sacrament, painted for the Vatican, and Lombard’s Last Supper, conceived for a church in Liège. They invite a comparison between Raphael’s graceful, orderly compositions and Lombard’s commitment to translating that approach into his own art for picturing decorous sacred histories locally. The indoor setting and the antique-style vases set Lombard’s design apart from Raphael’s earlier work. These motifs emphasise Lombard’s distinct approach to picturing sacred histories in a manner that appealed to audiences well versed in prints, who were prepared to appreciate the similarities as well as the differences between his art and that of his models. After an early printing, the plate of Lombard’s Last Supper was ‘corrected’, altering Christ’s gesture from one of benediction to one of consecration over the bread. This physically and visually disruptive intervention had profound implications for the meaning of the image. It imposed new theological accuracy

32

EDWARD WOUK

on the composition and made its iconography consistent with the Council of Trent’s recently published decree on the nature of the Eucharist.󰀄󰀀 Like the inscription added to The School of Athens, this modification to The Last Supper plate evinced the power of the press to adjust or impose meanings for new contexts of viewing. Cock’s interventions not only assured the doctrinal accuracy of Lombard’s image. They also gave it international currency and created a new visibility for Netherlandish art by positioning it on a level equal to the most theologically complex images designed for the papacy. The characterisation of Ghisi’s engravings by print scholars as ‘reproductive’ has detracted from the significance of such graphic works while elevating images in other media, such as painting, sculpture, and architecture, as well as ‘original’ prints designed expressly for the medium.󰀄󰀁 Cock and his buying public, however, did not share these anachronistic value judgements. The Italian engraver Ghisi made major contributions to launching Cock’s project. Soon a homegrown group of engravers who studied Ghisi’s methods intensely, if not from the engraver himself, rapidly assimilated his technical innovations and produced prints after images by leading Italian as well as Netherlandish artists.󰀄󰀂 These engravers, including Cornelis Cort and Philips Galle, both from the Northern Netherlands, made engravings after works by artists including Bronzino, Primaticcio, Giulio Romano, and even Giorgio Vasari, as well as Maarten van Heemskerck, Frans Floris and, we shall see, Pieter Bruegel the Elder.󰀄󰀃 Ghisi provided these engravers with a new tonal system for rendering solid, sculptural human bodies with fine hatchings and minute flicks of the burin. He may also have served as a conduit for some of the Italian designs these Netherlandish printmakers engraved.󰀄󰀄 Beyond the commercial success of Cock’s early impressions, these prints asserted Netherlandish excellence in printmaking.󰀄󰀅 They also demonstrated that Cock’s press, despite its ongoing interest in translating Italian art into print, was not defined by its response to Italy or by a constant aim to centre Italian and classical art within its stock. Instead, the fact that by the mid-󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s these engravers were comfortably deploying the same graphic idiom in prints after Italian as well as Northern artists demonstrates Cock’s evolving aim to use his press to envision a broader and more cosmopolitan horizon of artistic achievement. 󰀄󰀀. BOORSCH, LEWIS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, pp. 󰀆󰀄–󰀆󰀇, no. 󰀁󰀁 (entry S. Boorsch and R.-H. Breinen). 󰀄󰀁. BURY 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃; see also RODINI, ZORACH, RODINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, pp. 󰀁–󰀅󰀀. 󰀄󰀂. This interpretation parts ways from K ARPINSKI 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀉, pp. 󰀉–󰀁󰀁. See also WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. xxxvi–xxxviii. 󰀄󰀃. See overview of these in Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀁󰀄󰀈. 󰀄󰀄. R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀈. 󰀄󰀅. This argument is developed in MELION 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀁󰀅󰀉.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

THE M AKING

OF

BRUEGEL

IN

33

P RINT

Beginning in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, Cock started to issue prints after the designs of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and he would eventually publish sixty-four Bruegel images in total.󰀄󰀆 Bruegel’s prints have been examined from numerous angles, including recent studies focused on how the artist’s collaboration with Cock helped expand the press’s stock with new subjects and fed a growing circle of collectors.󰀄󰀇 While Vasari contributed to the celebrity of Italian artists by publishing their biographies in his Lives, Bruegel and Cock developed a model of artistic selfhood defined by its printed images that had limited precedent in the Low Countries at the time. Whether or not Cock and Bruegel self-consciously sought to emulate a precedent established by Marcantonio Raimondi’s relationship with Raphael decades earlier, they entered into a productive partnership in which the artist achieved a new and distinct celebrity through the mediation of his art and style in printed images as the publisher’s stock expanded in new directions.󰀄󰀈 In what follows I will focus on how the symbiotic relationship between Cock and Bruegel produced a remarkable new phenomenon in the Netherlands, a region long associated with oil painting: an artist made out of print. Bruegel’s career appears to have begun with printmaking, and the medium remained his primary avenue to international artistic fame during his lifetime.󰀄󰀉 Bruegel maintained painting and printmaking as distinct fields of artistic exploration and invented images expressly for prints. This resulted in a significant departure from the majority of the engravings Cock had published at the time, which translated images developed for other media such as painting into print.󰀅󰀀 By producing designs specifically for engravings, Bruegel, working with Cock, accelerated the circulation of his compositions in print. At the same time, by producing highly detailed and linear studies for the engraver to follow closely with the burin, he was able to exert a new degree of control over the transformation of his designs into prints.󰀅󰀁 Scholars have recognised that Cock’s attention to Bruegel and promotion of his work was related to a growing interest in local history and in Netherlandish political and cultural identity on the eve of the Dutch Revolt.󰀅󰀂 The

󰀄󰀆. 󰀄󰀇. 󰀄󰀈. 󰀄󰀉. 󰀅󰀀. 󰀅󰀁. 󰀅󰀂.

The literature is vast; see especially New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁; BASSENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, with earlier references. R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉; BASSENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. For Marcantonio Raimondi’s promotion of Raphael’s designs in print, see EMISON 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. ORENSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀅󰀅. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. xxxiv–lix. ORENSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀄󰀈. TEN BRINK GOLDSMITH 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂; PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆b, with earlier references.

34

EDWARD WOUK

Fig. 󰀄. Joannes and Lucas van Doetecum after Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Prospectus Tyburtinus (View of the Tiber at Tivoli), c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆, etching from The Large Landscapes. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

question remains whether Bruegel drove a shift in Cock’s orientation toward more localised subjects, or if Cock and Bruegel together, possibly in dialogue with leading humanists, developed the artist’s creative outlets in motifs that had not hitherto featured prominently in the stock of Aux Quatre Vents. It is worth stressing in this respect that Cock and Bruegel’s relationship began with the publication of landscape imagery, including The Temptation of Christ (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅) and shortly thereafter, The Large Landscapes (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆), a cycle of twelve prints produced in a unique combination of etching and engraving by the Van Doetecum brothers.󰀅󰀃 One of the best-known prints in this cycle, Prospectus Tyburtinus (Fig. 󰀄), depicts the waterfall at Tivoli outside of Rome. Seen from the perspective of a lone traveller sketching the churning water, this is the only Bruegel print depicting a Roman site. It remained one of Bruegel’s most 󰀅󰀃. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀁󰀁, no. 󰀁󰀆 (entry M. Sellink), and pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀂󰀁, no. 󰀂󰀂–󰀃󰀄 (entry N. Orenstein).

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

35

influential images for future generations of artists and is essential to any discussion of the artist’s experience in Italy.󰀅󰀄 There is no doubt that Bruegel’s sweeping landscape prints introduced a novelty in the stock of Aux Quatre Vents. Yet, Bruegel’s earliest designs for Cock, like Prospectus Tyburtinus, also contributed to advancing the press’s reputation for publishing images of distant sites. His prints fed a growing popularity for travel as a motif of visual enjoyment and contemplation, and they tapped longstanding associations between Northern art and landscape views.󰀅󰀅 The commonalities between Bruegel’s first print for Cock and the press’s earliest stock are underscored by the term ‘prospectus’, or view, appearing on Bruegel’s Prospectus Tyburtinus print and on many of the ruin scenes in the Praecipua cycle. One cycle focuses on architecture and the other on landscape, but they share an interest in the interactions between the human subject and an environment overpowered by nature’s forces. While figures in the Praecipua cycle appear diminutive before Rome’s crumbling and overgrown ruins, the man Bruegel placed at the centre of Prospectus Tyburtinus is dwarfed by the massive rock formations and waters crashing beneath. Netherlandish travellers such as Bruegel and his likely travel companion, the cartographer Abraham Ortelius, may have ventured to Tivoli, mythic birthplace of the Tiburtine Sibyl, to behold its natural features, including a miraculous pool beneath the falls described in ancient sources.󰀅󰀆 But just as Cock introduced figures in the Praecipua cycle who do not concentrate on the study of the ancient Roman remains surrounding them, Bruegel included figures in his views who pursue different paths through the landscape for different purposes. At the right, farmers cross a small outcrop, and a donkey eats grass, apparently inured to the sound of the falls beneath them. The shared strategies between these print cycles suggest an audience eager for new images to satisfy their desire for armchair travel and underscore Cock’s savvy at coordinating a stock of prints that balanced familiar themes and modes with novel subjects. The prominence of transalpine travel in Bruegel’s early print designs supports Karel van Mander’s assertion, recorded in his 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄 biography of the artist, that Bruegel visited Italy after entering the service of Cock, who charged him with gathering new visual material for the press.󰀅󰀇 This claim remains unsubstantiated. Van Mander may have been looking at Bruegel’s graphic 󰀅󰀄. LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, with earlier literature. 󰀅󰀅. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀉󰀉–󰀁󰀀󰀅 (entry D. Hammer-Tugendhat). 󰀅󰀆. BASS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀀. See also BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b. 󰀅󰀇. VAN M ANDER, MIEDEMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, vol. 󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀀 (fol. 󰀂󰀃󰀅r), vol. 󰀃, p. 󰀂󰀅󰀇. See also TEN BRINK GOLDSMITH 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀅–󰀂󰀀󰀆.

36

EDWARD WOUK

Fig. 󰀅. Joannes and Lucas van Doetecum after Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Pagus Nemorosus (Wooded Region), c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆, etching with engraving from The Large Landscapes. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

work when he constructed his account of the contrast between the extent to which Bruegel’s early designs for Cock stressed Italian experiences while the prints that were published just a few years later show comparatively little interest demonstrating knowledge of Italy. Already within The Large Landscapes, this important shift is in evidence. Rather than position Rome as the total focus of attention, this print cycle presents Italy as but one destination among many. Some prints depict dramatic Alpine landscapes, while others focus on the local terrain, or combine the two to dramatic effect. A print given the title Plaustrum Belgicum, or The Belgian Wagon, for example, sets a view of a typically Netherlandish village in the foreground of a dramatic vista of a mountainous valley recalling the views Bruegel saw and drew in Italy.󰀅󰀈 The print entitled Wooded Region (Fig. 󰀅), or Pagus Nemorosus, by contrast, offers a startlingly intimate view of the Netherlandish countryside populated by a church, houses, 󰀅󰀈. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀀, no. 󰀃󰀀 (entry N. Orenstein).

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

37

and a wagon caravan followed by a soldier on foot. With a radically low viewpoint and topographical simplicity, this sylvan image celebrates the local countryside as a lush, verdant locale of equal visual appeal to the distant terrains.󰀅󰀉 Its success is confirmed by Cock’s publication in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀉, and again in expanded form in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁, of a series of Small Landscapes, which depict villages around Antwerp. While the designs for these etchings are no longer attributed to Bruegel and their origins have been located in both Italian and earlier Netherlandish pastoral precedents, this cycle secured the status of local landscape imagery in Cock’s stock in ways that had lasting significance for Netherlandish art across different media.󰀆󰀀 Despite the importance of Bruegel’s Large Landscapes and the artist’s apparent self-identification with landscape imagery it publicised, his reputation in print rapidly took shape around a very different type of image.󰀆󰀁 Already in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆, Cock commissioned new print production after Bruegel’s designs depicting densely packed allegories.󰀆󰀂 These include Avarice (Fig. 󰀆), one of the Seven Deadly Sins, published in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀈, followed some three years later by the Seven Virtues.󰀆󰀃 For buyers familiar with Bruegel’s earliest graphic work which focused on landscapes, these intricate images must have come as a surprise. Filled with detail, they elicit a different mode of viewing. For instance, in Avarice, the eye moves around the fulcrum of the impassive female personification, taking in related allegorical vignettes in which small clusters of figures, many appearing monstrous with animal heads on human bodies, engage in activities associated with greed. As innovative as these prints might seem within Cock’s stock, their early popularity rested in part on the enduring fame of Hieronymus Bosch. In fact, one of the first engravings of the Bruegel-Cock partnership—Big Fish Eat the Little Fish of 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇—even bears Bosch’s name as ‘inventor’ with no mention of Bruegel, the artist responsible for the design.󰀆󰀄 During Bosch’s lifetime only a 󰀅󰀉. GIBSON 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀅–󰀁󰀈. 󰀆󰀀. ONUF 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. 󰀆󰀁. On the ubiquity of associations between Bruegel and landscape in art literature, see especially GIBSON 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉; KOERNER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. Bruegel himself advanced this association with his single autograph etching, The Rabbit Hunt of 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀, published by Cock and possibly etched with the publisher’s assistance. See New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀄󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀀–󰀂󰀀󰀂, no. 󰀈󰀂 (entry N. Orenstein); Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀃󰀉󰀂, no. 󰀁󰀀󰀉b (C. Tainturier), with earlier references, and SULLIVAN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃 for a moralising interpretation of the subject. 󰀆󰀂. ORENSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀅–󰀄󰀉. 󰀆󰀃. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀁󰀆󰀀, nos. 󰀄󰀂–󰀅󰀄 (entry M. Sellink), and pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀁󰀉󰀃, nos. 󰀆󰀄–󰀇󰀇 (entry M. Sellink). 󰀆󰀄. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀀–󰀁󰀄󰀂, no. 󰀃󰀉 (entry N. Orenstein); St Louis-Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀇– 󰀁󰀂󰀉, no. 󰀁󰀁 (entry M. Bass). Bruegel’s drawing, signed and dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆, is in Vienna, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, inv. 󰀇󰀈󰀇󰀅.

38

EDWARD WOUK

Fig. 󰀆. Pieter van der Heyden after Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Avaritia (Avarice), 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀈, engraving from The Seven Deadly Sins. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

dozen of his inventions had been translated into print.󰀆󰀅 His reputation was significant, but few were familiar with his actual art. Many of his celebrated paintings had been exported from the Habsburg-controlled Netherlands. In Bruegel’s times, knowledge of Bosch’s work remained largely based on derivative painted copies.󰀆󰀆 In light of these facts, Matthijs Ilsink has argued that the apparent deception of the Bosch signature appearing on Cock’s publication of Big Fish Eat the Little Fish reflects a new level of self-consciousness among Netherlandish artists, with Bruegel participating in a contemporary discourse on imitation by emulating an esteemed Netherlandish forebear and enlarging his graphic legacy.󰀆󰀇 Other scholars have focused on Big Fish Eat the Little Fish as evidence of the ways in which Cock and Bruegel reshaped the image of ‘Bosch’ to create a class of appealing prints at a critical juncture in Aux Quatre Vents’ growing 󰀆󰀅. BASS, WYCKOFF 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. 󰀆󰀆. UNVERFEHRT 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀; SILVER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉; see also VAN HEESCH 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. 󰀆󰀇. ILSINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀅󰀉–󰀇󰀇; see also ILSINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

39

stock of distinctly ‘Netherlandish’ images.󰀆󰀈 In this view, Bruegel, together with Cock, invented an image of Bosch to fit into the very historiography of the Netherlandish artistic tradition that they were themselves generating.󰀆󰀉 Long before Cock would immortalise Bruegel as a second Bosch in his Effigies cycle, discussed below, this Bruegel-Bosch association benefitted both artist and publisher. It created a novel collection of images for Cock to market and opened a space for Bruegel to develop another facet of his identity in print. From a cultural perspective, this transformation of Bruegel’s identity in print did not narrow the scope of Cock’s art-historical vision around what were already becoming typically Northern pictorial traditions, but rather expanded its reach. The emulation of ‘Bosch’ in print provided a means to assure new currency and recognition for earlier Netherlandish pictorial modes and motifs in conjunction with the work of contemporary artists, from the Netherlands and elsewhere, whose international celebrity hinged increasingly on the availability of their art in print.

M APPING

THE

DIVERSITY

OF

NETHERLANDISH A RT

By the mid-󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, Cock was expanding his stock in ways that showcased the diversity of Netherlandish art along with other visual traditions. In 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, his press took an important step in the historiography of Netherlandish art by undertaking the systematic translation of a series of paintings by Frans Floris depicting The Labours of Hercules into engravings.󰀇󰀀 The original paintings were ten years old and hung in the suburban home of the wealthy merchant Nicolaes Jonghelinck, who is now best known as an important patron and collector of Bruegel’s art.󰀇󰀁 Working from a set of drawings made after the paintings, Cock’s lead engraver at the time, Cornelis Cort, produced a series of prints that emphasise the distinctive features of Floris’s work for Jonghelinck. His Hercules Struggling with Achelous in the Form of a Bull (Fig. 󰀇), for example, shows the male nude on full display. It exhibits muscular strength and virility as heroic virtues, which are ably envisioned by an artist conversant with idealised depictions of the human body. Some might describe these images as excessive in their muscularity or dismiss them as derivative of the Italian models that provided the sources for some 󰀆󰀈. 󰀆󰀉. 󰀇󰀀. 󰀇󰀁.

ILSINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, p. 󰀂󰀁󰀆; BARRETT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, with earlier literature. See also SILVER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉. WYCKOFF 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀁. VAN DE VELDE 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅. BUCHANAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀.

40

EDWARD WOUK

Fig. 󰀇. Cornelis Cort after Frans Floris, Hercules Struggling with Achelous in the Form of a Bull, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, engraving from The Labors of Hercules. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

of the figures’ poses.󰀇󰀂 But that was not the case for the Netherlandish humanist Dominicus Lampsonius, who had become an important intellectual in Cock’s circle and eloquent promoter of the art of engraving.󰀇󰀃 For Lampsonius, Cort’s prints after Floris represented a paradigm of Netherlandish art history. Lampsonius’s verse dedication to the Hercules series stressed the cycle’s rootedness in Netherlandish culture. Lampsonius underscored that the original paintings had been commissioned by a Netherlandish patron for his home near Antwerp and were now being publicised by a Netherlandish publisher.󰀇󰀄 Lampsonius, who was writing in Latin for an international community of learned print collectors, explicitly set these prints into a longstanding competitive dialogue with Italy. Lampsonius had never travelled south of the Alps.󰀇󰀅 But 󰀇󰀂. See the discussion in WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀃󰀅–󰀃󰀃󰀇. 󰀇󰀃. See MELION 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, pp. 󰀄󰀉–󰀆󰀂. 󰀇󰀄. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀅󰀃–󰀃󰀅󰀄, with translation on pp. 󰀅󰀄󰀁–󰀅󰀄󰀂. The letterpress text is illustrated in Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀆, no. 󰀃󰀈 (entry E. Wouk). 󰀇󰀅. SULZBERGER 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀈.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

41

he was convinced that ‘learned Italy’ (docta Italia) would now envy the Netherlands upon seeing these prints. In Lampsonius’s verse, Italy might even send ‘her sons’ to the North to study Floris’s originals, which at the time were still in Jonghelinck’s home. For generations, Northern painters such as Floris had travelled to Italy to study in Rome, but Lampsonius envisaged a reversal of this trend initiated by the movement of printed images, not artists. Regardless of Lampsonius’s boastful tone, there is validity to his claim: as he was aware, Cock’s press was indeed expanding the flow of artistic knowledge, sending vast quantities of prints to Italy and elsewhere and fostering what was rapidly becoming a global flow of printed images from its base in Antwerp.󰀇󰀆 The publication of Floris’s Labours of Hercules evinces Cock’s preoccupation with visualising the diversity of Netherlandish artistic practice. It also demonstrates an acute awareness of the decentring properties of print, in which artistic creation is unmoored from the geographical fixity of its initial creation. The printed images of The Labours of Hercules popularised Floris’s earlier paintings in Jonghelinck’s private collection at the very time when that collection was becoming more diverse through Jonghelinck’s acquisition of paintings by Bruegel. These included Bruegel’s famous cycle of six exquisite landscapes, five of which survive, representing the months or seasons of the year, finished in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆.󰀇󰀇 As we have seen, Cock’s press had played a decisive role in popularising the association between Bruegel and landscape imagery. Now, his press circulated works that standardised a reputation for Floris through the publication of his sophisticated cycles of classical mythologies and nudes. This juxtaposition reveals the extent to which Cock was constructing a multidimensional image of contemporary Netherlandish art—one in which responses to Italian pictorial conventions and historical Netherlandish modes find equal footing and at times intermingle in ways that yield novel hybrids.

C REATING H ISTORIES

IN

A RT

In 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, Cock’s press issued its first print of a major landmark in the history of early Netherlandish painting: an engraving of Rogier van der Weyden’s Deposition of c. 󰀁󰀄󰀃󰀈 (Fig. 󰀈).󰀇󰀈 Van der Weyden’s Deposition altarpiece had been 󰀇󰀆. Vasari’s second edition of the Lives of 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 attests to the abundance of Cock’s publications available in Italy at the time. See GETSCHER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃; GREGORY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. See also the essay by Tine Luk Meganck in the present volume. On the global dimensions of this trade, see, among others, PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆a. 󰀇󰀇. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀆󰀁–󰀃󰀆󰀅. On the Cycle of the Seasons, see the essay by Tine Luk Meganck in the present volume. 󰀇󰀈. Rotterdam 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, pp. 󰀆󰀈–󰀆󰀉 (entry M. Sellink); Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀆–󰀁󰀇󰀇, no. 󰀇󰀅 (entry J. Van Grieken).

42

EDWARD WOUK

Fig. 󰀈. Attributed to Cornelis Cort after Rogier van der Weyden, Deposition, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, engraving. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

frequently copied in painting. But the preservation of the work gained new urgency over a century after its creation. In 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉, Mary of Hungary, governor of the Low Countries, acquired the painting from the Guild of St George, guardians of the altar on which it sat in the Chapel of the Crossbow in the Church of Our-Lady-Outside-the-Walls in Leuven.󰀇󰀉 Mary installed the painting in the chapel of her new palace at Binche. The original was replaced with a copy by the royal painter Michiel Coxcie, who excelled at replicating landmarks of early Netherlandish painting.󰀈󰀀 Cock’s print presents Van der Weyden’s painting superimposed over a landscape view typical of Netherlandish art at the time. In the distance, we see a city evocative of Jerusalem and, at right, a few travellers, on foot and horseback, who recall the figures winding their way through the ruins of the Praecipua 󰀇󰀉. See most recently GARCIA PÉREZ 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, with earlier references. 󰀈󰀀. SUYKERBUYK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

43

series. The sacred image is thus set into a history of art defined by a growing awareness of the distance between the historical past and the contemporary world in terms familiar to Cock’s buying public. According to Amy Powell, Cock’s publication bears the first written ascription of the Deposition to Van der Weyden, revealing the role that printmaking played in attaching artists’ names to artworks. The further the replica of Van der Weyden’s painting travelled from the original image, the more Cock’s press needed to situate it in a distinctly Netherlandish history of art.󰀈󰀁 There is a compelling parallel in the contemporary painted work of Bruegel, who quoted the mourners from Van der Weyden’s Deposition in the foreground of his Procession to Calvary of 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄 (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum). That oil-on-panel work, which hung in Jonghelinck’s collection, paradoxically relegates the procession toward Golgotha to the distance, while in the foreground citing this archaic religious motif. The mourners, set off as ‘stylistic fossils from the past’, accentuate the timelessness of the Virgin’s suffering but also Bruegel’s deep awareness of the historical contingency of his own artistic tradition, which he and Cock explored concurrently.󰀈󰀂 In the same year that Cock published Van der Weyden’s Deposition, Lambert Lombard sent a letter to Giorgio Vasari in which he critiqued the historical framework of the Lives and called into question the applicability of Vasari’s models to the understanding of Netherlandish art.󰀈󰀃 We have seen that Lombard was the first Netherlandish artist to feature prominently in Cock’s stock of images. He was also an avid collector of prints. His collection served as the basis for much of his knowledge of European art and as a valuable archival source for his own pictorial compositions.󰀈󰀄 In his letter to Vasari, Lombard described how Van der Weyden, along with Van Eyck, had ‘opened the eyes’ of their contemporaries to the power of colour through their mastery of oils. But he stressed that although their innovations were technically significant, they did not represent a revival of ancient art according to figural canons. He complained that later generations replicated derivative copies, filling churches with brightly coloured paintings that appealed to the senses but lacked substance.󰀈󰀅

󰀈󰀁. POWELL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀅󰀅󰀁–󰀅󰀅󰀃. 󰀈󰀂. KOERNER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀈󰀉–󰀂󰀉󰀀. See also GIBSON 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀁󰀃󰀃, who relates Bruegel’s quotation of this motif to Cock’s print. 󰀈󰀃. For the letter, see FREY 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀, vol. 󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀃–󰀁󰀆󰀇; K RÖNIG 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄. See also the analysis of MELION 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀁󰀅󰀉; WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. 󰀈󰀄. DENHAENE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆; WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. 󰀈󰀅. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀁.

44

EDWARD WOUK

Significantly, in his letter, Lombard named Martin Schongauer as Van der Weyden’s pupil.󰀈󰀆 While there is no evidence that he studied with Van der Weyden, in Lombard’s view, Schongauer had initiated a decisive change in direction in Northern art. Schongauer was one of the first Northern printmakers who used the novel technique of engraving not simply for reproductive purposes but also as an artistic medium in its own right. Lombard held that Schongauer’s engravings channelled the religious intensity of the first generation of oil painters into the graphic medium of print, transmitting the emotional potency of important sacred images without the distraction of colour. Lombard placed Schongauer’s prints into an art-historical and aesthetic framework, describing how they ‘appeared to be miraculous in his [Schongauer’s] time’.󰀈󰀇 In Lombard’s view, these prints were still appealing to more ‘agile’ (mansueti) artists—a group with whom Lombard apparently self-identified. Although Dürer never studied with Schongauer, Lombard believed he had done so, establishing a genealogy for Northern printmaking. Lombard described how Dürer, as Schongauer’s supposed pupil, surpassed his teacher by ‘familiarising himself with nature more closely, even though not yet in its entirety … and through his knowledge of geometry, optics, rules, and proportions in the design of figures.’ Adhering to these rules brought his art closer to perfection, as Lombard understood it.󰀈󰀈 One year before Cock published Bruegel’s Big Fish Eat the Little Fish and attributed it to Bosch, Lombard created a remarkable drawing of Christ Carrying the Cross after Bosch, signed and dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆, which Cock published in a large engraving some four years later (Fig. 󰀉).󰀈󰀉 Bosch’s inventions might seem opposed to the classicising vocabulary Lombard adopted in his own pictorial compositions. But this drawing reveals Lombard’s intense study of Bosch’s treatment of the human body in motion and the depiction of emotion in his religious art.󰀉󰀀 Cock’s large engraving augments Lombard’s drawing with a 󰀈󰀆. Lombard’s letter appears to be the source for Vasari’s inclusion of this detail in the second edition of his Lives. 󰀈󰀇. FREY 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀, vol. 󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀅: ‘In Germania si levo poi un Bel Martino, tagliatore in rame, il quale non abandono la maniera di Rogiero, suo maestro, ma non arrivo pero alla bontà del colorire, che haveva Rogiero, per esser piu usato all’intaglio delle sue stampe che parevano miraculose in quell tempo et hogi sono anchora in bona reputationi tra i nostri mansueti artefici, perche anchora che le cose sue siano secche, pero hanno qualche bon garbo.’ 󰀈󰀈. FREY 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀, vol. 󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀆󰀆: ‘Alberto Durero, discepolo di esso Bel Martino, seguito la maniera del maestro, accommodando assai piu al naturale, benche non ancora del tutto, quell suo modo de pannisoni et trvo una via piu gagliarda et non tanto secca, acconpagnata [sic] di geoemetria, d’optica, regola et proportione all’figure.’ 󰀈󰀉. The drawing is in Paris, Lugt Collection, inv. 󰀃󰀉󰀄󰀉. On the source for Lombard’s drawing, see WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀅󰀂; St Louis-Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀁󰀂󰀅, no. 󰀁󰀀 (entry M. Bass). 󰀉󰀀. On Lombard’s species of emulation see K EMP, HÜHN K EMP 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀂; DENHAENE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, pp. 󰀉󰀃–󰀁󰀀, 󰀁󰀄󰀁–󰀁󰀆󰀅; WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀄󰀄–󰀄󰀅.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

45

Fig. 󰀉. Cornelis Cort after Lambert Lombard after Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀, engraving. London, British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings © Trustees of the British Museum

detailed background behind the frieze-like procession of soldiers who surround the struggling Christ. Cock inscribed this print with Bosch’s name as ‘inventor’ and Lombard’s as ‘restorer’, using a term, ‘restituit’, which was associated at the time with the recovery of ancient sources.󰀉󰀁 We have seen that Bruegel took an emulative stance toward Bosch in Big Fish Eat the Little Fish, with Cock (deceptively) adding the latter’s name to the plate as inventor. Lombard, however, engaged in a more archaeologically precise act of recovery that Cock telegraphed into the unusual multi-component signature on the print, separating the act of invention from Lombard’s visual restoration. In this way, Cock emphasised the critical distance between Lombard’s study of this image and its origins in a historically distant time. Scholars have noted that Lombard’s Christ Carrying the Cross after Bosch resembles Schongauer’s treatment of the subject in his largest print—his 󰀉󰀁. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀅󰀁–󰀅󰀂.

46

EDWARD WOUK

famous engraving dated to c. 󰀁󰀄󰀇󰀅.󰀉󰀂 Schongauer’s print may have served as one of Bosch’s models and was in turn based on an Eyckian prototype. This overlapping of sources signals Lombard’s attentive historicising vision. He valued Van Eyck, Bosch, and Schongauer as innovators in their own time and as forerunners of his commitment to renewing Netherlandish art.󰀉󰀃 While Lombard collected Schongauer’s engravings and studied figures in these prints, Cock published a copy of Schongauer’s Christ on the Cross between Mary and John, dated 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃 (Fig. 󰀁󰀀).󰀉󰀄 With this print, Cock may have contributed to the popularisation of Schongauer’s figures—distinguished by their elongated features and angular dress—as archaic and belonging to a distant past.󰀉󰀅 As part of Cock’s repertoire, the Schongauer print provided tangible (and sellable) evidence of the venerable history of printmaking in the North as an enterprise of humanist scholarship, associated with the rigorous study of the past and the recovery of sources perceived to be ancient. The historical significance of Schongauer’s art in Northern visual traditions, together with its treatment of religious subjects, appealed to Cock’s clientele and helped secure the humanist credentials of his press locally and internationally.󰀉󰀆

PAINTERS PORTR AYED In 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, Lampsonius completed his biography of Lambert Lombard—the Lamberti Lombardi… Vita, which is widely regarded as the first biography of a Netherlandish artist—and he launched a project with Cock to envision the history of Netherlandish art in the form of a series of engraved portraits of painters, each to be published with a verse text he composed.󰀉󰀇 The portraits were to be engraved by Cornelis Cort, but with his departure for Italy in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅 the project stalled. It was not completed until 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂, when Cock’s widow Volcxken Dierix issued a set of twenty-three portraits of deceased Netherlandish painters under the title Effigies of Several Painters from the Low Countries (Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germaniae inferioris effigies), accompanied by a 󰀉󰀂. See St Louis-Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀅, no. 󰀁󰀀 (entry M. Bass). 󰀉󰀃. DENHAENE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, esp. 󰀂󰀃󰀉–󰀂󰀃󰀂, WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, esp. 󰀄󰀉–󰀆󰀅; see also WOOD 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, esp. 󰀆󰀁–󰀁󰀀󰀇. 󰀉󰀄. Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀈󰀄–󰀈󰀅, no. 󰀇 (notice J. Van Grieken) 󰀉󰀅. This contrasts with the case of Michelangelo, who famously studied Schongauer’s hybrid monsters as modern creations in print. See among others SWAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. 󰀉󰀆. On the devotional values ascribed to earlier Netherlandish prints, see A REFORD 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, with earlier literature. 󰀉󰀇. PURAYE 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀆; MEIERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆; WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

47

Fig. 󰀁󰀀. Attributed to Joannes Wierix, Christ on the Cross between Mary and John, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, engraving. London, British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings © Trustees of the British Museum

48

EDWARD WOUK

preface by Lampsonius and a final image of her late husband, Cock, who points to a skull and beckons us to follow him.󰀉󰀈 In contrast to Vasari, who presented his history as a series of artists’ lives, Lampsonius placed biographical details on the side-lines in both the Vita and the Effigies.󰀉󰀉 Although biographical in structure, Lampsonius’s Vita of Lombard emphasised the artist’s theoretical precepts and diverse interests and skills. These include his veneration of antiquity as well as his appreciation for an eclectic mix of Italian painters, traditions, and periods that Vasari overlooked or even disparaged, most notably printmaking and the art of the Franks.󰀁󰀀󰀀 Similarly, the Effigies cycle appears at first glance to focus on the figure of the artist. But both the engraved portraits, and the texts Lampsonius furnished beneath them, abandon the life-and-work model. Instead, the texts function in the manner of emblematic inscriptions referring to exemplary features of the character of a painter or his art, but rarely to specific artworks. For example, Patinir and Herri met de Bles are praised for their treatment of landscapes, Willem Key for his portraiture, and Van Scorel for his successful assimilation of Italian art. The cycle unfolds historically, through the sequential turning of printed pages. But it resists hierarchies and a teleological drive toward a specific end, instead introducing a vast range of creative endeavours embodied in the likenesses of skilled and successful practitioners.󰀁󰀀󰀁 We do not know if Lampsonius was aware that Vasari was gathering portraits of artists to include in the second, revised edition of his Lives to appear 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈.󰀁󰀀󰀂 But if the Effigies had been completed on time, it would have been the first published cycle of artists’ portraits in Europe, according the honour of portraiture to artists at a time when portrait cycles generally represented royalty, nobility, members of the clergy, or humanist scholars.󰀁󰀀󰀃 After the initial portrait of Hubert van Eyck, his brother Jan van Eyck opens the cycle with a verse addressing the reader and quoting the words of Aeneas, legendary founder of Rome, in the so-called false start of Virgil’s Aeneid.󰀁󰀀󰀄 Yet his and Hubert’s accomplishment, the discovery of oil paint, is celebrated as a new discovery, or novum repertum—a term that was closely associated with scientific and technical breakthroughs. Joannes Stradanus (Jan van der Straet) later repurposed that 󰀉󰀈. WOODALL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀂. 󰀉󰀉. For a recent study of the transformation of Vasari’s model between the 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 and 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 editions, see RUFFINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, with earlier literature. Cock’s career spans the years between those two publications. 󰀁󰀀󰀀. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, pp. 󰀈-󰀃󰀁. 󰀁󰀀󰀁.  WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀀–󰀄󰀂. 󰀁󰀀󰀂. See note 󰀄, above. 󰀁󰀀󰀃. MEIERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆. 󰀁󰀀󰀄. GÖTTLER, MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀈.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

49

very term to serve as the title of his Nova Reperta, a series of prints celebrating the achievements of the post-classical world, including oil painting and engraving.󰀁󰀀󰀅 Cock had not published prints after the designs of every painter in the Effigies, but the cycle of portraits, as both visual history and art object, was clearly intended to appeal to the same collectors who had acquired works after Netherlandish (and other) artists from his press. The men represented in the series are all celebrated as painters, although many had excelled in other fields, including tapestry design, engraving, and book publishing.󰀁󰀀󰀆 Even Cock, added to the end of the cycle following his death, is described as a ‘pictor’. But as a series of engravings carried out by Cornelis Cort and later Joannes Wierix and others, the cycle made forceful claims about the excellence of Netherlandish printmaking as well as the place of printed images in visualising the history of works of art. The final prints in the cycle, before the addition of Cock’s posthumous portrait, make this argument explicit. They portray those most recently deceased: Bruegel, praised as the second Bosch, and Floris, who bears a somewhat conflicted inscription that both celebrates his stature and laments his work ethic.󰀁󰀀󰀇 These two artists are set as equals, being the two most recent innovators in an unfolding tradition. They are also the contemporary artists whose work was most fully represented in Cock’s stock at the time, binding their legacy as painters to the afterlife of their work in print. Again, Lampsonius addressed this theme in the dedicatory verses he composed for the cycle. Lampsonius praised his recently deceased friend Cock for realising a new potential for Netherlandish art, transforming local success into international celebrity equivalent to yet distinct from the Vasarian system: You have not avoided any expenses or difficulties, So that you could spread far and wide in the whole world108 A new lineage of artists through the engravings you published.

Cock and Lampsonius began to work on the Effigies at a critical juncture in the emergence of the idea of Netherlandish art. Between the publication of the first edition of Vasari’s Lives in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 and its second edition in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, Lampsonius became a spokesman for a community of Netherlandish humanists 󰀁󰀀󰀅. Stradanus’s cycle dates to c. 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀. See M ARKEY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. 󰀁󰀀󰀆. See, for example, the Effigies of Bernard van Orley (no. 󰀆), lauded for tapestry design, Lucas van Leyden, discussed as a rival to Dürer (no. 󰀁󰀀), and Pieter Coecke, praised as interpreter of Serlio (no. 󰀁󰀆). 󰀁󰀀󰀇. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀄󰀉󰀈–󰀄󰀉󰀉. 󰀁󰀀󰀈. This passage seems to echo the first proemial epigram of Martial’s collection (‘You read him, you ask for him, and here he is: Martial, known the world over for his witty little books of epigrams’), which is apt for this preface to a series of epigrams. See M ARTIAL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, pp. 󰀄󰀂–󰀄󰀃 (󰀁.󰀁).

50

EDWARD WOUK

intensely preoccupied with the international standing of their artistic traditions and culture. In 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, Lampsonius exchanged letters with Vasari about the nature of Netherlandish art and the medium of print. He also sent a manuscript copy of the Vita of Lambert Lombard to Vasari in the hope of convincing him to include Northern artists and Northern perspectives in his revised text.󰀁󰀀󰀉 Also at this time, the painter and poet Lucas d’Heere, who was Lampsonius’s friend and possibly a fellow member of the Ghent rhetoricians chamber De Balsemblomme (The balsam flower), composed verse biographies of Netherlandish artists in Dutch.󰀁󰀁󰀀 These texts are unfortunately lost, but d’Heere’s anthology of poems published in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅 under the title Hof en Boomgaerd der Poësien (Court and Orchard of Poetry), includes verses addressing the art of Van Eyck and Hugo van der Goes as well as Willem Key, Frans Floris, and—perhaps indirectly, Pieter Bruegel.󰀁󰀁󰀁 These were likewise the years when the Florentine expatriate Lodovico Guicciardini was compiling lists to describe Netherlandish artists and their achievements for his monumental Descrittione di Tutti i Paesi Bassi, published in Antwerp in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇.󰀁󰀁󰀂 By then, Cock’s Aux Quatre Vents had already become a virtual museum that placed Netherlandish art in context well before Lampsonius, Guicciardini, d’Heere, and even Vasari had started to record, classify, and describe Netherlandish artists and their work. Cock’s publishing house offered its public a choice of images after a curated assortment of Italian and Northern artists, among others. To be sure, Cock was not the only Antwerp publisher to trade in a diversity of prints.󰀁󰀁󰀃 But the scale of Cock’s enterprise and its ambition were unrivalled. He published prints in a variety of formats and in series as well as individual sheets, cultivating relationships between leading artists such as Floris and Bruegel and foremost engravers including Cort and Galle, who proved their facility working across a range of subjects and engraving the designs of Italian and Netherlandish masters alike. The fruits of their collaborations joined ranks with an increasingly diverse collection of visual culture in Cock’s repertoire, including landscapes, maps, grotesque patterns, architectural compendia, images of ships, and hunting scenes. This array of printed images defied any Italian model seeking to restrict the visual arts to painting, sculpture, and architecture—the vaunted arts of disegno—or to posit the 󰀁󰀀󰀉. MELION 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀁󰀇󰀂; WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂. 󰀁󰀁󰀀. R AMAKERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. His membership in this chamber was first discussed in CUST 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀄. 󰀁󰀁󰀁. D’HEERE 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉, pp. 󰀈󰀀–󰀈󰀂, no. LXVI; see also FREEDBERG 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉; MELION 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀉–󰀁󰀄󰀂. 󰀁󰀁󰀂. M ALDAGUE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁; A LLART, MORENO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. 󰀁󰀁󰀃. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅b.

COCK, BRUEGEL AND THE PRINTED IMAGE IN ART HISTORY

51

modern era as the revival of a singular concept of antiquity. It also resisted any attempt to limit ‘art’ to the figural representation of a range of subject matter from classical mythology and the Bible. Aux Quatre Vents’ prints encompassed the constellation of creativity of Cock’s era. His publications envisioned Italian and Netherlandish art within broader cultural frameworks. In tandem, they elevated the status of Netherlandish printmaking and print publishing as cosmopolitan enterprises capable of translating, ordering, and disseminating a plurality of images in print. Cock’s press was a linchpin in the formation of an alternative model of the history of art focused not on biographies but on works of art. Vermeulen, as we have seen, places this shift squarely in the eighteenth century, and she highlights the contribution of Johann Joachim Winckelmann, who claimed that his Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums of 󰀁󰀇󰀆󰀄 represented the first complete departure from the prevailing life-and-work paradigm of art history.󰀁󰀁󰀄 More than two centuries earlier, Cock’s press had already laid the foundations for this model and provided images for the sorts of print collections that helped shape Winckelmann’s ideas about the artistic past. Yet, while Winckelmann’s Geschichte remained focused on the history of classical art, Cock had long since established print as a vehicle to envision and critique the plurality of art’s histories from a northern European perspective. Cock’s making of Bruegel out of print thus belongs to a larger project—one which evolved over the course of the publisher’s career—that moved beyond reductive contrasts between Italy and the North to situate Netherlandish creativity as part of a more inclusive history of art visualised through printed images.

󰀁󰀁󰀄. VERMEULEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀉󰀁–󰀉󰀃; K AUFMANN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁; WOOD 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀄–󰀁󰀅󰀅.

PART II BRUEGEL’S JOURNEY

AND

SOJOURN

IN ITALY

Pieter Bruegel’s Italian Journey: Ad Fontes Nils BÜTTNER There is no doubt that Pieter Bruegel the Elder was in Italy.󰀁 His first biographer, Karel van Mander, reports in Het Schilder-boeck (󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄) that Bruegel travelled ‘to France and thence to Italy…. On his travels he drew many views from life so that it is said that when he was in the Alps he swallowed all those mountains and rocks which, upon returning home, he spat out again onto canvases and panels, so faithfully was he able, in this respect and others, to follow Nature’.󰀂 Ever since, no biographer of the painter has neglected to mention his journey across the Alps at least marginally. Many have been astonished by how little impression Bruegel’s encounter with antiquity and Italian art seems to have made on the artist.󰀃 Other authors have argued for the opposite, claiming Bruegel’s familiarity with antiquity and Italian art from numerous details of his works.󰀄 The journey has been the subject of several academic studies.󰀅 In the context of the 󰀄󰀅󰀀th anniversary of his death and the resultant jubilee exhibitions, numerous essays and books have been published which represent the state of scholarship. It is generally assumed that Bruegel made a journey lasting several years between about 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 and 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, which took him through France via Lyon to southern Italy. In addition, scholars usually refer to Bruegel’s stay in Rome, a visit to Bologna, and his contact with the miniaturist Giulio Clovio. On his return trip, at the latest, Bruegel is believed to have crossed the Alps, presumably making the dangerous journey with companions. He may have travelled with—or at least met—other Antwerp artists, such as the painter and graphic artist Maarten de Vos, the sculptor Jacques 󰀁. I thank Adam Sammut for critically reading my manuscript and the editors for the thorough editing. 󰀂. VAN M ANDER, MIEDEMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, I, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀀; VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, fol. 󰀂󰀃󰀃r: ‘en is voorts ghereyst in Vranckrijck, en van daer in Italien … In zijn reysen heeft hy veel ghesichten nae t’leven gheconterfeyt, soo datter gheseyt wort, dat hy in d’Alpes wesende, al die berghen en rotsen had in gheswolghen, en t’huys ghecomen op doecken en Penneelen uytghespogen hadde, soo eyghentlijck con hy te desen en ander deelen de Natuere nae volghen.’ 󰀃. ORROCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, p. 󰀂; VÖHRINGER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀅󰀉. In the biographical introduction to MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, the products of the Italian sojourn are not mentioned at all. 󰀄. GRIMM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉; PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆b, pp. 󰀅–󰀇. 󰀅. H ÄRTING 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀄󰀉; LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀃󰀉–󰀅󰀄; GABRIELLI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀃–󰀁󰀈󰀈; BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀄󰀂; A LLART 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇.

54

NILS BÜTTNER

Jonghelinck, and the cartographer Abraham Ortelius.󰀆 All recent publications on Bruegel’s life and work would consider this passage common knowledge. In this essay I will critically review these assumptions. Writing about Bruegel’s journey to Italy entails relying on conjectures. Because the evidence is thinly spread and of varying degrees of reliability, it is easy for one piece of evidence to contradict another. Thus, I am compelled to lay out the facts on which the general consensus is based, but at the same time I shall question them critically. My standard is what Reinhart Koselleck called the ‘veto right of sources’.󰀇 The large body of surviving material evidence, pictures, records, and documents does not certify claims to historical authenticity but only tells us what cannot be said. What we can say is summarised in what follows. A legal document dated 󰀂󰀂 September 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀈 mentions the altar of the Glove Makers’ Guild in Mechelen. This was commissioned from the workshop of the painter Claude Dorizi, ‘where the most important masters have worked, [such] as the famous Bruegel the Elder’ (waer by de principaelste meesters hebben gewerckt als den ouden vermaerden Bruegel). While Bruegel made the wings of the altar of the glove makers, Pieter Baltens painted the interior in the same workshop.󰀈 A copy of the contract is also preserved in the Mechelen city archives, made between the glove makers and Claude Dorizi. It was agreed on 󰀃󰀀 August 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 that the painter must finish the work by 󰀁󰀁 October 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁 at the latest, on St Gummarus’s feast day 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁.󰀉 The following week, on 󰀁󰀈 October (St Luke’s Day), the fiscal year of the Antwerp Painters’ Guild began.󰀁󰀀 At that time, twenty-two free masters were admitted. Among the twelve new painters was ‘Peeter Brueghels’.󰀁󰀁 This marks the earliest date on which Bruegel could have set off on his trip to Italy. Why did Bruegel decide to visit Italy? One reason may have been the severe financial crisis that shook Antwerp in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁 and caused the art market to temporarily collapse.󰀁󰀂 Furthermore, Bruegel had already started working for the 󰀆. As an example of the current volume of knowledge, cf. the readable book by HONIG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀃󰀆. 󰀇. KOSELLECK 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀆. 󰀈. Mechelen, Stadsarchief, DD 󰀅󰀁, no. 󰀃󰀂, document 󰀉 (󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀈): ‘Aen den welcken geleert heeft Claude Dorisi, hebbende naerderhant alle de vier exercitien gehouden met seer grooten winckel, waer by de principaelste meesters hebben gewerckt als den ouden vermaerden Bruegel, die de deuren van de Hantschoenmaekers tsynen huyse heeft gemaekt, ende Pieter Baltens of den selven winckel het binnenste’. MONBALLIEU 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀁󰀀. 󰀉. OP DE BEECK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀉; MONBALLIEU 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀀󰀉. 󰀁󰀀. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, p. 󰀂󰀃󰀀 n. 󰀈; LEBEER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉, p. 󰀆. 󰀁󰀁. Antwerp, Felix Archief, Inventarisnummer 󰀂󰀅󰀇󰀄#󰀇󰀀, fol. 󰀁󰀀󰀇v. ROMBOUTS, VAN L ERIUS 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀆, I, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀅. 󰀁󰀂. VAN DER WEE 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀂󰀁; VERMEYLEN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, p. 󰀄󰀀, states that ‘during the 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s, certain temporary crises occurred but fell short of a full-fledged depression’.

PIETER BRUEGEL’S ITALIAN JOURNEY: AD FONTES

55

print publisher Hieronymus Cock before his departure, as Van Mander reports.󰀁󰀃 One reason could have been to acquire motifs for landscape images, which were an increasingly sought-after pictorial genre at the time.󰀁󰀄 The growing popularity of landscape images in the Netherlands around the middle of the sixteenth century is attested to by the large number of surviving examples, but also by an increase in landscapes in the collections of the time. The publishing programme of the Antwerp print publisher and dealer Hieronymus Cock also reflects an interest in images of nature.󰀁󰀅 If Cock commissioned Bruegel to produce designs for landscape engravings, Italy was an obvious place to find inspiration. This cannot be proven, but it would explain why landscapes are the only known souvenir of Bruegel’s travels. Written sources affirming Bruegel’s departure for Italy are missing. This is remarkable, because it was customary at that time to obtain a passport, a copy of which was kept on file by the city administration. Some of these requests have been preserved in Antwerp; unfortunately, there are none from Bruegel.󰀁󰀆 Thus, two drawings are the first evidence of Bruegel’s journey, which at the same time are the artist’s earliest dated works. One drawing shows the banks of a calm river with an unprecedented economy of means.󰀁󰀇 The other drawing is a view of a monastery whose architecture is obviously not Netherlandish (Fig. 󰀁).󰀁󰀈 When this drawing was first published in 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇 by Bastelaer and Hulin de Loo, the authors of the earliest Bruegel monograph saw ‘an Italian-style villa with galleries’ (une villa à l’ italienne avec galeries).󰀁󰀉 Max J. Friedländer, Karl Tolnay, Ludwig Münz, and Manfred Sellink identified the building as an Italian monastery.󰀂󰀀 Many have tried to determine the exact location. Katrien Lichtert has recently suggested that the scene was more likely to have come from southern France than southern Italy.󰀂󰀁 That Bruegel travelled through France on his way to Italy is supported by Van Mander.󰀂󰀂 This itinerary was commonly chosen 󰀁󰀃. VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, fol. 󰀂󰀃󰀃r: ‘Hy is van hier gaen wercken by Ieroon Kock, en is voorts ghereyst in Vranckrijck, en van daer in Italien’. 󰀁󰀄. For sources on this development cf. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a, esp. pp. 󰀂󰀀–󰀄󰀆. 󰀁󰀅. R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀂, 󰀃󰀀󰀉–󰀃󰀉󰀅. 󰀁󰀆. Büttner 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀁󰀀. 󰀁󰀇. Pieter Bruegel, Banks of a Quiet River, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, pen and brown ink on blue paper, 󰀁󰀇󰀆 × 󰀂󰀆󰀄 mm. Paris, Musée du Louvre, Cabinet dessins, inv. 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃󰀃, recto. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀁󰀈, no. Z󰀁; MICHEL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀁; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀂, no. 󰀁; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀃󰀃, no. 󰀁. 󰀁󰀈. Pieter Bruegel, Southern Cloister in a Valley, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, pen and brown ink, accents in watercolour by a different hand, 󰀁󰀈󰀅 × 󰀃󰀂󰀆 mm. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. KdZ 󰀅󰀅󰀃󰀇. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀁󰀈, no. Z󰀂; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀃, no. 󰀂; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀃󰀃, no. 󰀂. 󰀁󰀉. VAN BASTELAER, HULIN DE L OO 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀀, no. 󰀂. 󰀂󰀀. FRIEDLÄNDER 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀁, p. 󰀃󰀇; DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀅, pp. 󰀂–󰀃, 󰀇󰀉, no. 󰀁; DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂, pp. 󰀈, 󰀅󰀅–󰀅󰀆, no. 󰀂; MÜNZ 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀂; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀃. 󰀂󰀁. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀁󰀈; LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀄󰀃. 󰀂󰀂. VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, fol. 󰀂󰀃󰀃r.

56

NILS BÜTTNER

Fig. 󰀁. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Southern Cloister in a Valley, signed, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, pen and brown ink, accents in watercolour by a different hand. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett Public domain

by Netherlandish travellers at that time.󰀂󰀃 Furthermore, a view of the city of Lyon existed in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀇, which, according to the inventory of the Roman painter Giulio Clovio, was painted by Bruegel in tempera.󰀂󰀄 The topographical identification of the monastery as southern French is supported by the paper support of French origin. Yet Mielke pointed out that Bruegel ‘could have pulled the paper bought in Nantes from his rucksack in (southern) Italy and used it even months later’.󰀂󰀅 In addition, French paper mills had a Europe-wide market to the extent that several books printed in the Officina Plantiniana in Antwerp used French paper.󰀂󰀆 As Mielke rightly emphasised, the two earliest drawings are convincing enough to have been made directly from nature.󰀂󰀇 󰀂󰀃. Philip Galle (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀇–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂), Bartholomeus Spranger (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀁), Hendrick Goltzius (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀈–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀆), Joos de Momper (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄–󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀅), and Joachim Antonisz. Wtewael (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀈) chose this route to Italy. See H ÄRTING 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀄󰀇, and BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀁󰀄, for further examples. 󰀂󰀄. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀆󰀇. This drawing was in the possession of the Roman painter Giulio Clovio, whom Bruegel may also have met in France. It is certain that Clovio was not in Rome when Bruegel was there. See the essay by Stefano Onofri in this volume. 󰀂󰀅. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀆: ‘Da das Papier der Zeichnung aus Frankreich stammt (Briquet 󰀉󰀃󰀇󰀈: Nantes um 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅) bevorzugen wir eine topographische Bestimmung der Darstellung in Südfrankreich—wohl wissend, daß dies Argument nicht zwingend ist. Er kann auch Monate später noch das in Nantes gekaufte Papier in (Süd)Italien aus dem Rucksack gezogen und benutzt haben’. 󰀂󰀆. VOET 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, II, pp. 󰀂󰀂–󰀂󰀃. 󰀂󰀇. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀅: ‘Beide Zeichnungen sind so unmittelbar gesehen und so persönlich empfunden, daß kein Zweifel bestehen kann, daß sie ein wirkliches Augenerlebnis festhalten’.

PIETER BRUEGEL’S ITALIAN JOURNEY: AD FONTES

57

Fig. 󰀂. Simon Novellanus after Pieter Bruegel the Elder, published by Joris Hoefnagel, River Landscape with Mercury and Psyche, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅, etching. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

At least the first impression may have been recorded here, even if Nadine Orenstein and Manfred Sellink assume that the worked-up drawing was elaborated in the studio.󰀂󰀈 Nevertheless, finished drawings were not always made on the spot. Engravings made by Simon Novellanus after two lost Bruegel drawings and published by Joris Hoefnagel are a good example (Fig. 󰀂).󰀂󰀉 The engraved signature reads: Petrus Breugel fec[it] Roma A[nn]o 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 (Made by Pieter Bruegel in Rome in the year 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃).󰀃󰀀 Nothing about this inscription has ever been questioned, to the extent that the prints are considered the single most important source for Bruegel’s stay in Rome in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃. But its probative power rests on 󰀂󰀈. SELLINK, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀃. 󰀂󰀉. Simon Novellanus after Pieter Bruegel, published by Joris Hoefnagel, River Landscape with Mercury and Psyche, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅, etching, 󰀂󰀆󰀉 × 󰀃󰀃󰀈 mm, and River Landscape with Daedalus and Icarus, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅, etching, 󰀂󰀆󰀅 × 󰀃󰀃󰀇 mm. VIGNAU-WILBERG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀄󰀅–󰀄󰀄󰀆, nos 󰀁󰀀c and 󰀁󰀀d, pp; K ASCHEK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀅󰀃–󰀅󰀄. 󰀃󰀀. LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, p. 󰀄󰀅; BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, p. 󰀂󰀁󰀄.

58

NILS BÜTTNER

Fig. 󰀃. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, View of the Ripa Grande, signed ?, ca. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, pen and brown ink. Chatsworth, The Devonshire Collections © The Devonshire Collections, Chatsworth / Reproduced by permission of Chatsworth Settlement Trustees / Bridgeman Images

shaky foundations. In an American court drama, the lawyer would jump up: ‘Objection, Your Honour! Hearsay.’ More concrete proof of Bruegel’s presence in Rome is a topographically correct drawing showing the Dogana Vecchia in Rome with the church of S. Maria in Turri on the left and ships moored in front of it (Fig. 󰀃).󰀃󰀁 The drawing is titled a rypa in the middle and is made in two different inks, one of which is an iron gall that has since turned reddish. It has long been assumed that Bruegel made the lighter toned parts on the spot, while those in the other ink are later additions.󰀃󰀂 They are also entirely imaginary and were almost certainly added later. But can we know that the parts made in lighter ink were not drawn in the studio? Or that Bruegel’s picture was not based on a drawing made in another medium or even by another hand? This is just as unprovable as the repeatedly asserted date of 󰀃󰀁. Pieter Bruegel, View of the Ripa Grande in Rome, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, pen and brown ink, 󰀂󰀀󰀇 × 󰀂󰀈󰀃 mm. Chatsworth, The Duke of Devonshire and the Chatsworth Settlement Trustees, inv. 󰀈󰀄󰀁. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀅󰀆–󰀅󰀉, no. 󰀁󰀈; MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀃, no. Z󰀁󰀁; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀅󰀃, no. 󰀁󰀂; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀉󰀆–󰀉󰀇, no. 󰀈; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀃󰀉‒󰀄󰀀, no. 󰀁󰀄. 󰀃󰀂. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃b, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀃; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀉󰀇.

PIETER BRUEGEL’S ITALIAN JOURNEY: AD FONTES

59

origin around 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, which, as Mielke writes, ‘is given by Bruegel’s stay in Rome’.󰀃󰀃 The only source for the date of Bruegel’s stay in Rome is the etching published by Hoefnagel. That Bruegel was actually in Rome at the time cannot be proven; instead, one must rely on Occam’s Razor: When a number of different scenarios present themselves, simple explanations are more likely to be right than complex ones. When making the long and perilous journey to Italy, Bruegel presumably did not travel alone. In the face of highwaymen and wild animals, there was obviously safety in numbers. Moreover, group travel would have helped Bruegel get on with hostile locals ‘whose language he barely understood’.󰀃󰀄 Bruegel’s travel companions could have been the geographer Abraham Ortelius (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇– 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀈) and the painter Maarten de Vos (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀃).󰀃󰀅 The latter was born in Antwerp and grew up in a house called Engelenborch in the Lombardenvest; only a few metres away was the studio of Bruegel’s master, Pieter Coecke van Aelst (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀).󰀃󰀆 The humanist-educated Ortelius had joined the Guild of St Luke in 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇 as a colourist of maps but above all as a cartographer.󰀃󰀇 The medallist and bronze caster Jacques Jonghelinck (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀆) could also have joined the travel party,󰀃󰀈 together with the sons of the painter Jan Sanders van Heemessen (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀅), who had applied for a passport to Italy in Antwerp on 󰀇 April 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂.󰀃󰀉 All these men knew each other and travelled from Antwerp to Italy at about the same time.󰀄󰀀 It would be logical that they did at least part of the trip together. Bruegel seems to have made a trip to Bologna together with Maarten de Vos and Abraham Ortelius. Evidence for this are two letters by the Bolognese scholar Scipio Fabius, written much later. In his letters to Ortelius, Fabius enquires about both men and asks to send his regards to ‘Maarten de Vos and our Pieter Bruegel’.󰀄󰀁 The fact that the greeting was 󰀃󰀃. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀃󰀉: ‘Entstehungszeit um 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 ist durch Bruegels Romaufenthalt gegeben’. 󰀃󰀄. BUCHELIUS, K EUSSEN 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀆. 󰀃󰀅. For the travels of Maarten de Vos see PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀈–󰀁󰀄󰀄; for Ortelius’s, VAN DEN BROECKE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀃󰀀–󰀃󰀈. 󰀃󰀆. VAN DEN BRANDEN 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀃, p. 󰀂󰀁󰀇. 󰀃󰀇. ROMBOUTS, VAN LERIUS 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀆, I, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀉: ‘Abraham Ortels, afsetter van carten’. 󰀃󰀈. HUET 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀃. 󰀃󰀉. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀁󰀀. 󰀄󰀀. That the men knew each other is suggested by their joint membership of the Guild of St Luke. The members of the painters’ guild met regularly, celebrated church services, and held meals together. VAN DER STRAELEN 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀅, pp. 󰀇–󰀁󰀁. 󰀄󰀁. HESSELS 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀅, no. 󰀁󰀁: ‘Tantum dolui quod de Martino Vulpe pictore excellentissimo mihique æque ac frater meus carissimo nihil ex tuis litteris intellexi, de quo ac de Petro Bruochl itidem mihi dillecto quid agat scire cupio, quos ambos et meo et Ottauiani fratris mei nomine te saluere percupio, eosque utriusque nomine fraterne deosculaberis’; ibid. p. 󰀃󰀃, no. 󰀁󰀅: ‘Martino uulpi ac Petro Brouchel nostro omnium nomine plurimam salutem impartito’. On Scipio Fabius and his networks, see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀅󰀄, 󰀁󰀇󰀂 nn. 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀄.

60

NILS BÜTTNER

repeated in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁 and 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅 can only be explained by the three men’s earlier joint meeting. However, this does not necessarily prove they were there at the same time. Bruegel’s itinerary should be reconstructed according to the same principles of likelihood. Almost all travellers at that time followed the postal routes. It was only on these roads that people were reasonably protected from the much-described risks of the open road. Usually, one would ride on rented horses, which could be changed at the postal stations, where one could also stay overnight and have a meal. This saved travellers from carrying provisions and luggage. The average travel speed was 󰀂󰀅 to 󰀆󰀀 kilometres per day. The usual route to the South of France led from Antwerp via Brussels and Paris to Lyon.󰀄󰀂 Bruegel could have travelled by ship from France to southern Italy.󰀄󰀃 A drawing attributed to Bruegel of Reggio di Calabria in flames does not prove this.󰀄󰀄 In 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 there were various clashes between the western powers and Barbary pirates, which caused a great fire in Reggio that July. This fire is pictured in the drawing preserved in Rotterdam. However, it was not made at the time of the fire. While no drawings by Bruegel are known to exist showing any recognisable views of southern Italy, Bruegel’s stay there is attested by an engraving published in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁 (Fig. 󰀄).󰀄󰀅 This large-scale engraving, made after a design by Bruegel, shows a naval battle against Turkish ships in the Strait of Messina. On the left is the burning Reggio, on the right is Sicily with the smoking Etna. The engraving was prepared after a now-lost drawing, which was a composite of sketches made on site just before going to press.󰀄󰀆 It is not documented that Bruegel had sent drawings made on site to Antwerp before his journey back. The extremely high costs associated with the production of such an engraving were initially borne by the wealthy painter Cornelis van Dalem (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀/󰀃󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀃) before Cock took over the distribution of the second 󰀄󰀂. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀁󰀅. 󰀄󰀃. LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, p. 󰀄󰀃; MENZEL 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, p. 󰀂󰀇. This was not, however, the usual route, which usually led to Turin via Mont-Cenis, see BRIZAY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, p. 󰀂󰀀. 󰀄󰀄. Pieter Bruegel, View of Reggio di Calabria, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁, pen and brown ink, brown and grey wash, 󰀁󰀅󰀄 × 󰀂󰀄󰀁 mm, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. 󰀁󰀉󰀁. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀆, no. Z󰀂󰀈; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀆, no. 󰀉󰀇; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀄, no. 󰀈󰀄; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀆󰀂, no. 󰀅󰀄. 󰀄󰀅. Frans Huys, after Pieter Bruegel, Naval Battle in the Straits of Messina, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁, etching and engraving, 󰀄󰀃󰀄 × 󰀇󰀁󰀇 mm. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀄󰀁󰀂, no. G󰀁󰀉; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀈–󰀁󰀄󰀁, no. 󰀅󰀃; MICHEL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀀; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀇, no. 󰀉󰀈; ORENSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀅–󰀁󰀁󰀇, no. 󰀄󰀈. 󰀄󰀆. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀆–󰀁󰀅󰀇, nos 󰀉󰀇–󰀉󰀈. The drawing first published by MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀄󰀀, no. 󰀁󰀅, was acquired by the Royal Library of Belgium in 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀁󰀉, published it as copy after Bruegel. See also WATTEEUW ET AL . 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀆󰀅–󰀄󰀇󰀆; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃b, p. 󰀂󰀉󰀄.

PIETER BRUEGEL’S ITALIAN JOURNEY: AD FONTES

61

Fig. 󰀄. Frans Huys, after Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Naval Battle in the Straits of Messina, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁, etching and engraving. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

edition.󰀄󰀇 While the engraving was not produced until 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁, this does not negate the possibility of Bruegel designing it. All the same, it is problematic to use Bruegel’s later works as evidence for his Italian journey. The print design could have been based on drawings by other artists. His designs for engravings, however, usually seem to reflect his own visual experiences rather than images of others. And there can be found further visual evidence that Bruegel visited Sicily, and probably has seen the frescoes of The Triumph of Death in the Palazzo Sclafani in Palermo (painted around 󰀁󰀄󰀄󰀅/󰀅󰀀) that clearly inspired his panel painting of the same theme.󰀄󰀈 After visiting Calabria and perhaps Palermo as well, Bruegel may well have arrived in Rome at the beginning of 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃. How much time Bruegel spent in Rome and what interested him there is not known. He would have visited the Colosseum and perhaps also the Villa Giulia, which was under construction at that time. This was built by Giovanni Maria Ciocchi Del Monte (󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅), who opened the Council of Trent in 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀆 and became Pope Julius III in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀. Did Bruegel witness the burning of all Hebrew books that the pope ordered in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃? Gerald Volker Grimm has shown that Bruegel was familiar with the 󰀄󰀇. ORENSTEIN, SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀅–󰀁󰀁󰀇; BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀄󰀉–󰀆󰀆. 󰀄󰀈. PAWLAK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀁.

62

NILS BÜTTNER

Fig. 󰀅. Joris Hoefnagel, Tiburtum vulgo Tivoli, 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀁, etching and engraving. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek ©Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek

engravings after works by Raphael that were also available in Antwerp, but probably studied his originals.󰀄󰀉 It is more plausible still that the artist visited the famous waterfalls at Tivoli, recorded it in a later, much-praised view engraved in copper entitled Prospectus Tyburtinus and published by Cock as part of the so-called Large Landscapes.󰀅󰀀 Bruegel may have gone to Tivoli with Ortelius. The geographer returned there on 󰀁 February 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈 together with Joris Hoefnagel, who likewise designed an engraving as a result (Fig. 󰀅).󰀅󰀁 This shows Ortelius and Hoefnagel, led by a guide, descending the steep hillside to see the famous waterfall. The view of the waterfall itself is a visual quote of Bruegel’s Prospectus inserted in the lower-right-hand corner, bearing 󰀄󰀉. GRIMM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀇; GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀅–󰀁󰀄󰀃. I would like to thank Rolf Quednau, who is preparing a publication on Bruegel and Raphael, for the stimulating exchange. 󰀅󰀀. Joannes or Lucas van Doetecum after Pieter Bruegel, Prospectus Tyburtinus, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆, etching and engraving, 󰀃󰀂󰀂 × 󰀄󰀂󰀇 mm. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀄󰀀󰀀, no. G󰀂; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀄󰀈–󰀄󰀉, no. 󰀁󰀂; ORENSTEIN, SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀉, no. 󰀄󰀉; Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀈󰀀–󰀃󰀈󰀁, no. 󰀁󰀀󰀇.󰀁. See also Fig. 󰀄, p. 󰀃󰀄. 󰀅󰀁. Joris Hoefnagel, Tiburtum vulgo Tivoli, 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀁, etching and engraving, 󰀃󰀃󰀀 × 󰀄󰀅󰀃 mm. VIGNAUWILBERG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀂󰀉󰀇–󰀂󰀉󰀉, nos f-e 󰀁󰀅.

PIETER BRUEGEL’S ITALIAN JOURNEY: AD FONTES

63

Hoefnagel’s signature on the upper left of the folded back of this meta-image. This reference to Bruegel may also indicate that Ortelius travelled with him;󰀅󰀂 however, it cannot be proven. Among the Italian artists Bruegel sought contact with was the miniaturist Giulio Clovio (󰀁󰀄󰀉󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈), who was famous during his lifetime.󰀅󰀃 They even made a painting together which is lost today; it was recorded as part of Clovio’s estate on 󰀄 January 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈. His inventory includes ‘a miniature painting half by his own hand, half by Master Pietro Brugole’ as well as ‘a picture of Lyon in France in tempera’, ‘a tower of Babel on ivory’, and ‘a picture of a tree in tempera’ all by ‘Master Pietro Brugole’.󰀅󰀄 In addition, Clovio owned two undescribed ‘Landscapes by Pietro Brugal’, three landscape drawings, and ‘many prints’ which he left to his pupil Claudio Massarelli.󰀅󰀅 Since Clovio stayed in Florence from 󰀂󰀀 August 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁 until at least 󰀈 November 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 and then travelled back to Rome in August 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, the collaboration could not have taken place in the papal city.󰀅󰀆 Another possibility for the encounter between Clovio and Bruegel is France, as Stefano Onofri argues in in his contribution to this volume. Bruegel may have visited various Italian cities. For example, he might have travelled with Jacques Jonghelinck, who, according to a notarial document, was with Leone Leoni (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀀) in Milan on 󰀂󰀃 May 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂.󰀅󰀇 Perhaps he was also in Mantua, where he and his Antwerp colleagues had good contacts. Together with Bruegel, a copper engraver had been accepted into the Guild of St Luke in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁; he worked for Cock and was listed as ‘Joorge Mantewaen’ in the Liggeren.󰀅󰀈 This artist of Mantuan origin was none other than Giorgio Ghisi (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀂), who brought from Italy accurate copies of Renaissance masterpieces including Michelangelo’s Last Judgement and Raphael’s School of Athens; these had already been published by Hieronymus Cock in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀.󰀅󰀉 Whether or not Bruegel visited Ghisi’s relatives in Milan or indeed the Palazzo del Te in Mantua—with its overwhelming frescoes by Giulio Romano, which had greatly impressed his teacher Pieter Coecke—is an open question. 󰀅󰀂. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀇󰀄. 󰀅󰀃. See the essay by Stefano Onofri in this volume. 󰀅󰀄. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀆󰀇–󰀂󰀆󰀈: ‘Un quadretto di miniatura la metà fatto per mano sua l’altra di M.o Pietro Brugole.ǀ Un quadro di Leon di Francia a guazzo di mano di M.ro Pietro Brugole.ǀ Una torre di Babilonia fatta di auolio [avorio (?)] di mano di M.ro Pietro Brugole.ǀ Un quadro di un albero a guazzo di M.ro Pietro Brugole’. 󰀅󰀅. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀇󰀄–󰀂󰀇󰀅: ‘Due paesi di Pietro Brugal … Tre disegni di Pietro Brugal in paese con molte stampe’. 󰀅󰀆. ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀆󰀇–󰀆󰀈; GRIMM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀂; COSTAMAGNA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀈. 󰀅󰀇. SMOLDEREN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀅. 󰀅󰀈. ROMBOUTS, VAN LERIUS 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀆, I, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀅: ‘ Joorge Mantewaen, coperen plaetsnyder’. 󰀅󰀉. HUET 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀀󰀉.

64

NILS BÜTTNER

As Carlo Ridolfi (󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀆󰀅󰀈) reports in Le maraviglie dell’Arte ovvero (󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀈), Maarten de Vos is said to have stayed longer in Venice, where he worked in Tintoretto’s studio.󰀆󰀀 We may wonder if Bruegel also went to Venice and Padua, where he could have met Domenico Campagnola (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄). What is certain is that Bruegel copied a drawing of Campagnola’s.󰀆󰀁 Dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, the copy is executed on Italian paper. To state that Bruegel made this in Padua would follow the same logic as the assumption that the view of the monastery made on French paper in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 was made in France en route to Italy. However, the arguments that Bruegel was also in Venice and Padua remain weak, for the contact with the pictorial world of Venice could also have taken place via Girolamo Muziano, whom Bruegel met in Rome, as Dominique Allart shows in her contribution to this volume. She considers the motifs of Bruegelʼs drawings, such as the plentiful vegetation with the strong trees that seem to be twirling around their own axis, as an indication of Bruegel’s familiarity with Venetian art.󰀆󰀂 It is certain that Bruegel was familiar with Venetian drawings and prints by 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂/󰀅󰀃 at the latest, as Frits Lugt has already correctly recognised.󰀆󰀃 The journey back probably took him across the Alps, as numerous drawings suggest. Bruegel may have travelled via the St Gotthard Pass, the artist’s painting of which still existed in 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀀, when it was recorded in the estate of Peter Paul Rubens.󰀆󰀄 The only extant records of Bruegel’s return journey are landscape drawings, which were either made on the spot or in the studio on the basis of travel sketches. The alpine landscape dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 (Fig. 󰀆) has Bruegel combining what he saw with inventions to make a convincing overall picture.󰀆󰀅 The engravings made after Bruegel’s designs show not just what was there but also things he knew or thought worth communicating. The result is carefully curated: Bruegel omitted details that he deemed distracting or disruptive while simultaneously embellishing nature according to his invention. As a result, Bruegel’s Alpine geographies illustrate the principles of geomorphology, tectonics, and flora as they were understood at the time, together with housing 󰀆󰀀. R IDOLFI 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀈, II, pp. 󰀇󰀅–󰀇󰀇; ZWEITE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄, pp. 󰀂󰀄–󰀂󰀅; ZWEITE 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀁–󰀂󰀂. 󰀆󰀁. Pieter Bruegel, Landscape after Campagnola, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, pen and brown ink, 󰀃󰀃󰀃 × 󰀄󰀆󰀆 mm, Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. KdZ 󰀁󰀂󰀀󰀂. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀄, no. Z󰀁󰀃; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀁–󰀃󰀃, no. 󰀅; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀅󰀄, no. 󰀁󰀃; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀄–󰀁󰀀󰀆, no. 󰀁󰀃; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀄, 󰀄󰀂–󰀄󰀃, no. 󰀂󰀁. 󰀆󰀂. See the essay by A LLART in this volume, esp. pp. ##. 󰀆󰀃. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, esp. pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀂󰀉. 󰀆󰀄. DUVERGER 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, IV, pp. 󰀂󰀉󰀇, 󰀃󰀀󰀆, 󰀃󰀁󰀃, no. 󰀁󰀉󰀂: ‘Den Berg Sint-Godard door den Ouden Breugel’; MULLER 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀈, no. 󰀁󰀉󰀂. 󰀆󰀅. Pieter Bruegel, Mountain Landscape with a River, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, pen and brown ink, 󰀃󰀃󰀃 × 󰀄󰀆󰀆 mm, London, British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings, inv. O.o. 󰀉-󰀉. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀁, no. Z󰀇; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀉, no. 󰀈; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀉󰀇–󰀉󰀈, no. 󰀉; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀈, 󰀃󰀇–󰀃󰀈, no. 󰀁󰀀.

PIETER BRUEGEL’S ITALIAN JOURNEY: AD FONTES

65

Fig. 󰀆. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Mountain Landscape with a River, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, pen and brown ink. London, British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings Public domain

and hydrography.󰀆󰀆 However, it was not Bruegel’s aim to describe the particular topographies of each and every region but rather to turn the genre of landscape into a quasi-encyclopaedia of its general features. For contemporaries, such ‘typification’ gave an unusually precise and accurate picture of the regions in question. But because the drawings were understood as a form of emblematic visual redaction, they are of questionable value as proof of Bruegel’s itinerary. Nevertheless, it is probably no coincidence that the Forest Landscape with Bears dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄 has a view of Antwerp on the verso.󰀆󰀇 At the latest, Bruegel returned to Antwerp in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅, when the Great Alpine Landscape—adapted to the size of Cock’s copper plates—was created; from then on, he regularly worked as a draughtsman for Aux Quatre Vents. Since the landscape drawings published by Cock are the only surviving proceeds of Bruegel’s journey, their production was probably a central, if not 󰀆󰀆. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀈󰀄. 󰀆󰀇. Pieter Bruegel, Sylvan Landscape with Five Bears, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, pen and brown ink, 󰀂󰀇󰀃 × 󰀄󰀁󰀀 mm, Prague, National Gallery, inv. K 󰀄󰀄󰀉󰀃. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀇, no. Z󰀁󰀅; MICHEL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀉; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀅󰀈, no. 󰀁󰀅; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀀󰀉, no. 󰀁󰀅; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀈, 󰀄󰀃–󰀄󰀄, no. 󰀂󰀂.

66

NILS BÜTTNER

the most important goal of his trip to Italy. While other artists brought home sketches of ancient monuments and Renaissance masterpieces, Bruegel concerned himself entirely with the landscape. There is evidence that Bruegel did not neglect what most other Netherlandish artists were looking at in Italy. He alluded to the ruins of ancient Rome and referred to Renaissance art in his later works, but the most significant outcome was undoubtedly his drawings and sketches of landscapes produced for commercial ends.󰀆󰀈 It seems hard to imagine that the trip was undertaken solely to generate landscape drawings, but there is no reason for the journey that could be more convincing. Some were definitely not intended as designs for prints and have no relation to any of Bruegelʼs paintings.󰀆󰀉 The function of these drawings is not clear.󰀇󰀀 But the fact that so many of these exist in a highly finished state demonstrates that Bruegel intended to make money from them. Especially in Antwerp, where a longstanding interest in geography created an enormous market for such imagery.󰀇󰀁 Bruegel’s Alpine scenes were appreciated for their imitative quality, which certainly had its place in humanistic discourses of his time.󰀇󰀂 But the pictures were also appreciated as works of art. In order to distinguish himself from other artists, Bruegel developed an idiosyncratic drawing style and signed his works, which was highly unusual for the period. While the dates and signature document the start of Bruegel’s career in Antwerp, the drawings’ style, composition, and subject matter are our closest information on the purpose of Bruegel’s trip to Italy. Undiscovered artworks and documents still slumbering in Italian archives and collections may yet reveal new sources about this poorly understood episode. Ad fontes: the search would be worth the effort.

󰀆󰀈. GRIMM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀅. 󰀆󰀉. See for example River Valley (MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀃󰀃, no. 󰀁) or Wooded Landscape with a Distant View Toward the Sea (MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀃󰀅–󰀃󰀆, no. 󰀇). 󰀇󰀀. VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀄󰀇–󰀄󰀈. 󰀇󰀁. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a. From a different perspective, BR ACKE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀆󰀁, has recently pointed out Bruegel’s connection to cartography. 󰀇󰀂. MEGANCK, VAN SPRANG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀉󰀇–󰀉󰀈, rightly emphasise Bruegel’s ‘imaginary realism’. For friendship, art, and erudition in the network of Abraham Ortelius see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. For the perception of Bruegel’s landscapes in humanist discourse see also MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a, pp. 󰀃󰀈󰀃–󰀄󰀀󰀅; BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀈󰀁.

Italiani ad Anversa al tempo di Bruegel: Frans Floris e i suoi committenti genovesi Elena PARMA

Intorno alla metà del Cinquecento, nella chiesa parrocchiale di Nostra Signora della Rosa e Santa Margherita del borgo di Santa Margherita Ligure, presso Genova, venne collocato un trittico con nella tavola centrale Santa Margherita tra San Sebastiano e San Rocco e, nelle ali, San Giovanni Battista e San Bernardo (Fig. 󰀁)󰀁. Nella tavola centrale sul gradino su cui sta Santa Margherita compare la scritta : Baptista Masucho quondam Nicolai de ordine domine Baptiste De Bene quondam Lodixii. Franciscus Floris me fecit anno 󰀁󰀅󰀄? con l’ultimo numero non più leggibile da tempo. Al centro uno scudo nobiliare vuoto, circondato da una corona di alloro (o di mirto) fiorita. Abbiamo quindi il nome del committente e una data, ora in parte abrasa, da completare. Il trittico, alienato tra Sette e Ottocento, è ricomparso sul mercato nel 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆󰀂 e ora è in Collezione privata. L’unica citazione a stampa che ricorda la pala nella sua ubicazione originaria è la Descriptions des beautés de Genes et de ses environs del 󰀁󰀇󰀇󰀃 dove, parlando della chiesa di Santa Margherita, si dice che vi si conservano “deux bons tableaux de Francois Floris”󰀃, facendo ritenere che nella chiesa esistesse un secondo dipinto del Floris ora disperso. Una conferma viene da un manoscritto di Memorie … della parrocchiale, datato 󰀁󰀇󰀆󰀀, in cui si citano nell’Inventario dei mobili... della detta chiesa fatto l’anno 󰀁󰀇󰀅󰀂 a 󰀁󰀂 di giugno due dipinti posti “sopra la porta appresso il fonte battesimale”, uno dei quali rappresentante “la titolare Santa Margherita posta in mezzo delli Santi Sebastiano e San Giovanni e Bernardo”. Ma la notizia più significativa che ci dà il manoscritto riguarda l’iscrizione che rispetto a quella citata e ancora oggi leggibile, era completata con l’aggiunta di un fecit in Andorpia 󰀁󰀄󰀄󰀇 (sic), data senz’altro correggibile in 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇󰀄.

󰀁. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀅-󰀁󰀃󰀈. Il Wouk nella sua documentatissima monografia su Frans Floris riassume le notizie fornite a suo tempo da Hoogewerf, Van de velde e da me. 󰀂. Christie’s Roma, Importanti dipinti antichi, 󰀂󰀆 novembre 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆, lotto 󰀆󰀂. 󰀃. A NONIMO 󰀁󰀇󰀇󰀃, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀅. 󰀄. PARMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀅-󰀄󰀇.

68

ELENA PARMA

Fig. 󰀁. Frans Floris, Trittico di Santa Margherita, 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇, olio su tavola. Collezione privata

L’indicazione dell’esecuzione del dipinto in Anversa sembra ancora una volta confermare una prassi comune. Sono i committenti genovesi e liguri, prima a Bruges poi ad Anversa, ad acquistare o a commissionare localmente opere specifiche e ad inviarle poi alle chiese della madrepatria. Battista de Bene, il committente del dipinto, non potendo per qualche motivo farlo personalmente, si servì di un intermediario, Battista Masucco, appartenente a una famiglia di notai documentata a Rapallo e a Santa Margherita. Il Trittico fu evidentemente un ex voto per la cessazione della peste, con ogni probabilità quella terribile del 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀉/󰀃󰀀. Nella revisione che ho fatto recentemente nell’archivio parrocchiale di Santa Margherita Ligure, mi sono imbattuta in altri documenti che riguardano i De Bene. Nel volume manoscritto dei “Censi”, Investiture antiche del 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀀, risulta che il 󰀇 ottobre 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀇 Battista de Bene, riceve in locazione perpetua per sé, per i figli ed eredi e per i fratelli Bernardo e Francesco, una terra arborata posta in burgo sancte Margherite, che confina con la via pubblica, con un fossato e con altri terreni della chiesa dati in conduzione perpetua ad altri. Dieci anni dopo, il 󰀁󰀇 dicembre 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇, il parroco affitta a Lodisio de Bene, ai suoi figli ed eredi, una casa con cortile posteriore che dà sul fossato mentre anteriormente

ITALIANI AD ANVERSA AL TEMPO DI BRUEGEL

69

affaccia sulla platea della chiesa. Sui lati ha da una parte un vicolo dall’altra la casa degli eredi di Giovanni De Bene. Avevo già precisato che il Battista quondam Giovanni, morto nel 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀉 a Genova e sepolto nella chiesa di Santa Maria di Castello, non poteva essere il Battista quondam Lodisii committente del Trittico e fratello di Bernardo, santo eponimo che con San Giovanni Battista compare nelle ali. Sicuramente c’erano legami parentali visto che la casa a fianco al nostro era abitata dagli eredi di un Giovanni, forse il padre del Battista genovese. L’ascesa della famiglia viene quindi sancita dall’aver ottenuto, e forse costruito, una casa sulla piazza principale del borgo di Santa Margherita tra il 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀇 e il 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇. I De Bene nel 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀈 furono ascritti alla nobiltà nell’Albergo de Fornari, nobili “nuovi” di media ricchezza che svolgevano una vivace attività commerciale (sete gregge, velluti, zucchero, lana) con più di 󰀂󰀀 località esterne alla Repubblica tra cui Anversa, Londra, Madrid, Lione, Lisbona, Barcellona. I fratelli Agostino, Tommaso e Domenico de Fornari compaiono ad esempio tra i fornitori di Margherita d’Austria nei documenti de la Chambre des comptes de Lille nel primo quarto del Cinquecento󰀅. Personalmente non ho dubbi che la data apposta sulla tavola centrale del Trittico vada letta 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇. Il dipinto del Floris, ancora debole e impacciato nello stile, rispecchia sicuramente le istanze conservatrici dei committenti ma, al di là della presenza delle rovine romane, le Terme Dioclezianee, riferimento che potrebbe essere di seconda mano, contiene elementi “spia” di una visione diretta di opere di Perino del Vaga e di Giulio Romano. Frans Floris, prima di raggiungere Roma, potrebbe essere passato da Mantova e in un secondo tempo da Genova dove, peraltro, era presente fin dal 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀄 il famoso Martirio di Santo Stefano di Giulio, tuttora nella chiesa di Santo Stefano. Anche il foglio di Giulio Romano con la Prudenza󰀆 (Fig. 󰀂), già interpretata come una Santa Margherita, progetto per la decorazione della saletta di Attilio Regolo in palazzo Te a Mantova del 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆, potrebbe costituire un ricordo per Floris. A Giulio lo accomuna anche una certa durezza del tratto e la scelta di un intenso chiaroscuro. La Santa Margherita del Trittico ricorda anche le straordinarie figure di Virtù, tra le quali appunto la Prudenza, che scandiscono la Sala Paolina in Castel Sant’Angelo a Roma. Immagini dipinte da Perino nel 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅-󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇 e precedute a Genova da figure simili come la Vigilanza󰀇, 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁-󰀃󰀂, cartone del

󰀅. VERATELLI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀇󰀉-󰀃󰀈󰀀. 󰀆. London, British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings, inv. 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀆-󰀀󰀇󰀁󰀃-󰀃󰀀. 󰀇. Genova, Museo dell’Accademia Ligustica. Il cartone è stato restaurato in occasione della Mostra Mantova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, n. 󰀁󰀃󰀃, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀅.

70

ELENA PARMA

Fig. 󰀂. Giulio Romano, La Prudenza, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆, disegno a penna e inchiostro su carta marroncina, quadrettato. Londra, British Museum © Trustees of the British Museum

ITALIANI AD ANVERSA AL TEMPO DI BRUEGEL

71

Buonaccorsi per la seconda serie di arazzi con i Furti di Giove commissionata da Andrea Doria per il salone dei Giganti. Tra le prime opere eseguite da Frans Floris al suo rientro dal soggiorno italiano era il perduto Vulcano sorprende Venere con Marte del 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇󰀈. La composizione e la tipologia delle figure ricordano gli Dei a concilio che compaiono nella parte alta dell’affresco con Giove che fulmina i Giganti, nel salone ovest del palazzo di Andrea Doria a Genova. I corpi dei caduti, in posizioni innaturali, sembrano riecheggiati anche nel Sacrificio di Noè, noto dall’incisione di Balthasar Bos del 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅 forse da un perduto dipinto del Floris per il palazzo di Brussels del cardinale Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle. Figure contorte che sono presenti anche nel suo pendant, il Serpente di bronzo, anch’esso inciso dal De Bos. La violenza dei movimenti delle figure, ad esempio nella Caduta degli angeli ribelli del 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄󰀉 (Fig. 󰀃), fa pensare a un michelangiolismo “di maniera”, e presenta una strana somiglianza con la furia del giovane Luca Cambiaso, in collaborazione col padre Giovanni, nell’ Apollo che saetta i greci davanti alle porte di Troia (Fig. 󰀄) nel salone est del Palazzo genovese del cugino di Andrea Doria, Antonio󰀁󰀀, realizzato dopo il 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅󰀁󰀁. Una modalità di interpretazione michelangiolesca più consona al Floris, forse sperimentata prima del suo impatto diretto con le opere di Michelangelo a Roma, oppure acquisita immediatamente dopo il soggiorno romano, come una possibile chiave per accostarsi al mondo formale del Maestro. Floris, al rientro in patria, può inoltre aver avuto notizia e/o visto riproduzioni dei disegni di Perino con le Storia di Enea, inviati già nella prima metà degli anni Trenta a Bruxelles per la tessitura. I disegni per questa prima serie destinata alle pareti del salone ad est del palazzo di Andrea Doria con Il Naufragio di Enea, non furono restituiti e vennero utilizzati, con varianti eseguite in loco, per numerose serie richieste dalla nobiltà europea 󰀁󰀂. Un foglio con Venere che 󰀈. Già a Berlin, Staatliche Museen, distrutto durante la seconda guerra mondiale: WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, Fig. 󰀄.󰀁󰀀, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀄. 󰀉. Anversa, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. 󰀁󰀀.   PARMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀆, fig. 󰀁󰀇󰀇. 󰀁󰀁.    Non si conosce una documentazione attendibile per la datazione di questi affreschi: Magnani nel 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅 datava “l’affresco di Apollo saettatore ormai verso il 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀” ; nel 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, riportando la bibliografia precedente, sembra orientato ad anticipare questa data. La discussione sulla datazione di questo ciclo di affreschi, dato il loro “michelangiolismo” è stata infatti viziata dall’ipotesi di un viaggio di Luca a Roma intorno al 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇. Viaggio che a mio parere non avvenne, almeno in quel momento. A spiegare il “michelangiolismo” di maniera del giovane Luca (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇-󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀅) intorno al 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅-󰀄󰀇 bastano le numerose stampe tratte dalla volta Sistina in circolazione e che egli, secondo le fonti, ricercava e possedeva. Inoltre i colori brillanti che il restauro della Sistina ci ha restituito contraddicono il chiaroscuro quasi monocromo usato dal Cambiaso. M AGNANI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, p. 󰀃󰀁 e M AGNANI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, p. 󰀆󰀄, nota 󰀁󰀆. 󰀁󰀂.    Mantova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, n.󰀁󰀁󰀉-󰀁󰀂󰀄, pp. 󰀂󰀃󰀃-󰀂󰀄󰀁.

72

ELENA PARMA

Fig. 󰀃. Frans Floris, La caduta degli angeli ribelli, monogrammato, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, olio su tavola. Anversa, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten © Rik Klein Gotink, Collectie KMSKA - Vlaamse Gemeenschap (CC󰀀)

ITALIANI AD ANVERSA AL TEMPO DI BRUEGEL

73

Fig. 󰀄. Giovanni e Luca Cambiaso, Apollo che saetta i greci davanti alle porte di Troia, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅, affresco. Genova, Palazzo Doria Spinola

intercede presso Giove in favore di Enea affinché Nettuno calmi la tempesta, conservato a Edimburgo, che avevo pubblicato anni fa come di artista nordico󰀁󰀃, potrebbe rientrare nell’ambito del Floris ed appartenere alle varianti elaborate per le diverse serie di arazzi con le Storie di Enea come quella rappresentata in un arazzo della serie eseguita per Maria d’Ungheria󰀁󰀄. Per scegliere Genova come una delle mete del suo viaggio italiano bastava sicuramente la fama del nuovo palazzo dell’Ammiraglio di Carlo V, il potentissimo Andrea Doria. È comunque probabile che il giovane Floris avesse avuto contatti con la colonia genovese stanziata ad Anversa già prima della sua partenza per l’Italia. Il declino di Bruges e l’ascesa di Anversa avevano determinato il progressivo spostarsi dei mercanti stranieri in questa città. Ben 󰀁󰀂󰀀 genovesi sono censiti ad Anversa tra il 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀 e il 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀. Il numero delle aziende genovesi presenti in città era andato aumentando progressivamente dal 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀅 󰀁󰀃. Edinburgh, Scottish National Gallery; PARMA A RMANI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀, fig. 󰀁󰀁, p. 󰀂󰀆 come “artista nordico” e PARMA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, fig. 󰀄󰀃, p. 󰀅󰀆 come “Frans Floris?”. 󰀁󰀄. Madrid, Patrimonio Nacional, serie n. 󰀁󰀁󰀆, siglata da C ORNELIS DE RONDE 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀-󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅; HERRERO C ARRETERO, JUNQUERO DE VEGA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆, fig. p. 󰀃󰀂󰀆; Mantova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀂󰀄󰀀.

ELENA PARMA

74

fin oltre la metà del secolo per poi decrescere lentamente in coincidenza con le turbolenze religiose e politiche degli anni Sessanta e Settanta󰀁󰀅. La Natio o Masseria o Consolato genovese in terra straniera era una struttura di origine medievale, che raggruppava mercanti, studenti, intellettuali residenti fuori dalla madrepatria ed aveva una connotazione tipicamente mercantile-aristocratica essendo costituita quasi esclusivamente da operatori economici appartenenti a famiglie cittadine eminenti󰀁󰀆. Nelle Fiandre, prima a Bruges poi ad Anversa, essi creano società mercantili o domus, talora in unione con elementi locali. Primeggiano i membri delle famiglie Doria, Spinola, Lomellini, Giustiniani, Centurione, insieme ad altri rivieraschi di minor rango. È una colonia fluttuante che solo in pochi casi si radica, come a Bruges gli Adorno, i Da Costa o i Maruffo e ad Anversa i Balbi󰀁󰀇. Di solito per i giovani rampolli dell’oligarchia della cosiddetta “nobiltà vecchia”, cioè appartenenti a famiglie con patenti di nobiltà anteriori alla Riforma doriana degli “Alberghi” del 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀈, viene privilegiato lo stage di studio-pratica all’estero. Il Consolato genovese si trasferisce definitivamente ad Anversa nel 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀂, seguendo le orme dei mercanti. Essi sono attirati dall’esenzione dalle tasse, dall’offerta del diritto di borghesia ma specie dal traffico dell’allume in cui sono ampiamente coinvolti. Dopo il passaggio alla parte imperiale di Andrea Doria conclusosi con la riforma interna degli “Alberghi” nel 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀈, la Nazione anversese ottiene propri Statuti nel 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀆 . In essi si specifica che potevano farne parte i genovesi iscritti ad uno dei 󰀂󰀈 “Alberghi” nobiliari, cioè associazioni di famiglie aggregate ad una più importante di cui prendevano il cognome, purché residenti da almeno un anno ad Anversa. Il Console, i due Consiglieri più un Segretario, dovevano avere almeno vent’anni ed erano eletti annualmente come a Bruges. La Nazione aveva una struttura giuridica e politica e il suo compito era di organizzare la vita di una minoranza in terra straniera. Doveva badare al rispetto dei privilegi e delle concessioni ottenuti, dirimere le eventuali liti tra mercanti della medesima Nazione, organizzare la vita associativa locale e gestire un proprio tribunale civile, avendo ottenuto questo privilegio da Filippo II nel 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀁. Riscuoteva anche una tassa sui traffici i cui proventi erano divisi tra gli Asburgo, la madrepatria e la sede locale. Sappiamo che nel 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉-󰀅󰀀 la Nazione straniera più numerosa presente ad Anversa era quella spagnola, seguita da quella genovese ad essa legata per motivi politici e finanziari. Nello stesso periodo su novanta mercanti italiani presenti

󰀁󰀅. 󰀁󰀆. 󰀁󰀇.

BECK 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃. PETTI BALBI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆; PETTI BALBI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀅-󰀁󰀉󰀀. GRENDI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇.

ITALIANI AD ANVERSA AL TEMPO DI BRUEGEL

75

in città settanta erano genovesi. Nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁 sono attive ad Anversa 󰀃󰀇 imprese commerciali e finanziarie genovesi. Non stupisce allora che l’arco di trionfo effimero eretto dalla Nazione per l’entrata del principe Filippo l’󰀁󰀁 settembre del 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉, sia stato il più ambizioso e il più costoso tra quelli allestiti dalle altre Nazioni straniere, Spagna compresa. Cornelis Grapheus o Scribonius, già segretario della città nel 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀 quando si occupò dell’entrata di Carlo d’Asburgo diretto ad Aix-la-Chapelle per la sua incoronazione ad imperatore, ricevette anche questa volta l’incarico di organizzare le cerimonie per l’entrata del principe Filippo. Alcuni studiosi si sono occupati in maniera approfondita di questo evento e ultimamente Edward H. Wouk ha messo in evidenza come negli apparati commissionati dalla Municipalità, l’accento sia stato posto più sulla pace e sulla ricchezza raggiunta attraverso il commercio che sull’aspetto militare di ascendenza classica󰀁󰀈. Le Nazioni straniere invece, in competizione tra di loro, scelsero i propri artisti e i propri temi direttamente. I Fiorentini esaltarono i propri meriti artistici e culturali come l’invenzione della prospettiva, l’importanza dei loro letterati con i ritratti di Dante, Petrarca e Boccaccio e dei loro artisti da Giotto a Michelangelo. I Genovesi scelsero una strada diversa in linea con gli allestimenti predisposti a Genova per Carlo V nel 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀉󰀁󰀉 e nel 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀃󰀂󰀀 e, pochi mesi prima, per il principe Filippo sbarcato in città con il padre il 󰀂󰀅 novembre del 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀈󰀂󰀁. È significativo che a Genova gli Asburgo siano stati ospiti non della Repubblica nel palazzo Ducale, ma nella principesca dimora di Andrea Doria, il vero padrone della città, all’indomani della sventata congiura dei Fieschi del 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇 contro di lui. La Superba accolse in quell’occasione tutti gli ambasciatori degli Stati italiani che venivano a rendere omaggio di fedeltà al vecchio imperatore e al giovane principe nella dimora del suo più potente alleato. La storia antica, la mitologia e la religione furono i temi scelti prima a Genova e poi ad Anversa (Fig. 󰀅). Filippo il macedone e Alessandro Magno, Cesare e Augusto suggerivano 󰀁󰀈. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀈-󰀁󰀅󰀈. 󰀁󰀉. Mantova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, n. 󰀉󰀄, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀀-󰀂󰀀󰀁 con bibliografia precedente. Per questa occasione Leonardo Spinola mercante genovese residente in Anversa mandò via Lione a Genova 󰀁󰀀󰀀 tapis de mules per l’imperatore. 󰀂󰀀. Mantova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, n. 󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀂-󰀂󰀀󰀃 con bibliografia precedente. 󰀂󰀁. La vera “entrata” di Filippo a Genova avvenne il 󰀇 dicembre quando, a piedi, da Palazzo Doria, raggiunse il Duomo di San Lorenzo per la messa pontificale e dove fu accolto dal Doge e dalla Signoria. Nelle varie piazze attraversate (San Siro, San Giorgio al molo, Giustiniani) erano stati allestiti apparati tra cui in piazza Giustiniani un grande dipinto che rappresentava la vittoriosa battaglia di Tunisi del 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀅.L’undici dicembre del 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀈 gli Asburgo lasciarono Genova per Milano e poi verso i Paesi Bassi.

76

ELENA PARMA

Fig. 󰀅. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, La figure de l’Arch triumphal des Genevois, incisione da Cornelius Grapheus, Le triomphe d’Anvers faict en la susception du Prince Philips, Prince d’Espaign[e], Anversa 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀

ITALIANI AD ANVERSA AL TEMPO DI BRUEGEL

77

un confronto con Carlo e Filippo, Nettuno col tridente e Giove con i fulmini e l’aquila riprendevano l’iconografia politica delle volte dei due saloni di Palazzo Doria dipinte da Perino proprio in vista del soggiorno di Carlo V nel 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀃. Come gli archi del 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀉 erano stati i primi all’antica realizzati in Italia, anzi in Europa, così l’arco trionfale dei Genovesi fu il primo all’antica nei Paesi Bassi quasi a creare un’immagine ideale, classicheggiante di Genova in Anversa󰀂󰀂. Il progetto iconografico fu affidato a Stefano Ambrogio Schiappalaria 󰀂󰀃, un mercante-letterato originario di Vezzano piccolo borgo vicino a La Spezia, che sarà poi fondatore ad Anversa dell’Accademia dei Confusi󰀂󰀄, un’Accademia umanistica che precede quella degli Addormentati, creata a Genova nel 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀇, e di cui fecero parte alcuni membri di quella anversese come Bartolomeo Re e Bartolomeo Conestaggio De Franchi. Schiappalaria visse ad Anversa fino alla morte nel 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀁 e pubblicò nel 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈 La Vita di Iulio Cesare, un volume in cui si istituisce un parallelo tra la vita di Cesare e quella di Carlo V. Il testo è dedicato ai nobili genovesi di Anversa “che se hanno havuto … de’ pari, non hanno havuto de’ superiori in parte nessuna del mondo né in mare né in terra”󰀂󰀅. Un tema quello dell’indipendenza nella fedeltà caro agli abitanti di Genova come a quelli di Anversa. Schiappalaria ci informa che per la realizzazione dell’arco “lavorarono di continuo circa trecento huomini … e fu finito (benché non del tutto) in diecisette giorni con spesa di circa seimilacinquecento scuti del sole”. L’autore descrive quindi la struttura architettonica dell’arco, l’effetto cromatico (colonne corinzie di finto porfido con capitelli dorati e piedistalli color bronzo), la presenza di statue, di “tavole depinte di personaggi di Dei, e di huomini … accomodate, chi più grandi e chi meno, secondo la prospettiva … di numero tutte insieme (parrà forse menzogna) fino a cinquecento, tutte a oglio, e i sette ottavi di finissimi colori”. L’arco “mirabilissimo” dei genovesi come afferma anche Lodovico Guicciardini nella sua Descrittione di Tutti i Paesi Bassi del 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇, fu meta di visite di persone che “vi stavano di giorno e di notte a pigliar copia delle figure, de simulacri, degli emblemi e degli scritti ...”, imperatore compreso󰀂󰀆. L’iconografia delle rappresentazioni, con le spiegazioni relative, era contenuta in un manoscritto, redatto sempre dallo Schiappalaria datato 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆 e

󰀂󰀂. PARMA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀅󰀇-󰀆󰀂. 󰀂󰀃. BOSTOEN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄. 󰀂󰀄. BOSTOEN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. 󰀂󰀅. SCHIAPPALARIA 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈, pp. 󰀄󰀅󰀉-󰀄󰀆󰀂. 󰀂󰀆. GUICCIARDINI 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇, pp. 󰀈󰀄-󰀈󰀇. L’autore ci informa che a causa della disputa per le precedenze scoppiata tra la Nazione fiorentina e quella genovese, l’Imperatore stesso nonostante “già riccamente preparate fossero e quasi a cavallo” ordinò che “in casa rimanessero”.

ELENA PARMA

78

conservato a Lubecca fino alla seconda guerra mondiale󰀂󰀇. Il libretto, ora disperso, fu la fonte del Grapheus che, nell’edizione latina del suo testo ne annunciava la pubblicazione mai avvenuta. La descrizione di questa complessa struttura compare anche in El felicissimo viaje del muy alto y muy poderoso Principe Don Phelipe … pubblicato ad Anversa da Calvete de Estrella nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 e che riprende nel frontespizio e come unica illustrazione la sagoma dell’arco dei Genovesi. La decorazione dipinta fu affidata ad un’equipe di artisti tra i quali primeggiò Frans Floris, una garanzia per la sua lunga esperienza italiana, per l’entusiasmo per la cultura classica, derivatogli dai suoi maestri Lambert Lombard e Michiel Coxcie, e sicuramente per le sue entrature nella colonia genovese di Anversa. Nelle due nicchie dei pilastri, ai lati del fornice, erano a sinistra, Nettuno sul carro marino, a destra Giano. In cima all’arco Anfitrite, moglie di Nettuno, rappresentava la “muy rica y maritima ciudad de Genova”. Il verso di Virgilio “iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna” che commentava un quadro col vecchio Saturno che si appoggiava significativamente a Giano, testimoniava la speranza di una nuova età dell’oro. Nella volta dell’arco erano Giove che fulmina i Giganti, che conosciamo dalla incisione tratta dal Grapheus e che ricorda più Giulio Romano che Perino, e, in basso, alcuni eretici nell’atto di offendere una fanciulla, la Religione, e, accanto, gli stessi condannati all’eterno rogo. Il riferimento diretto a Genova è evidente solo per le figure di Giano, mitico fondatore di Genova, nel fornice, e di Anfitrite, rappresentata nuda, a cavallo di un delfino e con l’ancora, sull’apice dell’arco. Molti dei temi che compaiono nell’arco anversese, divulgati dagli scritti e tramite incisioni, ebbero probabilmente ripercussioni in patria, a Genova, nei cicli di affreschi mitologici e storici che a partire dagli anni Sessanta ricoprirono volte e pareti delle nuove ricchissime dimore dell’oligarchia finanziaria genovese filoasburgica󰀂󰀈. Nel poco tempo intercorso tra il suo rientro ad Anversa nel 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇 e la commissione per l’arco Floris non doveva aver ancora avuto né l’occasione né il modo di organizzare il suo atelier così numeroso e attivo negli anni 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀-󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀, periodo in cui sono ricordati fino a 󰀁󰀂󰀉 collaboratori. Quindi fu la committenza genovese, spingendo l’artista a dare il meglio di sé in un momento cruciale per l’affermazione della cultura pittorica italiana di matrice raffaellesca e michelangiolesca nei Paesi Bassi, a decretarne il successo e la rapida ascesa. Con i 󰀁󰀂󰀆󰀀 gulden guadagnati con l’“entrata” del 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉, Frans Floris con l’aiuto 󰀂󰀇. EISLER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, p. 󰀃󰀄󰀄, nota 󰀈. 󰀂󰀈. PARMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀉-󰀁󰀄󰀃.

ITALIANI AD ANVERSA AL TEMPO DI BRUEGEL

79

del fratello Cornelis, realizzò per sé una dimora “all’antica”, una vera e propria casa d’artista all’italiana con portale dorico a colonne libere con le allegorie della Scultura, della Pittura e dell’Architettura in consonanza con quanto avrebbe fatto e teorizzato, quasi in contemporanea, Federico Zuccari a Roma. Al primo piano le figure allegoriche in monocromo bronzeo nelle nicchie della facciata, note da incisioni del 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀆 del Monogrammista TG, rappresentavano le abilità e le qualità necessarie ad un pittore secondo le iscrizioni che le accompagnano nelle incisioni. Dimora di cui rimane solo una tarda immagine grafica󰀂󰀉 e che fu il centro della sua molteplice attività fino alla vendita e alla più tarda demolizione nel 󰀁󰀈󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀀. I temi delle Arti Liberali (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇) e delle Fatiche di Ercole (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅), storie quest’ultime che figuravano nei piedistalli delle colonne dell’arco dei genovesi, furono argomenti ripresi dal Floris poco tempo dopo, tra il 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅 e il ‘󰀅󰀇 per la dimora extra urbana di Nicolaes Jonghelinck, morto improvvisamente nel 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀 e i cui beni furono dispersi. Si trattava di due serie di grandi tele in sette e dieci pezzi, destinate alle pareti della biblioteca la prima e alla sala di ricevimento la seconda, note dalle incisioni di Cornelis Cort del 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅. L’ubicazione della serie delle Arti Liberali era già sconosciuta a Karel van Mander nel 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄󰀃󰀁 ma esse figurano nel testamento del 󰀂󰀈 aprile 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀀 di Gio Agostino Balbi come “quadri sette di mano di Frans Flores delle sette arti liberali”. In un altro documento del 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀀 che contiene un elenco di più di 󰀂󰀀󰀀 quadri, di cui almeno 󰀆󰀅 sono indicati come opere di maestri fiamminghi, sono presenti altri tre dipinti di Floris: Adamo ed Eva con Caino e Abele, e Adamo ed Eva con Abele morto󰀃󰀂, e un Ercole ed Anteo, forse quello ora in collezione privata a Bruxelles. Le vicende delle Arti Liberali, di due delle quali segnalavo la comparsa sul mercato, nel 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, Aritmetica e Grammatica, sono state oggetto in seguito di vari studi e precisazioni󰀃󰀃. La loro presenza a Genova è documentata solo nel 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀉 tra i beni di pertinenza dell’eredità di Gio Agostino Balbi (Anversa 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀂󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁), figlio di Bartolomeo. Quest’ultimo, documentato in città dal 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, sposo nel 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂 di Lucrezia van Saantvoort, era stato Console della Nazione genovese nel 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀃 e nel 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂 ed era morto in Anversa nel 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅. Gerolamo, fratello di Bartolomeo, presente ad Anversa dove fu a sua volte Console nel 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀅 e 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀁, 󰀂󰀉. Incisione di Jan van Craes con la facciata della casa di Frans Floris e alcuni particolari, Brussels, Royal Library (KBR). 󰀃󰀀. Da ultimo vedi WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀄󰀆󰀆-󰀄󰀇󰀃. 󰀃󰀁. VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄 [󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁], p. 󰀂󰀂󰀇. 󰀃󰀂. PARMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, p. 󰀅󰀆, figg. 󰀁󰀈 e 󰀁󰀉. 󰀃󰀃. Ne davo notizia per la prima volta al Simposio Genua, la Superba tenutosi ad Utrecht il 󰀆 marzo 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆 in un intervento intitolato “ I Genovesi ad Anversa”; PARMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀅󰀅-󰀅󰀆; da ultimo WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀃󰀄-󰀃󰀄󰀄.

ELENA PARMA

80

rientrò definitivamente a Genova nel 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅 portando con sé il nipote Gio Agostino. Questi ritornò ad Anversa nel 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀈, sposò una fiamminga, fu a sua volta Console nel 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀀-󰀁󰀁 e infine rientrò nel 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀇. L’ultimo suo viaggio in direzione di Anversa, nel 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁, gli fu fatale poiché morì sul Gottardo. E’ significativo che una famiglia genovese, quella dei Balbi, appartenenti alla nobiltà nuova, arricchitasi proprio ad Anversa specie col commercio della seta, abbia acquisito e infine portato a Genova la straordinaria serie delle Arti Liberali 󰀃󰀄. L’eccezionale fortuna dei Balbi, costruita in cinquant’anni sullo scacchiere ispano-fiammingo – l’avo Nicolò mercante di seta, si era trasferito ad Anversa nella prima metà del Cinquecento – fece sì che all’inizio del Seicento la famiglia, rigorosamente filospagnola, potesse progettare a Genova una strada che porta ancora oggi il loro nome, su cui affacciano palazzi di straordinaria magnificenza e il Collegio dei Gesuiti, attuale sede dell’Università, voluto e finanziato anch’esso dalla famiglia󰀃󰀅. La partecipazione dei genovesi alla vita culturale di Anversa è nota. Mi piace ricordare che il primo libro stampato da Plantin nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅, La Institutione di una fanciulla nata nobilmente, del pedagogo veneziano Gian Michele Bruto (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂) che aveva lasciato la sua città perché sospettato di eresia, fu dedicato a una genovese, Marietta Cattaneo, figlia di Silvestro con cui l’autore aveva stretto amicizia󰀃󰀆. Egli ricorda di aver conosciuto anche altri genovesi residenti sulle rive della Schelda e ne cita le qualità intellettuali degne di essere conosciute non solo ad Anversa ma, esagerando, nell’intera Europa󰀃󰀇 . In questi scambi reciproci si può inserire, a mio avviso, la costruzione a Genova della chiesa di San Pietro in Banchi, eretta nel cuore economico e mercantile della città tra il 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂 e il 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀅 come tardivo ex voto per la peste del 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀 e dedicata per questo motivo anche a Maria Immacolata. La chiesa, progettata dall’architetto camerale Bernardino Cantone, fu costruita acquisendo terreni degli Imperiale e dei De Marini, che vi ebbero in cambio le loro cappelle funebri. Per l’edificazione si ricorse all’autofinanziamento, costruendo l’edificio su un’alta terrazza, cui si accede tramite una scala monumentale, sotto cui furono ricavate botteghe poste in vendita e tuttora esistenti. Un espediente che non ha precedenti né seguito a Genova ma che potrebbe trovare un parallelo nella Pand di Nostra Signora󰀃󰀈, (demolita 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀) costruita su terreno di proprietà della cattedrale in costruzione, i cui banchi di vendita furono dati 󰀃󰀄. 󰀃󰀅. 󰀃󰀆. 󰀃󰀇. 󰀃󰀈.

Per la storia della famiglia Balbi vedi GRENDI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇. POLEGGI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; DI BIASE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃. CHIAVARI C ATTANEO DELLA VOLTA, LERCARI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀄-󰀁󰀈󰀅. VAN PASSEN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, p. 󰀆󰀅. EWING 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, pp. 󰀅󰀅󰀈-󰀅󰀈󰀄.

ITALIANI AD ANVERSA AL TEMPO DI BRUEGEL

81

in affitto per ricavare il denaro per portare a termine la monumentale costruzione. L’amore dei genovesi per Anversa è testimoniato da un mercante genovese, presente in città tra il 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 e il 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀆, Gerolamo Conestaggio de Franchi (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀 c. - 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀆), letterato e accademico dei Confusi col nome di Attonito󰀃󰀉. Egli nel suo Canzoniere, dedicò alla città un componimento poetico intitolato “In lode di Anversa” in cui è espressa ammirazione e lode per la città e per i suoi abitanti. …. “tutti son paci, tutti son dolcezze son per lo più mercanti, e quindi aviene, che son pieni di fede e di ricchezze Questa di studi è quasi nova Athene Nova Roma nell’armi esser si vede Perch’ogni guerra, ogni empito sostiene”

e conclude “O benedette mie fiamminghe usanze So che s’un giorno ne gustate un poco, v’empiereste di gioie, e di speranze, et ardereste in amoroso foco”.

󰀃󰀉.

C AVANNA CIAPPINA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀂; VERDINO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀆-󰀁󰀀󰀈.

Giulio Clovio e Bruegel: le possibili circostanze di un incontro Stefano ONOFRI Il punto di partenza per esaminare i contatti tra Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio e Giulio Clovio (Grižane, Croazia, 󰀁󰀄󰀉󰀈 - Roma, 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈) è, com’è noto, l’inventario che il miniatore croato fece stilare pochi giorni prima della sua morte dal notaio Livio Prata, pubblicato per la prima volta da Antonino Bertolotti nel 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂󰀁. L’inventario ricorda opere del fiammingo suddivise in varie categorie: tra le miniature sono presenti «Un quadretto di miniatura la metà fatto per mano sua l’altra di M. Pietro Brugole», «Un quadro di Leon di Francia [Lione] a guazzo di mano di M. Pietro Brugole», «Una torre di Babilonia [torre di Babele] fatta di auolio [cioè su supporto d’avorio] di mano di M. Pietro Brugole», «Un quadro di un albero a guazzo di M. Pietro Brugole»󰀂. Queste furono lasciate in eredità al più grande mecenate e protettore di Clovio, il cardinale Alessandro Farnese󰀃. Tra le suppellettili, invece, troviamo due «paesi», ossia paesaggi, di Bruegel, e «tre disegni di Pietro Brugal in paese con molte stampe»󰀄; le suppellettili furono date in eredità al monastero annesso alla chiesa di San Pietro in Vincoli󰀅. Le opere di Bruegel indicate nel testamento non sono state ritrovate e non si può neppure avere la certezza di come Giulio Clovio ne venne in possesso: potrebbe averle acquistate, oppure potrebbe averle ricevute dal fiammingo in segno di stima e amicizia, come del resto farebbe pensare la collaborazione dei due per realizzare il «quadretto di miniatura» citato nell’inventario󰀆. Appare 󰀁. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀅󰀉-󰀂󰀇󰀉. Per l’inventario si rimanda anche allo studio di HEGENER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅-󰀁󰀉󰀃. 󰀂. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀆󰀇-󰀂󰀆󰀈; HEGENER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀃. Sulle opere di Bruegel nel testamento di Clovio si veda anche GHIRARDI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀅󰀂-󰀅󰀃. 󰀃. Lo esplicita l’inventario: cfr. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀆󰀆; HEGENER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀁. 󰀄. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀇󰀄-󰀂󰀇󰀅; HEGENER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀄, 󰀁 󰀅. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀁, 󰀂󰀇󰀃-󰀂󰀇󰀄; HEGENER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀁, 󰀁󰀇󰀃. Di altri disegni, di mano di Luca Cambiaso, Parmigianino e altri artisti non specificati, ma non realizzati dallo stesso Clovio, fu erede un allievo che il croato ebbe in tarda età, ovvero Claudio Massarelli da Caravaggio. Si pensa che Massarelli abbia collaborato, come allievo prediletto di Clovio, ad alcune miniature del Lezionario Towneley (New York, Public Library, ms. 󰀉󰀁): si veda M ACAN LUKAVEČKI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀈󰀀. 󰀆. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀄.

84

STEFANO ONOFRI

Fig. 󰀁. Giulio Clovio e Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio (attr.), Giudizio universale con veduta di mare in tempesta sul bordo, fo. 󰀂󰀃v del Lezionario Towneley, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 ca, tempera su pergamena. New York, The New York Public Library. Manuscripts and Archives Division. Renaissance and medieval manuscripts collection. Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations, ms. 󰀉󰀁 © New York, The New York Public Library

GIULIO CLOVIO E BRUEGEL

85

probabile che Clovio, già celebre e ben inserito alla corte di Alessandro Farnese ai tempi del viaggio di Bruegel in Italia, abbia voluto incoraggiare un artista più giovane, come avrebbe fatto poi con Bartholomeus Spranger ed El Greco. Alcuni studi hanno cercato di collegare opere conosciute a quelle elencate nel testamento di Clovio. Il più noto risale al 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅, quando Charles de Tolnay individuava una collaborazione tra i due artisti nella realizzazione del fo. 󰀂󰀃v del Lezionario Towneley del croato, raffigurante il Giudizio universale e una miniatura con un Mare in tempesta sul bordo in basso (Fig. 󰀁). Per lo studioso, in questa collaborazione, «molto probabilmente le figure erano di Clovio e il paesaggio di Bruegel»󰀇, dunque riferiva al fiammingo il riquadro in basso con il mare in tempesta, per confronto con la Veduta del porto di Napoli o Baia di Napoli (Roma, Galleria Doria Pamphilj, vedi Fig. 󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀀), di attribuzione tuttavia non certa󰀈. Leopoldine van Hogendorp Prosperetti ha messo in relazione l’«albero a guazzo» dell’inventario con il Paesaggio con albero di Bruegel (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Fig. 󰀂), datato 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂󰀉. Un’eco dell’albero di Bruegel sembra poi tornare sullo sfondo del Ritratto di Giulio Clovio di El Greco󰀁󰀀 (Napoli, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀-󰀇󰀁, Fig. 󰀃), dove la finestra che si apre su un paesaggio può considerarsi, forse, un omaggio all’artista fiammingo scomparso da poco a Bruxelles󰀁󰀁. Il luogo dell’incontro tra Clovio e Bruegel era posto tradizionalmente dagli studi a Roma nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃󰀁󰀂: la presenza di Bruegel nella città è testimoniata dal disegno del Porto di Ripa Grande (Chatsword, Duke of Devonshire Collection)󰀁󰀃, che non è datato, ma due stampe con paesaggi e storie mitologiche pubblicate 󰀇. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀃. A LEXANDER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀂 ritiene che la “veduta marina” sia di Clovio. 󰀈. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀀-󰀁󰀁󰀄. In altri articoli, l’autore ha proposto di attribuire a Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio alcune miniature di altri lavori di Clovio, nel Commentario alle epistole di San Paolo, appartenuto al cardinale Marino Grimani (Londra, Soane’s Museum, ms. 󰀁󰀁), e nel Libro d’ore Farnese (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, ms. 󰀆󰀉). Per queste proposte si vedano rispettivamente DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀉󰀃-󰀃󰀉󰀇, DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀, pp. 󰀆󰀁󰀆-󰀆󰀂󰀃. Sul dipinto della Doria Pamphilj si veda SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀇󰀅. 󰀉. VAN HOGENDORP PROSPERETTI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀇-󰀁󰀅󰀅. Sul disegno dell’Ambrosiana si vedano New York, Rotterdam, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀈󰀈-󰀈󰀉; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀄. 󰀁󰀀. Si trova un collegamento a quest’opera in VAN HOGENDORP P ROSPERETTI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, p 󰀁󰀅󰀂. Il Ritratto di Giulio Clovio di El Greco dimostra la stima e l’amicizia del pittore cretese verso il miniatore croato, che cercò di promuoverlo presso il cardinale Alessandro Farnese (cfr. ad esempio ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀉󰀀). Questo senso di vicinanza e stima nei confronti di un maestro è presente anche nel ritratto del croato dipinto da Sofonisba Anguissola attorno al 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆 (Mentana, Collezione privata), nel quale Giulio Clovio è raffigurato mentre sta dipingendo il ritratto in miniatura di una giovane donna, identificata da Annemie Leemans con la stessa Sofonisba (LEEMANS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀃󰀅-󰀅󰀅). 󰀁󰀁. ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀇󰀃. 󰀁󰀂. Si rimanda ad esempio a CIONINI VISANI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀, p. 󰀆󰀈; Roma, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀀󰀂; SILVER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, p. 󰀃󰀈. Sulla problematica questione della permanenza in Italia di Bruegel si veda anche GHIRARDI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀅󰀀-󰀅󰀆. 󰀁󰀃. Roma 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀂-󰀁󰀀󰀃; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀉󰀆-󰀉󰀇; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀅󰀃.

86

STEFANO ONOFRI

Fig. 󰀂. Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, Paesaggio con albero, firmato, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, penna e inchiostro marrone. Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana © Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana/Mondadori Portfolio

da Joris Hoefnagel alla fine del XVI secolo riportano la scritta «Petrus Breugel fec. Romae A° 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃»󰀁󰀄. (Vedi Fig. 󰀂, p. 󰀅󰀇.) Tuttavia, già nel 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇 Dominique Allart evidenziava la necessità di individuare altri possibili luoghi per l’incontro: nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 Clovio non si trovava a Roma, bensì a Firenze󰀁󰀅, un soggiorno già segnalato dal Vasari󰀁󰀆. La presenza di Clovio a Firenze nell’anno precedente è attestata da una lettera di Vincenzo Borghini a Giorgio Vasari datata 󰀂󰀀 agosto 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂: si dice che «Don Giulio Corvatto lavora certi quadretti per sua Excellentia [Cosimo I], che sono cosa divina»󰀁󰀇. Nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, in seguito, Clovio realizzava per Cosimo de’ Medici, firmandolo e datandolo a quell’anno, il Crocifisso con la Maddalena (Firenze, Uffizi)󰀁󰀈. Inoltre, un documento di Ricordanze generali di guardaroba 󰀁󰀄. Roma 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅-󰀁󰀀󰀆. 󰀁󰀅. La presenza di Clovio è ipotizzata da A LLART 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, p. 󰀉󰀄. 󰀁󰀆. VASARI 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, p. 󰀄󰀄󰀇. 󰀁󰀇. MELONI TRKULJA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀉󰀁-󰀉󰀂. La lettera fu pubblicata per la prima volta da FREY 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀄 e, per essa, si rimanda anche a PELC 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀀. 󰀁󰀈. Sull’opera si vedano ad esempio CIONINI VISANI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀, p. 󰀈󰀅; Firenze, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀅-󰀁󰀉󰀆; MELONI TRKULJA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, p. 󰀉󰀂; Zagreb, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀂-󰀁󰀄󰀃.

GIULIO CLOVIO E BRUEGEL

87

Fig. 󰀃. El Greco, Ritratto di Giulio Clovio, 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀-󰀇󰀁, olio su tavola. Napoli, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte Su concessione del Ministero della Cultura Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

della famiglia Medici (󰀂󰀂 giugno 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃), affermava che «per ordine della signora Duchessa» si consegnavano materiali utili a Clovio per preparare la sua stanza in Palazzo Pitti󰀁󰀉. Clovio non rimase poco tempo a Firenze: Vasari parla genericamente di «molti mesi»󰀂󰀀 e, nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, pare che ancora non fosse tornato a Roma, come dimostra un elenco di familiari, il Rotolo del Cardinale Farnese, nel quale «M. Giulio minatore» è tra coloro che sono in viaggio󰀂󰀁. Un’altra possibilità per l’incontro tra Clovio e Bruegel, finora mai esplorata, è la Francia. Bruegel vi passò, per raggiungere l’Italia, attorno al 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂: il foglio del Paesaggio con monastero in una valle (Berlino, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, vedi Fig. 󰀁, p. 󰀅󰀆), firmato e datato 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, riporta un marchio francese, anche se spesso si è ritenuto che Bruegel vi avesse riprodotto un edificio italiano, per le sue caratteristiche architettoniche romaniche󰀂󰀂; uno 󰀁󰀉. Il documento (Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Guardaroba 󰀂󰀇) è pubblicato da MELONI TRKULJA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, p. 󰀉󰀂; sul soggiorno fiorentino di Clovio si segnalano anche: BAUMAN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀆󰀃-󰀇󰀃; DE LUCA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀅󰀇-󰀅󰀈; ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀆󰀃-󰀆󰀆. 󰀂󰀀. VASARI 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, p. 󰀄󰀄󰀇. 󰀂󰀁. BENOÎT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀅. 󰀂󰀂. New York-Rotterdam, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀈󰀇; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀃.

88

STEFANO ONOFRI

studio di Katrien Lichtert, però, l’ha messo in relazione con edifici anche del sud della Francia󰀂󰀃. Sulla base della già citata voce dell’inventario di Clovio circa «un quadro di Leon di Francia», si ritiene che Bruegel sia passato per la città di Lione, situata nella Francia meridionale󰀂󰀄, allora crocevia importante per gli artisti󰀂󰀅. Una lettera integralmente pubblicata da Ivan Golub nel 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇 fa riferimento ad un soggiorno francese di Clovio. Fu spedita da Giovan Francesco Peranda (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀉-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀂/󰀁󰀂), segretario della famiglia Caetani, a Camillo Caetani (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀂), nunzio apostolico a Praga, ed è datata Roma 󰀃󰀀 maggio 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂󰀂󰀆. L’originale è perduto, ma l’epistola si trova ricopiata in due codici conservati a Roma: il primo risale al 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀, dunque vicino al tempo della missiva, ed è ubicato presso l’Archivio Caetani󰀂󰀇 (Fig. 󰀄); l’altro è il codice Ottoboniano Latino 󰀂󰀁󰀉󰀉 della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, primo di due volumi intitolati Lettere di Giovan Francesco Peranda, non stampate, scritte a monsignor’ Patriarcha Caetano, divise in doi tomi, del signor Domenico Jacovacci󰀂󰀈. Questo secondo codice fu del nobile romano Domenico Jacovacci (󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄-󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀁), che potrebbe aver effettuato egli stesso la trascrizione󰀂󰀉, ed è noto per essere l’autore dei Repertorii di Famiglie romane, manoscritto che si trova nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; fu importante collezionista e ricoprì il ruolo di Maestro delle strade per incarico del papa Alessandro VII Chigi󰀃󰀀. Nell’àmbito delle lettere di Peranda trascritte, è una delle poche di argomento artistico, poiché la maggior parte di esse tratta temi politici, legati alla preoccupazione per la frequente successione di papi󰀃󰀁. La lettera riporta: «Fu consegnato al Vescovo di Cremona [Cesare Speciano, (Cremona 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀉-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀇), che si trovava allora a Praga] il Quadro, che V.S. Ill.ma mi domandò per donare all’imperatore, et la consignatione fu fata in mano propria del Vescovo a nome del S.Re Cardinale Ill.mo [Enrico Caetani, 󰀂󰀃. LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀄󰀁-󰀄󰀃 cita i seguenti edifici del Sud della Francia: la Cappella di Sainte Blaise, Le Baux de Provence; la Cappella di Mas, Arles; l’Abbazia di Notre-Dame di Sénanque, Gordes. 󰀂󰀄. Cfr. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀃; GHIRARDI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, p. 󰀅󰀁. 󰀂󰀅. Si veda soprattutto C ARACCIOLO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀂󰀃-󰀄󰀀. 󰀂󰀆. Si fa riferimento a GOLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀇-󰀁󰀅󰀆. 󰀂󰀇. Archivio gentilizio Caetani di Sermoneta, Roma, Miscellanea 󰀅󰀇/󰀉󰀀󰀃. Il codice non presenta la numerazione delle pagine. Ringrazio la dott.ssa Caterina Fiorani, archivista presso la Fondazione Camillo Caetani di Roma, per l’assistenza che mi ha riservato durante la mia visita all’archivio. Su Peranda, cfr. TESTA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: «Il volume delle lettere e la corrispondenza conservata nell’Archivio privato della famiglia Caetani a Roma mostrano la vastità dei contatti coltivati da Peranda» (p. 󰀂󰀉󰀉). 󰀂󰀈. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottoboniano Latino 󰀂󰀁󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀅󰀀󰀁-󰀅󰀀󰀄. 󰀂󰀉. DE DOMINICIS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, p. 󰀅󰀀. 󰀃󰀀. Sulla figura di Domenico Jacovacci si vedano nel loro complesso i seguenti studi: DE DOMINICIS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄 e GUERRIERI BORSOI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. 󰀃󰀁. Lo si nota esaminando i codici di cui si è detto alle note 󰀂󰀆 e 󰀂󰀇.

GIULIO CLOVIO E BRUEGEL

89

Fig. 󰀄. Frontespizio del volume Lettere del Peranda a Monsignor Patriarca Caetano Nuntio Apostolico, 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅 ca. Roma, Archivio gentilizio Caetani di Sermoneta, Miscellanea 󰀅󰀇/󰀉󰀀󰀃

STEFANO ONOFRI

90

󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀-󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀉, fratello del destinatario Camillo]. Credo, che il Quadrò uenirà bene, perché si è usata ogni diligenza in coprirlo, et chiuderlo per assicurarlo dalli pericoli. All’eccellenza dell’opera si aggiunge, che è Quadro di deuotione, se bene la pittura non si dichiara da sé, perché par ritratto, et non è, et pur è ritratto, ma ritratto di visione. Don Giulio Clouio, che fu il pittore, era solito di raccontar quest’Historia: che trovandosi in francia afflittissimo di febre quartana, si raccomandò a Sant’Orsola la vigilia della Sua festa [󰀂󰀁 ottobre], mentre si approssimaua l’hora del parosismo, riferiua che si adormentò e uide in sogno q.ta Santa Vergine, che gli disse, che il Sig.re Iddio a Sua intercessione gli rendeua la Sanità, et dà quel’hora rimase Sano, et affermaua di hauer riportato in questo Quadro, la immagine di quella Santa, che uide in Sogno»󰀃󰀂. Nella lettera si parla di un’opera di Clovio, una Sant’Orsola, perduta, che era destinata all’imperatore Rodolfo II di Praga, probabilmente per cercare favori da parte sua󰀃󰀃. Si sa infatti che l’imperatore aveva interesse per le opere di Clovio: nel 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀀 aveva cercato di impossessarsi del libro d’ore miniato dal croato (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, ms. 󰀆󰀉), ricevendo però un rifiuto dalla famiglia Farnese, che aveva affermato di non poterlo cedere per impedimenti legati al testamento del “Gran Cardinale” Alessandro󰀃󰀄. Non si conoscono le dimensioni della Sant’Orsola: probabilmente si trattava di un’opera di piccolo formato, come quelle solitamente realizzate da Clovio. La cura qui descritta nel trasportare il quadro era dettata dalla delicatezza e dalla necessità di preservarla. La lettera prosegue: «Lo disse a me imparticolare pochi giorni sono, che si morisse, et per rihauere il Quadro mi offerse l’opere sue, eccettuate quelle, che erano del S.re Card.le farnese: Don Giulio fu huomo da bene, religioso, et di semplicissima fede, e Dio benedetto è mirabile nelli Suoi deuoti»󰀃󰀅. Peranda, autore della lettera, aveva conosciuto personalmente Clovio, e pare che il quadro della Sant’Orsola di Clovio si trovasse nelle sue mani: l’incontro di Peranda con Clovio dovette cadere poco prima della morte del miniatore, avvenuta a Roma il 󰀄 gennaio 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈, dunque circa quattordici anni prima della stesura dell’epistola. Il croato voleva «riavere» da Peranda la Sant’Orsola e, per questo, arrivò ad offrire in cambio altre sue opere. Clovio viene descritto da Peranda come un uomo pio e semplice: avrebbe dipinto la Sant’Orsola dopo aver riacquistato la salute dopo essersi ammalato di gravi febbri e l’episodio della malattia sarebbe avvenuto durante un soggiorno in Francia.

󰀃󰀂. 󰀃󰀃. 󰀃󰀄. 󰀃󰀅.

GOLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀄, a cui spettano le identificazioni dei personaggi citati. Sull’argomento cfr. ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀅󰀃-󰀆󰀁. PÉREZ DE TUDELA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀃󰀀󰀄-󰀃󰀀󰀆. GOLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀄.

GIULIO CLOVIO E BRUEGEL

91

Nella stessa lettera del 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂 si afferma inoltre: «Vn tale de i Verdezzorti venuto a Roma nel Pontificato di papa Innocentio uidde qui in Casa mia il Quadro et disse presente il Quarengo, che in Venetia si uede il Ritratto di Sant’Orsola, et che q.to, e quello sono una cosa medesima»󰀃󰀆. Peranda riferisce che durante il pontificato di Innocenzo IX Facchinetti (novembre-dicembre 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀁) uno dei «Verdezzorti», forma storpiata probabilmente per il cognome nobile veneziano «Verdezzotti»󰀃󰀇, vide il quadro nella sua casa alla presenza del «Quarengo», ovvero Antonio Querenghi (Padova 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀆- Roma 󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀃), letterato, poeta e segretario di diversi cardinali󰀃󰀈. «Verdezzotti» è forse da identificare con Giovanni Mario Verdizzotti (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀇/󰀄󰀀-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄/󰀇), veneziano, che fu segretario di Tiziano, religioso, letterato e artista, nonostante non abbiamo prove per un suo soggiorno a Roma alla fine del 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀁, nei due mesi del pontificato di Innocenzo IX󰀃󰀉. Un riferimento alla Sant’Orsola dipinta da Clovio in Francia e – come racconta Peranda – spedita a Praga nel 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂 si può forse riconoscere nella figura angelicata e diafana che affianca il miniatore nell’Autoritratto di Clovio, conservato agli Uffizi e databile tra il 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅 e il 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀 (Fig. 󰀅)󰀄󰀀: l’artista croato avrebbe dunque cercato la protezione della santa anche negli anni della sua vecchiaia. La missiva continua così: «Se nella corte di sua Maestà Cesarea [Rodolfo II] si troua: come si trouaua già un Giovine, che fu allievo di Don Giulio, l’opera sarà riconosciuta da lui; ma per ogni modo ogn’uno conoscerà et stimerà l’arte, che da questi nostri pittori è hauuta per miracolosa, et dirrei qualche cosa in più, se io non corressi pericolo di far credere, che io dica studiosamente per incarir il dono»󰀄󰀁. Il «giovane» a cui Peranda fa riferimento verso la fine della lettera, che fu allievo di Clovio e si trovava presso la corte di Rodolfo II, si può identificare con Bartholomeus Spranger, che, giunto a Roma nel 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, fu aiutato e apprezzato da Giulio Clovio󰀄󰀂. Purtroppo, non abbiamo nella lettera di Peranda una datazione del soggiorno francese di Clovio, che tuttavia possiamo supporre, come anche Macan, avvenuto al seguito del suo principale protettore, il cardinale Alessandro Farnese󰀄󰀃, 󰀃󰀆. GOLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀄. Il ritratto di S. Orsola a cui la lettera fa riferimento non è stato identificato. 󰀃󰀇. GOLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀄. 󰀃󰀈. L’identificazione con Antonio Quarenghi si deve a G OLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀇. Sulla figura di Antonio Quarenghi, cfr. MOTTA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁-󰀃. 󰀃󰀉. Su Giovanni Mario Verdizzotti si vedano VENTURINI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀁-󰀂󰀀󰀀; FAVILLA, RUGOLO 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇-󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀅󰀅-󰀆󰀈. 󰀄󰀀. ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀆󰀀-󰀆󰀁. Per la datazione si veda Zagreb 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀄. 󰀄󰀁. GOLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀄. 󰀄󰀂. Si veda ad esempio ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀈󰀅-󰀈󰀇. 󰀄󰀃. M ACAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, p. 󰀅󰀈.

92

STEFANO ONOFRI

Fig. 󰀅. Giulio Clovio, Autoritratto, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅-󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀, tempera su pergamena su rame. Firenze, Galleria delle Statue e delle Pitture degli Uffizi Su concessione del Ministero della Cultura

che si recò in Francia nell’autunno 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 per rinsaldare la sua alleanza con il re francese Enrico II. L’itinerario del viaggio fu attraverso «la Valtellina, la Svizzera, Lione» per poi raggiungere la corte francese. Il cardinale restò in Francia fino al 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄 󰀄󰀄, ma Clovio, come già detto, in questo periodo è attestato a Firenze. In conclusione, la presenza di Clovio in Francia potrebbe essere una parentesi durante il soggiorno fiorentino, collocabile tra il 󰀂󰀀 agosto 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂, data della già citata lettera di Borghini al Vasari, e il 󰀂󰀂 giugno 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, quando il miniatore croato è documentato nelle Ricordanze generali di guardaroba dei Medici󰀄󰀅, nove mesi in cui Clovio non risulta con certezza presente a Firenze e in cui potrebbe essersi trasferito in Francia 󰀄󰀆. 󰀄󰀄. Su tali riferimenti alla biografia di Alessandro Farnese si veda A NDRETTA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀅󰀂-󰀆󰀅. 󰀄󰀅. Cfr. note 󰀁󰀆 e 󰀁󰀉. 󰀄󰀆. A interrogarsi sull’assenza di Clovio da Firenze fu MELONI TRKULJA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀉󰀃-󰀉󰀄, che spiegò la mancata documentazione di Clovio durante nove mesi con la sua fama non ancora ben assestata, affermando che l’artista non era ancora ben inserito nella scena artistica fiorentina: «E mi sembra logico che vi si installasse [nelle stanze di Palazzo Pitti] solo allora [il 󰀂󰀂 giugno 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃], dopo di essersi propiziato il duca con i quadretti del 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂». Ad opere realizzate precedentemente

GIULIO CLOVIO E BRUEGEL

93

Se si considera valida la proposta di collocare attorno al 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂-󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 il soggiorno francese di Clovio, si può anche immaginare avvenuto in quel tempo l’incontro con Bruegel, che viaggiava allora verso l’Italia. La veduta di Lione di Bruegel, inventariata tra i beni di Giulio Clovio, può fornire un sostegno all’ipotesi. I due artisti, Clovio e Bruegel, potrebbero aver collaborato durante la permanenza in Francia e il viaggio verso l’Italia, insieme fino a Firenze, dove Clovio si fermò e dove risulta con certezza attestato nel giugno 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃. Per Bruegel, invece, il viaggio proseguì verso Roma e ancora più a sud.

potrebbe far riferimento la nota di pagamento di Eleonora da Toledo a Giulio Clovio, datata 󰀂󰀂 aprile 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, per lavori eseguiti durante il soggiorno a Firenze «essendo Clovio presente insieme al cardinale Alessandro Farnese» (M ACAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, p. 󰀄󰀁󰀁): il cardinale Alessandro Farnese nella primavera del 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 si trovava però in Francia (cfr. A NDRETTA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀅󰀂-󰀆󰀅), quindi la presenza di Clovio a Firenze assieme al Farnese doveva essere precedente. Lo stesso studio di M ACAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀅󰀆-󰀅󰀇, nel ricostruire gli spostamenti di Clovio, tiene presenti, come punti fermi per la presenza di Clovio a Firenze, la lettera del Borghini al Vasari del 󰀂󰀀 agosto 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 e le Ricordanze generali di guardaroba del 󰀂󰀂 giugno 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃.

Bruegel as a Landscape Draughtsman, and His Italian Connections New Observations on Stream with an Angler from the ‘Lugt Group’ Dominique ALLART During the past decades, our vision of Bruegel’s drawing style underwent a profound change. Several sheets revealing a Venetian influence were incorporated in the catalogue of his oeuvre. They question the image of an artist supposedly insensitive to the charms of the peninsula’s art during his stay there between 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 and 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄. The present essay focuses on one of the most famous among them, Stream with an Angler in the Royal Library of Belgium in Brussels (KBR) (Fig. 󰀁).󰀁 It will lead us to reconsider the links that Bruegel forged with his Italian counterparts and the impact of his inventiones on Italian production. Stream with an Angler is part of a group of sheets, all vertical in format, showing lush, wooded landscapes. There are five different compositions of this kind. Three of them have been preserved in several copies (up to five); two survived with just one copy each. The set is stylistically quite homogeneous but clearly reveals different identifiable hands.󰀂 Fritz Lugt, the legendary art collector and expert in the field of drawings, brought to light three of these sheets in 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, which is why the expression ‘Lugt group’ is still used today to describe the series. He associated them with Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s artworks.󰀃 Indeed, some drawings are inscribed with the artist’s name, the date 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, and the annotation Roma or in Roma. In fact, none of these inscriptions are in Bruegel’s handwriting. However, they are consistent with solidly established biographical data: the artist was in Italy around 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀄.󰀄 Lugt believed 󰀁. Brussels, KBR, Print Room, inv. S.II 󰀁󰀁󰀃 󰀁󰀄󰀅, folio C, pen and red-brown ink, 󰀃󰀄󰀅 × 󰀂󰀃󰀅 mm. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀃 and fig. 󰀉; A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀅a; Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, no. 󰀄󰀇; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀁󰀉; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀁󰀈; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀁󰀉; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, no. 󰀉. 󰀂. On this group, see esp. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀂󰀇; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀆–󰀁󰀇; WOOD RUBY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, nos. 󰀁󰀈 and 󰀁󰀁󰀉; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, nos. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, nos. 󰀉–󰀁󰀀 (and additional bibliography below). 󰀃. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, esp. pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀂󰀉. 󰀄. On Bruegel’s journey in Italy, see esp. A LLART 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇; LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅 (though not without errors in her understanding of previous literature). See also the updated contribution of Nils Büttner in this volume.

96

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀁. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Stream with an Angler, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, pen and brown ink. Brussels, KBR, Print Room Photograph by the author

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

97

this group of works was a privileged testimony to Venetian influence on the young Bruegel. He mentioned the name of Girolamo Muziano as a possible vector of this influence. He thought this might be a clue to Bruegel’s network of relationships in Italy.󰀅 Perhaps we never realised just how insightful he was. In the short term, Lugt’s views were hardly followed. Most scholars argued that the sheets in question were not by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, but by his younger son, Jan, or his entourage. This led to the drawings being dated much later, around 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀. For example, Jan Brueghel’s authorship was suggested for the beautiful Wooded Landscape with Wild Animals in Paris (Fondation Custodia) in the catalogue of the Berlin exhibition in 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅.󰀆 However, in the meantime, Karl Arndt had made an important discovery. In 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, he brought to light the Prague Landscape with Bears.󰀇 Although this drawing was unsigned, it was immediately and unanimously recognised as an original work by Bruegel. Its horizontal format was in line with Bruegel’s preferred formats, but it was also undeniably related to the Lugt group’s compositions, since it was dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄 and showed a wooded landscape. Like four of the Lugt group’s sheets, it depicted animals roaming freely in the wild. In this case bears, as in a drawing in the British Museum.󰀈 On this basis, Karl Arndt suggested in 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂 that the drawings of the Lugt group be reassessed. He certainly did not consider them to be autograph works by Bruegel, but in his mind, there was no doubt that they were copies of lost Bruegel originals.󰀉 A few years later, Karel Boon expressed reservations regarding this hypothesis. He conceded that the Lugt group sheets were derived from Bruegel’s drawings, but he viewed them as free interpretations, in a pre-Baroque spirit, typical of the period around 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀.󰀁󰀀 It was then that Hans Mielke undertook his comprehensive critical review of all the artist’s drawings. This tremendous work resulted in a catalogue raisonné, posthumously published in 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆. Hans Mielke devoted long and painstaking hours of research to the Lugt group, from which he drew highly 󰀅. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀄–󰀁󰀂󰀈. 󰀆. Paris, Fondation Custodia, Collection Frits Lugt, inv. 󰀈󰀀󰀂󰀅, pen and brown ink, 󰀃󰀃󰀉 × 󰀂󰀄󰀃 mm. A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀂e; Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, no. 󰀄󰀂; Firenze-Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀–󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, no. 󰀄󰀄. The attribution to Jan Brueghel the Elder was reiterated by Louisa Wood Ruby in Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, no. 󰀁󰀃. 󰀇. Prague, Národní Galerie, inv. K󰀄󰀄󰀉󰀃, pen and brown ink, 󰀂󰀇󰀃 × 󰀄󰀁󰀀 mm. A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀇; A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. 󰀃; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀁󰀅; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀁󰀅; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃b, p. 󰀂󰀉󰀉; Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, no. 󰀁󰀁b. 󰀈. Given the poor state of the Prague sheet, these details are barely distinguishable. As for the London sheet, see below, note 󰀁󰀄. 󰀉. A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, p. 󰀇󰀃 and passim. 󰀁󰀀. Karel Boon in Firenze-Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀–󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, pp. 󰀆󰀁–󰀆󰀂; BOON 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, vol. 󰀁; pp. 󰀇󰀅–󰀇󰀈.

98

DOMINIQUE ALLART

nuanced conclusions.󰀁󰀁 Of the five compositions in the Lugt group, he claimed that three were based on Bruegel’s originals.󰀁󰀂 In this sense, he agreed with Karl Arndt’s views. In the other two compositions, he saw much freer interpretations of Bruegelian compositions, already strongly influenced by Baroque aesthetics, as suggested by Karel Boon.󰀁󰀃 Moreover, he also argued—and this was a decisive twist—that Bruegel’s creations had reached us in the form of Bruegel’s true original drawings in two cases. He considered Woodland Scene with Bears in London and Stream with an Angler in Brussels to be autograph works.󰀁󰀄 Previously, in 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, Konrad Oberhuber had already suggested that these two sheets could be Bruegel’s originals and not copies, but in his mind, this was still only a hypothesis.󰀁󰀅 The issue was not really revisited during the major exhibition on Bruegel’s drawings held in Rotterdam and New York in 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁. Two sheets from the Lugt group were on display: the one from Brussels that interests us here and the Landscape with Exotic Animals now in Cambridge.󰀁󰀆 Mielke’s opinion was reiterated, i.e., that Stream with an Angler could be attributed to Pieter Bruegel the Elder, whereas the Cambridge drawing was considered a freehand copy after the master, hypothetically by his younger son and dating from around 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀. Since then, the only progress made on the Lugt group has been the attribution of the Cambridge sheet. Louisa Wood Ruby identified Paul Bril’s hand, a very convincing suggestion that should encourage us to reconsider the attribution of all the late copies in the Lugt group.󰀁󰀇 Returning to the Stream with an Angler in Brussels, let us examine the question of its attribution to Bruegel. Recently, the drawing was examined using sophisticated methods by interdisciplinary teams from the KULeuven and the 󰀁󰀁. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀆–󰀁󰀇. 󰀁󰀂. A. Group of Trees with Donkeys and Goats, 󰀃󰀄󰀅 × 󰀂󰀄󰀆 mm, Chicago, Art Institute (A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀃a); second version: New York, Peter Dreyer (A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀃b), B. Woodland Scene with Bears, London, British Museum (A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀁; see below, note 󰀁󰀄), only known version; C. Stream with an Angler, Brussels, KBR; two additional versions: Paris, Louvre, and Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett (A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, nos. K󰀅a–c, see also below). 󰀁󰀃. A. Forest Landscape with Wild Animals, 󰀃󰀃󰀇 × 󰀂󰀄󰀇 mm, Paris, Fondation Custodia; four additional versions: two versions in Paris, Louvre; one version in London, British Museum; one version in Chicago, Art Institute (A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, nos. K󰀂a–e); B. Landscape with Exotic Animals, 󰀃󰀀󰀇 × 󰀂󰀀󰀂 mm, Cambridge (Mass.), Fogg Art Museum (A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K.󰀄; WOOD RUBY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂; only known version). 󰀁󰀄. Woodland Scene with Bears, pen and brown ink, 󰀃󰀃󰀇 × 󰀂󰀃󰀂 mm, London, The British Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀂.󰀁󰀀󰀁󰀂.󰀃󰀃󰀄󰀄. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀈 and fig. 󰀁󰀅; A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀁; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀁󰀈; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀂󰀀; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, no. 󰀁󰀀. 󰀁󰀅. OBERHUBER 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, n. 󰀄󰀀. Shortly before, Matthias Winner had cautiously suggested an attribution of Woodland Scene with Bears (London, British Museum) to Bruegel in Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, no. 󰀄󰀁. 󰀁󰀆. New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, respectively nos. 󰀁󰀈 and 󰀁󰀁󰀉. 󰀁󰀇. WOOD RUBY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂.

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

99

KBR in order to determine its technical characteristics and especially the composition of the inks used by Bruegel.󰀁󰀈 Alternatively, my own study is based on the classical methods of connoisseurship. Two other drawings display the same composition, one in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin󰀁󰀉 and the other in the Louvre (Fig. 󰀂).󰀂󰀀 The Berlin version has always been considered weaker, and rightly so.󰀂󰀁 Detailed examination reveals a rather crude copy: some motifs were evidently misunderstood, especially the angler. He is depicted here without his fishing rod, so that the movement of his arm loses all meaning. Conversely, the Paris version of the composition is of very high quality.󰀂󰀂 Its drawing style combines a sense of liveliness and subtlety. After scrupulous examination, one can only conclude that it was executed after the Brussels sheet. Indeed, the latter reveals traces of searching and small adjustments, as we will see below. These traces are not present in the Paris sheet, where the outlines of some shapes are made more precise, whereas in the Brussels version they are muddled (Fig. 󰀃). In the Paris sheet, the articulations between motifs, particularly the branches, are more coherent. All this indicates that the Paris sheet was based directly on the Brussels sheet, of which it offers a sort of tidy version. Comparative analysis thus confirms that the Brussels drawing is the prototype. As for attributing the latter to Bruegel, the inscription in the lower-left corner of the sheet is of no help in making a decision, as it is apocryphal, as are similar inscriptions that appear on several sheets of the Lugt group. It is in a darker ink, perhaps the same ink used to draw a frame around the composition. Moreover, the spelling of the name is the one that Bruegel adopted only from 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀉 onwards (previously he signed ‘Brueghel’ with an ‘h’).󰀂󰀃 The drawing is executed with a quill using diluted inks in order to create different shades of brown, apparently over a preliminary sketch in charcoal or black chalk, which has left some very faint traces. It does not present any major changes in composition. On the contrary, it shows all the signs of a 󰀁󰀈. WATTEEUW ET AL . 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, esp. p. 󰀅󰀇. In this drawing, Bruegel used a carbon ink mixed with iron-gall ink as usual, mixed with a small amount of nickel, which seems more exceptional and might be related to his discovery of Italian drawing practice. 󰀁󰀉. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 󰀁󰀁󰀇󰀃󰀉, pen and brown ink, 󰀃󰀃󰀄 × 󰀂󰀂󰀆 mm. A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀅c; Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, no. 󰀄󰀉; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀄󰀂, under no. 󰀁󰀉. 󰀂󰀀. Paris, Louvre, Département des Arts graphiques, inv. 󰀂󰀀󰀇󰀂󰀆, pen and brown ink, 󰀃󰀄󰀃 × 󰀂󰀄󰀀 mm. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀃 and fig. 󰀁󰀀; A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, no. K󰀅b; Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, no. 󰀄󰀈; MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀄󰀂, under no. 󰀁󰀉. 󰀂󰀁. Fritz Lugt already described it as a ‘schlechtere Wiederholung’ (LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀃). The same opinion was expressed by Matthias Winner in Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, nos. 󰀄󰀇 and 󰀄󰀉. 󰀂󰀂. It was considered better than the Brussels version by Frits Lugt (LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀈) and Matthias Winner (Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, no. 󰀄󰀈). 󰀂󰀃. On the changes in Bruegel’s signatures over time, see CURRIE, A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, 󰀁, pp. 󰀇󰀄–󰀇󰀅.

100

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀂. Stream with an Angler (replica, possibly by Pieter Bruegel the Elder himself), c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄 (?), pen, brown ink and black chalk. Paris, musée du Louvre, Département des Arts graphiques Photograph by the author

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

101

Fig. 󰀃. Stream with an Angler (details). On the left: Paris (Louvre) version. On the right: Brussels (KBR) version Photograph by the author

confident, vigorous performance based on a precise compositional project, but free and nervous in the details, where trial and error and approximations are perceptible. Double outlines are noticeable, especially in the branches: they correspond to rectifications. Some elements are accentuated; some shaded areas are reinforced by darker brown lines. This retouching, scattered throughout the composition, is well integrated into the whole and can be considered autograph. In fact, Stream with an Angler is close to many drawings Bruegel produced while in Italy between 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 and 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄.󰀂󰀄 Because of similarities in the drawing style and technique, these sheets can be seen as a coherent production. For instance, the representation of the angler is comparable to the character sitting at the foot of the tree, pointing to his companions in the Mountain Landscape with River and Travellers in London.󰀂󰀅 The figures are similar in both, with stocky builds and slender limbs, and an identical way of shading the character’s 󰀂󰀄. For an overview on Bruegel’s drawings in Italy, see esp. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, pp. 󰀅–󰀁󰀇; Martin Royalton-Kisch in New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀂–󰀃󰀉, esp. pp. 󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀆. See also the stimulating critical remarks made by Manfred Sellink (SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀉󰀉–󰀃󰀀󰀃). 󰀂󰀅. London, The British Museum, inv. O.o.󰀉–󰀉 (P. 󰀂), pen and red-brown ink, with light wash, 󰀂󰀂󰀈 × 󰀃󰀂󰀈 mm, dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀁󰀀; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀉; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀈.

102

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀄. Details of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Mountain Landscape with River and Travellers, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, pen and brown ink (London, The British Museum), on the left, and Stream with an Angler, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, pen and brown ink (Brussels, KBR) on the right Photographs by the author

Fig. 󰀅. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Peasants and Cattle near a Farmhouse, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, pen and brown ink. Washington, National Gallery of Art, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund © Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

103

leg is noticeable (Fig. 󰀄). Similarly, the rider on his mule in the Brussels sheet can be compared with an analogous motif in the Pastoral Landscape in Oslo󰀂󰀆: the animal’s silhouette is represented in the same fashion, and the way in which its body is shaded is highly similar. More generally, the landscapes drawn by Bruegel at that time render tree foliage in the same way: leaves are suggested by small lines forming loops and volume is provided by large parallel hatching arranged more or less horizontally and vigorously. Based on these comparisons, one can only agree with the opinion of Mielke, who considered the Brussels sheet to be an autograph drawing by Bruegel. One should ask the same question about the Louvre version: Could Bruegel have made a copy of his own composition? The issue has never been addressed and deserves to be examined in more detail. What is striking in this composition, as in all those in the Lugt group, is how the panoramic vistas so dear to Flemish landscape artists have been abandoned and replaced by more restricted views, and how the focus has shifted to the foreground. This feature is linked to the prominent role given to tall trees: a cluster of trees, mainly in the foreground, is a common feature among all the sheets in the Lugt group. The choice of a vertical format is partly related to this option. However, this feature is also found in horizontal drawings produced by Bruegel, such as Wooded Landscape with Mills in Milan,󰀂󰀇 Pastoral Landscape in Oslo,󰀂󰀈 Landscape with Bears in Prague,󰀂󰀉 and Peasants and Cattle near a Farmhouse in Washington󰀃󰀀 (Fig. 󰀅). In these drawings, trees also play a major role in structuring the composition and highlighting the contrast between the foreground and the landscape beyond. Of course, trees were widely used as pivoting devices in Flemish landscape art in the first half of the sixteenth century. But what connects Bruegel’s drawings to those of the Venetian school is a conception of nature as a life force, reflected in the dynamic approach instilled in all its components. Vegetation is plentiful. Trees are strong, with tortuous trunks that seem to be twirling around their own axis. Their roots are entangled. Their branches split into multiple ramifications, and the lush foliage spreads in all directions. 󰀂󰀆. Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet, NG.K&H.B. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄󰀇, pen and brown ink, 󰀂󰀁󰀅 × 󰀃󰀁󰀀 mm, signed and dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀇; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀃; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀄. 󰀂󰀇. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, inv. F.󰀂󰀄󰀅, INF. N.󰀉, pen and brown ink, 󰀂󰀁󰀃 × 󰀂󰀈󰀁 mm, signed and dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀃; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀂; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀃. 󰀂󰀈. See above, note 󰀂󰀆. 󰀂󰀉. See above, note 󰀇. 󰀃󰀀. Washington, National Gallery of Art, Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃, inv. 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃.󰀂󰀁.󰀁, pen and red-brown ink, 󰀂󰀃󰀅 × 󰀃󰀄󰀃 mm. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀈; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀁󰀉; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀁󰀈; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, no. 󰀆.

104

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀆. Niccolò Boldrini after Titian, Landscape with a Milkmaid, 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀s, woodcut. Washington, National Gallery of Art, Rosenwald Collection © Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington

Those who have pointed out Bruegel’s receptivity to Venetian influence invoke a famous chiaroscuro woodcut after Titian or Domenico Campagnola showing goats at the foot of a tree as a key piece of comparison.󰀃󰀁 And it is true that one of the Bruegelian compositions of the Lugt group, known from a copy in Chicago, is close to this woodcut.󰀃󰀂 There are many other points of comparison among the Venetians, such as the Landscape with Sleeping Shepherd drawn by Titian (Paris, Louvre󰀃󰀃), or a woodcut by Niccolò Boldrini after Titian, Landscape with a Milkmaid 󰀃󰀄 (Fig. 󰀆), that can be compared with Bruegel’s Peasants and Cattle near a Farmhouse in Washington󰀃󰀅 (Fig. 󰀅). The works in question represent undergrowth and rural landscapes with no narrative subject, or rustic scenes with shepherds and peasants. 󰀃󰀁. Two Goats under a Tree, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀–󰀃󰀅, chiaroscuro woodcut (Bartsch 󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀁, no. 󰀂󰀀). On the influence of this woodcut on Bruegel, see especially MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, p. 󰀇; Martin Royalton-Kisch in New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀆 and idem, cat. no. 󰀂 and fig. 󰀇󰀉. 󰀃󰀂. Chicago, The Art Institute, inv. 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀂.󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀆 (Leonora Hall Gurley Memorial Collection), pen and brown ink, 󰀃󰀄󰀅 × 󰀂󰀄󰀅 mm. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀂󰀀 (as a faithful copy after Pieter Bruegel). 󰀃󰀃. Paris, Louvre, Département des Arts graphiques, inv. 󰀅󰀅󰀃󰀄, pen and dark brow ink, 󰀂󰀅󰀀 × 󰀃󰀉󰀉 mm. CHIARI MORETTO WIEL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀈. 󰀃󰀄. Washington-Dallas-Detroit 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆–󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, no. 󰀂󰀁. 󰀃󰀅. See note 󰀃󰀀.

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

105

Fritz Lugt had already observed that Bruegel showed signs of imitating the Venetian landscape masters. He had discovered that a drawing by Bruegel kept in Berlin󰀃󰀆 reproduced a composition attributed to Domenico Campagnola, of which the original seems to have disappeared, but which is known from a nineteenth-century lithograph.󰀃󰀇 This example confirms that Bruegel carefully studied Venetian works, but it also shows that, far from creating a servile copy of a model he admired, the young artist already had a strong enough personality to reinterpret the scene and, to a degree, adapt it to the norms of Flemish taste. Indeed, he introduced a Brabantine church in this landscape on the right, and on the left, a river winding towards the horizon, a common feature in the landscape art of the Low Countries. However, the most obvious similarities are to be found between Bruegel’s drawings and Girolamo Muziano’s landscapes. Lugt had already sensed this connection, but the comparison between the works of the two artists was never fully developed due to a lack of knowledge of Muziano’s production. Things changed with Patrizia Tosini’s in-depth research on the Brescian artist. In the monograph she published in 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, Muziano’s career is described step by step. Muziano is followed from his beginnings in the Veneto under the influence of Domenico Campagnola, Paolo Veronese, and the Dutchman Lambert Sustris until he settled in Rome in 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉, where he quickly established himself as one of the major figures in the art of the Counter-Reformation.󰀃󰀈 Although landscapes were far from being his exclusive speciality, Muziano played an important role in this field in Rome and in the Lazio, which earned him the nickname of ‘giovane dei paesi’, according to Giovanni Baglione.󰀃󰀉 His talents as a landscapist were also praised by Karel van Mander. In his Schilder-Boeck (󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄), Van Mander stresses Muziano’s typical manner, which he considered ‘different from that of the Flemish artists and something rarely found in other Italian painters’. According to him, Muziano ‘was also skilful in representing trees, which he rendered with great art and in a beautiful manner, imaginatively creating trunks and roots, and cladding them with ivy and other plants’.󰀄󰀀 󰀃󰀆. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. KdZ 󰀁󰀂󰀀󰀂, pen and red-brown ink, 󰀃󰀃󰀃 × 󰀄󰀆󰀆 mm, dated 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, no. 󰀂󰀁; New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀁󰀃; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀁󰀃; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃b, p. 󰀂󰀉󰀉; Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, no. 󰀅. 󰀃󰀇. This lithograph was published in Monuments des arts du dessin chez les peuples tant anciens que modernes, recueillis par le Baron Vivant Denon ... pour servir à l’ histoire des arts, lithographiés par ses soins et sous ses yeux, décrits et expliqués par Amaury Duval, vol. 󰀂, 󰀁󰀈󰀂󰀉, pl. 󰀁󰀂󰀈bis. 󰀃󰀈. TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, esp. pp. 󰀉–󰀆󰀅. 󰀃󰀉. TOSINI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀀; HOCHMANN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, p. 󰀂󰀄󰀅 and n. 󰀁; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀁󰀇󰀆 (esp. n. 󰀇). On Muziano as a landscape painter, see esp. TOSINI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀇 and passim; HOCHMANN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. 󰀄󰀀. See esp. TOSINI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀁; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀅, n. 󰀅 (the quotation is taken from her).

106

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀇. Girolamo Muziano, Rural Landscape with Mills, c.󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀅, pen and brown ink. Florence, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi © GDSU

Muziano had been in Rome for about three years when Bruegel arrived there around 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂.󰀄󰀁 The Brescian artist was only twenty years old at the time. Bruegel was five or six years older.󰀄󰀂 As Lugt did nearly a century ago, I would argue that it was Muziano who guided the Flemish artist towards Venetian models.󰀄󰀃 Several landscapes drawn by Muziano in the early 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s, such as one in the Uffizi (Fig. 󰀇), show just how much he himself was a follower of Domenico Campagnola.󰀄󰀄 Their compositional pattern is centred on one or more tall, 󰀄󰀁. For a status quaestionis on the chronology of Bruegel’s trip to Italy, see the essay by Nils Büttner in this volume. 󰀄󰀂. On the most recent biographical data on Bruegel’s birth (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆–󰀂󰀇), see VAN DER STOCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀄. 󰀄󰀃. In her monograph on Muziano, Patrizia Tosini acknowledges the question but with reservations, noting that it was impossible to confirm direct links between them on any objective basis (TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀆󰀂–󰀆󰀄). See also TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀉. 󰀄󰀄. Among the examples of these first landscape drawings by Muziano, see River Landscape with a Viola Player (formerly attributed to Domenico Campagnola) in Florence, Biblioteca Marucelliana, inv. Dis. A 󰀁󰀈󰀃 (TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀁–󰀁󰀈󰀄, fig. 󰀁; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀁󰀇󰀈, fig. 󰀈.󰀂), River Landscape with a Mill in Chatsworth, Collection of the Duke of Devonshire, inv. 󰀂󰀂󰀉 (TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀁–󰀂󰀂, fig. 󰀁󰀃; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀁, fig. 󰀂; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, fig. 󰀈.󰀁) and the Rural Landscape with Mills (formerly attributed to Domenico Campagnola) in Florence, Uffizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, inv. P󰀄󰀉󰀅 (TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, p. 󰀂󰀁, fig. 󰀁󰀄; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, fig. 󰀈.󰀈, here Fig. 󰀇).

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

107

vigorous trees located laterally to form an eye-catching feature in the foreground. This compositional scheme, which has also been observed in several landscapes drawn by Bruegel during his stay in Italy, could have been inspired by Muziano’s drawings. Moreover, the lively and nervous strokes that characterise Bruegel’s landscapes between 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 and 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄 show some similarities to Muziano’s. However, it is highly likely that the exchange that took place between the two young artists was two-way. In this regard, it is interesting to note that at a later stage, in the 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, Muziano made a series of drawings showing vertically framed landscapes, quite unusual among Venetian landscape drawings, as Tosini has observed.󰀄󰀅 Some of them show striking similarities to sheets from the Lugt group and could be reminiscent of Bruegel’s drawings (Fig. 󰀈). Another case in point is the obvious relationship between several landscapes from this series (see for example Fig. 󰀉) and the Prospectus Tyburtinus (View of Tiber), the print after Bruegel from the set of The Large Landscapes published by Hieronymus Cock c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆 (see Fig. 󰀄, p. 󰀃󰀄).󰀄󰀆 With their sinuous lines, Muziano’s drawings, in which even the rocks themselves have strange, bulbous shapes that merge with the waterfall’s waves, have much in common with Bruegel’s expressive style in the Prospectus Tyburtinus. Might they recall artistic experiences that the two young painters shared in the early 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s? The Prospectus Tyburtinus takes us to the Villa d’Este in Tivoli, which adds another piece to the puzzle. The print evinces that Bruegel visited Tivoli when the cardinal of Ferrara, Ippolito II d’Este, owned the property. He planned to build a villa on the site of the monastery in which he had his apartments.󰀄󰀇 However, the works had not yet begun. The building of the villa and the layout of its famous gardens were undertaken from 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅 onwards.󰀄󰀈 The same is true, of course, for the interior decoration of the villa with frescoes, executed by large teams of painters, largely in the 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s. The villa’s accounts indicate there were over forty artists—Italian, but also German and Flemish.󰀄󰀉 In the sumptuous rooms on the lower floor, notably the room 󰀄󰀅. Florence, Uffizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, inv. P󰀅󰀀󰀃–P󰀅󰀂󰀀. These drawings apparently come from a sketchbook. They are included in an album (TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀉, ill. 󰀁󰀂󰀁–󰀁󰀂󰀂, 󰀁󰀂󰀆, 󰀁󰀂󰀉, 󰀁󰀃󰀁,󰀁󰀃󰀃; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀆–󰀁󰀉󰀂). Many thanks to Lucia Aquino for checking the watermarks on the sheets of paper on which these drawings were executed. They support a date in the 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, as suggested by Patrizia Tosini (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀉, n. 󰀁󰀆󰀀; 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀆, n. 󰀃󰀂). I would also like to thank Dr Laura Donati, curator of the Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, for allowing me to examine these drawings in optimal conditions. 󰀄󰀆. New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀂󰀄; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, no. 󰀂󰀃; Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, no. 󰀂.a. 󰀄󰀇. The bibliography on the Villa d’Este in Tivoli is huge. For the purposes of the present study, I have used COFFIN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀 and BARISI, FAGIOLO, M ADONNA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃. 󰀄󰀈. On the building phases of the palace: BARISI, FAGIOLO, M ADONNA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, p. 󰀂󰀃. 󰀄󰀉. For a thorough re-examination of Ippolito’s accounts, see TOSINI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀂󰀁. See also Dora Catalano’s contribution to BARISI, FAGIOLO, M ADONNA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀃.

108

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀈. Girolamo Muziano, Wooded Landscape, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, pen and brown ink. Florence, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi © GDSU

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

Fig. 󰀉. Girolamo Muziano, Rocky Landscape, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, pen and brown ink. Florence, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi © GDSU

109

110

DOMINIQUE ALLART

known as the ‘Fountain Hall’ (Sala della Fontana), the decoration was executed under the direction of Muziano, who became Ippolito II d’Este’s official painter in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀.󰀅󰀀 On this floor, the landscapes that adorn the walls reflect close and profound interaction between Italian and Flemish aesthetics, as in the so-called second Tiburtine room, where, besides views of Tivoli, rural and wooded landscapes are represented. But it is on the upper floor of the villa, the piano nobile, that the true surprise awaits us. The cardinal’s private apartment was located there. In the large living room (Grande Salone), which offers the most beautiful view of the gardens, decoration begun in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 under the direction of Livio Agresti da Forli remained unfinished because the work was interrupted by the death of Ippolito II d’Este in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂.󰀅󰀁 There, in the lower part of the vault, on the long sides of the room, large compartments left empty are framed by four landscapes. Once again, three of them evoke Tivoli. But the fourth is different (Fig. 󰀁󰀀). It betrays a patent kinship with the composition of the Brussels drawing (Fig. 󰀁󰀁a-b). The most obvious similarities are the mound with two large trees, their bare roots sinking into the river; the fisherman holding his rod in one hand, his head resting on the other, a second rod lying next to him; a little further, two trunks leaning against the bank; on the left, a boat where two fishermen (in Tivoli; there is only one in Bruegel’s drawing) use fish traps; a water mill located on the right; and finally, in front of the mill wheel, two slender trees. Although there are also differences, the points of convergence are too many and too significant to be fortuitous. We are therefore confronted with a testimony concerning the circulation of models that is as glaringly obvious as it is unexpected. But how should it be interpreted? It has been suggested that the painter responsible for the landscapes in the Grande Salone under the supervision of Livio Agresti was a certain Cornelio Fiammingo, whose name appears in the villa’s accounts. He has been tentatively identified as Cornelis Loots, a painter from Mechelen who had a successful career in Italy as a fresco artist specialising in landscape painting.󰀅󰀂 However, the decoration of the upper lounge of the Villa d’Este was carried out about ten to fifteen years after Bruegel’s stay in the region. Cornelis Loots could not have crossed paths with Bruegel in Italy. He seems to have made a 󰀅󰀀. TOSINI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀀; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀀󰀉, 󰀃󰀅󰀁. On the decoration of the most important rooms on the lower floor, see especially: COFFIN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀆󰀈; Dora Catalano’s contribution to BARISI, FAGIOLO, M ADONNA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀃; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀄–󰀁󰀅󰀅 and pp. 󰀃󰀅󰀀–󰀃󰀅󰀉 (cat. A󰀁󰀄, with extensive bibliography). 󰀅󰀁. Catalano in BARISI, FAGIOLO, M ADONNA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀄, 󰀄󰀈. On the Salone delle Virtù, see also TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀅–󰀂󰀇. 󰀅󰀂. On this attribution: GIANNATTASIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, esp. p. 󰀅󰀃; TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀈, 󰀁󰀂󰀆.

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

111

Fig. 󰀁󰀀. Fresco paintings of the ceiling of the Grande Salone (upper floor), 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈-󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂. Tivoli, Villa d’Este Photograph by the author

first sojourn in Rome in the 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀀s. After returning to his homeland, he settled permanently in Italy in the 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, long after Bruegel himself had returned to the Low Countries.󰀅󰀃 Loots worked in Parma in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, then in Rome from 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆 onwards. How could he have known about the composition that interests us? Different hypotheses should be considered. He could have discovered the Bruegelian composition while he was still in the Low Countries. After Bruegel’s return to his homeland around 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅, Loots could have made or acquired a copy and then taken it to Italy, where this copy might have been used as a model. Indeed, it is not unlikely that Bruegel’s composition was circulating in the Low Countries. The existence of replicas of the Brussels drawing (Berlin, Paris) makes this a plausible scenario. A distant echo of it may appear in an early painting by Lucas van Valckenborch, quite atypical amongst his oeuvre and in landscape painting generally in the second half of the sixteenth century (Fig. 󰀁󰀂).󰀅󰀄 In the early seventeenth 󰀅󰀃. On Loots’s work in Lazio, see esp. GIANNATTASIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, DACOS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆 pp. 󰀅󰀁–󰀅󰀆, and TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀆 and 󰀁󰀅󰀁 (with interesting suggestions for new attributions). 󰀅󰀄. Tempera on panel, 󰀃󰀅 × 󰀃󰀀.󰀇 cm, monogrammed VVL, Christie’s London, 󰀅 July 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, lot. 󰀈 (present location unknown). WIED 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, no.󰀁 (as an early work by the artist). GERSZI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆, p. 󰀂󰀂󰀅.

112

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀁󰀁a. Detail of a fresco painting attributed to Cornelis Loots, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈-󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂 (Tivoli, Villa d’Este, Grande Salone) Photograph by the author

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

Fig. 󰀁󰀁b. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Stream with an Angler, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, pen and brown ink (Brussels, KBR) Photograph by the author

113

114

DOMINIQUE ALLART

Fig. 󰀁󰀂. Lucas van Valckenborch, Wooded Landscape with an Angler, signed VVL, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, oil on panel. Present location unknown © Christie’s

century, the foreground with its two fishermen was also freely repeated by an artist from the circle of Jan Brueghel the Elder in a small tondo painting representing the Parting of Tobias and his Mother (Saint Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum).󰀅󰀅 Conversely, Loots might have been aware of Bruegel’s composition once he moved to Rome. The Mechelen artist frequently worked for Alessandro 󰀅󰀅. Saint Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, no. 󰀄󰀃󰀁 (as Jan Brueghel II), oil painting on panel, diam. 󰀁󰀈.󰀃 cm. The similarity was first noticed by Matthias Winner. See esp. A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, pp. 󰀈󰀀 and 󰀁󰀀󰀉, fig. 󰀁󰀉 (as Jan Brueghel the Elder) and Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, under no. 󰀄󰀇. Of course, if the attribution to Jan Brueghel the Elder or his circle is correct, the kinship of this painting with Bruegel the Elder’s drawing could also be explained by the possibility that Jan Brueghel discovered the latter or a copy of it, not in the Low Countries but during his own stay in Italy.

BRUEGEL AS A LANDSCAPE DRAUGHTSMAN

115

Farnese, il Gran Cardinale. He painted frescoes for him in Grottaferrata Abbey and Caprarola in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀󰀅󰀆. We know that during his own stay in Italy—or during his journey to Italy, as Stefano Onofri argues in this volume— Bruegel collaborated with the cardinal’s official painter, Giulio Clovio.󰀅󰀇 The post-mortem inventory of Clovio’s property, compiled in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀇, shows that some of Bruegel’s works remained in Rome after his return to his homeland. This inventory does not mention any drawings, but there is ‘un quadro di un albero a guazzo di Mro Pietro Brugole’ (a tree painted by Mr Bruegel on canvas),󰀅󰀈 which could indicate a landscape with a composition comparable to those in the Lugt sheets. In addition to the works by Bruegel that were in Giulio Clovio’s house, it is likely that there were others that circulated among the artists in Cardinal Farnese’s milieu. We could imagine that this is how Cornelis Loots gained access to the drawing that interests us here, or one of its copies. However, a third hypothesis also deserves consideration. Loots and Muziano worked closely together. They were part of the same network of artists that Cardinal Ippolito II d’Este of Ferrara and Cardinal Farnese fought over in the 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s.󰀅󰀉 Loots worked for the Cardinal of Ferrara not only on the piano nobile of the Villa d’Este, under Livio Agresti, but apparently also on the lower floor, under Muziano’s direction.󰀆󰀀 It is therefore quite possible that Loots became aware of Bruegel’s composition through Muziano. This third hypothesis is in line with the similarities we have found between some of Muziano’s and Bruegel’s drawings. If we accept that the two artists rubbed shoulders and influenced each other in their youth, and that the Stream with an Angler is one of the drawings that reflects these exchanges, the reappearance of the composition on a vault in the Villa d’Este around 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 is no longer surprising. 󰀅󰀆. GIANNATTASIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉. See also TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀃. 󰀅󰀇. A miniature painted jointly by the two artists is quoted in the inventory of the goods of Giulio Clovio in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀇: BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀂. On the enigmatic circumstances of the meeting between Bruegel and Clovio: A LLART 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀉󰀃–󰀉󰀄 and the contribution of Stefano Onofri in the present volume. 󰀅󰀈. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀂; A LLART 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, n. 󰀁󰀀󰀃. 󰀅󰀉. TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈 pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀀󰀈. 󰀆󰀀. On the likely collaboration of Loots with Muziano on the lower floor at the Villa d’Este, see TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀆–󰀁󰀂󰀉, 󰀃󰀅󰀇–󰀃󰀅󰀉. The team working under Muziano’s direction included also other Flemish painters. Although he is not mentioned in the account books from the Villa d’Este, we know from Van Mander that Pieter Vlerick (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀉–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀁) was one of these painters. As he had been Vlerick’s pupil, Van Mander was well informed about his activity in Italy. He reports that Vlerick enjoyed much success in Venice, where he was close to Tintoretto. Then Vlerick went to Rome and worked in the Villa d’Este in Tivoli, where he painted the figures and the stories in Muziano’s landscapes (VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, fol. 󰀂󰀄󰀉; text and English translation from VAN M ANDER, MIEDEMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀅󰀅–󰀂󰀇󰀃). Actually, Muziano might already have met Vlerick or heard about him during his Venetian period, as suggested by Patrizia Tosini (TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀈).

116

DOMINIQUE ALLART

It is difficult to decide between the three hypotheses at this stage. What is certain, however, is that they open up new horizons for research. This case may not be unique. Other frescoes in the Lazio by Loots, Muziano, and their entourage may also be related to the drawings Bruegel made in Italy. Besides, many questions arise: How extensive was the exchange between Muziano and Bruegel? What were the results of the emulation we can surmise between these two artists in the 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s: Did they collaborate? Did they compete on the same topics? Did they exchange models? How can we distinguish, in this case, their respective contributions in the conception of certain landscapes in which their kinship seems particularly pronounced? Finally, given the similarities between Bruegel’s drawings in Rome and several Venetian drawings, it is possible that there are still anonymous sheets in collections of Old Master drawings that until now have been associated with the Venetian school, but ought to be re-examined in light of a possible attribution to Bruegel. These are the promising avenues that will now have to be explored.

PART III THE C ONTINUOUS DIALOGUE WITH ITALY IN BRUEGEL’S L ATER L IFE AND WORK

Bruegel’s Seasons, Italian Landscapes, and Villa Culture Tine Luk MEGANCK Bruegel painted his magnum opus, a series of six monumental panels depicting the Months or Seasons (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅)—five of which survive—more than a decade after his Italian sojourn. This contribution contends that Bruegel imbued the cycle with memories of his stay in the Italian peninsula during the years 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀄, but also that it attests to a continuous artistic dialogue with Italy. Traditionally, the sources of Bruegel’s Seasons have been situated in the rich Netherlandish calendar traditions with the labours of the months.󰀁 On a larger scale, Seasons were also depicted in Brussels tapestries, such as the so-called Hunts of Charles V, which Bruegel references in the Hunters in the Snow.󰀂 Less attention has been paid to the long tradition of al fresco painted cycles of the seasons that Bruegel may have seen during his Italian travels. Similarities between Bruegel’s cycle and Italian villa decoration in the 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s suggest, moreover, that Bruegel remained informed about artistic developments in Italy while painting the Seasons. It has been long known that Bruegel painted the panels for the villa suburbana of the Antwerp merchant Nicolaes Jonghelinck (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀).󰀃 Recent findings reveal that other of Bruegel’s so-called peasant paintings participated in the burgeoning villa culture around Antwerp and Brussels. Elsewhere, I have shown that villa life shaped the Census at Bethlehem, which references the country house of another Antwerp merchant, Jan Vleminck (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), who was professionally and socially connected to Jonghelinck.󰀄 Jan Van der Stock has since discovered that Hans Franckaert—long known as the companion with whom Bruegel visited peasant weddings, according to Karel van Mander (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀈–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀆)—owned large farms in Loenhout and Rijkevorsel, villages in the 󰀁. BUCHANAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀; BORCHERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉 for the most recent summary. 󰀂. See, among others, the Doria Months woven in Brussels, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀, now in Villa Doria, Genoa; the so-called Hunts of Charles V (formerly known as the Hunts of Maximilian) designed by Bernard van Orley c. 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀 (Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀉), and the Brussels tapestries by the Master of the Months of Lucas and by the Circle of Van Orley, also woven in Brussels around this date (VAN SPRANG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀇󰀆–󰀇). 󰀃. BUCHANAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀; GOLDSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃; K ASCHEK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, with references to earlier literature. 󰀄. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈.

118

TINE LUK MEGANCK

hinterland of Antwerp.󰀅 With the recreational life of Antwerp merchants re-emerging as a cultural context for Bruegel’s peasant paintings, this essay considers the flourishing sixteenth-century villa culture on both sides of the Alps as a motor for Bruegel’s unique installation of the Cycle of the Seasons.

A ROOM

FOR

NATURE

This consideration builds on my proposition that Bruegel conceived the series of the Seasons (also known as Months) as an installation on four walls.󰀆 As much as this seems self-evident, this reconstruction had never been proposed and has significant implications for the viewer’s experience. The series is exceptionally well documented: an inventory states that in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, a year after Bruegel painted the series and dated several panels, it hung in Jonghelinck’s suburban villa in a recently developed area just outside the new, so-called ‘Spanish’ walls. In total, the villa boasted sixteen paintings by Bruegel, including a Tower of Babel (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, probably the version in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) and the Bearing of the Cross (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna). Upon Nicolaes’s death in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀, the Jonghelinckshof was acquired by his brother, the sculptor Jacques, and in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈, when Calvinists took over the city, it was confiscated and sold.󰀇 The inventory does not specify the location of Bruegel’s paintings within the villa, but Iain Buchanan and Claudia Goldstein have suggested that the panels likely decorated a dining room, where they would have functioned as conversation pieces for the host and his guests.󰀈 Along these lines, distinct rooms of the Jonghelinckshof have been suggested for paintings listed in the inventory based on their iconography, such as the reception chamber for the Labours of Hercules and perhaps a studio(lo) or library for the Liberal Arts, both by Frans Floris.󰀉 However, little attention has been paid to the original hanging of Bruegel’s Seasons within the dining room, no doubt because we know almost nothing of the villa’s layout. A schematic rendering on a late sixteenth-century map, Bescrijvinghe vande Paelen der Vriiheiit van Antwerpen (󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀂), shows a villa belonging to ‘Jonghelinck’ on the Markgravelei as a free-standing edifice with a tower, but no ground plan or rendering has thus far surfaced.󰀁󰀀 󰀅. VAN DER STOCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉 and VAN DER STOCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉-󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. 󰀆. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. 󰀇. MUYLLE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀃󰀂. 󰀈. BUCHANAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, p. 󰀅󰀄󰀉; GOLDSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀅󰀄󰀉. 󰀉. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀅–󰀃󰀄󰀄. 󰀁󰀀. For an illustration, see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀂󰀉󰀀, fig. 󰀁󰀀.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

119

I argue that the visual logic of the five preserved panels may hold the clue to their interrelation.󰀁󰀁 First, we may assume that the most likely spatial organisation of the dining room is rectangular. Secondly, I would like to emphasise that the two winter scenes (Hunters in the Snow, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅 and The Gloomy Day, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, both in Vienna) (Figs. 󰀁 and 󰀂) and the two summer scenes (Haymaking, in Prague and Harvesters, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, in New York) have partially continuous horizon lines. Previous scholars occasionally noted this coordination without making further inferences. The Return of the Herd (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, Vienna), depicting cattle being driven home under an autumn rain as well as seasonal activities such as the grape harvest, shows no such continuities; the panel depicting Spring is long lost, but would have fit seasonally as a single panel between the pairs Winter and Summer. The resulting rhythm of 󰀁-󰀂-󰀁-󰀂 corresponds to a presumably rectangular space: the pair of panels depicting Winter and the corresponding Summer panels would have hung on the two long sides, and the single panels depicting Spring and Autumn on the short ones. The proposed hanging clarifies two longstanding art-historical puzzles. The precise subject, be it months or seasons, has long been debated; most recent scholarship considers them months, as twelve months are more easily reduced to six panels. Reducing six panels to four walls, the ensemble reveals itself as a cycle of seasons encompassing the twelve months. The evocation of the months is organic rather than systematic: the traditional labours of some months are suggested but not rendered systematically, as they are in calendars. Furthermore, the proposed disposition resolves the discussion as to which month came first in a sequential series: December/ January, as in contemporary reckoning, or March/April, following the Easter calendar current in Bruegel’s time. Conceived as a spatial cycle, I contend that Bruegel envisioned no beginning or end, but, like nature herself, created an ever-recurring cycle. Importantly, this configuration relates the painted panels of the Seasons to the printed cycle of Seasons that Bruegel initiated that same year, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅. Bruegel only drew Spring in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅; Summer is dated 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, and for unknown reason, he did not finish the printed cycle. Winter and Autumn were completed posthumously by Hans Bol (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀄–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀃), and the complete set of prints was issued by Hieronymus Cock (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀) in 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀.󰀁󰀂 Yet scholars have overlooked a crucial detail: the drawing for Summer combines the seasonal labours of haymaking 󰀁󰀁. As to the hanging of the Seasons, a large gallery (where they would have hung with the other Bruegel paintings) has also been proposed, but my demonstration makes this unlikely; see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, with reference to earlier literature. See also MEGANCK in https://vimeo.com/󰀄󰀉󰀉󰀆󰀂󰀅󰀄󰀄󰀂. 󰀁󰀂. New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀃󰀆–󰀂󰀃󰀇 and 󰀂󰀄󰀃–󰀂󰀄󰀅.

120

TINE LUK MEGANCK

Fig. 󰀁. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Hunters in the Snow, signed, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, oil on panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum © Bridgeman Images

and harvesting. In the background we see the hay wagon that features in Bruegel’s painting Haymaking; in the foreground, the resting peasant of the painted Harvesters. Thus, the drawing reinforces our proposition that the two panels related to the drawing were effectively conceived as a single composition. The close connection between the drawn and painted Summers further allows us to reconsider the drawing of Spring (Fig. 󰀃), depicting a patroness overseeing typical spring activities in a formal garden, as a reliable indication of what was represented on the lost Spring panel. Scholars have thus far resisted the idea that the drawing provides a blueprint of the lost painting, because the composition does not display the distant horizon so distinctive for the panels. However, I will argue below that this nearness may evoke precisely that bit of nature which is closest to home, the private garden, as an integral part of an all-encompassing cosmic nature that Bruegel depicts in the other panels and in the cycle as a whole. As such, the lost panel of Spring would have functioned as an important connector between the villa and its immediate natural surroundings, an illusionistic interplay between indoors and outdoors that also characterises the decoration of many Italian villas of the period and other spatial cycles of the seasons.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

Fig. 󰀂. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Gloomy Day, signed, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, oil on panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum © Bridgeman Images

Fig. 󰀃. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Spring, signed, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, pen & ink on paper. Vienna, Graphische Sammlung Albertina © Bridgeman Images

121

122

TINE LUK MEGANCK

ITALIAN C YCLES

OF THE

SEASONS

Bruegel’s sources are always diverse; he was, as the ancient commonplace popular in the sixteenth-century states, like a bee who draws nectar from multiple flowers.󰀁󰀃 Among other things, as Véronique Bücken proposes in this volume, Bruegel imbibed Brussels tapestry design.󰀁󰀄 Trained by his future fatherin-law, the great tapestry designer Pieter Coecke van Aelst (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀), Bruegel could easily have known that tapestry sets sometimes adopted continuous landscapes to interconnect single hangings, a technique Van Orley adopted in the Battle of Pavia, for instance.󰀁󰀅 Yet the spatial installation of the Cycle of the Seasons is also reminiscent of painted Italian fresco cycles, in particular two major trecento cycles of seasons or months. The Room of the Months (Sala dei Mesi) in the Torre dell’Aquila in the Castello del Buonconsiglio in Trent has been mentioned as an iconographic antecedent to Bruegel’s Cycle of the Seasons—without, however, noting the spatial similarities.󰀁󰀆 Probably painted between 󰀁󰀃󰀉󰀁 and 󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀇 by Master Wenceslas (s.d., of Bohemian descent) and restored in 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀄, the frescoed cycle in the Torre dell’Aquila depicts the twelve months (Fig. 󰀄). The iconography of the months was by then standard repertoire, rendered among others on Gothic portals and in Medieval calendars. Yet it has not been emphasised that the Tridentine cycle of the months extends around the four walls of the Torre dell’Aquila, surrounding the beholder. Several of the months, which are subtly divided by illusionistic painted columns, have continuous landscapes that foreshadow Bruegel’s Cycle of the Seasons, which, as I argue, were also originally meant to surround the beholder. Bruegel represented several of the same traditional monthly labours but reduced human beings to symbiotic participants in cyclical nature, painting wide and cosmic landscapes that fade away in distant horizons. As Nils Büttner summarises in this volume, Bruegel’s itinerary cannot be traced with certainty, but most scholars agree that Bruegel crossed the Alps on his outbound travels. Based on the citation in the inventory of Pieter Paul Rubens (󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀–󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀀) of a lost drawing by Bruegel of the Gottardo, it is generally assumed that Bruegel took the Gotthard Pass on his way home.󰀁󰀇 It cannot be 󰀁󰀃. SENECA 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀀, Epistle LXXXIV: 󰀂󰀇󰀈–󰀂󰀇󰀉. 󰀁󰀄. See also MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀈󰀄-󰀂󰀈󰀆. 󰀁󰀅. PAREDES 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. 󰀁󰀆. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉 (catalogue entry by Manfred Sellink), p. 󰀂󰀂󰀈; VAN SPRANG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀇󰀃, fig. 󰀂󰀇. Italian fresco cycles of the months are also found in the Palazzo Schifanoia in Ferrara, among other places. The latter do not feature continuous landscapes. 󰀁󰀇. COPPOLA, BERGIER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

123

Fig. 󰀄. Master Wenceslas, Month of April: plowing and sowing of fields, between 󰀁󰀃󰀉󰀁 and 󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀇, fresco painting. Trent, Castello del Buonconsiglio, Torre dell’Aquila © Luisa Ricciardini/Bridgeman Images

124

TINE LUK MEGANCK

excluded, however, that Bruegel took the Brenner Pass, in which case Trent would have been the last major city before crossing the Alps. The Brenner was the most important Alpine passage up to around 󰀁󰀈󰀀󰀀, because it could accommodate cart traffic from the fifteenth century onwards, whereas other passes were traversable only by pack animals. In 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈, Abraham Ortelius (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀈), who may also have travelled with Bruegel in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, and Joris Hoefnagel (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀁) likely took the Brenner Pass on their way to (and from) Italy as they travelled via Innsbruck and Munich.󰀁󰀈 At the time of Bruegel’s travels, the city was at the centre of attention, as it was hosting the eponymous Council of Trent. Opened in 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅, the Council was not in permanent session, but was reconvened by Pope Julius III (del Monte, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅) on 󰀁 May 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁, only to be abruptly ended again on 󰀂󰀄 April 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂 until it was finally concluded in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃. It is unlikely that Bruegel was in Trent while the Council was in session, but delegates and emissaries surely reported on the city’s splendours, including the frescoes of the Sala dei Mesi in the Torre dell’Aquila of the prince-bishop’s castle, perhaps triggering the artist’s interest. Rolling hills and distant sights feature even more prominently in another famous trecento cycle that may have inspired Bruegel’s installation of the Seasons—namely, the frescoes of the Effects of Good and Bad Government in the so-called Room of the Nine (Sala dei Nove) in the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena. Though a visit by Bruegel to Siena has not been documented either, the Palazzo Pubblico was relatively accessible and an artistic destination early on.󰀁󰀉 Otto Pächt argued long ago that the Limburg brothers (c. 󰀁󰀃󰀈󰀆/󰀈󰀆/󰀈󰀈–󰀁󰀄󰀁󰀆) must have visited the Sienese fresco cycle, as it impacted the illustrious Très Riches Heures of the Duc de Berry.󰀂󰀀 A beacon in landscape painting, these famous paintings were surely a sight that Pieter Bruegel would have wanted to see with his own eyes. Painted around 󰀁󰀃󰀃󰀈–󰀁󰀃󰀄󰀀 by Ambrogio Lorenzetti (󰀁󰀂󰀉󰀀–󰀁󰀃󰀄󰀈), the frescoes extend continuously around three walls, the fourth wall being the window into the city (or, conceptually, the eye of the city gazing upon the cycle).󰀂󰀁 Not often noted—perhaps because they are badly damaged today—the frescoes of the Effects of Good and Bad Government are modulated by seasonal change: spring and summer accompany the Effects of Good Government, while autumn and winter (showing among other things the danger 󰀁󰀈. VIGNAU-WILBERG 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃; the supposition that Bruegel travelled with Ortelius is based on the friendship they shared with the Bolognese doctor Scipio Fabius, as recorded in letters from Fabius to Ortelius in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁 and 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅; see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, p. 󰀅󰀄. 󰀁󰀉. BOUCHERON 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀈 (󰀂. Nachleben. Les ombres veillent). 󰀂󰀀. PÄCHT 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀀, p. 󰀄󰀀. 󰀂󰀁. SKINNER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

125

Fig. 󰀅. Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Effects of Bad Government (autumn/winter), detail of the snowy hills and dangers of war and fire, 󰀁󰀃󰀃󰀈-󰀁󰀃󰀃󰀉, fresco painting. Siena, Palazzo Pubblico, Sala dei Nove © Alinari Archives, Florence/Bridgeman Images

of blazing fire, as Bruegel would in the background of Hunters in the Snow) (Fig. 󰀅) are the seasonal backdrop for the Effects of Bad Government.

R ENAISSANCE VILLA C ULTURE NORTH S OUTH OF THE A LPS

AND

While the cyclical installation Bruegel conceived for the Jonghelinckshof is reminiscent of the spatial experience of these early Italian seasonal landscapes, the palatial and public character of the Torre dell’Aquila and the Sala dei Nove differs from the private settings of the country houses and villas of Antwerp merchants. Bruegel had already witnessed the burgeoning of villa culture in the Low Countries before he left for Italy. The city of Antwerp had grown to be one of the most populous in Europe (󰀁󰀀󰀀,󰀀󰀀󰀀 inhabitants) by 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, and rich merchants acquired country estates to escape the bustle of town. In doing so, they followed a well-established tradition of villae rusticae already en vogue in Italy since the fifteenth century and modelled after ancient examples.󰀂󰀂 The Florentine theorist Leon Battista Alberti (󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀄–󰀁󰀄󰀇󰀂) described the villa as a 󰀂󰀂. Foundational works include COFFIN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈 and ACKERMAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀; more recently, in particular regarding villa decorations and gardens, see R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇; R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈 and R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂.

126

TINE LUK MEGANCK

rural retreat for leisure (otium) after hard work in the city (negotium), reviving the ideas of ancient authors such as Horace, Pliny, and Vitruvius. Humanists also read the writings of the Roman orator Cicero, who retreated to his villa I Tusci after his many obligations in Rome. In his Tusculan Disputations, Cicero evokes his villa as the setting for philosophical conversations on such subjects as despising death, enduring pain, alleviation of distress, disorders of the soul, and the virtue of leading a happy life. Cicero’s villa conversations inspired many, among them Desiderius Erasmus (󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀆/󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀆). It is well known that his Convivium Religiosum (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀂) is a dialogue among friends, set in an imaginary country house that Erasmus describes as having a loggia opening onto a garden, with painted marble columns and a painted pergola with animals and flowers.󰀂󰀃 North and South both inherited ancient villa culture, but the way this revival materialised artistically and architecturally differed. Many Italian Renaissance villas were newly designed architectural structures, decorated with fresco paintings that are by their nature connected with their original setting and have abundantly been preserved.󰀂󰀄 Rural retreats in the Low Countries, known as (lust)hoven, were often extensions of older manors. Few have been preserved, even fewer in their sixteenth-century state, and the original decoration—possibly with mural painting, tapestries, or panel paintings—is little documented. An early example of such a lusthof was the Lanteernehof in Deurne, the manor of the Antwerp merchant Joris Vezeleer (d. 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀), acquired before 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀.󰀂󰀅 By 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃 Vezeleer also owned a country house in Wilrijk, as we know from the family chronicle of another merchant, Emmanuel van Meteren (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀅–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂), cousin of Abraham Ortelius.󰀂󰀆 In his manuscript Comentarius, Van Meteren relates that he met his second wife, Hester van Corput, at Vezeleer’s estate in Wilrijk in the company of Joris Hoefnagel, Vezeleer’s grandson. Vezeleer traded in precious metalwork and gold-thread tapestries, and he owned an art collection including paintings by Hieronymus Bosch and Marten van Cleve, but nothing is known about the original decoration of his country estates. Around the same time, Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇– 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆) inherited the grander Castle Cantecroy in Mortsel from his father and acquired a suburban villa with a garden, complete with exotic animals and flowers, and an alchemical distillery in Sint Joost ten Node, outside Brussels.󰀂󰀇 󰀂󰀃. On the impact of convivium culture on Bruegel, see R ICHARDSON 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. 󰀂󰀄. BAETENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. 󰀂󰀅. His descendant Constantijn Huygens relates in his diary that the Lanteernehof was destroyed by Maarten van Rossum, the mercenary of François I who raided the surroundings of Antwerp in 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀂; see THYS 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀁. 󰀂󰀆. Emanuel van Meteren, Comentarius (Auckland Libraries. Sir Gray Special Collections, Ms. 󰀂󰀃󰀇); BUCHANAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. I plan to study the Comentarius more fully in the near future. 󰀂󰀇. DE JONGE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

127

From around 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, the Antwerp developer Gilbert van Schoonbeke (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀉–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆) developed the Leikwartier, in which the Jongelinckshof and the villas of merchant families such as the Schetz, Hencxthoven, and Pruynen were located.󰀂󰀈

I NSIDE-OUT

IN

E ARLY SIXTEENTH-C ENTURY ROMAN VILLA DECOR ATIONS

Given this booming taste for lusthoven among the Antwerp mercantile elite, Bruegel may have kept a special eye out for Italian villa culture when he travelled to the peninsula in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀄. One of the most splendid examples that he could have seen was the villa suburbana of the papal banker Agostino Chigi (󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀆–󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀) in Rome. Ed Wouk has cited the Villa Farnesina as an example for the cycles of the Labours of Hercules (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃) and the Liberal Arts (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇), painted by Frans Floris for the Jonghelinckshof before the Cycle of the Seasons was installed.󰀂󰀉 He places particular emphasis on the ceiling painting of the Wedding Feast of Cupid and Psyche by Raphael and his workshop (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀈) in the Loggia di Psyche as a precursor to Floris’s art all’antica. The model of Chigi, who was involved in all kinds of financial transactions, albeit on a much larger scale, may indeed have been especially attractive to the Antwerp merchantinvestor Jonghelinck. The Sala delle Prospettive of this Roman villa, painted around 󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀆–󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇 by Baldassarre Peruzzi (󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀆), anticipates the Cycle of the Seasons, in particular Bruegel’s concern with surrounding the beholder and interconnecting the interior space with the surrounding city and countryside. At the Villa Farnesina, painted views in between the faux marble columns evoke actual views from the villa of the city on one side and the surrounding countryside on the other. This interplay between inner and outer landscapes characterises the decoration of other Roman palazzi as well—for instance, the Sala Serpieri in the Palazzo della Valle—and would become a hallmark in later sixteenth century Italian villa decoration. We find it again and again: in the Villa Farnese in Caprarola (built between 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀉 and󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀅) and the Villa d’Este in Tivoli (built between 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀 and󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇/󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), as well as the villas Andrea Palladio (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀀) designed for the Venetian elite, which we will discuss below.󰀃󰀀 The most theatrical and no doubt most widely discussed villa at the time of Bruegel’s Italian sojourn was the Villa Giulia, the summer retreat, built within a ‘vigna’, or vineyard, just outside the Roman city walls for Pope Julius III 󰀂󰀈. SOLY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀆–󰀁󰀉󰀁; SOLY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀆–󰀃󰀈. 󰀂󰀉. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀆󰀁. 󰀃󰀀. PRATESI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, n. 󰀈󰀀󰀆, http://www.bta.it/txt/a󰀀/󰀀󰀈/bta󰀀󰀀󰀈󰀀󰀆.html; R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈.

128

TINE LUK MEGANCK

Fig. 󰀆. Summer, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁-󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, fresco painting. Rome, Villa Giulia, Piano Nobile, Room of the Four Seasons © Enrico Fontolan / Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia/Bibliotheca Hertziana˗Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte

during the years 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅. The first phase of the villa, which included the underground fountain or nymphaeum designed by the Florentine architect Bartolomeo Ammanati (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂), was under construction in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃. The spectacular structure was known in Antwerp before it was finished: it was rendered in two etchings issued by Bruegel’s publisher Hieronymus Cock. Undated, these views can be dated to the early 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s, as they show the nympheum in an unfinished state, with indentations for beams to support the upper level, added later, and indications of bases for the planting of trees.󰀃󰀁 Other artists, including the painter-architects Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀃), who was trained in perspective, and Giorgio Vasari (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀄), were also involved in this gigantic building site.󰀃󰀂 By 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, the frescoes of the portico, with a trompe l’oeil pergola populated by birds, were finished. As in the Villa Farnesina, these frescoes bring outside views into the interior space, 󰀃󰀁. TURNER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀈; Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀉󰀄–󰀂󰀉󰀅 (cat. no. 󰀈󰀀, entry by Krista De Jonge). Cock may have invented the decorative paintings on the curved wall that were later effectively frescoed, creating a theatrical viewing experience. 󰀃󰀂. MORETTI SGUBINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, p. 󰀁󰀅.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

129

Fig. 󰀇. Winter, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁-󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, fresco painting. Rome, Villa Giulia, Piano Nobile, Room of the Four Seasons © Enrico Fontolan / Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia/Bibliotheca Hertziana˗Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte

creating a dialogue between art and nature. Also finished was the piano nobile, including the room of the Four Seasons (Sala B).󰀃󰀃 Interestingly, the Seasons, attributed to Prospero Fontana (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀇) and his collaborators, are featured in a frieze running along the upper register of the four sides of the room.󰀃󰀄 Several elements— harvesting in the grain fields, picking fruit from ladders (Fig. 󰀆), and the snow-ridged trees of winter (Fig. 󰀇)—foreshadow Bruegel’s Seasons. The seasonal landscapes are framed by cartouches with strapwork, festoons, and putti similar to designs published in Antwerp by Hieronymus Cock in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 (Fig. 󰀈).󰀃󰀅 󰀃󰀃. TURNER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀉 considers the Seasons of the Villa Giulia ‘the most remarkable landscapes produced in Rome in these decades, both in sophistication and in their spatial structure and subtlety.’ 󰀃󰀄. The Seasons are attributed to Fontana and his collaborators by Giovana Sapori; see SAPORI 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀁–󰀁󰀃󰀇. 󰀃󰀅. Series of 󰀂󰀈 engravings, published by Cock in Antwerp in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, according to the title page after a design by a certain Benedictus Battini, possibly an imaginary artisan whose name is a wordplay referring to the scroll- and strapwork in imitation of metalwork. A copy of this booklet is preserved in the British Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀉, 󰀀󰀄󰀁󰀀.󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀆 (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/ object/P_󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀉–󰀀󰀄󰀁󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀆). See esp. Cartouche no. 󰀁󰀄, with putti, around a citation of Cicero (Fig. 󰀈). See also Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀈󰀄–󰀂󰀈󰀅, cat. 󰀇󰀇.

TINE LUK MEGANCK

130

Fig. 󰀈. Attributed to Pieter van der Heyden after Benedictus Battini, Plate no. 󰀁󰀄: cartouche with putti, around a citation of Cicero, from a series of 󰀂󰀈 plates, copper engraving. Antwerp: Hieronymus Cock, 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 © Brussels, Royal Library

A RTISTIC E XCHANGE

IN OF THE

VILLA DECOR ATION A LPS IN THE 1560 S

ON

B OTH SIDES

Bruegel created his large-scale peasant scenes only during the last years of his career (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇): the Cycle of the Seasons (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅), which decorated the Jonghelinckshof; the Census at Bethlehem (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆), which references the Vleminckshof; the Wedding Banquet (Vienna, undated), which probably portrays Franckaert and may take place in one of his farmhouses north of Antwerp; the Wedding Dance (Detroit, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆); and the Village Kermis (Vienna, undated), which may equally be related to the many country estates around the city on the Scheldt. It should be noted, however, that Italian villa design likewise reached its apogee during the second half of the sixteenth century, notably in the architecture of Palladio. One of Palladio’s finest villas, Villa Barbaro in Maser, was built in the years 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀 and decorated by Paolo Veronese (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀈– 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀈) and assistants around 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁–󰀆󰀂. Richard Turner noted decades ago that several frescoed landscapes (Fig. 󰀉) are based on the Praecipua Aliquot Romanae

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

131

Antiquitatis Ruinarum Monimenta (Views of the Ruins of Some Roman Monuments), twenty-five etched plates with ancient Roman ruins, dedicated to Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle and issued in Antwerp by Hieronymus Cock in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁 (Fig. 󰀁󰀀).󰀃󰀆 Veronese famously extended the architectural and natural illusionism to domestic animals, household objects, and portraits of residents, such as a girl peeping through a door—probably one of the Barbaros’ daughters—and the wife of Marcantonio Barbaro, along with her servant and little dog, who welcome residents and guests from the balcony (Fig. 󰀁󰀁) on the vault of the Sala dell’Olimpo.󰀃󰀇 Looking at Veronese’s witty trompe-l’oeil frescos, we are reminded of an anecdote related by Karel van Mander in his ‘Life of Hans Vredeman de Vries’. Vredeman had painted a summerhouse in perspective (‘een Somerhuys in Perspectief ’) for royal treasurer Aert Molckeman in Brussels, to which Bruegel—unsolicited—had added a peasant couple in an open door (‘daer versierende onder ander een open deur’).󰀃󰀈 This made the master of the house laugh so much that he would not have it removed for any amount of money. If Cock’s landscapes with ruins provided a model for Veronese’s frescoes in the Villa Barbaro, artistic innovations in Italian villa decoration may have been soon reported in Antwerp. This brings us back to the possibility that Bruegel’s drawing of Spring (Fig. 󰀃), in which the lady of the house oversees her gardeners, is a good indication of the lost Spring panel. If this is indeed the case, the painted original may have been conceived by Bruegel—much like Veronese’s frescoes—as a trompe l’oeil depicting the actual mistress of the Jonghelinckshof in her geometrical suburban garden. In the drawing, the lady of the house is accompanied by a fine-looking companion (possibly a daughter) and her little dog as she oversees the spring planting and the pruning and tying of vines on the pergola. The classicising satyr herms of the pergola recall Vredeman’s architectural variant of this classical optical villa device as featured, among other places, at the Villa Giulia.󰀃󰀉 Bruegel’s lost painting Spring may thus have functioned as an illusionist transition to the actual garden, which could very well have consisted of a quincunx allotment, a pergola on classical herms, and a dovecote (columbarium), popular elements in Northern Renaissance garden design. In the document recording Nicolaes’s purchase of the villa from this 󰀃󰀆. TURNER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀈–󰀂󰀁󰀁; see also OBERHUBER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈. 󰀃󰀇. ROGERS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, p. 󰀃󰀈󰀁. 󰀃󰀈. VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, fol. 󰀂󰀆󰀆r-v. In 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅 Aert Molckeman, royal treasurer of war, received the money that Jan Vleminck, the likely commissioner of Bruegel’s Census at Bethlehem, loaned the regent Margaret of Parma to pay soldiers during the extremely cold winter; see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀀󰀁. 󰀃󰀉. For instance, Hans Vredeman de Vries, Pergola with Satyrs (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀀), drawing, Paris, École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts.

132

TINE LUK MEGANCK

Fig. 󰀉. Paolo Veronese and workshop, Landscape, circa 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁, fresco painting. Maser (Treviso), Villa Barbaro, Stanza di Bacco © Luisa Ricciarini /Bridgeman Images

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

133

Fig. 󰀁󰀀. Hieronymus Cock, Roman ruin (Forum of Nerva, Temple of Minerva Medicea), from Praecipua aliquot Romanae Antiquitatis Ruinarum Monimenta (Views of the Ruins of Some Roman Monuments), 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁, etching. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, Rijksprentenkabinet © Rijksmuseum

brother Thomas in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄, the property is described as ‘een huysinge metter poorten, hove, bogaerde, gronde ende allen den toebehoirten, groot bat dan twee hondert roeden….’󰀄󰀀 Other architectural elements, such as the barn with a thatched roof where the sheep-shearing takes place and the wooden apiary sheltering beehives, foreshadowing Bruegel’s famous drawings of the Beekeepers, render the seasonal works of spring with local specificity.󰀄󰀁 As such, the drawing (and by extension the lost painting) may effectively evoke the actual Jonghelinckshof in the turreted manor surrounded by a moat, where festive couples make merry on boats—an activity traditionally enjoyed in the month of May. The monumentality of the peasants in the drawings of Spring and Summer has been often observed and associated with Italian models.󰀄󰀂 I contend that 󰀄󰀀. MUYLLE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀃󰀁. 󰀄󰀁. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupfterstichkabinett, inv. np. KdZ 󰀇󰀁. 󰀄󰀂. New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀃󰀇–󰀂󰀃󰀈 (cat. no. 󰀁󰀀󰀆) with reference to DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀁–󰀃󰀂, who suggested that the foreground figure of Spring was inspired by the image of Noah digging in Michelangelo’s Sistine ceiling.

134

TINE LUK MEGANCK

Fig. 󰀁󰀁. Paolo Veronese, Donna Barbaro and her servant, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁-󰀆󰀂, fresco painting. Maser (Treviso), Villa Barbaro, Sala dell’Olimpo © Villa Barbaro, Maser; Ghigo Roli/Bridgeman Images

the Italian impact is further suggested by the inclusion of painted views of the estate, as so often encountered in Italian villa decoration. A view of the Villa Giulia, for example, probably also by Fontana and his workshop, is depicted as the eighth sight in the Room of the Seven Hills (Sala A), adjacent to the Room of the Seasons on the piano nobile of the papal villa.󰀄󰀃 A largely imaginary view of the Villa Barbaro was painted by Veronese and his workshop on the walls of the villa’s Room of Bacchus. Topographic citations were also central to the Sala dei Nove, with depictions of Sienese urban landmarks such as the striped Duomo and the surrounding Crete Senesi. While the landscapes and labours of the months in the Torre dell’Aquila are more generalised, the prince-bishop is included among the aristocratic strollers in the love garden of May. Bruegel, moreover, is known to have referenced owners and their rural properties in other paintings. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, a barn and a tavern on the estate of Jan Vleminck in Wijnegem are cited in the Census at 󰀄󰀃.

R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, p. 󰀃󰀄󰀂, fig. 󰀂.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

135

Bethlehem.󰀄󰀄 The man dressed in black in the Peasant Wedding (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum) is probably Hans Franckaert, who owned estates in Loenhout and Rijkevorsel, as Jan Van der Stock recently discovered.󰀄󰀅 Along these lines, other rural scenes in the Cycle of the Seasons may evoke seasonal agricultural activities observed from the Jonghelinckshof. The men and woman bringing in freshly harvested produce depicted in the foreground of Haymaking may evoke scenes that were seen in early summer from the suburban villa at the Markgravelei, one of the arteries connecting the countryside around Antwerp with the urban centre. The return of the herd and hunters in the snow on the other panels may not be quite so ‘close to home’, but these foreground scenes likewise show local people, customs, dwellings, and vegetation. By contrast, foreign rock formations, mountains, and seas only emerge in the distance in Bruegel’s Seasons. His unsurpassed rendering of the snowcapped Alps in the Hunters in the Snow and the Return of the Herd, which together constitute Winter, emblematises the passage towards foreign climes and asserts the artistry of these hybrid landscapes.󰀄󰀆 Bruegel thus guided the gaze of Jonghelinck and his visitors from the local world at his doorstep—the villa’s garden, the routes to the centre of town—to the global world which many of these local internationals were then exploring and exploiting. Surrounded by the Seasons, viewers were reminded that their local life was part of the wider ‘Theatre of the World’, as Ortelius, Bruegel’s cartographer friend would soon entitle his great atlas, the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. The notion of the ‘theatre of nature’ was widespread in humanist circles, especially in the North, and captured the atlas’s encyclopaedic aspiration to encompass the entire world. At the same time, it embodied the epistemic attitude that this world could best be studied by looking at images. Nevertheless, Italian examples may have incited Bruegel to reflect spatially and exploit the immediate architectural context as an actual viewing site and a fictitious theatre in which residents wittily appear in trompe l’oeil, as on stage.󰀄󰀇

󰀄󰀄. M EGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. Only the ruins of the ‘Vleminckshof ’, a transformation of an existing medieval manor, are preserved today. 󰀄󰀅. VAN DER STOCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀃. 󰀄󰀆. Bruegel may have known Van Eyck’s snow-capped mountains on the side wings of the Ghent Altarpiece. Gombrich already alerted us to the fact that the discovery of Alpine scenery does not precede but rather follows the spread of prints and paintings with mountain panoramas; see GOMBRICH 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀈. 󰀄󰀇. COSGROVE 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀀, with reference to Pietro Bembo, who described his island villa as a natural theatre; p. 󰀁󰀂󰀈, on the façades of Palladio’s city palaces a theatre piece; p. 󰀁󰀃󰀉, with reference to Palladio’s own description of the site of the Villa La Rotonda as ‘a very great theatre’.

136

TINE LUK MEGANCK

C ONCLUSION We may never know with certainty which of the abundant Italian sites Bruegel visited. Italy boasted several important fresco cycles, by nature sitespecific, depicting the seasons and months, among them the trecento cycles in Trent and Siena that were already famous in early modern times, both of which surround the viewer with their scenery. These may have provided a compelling example for a landscape painter. Our reconstruction suggests that Bruegel probably also conceived his Cycle of the Seasons as an installation on four walls. The depiction of the seasons was considered particularly well suited to villa decoration, as rural villa life was attuned to the seasons. Pope Julius III’s Villa Giulia, decorated in the years Bruegel travelled through Italy, hosted a room with seasons painted on a high frieze on four walls. The artists responsible for decorating Italian villas moreover experimented with visual strategies to interconnect interior and exterior landscapes, an aspect Bruegel developed in his Cycle of the Seasons in the Northern medium of panel painting, but that was soon lost when the cycle was removed from its original location. The near-contemporary appearance of site-specific references, including trompe l’oeil peasants, residents, and visitors in the mural decoration of the Villa Barbaro at Maser by Veronese and his workshop and in Bruegel’s rustic panels, points to an ongoing dialogue between Italy, Bruegel, and his patrons. Bruegel included a patroness supervising male and female gardeners in his drawing of Spring, which, as we have argued, should be reconsidered as a good indication of the lost painting of Spring in Cycle of the Seasons. In Bruegel’s original installation, the patroness may very well be the actual lady of the Jonghelinckshof, the wife of Nicolaes Jonghelinck. As in many Italian villa decorations, the painted garden and manor would have functioned as an interplay of interior and exterior. Hieronymus Cock’s ambitiously named publishing house, Aux Quatre Vents, where Bruegel probably worked before leaving for Italy and where he continued to be employed until his death, emerges as a major information channel. Almudena Pérez de Tudela recently published Granvelle’s correspondence concerning a map of Franche-Comté by Cock, including letters between Cock and Granvelle exchanged in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆 and 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, when the Cardinal was in Rome.󰀄󰀈 These later documents reinforce our observations of earlier artistic exchange, such as the ruined landscapes that Veronese and his team painted adjacent to 󰀄󰀈. PÉREZ DE TUDELA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, esp. p. 󰀅󰀇.

BRUEGEL’S SEASONS, ITALIAN LANDSCAPES, AND VILLA CULTURE

137

the famous painted trompe l’oeil residents of the Villa Barbaro and copied from Cock’s Praecipua, which was dedicated to Granvelle. Cock’s early role as an intermediary between Rome and Antwerp is further suggested by the strapwork cartouches in the style of those published by Cock framing the Seasons in the Villa Giulia, and by Cock’s early publication of views of the nymphaeum of the still unfinished Villa Giulia. These exchanges point to a remarkable inversion. Whereas Italian villa decoration may have inspired Bruegel to decorate the Jongelinckhof with a monumental cycle of the seasons and to include actual residents and topographical details to make the interior converse with the visible landscape outdoors, Veronese’s decoration of the Villa Barbaro drew from Antwerp-style imaginary landscapes, hybrid depictions of ancient ruins, mountains, lowlands, and seas. At the Villa Barbaro, these landscapes alla fiamminga do not enter into dialogue with the surrounding landscape outside; rather, they incite the beholder to consider cosmic nature as an imaginary and timeless place.󰀄󰀉 Our proposed installation of the Cycle of the Seasons restores Bruegel’s conception of an ingenious spatial artwork composed of interlocking panels, in which the beholder was positioned amid the cycle of nature. Bruegel is known as an artist who skilfully communicates with the spectator—for instance by showing a multitude of elements and figures that need to be disentangled; only upon closer examination does the order becomes apparent, allowing details to emerge that lead to understanding, often cognitive as well as spiritual, as sight leads to insight.󰀅󰀀 Bruegel also used Rückenfiguren, figures seen from behind, to guide the eye of the beholder though his imaginary landscapes and scenes; while he was not the first to use this device, he was certainly one of the most adept.󰀅󰀁 In his spatial cycle of the seasons, Bruegel extends interaction with the viewer to the actual, physical space. Illusionistic interplays between the painted space, the architectural interior, and exterior space were abundant in sixteenth-century Italian villa decoration. As in the many Italian fresco cycles, the beholder of Bruegel’s Cycle of the Seasons was encouraged to mentally complement two-dimensional images in three dimensions through physical and ocular periegesis around the room. Bruegel’s surround installation opens painted space to the physical space of the viewer, extending through the windows and into the natural world outside. As a transition, the 󰀄󰀉. On topography and cosmic nature in Netherlandish landscape painting, see BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a. 󰀅󰀀. Foundational for this view of Bruegel’s oeuvre is the work of Reindert Falkenburg, summarised most recently in FALKENBURG, WEEMANS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. 󰀅󰀁. See for instance in the Battle Between Carnival and Lent; the Census at Bethlehem: see MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀈󰀈–󰀈󰀉.

138

TINE LUK MEGANCK

lost panel of Spring likely depicted the cultivated nature nearest the house: the garden. Bruegel, however, goes beyond his Italian sources of inspiration, merging local foregrounds with foreign and imaginary lands in the background. From the intimate microcosm of Jongelinck’s dining room, which encapsulated the beholder and filled the entire space, he zoomed out to the cosmic theatre of the world. Bruegel’s Seasons are no longer the stage of human labours (as in the fresco cycles at Trent and Sienna), but the protagonists; they are not merely a frieze (as at the Villa Giulia) but the focus of the visual experience. Contemplating the ever-returning cycle of nature—of which man is part, not master—makes the beholder at the centre realise that he or she is merely a dot on the vast expanses of the globe. At Jonghelinck’s suburban villa, Bruegel’s spatial installation surely triggered conversations among friends, many of whom had also acquired estates in this new urban development and were involved in land speculation. The Cycle of the Seasons may thus have reminded Jonghelinck and his guests of a citation from Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, which originated in ancient villa culture and was quoted in one of the cartouches published by Cock in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃 (Fig. 󰀈) which may have inspired the frames of the Seasons in the Villa Giuglia. Soon, it would feature on the world map in Ortelius’s Theatrum Orbis Terrarum: ‘Who can consider human affairs to be great, when he contemplates the eternity and vastness of the entire world.’󰀅󰀂

󰀅󰀂. ‘Quid ei potest videri, magnum in rebus humanis, cui aeternitas omnis, totiusque mundi nota sit magnitudo’, Cicero, Tusculan Disputiones, 󰀄.󰀃󰀇. The citation is inscribed on Ortelius’s World Map, Typus Orbis Terrarum, which was later included in the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. The philosophical affinities between Bruegel’s Seasons and Ortelius’s Theatrum, and the reflections of Cicero (without our spatial and local observations) were first noted by MÜLLER-HOFSTEDE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉.

‘La più delicata cosa del mondo’: Pieter Bruegel’s Bay of Naples Tanja MICHALSKY The View of Naples from the Sea, or preferably, the Bay of Naples (Fig. 󰀁), which dates from the mid-sixteenth century and has been in the Galleria Doria Pamphilj in Rome since the seventeenth century, is well-known to researchers: it has long been attributed, if not without controversy, to Pieter Bruegel the Elder and is among the earliest topographically well-observed depictions of Naples and its surroundings.󰀁 Being neither dated nor signed, and appearing at first glance to offer little iconographically, it has suffered relative neglect in Bruegel research to date, and is even missing from some catalogues raisonné and survey works. What is more, its provenance cannot be traced back far enough to provide concrete information concerning its commissioning client or original hanging. For a long time, then, questions of attribution remained central, while no attempt was made to advance a farreaching interpretation of the seemingly straightforward scene—an unspectacular choice in relation to Bruegel’s wider pictorial universe. Frequent mention has been made of the picture; however, in survey works on the topography of Naples, the primary interest has been on the possible type of projection used, on the depiction of individual buildings and sites, always with an emphasis on their correctness.󰀂 The most convincing recent interpretation, one whose emphasis is primarily historical, is found in a study on cityscapes by 󰀁. Collezione Doria Pamphilj, FC 󰀅󰀆󰀄, oil on panel, 󰀄󰀂.󰀂 × 󰀇󰀁.󰀂 cm. The work figures under various titles that emphasise different aspects of the painting. An original title is not known. The title chosen here, Bay of Naples, emphasises the subject (Naples), which is topographically quite precise, and the perspective from the sea. DE MARCHI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀇󰀆–󰀇󰀇, with extensive bibliography. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, cat. no. 󰀅󰀄 (Manfred Sellink), pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀁󰀄󰀅. VAN DER TOOLEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀆–󰀁󰀃󰀇, discusses the different titles of the painting, tries to find an ‘allegorical meaning’ (p. 󰀁󰀃󰀇), but remains quite vague with the proposal of a comparison with Antwerp and some ‘moral lesson’. Unfortunately, the image—up to the most recent Vienna catalogue—is usually shown cropped on both sides, so that it looks closer, fits better on a double page, but at the price of not conveying the extremely wide composition, cf. FRANCASTEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀀–󰀁󰀁󰀁. The most recent publication is BRACKE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀂, who discusses the panel in order to shed light on Bruegel’s engagement with cartography and topographical texts. He mainly refers to the as-yet unpublished essay by Marco Iuliano. 󰀂. LLOYD, PANE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉; DE SETA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈.

Fig. 󰀁. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Bay of Naples, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s, oil on panel. Roma, Galleria Doria Pamphilj © Roma, Galleria Doria Pamphilj

140 TANJA MICHALSKY

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 141

Ryan Gregg, whose notably dense description calls attention to its representation of the city’s liveliness, so it is readily explicable with reference to the ambitions of the viceroy and the process of Naples’s urbanistic renewal.󰀃 The current state of the research, then, can be outlined rapidly: following Manfred Sellink’s attribution of the work to Pieter Bruegel the Elder in the Vienna catalogue, this chapter can be provisionally closed (and I will follow his attribution without further discussion in this paper); stylistic arguments suggest a dating to the 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s.󰀄 There is general agreement that Bruegel must have known the bay of Naples quite well, through personal experience or on the basis of detailed information from other sources—most likely from both. Still lacking—and undertaken here—is an art-historical interpretation that takes into account both the image’s nuanced rendering of the topography and its pictorial intensification through Bruegel’s artistry. The overriding aim is to free this uncommonly dynamic ‘portrait’ of Naples from the dichotomy of ‘realism’ versus ‘fantasy’ (accurate veduta versus beautiful picture);󰀅 to elaborate on its aesthetic qualities in the context of topographical references in other media; and finally, to interpret the work within the logic of an aesthetic concretion of the city against the horizon of its history and spectacular location. For the task taken up by Bruegel—and mastered with such originality—was not to recapitulate existing topographical knowledge, but instead to represent in artistic terms and in the medium of painting a city that is embedded in nature.󰀆 Presupposing a high degree of reflection on the part of this artist, it is a question, finally, of interpreting artistic approaches in the sense of medial competition, as a response to the characteristics and topoi of Naples then under discussion in topographical texts.󰀇

󰀃. GREGG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀁󰀇󰀅. 󰀄. Lastly Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, cat. no. 󰀅󰀄. Here the work is dated c. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂/󰀆󰀃. M ARIJNISSEN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀈󰀁, devotes a few lines to the picture and criticises the lack of iconological interpretation. FRANCASTEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀁󰀅, was the first to point out the combination of fragments of reality in a precise pictorial composition. 󰀅. The method used here was developed in MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: instead of describing and understanding maps and views as similar because they have comparable objects, such as cities, the aim is to interpret them as complementary media that follow their own logic and rhetoric. Maps, images, and texts cross-fertilise each other—but are not dependent on each other in a simple sense. Cf. the specific studies on Naples: M ICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈; M ICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆a; M ICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆b; MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. 󰀆. Cf. M ICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a on the appreciation of Bruegel’s aesthetic qualities by Abraham Ortelius in the entry in his Album amicorum. 󰀇. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃b ; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅; GREGG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀁󰀇󰀅.

142

TANJA MICHALSKY

THE VIEW From a fictive point of view across the sea, one which has been given a perspectival construction, the painting unfurls a panorama of the Bay of Naples, extending from the Castel dell’Ovo in the west (left) all the way to a cloud-covered Mount Vesuvius (right). The light of the setting sun still gleams with astonishing brightness, so that several monuments are singled out with particular emphasis, whether by cast shadows or by the incident light. It seems unlikely that this wide-angle projection represents the translation of a drawing executed on-site; it was probably composed from memory with the aid of sketches and other images, and based on various items of topographical information.󰀈 As so often with Pieter Bruegel’s aesthetic strategy, the meticulously constructed perspective mutates successively from a relatively emphatic view from above in the foreground to a flatter projection in the distance, and in such a way that Naples, in its compacted form, seems somehow remote, while at the same time, the gaze is led into the background, arousing the viewer’s curiosity about specific topographical details.󰀉 The entire foreground—which is to say approximately one-half of the total surface—is devoted to the sea. Several ships, their sails billowing, cruise along in front of the coastline on the dark-green surface of the water, which is ruffled by delicate, well-behaved whitecaps. Although the scene is enlivened by a number of cheerfully fluttering, colourful banners and flags, these vessels cannot be assigned to specific owners. Earlier, the prominence of the ships, some of which moreover fire off shots, has led to the picture being interpreted as a naval battle before Naples rather than as a panorama with ships. Worth considering on the other hand is the assessment of Wolfgang Stechow, Pierre Francastel, and Manfred Sellink, who regarded the ships as a common attribute of a harbour city, their salutes intended to endow the image—as in comparable contemporary engravings—with liveliness and timeliness.󰀁󰀀 The variegated catalogue of ship types seems fitting in an image of a dynamic city, with its much-frequented harbour.󰀁󰀁 󰀈. In the catalogue entry (Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, cat. no. 󰀅󰀄) there is speculation about a viewpoint like Sorrento or from a ship. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀅–󰀂󰀁󰀆, assumes that there were sketches, but that the painting was only created after Bruegel’s return from Italy; GREGG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀁󰀇󰀅, advocates the vividness of the image rather than its probability. 󰀉. Cf. on this aesthetic procedure MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b. 󰀁󰀀. STECHOW 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀, p. 󰀆󰀂, emphasises that a three-master on the right in the foreground strongly resembles the mirror-image version in an engraving after Bruegel by Frans Huys; FRANCASTEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀃; FORCELLINO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, p. 󰀉󰀀; SELLINK’S catalogue entry in Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀄. Sellink decides on the title ‘The Port of Naples’. 󰀁󰀁. Cf. on this technique GREGG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀄.

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 143

The city itself occupies a relatively small portion of the image. Together with the enormous harbour pier, it forms an astonishingly precise segment of the circle and receives further compositional emphasis through the tonality of the water’s surface and the configuration of the ships. While the left-hand side is dominated by forts, palaces, and the pier, the old town on the right appears as a compact assemblage of buildings from which just a few churches stand out. While it is admittedly difficult to identify with certainty the slightly oversized buildings on the small panel with the naked eye, I want here to respect the rhetoric of the image, which in a sense enjoins those familiar with the locale to identify individual buildings within the larger, slightly distorted overall structure. I deliberately avoid excising comparison images of the individual buildings from contemporary maps for use as visual references. Étienne Dupérac’s so-called ‘bird’s-eye-view’ (published by Antoine Lafréry in Rome, Fig. 󰀂), which will be discussed again later, may serve as an initial point of reference for readers of this essay.󰀁󰀂 To be clear: the printing of this map does not take place until 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, so we cannot assume that Bruegel was aware of it. Nevertheless, this print reproduces a view of Naples that may (in former manuscript versions) also have circulated before then. Much more important than a concrete affiliation of material representations of Naples known today is the ambition, noticeable in this period, to capture the face of the city in various media. In the following, to facilitate orientation, I will be using the numbers found in the legend of Dupérac’s engraving. In particular, the richly contrasting illumination of the Castel dell’Ovo (󰀁󰀂), set before the coastline at the extreme left, is highly effective, highlighting the brightly lit natural arch of the cliffside while casting a long, colourful shadow on the turquoise-green surface of the water. Equally dark and imposing is the Castel Nuovo (󰀁󰀀), with its massive rounded, crenellated towers, which serves as a point of departure for the curving, idealised pier of the harbour (Molo Grande, 󰀁). Visible on the left behind the Castel Nuovo is the regular rectangle of the Palace of the Viceroy (󰀄󰀈), then newly erected, whose bright illumination 󰀁󰀂. «Quale e di quanta importanza e belleza sia la nobile cita di Napole in Italia...», engraving, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, 󰀈󰀃 × 󰀅󰀄 cm; Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. The scale is c. 󰀁:󰀅.󰀁󰀁󰀀. Cf. BELLUCCI, VALERIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, cat. no. 󰀈. The digital version, annotated with the information of the legend, developed at the Bibliotheca Hertziana, MPI for Art History, facilitates the access, http://maps.biblhertz. it/map?name=lafreri (󰀂󰀃.󰀃.󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁). Cf. also the isometric map by Alessandro Baratta from 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀉 (󰀂nd edition 󰀁󰀆󰀇󰀀), as well as the extremely precise map from 󰀁󰀇󰀇󰀅 by Duca di Noja, both of which can be accessed with annotations. By moving the cursor over the image, the information in the legends of the map or view is displayed. The maps are also searchable by object.

Fig. 󰀂. Étienne Dupérac, Antoine Lafréry, Quale e di quanta importanza e bellezza sia la nobile cita di Napole in Italia.., 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France © Paris, BNF

144 TANJA MICHALSKY

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 145

forms a contrast with the gloom of the Castel Nuovo.󰀁󰀃 The church visible to the right of the Torre S. Vincenzo (󰀁󰀃), itself set before the coastline, cannot be identified, but possible candidates include several churches formerly situated in proximity to the royal palace and no longer extant.󰀁󰀄 Enthroned above the city near the centre of the picture on a still relatively undeveloped hill is a group of buildings that is singled out by strong light from the sky. The Certosa di San Martino (󰀄󰀁) is readily recognisable by its terrace constructed from massive supporting arches. The perspectival arrangement used here obscures our view of the Castel Sant’Elmo (󰀁󰀁) set behind it, a dominant element in all maps of Naples that appeared in subsequent years.󰀁󰀅 Set directly on the water below and diagonally to the right is the Arsenal (󰀁󰀅), with its uniform saddle roofs. The bright tower situated to its right is identifiable as belonging to S. Maria la Nova (󰀃󰀅), while the Monastery of S. Maria di Oliveto (󰀃󰀄), visible on the left, occupies a more heavily shadowed position. The double Monastery of S. Chiara (󰀂󰀁) is readily recognisable through its famously large size, still a dominant element of the city in aerial photographs, and characterised here by its Gothic architecture. Like it, a number of other sacred buildings situated to its right, given emphasis by their dimensions, are not rendered in their topographically/perspectivally correct orientations. This may be attributable to the aim of recognisability, or may instead be traceable to the models then available to Bruegel: San Lorenzo (󰀁󰀈), identifiable by its striking fifteenth-century tower; the Cathedral (󰀁󰀇), with its imposing apse;󰀁󰀆 Sant’Agostino Maggiore and S. Severino (󰀃󰀁);󰀁󰀇 SS. Annunziata (󰀂󰀅), San Pietro ad Aram (󰀂󰀉), and Santa Maria del Carmine (󰀂󰀆), set at the extreme end of the walled city, before the town wall terminates at the sea so strikingly with the Ponte di Maddalena (󰀃).󰀁󰀈 Stretching out here are the fortifications (Beruardo del Carmine, 󰀁󰀄), built just a few years previously. Those familiar with the topography of Naples will be able to identify these buildings without much difficulty but will then find themselves wondering 󰀁󰀃. It is the predecessor of today’s Palazzo Reale and is also known in research as Palazzo Vecchio. Dupérac/Lafréry correctly name it as the viceroy’s residence, planned under Pedro di Toledo but not begun until 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀃; cf. SAPIO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. 󰀁󰀄. Options are S. Luigi (󰀄󰀀) or Santissima Trinità (󰀄󰀁). 󰀁󰀅. Interestingly, there is a mistake in Dupérac/Lafréry: Castel San Martino is given as 󰀁󰀁—so it is a combination of Castel Sant’Elmo and Certosa di San Martino. The number 󰀄󰀁, on the other hand, is given twice—for SS. Trinità and for S. Martino. 󰀁󰀆. The shape of the building, with its south-facing apse, at first suggests San Domenico, but topographically this building would be much too far to the east of the city. 󰀁󰀇. Number 󰀂󰀂 indicates S. Agostino in Dupérac/Lafréry, but is incorrectly marked San Domenico. 󰀁󰀈. In Dupérac/Lafréry it is called Porta del Mercato.

Fig. 󰀃. Francesco Rosselli (attr.), Tavola Strozzi, 󰀁󰀄󰀇󰀂-󰀇󰀃, tempera on panel. Napoli, Museo Nazionale di San Martino © Napoli, Museo Nazionale di San Martino

146 TANJA MICHALSKY

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 147

why other imposing sacred buildings, already seen hovering above the dense city in the ‘Tavola Strozzi’ (Fig. 󰀃), approximately a century older, are missing here:󰀁󰀉 San Domenico and San Giovanni a Carbonara (󰀂󰀈) in particular. Maria Forcellino has quite rightly called attention to the circumstance that our image constitutes a portrait of a city only recently renovated and refurbished by Viceroy Don Pedro, for which a number of older buildings had lost their significance.󰀂󰀀 Examining this observation, it becomes clear that the new waterfront fortifications are highly uniform in character and extend all the way to the Castel dell’Ovo. On the right, beyond the city walls, a bright light falls on a green, overgrown area that extends all the way to the ochre-coloured beachfront and the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. The light serves to emphasise whitish-grey villas that are integrated into a street system. One of them must be intended to represent the Villa Poggio Reale,󰀂󰀁 a pleasure palace commissioned in 󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀇 by Alfonso II of Aragon, celebrated in its time for its modern loggia architecture and elaborate waterworks, and still used by regents and viceroys for several decades following the conquest of Naples (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀄?, despite the resultant damage to the building) until a new Palace of the Viceroys had reached completion.󰀂󰀂 And although the perspectival distortion (which we encountered already in the centre of town) makes it difficult to identify the centrally positioned building—the one receiving the brightest illumination—with absolute certainty as Poggio Reale, it seems likely that this spectacular edifice, widely familiar in the 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀀s—not least because it was illustrated in Sebastiano Serlio’s history of architecture (Fig. 󰀄), where it is characterised as exemplary—here stands for the luxury and comfort of villa architecture in general.󰀂󰀃 Evidently, it was Bruegel’s intention to accentuate the villas as an integral aspect of cultivated nature, for the numerous tiny figures that labour along the streets are emblematic of the well-ordered gardens found there, celebrated as well due to the abundant system of water provision. 󰀁󰀉. For the Tavola Strozzi cf. PANE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, passim. With bibliography. 󰀂󰀀. FORCELLINO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, p. 󰀉󰀀. 󰀂󰀁. Poggio Reale is not shown in Dupérac/Lafréry. Cf. the quite exact reproduction on the view by Baratta at the extreme right margin without a number but with the Inscription ‘POGGIO R EALE’, https://maps.biblhertz.it/map?name=baratta. 󰀂󰀂. Cf. the palace HERSEY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃, FROMMEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄; on the continued use of the palace: DI M AURO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆; VISONE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄 and 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. Already Leandro A LBERTI 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, fol. 󰀁󰀆󰀇v–󰀁󰀆󰀈, reports, despite all praise, on the poor condition of the castle. 󰀂󰀃. SERLIO 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀁. Among the ‘modern’ buildings of the 󰀁󰀅th century, Serlio mentioned only Poggio Reale in comparison with the ancient works that are the focus of this volume. Cf. also A LBERTI 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 fol. 󰀁󰀆󰀇v–󰀁󰀆󰀈. He seems to be referring to the illustration in Serlio’s book and already notes the poor condition of the palace.

148

TANJA MICHALSKY

Fig. 󰀄. Sebastiano Serlio, Poggio Reale, in: Il Terzo libro dell’architettura. Nel Qual Si Figvrano, E Descrivono Le Antiqvita di Rome, E Le Altre Che Sono In Italia, 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀅󰀁 © Roma, Bibliotheca Hertziana, MPI for Art History

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 149

Especially unusual is the semi-circular form of the large pier of the harbour, whose bold exaggeration becomes immediately evident when we refer to the engraving of 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆 (Fig. 󰀂). Replacing the L-shaped complex, it is not only given a regular curve, but is noticeably oversized in a way that goes far beyond the necessary perspectival distortion. In the view of the urbanists, this must be deemed an obvious ‘error’.󰀂󰀄 In contrast, Jane ten Brinck Goldsmith, presupposing Bruegel’s familiarity with classical authors and the art literature of his own time, proposes interpreting this form as a reminiscence of ancient ideal harbours based on Vitruvius.󰀂󰀅 Ryan Gregg goes a step further, interpreting this allusion to an idealised antiquity in the context of the urban renewal measures undertaken by the Habsburg viceroys.󰀂󰀆 Quite apart from these persuasive iconographic considerations, this manifest exaggeration is also an artifice that allows Bruegel to endow the city with particular incisiveness, characterising it now as a fortified, almost living body. Taking a step back again after surveying these details, we find that the combination of larger forms and landmarks appears all the more striking. Compositionally, the image is framed by a dark foreground, whose counterpart is found in the turbulent sky. While the bright light on the left emphasises the chain of hills, giving it a sharp silhouette, the clouds become concentrated above the inland areas on the right-hand side of the image in such a way that they accompany the vaguer, ochre-toned hilly formations all the way to the horizon.󰀂󰀇 The dark-red and brownish cloud formations above Mount Vesuvius become denser, contrasting effectively with the obligatory clouds of smoke visible above the crater. Together, the old town and the harbour breakwater form an almost ideal unity, one that has been fitted harmoniously into the landscape while nonetheless radiating an exceptional dynamism. Lying beyond them (apart from the surviving castles) are the clearly visible representative buildings, which assumed such importance for the viceroys residing in Naples. Unmistakable, as we continue to focus on the foreground, is the care with which Bruegel worked to endow this veduta with vibrancy. Without exception, the sails of the imposing ships billow in the wind, whose force also generates waves; the vessels are configured in a great arc that runs from left to right 󰀂󰀄. Cf. DE SETA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀃, and DE SETA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, p. 󰀅󰀆, where he explains the semicircle by saying that Bruegel had confused Messina and Naples. 󰀂󰀅. TEN BRINK GOLDSMITH 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀂󰀂. 󰀂󰀆. GREGG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀅. 󰀂󰀇. However, one must assume that the colours in some parts of the picture no longer correspond to the original state.

150

TANJA MICHALSKY

around the breakwater. Pale-blue puffs of gun smoke indicate that shots are being fired from several ships. Ultimately, it is impossible to determine whether the fire and clouds of smoke emanating from the nearly centrally positioned ship denotes a fire on board, or simply the instant of a cannon firing. These detonations, which reverberate in the spectacle of the menacing storm clouds, account for the image’s effect of instantaneity. And although the picture does not depict a real naval battle, it does succeed in showcasing both sides, namely the potency and the vulnerability of the navy.󰀂󰀈 City and sea are indissolubly intertwined with one another. The liminality of the city on the coastline is visualised and dramatized, and at the same time interwoven with the temporality of a brightly gleaming sunset. The proportional distribution of the commanding maritime power and the small but imposing urban silhouette of Naples intimate that the flourishing harbour city is watched over by a modern fleet. The view does not merely illustrate Naples during the era of the viceroys; instead, it characterises and colours the city’s place in the world and in history.

THE C OMMISSIONING

AND

P RODUCTION

OF THE

WORK

Given the paucity of textual documentation, no commissioning client for the picture can be documented with certainty. Worth mentioning, however, are certain items of information concerning the creation and history of the picture, whose ownership can be traced only back to the mid-seventeenth century, when it was owned by Camillo Pamphilj.󰀂󰀉 The panel’s relatively minimal dimensions—󰀄󰀂.󰀂 × 󰀇󰀁.󰀂 cm—indicate that it was kept in a picture cabinet and intended for sustained viewing, and that it was moreover relatively mobile. The subject itself, along with iconographic details, gives rise to speculation that the commissioner may have been a viceroy, or at least belonged to court circles. Today, it is generally believed that Pieter Bruegel engaged in his Italian journey—reconstructable, admittedly, only in fragmentary form—in 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀃, travelling through the Alps via France, where he produced a number of drawings, before staying in Rome (documented by a drawing of the Ripa Grande),󰀃󰀀 and that he probably travelled via Naples to Sicily, where he recorded the 󰀂󰀈. BRACKE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀅󰀀 n. 󰀃󰀂, referring to Iuliano, wants to see the picture as representing the entry of the Spanish fleet of 󰀅 November 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, in which Andrea Doria took part. The examination of the painting itself does not reveal this—even though it is now in the possession of the DoriaPamphilj family. 󰀂󰀉. Cf. the information on provenance: DE M ARCHI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, p. 󰀇󰀆. 󰀃󰀀. Chatsworth, Devonshire Collection, ink on paper, 󰀂󰀀.󰀇 × 󰀂󰀈.󰀃 cm.

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 151

Straits of Reggio and Messina with topographical precision.󰀃󰀁 The supposition that he visited Naples is based mainly on the existence of the present work, although it must be considered that a commission for such a picture may have resulted solely from Bruegel’s growing fame, and that it may have been executed elsewhere. But assuming he did visit the city, and taking the approximate dates of Bruegel’s Italian journey as a point of departure, he must have been there during the reign of Viceroy Pedro di Toledo, which lasted from 󰀄 September 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀂 until 󰀂󰀂 February 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃, and is regarded as one of the consequential periods for Naples’s urbanistic design.󰀃󰀂 The notion that the picture was commissioned by Pedro di Toledo is tempting, since this hypothesis would identify the painting—which depicts a dynamic and at the same time fortified city, one inseparably linked to the sea—as portraying an especially prosperous phase of the city’s history and of the regents who ruled over it. The spotlighting of Poggio Reale would make sense, as the viceroy resided there until the completion of his new palace. Only to a limited degree do these considerations undermine the stylistically justified dating of this painting to the late 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s: even if traceable to an initiative of the viceroy, the work could nonetheless have been executed significantly later. Mentioned repeatedly in the research in connection with this painting is a collector of Bruegel’s works, namely Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, who served as Viceroy of Naples from 󰀁󰀉 April 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀁 until 󰀁󰀈 July 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀅.󰀃󰀃 Since Bruegel died in 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀉, his term of office fell too late for him to have been associated with the work’s production. The question of whether a report dating from 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀇 concerning a Navires en mer tranquille avec petits figures en icelle et paysage lontain der Pierre Brueghel seen in Granvelle’s house in Besançon might be related to the present picture must remain unresolved,󰀃󰀄 but it is perfectly conceivable that he purchased the view of Naples during or after his tenure. In 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂, Granvelle’s secretary and advising antiquarian Antoine Morillon wrote to him that it would be highly beneficial to recover works by Bruegel, since they had risen markedly in both price and prestige.󰀃󰀅 󰀃󰀁. Regarding Bruegel’s stay in Italy cf. TEN BRINK GOLDSMITH 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂; A LLART 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇; BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b; LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, who mentions the painting (p. 󰀄󰀅) but does not discuss it further as an uncertain work by Pieter Bruegel. 󰀃󰀂. Cf. PANE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅; STRAZZULLO 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, p. 󰀅󰀆, attributes the panel to Pieter Bruegel, but spends only one paragraph on questions of the correct rendering of the city. 󰀃󰀃. On Granvelle cf. BRUNET, TOSCANO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆; CRAWFORD 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, p. 󰀉󰀆; BANZ 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀; LEGNANI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, ch. 󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀃–󰀂󰀀󰀀. 󰀃󰀄. GARMS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀁; DE M ARCHI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, p. 󰀇󰀆. 󰀃󰀅. K AVALER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, p. 󰀂󰀇󰀁, note 󰀃. On Morillon cf. CRAWFORD 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈; WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅a; WREDE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅; generally, to the networks around Abraham Ortelius, to which Pieter Bruegel also belonged, cf. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇.

TANJA MICHALSKY

152

Regardless of the precise circumstances surrounding a possible commission from a viceroy, the client for this picture must have esteemed Bruegel’s qualities as a landscape painter, an artist capable of enriching large panoramas with narrative elements. And it was very much in this spirit that Bruegel, following his stay in Naples, executed this striking image, whose uniqueness resides not so much in its references to prominent monuments or to the achievements of the viceroys, but instead to its singular inscription of the city in nature, the landscape, and the cosmos. It would be calamitous, then, to reduce their work to its iconographic details. Its special quality lies rather in the way the city’s concrete historical features, including its naval forces, are imbued with references to the time of day and to the wider cosmos, and to a degree in the way that Naples is perceived in a special light in the truest sense of the word. These qualities become especially manifest when the picture is contextualised in relation to other visual ‘descriptions’ of Naples, which together reveal a contemporary gaze that is highly differentiated in medial terms.

THE PAINTING

IN

DIALOGUE WITH O THER DESCRIPTIONS OF N APLES

Indispensable to any adequate interpretation of a work of this kind is the assumption that it was assembled from a variety of observations in a highly calculated fashion, and moreover reinforced by information found in other media. We must suppose that, in order to improve his knowledge of Naples, Bruegel drew upon maps as well as texts, not least of all in order to vie with the prevailing level of contemporary discourse while making a contribution, through the medium of painting, that was capable of conveying the natural situation, beauty, atmosphere, and vulnerability of the city. While there are a number of older maps and texts depicting Naples󰀃󰀆 which he may have consulted, two works from the year 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆 in particular should be drawn upon for comparative purposes, not solely because of their temporal proximity, but even more so by virtue of similar points of emphasis. First, there is the above-mentioned bird’s-eye view by Étienne Dupérac and Antonie Lafréry (Fig. 󰀂), and secondly, a little book by Giovanni Tarcagnota, Del sito et lodi della citta di Napoli con vna breue historia de gli re suoi & delle cose piu degne altroue ne’ medesimi tempi auenute, which praises the city for its location and 󰀃󰀆.

Cf. the collection in BELLUCCI, VALERIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈.

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 153

its history, but also for its recent modernisation under Viceroy Pedro di Toledo.󰀃󰀇 Bruegel’s knowledge of these works cannot be documented—nor is it imperative for the present argument; moreover, his familiarity with them would require dating the picture later than has been the case to date. An examination of these two ‘versions of Naples’ is worthwhile because they both document contemporary imaginaria of the city and are associated with a common textual/ visual discourse. Strictly speaking, the so-called ‘bird’s-eye view’ by Dupérac/Lafréry (Fig. 󰀂) is a hybrid, assembled from a map of the city in combination with the addition of buildings in isometric projection and a bird’s-eye view of the surrounding region.󰀃󰀈 Vladimiro Valerio, who performed the most precise technical analysis to date, identifies the uncommonly large scale, which varies slightly internally, as 󰀁:󰀆󰀀󰀀󰀀, and emphasises that the map must have been preceded by a meticulous survey. Since the engraver Dupérac lacked the technical training for such an undertaking, a hitherto unidentified—and presumably lost—prototype must have existed. Its precision suggests that a trained land surveyor must have participated in its production, and that it may even have resulted from an official commission. It follows that contemporaries must have regarded this depiction as especially precise and reliable, and that in attempting to visualize the city, Bruegel too would have had recourse to the print for the same reason. Decisive in a comparison with Bruegel’s view— despite all medially conditioned differences—is the circumstance that a relatively large area has been reserved for the city, and that the executor of this ‘map/bird’s-eye view’ has translated the beauties of the landscape—namely the hills and a few craggy cliffs—into perspectival views. Here, the harbour pier—discussed above in some detail—is rendered correctly, with an angle, and the entire configuration of the coastline, including the promontory of the Castel dell’Ovo, is suggestive of the qualities of the harbour—a product of nature, but also enhanced technically, of course—which Bruegel sought to emphasise compositionally. On a methodological level, it is worth reflecting upon how the comparison between a contemporary map/bird’s-eye view and Bruegel’s painting can be 󰀃󰀇. I have pointed out this connection before but did not investigate the parallels further, cf. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀆󰀈–󰀂󰀇󰀃, with additional bibliography; on Tarcagnota cf. STRAZZULLO 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈; this is a reprint of the book with a brief introduction, pp. vii–xxv; DE M ARTINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, pp. 󰀄󰀆–󰀅󰀇; C AUTO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, passim; TALLINI 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, who also addresses ‘Il sito …’ in the last chapter, deals mainly with the form of historiography; BRACKE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀅󰀁. 󰀃󰀈. Cf. the exact data and calculations in BELLUCCI, VALERIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, cat. no. 󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀅–󰀃󰀈. BR ACKE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, p. 󰀅󰀁, does not include the literature on the historical topography of Naples, but instead brings up the more general comparison with the famous city plan of Venice by Jacopo de’ Barbari.

154

TANJA MICHALSKY

meaningfully undertaken at all. The introductory description of the picture already drew upon the map’s key and its nomenclature, and hence took it for granted it in our reading. This approach served to identify specific buildings and to certify the relative precision of Bruegel’s depiction. Such a juxtaposition might perhaps explain why a building as important as San Domenico is absent from the silhouette of the townscape, for here in particular, the Dupérac/ Lafréry map contains an error, with San Domenico listed as S. Agostino. All the same, the building is inscribed in the map of 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, albeit mislabelled. Again and again, one catches oneself projecting the knowledge provided by a map onto the painting, although the latter has its own specific emphases. A comparison makes it clear, however, that the map displays individual structures in the context of an overview, while the painting, by contrast, highlights individual buildings, which loom up vertically from the townscape, and are moreover bathed in a special light. The most likely scenario, it seems to me, is that Pieter Bruegel enhanced material derived, perhaps, from his own sketches, with information drawn from maps in order to incorporate the most important (at least to his client) monuments in the city and to position them in relation to one another within an accurate topography. What is more, his picture had, in some sense, to compete with the city maps then coming into fashion,󰀃󰀉 and Bruegel must have expected his viewer to subject his work to exactly the type of scrutiny it has received here: namely, to inspect his townscape for its veracity. The way in which painted townscapes might have been received by the contemporary author of a textual encomium devoted to the place or the site (‘sito’) of Naples, at the same time highlighting its intrinsic value, is demonstrated by the introduction to a volume by Giovanni Tarcagnota, Del sito, et lodi della citta di Napoli con vna breve historia de gli re svoi, & delle cose piu degne altroue ne’ medesimi tempi auenute, whose first section appears below as an appendix, allowing the argument outlined here to be traced more readily in the original. In particular, Tarcagnota provides us with the contemporary eye and the vocabulary needed to comprehend the aesthetic qualities of Bruegel’s view.󰀄󰀀 󰀃󰀉. Cf. the multi-volume edition with city views of BRAUN, HOGENBERG 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀈 [󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅] with the still ground-breaking introduction by R. A. Skelton from 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅; on the contemporary concept of topography in the sense of city view as well as on the Civitates, cf. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀄–󰀁󰀂󰀄; on the claim of the city view collection, which is reflected in the preface and title pages, cf. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀀–󰀁󰀃󰀉. 󰀄󰀀. TARCAGNOTA 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆. See the text passage in the appendix. Cf. literature in note 󰀃󰀅. This is the third printed description of Naples; cf. STRAZZULLO 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. The copy in the Staatsbibliothek Berlin belonged to Abraham Ortelius, which shows that the volume was known in the Flemish

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 155

He begins with topical praise of cities as refuges and emblems of human civilisation, and lists a number of qualities inherent to Naples, moving from the most beautiful palaces to the numerous noble families before naming specific architects and urbanists. The most important criteria here are the attractiveness of the buildings and their arrangement.󰀄󰀁 With his arguments, Tarcagnota is entirely in step with the times, for example in his stress on the way in which the connection between planning and historicity, between control and contingency, allows a city to achieve its distinctiveness.󰀄󰀂 Of relevance in the present context is the rhetorical artifice he uses to lead up to his survey of the city: he assembles three cavalieri in a villa situated outside of the town, from which point they enjoy a fictive view of Naples, one that, to be sure, does not appear in the little volume, but which nonetheless presupposes genuine experiences on the part of his reader, as well as up-to-date image production, including the Dupérac/Lafréry map (Fig. 󰀂), which appeared that same year— and, as we will see, the painting by Pieter Bruegel. In the Villa del monte, the guests are placed in a windowed loggia, an unmistakable emblem of a quasi-pictorial framing.󰀄󰀃 ‘Visible from there,’ we read, ‘was the sea and the entire city, as though one was situated directly above them.’󰀄󰀄 Their host asks: ‘Have you ever, in your entire lives, seen a more beautiful prospect (prospettiva)? And if you saw it portrayed (ritratta) in one of these Flemish pictures, who could fail to say that it was the most exquisite (più delicata) thing in the world?’ And departing from this comparison with current landscape painting, one in which Bruegel’s view spontaneously comes circles. An overview of Naples city guidebooks is provided by A MIRANTE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. DE M ARTINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, p. 󰀄󰀇, describes succinctly and precisely the historian’s intention to capture the change of the city in its time against the backdrop of history. 󰀄󰀁. TARCAGNOTA 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, fol. 󰀁v. 󰀄󰀂. Cf. the introduction by Georg Braun und Frans Hogenberg in the Civitates omnes terrarum, 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂, «ad praesens me opus convertam in quo quidnam ornamenti vniverso periti Architecti vrbium, oppidorumque; structura conzulerint, artificiosae Simonis Novellani, & Francisci Hogenbergij manus, mirifica quadam industria, tam accuratae, & ad viuum partium singularum proportione, & vicorum ordine ad admussim observaro, expresserunt vut non icones & typi vrbium, sed vrbes ipsae, admirabili caelaturae artificio, spectantium oculis subiectae appareant. Quas partim ipsi depinxerunt, partim ab iis, sagaci diligentia conquisitas, atque depictas acceperunt, qui singulas quasque vrbes perlustrarunt. ... In quo topographicae vrbium oppidorumque descriptiones tam geometrica, quam perspectiva pingendi ratione, cum genuina situs, locorum, moeniorum, publicorum & privatorum aedificiorum observatione, singulari artis industria atque praesidio sunt delineare.» BRAUN, HOGENBERG 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀈 [󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅] vol. 󰀁, part 󰀂. 󰀄󰀃. On the construction of palaces in Naples and the surrounding area, as well as the problems associated with the large increase in the number of nobles since the end of the 󰀁󰀆th century, see L ABROT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉, chapters 󰀁 and 󰀂. 󰀄󰀄. TARCAGNOTA 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, fol. 󰀃r.

156

TANJA MICHALSKY

to mind, he continues, describing how beautifully the city is embedded in nature—but at the same time, just how little it would take to refresh oneself in the face of this extraordinarily beautiful natural spectacle. To begin with, his text testifies to the exceptional status of Flemish art around 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, namely its capacity to display cities in all their elegance and beauty. Tarcagnota distinguishes consciously between the aesthetic qualities of a (Flemish) picture (quadro) and the possibility of perceiving beauty in a real, individual prospect (prospettiva), which he then goes on to describe for his own purposes. In the following passage, he compares the ‘real’, the physical view enjoyed by the guests in the villa with that which an image can teach us: Our sight (vista nostra) too can refresh the spirit, when we look upon little more than a leafy tree.󰀄󰀅 And the spirit is immediately enlivened when the eye turns toward the waves of the sea. But even more refreshment for the life, the mind, and the spirit are offered by the simultaneous views of numerous large buildings, the pleasant hills (amene colline), unfathomable beauty (vaghe), flowering plants, and the tranquil sea. Such a prospect—so ends the first paragraph—is entirely in keeping with the tastes of the host/author, namely highly diverting and exhilarating (dilettevolissima et giocondissima). Quite apart from the fact that to a certain degree, the view composed in words by Tarcagnota resembles that of Bruegel, which also depicts the hills, the large buildings of the city, its green vegetation, and in particular the sea, it is essential to realise—claims the historian—that it is through such artistic scenes that we learn to appreciate the exquisiteness of such real scenes. It is, however, the individual gaze, and not one that has been subjected to artistic treatment, that he associates with recreation and exhilaration, with psychophysical reactions, so to speak, to the unique location and characteristics of Naples. Addressed in the ensuing conversation between the cavalieri on the hillside are further options for close and distant viewing, with the dispositive of maps and artistic views manifest in a latent sense in their references to the compass points and to lighting conditions. While one recommends an actual visit to the city in order to appreciate particulars such as palaces, churches, and fountains, as well as the numerous people thronging the streets, his interlocutor again praises retreat into the tranquil distance and the overview associated with it, which alone, he claims, is able to reveal the beauty that has been created by nature herself. The city lays there like a theatre, with the hills at its 󰀄󰀅. C APUTO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀁–󰀁󰀈󰀂, has also pointed out the abundant use of verbs that emphasise seeing. Cf. A LBERTI 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀂.

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 157

back, the sea with its natural bay to the south, with Mount Sant Hermo to the west and Mount Somma to the east. Finally, he says, there is the semicircular shape formed by the city together with its surroundings, which accounts for its greatness and beauty. No one who has eyes in his head, he continues, could (therefore) deny the excellence and almost indescribable beauty (vaghezza) of the city. One could almost believe that Giovanni Tarcagnota knew Pieter Bruegel’s painting when he composed his text. This cannot be documented, however, nor does it even matter. The half-circle of the urbanists, half-nature and halfart—and so contentious in the topographical research on Naples—characterises this ‘indescribably beautiful’ city, whose qualities are ultimately only accessible to vision, or through an artistic view. The historian’s text, which enumerates everything through the highly charged vocabulary of the art theory of his time in order to endow the subject with radiance, offers instead a contemporary reading of the image. The beauty of Naples, and its unfathomable charm (vaghezza)—which also means its greatness and uniqueness—is bound up with its form, one that is disclosed only to an intensifying, aesthetically effective gaze.󰀄󰀆 And precisely this is the gaze of a Flemish painter, who joins together the natural bay with the constructed semicircle of the pier, endowing the hills with plasticity, surrounding the relatively small city with sea and sky, intimating just how well it is preserved here, at this place so pampered by nature. In the context of his own rhetoric, so reliant upon the gaze, Tarcagnota takes a detour via a picture by a Flemish painter, one that succeeds in an exemplary fashion in giving expression to the city’s delicatezza—its elegance and delicacy. Painters, historians, and cartographers were cognizant of one another, and their awareness of their own medium as well as that of others is often underestimated. Juxtaposing the works of Dupérac, Tarcagnota, and Bruegel, it becomes clear how utterly disparate qualities inherent in the city were processed in accordance with these individual medial possibilities, and how little they can be understood in direct dependence upon one another—the degree to which they can be apprehended as complementary facets of an embryonic discourse concerning knowledge about cities.

󰀄󰀆. Cf. Abraham Ortelius on Bruegel in his Album amicorum, who goes on at length about how well Bruegel imitates nature—and how one always recognises more in his works than is painted, MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a, pp. 󰀃󰀈󰀄–󰀃󰀈󰀈.

158

TANJA MICHALSKY

C ONCLUSION The Bay of Naples is a precise and at the same time sharpened portrait of the city and its setting on a natural bay. Through the artistic resources of colouristic and tonal contrast, Naples—to speak with Tarcagnota—becomes here the più delicata cosa del mondo. The resources of pictorial rhetoric marshalled to achieve this effect include topographical precision, formal concentration, a spectacular lighting scheme, and not least the enlivenment of the scene through the movements of the sea and the ships. All of these elements work so well together that iconographic details such as the illumination of the Poggio Reale or the silhouettes of the older castles are apparent only at a second glance. Conceivably, such details may be linked to a commission from the circle of a viceroy, and can be interpreted as referring to recent achievements, but they are nonetheless marginal in relation to the depiction of the city as a whole, one that asserts itself amidst the elements, a city that remains dynamic even in its densely settled core, and which is nestled into the bay like a theatrical backdrop. Bruegel deploys his ability—put to the test extensively at the latest with Seasons cycle—to render the atmospheres of specific regions, landscapes, and times of day in order to embed the landscape in the cosmos.󰀄󰀇 The ambivalence between naval battle and townscape that is reflected later in the protracted search for a title is explicable by the circumstance that combined the extreme horizontal format of the bay as a whole, extending all the way to Mounts Somma and Vesuvius, with a more closely viewed foreground, which allowed him to scenarise the fleet as well as the sea. Regardless of the work’s author, intended recipient, and whether or not it was produced on commission, it testifies to its creator’s exacting examination of the form of the city, its history, setting, and atmosphere. In conjunction with other descriptions of Naples, it must be accorded a unique status: deploying the aesthetic resources of Flemish landscape painting. The Bay of Naples succeeds in allowing the viewer to experience the topical qualities of Naples—an urban settlement on the landscape of the bay—as treated in the contemporary literature. The delicatezza—which is to say the elegance of the city as a whole—is disclosed only through the larger pattern unfurled in this atmospherically charged panorama. The passage from Tarcagnota’s praise of the city is crucial in reconstructing the aesthetic qualities of this painting for the historical eye. 󰀄󰀇.

Cf. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀃󰀄; MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀃󰀄–󰀂󰀄󰀉.

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 159

A PPENDIX: Excerpt from Giovanni Tarcagnota, Del sito, et lodi della citta di Napoli con vna breve historia de gli re svoi, & delle cose piu degne altroue ne’ medesimi tempi auenute 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆 (emphases Tanja Michalsky)󰀄󰀈 [󰀁r] Fra le molte cose che nascono, serenissimo Principe, dall’ingegno et dalla mano dell’huomo, non tengo io per picciola i grandi edificii, anzi le città istesse, che se ne veggono uscire. Percioché, non solamente, secondo a me pare, questi edificii li fanno perché gli huomini, che sono di loro natura sociabili, vivano commodamente insieme, ma per imitare ancho in parte nelle loro operationi il superno architetto, che la maravigliosa machina di questo cielo che ci volge continovamente intorno con tanta vaghezza et ordine fabricò. Egli fu bella inventione certo quella di colui, [󰀁v] chi che si fosse (perché di molti si dice), che trasse dalle selve et dalle caverne gli huomini a vivere insieme per le ville et per le città. Ma non men degni di lode sono quegli altri che mostrarono poi come si potessero et dovessero le belle città bene ordinate et di magnifichi edificii adorne fabricare; benché penso io che di tempo in tempo, come di tutte le cose aviene, a questa ultima vaghezza di edificii si venisse, et di ordine così d’istinto come poscia si vide. Percioché, bastò, come si dee credere, da principio havere commode stanze per habitarvi, et per lo culto divino i tempii et le mura intorno per menarne più secura et più riposata vita. Poi vi volsero i portici per passeggiarvi o sedervi, et perché dalle pioggie et dall’ardente sole li difensasse. Vi volsero i theatri et le therme: quelli per starvi in festa, queste per la monditia et politezza del corpo. Et per la magnificentia et decoro publico si fecero talvolta vestire di lontanissime contrade i meravigliosi obelisci, le gran colonne et, con queste, i colossi gigantei con le altre tante statue, che per ornamento più che per necessità come vaghissimi fregi per varii luoghi delle città collocarono et dirizzarono. Fu già Roma di tutte queste magnificentie compiutamente adorna, et se ne lasciò di gran lunga a dietro tutte le altre città che hebbero mai, sopra la terra, grido di singolare eccellentia; non altramente che ella, ancho col valore de’ suoi cittadini, il suo imperio ampliò più di quello che altro popolo fa[󰀂r]cesse mai. Ma questa, essendo col volgere degli anni da quel suo maschio valore degenerata, fu dalla rabie de’ barbari quasi del tutto estinta. Ve ne sono poi sorte delle altre nove, et delle antiche alcune altre nobilitate. Fra le quali non è questa città di Napoli di poco grido, poiché ella ha quasi tutte quelle rare et 󰀄󰀈. Transcription by Luigi Coiro https://maps.biblhertz.it/guide/tarcagnota (󰀂.󰀅.󰀂󰀁).

160

TANJA MICHALSKY

singolari parti che possa et debba havere ogni nobile et pregiata città. Delle cui lodi et particolari ornamenti havendone, pochi dì sono, sentito ragionare a lungo in una conversatione di cavallieri, dove io per mia buona sorte presente mi ritrovai, et havendo quel ragionamento, perché oltre modo mi piacque, posto per mia sodisfatione in carta apunto come passò con animo di darlo in luce, a fine che il mondo tutto conosca et vegga che con gran ragione in questa così bella città concorrono le genti da ogni parte per vederla et per goderla, ho voluto a Vostra Altezza dedicarlo et drizzarlo, sì perché come a mio vero signore alla usanza antica di Persia li comparisca con qualche duono avanti, anchorché picciolo et di poco pregio, come ancho perché Ella si rallegri et glorie di essere signore di una così bella et compiuta città, quale è questa, alla quale, come Ella vedrà, donarono questi cavallieri tante et così vere lodi. Ma perché Vostra Altezza vegga come di presente coloro che ragionarono, et come apunto si ragionò, ho nella medesima guisa questi ragionamenti distesi che essi passarono, facendo quegli istessi cavallieri ragionare et dire quanto sopra questa materia si disse. [󰀂v]Percioché, havendo una matina il signor don Geronimo Pignatello per sua ricreatione et diporto chiamati seco a desinare familiarmente in una di queste ville del monte che soprasta alla città alquanti cavallieri suoi amici, volle che in una loggietta isfinestrata, perché era una giornata amenissima, si mangiasse. Et essendosi, doppo levate le tavole, ritirati gli altri, chi a giuocare a tavole o a schacchi, chi a passeggiare, chi a vedere le altre stanze et il giardino di quella villa, restarono nel medesimo luogo, dove mangiato si era, col signor don Geronimo il signor don Fabritio suo fratello et il signor don Giovanni d’Avalos. Et essendosi riposati alquanto, perché da quella loggietta si vedeva il mare et la città tutta come se le fossero stati sopra, il signor don Geronimo, volto verso gli altri con una certa maraviglia, incominciò in questo modo a dire. Don Geronimo. Vedeste mai per vita vostra la più bella prospettiva di questa? Se si vedesse ritratta in uno di questi quadri di Fiandra, chi non direbbe che questa fosse la più delicata cosa del mondo? Gode la vista nostra se ella vede una casa sola, che bella sia; si ricreano gli spiriti, se in un solo verdeggiante albero risguardiamo; l’animo si ravviva ogni volta che l’occhio alle tranquille et placide onde del mare si volge. Or quanto più et la vita et gli spiriti et l’animo si ricreano, si rallegrano et gioiscono mirando in un medesimo tempo tanti et così grandi edificii, quanti et quali [󰀃r] noi hora veggiamo, et insieme tante amene colline di tante et così vaghe et fiorite piante vestite, et il mare medesimamente così tranquillo? Questa è una vista a gusto mio dilettevolissima et giocondissima.

‘LA PIÙ DELICATA COSA DEL MONDO’: PIETER BRUEGEL’S BAY OF NAPLES 161

Don Giovanni. Bellissima, certo. Ma non minore giocondità si sente, quando dentro la città istessa si veggono in particolare i bei palagi, le ornate chiese, i magnifici seggi, le fresche fontane et le strade da tanta cavalleria et da così honorato popolo frequentate. Don Geronimo. Veramente che non è poco piacere cavalcare per la città, et vedere le tante cose che hora voi dite: ma lo strepito et la confusione delle genti toglie gran parte di quel diletto. Il che qui hora a noi non aviene, che con ogni nostra quiete di animo godiamo di questa generale et gioconda vista, quale io poco avanti essere diceva. Miriate un poco di gratia, et discorriate meco in particolare questo bel sito della città. Vedete come è egli maraviglioso, et quasi fatto studiosamente tale dalla natura. La città è situata et formata, come vedete, a guisa di un bel theatro, insieme con questi ameni colli che alle spalle le sono, et che la circondano da questa parte. Da mezzo dì ha poi il mare, che vagamente le si ingolfa, come vedete. Ha da questa altra parte il Monte di Santo Hermo, che le soprasta da Occidente. Et dall’altra parte, onde esce il sole, ha le sue fiorite campagne che sino al Monte di Somma si stendono. Dalla parte [󰀃v]della marina la città è piana, et, secondo a me pare, se ne è una buona parte rubata al mare. Indi, nel resto della città si monta: ma sono le colline, sulle quali ella è posta, in modo depresse et humili che così soavemente vi si monta che non si sente. Don Fabritio. Questa bella forma di semicircolo, che fa la città co’ colli et con la curvità istessa del sito, si vede assai chiaramente da chi sopra un legno si ritirasse sul porto in mare. Don Geronimo. Voi dite il vero; et non solamente la forma se ne vede che noi diciamo, ché ancho la grandezza et bellezza di lei si scorge. Et benché a chi ha occhi in testa o non ha in tutto il giudicio perso non sia necessario addur pruove sopra la eccellentia et vaghezza di questa città, che così apertamente si vede, pure a me giova, poiché entrati in questo ragionamento siamo et ci ritroviamo ogni modo otiosi, di farlo hora col testimonio di Plinio più aperto et chiaro. Eli fu questo savio scrittore lombardo, come sapete, et nato in non mica selvaggia patria; et nondimeno, quando egli descrivendo la terra habitata ne viene a ragionare di Terra di Lavoro, tanto celebra questa felice contrada che dice che si rallegra et seco stessa la natura gioisce di haverla fatta così fertile et così amena; et che qui Bacco et Cerere contendono insieme sopra la eccellentia et bontà de’ frutti, de’ quali loro la inventione si attribuisce. Vedete che parole questo autore giudiciosissimo et senza passione, per essere straniero, ne dice. Ora, se di questa amenissima contrada la città di Napoli, [󰀄r] che le è quasi posta nel mezzo, è la più vaga, la più piacevole et la più delitiosa parte

162

TANJA MICHALSKY

di lei, ben si può conchiudere et dire che ella sia una delle più amene et più felice città che habbia tutta la terra habitata. Et a questo argomento della sua amenità, tirata in consequentia dalle parole di Plinio, voglio io questo altro aggiungervi: che ella nel resto è tale che non solo non cede a qualsivoglia altra, ma le eccede ancho tutte in tutte quelle qualità che possono più una città nobilitare. Percioché, lasciando da parte la vaghezza del sito, della quale noi raggioniamo, et le tante delitie che a gara ha qui la natura in gratia de’ suoi habitatori cumulate, in quale città vedete voi tanta nobiltà, tanta cavalleria, tanta copia et varietà, et in somma perfetione, di tutte le cose che servono et giovano alla vita nostra, quanto in questa si vede?

PART IV BRUEGEL’S E ARLY R ECEPTION

AND

FAME

IN ITALY

La tecnica del «guazzo» nel collezionismo italiano: La parabola dei ciechi e Il Misantropo del Museo di Capodimonte Angela CERASUOLO Nella collezione Farnese, giunta a Napoli a partire dal 󰀁󰀇󰀃󰀄 con Carlo di Borbone che aveva ereditato la raccolta dalla madre Elisabetta Farnese, il museo di Capodimonte conserva due fra le più celebri opere di Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, La parabola dei ciechi e Il Misantropo (entrambi firmati e datati 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 ; Figg. 󰀁, 󰀂)󰀁. I due dipinti pervennero ai Farnese nel 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂 in seguito alla requisizione da parte di Ranuccio I Farnese (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀉-󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀂, figlio del principe Alessandro) dei beni di Giambattista Masi (󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀄 o 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀅-󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂), coinvolto in una congiura di feudatari ribelli. La notevole collezione conservata nel palazzo dei Masi a Parma era stata costituita nel suo nucleo principale attraverso gli acquisti del padre di Giambattista, Cosimo Masi (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀇?-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀). Segretario del principe Alessandro Farnese, Cosimo risedette a lungo nei Paesi Bassi al seguito del suo patrono, nominato da Filippo II governatore delle Fiandre nel 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈 e vi rimase fino al 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀄, due anni dopo la morte del principe󰀂. L’inventario dei quadri dei Masi nel palazzo di Parma, stilato il 󰀂󰀂 giugno 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂 a seguito della confisca, è conservato nell’Archivio di Stato di Parma󰀃. Fra molti dipinti di incerta identificazione, ritratti e quadri di genere, sono chiaramente riconoscibili le sette tele dei Sette peccati capitali di Jacques de Backer, anch’esse oggi conservate nel Museo di Capodimonte. Fuor di dubbio le menzioni ai numeri 󰀆 e 󰀈 dei due quadri di Bruegel, ciascuno giudicato «bellissimo», descritto nel dettaglio e correttamente individuato con autore e data, evidentemente trascrivendo le iscrizioni presenti in entrambi di dipinti: 6) Uno quadro bellissimo con sopra sei ciechi detto il quadro delli ciechi dove si vede essi ciechi che il primo è caduto in una fossa l’altro che li cade addosso e si tira dietro li altri con un bellissimo paese dipento sopra la tela con una 󰀁. Cfr. le schede di Marina Santucci in SPINOSA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀄-󰀁󰀆󰀇. 󰀂. BERTINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. 󰀃. BERTINI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀉-󰀅󰀄.

164

ANGELA CERASUOLO

Fig. 󰀁. Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, La parabola dei ciechi, firmato, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, tempera magra su tela. Napoli, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte © Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo - Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte. Per gentile concessione del Mic - Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

cornisa negra con profili dorati, et fiorami indorati alli cantoni, et in meggio a tutte le bande con la sua coperta di tela rossa con il ferro in cima dipinto di mane di Bruegel l’anno 1568 alto br. uno e doi terze largo br. doi e tre quarte signato sigillato sotto scritto come di sopra4. 8) Uno altro quadro dipinto in tela bellissimo con sopra un romito che camina dolente per le miserie del mondo con una figura in un … che li toglie la borsa di grandezza et larghezza br. uno e doi quarte e mezzo per ciascun lato con cornice con profili dorati signato sotto scritto sigillato come di sopra di mano del medesimo Bruegel l’anno 15685.

Il dipinto oggi comunemente detto Il Misantropo (denominazione che si afferma agli inizi del XX secolo󰀆) era qui descritto come «un romito [eremita] che cammina dolente per le miserie del mondo»: è probabile che si avesse consapevolezza del significato morale adombrato nella scena, che negli inventari successivi continua ad essere descritto come «un romito» o «un eremita». Inoltre già nell’inventario del 󰀁󰀆󰀈󰀀 di Palazzo del Giardino a Parma nella descrizione è precisato: «il tutto significa l’Ipocrisia». Precisazione che tornerà 󰀄. BERTINI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀉-󰀅󰀀. 󰀅. BERTINI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, p. 󰀅󰀀. 󰀆. DE R INALDIS 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀅󰀀󰀇-󰀅󰀀󰀈.

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

165

Fig. 󰀂. Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, Il Misantropo, firmato, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, tempera magra su tela. Napoli, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte © Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo - Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte. Per gentile concessione del Mic - Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

negli inventari settecenteschi, mentre nell’inventario Paterno del 󰀁󰀈󰀁󰀆 e in quello Arditi del 󰀁󰀈󰀂󰀁 il soggetto diventerà tout court «un ipocrita»󰀇. 󰀇. Inventario de’ quadri esistenti in Palazzo del Giardino in Parma nel 󰀁󰀆󰀈󰀀 c., Archivio di Stato di Parma, Casa e Corte Farnesiana, s.VIII, busta 󰀅󰀄: «un quadro alto br.󰀁 on. 󰀇 largo br.󰀁 on. 󰀇., a guazzo, che si vede in tondo un Romito con lunga barba et habito nero sino ai piedi al quale per dietro via li vien tagliata una borsa da una figura, che esce da un globo, il tutto significa l’Ipocrisia, un paese in lontananza, del BRUGOLA», cfr. BERTINI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀁󰀂; Quadri della R. Quadreria … che si sono consegnati alli custodi … D. Gennaro Paterno, 󰀁󰀈󰀀󰀆-󰀁󰀈󰀁󰀆, Archivio del Museo di Capodimonte, n. 󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀀: «Tondo in quadro alto pal. 󰀃,󰀁/󰀃, largo pal. 󰀃, 󰀁/󰀃 Un Ipocrita, ed un uomo dentro un cerchio, che rubba una borsa di denaro, con veduta di Paese, ed iscrizione al di sotto, di

166

ANGELA CERASUOLO

Da notare anche la descrizione delle cornici, soprattutto quella dei Ciechi, nera con profili e fiorami dorati e corredata da una «coperta di tela rossa» come si addice alle opere di maggior pregio. Una cura e un’attenzione conservativa che per fortuna è stata costantemente dedicata ai due dipinti realizzati con una tecnica fragile, la tempera magra su tela, che dovette essere frequentata da Bruegel molto più spesso di quanto ci dicano le pochissime opere superstiti e di cui sono dunque una preziosa testimonianza. Oltre ai dipinti di Capodimonte si registrano oggi due sole altre tele riferite al maestro: El vino de la fiesta de San Martín del Prado󰀈, e l’Adorazione dei Magi di Bruxelles󰀉. Karel van Mander nella sua biografia del pittore descriveva dipinti eseguiti su tela oltre che su tavola, per esempio ricordava che «si possono vedere due tele dipinte a tempera nella casa del signor Willem Iacobsz, che vive vicino alla chiesa nuova di Amsterdam»󰀁󰀀 ma soprattutto ci dice che dipinse «tanto bene a tempera che a olio – soo wel in Water als Oly-verwe – essendo eccezionalmente dotato in entrambi i procedimenti»󰀁󰀁. Una straordinaria abilità che il biografo registra anche nel disegno a penna: «Aveva una impressionante sicurezza nel comporre e disegnava splendidamente e con bravura a penna»󰀁󰀂. Il disegno a penna era riconosciuto da tutti i trattatisti come la tecnica più difficile, e proprio per questo la più ‘maestrevole’, ovvero quella in cui maggiormente venivano messe alla prova e valorizzate le capacità dell’artista in termini di ‘giudizio’, di sicurezza di tratto, di capacità compositiva, proprio a causa dell’impossibilità di ricorrere a correzioni e quindi alla necessità di prevedere e controllare ogni aspetto󰀁󰀃. Una bravura divenuta oggetto di apprezzamento ammirato da parte dei collezionisti, quei ‘conoscitori’ che acquistavano le opere di Bruegel e che il pittore ha rappresentato con arguzia divertita proprio in uno dei suoi più famosi disegni󰀁󰀄. Come nel disegno a penna, così nella tempera magra sono richiesti sicurezza e rapidità di esecuzione e nei tratti paralleli e incrociati che si Bruegel»; Inventario della Real Quadreria a cura di Michele Arditi, 󰀁󰀈󰀂󰀁, Archivio del Museo di Capodimonte, n. 󰀁󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀃: «Quadro in tondo sopra tela alto palmi tre, ed un terzo, largo palmi tre, ed un terzo, rappresentante un’ipocrita ed un uomo dentro un cerchio, che ruba una borsa di danaro, con veduta di Paese, ed iscrizione al di sotto, di Brughel con cornice». Per il riepilogo degli inventari cfr. Santucci in SPINOSA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, p. 󰀁󰀆󰀄. Sul significato del dipinto cfr. SULLIVAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂. 󰀈. SILVA M AROTO, SELLINK, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. 󰀉. Bruxelles, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, inv. no. 󰀃󰀉󰀂󰀉; l’attribuzione è incerta, cfr. S. Pénot in Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀆󰀀-󰀆󰀃. 󰀁󰀀. VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, f. 󰀂󰀃󰀃v. 󰀁󰀁. VAN M ANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄, f. 󰀂󰀃󰀃r. 󰀁󰀂. Ibidem. 󰀁󰀃. CERASUOLO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, p. 󰀈󰀅. 󰀁󰀄. Pieter Bruegel, Il pittore e il conoscitore, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆, penna e inchiostro bruno, 󰀂󰀅󰀅 × 󰀂󰀁󰀅 mm, Vienna, Albertina, inv. n. 󰀇󰀅󰀀󰀀.

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

167

Fig. 󰀃. Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, La parabola dei ciechi, firmato, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 (particolare). Napoli, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

dispiegano nella costruzione dei volumi la mano dell’artista è evidente, il fare artistico può essere oggetto di ammirazione in sé, una qualità che costituisce ormai un valore aggiunto alla bellezza della raffigurazione (Fig. 󰀃). A lungo trascurata dagli studi a causa delle poche opere giunte fino a noi e delle destinazioni spesso secondarie per cui era utilizzata, la pittura a tempera magra su tela fu in realtà diffusissima, e solo in tempi recenti è stata oggetto di importanti indagini. Si sono così delineate le distinte peculiarità di una tecnica ‘italiana’ prevalentemente quattrocentesca, e di una tecnica tradizionalmente fiamminga, di origine molto precoce, che persiste nel XVI secolo󰀁󰀅. Dalle fonti letterarie cinquecentesche si desume chiaramente la diffusione in Italia di dipinti di provenienza fiamminga realizzati a tempera a colla su tela e l’apprezzamento che dovettero ricevere da artisti e collezionisti raffinati. Queste tele si caratterizzano come un genere a sé stante e la tecnica con cui sono eseguite viene definita in vario modo dai trattatisti italiani: «tempera», «secco», ma soprattutto «guazzo»󰀁󰀆. Nei paesi di lingua tedesca sono noti come 󰀁󰀅. 󰀁󰀆.

VILLERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. CERASUOLO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀃-󰀁󰀁󰀄, 󰀁󰀁󰀈-󰀁󰀂󰀃.

168

ANGELA CERASUOLO

«Tüchlein» – letteralmente ‘piccola tela’ – termine che si rintraccia nel diario di Albrecht Dürer per indicare dipinti eseguiti con questa tecnica, entrato estesamente in uso da parte degli autori moderni󰀁󰀇. Vasari descrive la tecnica del «guazzo» nel capitolo delle Teoriche dedicato alla pittura in «chiaroscuro» in cui tratta anche degli affreschi in grisaglia per le facciate dei palazzi󰀁󰀈. Si tratta di tele di intonazione monocroma che, come gli affreschi delle facciate, imitavano statue e bassorilievi e furono estremamente diffusi all’epoca, specialmente per apparati effimeri: lo stesso Vasari ne eseguì più volte e ne parla nelle Vite di diversi artisti󰀁󰀉. «Guazzo» si riferisce alla tecnica che utilizza come legante prevalente la colla animale e Vasari usa questo termine anche a proposito di dipinti legati alla tradizione fiamminga, che erano stati presto conosciuti e diffusi anche in Italia, come attesta la presenza di panni «fiandreschi» nell’inventario di Lorenzo il Magnifico󰀂󰀀. La pittura a tempera magra su tela praticata nelle Fiandre era caratterizzata da stesure molto sottili e trasparenti, tali da saturare appena i fili della tela senza ricoprirli: il suo uso era destinato ad opere affini ai tessuti decorati e agli arazzi più che ai dipinti su tavola. A Bruges, fra il XV e la prima metà del XVI secolo esistevano due distinte corporazioni per i pittori di tavole e quelli di tele󰀂󰀁. I documenti delle corporazioni di Bruges danno conto della grande forza contrattuale della corporazione dei pittori su tela – «cleederscrivers» – ben distinta e spesso in conflitto con quella dei pittori su tavola, al punto che ai pittori su tela in una sentenza del 󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀃 venne imposto il divieto di adoperare colori ad olio󰀂󰀂. Ciò attesta come questo genere di pittura prevedesse sempre l’uso del legante acquoso e si caratterizzasse in maniera del tutto distinta dalla futura pittura a olio su tela, che si affermerà piuttosto come evoluzione della pittura a olio su tavola. Nel XVI secolo sappiamo che la produzione di tele a tempera continuò a essere fiorente, anche se il suo centro prevalente di produzione da Bruges si spostò ad Anversa ed ebbe anzi un importante mercato nell’esportazione, notevolmente intensa verso la Germania, la Spagna, ma anche verso l’Italia󰀂󰀃. Zeger 󰀁󰀇. DUBOIS ET AL . 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, p. 󰀂󰀂󰀉; DEVOLDER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅 ; SCULLY, SEIDEL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆 cit., p. 󰀄. 󰀁󰀈. VASARI (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 e 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), I, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀀-󰀁󰀄󰀁. 󰀁󰀉. VASARI (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), VI, pp. 󰀂󰀇󰀄, 󰀃󰀈󰀁; ivi, V, pp. 󰀂󰀂󰀀-󰀂󰀂󰀁; oltre che nell’autobiografia, Vasari riporta notizie su tele per apparati nelle Vite del Pontormo, del Tribolo, di Cristofano Gherardi, Aristotile da San Gallo, Battista Franco, Salviati. 󰀂󰀀. NUTTALL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀉-󰀁󰀁󰀇. 󰀂󰀁. WOLFTHAL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆; WOLFTHAL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. 󰀂󰀂. WOLFTHAL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀉-󰀄󰀁. 󰀂󰀃. C AMPBELL 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆; DEWILDE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇a; DEWILDE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇b.

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

169

van Male nel suo Lamentatie nel 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀀 registra il declino della gloria artistica di Bruges, dove fra le altre categorie di artisti e artigiani, i pittori di tele a tempera, i «cleederscrivers» che avevano dato vita a un considerevole flusso di esportazione di dipinti a buon mercato verso la Spagna e la Germania, avevano lasciato Bruges per Anversa󰀂󰀄. Una testimonianza in presa diretta della vivacità del commercio ad Anversa viene da Lodovico Guicciardini, che nel 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇 elencava ammirato la moltitudine di artisti attivi in quella città. Qui oltre allo stesso Bruegel registrava commentandone l’attività anche il maestro Pieter Coecke van Aelst, «Pietro Couck d’Alost, gran pittore e grande inventore di patroni da Tapezzerie» e la moglie di questi (nonché suocera di Bruegel) Mayken Verhulst: «Maria di Bessemers di Malines, che fu moglie di maestro Pietro Couck d’Alost, nominato di sopra». Infine osservava: «l’opere de quali Pittori [...] sono sparse ancora per la maggior parte del mondo, perché se ne fa mercantia di non piccola importanza»󰀂󰀅. La grande fortuna che conobbero le tele fiamminghe in Italia nel XVI secolo si desume poi proprio dal frequente riferimento dei trattatisti, che ricordano espressamente le radici ‘oltremontane’ della tecnica. Paolo Pino nel Dialogo della Pittura afferma: «Il modo di colorire a guazzo è imperfetto e più fragile, et a me non diletta, onde lasciamolo all’oltremontani, i quali sono privi della vera via»󰀂󰀆. Raffaello Borghini, descrivendone il procedimento, aggiunge «siccome s’usa hoggi in Fiandra, donde ne vengono tante belle tele di paesi fatti con simil tempera»󰀂󰀇. Armenini descrive una variante nella tecnica attribuendola ad «alcuni Fiamenghi», per poi riecheggiare la riserva del Pino affermando che «è piaciuto agli eccellenti moderni rinunziare cotal via totalmente agli oltremontani»󰀂󰀈. Numerose le notizie riportate da Vasari, fra cui la famosa descrizione del Tüchlein donato da Dürer a Raffaello che fu mostrato da Giulio Romano «per miracolo» all’aretino quando lo aveva visitato a Mantova, tenuto in sommo riguardo «fra le molte cose rare che aveva in casa sua»󰀂󰀉. Un altro significativo riferimento è nella Vita di Giovanni da Udine, in cui Vasari racconta come il giovane allievo di Raffaello, messosi ad apprendere da un «fiammingo chiamato Giovanni» il modo per «far vagamente frutti, foglie e fiori», imparò poi da questi anche «a colorire in tele paesi e verzure, nella

󰀂󰀄. 󰀂󰀅. 󰀂󰀆. 󰀂󰀇. 󰀂󰀈. 󰀂󰀉.

DEWILDE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇b, p. 󰀁󰀀󰀇. GUICCIARDINI 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀀󰀀. PINO 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀈, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀁; pp. 󰀄󰀁󰀈-󰀄󰀁󰀉 (note). BORGHINI 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀄, p. 󰀁󰀇󰀂. A RMENINI 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀀. VASARI (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 e 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), IV, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀉; VASARI (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), V, p. 󰀇󰀈.

170

ANGELA CERASUOLO

maniera che si è dopo lui usato non pur dai Fiamminghi, ma ancora da tutti i pittori italiani»󰀃󰀀. L’aretino attribuisce quindi a Giovanni da Udine il merito di aver avviato la diffusione fra i pittori italiani della tecnica oltremontana, apprezzata particolarmente per la realizzazione di paesaggi. Una importante testimonianza di Vasari è poi la notizia della piccola collezione di «tele di paesi fatte in Fiandra a olio et a guazzo, e lavorati da bonissime mani» portate dall’intagliatore Matteo del Nasaro al suo ritorno in patria dopo un soggiorno nelle Fiandre󰀃󰀁. Collezione che fu poi in parte acquisita nel 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀅 da Federico Gonzaga, come è testimoniato da una lettera di Niccolò Maffei a Isabella d’Este da cui si desume che il Duca di Mantova aveva acquistato ben centoventi dei «trecento quadri de Fiandra de paesi in tavola e in tela» portati da «Mattheo de Nasar», e di questi solo una trentina erano ad olio, quindi per buona parte la raccolta era costituita da tele a guazzo󰀃󰀂. Già nella lettera al Varchi (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀇) Vasari testimoniava la capillare diffusione in Italia dei «paesi tedeschi» ricordando fra le meraviglie della pittura «i paesi coi monti e coi fiumi [...] che non è casa di ciavattino che paesi tedeschi non siano, tirati dalla vaghezza e prospettiva di quegli»󰀃󰀃. Le opere realizzate a tempera magra su tela dovettero essere apprezzate dai collezionisti anche per le particolarità degli effetti consentiti da questa tecnica, in relazione con il basso indice di rifrazione del legante a colla, che produce colori dai toni morbidi e tenui, una luce bassa e soffusa ed esalta le modulazioni dei pigmenti verdi e azzurri, rendendolo il medium d’elezione per i paesaggi. Bruegel nelle due tele di Capodimonte mostra di sapere sfruttare al massimo la delicata luminosità che la tempera conferisce alle stesure azzurre del cielo e dei corsi d’acqua, al verde tenero di fogliami e vegetazione (Fig. 󰀃). I pigmenti utilizzati confermano la predilezione per il largo utilizzo di varietà di verdi e azzurri: sono stati individuati azzurrite, malachite, smalto, lapislazzuli, ampiamente distribuiti in ogni parte della raffigurazione, tanto per il paesaggio, ovviamente, quanto per gli indumenti delle figure󰀃󰀄. La tavolozza è ricca e include varie tonalità di terre, ma anche cinabro e gradazioni di bianco e nero ottenute con miscele di piccole quantità di altri pigmenti; notevole l’uso per i 󰀃󰀀. VASARI (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 e 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), V, p. 󰀄󰀄󰀈. 󰀃󰀁. VASARI (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), IV, p. 󰀆󰀂󰀄. 󰀃󰀂. Archivio di Stato di Mantova, Archivio Gonzaga, F. II. 󰀈, Busta 󰀂󰀅󰀂󰀂, Lettera di Nicola Maffei a Isabella d’Este, 󰀂 maggio 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀅, cfr. BROWN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, pp. 󰀅󰀃-󰀅󰀄, C AMPBELL 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀇. 󰀃󰀃. VARCHI 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉, p. 󰀁󰀂󰀄. 󰀃󰀄. I pigmenti sono stati identificati dall’esame XRF e da una sezione stratigrafica prelevata dal bordo nero perimetrale della Parabola, che ha rivelato la presenza, oltre che di nero organico, di tracce di azzurrite, smalto, carbonato e solfato di calcio, mentre l’esame della spettroscopia IR (FTIR) ha individuato la presenza di blu oltremare.

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

171

bianchi tanto di biacca che di carbonato di calcio, anche in miscela, che si direbbe confermare l’osservazione di Armenini sulla pratica di «alcuni fiamminghi» di unire alla biacca e all’orpimento un terzo di gesso󰀃󰀅. Il dato, registrato dall’esame XRF, è particolarmente evidente in RX dove si osserva la scarsa radiopacità di alcuni panneggi bianchi – in particolare l’immagine radiografica ci restituisce in nero il manto candido del quarto cieco al centro – e richiede ulteriori verifiche, anche per discriminare con maggior precisione l’uso di gesso o di carbonato di calcio. Armenini parla di «gesso marzo» – identificabile con il solfato di calcio bi-idrato che si ottiene facendo ‘spegnere’ completamente il solfato di calcio emiidrato e perciò viene definito dal trattatista «marzo» [marcio] – ma non è da escludere che abbia interpretato erroneamente come gesso il carbonato di calcio, materiale molto più diffuso a nord delle alpi, adoperato dagli artisti fiamminghi con cui era entrato in contatto. Un aspetto molto specifico della modalità esecutiva di Bruegel nei dipinti a tempera come abbiamo visto è l’utilizzo di sottili tratteggi paralleli o incrociati realizzati a punta di pennello. Questi tratti, oltre che per costruire i volumi e i passaggi di tono, sono sfruttati per ottenere raffinate modulazioni cromatiche con la giustapposizione di colori contrastanti, per esempio sovrapponendo un tratteggio chiaro rosato a un fondo blu-nero, oppure sottilissime pennellate di ocra dorata a tratti grigi o verdi (Fig. 󰀃). Sulle motivazioni e le circostanze della scelta da parte di Bruegel di adottare la tecnica della tempera su tela sono state fatte diverse ipotesi. È stata messa in relazione con l’attività di miniatrice della suocera Mayken Verhulst, seconda moglie del probabile maestro di Bruegel, Pieter Coecke van Aelst e madre della moglie del pittore, o addirittura con l’incontro con Giulio Clovio avvenuto probabilmente in occasione del suo viaggio il Italia. Clovio infatti conservò presso di sé diversi dipinti di Bruegel, come testimonia il suo inventario󰀃󰀆. In realtà, pur avendo in comune con la miniatura l’utilizzo di leganti acquosi, la tempera magra su tela si caratterizza in modo molto differente, e soprattutto all’epoca era tanto consueta nei luoghi della giovinezza dell’artista da non richiedere circostanze particolari per venirne a conoscenza. Già nel 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 nella commissione del polittico per i Guantai di Mechelen – la prima opera di Bruegel di cui si ha notizia, che non ci è arrivata – era inclusa anche la realizzazione di una Resurrezione su tela, modalità ampiamente praticata in quella città󰀃󰀇. 󰀃󰀅. A RMENINI 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆, p. 󰀁󰀃󰀉; CERASUOLO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀁, 󰀁󰀂󰀃. 󰀃󰀆. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅b, p. 󰀁󰀄; M ARIJNISSEN, SEIDEL 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀂, 󰀅󰀇. Sulle possibili circostanze dell’incontro, cfr. Dominique Allard e Stefano Onofri in questo volume. 󰀃󰀇. MONBALLIEU 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀈-󰀁󰀁󰀀, cit. in M ARIJNISSEN, SEIDEL 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀁-󰀁󰀂, 󰀅󰀆. Ringrazio sentitamente Robert van Langh e Arie Wallert che mi hanno aiutato a interpretare il documento.

172

ANGELA CERASUOLO

Sicuramente poi non è pensabile che questa tecnica, da tutte le fonti cinquecentesche italiane ricordata come ‘fiamminga’, venisse appresa da Bruegel proprio in Italia. L’inventario di Giulio Clovio testimonia senz’altro l’ammirazione del miniatore croato per Bruegel, quattro cui opere compaiono per prime nell’elenco stilato sotto la sua supervisione il 󰀂󰀇 dicembre 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀇. Anzi la prima menzione, quella di «un quadretto di miniatura la metà fatto per mano sua l’altra di M.° Pietro Brugole» lascia immaginare un ammirato confronto che dovette aver luogo fra i due maestri, con uno scambio di doni e l’esecuzione di una miniatura a quattro mani – quasi una gara di bravura – significativo divertissement a cui si dovettero dedicare 󰀃󰀈. È importante notare, in ogni caso – e alla cosa non sembra sia stata data finora la dovuta importanza – che nell’inventario di Clovio due dei dipinti di Bruegel sono detti «quadro a guazzo», ovvero eseguiti con la tecnica a tempera magra su tela che abbiamo descritto, designata con questo termine, mentre l’opera realizzata in collaborazione viene definita «quadretto di miniatura», individuando quindi tecniche esecutive ben distinte󰀃󰀉. Come sappiamo, a questa prima menzione, che include anche «una torre di Babilonia fatta di auolio [avorio? a olio?] di mano di M.ro Pietro Brugole», seguiva poi ancora quella di almeno altri «Due paesi di Pietro Brugal» elencati fra i quadri che adornavano la camera di don Giulio nell’ulteriore inventario redatto il 󰀄 gennaio 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈 dopo la morte del miniatore󰀄󰀀, che registrava anche, più avanti, fra libri e oggetti vari, «tre disegni di Pietro Brugal in paese con molte stampe»󰀄󰀁. Ma procediamo nell’esame delle due tele di Bruegel conservate a Capodimonte. L’estesa campagna di indagini realizzata recentemente ha potuto aggiungere importanti elementi di conoscenza sul procedimento esecutivo con cui furono realizzate queste opere󰀄󰀂 che si trovano sotto molti aspetti in uno stato di conservazione eccezionale, grazie a una cautela conservativa attenta e avveduta di cui sono state oggetto nel corso del XIX secolo󰀄󰀃. 󰀃󰀈. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀆󰀇-󰀂󰀆󰀈. 󰀃󰀉. Ibidem, DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀅, cit. in New York, Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀁󰀁, note 󰀂󰀀, 󰀂󰀁. 󰀄󰀀. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀇󰀄: di un terzo, «un San Giorgio dipinto in un paese grande» descritto fra i due non è indicato l’autore. Oltre a dipinti di Tiziano, Raffaello Correggio, sono presenti diversi ‘paesi’, uno attribuito a un «Adriano flamengo, due di un Giovanni «che sta con il duca Ottavio» identificato con Jan Soens. 󰀄󰀁. Ivi, p. 󰀂󰀇󰀅. 󰀄󰀂. Sono state realizzate da Emmebi diagnostica artistica: fluorescenza UV, riflettografia infrarossa (󰀁󰀆󰀈󰀀nm), radiografia, esame stratigrafico e microchimico (FTIR); ulteriori approfondimenti sulla tecnica, ancora in corso di studio, sono state realizzate dal LAMS (Laboratoire d’Archéologie Moleculaire et Structurale) CNRS, Sorbonne Universités, Parigi, diretto da Philippe Walter (XRF, indagini iperspettrali e Short-Wavelength InfraRed). 󰀄󰀃. C ARDINALI ET AL . 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀂.

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

173

Ad entrambi i dipinti è stata applicata in antico una tela di rifodero, sottile e molto simile a quella originale, ciò nonostante sul retro della foderatura della Parabola dei ciechi risultano visibili le sagome delle figure rappresentate a causa di alcune stesure pittoriche che hanno causato l’imbrunimento della tela. Considerando il dibattito ottocentesco, l’intervento va fatto risalire a un momento precedente, probabilmente alla fine del XVIII secolo, e la foderatura dovette essere eseguita con colla animale, tecnica diffusa a Napoli all’epoca che, per quanto molto rischiosa, non ha compromesso la rifrazione dei colori, essendo del tutto affine ai materiale costitutivi. Il supporto di entrambi i dipinti è costituito da una tela di lino sottile a intreccio regolare, con una densità di 󰀁󰀉 fili orizzontali × 󰀂󰀁 verticali per cm󰀂 󰀄󰀄. Sulla tela non è presente alcuno strato preparatorio; il legante, di natura proteica, è stato identificato come colla animale tramite spettroscopia IR (FTIR). Le stesure pittoriche, anch’esse sottilissime, mostrano una estrema sicurezza di esecuzione e le indagini realizzate – in particolare la riflettografia infrarossa, l’indagine radiografica e le foto a luce trasmessa – confermano e evidenziano tale sicurezza, fornendo notevoli elementi di conoscenza sulla costruzione compositiva dei due dipinti, che si rivelano fra loro del tutto simili per materiali e procedimenti utilizzati. In entrambi i dipinti la riflettografia (Figg. 󰀄, 󰀅) evidenzia un primo disegno realizzato con un medium secco, probabilmente carboncino, solo in alcune parti, poiché per lo più il tracciato grafico preliminare è rispettato con precisione nelle stesure pittoriche, che vi si sovrappongono perfettamente, occultandolo. Nella Parabola dei ciechi in particolare sono degni di nota alcuni elementi eseguiti a mano libera in maniera estemporanea, poi in parte modificati, come l’albero sul lato sinistro, a cui si affiancavano due piccole figure di contadini poi soppresse, mentre il tronco è stato spostato sul margine della composizione variando anche la forma dei rami, dipinti poi direttamente senza rispettare il disegno iniziale. Notevole anche sullo sfondo al centro la figurina visibile in IR che scavalca un muretto davanti alla chiesa, disegnata con tratti veloci e non più dipinta. Nel resto della composizione si registrano poche, lievissime modifiche rispetto al disegno iniziale. Ci sono piccole eccezioni, in cui il disegno viene rilevato dall’IR proprio perché corrisponde a lievi cambiamenti: il piede sinistro del cieco centrale, per esempio, dove si nota la traccia di un contorno della punta un po’ più grande. La modifica è forse dovuta ad

󰀄󰀄. Il laboratorio scientifico del Museo del Prado ha realizzato un esame su due fili di trama prelevati dai dipinti nel 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, risultati di calibro rispettivamente di 󰀀,󰀄󰀅 (Parabola) e 󰀀, 󰀄󰀇 mm (Misantropo); la fibra è stato identificata come lino.

174

ANGELA CERASUOLO

Fig. 󰀄. Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, La parabola dei ciechi, firmato, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 (riflettografia infrarossa). Napoli, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

un maggior inarcamento del piede, che risulta così più in scorcio, per enfatizzare la precarietà dell’incedere: si tratta infatti del cieco colto nel momento in cui sta per perdere l’equilibrio per scivolare inesorabilmente nella caduta. Un ampliamento del panneggio, più rigonfio, si osserva nel braccio destro del cieco caduto, mentre si evidenziano alcuni tratti con cui sono definiti preliminarmente i lineamenti: per esempio il disegno del contorno delle labbra del mendicante che sta cadendo a bocca aperta. Similmente, nel Misantropo in IR si coglie la presenza di un disegno preparatorio solo dove si discosta leggermente dalla stesura definitiva, per lo più fedele ai lineamenti iniziali, tracciati con uno strumento secco, probabilmente carboncino: qua e là si rivela come un doppio contorno lungo la veste del misantropo, o si evidenzia dove delinea più nettamente dettagli e lineamenti, come nella barba del misantropo o nel volto del ladro. Infine si osservano piccole modifiche, come lo spostamento della croce sul ‘mondo’, inizialmente disegnata più a sinistra. Un tratteggio a carboncino, largo e sintetico, accenna con poche linee parallele l’ombra sul terreno fra i due personaggi; similmente, radi tratti paralleli si osservano anche sul margine sinistro della Parabola, a segnare forse l’andamento curvo del suolo. Per comprendere meglio la natura del disegno preparatorio risultano particolarmente significative le fotografie a luce trasmessa, in cui la trasparenza della tela e delle stesure pittoriche è estremamente enfatizzata e vengono messi in evidenza alcuni fenomeni che possiamo interpretare in relazione alla tecnica

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

175

Fig. 󰀅. Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, Il Misantropo, firmato, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 (riflettografia infrarossa). Napoli, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

esecutiva dei dipinti. Nella Parabola dei ciechi in trasparenza si nota un tratto di disegno piuttosto spesso e regolare che attraversa il dipinto orizzontalmente: si tratta di una linea preliminare tracciata con una funzione costruttiva in relazione alla composizione del gruppo, disposto nello spazio con una scansione geometrica estremamente bilanciata. In entrambi i dipinti numerosi contorni delle figure risultano trasparenti nell’esame a luce trasmessa, evidenziandosi così come linee chiare. Il fenomeno è più palese nella Parabola dei ciechi, dove risultano segnati da linee molto nette contorni e dettagli degli abiti, delle teste, dei bastoni (Fig. 󰀆). Credo che queste tracce corrispondano ad un disegno preparatorio, realizzato forse con carbone – potrebbe essere un disegno che riprende i contorni di uno spolvero o più probabilmente il calco di un cartone – comunque con un materiale che

176

ANGELA CERASUOLO

Fig. 󰀆. Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, La parabola dei ciechi, firmato, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈 (particolare nel visibile e in luce trasmessa). Napoli, Museo e Real Bosco di Capodimonte

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

177

ha limitato l’adesione delle stesure di colore applicate successivamente, creando così queste aree più trasparenti, in cui nelle macrofotografie si vedono distintamente i fori della trama della tela rimasti liberi. É possibile anche che le linee che si evidenziano in luce trasmessa corrispondano a un disegno eseguito prima di applicare la stesura di colla preliminare all’esecuzione, che non ha così ‘bagnato’ la tela in quelle parti. Le stesse aree in radiografia risultano nere a causa dell’assenza di colore, anche se sono meno evidenti, a causa della complessiva scarsa radiopacità dei materiali costitutivi. Le osservazioni che si sono rese possibili sulle due tele di Capodimonte attraverso le indagini diagnostiche consentono di aggiungere un importante riscontro a quanto è stato osservato sulla pratica di bottega di Bruegel tramite l’esame dei suoi dipinti su tavola e il confronto con le copie del figlio Pieter Brueghel il Giovane, che hanno consentito di supporre l’uso di materiali grafici di lavoro che poteva aver ereditato dal padre󰀄󰀅. Come ipotizzano Christina Currie e Dominique Allart per molti dei dipinti su tavola, possiamo ora desumere che sia nella Parabola che nel Misantropo il maestro abbia fatto uso di cartoni – i cui contorni sono stati trasferiti tramite calco o spolvero – procedendo poi a riprendere e completare il disegno a mano libera con un mezzo secco, forse pietra nera o carbone; anche qui le aggiunte di particolari e piccole figure non vengono del tutto rispettate nella redazione pittorica, lasciando ipotizzare una definizione dell’opera che conserva un carattere molto libero e creativo, pur partendo da una progettazione definita e rigorosa. Anche alla luce di queste osservazioni, è interessante il confronto con la copia a olio su tavola della Parabola dei ciechi, conservata al Louvre󰀄󰀆. La copia, già attribuita a Pieter Brueghel il Giovane, è molto fedele, tanto che potrebbe essere stata realizzata sulla base di materiali di bottega 󰀄󰀇: la composizione per dimensioni e proporzioni è quasi sovrapponibile, anche se nella tavola appare leggermente ruotata conferendo alla fila di figure una maggior inclinazione verso destra, con un effetto di maggior pendenza del suolo. Altra variante è la vegetazione che ricopre nell’angolo inferiore sinistro la roccia nuda del dipinto originale. Nella copia sono ben leggibili alcuni dettagli che nel dipinto di Capodimonte risultano danneggiati e scarsamente distinguibili nello sfondo a 󰀄󰀅. CURRIE, A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, III, pp. 󰀈󰀈󰀁-󰀈󰀈󰀃, 󰀈󰀉󰀀-󰀈󰀉󰀃, 󰀉󰀀󰀂-󰀉󰀀󰀃. 󰀄󰀆. Copia da Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, La Parabole des aveugles, olio su tavola cm 󰀁󰀂󰀂 × 󰀁󰀇󰀉, R. F. 󰀈󰀂󰀉, Parigi, musée du Louvre. 󰀄󰀇. L’ipotesi, che richiede un confronto più stringente di quello realizzabile in questa sede, si basa sulla presenza nella copia di un netto disegno preparatorio rivelato dall’infrarosso e sulla estrema precisione dell’esecuzione; desidero ringraziare Cécile Scailliérez per avermi cortesemente consentito di vedere il dipinto in deposito e il personale del C󰀂RMF per avermi messo a disposizione il materiale diagnostico.

178

ANGELA CERASUOLO

destra: la figurina vestita di rosso, la mucca dietro l’albero, quella, quasi scomparsa, che si sta abbeverando nel corso d’acqua. Al tempo stesso, però, il confronto evidenzia la diversa qualità cromatica del fogliame degli alberi, della vegetazione, del corso d’acqua, che nel dipinto a tempera dispiegano un’ampiezza della gamma tonale e una morbidezza di inflessioni luminose del tutto assenti nella copia eseguita ad olio. I verdi e gli azzurri si alterano e anneriscono a causa dell’elevato indice di rifrazione del legante oleoso, mentre il legante ‘magro’ ne esalta luminosità e modulazioni. Anche nel Misantropo in luce trasmessa si osservano tracce chiare: lungo il contorno della sfera, della testa e delle gambe del ladro, del manto e del cappuccio del misantropo e lungo il suo profilo, mentre una linea netta orizzontale segna l’orizzonte al centro del dipinto. Sono dettagli importanti per chiarire la natura e la successione delle stesure, che sono state spesso oggetto di ipotesi che hanno messo in discussione l’autografia e l’originalità di alcune parti. L’esame materiale mostra come il dipinto non presenti stesure soprammesse, ma sia tutto realizzato in maniera unitaria, e quindi ogni elemento, comprese la scritta e la firma, sono da ritenersi senza dubbio originali. Così pure la figura del ladro: lungo il margine della sfera, infatti è visibile in IR una linea di disegno piuttosto netta e spessa, realizzata prima della stesura pittorica, ribadita dal contorno trasparente. L’incrocio della lettura delle immagini tecniche – IR, luce trasmessa, RX, fluorescenza UV chiarisce senz’altro l’originalità della scritta posta sotto la raffigurazione, che recita in fiammingo: «Om dat de werelt is soe ongetru / Daer om gha ic in den ru (Poiché il mondo è perfido, mi vesto a lutto)». Una spessa linea orizzontale visibile in trasparenza delimita in basso l’area della raffigurazione separandola da quella sottostante che reca la scritta. La linea è particolarmente evidente nell’immagine ad infrarosso, dove appare chiaramente come una traccia grafica sottostante la pellicola pittorica. La scritta è eseguita accuratamente a pennello con un pigmento bruno scandendo con precisione le singole lettere all’interno di un leggerissimo reticolo di linee ortogonali. L’immagine radiografica rende inoltre evidenti le sottili linee chiare – contenenti biacca e quindi radiopache – con cui sono ribaditi i caratteri della scritta per suggerirne il rilievo. Il fondo dell’area occupata dalla scritta nel visibile appare più chiaro per l’assenza di uno strato di finitura applicato nella parte sovrastante, che è chiaramente evidenziato dalla fluorescenza UV. L’immagine in fluorescenza UV evidenzia dettagli poco apprezzabili nel visibile: in entrambi i dipinti rende più chiaramente leggibile la firma, applicata con un pigmento bruno che oggi si distingue appena sul fondo di colore chiaro – rispettivamente beige nella Parabola e grigio-violetto nel Misantropo.

LA TECNICA DEL

«GUAZZO» NEL

COLLEZIONISMO ITALIANO

179

In quest’ultimo inoltre è notevole come si evidenzi sul fondo di tutte e quattro gli spigoli esterni al tondo centrale la presenza di pennellate che simulano venature di marmo, anch’esse non più visibili distintamente in condizioni di luce normale. L’esame materiale dei due dipinti ci offre anche importanti elementi per desumere che le loro dimensioni sono rimaste quasi intatte. Entrambi presentano infatti sui quattro lati tracce più meno evidenti della fascia perimetrale dipinta di nero con cui erano riquadrate in origine, consueta nei dipinti fiamminghi, che probabilmente aveva la funzione di delimitare l’area da dipingere e servire da guida all’applicazione della cornice󰀄󰀈. La fascia è stata ridotta di dimensione, anche perché ne sono stati ripiegati i margini, originariamente posti sul fronte del dipinto, ma si tratta di una riduzione di entità limitata che non coinvolge affatto la composizione. Il formato molto particolare delle due tele – entrambe della stessa altezza, l’una quadrata, l’altra rettangolare con la base che misura quasi il doppio dell’altezza – è dunque da considerare una scelta deliberata, da mettere forse in relazione con la destinazione originaria. A riprova della particolarità del formato, che contribuisce non poco all’efficacia della composizione della Parabola dei ciechi, nella copia conservata al Louvre le proporzioni fra i due lati sono state modificate a vantaggio di un formato più consueto, aumentando la parte di cielo di circa 󰀃󰀅 cm, pur rimanendo per il resto, come abbiamo visto, estremamente fedele al dipinto napoletano. Pur non potendo più disporre di elementi determinanti per ricostruirne la destinazione originaria, l’osservazione materiale e l’individuazione almeno parziale del contesto di provenienza ci consentono uno sguardo più approfondito e consapevole su questi due dipinti, preziosa testimonianza di un genere che costituì un tratto importante del collezionismo cinquecentesco e contribuì non poco alla formazione del gusto e delle consuetudini visive di un’epoca. Alla penuria di opere superstiti, generalmente non sopravvissute per la fragilità intrinseca e per le destinazioni funzionali che presupponevano una limitata durevolezza, suppliscono d’altro canto le tracce documentarie e le frequenti menzioni nella letteratura, che consentono di ricostruire l’enorme diffusione dei «paesi fiamminghi», apprezzati per le loro precipue qualità cromatiche e decorative. L’inserimento di soggetti di carattere moraleggiante e narrativo doveva poi aggiungere un ulteriore elemento di interesse per i colti committenti, 󰀄󰀈. L’Adorazione dei Magi attribuita a Bruegel conservata a Bruxelles presenta un margine nero analogo e prima del restauro del 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉 era applicato su un tavolato probabilmente originale, cfr. VEROUGSTRAETE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀇󰀃-󰀈󰀀, che illustra anche l’originaria struttura di supporto e incorniciatura di tele analoghe.

180

ANGELA CERASUOLO

a cui senza dubbio Bruegel seppe corrispondere con efficacia, unendo alla piacevolezza del paesaggio una funzione educativa o ricreativa. I due dipinti di Capodimonte offrono dunque uno sguardo privilegiato sul collezionismo del XVI secolo, e grazie a uno stato di conservazione raro, nella Parabola dei ciechi e nel Misantropo possiamo continuare ad apprezzare quella «vaghezza» che aveva resi famosi i dipinti fiamminghi a tempera, un genere in cui Pieter Bruegel raggiunse esiti impareggiabili.

Paintings by Bruegel in two Early SeventeenthCentury Genoese Collections Maria Clelia GALASSI*

I NTRODUCTION Examining Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s oeuvre within the history of collecting can be difficult and frustrating. Using inventories as a starting point and exclusive source forces us to subject the information to severe scrutiny in order to identify the works with reasonable certainty. The many references to landscapes, peasant scenes, winter recreation, and so on generically attributed to Bruegel are usually of little help in establishing the actual presence of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder in a collection, not only because of the vagueness of the subjects, which were copied multiple times by the family workshop, but also because the surname Bruegel refers to many different individuals. Presumably, interest in Bruegelian paintings developed among Genoese collectors only after Pieter the Elder’s death. Bartolomeo Balbi (b. Antwerp 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅), for instance, who settled permanently in Antwerp from 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅, when the painter was still alive, did not acquire any of Bruegel’s paintings for his extensive collection even though it included many works by the most outstanding Antwerp painters of the time, such as Frans Floris, Jan Massys, Pieter Aertsen, and Joachim Beuckelaer. Nor did his son Giovanni Agostino (Antwerp 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀂– 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁), who lived in the Flemish city for most of his life. Only Gerolamo Balbi (Genoa 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀇), Bartolomeo’s brother, owned works ‘de Brugel’: four landscapes, which he most likely bought after his return to Genoa in 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀅 after thirty years living in the Netherlands.󰀁 In Genoa, appreciation for paintings in the style of Bruegel developed in parallel with the appreciation of genre and landscape paintings. This vogue * I am thankful to the following colleagues and friends for their critical reading of my text and for their help during my research: Luca Beltrami, Tine Meganck, Roberto Santamaria, Sabine van Sprang, and Elizabeth Walmsley. Important suggestions came to me from Arnout Balis, to whose memory this paper is dedicated. 󰀁. For the collections of these members of the Balbi family, which the Balbis transferred to Genoa at the beginning of the seventeenth century: Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀃–󰀁󰀈󰀅; for their stay in Antwerp: GRENDI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀉; Parma in this volume.

182

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

reached a crescendo in the 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀀s, after the brothers Lucas and Cornelis de Wael settled in the city and established themselves as the greatest disseminators of the Bruegel koine with their success in the creation of woodland landscapes and peasant scenes in a style reminiscent of their forefather.󰀂 I will return later to the role of the De Wael brothers as painters and art dealers. As is well known, by the first decades of the seventeenth century, the ‘Bruegel enterprise’ dominated the European artistic market.󰀃 It is therefore not easy to determine the degree of connoisseurship with which Genoese collectors could assess their purchases or distinguish among the various hands within a family workshop that spanned several generations. Thus, the many references to Bruegel or to the ‘Bruegel manner’ that we find when examining known inventories are more useful for establishing trends in taste, rather than for providing a basis for identifying specific works or specific authors.󰀄 Nonetheless, archival data suggest a conscious pattern of collecting works by Pieter the Elder, at least among some of the most discerning Genoese art lovers. Based on inventory records, my paper discusses two cases that illustrate Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s reception in Genoa in the early seventeenth century: from the collection of Gian Vincenzo Imperiale, I shall discuss one painting which deserves attention because of the peculiarity of its subject matter; from the collection of Giovanni Carlo Doria, I will examine a group of paintings, two of which were specifically mentioned as being by Bruegel Vecchio.

THE SAINT M ARTIN IN THE GIAN VINCENZO I MPERIALE C OLLECTION Gian Vincenzo Imperiale (Genoa 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀈) belonged to a powerful family of the Genoese aristocracy. His father Gian Giacomo, doge of the Genoese Republic in 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀉, accumulated an immense fortune from his financial, shipping, and trading activities. Within a dense network of financial relationships tied to the highest ranks of European aristocracy, Gian Giacomo belonged to the group of Genoese bankers and moneylenders on whom the Gonzagas relied for military expenses, financing the luxuries of their court, and settling 󰀂. As we will see below, Lucas and Cornelis were nephews of Jan Breughel I. For the role of Lucas and Cornelis de Wael as disseminators of the Bruegel manner: STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, I, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀁, 󰀁󰀃󰀉. 󰀃. On the collecting of Bruegel-style paintings in Italy: BEDONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, esp. pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀃–󰀁󰀇󰀅. Concerning the ‘Bruegel enterprise’ Maastricht-Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁. 󰀄. For Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s legacy and the dissemination of replicas by his sons, see: A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁; CURRIE, A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. For the many references to paintings attributed to Bruegel in Genoese inventories: Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀀–󰀁󰀇󰀉, passim.

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

183

their frequent gambling debts. His son Gian Vincenzo, a man of letters, politician, and diplomat, started to collect paintings at the beginning of the seventeenth century.󰀅 An intellectual, an art lover, and a statesman, he maintained a close relationship with the Mantuan Court and personally knew Duke Vincenzo I Gonzaga (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂). They could have met when Vincenzo I stayed in Genoa in October 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀 and again in the summer of 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀇 to enjoy the benefits of the Ligurian climate and sea bathing, both times in the company of Peter Paul Rubens.󰀆 On both occasions, the Duke was hosted in two villas in the coastal quarter of Sampierdarena—Villa del Monastero, owned by Barnaba Centurione, and Villa La Fortezza of the Grimaldi family—a place of delights near Genoa where Gian Giacomo Imperiale also owned a beautiful villa, La Bellezza. Having been neighbours for two fairly long periods surely occasioned moments of meeting and conviviality between the young Genoese nobleman and the Duke. The young Gian Vincenzo must have been fascinated by the older man’s taste and sophistication, so much so that he immediately emulated his artistic choices: it seems that as early as during Gonzaga’s first stay, Gian Vincenzo commissioned Rubens to paint two works for his growing collection,󰀇 Hercules and Omphale (Paris, Museeé du Louvre) and The Death of Adonis (a probable copy of which is housed in a private collection).󰀈 Painted around 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀂 or in the early months of 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀃, these works are among the earliest commissions from Rubens by Genoese patrons. In 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀉, Gian Vincenzo Imperiale undertook his first long journey through Italy, and in Mantua he finally had the chance to admire with his own eyes the masterpieces of the ducal gallery.󰀉 He returned to Mantua after the death of Vincenzo I in 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀆, having been appointed ambassador to the Gonzaga court.󰀁󰀀 The desire to emulate the magnificence of the Mantuan collections was certainly one of the impulses that drove him to start his own collection of paintings and ancient sculptures. The 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀈 inventory of his artworks was drawn up soon after his death and before they were dispersed. It lists more than 󰀃󰀀󰀀 paintings, making it a rich source for provenance studies.󰀁󰀁 Gian Vincenzo Imperiale may well have purchased this spectacular ensemble 󰀅. On Gian Vincenzo Imperiale’s life as a man in the public eye, writer, and collector, see M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃; RUSSO, PIGNATTI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄; Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, pp. 󰀂󰀇󰀉–󰀃󰀁󰀇; MONTANARI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. 󰀆. ORLANDO 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. 󰀇. MONTANARI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀄󰀂. 󰀈. Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, pp. 󰀃󰀀󰀂–󰀃󰀀󰀄; Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀉, with earlier bibliography. 󰀉. M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, p. 󰀂󰀈. On the Flemish paintings collected by Vincenzo Gonzaga: MORSELLI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆. 󰀁󰀀. M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, p. 󰀃󰀇. 󰀁󰀁. M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀃󰀁–󰀂󰀄󰀂.

184

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

personally during his many travels around Italy or with the assistance of expert agents. A consistent collecting approach is evident in his preference of subjects and masters. In addition to numerous portraits—many of family members, evidently executed on commission—we find religious scenes and mythological subjects with a pronounced interest in the figure of Venus, often paired with Adonis. On the other hand, landscapes are barely present, with only about twenty paintings depicting landscape views or scenes from daily life, mostly rural. Among the most important artists, we find cinquecento Italian masters, mainly Venetian and Tuscan painters such as Titian, Giorgione, Palma il Giovane, Paris Bordone, Veronese, Giulio Romano, and Andrea del Sarto, as well as contemporary masters such as Procaccini, Guido Reni, and Bartolomeo Schedoni. The Genoese school was also well represented, with paintings by Luca Cambiaso—twenty-five in all—Bernardo Strozzi, Bernardo Castello, and Domenico Fiasella. Although Gian Vincenzo was deeply interested in Flemish culture, as the presence in his library of no less than nineteen volumes by the Leuven philosopher Justus Lipsius suggests,󰀁󰀂 he owned very few Flemish paintings. In addition to the two paintings by Rubens previously mentioned, acquired at the very beginning of his activity as a collector, the inventory mentions only four paintings attributed to a certain ‘Fiamengo’,󰀁󰀃 and Uno Santo Martino by ‘Burgole’, i.e., Bruegel, valued at 󰀂󰀀󰀀 Genoese scudi (Fig. 󰀁). The presence of a work attributed to Bruegel in a collection so clearly marked by Italian art is truly exceptional, as is the high value assigned to it, which is only slightly lower than two paintings by Rubens (valued at 󰀂󰀅󰀀 and 󰀃󰀀󰀀 scudi, respectively) and equal to works by Titian, Cambiaso, and Giulio Romano.󰀁󰀄 According to the inventory, the painting was eleven Genoese palms high and eight wide, equivalent to 󰀂󰀆󰀄 × 󰀁󰀉󰀂 cm, suggesting a vertical format. Although Pieter Bruegel the Elder occasionally experimented with vertical compositions, particularly in the London Adoration of the Magi (The National Gallery) and in some drawings depicting wooded landscapes, the vertical format is rather unusual for him and his followers.󰀁󰀅 On the other hand, the large format of 󰀁󰀂. MONTANARI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, p. 󰀅󰀃. 󰀁󰀃. Among these, a Portrait of Gian Vincenzo valued at 󰀅󰀀 scudi could be identified as either the portrait now housed in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (inv. 󰀃󰀄󰀆󰀃) or the painting in the National Gallery of Washington (inv. 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀂.󰀉.󰀈󰀉), both of which are now ascribed to Anthony van Dyck. The other paintings, generically described as depicting mythological subjects, cannot be identified. Their low value (between 󰀆 and 󰀈 scudi) makes it difficult to believe that the attribution to the Fiamengo in this case would refer to Van Dyck. 󰀁󰀄. M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀅, no. 󰀁󰀀󰀈. For painting prices in Genoa during the first half of seventeenth century, see GALASSI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀈–󰀆󰀃. 󰀁󰀅. On Bruegel’s panels and drawings formats, see CURRIE, A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, I, pp. 󰀂󰀄󰀅–󰀂󰀄󰀆; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉.

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

185

Fig. 󰀁. Inventory of Gio. Vincenzo Imperiale collection (detail), 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀈, Genova, Archivio di Stato, Fondo Notai Antichi, notaio Giacomo Lanata, fz 󰀄 sc 󰀇󰀉󰀂

the Imperiale painting tends to exclude the possibility that it is a fragment cut from a horizontal painting. For these reasons, I am inclined to assume an error on the part of the person who took the measurements or wrote them down in the inventory. An inversion of the measurements (i.e., 󰀈 × 󰀁󰀁 palms or 󰀁󰀉󰀂 × 󰀂󰀆󰀄 cm), giving a width of 󰀂󰀆󰀄 cm, brings us very close to the width of Bruegel’s Wine of Saint Martin’s Day in the Museo del Prado (Fig. 󰀂), which will be discussed later. The subject of the Imperiale Saint Martin immediately recalls a painting in Vincenzo Gonzaga’s collection, which Gian Vincenzo Imperiale certainly had occasion to admire when he visited Mantua in 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀉. The 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀇 Gonzaga inventory describes it as: ‘Un quadro dipintovi la festa di san Martino con una quantità di pitocchi che bevono ad una botta, opere del Brugol vecchio’.󰀁󰀆 From the same inventory, we learn that the painting was among the forty-four finest hung in the main gallery—the Galleria della Mostra—of which the display had been designed in 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄 by Rubens himself and Antonio Maria Viani. Most likely, the painting had been acquired by the Duke during his stay in Brussels and Antwerp in 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀉. With its value of 󰀃󰀆󰀀 lire, it was among the most expensive paintings in the collection, similar in cost to one by Giulio Romano and more costly than one by Vasari. Of the thirteen paintings listed in the document as ‘by Bruegel’, it is the only one, along with a Massacre of 󰀁󰀆.

LUZIO 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀃, p. 󰀁󰀀󰀄.

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

186

Fig. 󰀂. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Wine of St. Martin Day, signed, c. 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆-󰀆󰀇, tempera on canvas. Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado © Museo Nacional del Prado

the Innocents, to be referred to explicitly as being authored by Bruegel the Elder.󰀁󰀇 We have reason to believe that Gian Vicenzo Imperiale was particularly interested in the painting’s subject, the traditional feast marking the arrival of the first wine of the year on Saint Martin’s Day (󰀁󰀁 November). At the time of his visit to Mantua, the Genoese nobleman was completing his most demanding and important literary work, a bucolic poem titled Lo stato rustico, whose third and definitive edition, dedicated to Ferrante II Gonzaga di Guastalla, was to be published in Venice in 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀃.󰀁󰀈 The poem, which describes a fantastic journey made by the shepherd Clizio under the guidance of the muse Euterpe, represents a tribute to rural life. Several verses are dedicated to celebrating the pleasure that wine gives to mankind, describing the sensual and festive season of the grape harvest and pressing, when the ‘divine liquor’ comes to cheer the world, repaying the farmers’ labours.󰀁󰀉 Therefore, we can well imagine that he was fascinated by Bruegel’s vision of the wine festival, which offered a palpable reality to his poetic fantasies. The attraction of Bruegel’s painting was probably reinforced in 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀄, when Imperiale was appointed 󰀁󰀇. 󰀁󰀄󰀂, for 󰀁󰀈. 󰀁󰀉.

For the Gonzaga collection based on the 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀆–󰀂󰀇 inventory, see MORSELLI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, esp. pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀉– Bruegel paintings. IMPERIALE 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀃 [󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅]. IMPERIALE 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀃 [󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅], II, ll. 󰀃󰀄󰀅–󰀃󰀆󰀇; XII, ll. 󰀈󰀁󰀂–󰀈󰀄󰀄.

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

187

governor of the captaincy of Polcevera,󰀂󰀀 a territory of the Genoese Republic whose economy was strongly linked to wine production. Four churches dedicated to St Martin were present in the Polcevera region,󰀂󰀁 including the still-extant parish of Murta, a small village where the arrival of new wine was traditionally celebrated on St Martin’s Day with a popular festival that probably demonstrated many parallels with the subject as depicted by Bruegel. Three similar compositions of the Wine of Saint Martin’s Day are known today, one of which, in the Museo del Prado, is considered an original by Pieter the Elder himself. The latest is a large Tüchlein formerly in the ducal house of Medinaceli, acquired by the museum in 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉 from a Spanish private collection (Fig. 󰀂).󰀂󰀂 The scene, which takes place outside the city walls of Brussels, depicts Saint Martin on horseback followed by a group of peasants fighting to get wine that pours from a barrel.󰀂󰀃 In terms of the size, number, and arrangement of figures, the composition is one of the most ambitious in Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s oeuvre. A copy of this prototype, listed in the 󰀁󰀆󰀅󰀉 inventory of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm’s collections as ‘by an unknown hand’, is kept in the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna. Painted in oil on canvas—and not in glue-size tempera—and now in a fragmented state, it was erroneously attributed in the past to Pieter the Younger or Jan Brueghel the Elder;󰀂󰀄 a third version, also in oil on canvas, belongs to the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium in Brussels and is a full-sized copy of the Tüchlein in Madrid with slight variations, probably dating from the early seventeenth century.󰀂󰀅 The Prado painting entered the Medinaceli collection with Luis Francisco de la Cerda y Aragón, 󰀉th Duke of Medinaceli (El Puerto de Santa María 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀀– Pamplona 󰀁󰀇󰀁󰀁), who lived for many years in Italy, first as the Spanish ambassador in Rome (󰀁󰀆󰀈󰀇–󰀁󰀆󰀉󰀆) and later as the Viceroy of Naples (󰀁󰀆󰀉󰀆– 󰀁󰀇󰀀󰀂). We have no reliable information about the earlier history of the painting. In their reconstruction of its provenance, Pilar Silva Maroto and Manfred Sellink have suggested that it could have been the property of the Veronese 󰀂󰀀. RUSSO, PIGNATI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄. 󰀂󰀁. FELLONI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, pp. 󰀉󰀂󰀁–󰀉󰀂󰀃. 󰀂󰀂. Glue-size tempera on linen, 󰀁󰀄󰀈 × 󰀂󰀇󰀀, 󰀅 cm. Madrid, Museo del Prado inv. P󰀀󰀀󰀈󰀀󰀄󰀀. SILVA M AROTO, SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. For Pieter Bruegel’s production of glue-size tempera paintings on linen, see Cerasuolo’s essay in this volume. 󰀂󰀃. For an iconographic reading of the painting in relation to wine production in Brussels, see CLAES, MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. 󰀂󰀄. Canvas, 󰀉󰀀 × 󰀇󰀀 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 󰀂󰀆󰀉󰀁. See the painting’s entry in the museum’s online catalogue: https://www.khm.at/en/objectdb/detail/󰀃󰀃󰀄/?offset=󰀁&lv=list. On the painting’s authorship: ERTZ 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀄󰀆󰀆–󰀄󰀆󰀇, cat. A 󰀄󰀅󰀃. 󰀂󰀅. Canvas, 󰀁󰀄󰀇 × 󰀂󰀆󰀉.󰀅 cm. Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, inv. 󰀁󰀀󰀈󰀁󰀈. See PAUWELS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀀–󰀂󰀁, cat. 󰀃.

188

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

moneylender and art collector Giacomo Muselli. In fact, the 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀂 inventory of the Muselli collection mentions a ‘san Martino a cavallo, con intorno una schiera di pitocchi di tutte le sorte immaginabili in un bellissimo paese, opera del Brueghel’.󰀂󰀆 According to this reconstruction, Giacomo Muselli bought the painting from the Duke of Mantua, Carlo Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers, immediately before the 󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀀 war of Mantuan succession, when Gonzaga was looking for money to fund his troops.󰀂󰀇 However, the possibility that the Mantuan painting was the same painting later documented in Genoa should also be considered. The relationship between Gian Vincenzo Imperiale and the court of Mantua, as outlined above, was very close, and the Gonzaga collection certainly served Imperiale as a model, as we have seen. Gian Vincenzo maintained a close connection with the same artistic milieu enjoyed by the Dukes; he bought two paintings by Giorgione and Titian in Venice that had been previously offered to Francesco, the fourth Duke of Gonzaga, and may have had other, similar opportunities.󰀂󰀈 Therefore, it seems well within the realm of possibility that a painting from the Gonzaga court was acquired by the Imperiale, perhaps when the court was in need of funds. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in 󰀁󰀆󰀅󰀉, when the Gonzaga-Nevers wanted to rebuild their gallery, which had been partially damaged after the 󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀀 Sack of Mantua, they sent their agents to Genoa to negotiate the purchase of the best paintings specifically from the collection of Gian Vincenzo Imperiale, who had died ten years before. In the end, the negotiations were abruptly terminated, and the paintings remained in Genoa, but the episode demonstrates the continued relationship of the Imperiale and the Gonzagas and their shared interest in collecting.󰀂󰀉 We have little information about the subsequent history of the Imperiale Saint Martin. Following the unsuccessful negotiations with Gonzaga-Nevers, Francesco Maria Imperiale, son and heir of Gian Vincenzo, persisted in his efforts to sell his father’s collection, which did not interest him. In 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀅 the paintings were auctioned; the Genoese nobleman Francesco Maria Balbi, marquis of Piovera (Genoa 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀈–󰀁󰀇󰀀󰀄), a distant relative of the above-mentioned Balbi, bought fifty-nine of them, including Bruegel’s Saint Martin.󰀃󰀀 After this date, the painting is no longer mentioned. It was not included among the forty paintings in the Balbi collection selected and purchased by Queen Christina 󰀂󰀆. SILVA M AROTO, SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁; SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, p. 󰀇󰀈󰀇 n. 󰀂󰀂. 󰀂󰀇. SILVA M AROTO, SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, p. 󰀇󰀈󰀆. 󰀂󰀈. M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, p. 󰀃󰀂󰀉; Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, p. 󰀂󰀈󰀀. 󰀂󰀉. M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀁󰀈. 󰀃󰀀. M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂󰀂. For Francesco Maria Balbi collection: BOCCARDO, M AGNANI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇, pp. 󰀅󰀄–󰀆󰀂, 󰀈󰀄–󰀈󰀅.

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

189

of Sweden in 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀇, and it most likely remained in Francesco Maria Balbi’s palace for some time before disappearing.󰀃󰀁 Thus, the Imperiale Saint Martin, which is recorded in Genoa until at least 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀅, cannot be identified as the Saint Martin from the Muselli collection, which was already recorded in Verona in 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀂, or as the Saint Martin listed in 󰀁󰀆󰀅󰀉 in the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, a fragment of which is now held, as mentioned earlier, in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. Nor can it be identified as the Medinaceli-Prado Saint Martin. Even if we assume a mistake in the transcription of the inventory and consequently accept that the Genoese version had a horizontal format, it was 󰀁󰀉󰀂 × 󰀂󰀆󰀄 cm, while the Madrid version is 󰀁󰀄󰀈 × 󰀂󰀇󰀀 cm. In addition, we can state that the dimensions of the latter have not been reduced, since they match those of the copy in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium (󰀁󰀄󰀇 × 󰀂󰀆󰀉 cm). Therefore, the Genoa version was about 󰀄󰀀 cm taller than the Tüchlein in the Prado. The existence of two versions of the same composition, one of which is considerably higher, recalls a similar case cited by Angela Cerasuolo.󰀃󰀂 It concerns the Tüchlein of the The Blind Leading the Blind (Naples, Museo di Capodimonte), which has an elongated format similar in proportion to the Prado Saint Martin (with its base being approximately twice its height), in comparison to its copy in oil on panel (Paris, Musée du Louvre), where the sky has been enlarged by around 󰀃󰀅 cm to produce a more typical format. In addition, we can observe that Nicolas Guérard’s engraving after the composition (in reverse) of the Bruegel Saint Martin, commissioned by Abraham Brueghel around 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀇󰀀, has a format that extends further on the upper and lower sides (Fig. 󰀃).󰀃󰀃 So, we can assume that Abraham Brueghel had access to a taller version, perhaps the Imperiale painting while it was still in Genoa, or elsewhere after Francesco Maria Balbi sold it. This could have happened through the mediation of his second cousin, Cornelis de Wael, with whom Abraham did business between Rome and Genoa in the 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀀s.󰀃󰀄 In conclusion, since the dimensions and history of the Gonzaga Saint Martin after the dispersal of the Mantuan collection remain unknown, we cannot exclude that the painting was moved from Mantua to Genoa after 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀇 and 󰀃󰀁. On the history of the collection after Gio. Vincenzo Imperiale’s death, and in particular on Bruegel’s Saint Martin, see M ARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀂󰀂. 󰀃󰀂. See her essay in this volume. 󰀃󰀃. The British Museum, inv. 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀆, 󰀀󰀄󰀀󰀇.󰀄󰀅, 󰀂󰀉󰀅 × 󰀅󰀀󰀄 mm, with the inscription: ‘I. Breugel in. et pinx.’ and ‘N. Guerard sculp. Romæ’; inv. 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀄, 󰀀󰀈󰀀󰀈.󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀁, 󰀃󰀄󰀉 × 󰀄󰀉󰀈 mm, with the inscription: ‘I. Breugel in. et pinx.’ and ‘N. Guerard sculp. Romæ’, and the dedication to Gasparo Altieri by Abraham Brueghel. 󰀃󰀄. Financial transactions between Cornelis de Wael and Abraham Brueghel are recorded in 󰀁󰀆󰀆󰀆: STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, I, pp. 󰀇󰀄, 󰀈󰀂.

190

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

Fig. 󰀃. Nicholas Guérard, Wine of St. Martin’s Day, c. 󰀁󰀆󰀇󰀀, engraving. London, British Museum © The Trustees of the British Museum

entered Gian Vincenzo Imperiale’s collection before disappearing at the end of the century. A more plausible scenario would perhaps be that Gian Vincenzo acquired a second version of the painting. In this case, the painting might have been a copy by either Pieter the Younger or Jan Brueghel the Elder, who could have used workshop cartoons after their father’s prototype.󰀃󰀅 The reference to Jan I Brueghel as the inventor of the above-mentioned engraving󰀃󰀆 could well be confirmation of the existence of a copy made by him, which could have been commissioned by Gian Vincenzo. However, beyond the question of authorship, which cannot be fully solved as the painting has been lost, Gian Vincenzo Imperiale’s interest in Bruegel is noteworthy. Imperiale was an attentive and thoughtful collector who carefully selected paintings individually while consciously adhering to a very personal viewpoint concerning the scope of his collection. Given his general lack of interest in landscapes and genre 󰀃󰀅. On the use of cartoons in the Bruegel workshop: CURRIE, A LLART, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, III, pp. 󰀇󰀄󰀆–󰀇󰀅󰀉. 󰀃󰀆. The fact that the engraving refers to Jan Brueghel as the ‘inventor’ of the composition has been interpreted as a mistake on Abraham’s part. Nevertheless, it is possible that Abraham was familiar with Jan’s version, ignoring the existence of a prototype by Pieter the Elder. On the other hand, the copy belonging to the Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium in Brussels shows a jug on which is written AB; H. Pauwels suggested that the Brussels painting therefore might have belonged to Abraham Brueghel and that this was his monogram: PAUWELS, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, p. 󰀂󰀀. On Jan I Brueghel as copyist of his father’s composition: CURRIE, A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, III, pp. 󰀈󰀃󰀄–󰀈󰀄󰀃.

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

191

scenes or even in Flemish painters, the presence of a ‘Bruegel’ Saint Martin in his collection was probably inspired by its depiction of the peasant celebration of the first wine of the year, which as we have seen was likely a particularly pleasing subject in his eyes.

PAINTINGS BY ‘BRUGHEL VECCHIO’ GIOVANNI C ARLO D ORIA C OLLECTION

IN THE

Giovanni Carlo Doria (󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅), one of most important art collectors in Genoa at the beginning of the seventeenth century, is also recorded as having owned paintings by Bruegel the Elder. A member of one of the oldest, richest, and most influential families of the Genoese oligarchy, he devoted his short life to collecting old and contemporary masters with an avid passion for art. In his palace he also organised a drawing academy, the so-called Accademia del Disegno, to promote local painters and contribute to the advancement of Genoese artistic culture. Rubens himself attended the Doria palace academy. In 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀆, during his stay in Genoa, the Flemish master executed the magnificent Equestrian Portrait of Giovanni Carlo (Fig. 󰀄) (Genoa, Galleria Nazionale di Palazzo Spinola) and the Portrait of Brigida Spinola Doria (Washington, National Gallery), Giovanni Carlo’s sister-in-law.󰀃󰀇 Three inventories of Giovanni Carlo Doria collection are known: one from 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀇 (Inventory A); a revised version from c. 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁, when the collection reached the height of its expansion (Inventory B); and one written at some point after his death (󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅), but before 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀁 (Inventory C).󰀃󰀈 Inventory A, out of a total of 󰀄󰀃󰀁 paintings listed, contains only ten Flemish paintings, including two paintings which are attributed to Brugoli: a small Crucifixion and a Limbo.󰀃󰀉 Both paintings could have been by Jan Brueghel the Elder: the first could be identified as either the small-scale Crucifixion on copper now in an Italian private collection, or as a similar version in the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna;󰀄󰀀 the second recalls a subject depicted by Jan repeatedly. While the Crucifixion is listed in all the inventories of the collection, including Inventory C (‘Una miniatura del Monte Calvario del 󰀃󰀇. For Gio. Carlo Doria and his importance in the Genoese scene, see FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂. 󰀃󰀈. FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀂–󰀂󰀁󰀉; Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀉–󰀂󰀅󰀉. 󰀃󰀉. ‘Un Limbo in tavola maniera fiamminga del Brugoli guarnito d’oro’: FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀂, no, 󰀁󰀆; ‘Un quadretto del Brugolo d’un Cristo in croce fornito d’ebano’: FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀁󰀉󰀅, no. 󰀂󰀂󰀁. 󰀄󰀀. On the Italian small-scale Crucifixion, signed by Jan I and dated 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀄, and the Vienna version, see SILVER 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁. It is not possible to trace the provenance of the small painting now in Italy, which was bought on the international market in 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇.

192

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

Fig. 󰀄. Peter Paul Rubens, Equestrian Portrait of Gio. Carlo Doria, c. 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀆, oil on canvas. Genoa, Gallerie di Palazzo Spinola © Gallerie Nazionali di Palazzo Spinola

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

193

Brughel’),󰀄󰀁 the Limbo is not mentioned in subsequent inventories of Giovanni Carlo’s collection, though it does reappear in his son Agostino’s 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀁 inventory before disappearing again without further trace.󰀄󰀂 Between 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀇 and the summer of 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁, Giovanni Carlo enriched his gallery with 󰀂󰀆󰀀 paintings. Hence, the collection grew to 󰀆󰀉󰀁 paintings, including many landscapes and genre scenes, and 󰀂󰀅 paintings specifically cited as being by the Flemish school. Inventory B is very important because it documents Giovanni Carlo Doria’s growing interest in Flemish painting, as well as a new refinement in his connoisseurship of it, with works attributed to a wide range of artists such as Guilliam van Deynen, Jan Wildens, Herri met de Bles (also known as ‘il Civetta’), Frans Floris, and Bruegel. We do not know through which dealers Giovanni Carlo acquired these paintings. Our knowledge about the Genoese art market is fragmentary, but we know that the painters of the so-called ‘colonia fiamminga’, who settled in Genova as early as the first decade of the seventeenth century, had a crucial role not only in producing genre paintings, but also in trading art from outside the city.󰀄󰀃 Among the Flemish painters who lived in Genoa were the previously mentioned Lucas and Cornelis de Wael, nephews through marriage of Jan I Brueghel, who had married their mother’s sister, Elizabeth de Jode. Lucas was also Jan Brueghel’s pupil. Settled in Genoa by 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀉 but perhaps earlier and active in Rome as well, they sold their own paintings and were engaged in trading works of art, paintings, engravings, books, and lace.󰀄󰀄 A complex network of friendships and relations linked the two brothers to the artistic milieu in Antwerp, benefitting their activity as dealers of artistic goods. Through blood or marriage, they were related to the engravers Pieter I and Cornelis de Jode; the artist and art dealer Jan Snellinck; the merchant and art dealer Ferdinand van den Eynden; and the painters David Teniers the Younger, Jan Wildens, and Pieter Boel. Between 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀂 and 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀃, Jan Brueghel the Younger was their guest in Genoa. Anthony van Dyck may also have enjoyed their hospitality during his stays in Genoa, when he immortalised the two brothers in a beautiful Double Portrait now in the Musei Capitolino of Rome.󰀄󰀅 They entertained business relations with the Moretus 󰀄󰀁. FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀂󰀇, no. 󰀃󰀂󰀇. 󰀄󰀂. This must be the ‘Limbo quadro antico’ listed in the Agostino Doria 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀁 inventory: FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀂󰀇, no. 󰀂󰀉󰀅. 󰀄󰀃. For the Flemish painters who moved to Genoa at the beginning of the century: DI FABIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇; Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. 󰀄󰀄. For the Genoese activity of the De Wael brothers: STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, esp. ch.󰀃, for their role as art dealers. 󰀄󰀅. DI FABIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇; STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, I, p. 󰀃󰀉.

194

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

family and with the painter and art dealer Matthijs Musson, at least from 󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀆 onwards, when Lucas bought a Susanna after Jacob Jordaens for 󰀆󰀀 guilders from him.󰀄󰀆 To fully understand just how unique the practice of collecting paintings was in Genoa, and the framework in which Doria came to develop his collection, this wide, internationally oriented network must be kept in mind. Inventory B records nine ‘Bruegel’ paintings acquired between 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀇 and 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁, and it is key for our argument. It demonstrates that in only four years, Giovanni Carlo had developed an intense interest in Bruegelian paintings. A passionate and experienced collector, he seems to have refined his connoisseurship of Pieter the Elder’s artistic personality, particularly in distinguishing the hands of the various family members. The painter’s name, first spelled in the Inventory A as ‘Brugolo’, is now almost correctly written, and in two cases the paintings are specifically identified as ‘Brughel vecchio’. The fact that, out of nine paintings listed under the name of Bruegel, only two are identified as being by Bruegel the Elder, deserves to be emphasised. It seems likely that Doria bought the two works with a specific attribution and that he believed it, perhaps based on a signature or a secure provenance. The first painting ascribed to Pieter Bruegel the Elder is a ‘Paesetto dove c’è Nostra Signora che va in Egitto del Brughel Vecchio’.󰀄󰀇 As is well-known, a Landscape with the Flight into Egypt, signed and dated 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, is held in the Courtauld Institute of London (Fig. 󰀅). According to its generally accepted provenance, it was owned by Bruegel’s patron Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆), since this subject is mentioned in the inventory of the Granvelle palace in Besançon (󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀇)󰀄󰀈 and has been identified as the painting listed in the later Specification, the inventory drawn up at the occasion of Rubens’ death in 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀀.󰀄󰀉 The listing of the same subject in Giovanni Carlo Doria’s Inventory B obliges us to consider one more step in this provenance. It cannot be excluded that Perrenot’s version, after leaving Besançon and before arriving in Rubens’s house, passed through Doria’s collection, although any document to support this idea is lacking so far. The Granvelle palace, with its magnificent collection, was certainly well known among the Genoese aristocrats who, 󰀄󰀆. STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, I, pp. 󰀄󰀂, 󰀅󰀆, 󰀆󰀁–󰀆󰀄. 󰀄󰀇. FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀀, no. 󰀃󰀁󰀆. 󰀄󰀈. C ASTAN 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀇, p. 󰀄󰀁; GAUTHIER 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀁, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀁. The 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀇 inventory is the last trace of the collection before it passed into the hands of the Baume family and was dispersed: DINARD 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. 󰀄󰀉. The Specification des Peintures Trouvées à la maison mortuaire du feu Messire Pierre Paul Rubens is transcribed in Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, pp. 󰀃󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀃󰀃. The ‘Paysage à l’huile avec la fuite en Egypte, du vieux Bruegel’ is listed among ‘les pieces des vieux Maistres’, at no. 󰀁󰀉󰀁, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀁. For the painting, see SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, p. 󰀁󰀈󰀆, no. 󰀁󰀂󰀃.

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

195

Fig. 󰀅. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Landscape with the Flight into Egypt, signed, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀃, oil on panel. London, Courtauld Insititute Public Domain

between 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀅 and 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀉, established their exchange fair in Besançon, an event that attracted Europe’s leading merchant bankers four times a year. Doria’s Inventory C does not mention the painting, possibly because it hung only briefly in the Doria palace, between 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁 and 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅. Still, this short timespan would have been enough to allow Rubens to purchase it in Genoa directly from Giovanni Carlo’s heirs,󰀅󰀀 or on the international market.󰀅󰀁 An alternative hypothesis is the existence of two different versions with parallel histories. This hypothesis opens the possibility that the painting now in London, which was auctioned at Christie’s in 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀉 with no earlier provenance, is not the painting from Rubens’s collection, but rather the one previously owned by Giovanni Carlo Doria. 󰀅󰀀. The ties between Rubens and the Genoese nobility remained very close until at least the early 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀀s, when Rubens completed the book depicting and describing the palaces of Genoa in 󰀇󰀂 plates. In 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀂, the first edition of the Palazzi di Genova was published by Rubens at his own expense with Balthasar Moretus in Antwerp. This edition was followed by an expanded version in 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀆. On this issue: ROTT 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂. 󰀅󰀁. On the interest that Doria’s collection aroused in the international art market after the death of its owner, see below.

196

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

The second painting listed in Doria’s Inventory B with the attribution to ‘Brughel vecchio’ is a Burning of Sodom.󰀅󰀂 Again, this painting is not listed in Inventory C, and was probably sold as soon as Giovanni Carlo died. Landscapes depicting fire frequently recur in the repertory of the Bruegel family, particularly that of Jan Brueghel the Elder, making it difficult to identify it as any known painting. In any case, the precise attribution to Bruegel ‘vecchio’ suggests that Doria believed it was by Jan’s father Pieter, the only member of the Bruegel family, at this date, to be called ‘the Elder’. Again, it is intriguing to note that a ‘Paysage avec un feu’ by Bruegel the Elder, in tempera, is recorded in Rubens’s 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀀 Specification,󰀅󰀃 suggesting that it may have followed the same route from Giovanni Carlo Doria’s collection to Rubens. No such painting in tempera by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is known today. The remaining Bruegel paintings entered the Doria collection between 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀇 and 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁 and are therefore mentioned for the first time in Inventory B, albeit without specific reference to the Elder. These are: a Hell, a Landscape, a small landscape with Winter Recreations, and three small roundels whose subjects are not specified.󰀅󰀄 Again, it is quite intriguing that, according to the Specification, Rubens also owned three small roundels: ‘deux petits visage en rondeaux’ and a ‘visage d’un geux en ronde’ by Bruegel the Elder.󰀅󰀅 When Giovanni Carlo died in 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅, only part of his collection was inherited by his son. Many of the paintings listed in Inventory B do not appear in Inventory C and were sold soon after 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅 by his widow, Veronica Spinola. This sale had an immediate international impact: we know, for example, that in 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀇 Orazio Gentileschi’s sons were in Genoa on behalf of the English king Charles I to negotiate the purchase of a group of paintings which the merchant and financier Filippo San Micheli had bought from Veronica. However, the negotiations broke down, and some of these paintings were bought by the aforementioned Gian Vincenzo Imperiale and were later included in the collection of Francesco Maria Balbi.󰀅󰀆 Among the missing, and therefore sold, paintings we find most of the Bruegel works mentioned in Inventory B. They include the Flight into Egypt, the Burning of Sodom and the ‘three roundels’ that, as noted, could possibly be identified as paintings later belonging to Rubens. Hypothetically, therefore, it is possible to suggest that some of the Bruegel 󰀅󰀂. 󰀅󰀃. 󰀅󰀄. 󰀅󰀅. 󰀅󰀆.

FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀃, no. 󰀅󰀄󰀂. Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀁, no. 󰀂󰀁󰀃. FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, p. 󰀂󰀀󰀀, nos. 󰀂󰀆󰀁–󰀂󰀆󰀁; p. 󰀂󰀀󰀁, no. 󰀃󰀉󰀃; p. 󰀂󰀀󰀂, no. 󰀄󰀄󰀃 and no. 󰀄󰀆󰀂. Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, p. 󰀃󰀃󰀁, nos. 󰀁󰀉󰀅–󰀁󰀉󰀆, 󰀁󰀉󰀈. SEITUN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄; SEITUN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅.

BRUEGEL PAINTINGS IN TWO EARLY 17TH-CENTURY GENOESE COLLECTIONS

197

paintings which left the Doria collection after Giovanni Carlo Doria’s death could have been acquired by Rubens, either directly from the family or, more likely, on the art market. So far, as we do not know through which channels Rubens finally came into possession of the much-desired works of Pieter Bruegel the Elder,󰀅󰀇 it is not possible to establish whether this is merely a coincidence. However, it does not seem too far-fetched to propose this hypothesis for future investigation, especially in view of the close ties established by Rubens with the Dorias during his stay in Genoa and the links between the painter and the Genoese nobility, which continued even after his return to Antwerp. Similarly, with our current knowledge, it is not possible to indicate how Giovanni Carlo Doria acquired the two paintings which he attributed, rightly or wrongly, to Pieter Bruegel the Elder. The seventeenth-century vogue of collecting paintings with the ‘Bruegel brand’, in tune with the general success of genre paintings, was bolstered by an increasingly dynamic art market. Pieter the Younger—and to a lesser extent Jan I—established himself as his father’s successor, producing faithful copies from paternal prototypes. However, Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s posthumous fame continued to increase, and discerning collectors focused their efforts on acquiring autograph works by him rather than his son’s copies.󰀅󰀈 But, at the beginning of the century, works by Pieter the Elder were difficult to find. We are well informed, for example, about the fervour with which Cardinal Federico Borromeo, in Milan, had sought works by the elder Bruegel through his son Jan, who in 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀉 wrote to him that he could find nothing, mainly because of Emperor Rudolph, who ‘at great expense had hoarded them’.󰀅󰀉 It was not until Jan’s death that Borromeo finally came into possession of a small monochrome picture by Pieter the Elder, which had remained in the family and which his son Jan had arranged to give to the Cardinal. The painting, depicting Christ and the Adulteress, was sent by Jan’s brother-in-law Ferdinand van den Eynden on 󰀂󰀂 August 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅, as we learn from a letter sent by Ferdinand to the Cardinal.󰀆󰀀 Giovanni Carlo Doria probably had to compete with Federico Borromeo in the search for works by Pieter the Elder. The two men, so similar in their passion for collecting, were related, had met several times in Milan, and 󰀅󰀇. On Rubens’ interest in Bruegel’s paintings and his desire to find autograph works by him, particularly in the latter part of his life: VLIEGHE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀; MULLER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, p. 󰀆󰀈. 󰀅󰀈. CURRIE, A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, I, pp. 󰀄󰀂–󰀄󰀇, 󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀅. 󰀅󰀉. ‘Sin a hora ho cercato un quadro del mio padre, per mandare a Vostra Signoria Illustrissima, ma non trovo niente a proposito. L’imperatore ha fatto gran spesa per aver tutte sue opere’. Jan’s letter, sent from Antwerp on 󰀆 March 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀉, was transcribed by CRIVELLI 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀉–󰀁󰀂󰀀. 󰀆󰀀. CRIVELLI 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀈, p. 󰀃󰀄󰀂.

198

MARIA CLELIA GALASSI

corresponded with each other on occasion.󰀆󰀁 In this nobile gara between collectors, the Genoese seems to have been more successful than the Milanese. His success was probably facilitated by a different approach to the art market. Instead of soliciting Pieter Bruegel’s son Jan for paintings that may have remained in the painter’s family, as Borromeo had done, Doria probably relied on a network of art dealers who were able to intercept Bruegel’s works on the secondary art market. As I mentioned above, it is very likely that the De Wael brothers, with their close ties to the international art market, played a key role in this search. It is also likely that they were facilitated in this quest by their friendship and family ties with a collector and art dealer of Ferdinand van den Eynden’s stature. Thanks to the chronological sequence of the Doria inventories, we know that the Bruegel paintings entered the collection between 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀇 and 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁, since they are listed in Inventory B. During these same years, Luca and Cornelis moved to Genoa, after staying for a few years in Venice, guests of Ferdinand van den Eynden. Lucas is documented for the first time in Genoa in 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀉, Cornelis in 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁, but it is likely that both had come to the city as early as 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀈. In this same year Ferdinand van den Eynden had returned to Antwerp and married Susanna De Jode, thus becoming their uncle, and at the same time becoming related, like them, to the Bruegel family.󰀆󰀂 The concurrence of these dates with Doria’s emergent interest in collecting Bruegel paintings does not seem coincidental. Although many pieces of this network in which painters, art dealers, and merchants acted still elude us, it is probable that the De Wael brothers played a fundamental role in Genoa as procurers of works by Bruegel—in this perhaps aided by their uncle Ferdinand—and as advisers to such refined collectors as Giovanni Carlo Doria. To the latter it seems that we can undoubtedly assign the role of the first collector, in the Genoese context, of works by (or presumed to be by) Pieter the Elder.

󰀆󰀁. On the relationship between Giovanni Carlo Doria and Cardinal Federico Borromeo: FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀂–󰀃󰀃. Giovanni Carlo Doria was a brother-in-law of Fabio Visconti Borromeo, a cousin of the Cardinal. Fabio had in fact married Bianca Spinola, sister of Giovanni Carlo’s wife Veronica. 󰀆󰀂. STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, p. 󰀄󰀁. The marriages of the De Jode sisters had been strategic in creating a network of artistic and commercial alliances: Elizabeth had married Jan Brueghel; Gertrude had married Jan de Wael, father of Lucas and Cornelis; finally, Susanna had married Ferdinand van den Eynden.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ACKERMAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀: J. S. ACKERMAN, The Villa: Form and Ideology of Country Houses, Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, Bollingen Series XXXV, 󰀃󰀄, Princeton 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀. A LBERTI 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀: L. B. A LBERTI, Descrittione di tutta Italia, Bologna 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀. A LEXANDER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: J. J. G. A LEXANDER (a cura di), Il lezionario Farnese, commentario, Modena 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. A LGERI: G. A LGERI (a cura di), Il trittico fiammingo di San Lorenzo della Costa a Santa Margherita Ligure, Rapallo (GE) 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀇–󰀅󰀂. A LLART 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: D. A LLART, «Sur la piste de Bruegel en Italie: les pièces de l’enquête», in N. DACOS (a cura di), Fiamminghi a Roma. Atti del convegno internazionale (Brussels 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), in Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento al n° 󰀁󰀀󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀉󰀃–󰀁󰀀󰀆. A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: D. A LLART, «Pieter Breugel le Jeune a-t-il pu voir les tableaux de son père? Réflexions méthodologiques et critiques», in Maastricht-Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀇. A LLART, MORENO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: D. A LLART, P. MORENO, «Information Exchange on Flemish and Dutch Artists. Giorgio Vasari, Hidden Plagiarist of Lodovico Guicciardini», in Horti Hesperidum 󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀃󰀉. A LLART, GEREMICCA 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁: D. A LLART, A. GEREMICCA, Raphaël et la gravure, de Rome aux anciens Pays-Bas et à Liège, Liège 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁. A LPERS 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀: S. A LPERS, «Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasari’s Lives», in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 󰀂󰀃, no. 󰀃/󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀀–󰀂󰀁󰀅. A MIRANTE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: F. A MIRANTE, ed. alt. (ed.), Libri per vedere. Le guide storico-artistiche della città di Napoli: fonti testimonianze del gusto immagini di una città, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. A NDRETTA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: S. A NDRETTA, «Farnese, Alessandro», in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 󰀄󰀅, Roma 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀅󰀂–󰀆󰀅. A NONIMO 󰀁󰀇󰀇󰀃: Description des beautés de Gênes, Gênes 󰀁󰀇󰀇󰀃. A REFORD 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀: D. A REFORD, The Viewer and the Printed Image in Late Medieval Europe, Farnham 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀. A RMENINI 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆: G. B. A RMENINI, De’ veri precetti della pittura, Ravenna 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆, ed. consultata a cura di M. GORRERI, Torino 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈. A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆: K. A RNDT, «Unbekannte Zeichnungen von Pieter Bruegel d. Ä.», in Pantheon 󰀂󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀁󰀆. A RNDT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂: K. A RNDT, «Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. und die Geschichte der ‘Waldlandschaft’», in Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 󰀁󰀅, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, pp. 󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀂󰀁. BAETENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: R. BAETENS (red.), Het ‘soete’ buitenleven. Hoven van plaisantie in de provincie Antwerpen 󰀁󰀆de –󰀂󰀀ste eeuw, Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. BAKKER, HOYLE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: B. BAKKER, M. HOYLE, «Pictores, Adeste! Hieronymus Cock Recommending His Print Series», in Simiolus 󰀃󰀃, no. 󰀁/󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀅󰀃–󰀆󰀆. BANZ 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: C. BANZ, Höfisches Mäzenatentum in Brüssel: Kardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆) und die Erzherzöge Albrecht (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀉–󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀁) und Isabella (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀃), Berliner Schriften zur Kunst, Berlin 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. BARISI, FAGIOLO, MADONNA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃: I. BARISI, M. FAGIOLO, M. L. MADONNA, Villa d’Este, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃. BARRETT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: K. BARRETT, «Boschian Bruegel, Brugelian Bosch: Hieronymus Cock’s Publication of ‘Bosch’ Prints», in Journal of the Historians of Netherlandish Art 󰀅, no. 󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, DOI: 󰀁󰀀.󰀅󰀀󰀉󰀂/jhna.󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃.󰀅.󰀂.󰀃

200

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BASS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: M. BASS, «Hieronymus Bosch and His Legacy as ‘Inventor’», in St Louis-Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀁–󰀃󰀄. BASS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: M. BASS, Insect Artifice: Nature and Art in the Dutch Revolt, Princeton 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. BASS, WYCKOFF 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: M. BASS, E. WYCKOFF, «Sons of ’s-Hertogenbosch: Hieronymus Bosch’s Local Legacy in Print», in Art in Print 󰀅, no. 󰀄, pp. 󰀄–󰀁󰀃. BASSENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: M. BASSENS, Bruegel: The Complete Graphic Works, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. BAUMAN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: J. M. BAUMAN, «Giulio Clovio and the Revitalization of Miniature Painting at the Medici Court in Florence», in M. PELC (uredio), Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa povodom petstote obljetnice rođenja Jurja Julija Klovića, Zagreb 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀆󰀃–󰀇󰀂. BECK 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃: C. BECK, «La nation génoise à Anvers dans la première moitié du XVIe siècle», in R. BELVEDERI (a cura di), Rapporti Genova – Mediterraneo – Atlantico nell’età moderna, Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀄󰀄󰀅–󰀄󰀇󰀆. BEDONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃: S. BEDONI, Jan Brueghel in Italia e il Collezionismo del Seicento, FirenzeMilano 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃. BELLUCCI, VALERIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈: E. BELLUCCI, V. VALERIO, Piante e vedute di Napoli dal 󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀆 al 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀉: L’origine dell’ iconografia urbana europea, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈. BELLUCCI, VALERIO 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇: E. BELLUCCI, V. VALERIO, Piante e vedute di Napoli dal 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀 al 󰀁󰀆󰀉󰀉: La città teatro, Imago urbis 󰀂, Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇. BENOÎT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃: F. BENOÎT, «Farnesiana. II. La maison du Cardinal Farnèse en 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄», in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’ histoire XI, 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀅–󰀂󰀀󰀆. BERTINI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇: G. BERTINI, La quadreria farnesiana e i quadri confiscati nel 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀂 ai feudatari parmensi, Parma 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇. BERTINI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇: G. BERTINI, La Galleria del Duca di Parma: storia di una collezione, Bologna 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇. BERTINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: G. BERTINI, Masi, Cosimo, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 󰀇󰀁, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. BERTOLOTTI 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂: A. BERTOLOTTI, «Don Giulio Clovio, principe dei miniatori», in Atti e memorie delle RR. Deputazioni di storia patria per le provincie dell’Emilia 󰀇/󰀂, 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀅󰀉–󰀂󰀇󰀉. BOCCARDO, MAGNANI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇: P. BOCCARDO, L. MAGNANI, «La committenza», in F. LAMERA, G. PIGAFETA (a cura di), Il palazzo dell’Università di Genova. Il Collegio dei Gesuiti nella Strada Balbi, Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀇–󰀈󰀇. BOON 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂: K. G. BOON, The Netherlandish and German Drawings of the XVth and XVIth Centuries of the Frits Lugt Collection, 󰀃 vols., Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂. BOORSCH 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅: S. BOORSCH, «Introduction» in St Louis-New York-Los Angeles, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀅–󰀃󰀀. BOORSCH, LEWIS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅: S. BOORSCH, R. LEWIS, The Engravings of Giorgio Ghisi, New York 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅. BORCHERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: T.-H. BORCHERT, «Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Flemish Book Illumination», in HOPPE-HARNONCOURT ET AL. 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀉󰀆–󰀁󰀀󰀈. BORGHINI 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀄: R. BORGHINI, Il Riposo in cui della pittura e della scultura si favella, Firenze 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀄. BOSTOEN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄: K. BOSTOEN, «Schiappalaria Stefano Ambrosio» in Nationaal biografisch woordenboek 󰀁󰀃, Brussel 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄, col. 󰀇󰀃󰀄–󰀇󰀃󰀉. BOSTOEN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: K. BOSTOEN, «Italian Academies in Antwerp: Schiappalaria and Vander Noot as ‘Inventors’ for the Genoese Community», in D. CHAMBERS, F. QUIVIGER (eds), Italian Academies of the Sixteenth Century, London 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀅–󰀂󰀀󰀃. BOUCHERON 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: P. BOUCHERON, Conjurer la peur. Essai sur la force politique des images, Sienne 󰀁󰀃󰀃󰀈, Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. BRACKE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: W. BRACKE , «Bruegel and Cartography», in Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique = Archief- en Bibliotheekwezen in België 󰀉󰀀, 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀆󰀁.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

BRACKE, MARTENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: W. BRACKE, P. MARTENS, «A New View on the World: The Cartographic and Chorographic Publications of Hieronymus Cock», in Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀇. BRAUN, HOGENBERG 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀈 [󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅]: G. BRAUN, F. HOGENBERG, Civitates orbis terrarum, ed. R. A. SKELTON, London 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅. BRIZAY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: F. BRIZAY, Touristes du Grand Siècle, le voyage d’Italie au XVIIe siècle, Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆. BROWN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁: C. M. BROWN, «Pictures in the Ducal Palace in Mantua, Among Them a Collection of ‘quadri de Fiandra’», in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 󰀄󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, pp. 󰀅󰀃–󰀅󰀆. BRUNET, TOSCANO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆: J. BRUNET, G. TOSCANO (éd.), Les Granvelle et l’Italie au XVIe siècle: Le mécénat d’une famille. Actes du colloque international organisé par la Section d’Italien de l’Université de Franche-Comté, Besancon, 󰀂–󰀄 ottobre 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, Besancon 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆. BUCHANAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀: I. BUCHANAN, «The Collection of Niclaes Jongelinck: II. The ‘Months’ by Pieter Bruegel the Elder», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀃󰀂, no. 󰀁󰀀󰀄󰀉, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, pp. 󰀅󰀄󰀁–󰀅󰀅󰀀. BUCHANAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: I. BUCHANAN, «Giovanni Battista Lodi da Cremona and the Story of Mercury and Herse Tapestry Series», in The Metropolitan Museum Journal 󰀅󰀀, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀇–󰀁󰀄󰀅. BUCHANAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: I. BUCHANAN, «A Portrait of Emanuel van Meteren and His Wife, Hester van Corput, by Joris Hoefnagel», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀆󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀁–󰀂󰀀󰀅. BUCHELIUS, KEUSSEN 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇: A. BUCHELIUS, H. KEUSSEN, «Die drei Reisen des Utrechters Arnoldus Buchelius nach Deutschland, insbesondere sein Kölner Aufenthalt», in Annalen des historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 󰀈󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀁–󰀁󰀀󰀂. BÜCKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: V. BÜCKEN, «Bernard van Orley. L’artiste et son milieu artistique à Bruxelles», in Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀇. BÜCKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁: V. BÜCKEN, «The Adoration of the Magi in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium: Overview and New Perspectives», in C. CURRIE , B. FRANSEN, C. STROO, D. VANWIJNSBERGHE (eds), The Bruegel Success Story. Papers Presented at the Symposium XXI for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting (Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈), Leuven, Paris, Bristol 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, pp. 󰀆󰀃–󰀇󰀉. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a: N. BÜTTNER, Die Erfindung der Landschaft: Kosmographie und Landschaftskunst im Zeitalter Bruegels, Göttingen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b: N. BÜTTNER, «Quid Siculas sequeris per mille pericula terras? Ein Beitrag zur Biographie Pieter Bruegels d.Ä. und zur Kulturgeschichte der niederländischen Italienreise», in Marburger Jahrbuch 󰀂󰀇, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀄󰀂. BÜTTNER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: N. BÜTTNER, «Cornelis van Dalem und die niederländische Landschaftskunst zur Zeit Philipps II.», in C. WEISSERT (hrsg.), Zwischen Lust und Frust: Die Kunst in den Niederlanden und am Hof Philipps II. von Spanien (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀈), Köln 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀄󰀉–󰀆󰀆. BURGERS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: J. BURGERS, In de Vier Winden: de prentuitgeverij van Hieronymus Cock 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀇/󰀁󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀 te Antwerpen: uit de collectie tekeningen en prenten, Rotterdam 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈. BURY 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: M. BURY, «On Some Engravings by Giorgio Ghisi Commonly Called ‘Reproductive’», in Print Quarterly 󰀁󰀀, no. 󰀁, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, pp. 󰀄–󰀁󰀉. BUSSELS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: S. BUSSELS, Spectacle, Rhetoric, and Power: The Triumphal Entry of Prince Philip of Spain into Antwerp, Amsterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. CAMPBELL 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆: L. CAMPBELL , «The Art Market in the Southern Netherlands in the Fifteenth Century», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀁󰀅, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀈–󰀁󰀉󰀈. CAMPBELL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: L. CAMPBELL, «Bernard van Orley: Brussels and the Renaissance» Exhibition Review, in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀄󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀄󰀉󰀉–󰀅󰀀󰀂. CAPUTO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: V. CAPUTO, «‘A guisa di un bel teatro’. La Napoli dello storiografo Giovanni Tarcagnota», in P. SABBATINO (a cura di), Il viaggio a Napoli tra letteratura e arti, Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀁󰀉󰀄.

202

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CARACCIOLO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: M. T. CARACCIOLO, «Le voyage à Rome du temps des ‘Fiamminghi’: la route française et l’étape à Lyon», in N. DACOS (a cura di), Fiamminghi a Roma. Atti del convegno internazionale (Brussels 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento al n° 󰀁󰀀󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀂󰀃–󰀄󰀀. CARDINALI ET AL . 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂: M. CARDINALI, M. I. CATALANO, A. CERASUOLO, M. B. DE RUGGIERI, C. FALCUCCI, «Sulla Sacra Famiglia del Parmigianino: cautele ottocentesche per una tecnica particolare», in L. FORNARI SCHIANCHI (a cura di), Parmigianino e il manierismo europeo, atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Parma 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂), Milano 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀁󰀉. CASTAN 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀇: A. CASTAN, Palais Granvelle à Besançon, Besançon 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀇. CAVANNA CIAPPINA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀂: M. CAVANNA CIAPPINA, «Conestagio (Conestaggio) De Franchi Gerolamo», in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 󰀂󰀇, Roma 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀂, https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/conestagio-de-franchi-gerolamo_(Dizionario-Biografico). CERASUOLO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: A. CERASUOLO, ‘Diligenza e prestezza’: La tecnica nella pittura e nella letteratura artistica del Cinquecento, Firenze 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. CHASTEL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃: A. CHASTEL, The Sack of Rome, 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇, Princeton 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃. CHIARI MORETTO WIEL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉: M. A. CHIARI MORETTO WIEL, Tiziano. Corpus dei Disegni Autografi. Milano 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. CHIAVARI CATTANEO DELLA VOLTA, LERCARI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: E. CHIAVARI CATTANEO DELLA VOLTA, A. L ERCARI (a cura di), I Cattaneo Della Volta, vicende e protagonisti di una millenaria famiglia genovese, Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. CIONINI VISANI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀: M. CIONINI VISANI, Giorgio Giulio Clovio: Miniaturist of the Renaissance, New York 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀. CLAES, MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: B. CLAES, M. MEGANCK, «Discoveries About the Wine of St Martin’s Day (Prado)», in Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Oudheidkunde en Kunstgeschiedenis 󰀈󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀅–󰀂󰀀. COFFIN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀: D. R. COFFIN, The Villa d’Este at Tivoli, Princeton 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀. COFFIN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: D. COFFIN, The Villa in the Life of Renaissance Rome, Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology, Princeton 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈. COPPOLA, BERGIER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: G. COPPOLA, J. F. BERGIER (a cura di), Vie di terra e d’acqua. Infrastrutture viarie e sistemi di relazioni in area alpina (secoli XIII–XVI), Bologna 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. COSGROVE 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄: D. COSGROVE, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, London 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄. COSTAMAGNA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂: P. COSTAMAGNA, «A propos du séjour florentin de Giulio Clovio (󰀁󰀄󰀉󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈)», in M. CÄMMERER (hrsg.), Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, München 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀁󰀇󰀅. CRAWFORD 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈: M. H. CRAWFORD, «Antoine Morillon, Antiquarian and Medallist», in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 󰀆󰀁, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, pp. 󰀉󰀃–󰀁󰀁󰀀. CRIVELLI 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀈: G. CRIVELLI, Giovanni Brueghel Pittor Fiammingo, e sue lettere e quadretti esistenti presso l’Ambrosiana, Milano 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀈. CURRIE, A LLART 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: C. CURRIE, D. A LLART, The Brueg[h]el Phenomenon: Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Pieter Brueghel the Younger; With a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice, 󰀃 vols., Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. CUST 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀄: L. CUST, “A Notice of the Life and Works of Lucas D’Heere, Poet and Painter of Ghent,” in Archaeologia 󰀅󰀄, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀄, pp. 󰀁-󰀁󰀆. DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀: N. DACOS, «Tommaso Vincidor, un élève de Raphaël aux Pays-Bas», in Relations artistiques entre Pays-Bas et Italie à la Renaissance. Études dédiées à Suzanne Sulzberger, Bruxelles, Rome 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀, pp. 󰀆󰀁–󰀉󰀉. DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇: N. DACOS, «Raphaël et les Pays-Bas. L’École de Bruxelles», in Studi su Raffaello. Atti del congresso internazionale di studi (Urbino-Firenze 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄), Urbino 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇, pp. 󰀆󰀁󰀁–󰀆󰀂󰀄.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: N. DACOS, Roma Quanta Fuit. Tre pittori fiamminghi nella Domus Aurea, Roma 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. DACOS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: N. DACOS, «Cartons et dessins raphaélesques à Bruxelles: l’action de Rome aux Pays-Bas», in N. DACOS (a cura di), Fiamminghi a Roma. Atti del convegno internazionale (Brussels 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), Bollettino d’Arte, Supplemento al n° 󰀁󰀀󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀁–󰀂󰀂. DACOS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: N. DACOS, «Entre les ruines et les ‘vedute’. Les paysages de Lambert van Noort et de Cornelis Loots», in F. CAPPELLETTI (a cura di), Archivi dello sguardo. Origini e momenti della pittura di paesaggio in Italia, atti del convegno, (Ferrara 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄), Firenze 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀆󰀁. DE BLASI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: N. DE BLASI, «Ampliamento urbano, spagnoli e iberismi nella Napoli del Napoli crocevia di culture durante il vicereame», in Domini. Critica e letteratura 󰀉󰀈, Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀈󰀇–󰀁󰀀󰀂. DE DOMINICIS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: C. DE DOMINICIS, La famiglia di Domenico Jacovacci, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. DE JONGE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: K. DE JONGE, «De tuinen van kardinaal Granvelle in Brussel en SintJoost-ten-Node. Kanttekening bij zijn briefwisseling», in Het tijdschrift van de Dexia Bank 󰀅󰀅, nr. 󰀂󰀁󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀇. DE JONGE, LOMBAERDE, MACLOT 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: K. DE JONGE, P. LOMBAERDE, P. M ACLOT, «Building the Metropolis», in J. PUTTEVILS, (ed.), Antwerp in the Renaissance, Turnhout 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀅-󰀂󰀃󰀆. DELMARCEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: G. DELMARCEL, La tapisserie flamande du XVe au XVIIIe siècle, Tielt 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉. DELMARCEL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂: G. DELMARCEL, «The Scipio Tapestries after Giulio Romano and Gian Francesco Penni in the Academia Belgica in Rome», in A. BOSCHLOO, E. GRASMAN, G. J. VAN DER SMAN (eds), ‘Aux Quatre Vents’. A Festschrift for W. Meijer, Florence 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀇. DE LUCA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: F. DE LUCA, «Miniatures ‘Full of grace and beautiful to a Marvel’. Among the Treasures of the Medici», in Zagreb 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀅󰀇–󰀅󰀈. DE MARCHI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: A. G. DE MARCHI (a cura di), Collezione Doria Pamphilj: Catalogo generale dei dipinti, Milano 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. DE MARTINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃: A. DE MARTINI, Storiografia dell’architettura napoletana: Dall’Umanesimo all’Illuminismo, Collana di storia dell’architettura e design / Collana di storia dell’architettura e design, Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃. DENHAENE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀: G. DENHAENE, Lambert Lombard: Renaissance et humanisme à Liège, Anvers 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀. DENHAENE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: G. DENHAENE (éd.), Lambert Lombard: Peintre de la Renaissance, Liège 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀅/󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆. Essais interdisciplinaires et catalogue de l’exposition, Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆. DENHAENE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: G. DENHAENE, «Contribution à l’étude de Lambert Lombard: l’impact de la gravure en tant que moyen de divulgation d’un style et de source d’inspiration», in Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique 󰀃󰀄, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀈󰀈. DENUCÉ 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀃: J. DENUCÉ, Oud-nederlandsche kaartmakers in betrekking met Plantijn, 󰀂 vols., Antwerpen 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀃. DENUNZIO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: A. E. DENUNZIO, «Sulla provenienza de Il trionfo della Morte di Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio: le collezioni di Vespasiano Gonzaga tra Sabbioneta, Napoli e Madrid», in Boletín del Museo del Prado 󰀂󰀉, no. 󰀄󰀇, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀆–󰀁󰀅. DE R INALDIS 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀁: A. DE R INALDIS, Guida illustrata del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Parte seconda. Pinacoteca, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀁. DE SETA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: C. DE SETA, «L’immagine di Napoli dalla Tavola Strozzi a Jan Bruegel», in P. L. DE CASTRIS (a cura di), Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Raffaello Causa, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀈. DE SETA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁: C. DE SETA, Napoli fra Rinascimento e illuminismo, Storia della città, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁.

204

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀅: K. Tolnai [i.e., C. DE TOLNAY], Die Zeichnungen Pieter Bruegels, München 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀅. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀅: C. DE TOLNAY, Pierre Bruegel l’ancien, 󰀂 vols., Bruxelles 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀅. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀁: C. DE TOLNAY, «  Bruegel et l’Italie  », in Les arts plastiques, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀁-󰀁󰀃󰀀. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂: C. DE TOLNAY, Die Zeichnungen Pieter Bruegels, Zürich 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂. De TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂: C. DE TOLNAY, The Drawings of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, with a Critical Catalogue, translation and revision of 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀅 edition, London 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅: C. DE TOLNAY, «Newly Discovered Miniatures by Pieter Bruegel the Elder», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀀󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀀–󰀁󰀁󰀄. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈: C. DE TOLNAY, «A New Miniature by Pieter Bruegel the Elder», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀂󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀉󰀃–󰀃󰀉󰀇. DE TOLNAY 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀: C. DE TOLNAY, «Further Miniatures by Pieter Bruegel the Elder», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀂󰀂, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀, pp. 󰀆󰀁󰀆–󰀆󰀂󰀃. DEVOLDER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅: B. DEVOLDER, Two 󰀁󰀅th Century Italian Paintings on Fine-Weave Supports and Their Relationship to Netherlandish Canvas Painting, Harvard University, ANAGPIC Student Papers, Vol. 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, https://resources.culturalheritage.org/anagpic-studentpapers/anagpic-󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅-student-papers. DEWILDE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇a: B. DEWILDE, «The Production and Marketing of Paintings in SixteenthCentury Bruges», in A. VAN OOSTERWIJK (ed.), Forgotten Masters. Pieter Pourbus and Bruges Painting from 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆 to 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅, Ghent 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀉–󰀃󰀀. DEWILDE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇b: B. DEWILDE, «Bruges Painters Abroad: Artist Migration in the Sixteenth Century», in A. VAN OOSTERWIJK (ed.), Forgotten Masters: Pieter Pourbus and Bruges Painting from 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆 to 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀅, Ghent 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀁󰀅. D’ HEERE 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉: L. D’ HEERE, Den Hof en Boomgaerd der Poësien [󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅], ed. W. WATERSCHOOT, Zwolle 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉. DI BIASE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: C. DI BIASE, Strada Balbi a Genova, residenza aristocratica e città, Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃. DI FABIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: C. DI FABIO, «Due generazioni di pittori fiamminghi a Genova e la bottega di Cornelis de Wael», in Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀈󰀂–󰀁󰀀󰀄. DI MAURO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: L. DI MAURO, «Strutture e resti visibili della Villa di Poggioreale a Napoli», in La festa delle arti 󰀂, pp. 󰀈󰀅󰀂–󰀈󰀅󰀅. DI MAURO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: L. DI MAURO, «Materiali per la ricostruzione della Villa di Poggioreale a Napoli», in P. SANVITO (a cura di), Vitruvianism, Berlin, Boston 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀁–󰀁󰀃󰀁. DI MAURO 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: L. DI MAURO, «Lafréry reloaded. Il ridisegno di una pianta cinquecentesca per la conoscenza della città contemporanea», in G. MENNA (a cura di), Historia rerum, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀁󰀈󰀁. DINARD 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: S. P. DINARD, «La collection du cardinal Antoine de Granvelle (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆). L’inventaire du palais Granvelle de 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀇», in F. LEMERLE, Y. PAUWELS, G. TOSCANO (éd.), Les Cardinaux de la Renaissance et la modernité artistique, Publications de l’Institut de recherches historiques du Septentrion (e-book), 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀇–󰀁󰀆󰀈. DUBOIS ET AL . 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: H. DUBOIS, H. K HANJIAN, M. SCHILLING, A. WALLERT, «A Late Fifteenth-Century Italian Tüchlein», in Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 󰀁󰀁, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀂󰀂󰀈–󰀂󰀃󰀇. DUVERGER 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: E. DUVERGER, Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de zeventiende eeuw, Fontes Historiae Artis Neerlandicae. Bronnen voor de kunstgeschiedenis van de Nederlanden, I, I–XIV, Brussel 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. DVOŘÁK, 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀈: M. DVOŘÁK, Kunstgeschichte als Geistesgeschichte, Studien Zur Abendländischen Kunstentwicklung, München 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀈. EISLER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀: W. EISLER, «Celestial Harmonies and Habsburg Rule: Levels of Meaning in a Triumphal Arch for Philip II in Antwerp, 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉», in All the World’s a Stage: Art and Pageantry in the Renaissance and Baroque; Triumphal Celebrations and the Rituals of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Statecraft, Papers in Art History from the Pennsylvania State University VI, I, University Park, PA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, pp. 󰀃󰀃󰀃–󰀃󰀅󰀆. EMISON 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: P. EMISON, «The Forest Around the Fir Tree: Looking for Marcantonio Raimondi’s Art», in E. WOUK (ed.), Marcantonio Raimondi, Raphael and the Image Multiplied, Manchester 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀈–󰀃󰀁. ERTZ 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: K. ERTZ, Pieter Brueghel der Jüngere (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄–󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀇/󰀃󰀈). Die Gemälde mit Kritischem Oeuvrekatalog, Lingen 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈/󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. EVANS, BROWNE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀: C. EVANS, C. BROWNE, Raphael. Cartoons and Tapestries for the Sistine Chapel, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀. EWING 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀: D. EWING, «Marketing Art in Antwerp 󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁: Our Lady’s Pand», in The Art Bulletin 󰀇󰀂, no. 󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, pp. 󰀅󰀅󰀈–󰀅󰀈󰀄. FALKENBURG, WEEMANS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: R. FALKENBURG, M. WEEMANS, Pieter Bruegel, Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. FARINA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂: V. FARINA, Giovan Carlo Doria promotore delle arti a Genova nel primo Seicento, Firenze 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂. FAVILLA, RUGOLO 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: M. FAVILLA, R. RUGOLO, «‘Da un medesimo autore la poesia e la pittura’: Giovanni Mario Verdizzotti, tra Tiziano e Tasso», in Belluno 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀅󰀅–󰀆󰀈. FELLONI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂: G. FELLONI, «Le circoscrizioni territoriali civili ed ecclesiastiche nella Repubblica di Genova alla fine del secolo XVIII», in Rivista storica italiana LXXXIV, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀆󰀇–󰀁󰀁󰀀󰀁. FORCELLINO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁: M. FORCELLINO, M. «Considerazioni sull’immagine di Napoli. Da Colantonio a Bruegel», in Napoli nobilissima 󰀄, 󰀃󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, pp. 󰀈󰀁–󰀉󰀆. FRANCASTEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: P. FRANCASTEL, Bruegel, Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. FREEDBERG 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉: D. FREEDBERG, «Allusion and Topicality in the Work of Pieter Bruegel: The Implications of a Forgotten Polemic», in The Prints of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Tokyo 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉, pp. 󰀅󰀃–󰀆󰀅. FREY 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀: K. FREY, Der literarische Nachlass Giorgio Vasaris, 󰀃 Bände, München 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀. FRIEDLÄNDER 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀁: M. J. FRIEDLÄNDER, Pieter Bruegel, Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀁. FROMMEL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄: C. L. FROMMEL, «Poggioreale. Problemi di ricostruzione e di tipologia», in D. LAMBERINI, M. L OTTI, R. LUNARDI (a cura di), Giuliano e la bottega dei da Maiano, Firenze, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀄–󰀁󰀂󰀈. GABRIELLI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: L. GABRIELLI, «Artisti del Nord attraverso le Alpi: Jan van Scorel, Pieter Bruegel il Vecchio, Heinrich Schickhardt», in R. PANCHERI (a cura di), Dürerweg, Trento 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀃–󰀁󰀈󰀈. GALASSI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: M. C. GALASSI, ‘Val più una figura buona che cinquanta cattive’. Indagini sulla professione del pittore a Genova nel primo Seicento, Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. GARCIA PÉREZ 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: N. GARCIA PÉREZ (ed.), Mary of Hungary, Renaissance Patron and Collector, Turnhout 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. GARMS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂: J. GARMS, J. (hrsg.), Quellen aus dem Archiv Doria-Pamphilj zur Kunsttätigkeit in Rom unter Innozenz X., Wien 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂. GAUTHIER 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀁: J. GAUTHIER, «La Cardinal de Granvelle et les artistes de son temps», in Mémoires de la Société d’ émulation du Doubs, 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀃󰀀–󰀃󰀅󰀁. GERSZI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆: Teréz GERSZI, «Bruegels Nachwirkung auf die niederländischen Landschaftsmalerei um 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀», in Oud Holland 󰀉󰀀, no. 󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀁–󰀂󰀂󰀉. GETSCHER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃: R. GETSCHER, An Annotated and Illustrated Version of Giorgio Vasari’s History of Italian and Northern Prints from his Lives of the Artists (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 & 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), Lewistown 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃. GHIRARDI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: A. GHIRARDI, Pittura e vita popolare. Un sentiero tra Anversa e l’Italia nel secondo Cinquecento, Mantova 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆.

206

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GIANNATTASIO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: P. GIANNATTASIO, «Proposta per Cornelis Loots in Italia», in Prospettiva 󰀉󰀃–󰀉󰀄, Gennaio-Aprile 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉 (Omaggio a Fiorella Sricchia Santoro, vol. II), pp. 󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀉. GIBSON 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇: W. GIBSON, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, London 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇. GIBSON 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉: W. GIBSON, ‘Mirror of the Earth’: The World Landscape in Sixteenth–Century Flemish Painting, Princeton 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. GIBSON 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: W. GIBSON, Pleasant Places: The Rustic Landscape from Bruegel to Ruisdael, Berkeley 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. GÖTTLER, MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: C. GÖTTLER, T MEGANCK, «Sites of Art, Nature, and the Antique in the Spanish Netherlands», in S. DUPRÉ, B. DE MUNCK, T. WERNER (eds), Embattled Territory: The Circulation of Knowledge in the Spanish Netherlands, Ghent 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀃󰀃󰀃–󰀃󰀇󰀀. GOLDSMITH 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂: J. T. B. GOLDSMITH, «Pieter Bruegel the Elder and the Matter of Italy», in The Sixteenth Century Journal 󰀂󰀃, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀅–󰀂󰀃󰀄. GOLDSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: C. GOLDSTEIN, Pieter Bruegel and the Culture of the Early Modern Dinner Party, Aldershot 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. GOLUB 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇: I. GOLUB, «Pismo Gio. Francesca Perande iz Rima 󰀃󰀀. Svibnja 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂 patrijarhi Kamilu Caetaniju, apostolskom nunciju u Pragu o Juliju Kloviću», in M. PELC (uredio), Zbornik II. Kongresa hrvatskih povjesničara umjetnosti, Zagreb 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀇. GOMBRICH 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆: E. H. GOMBRICH, «The Renaissance Theory of Art and the Rise of Landscape», in Norm and Form. Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, London 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆. GREGG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: R. E. GREGG, City Views in the Habsburg and Medici Courts: Depictions of Rhetoric and Rule in the Sixteenth Century, Brill Studies on Art, Art History, and Intellectual History, Leiden 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. GREGORY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃: S. GREGORY, «‘The Outer Man Tends to Be a Guide to the Inner’: The Woodcut Portraits in Vasari’s Lives as Parallel Texts», in R. PALMER, T. FRANGENBERG (eds), The Rise of the Image, Aldershot 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, pp. 󰀅󰀁–󰀈󰀅. GREGORY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: S. GREGORY, Vasari and the Renaissance Print, Aldershot 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. GRENDI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: E. GRENDI, I Balbi. Una famiglia genovese fra Spagna e Impero, Torino 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇. GRIETEN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: S. GRIETEN, «De iconografie van de Toren van Babel bij Pieter Bruegel: traditie, vernieuwing en navolging», in Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, pp. 󰀉󰀇–󰀁󰀃󰀆. GRIFFITHS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: A. GRIFFITHS, The Print Before Photography: An Introduction to European Printmaking, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. GRIMM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: G. V. GRIMM, Pieter Bruegel d. Ä., Italien und die Antike, Göttingen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅a: F. GROSSMANN, Pieter Bruegel, Gesamtausgabe der Gemälde, Köln 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅b: F. GROSSMANN, Bruegel: The Paintings; Complete Edition, London 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅. GROSSMANN 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁: F. GROSSMANN, «Brueghels Verhältnis zu Raffael und zur RaffaelNachfolge», in M. GOSEBRUCH (hrsg.), Festschrift Kurt Badt zum siebzigsten Geburtstage: Beiträge aus Kunst- und Geistesgeschichte, Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀅–󰀁󰀄󰀃. GUERRIERI BORSOI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: M. B. GUERRIERI BORSOI, Domenico Jacovacci. Collezionista e Maestro delle strade nella Roma berniniana, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. GÜNTHER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: H. GÜNTHER «The Babylonian Origins of Trier», in K. A. E. ENENKEL, K. A. OTTENHEYM (eds), The Quest for an Appropriate Past in Literature, Art, and Architecture, Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture 󰀆󰀀, Leiden 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀅󰀈󰀆–󰀆󰀁󰀆. GUICCIARDINI 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇: L. GUICCIARDINI, Descrittione di M. Lodovico Guicciardini Patritio Fiorentino di tutti i Paesi Bassi altrimenti detti Germania Inferiore, Anversa 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀇. HÄRTING 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: U. H ÄRTING, «Viele Wege führen nach Italien: Oltramontani um 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀 – Künstler reisen über die Alpen», in A. TACKE, B. U. MÜNCH, M. HERZOG, S. HEUDECKER, T. SCHAUERTE (hrsg.), Künstlerreisen, Petersberg 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀄󰀆–󰀆󰀄.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

HAYUM 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅: A. HAYUM, «Dürer’s Portrait of Erasmus and the Ars Typographorum», in Renaissance Quarterly 󰀃󰀈, no. 󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, pp. 󰀆󰀅󰀀–󰀆󰀈󰀇. HEGENER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: N. HEGENER, «‘Diligentia in minimis maxima’. Testament und Nachlaß des ‘kleinen Michelangelo’ Don Giulio Clovio», in N. HEGENER, K. SCHWEDES (hrsg.), Der Künstler und sein Tod. Testamente europäischer Künstler vom Spätmittelalter bis zum 󰀂󰀀. Jahrhundert, Würzburg 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀉󰀃. HENDRIKMAN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: L. HENDRIKMAN, «Bernard van Orley and Romanism in the 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀s. Technical Investigation of the Crucifixion Triptych in the Church of Our Lady in Bruges», in A. DE FLORIANI, M. C. GALASSI (a cura di), Culture figurative a confronto tra Fiandre e Italia dal XV al XVII secolo. Atti del convegno internazionale Nord/Sud. Recezioni fiamminghe al di qua delle Alpi. Prospettive di studio e indagini tecniche, Milano 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀁󰀅. HERRERO CARRETERO, JUNQUERA DE VEGA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆: C. HERRERO CARRETERO, P. JUNQUERA DE VEGA, Catálogo de Tapices del Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆. HERSEY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃: G. L. HERSEY, «Poggioreale: Notes on a Reconstruction, and an Early Replication», in Architectura: Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst 󰀃, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀁. HESSELS 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀇: J. H. HESSELS, Abrahami Ortelii et virorum eruditorum ad eundem et ad Jacobum Colium Ortelianum epistulae cum aliquot aliis epistulis et tractatibus quibusdam ab utroque collectis (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀄–󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀈), Cambridge 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀇. HEUER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: C. HEUER, The City Rehearsed: Object, Architecture, and Print in the Worlds of Hans Vredeman de Vries, Abingdon 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. HEUER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀: C. HEUER, «Hieronymus Cock’s Aesthetic of Collapse», in Oxford Art Journal 󰀃󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀃󰀈󰀇–󰀄󰀀󰀉. HOCHMANN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃: M. HOCHMANN, «Girolamo Muziano et l’évolution du paysage en Italie pendant la deuxième moitié du XVIe siècle», in Pejzaż. Narodziny gatunku 󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀀– 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀, Materiały sesji naukowej 󰀂󰀃–󰀂󰀄 X, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀄󰀅–󰀂󰀆󰀄. HONIG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: E. A. HONIG, Pieter Bruegel and the Idea of Human Nature, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. HOPPE-HARNONCOURT ET AL. 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: A. HOPPE-HARNONCOURT, E. OBERTHALER, S. PÉNOT, M. SELLINK, R. SPRONK, (eds), Bruegel—The Hand of the Master: Essays in Context, Lichtervelde 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. HORN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉: H. J. HORN, Jan Cornelis Vermeyen. Painter of Charles V and his Conquest of Tunis. Paintings, Etchings, Drawings, Cartoons & Tapestries, 󰀂 vols., Doornspijk 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. HUET 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: L. HUET, Pieter Bruegel: De biografie, Kalmthout 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. ILSINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: M. ILSINK, Bosch en Bruegel als Bosch: kunst over kunst bij Pieter Bruegel (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀉) en Jheronimus Bosch (c. 󰀁󰀄󰀅󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀆), Nijmegen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. ILSINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: M. ILSINK, «Big Fish Eat Little Fish: Looking at a Potent(ial) Image and Its Offspring», in St Louis-Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀅󰀉–󰀇󰀇. IMPERIALE 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀃 [󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅]: G. V. IMPERALE, Lo stato rustico (Venezia 󰀁󰀆󰀁󰀃), ed. O. BESOMI, A. LOPEZ-BERNASOCCHI, G. SOPRANZI, 󰀂 voll., Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. JEDLICKA 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀈: G. JEDLICKA, Pieter Bruegel: Der Maler in seiner Zeit, Zürich 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀈. JONCKHEERE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: K. JONCKHEERE, «An Allegory of Artistic Choice in Times of Trouble: Pieter Bruegel’s Tower of Babel», in C. GÖTTLER, B. R AMAKERS, J. WOODALL (eds), Trading Values in Early Modern Antwerp / Waarde en waarden in vroegmodern Antwerpen, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 󰀆󰀄, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀅󰀁–󰀁󰀇󰀆. K AGAN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉: R. L. K AGAN (ed.), Spanish Cities of the Golden Age: The Views of Anton van den Wyngaerde, Berkeley 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. K ARPINSKI 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀉: K. K ARPINSKI, «At the Sign of the Four Winds», in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 󰀁󰀈, no. 󰀁, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀉, pp. 󰀈–󰀁󰀇.

208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

K ASCHEK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇: B. K ASCHEK, «Bruegel in Prag. Anmerkungen zur Rezeption Pieter Bruegels d.Ä. um 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀», in Studia Rudolphina 󰀇, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀈. K ASCHEK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: B. K ASCHEK, Weltzeit und Endzeit: Die ‘Monatsbilder’ Pieter Bruegels d.Ä, München 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂. K AUFMANN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: T. DACOSTA K AUFMANN, «Antiquarianism, the History of Objects, and the History of Art before Winckelmann», in Journal of the History of Ideas 󰀆󰀂, no. 󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀅󰀂󰀃–󰀅󰀄󰀁. K AVALER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: E. M. K AVALER, Pieter Bruegel: Parables of Order and Enterprise, Cambridge Studies in Netherlandish Visual Culture, Cambridge 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉. K AVALER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: E. M. K AVALER, «Bernard van Orley, Realism, and Class», in Simiolus 󰀃󰀉, 󰀁/󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀇󰀃–󰀈󰀈. KEMP, HÜHN KEMP 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃: W. KEMP, E. HÜHN KEMP, «Lambert Lombards antiquarische Theorie und Praxis», in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 󰀃󰀆, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀂. K IBY 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: U. L. K IBY, «Poggioreale. Das erste Nymphäum der Renaissance», in Die Gartenkunst 󰀁, pp. 󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀉. KOERNER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: J. KOERNER, «The Printed World», in St Louis-Cambridge 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅, pp. 󰀂󰀀–󰀃󰀈. KOERNER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: J. KOERNER, Bosch and Bruegel: From Enemy Painting to Everyday Life, Princeton 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. KOSELLECK 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: R. KOSELLECK, Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, Frankfurt a.M. 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. K RÖNIG 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄: W. K RÖNIG, «Lambert Lombard: Beiträge zu seinem Werk und zu seiner Kunstauffassung», in Wallraf–Richartz–Jahrbuch 󰀃󰀆, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀈. LABROT 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉: G. LABROT, Baroni in città. Residenze e comportamenti dell’aristocrazia napoletana 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀–󰀁󰀇󰀃󰀄, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉. L EBEER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉: L. L EBEER, Beredeneerde catalogus van de prenten naar Pieter Bruegel de Oude, Brussel 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉. LEEMANS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: A. LEEMANS, «Tra storia e leggenda. Indagini sul network artistico tra Sofonisba Anguissola, Giulio Clovio e Levina Teerlinc», in Intrecci d’arte 󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀃󰀅–󰀅󰀅. L EGNANI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: M. LEGNANI, Antonio Perrenot de Granvelle: Politica e diplomazia al servizio dell’ impero spagnolo (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀆), Politica estera e opinione pubblica, Milano 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. LICHTERT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: K. LICHTERT, «New Perspectives on Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s Journey to Italy (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀄/󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀅)», in Oud Holland 󰀁󰀂󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀃󰀉–󰀅󰀄. LLOYD, PANE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉: C. LLOYD, G. PANE, «Three Views of Naples in Oxford and Cambridge», in Napoli nobilissima 󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀄. LOH 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: M. LOH, Still Lives: Death, Desire, and the Portrait of the Old Master, Princeton 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. LUGT 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇: F. LUGT, «Pieter Bruegel und Italien», in Festschrift für Max J. Friedländer zum 󰀆󰀀. Geburtstage, Leipzig 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀁–󰀂󰀉. LUIJTEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: G. LUIJTEN, «Hieronymus Cock and the Italian Printmakers and Publishers of his Day», in Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀀–󰀃󰀅. LUZIO 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀃: A. LUZIO, La galleria dei Gonzaga venduta all’Inghilterra nel 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀇–󰀂󰀈. Documenti degli archivi di Mantova e Londra raccolti ed illustrati, Milano 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀃. MACAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀: V. MACAN, Giorgio Giulio Clovio, ovvero l’ultima grande stagione dell’arte della miniatura, tesi di dottorato, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀. MACAN LUKAVEČKI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: V. MACAN LUKAVEČKI, «New Knowledge About Giorgio Giulio Clovio», in Zagreb 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀄. MAFFEI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆: S. MAFFEI, «La villa di Poggioreale e la Duchesca di Alfonso II di Aragona in una descrizione di Paolo Giovio. Moduli dell’elogio e tradizione antica», in Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia. Quaderni 󰀄/󰀁/󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀁–󰀁󰀈󰀁.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

MAGNANI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: L. MAGNANI, Luca Cambiaso da Genova all’Escorial, Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. MAGNANI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: L. MAGNANI, «Luca Cambiaso: Idea, Practice, Ideology», in J. BOBER (ed.), Luca Cambiaso 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀅, Milano 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀂󰀁–󰀆󰀅. MALDAGUE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁: J. MALDAGUE, «La part de Guicciardini dans la littérature artistique de son temps», in Lodovico Guicciardini (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀉), Actes du colloque international, Louvain 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁, pp. 󰀃󰀂󰀁–󰀃󰀃󰀅. MARIJNISSEN 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: R. H. MARIJNISSEN, Bruegel: Tout l’œuvre peint et dessiné, Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈. MARIJNISSEN, SEIDEL 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉: R. H. MARIJNISSEN, M. SEIDEL, Bruegel, Stuttgart 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉. MARKEY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: L. MARKEY, «Stradano’s Allegorical Invention of the Americas in Late Sixteenth-Century Florence», in Renaissance Quarterly 󰀆󰀅, no. 󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀈󰀅– 󰀄󰀄󰀂. MARLIER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈: G. MARLIER, «Lambert Lombard et les tapisseries de Raphaël», in Miscellenea Jozef Duverger. Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedenis der Nederlanden, Gent 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀄󰀇–󰀂󰀅󰀉. MARTENS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: P. MARTENS, «Hieronymus Cock’s View of Antwerp (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀇): Its Genesis and Offspring, from Antwerp to Italy», in Simiolus 󰀃󰀉, no. 󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀁–󰀁󰀉󰀆. MARTIAL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: MARTIAL , Epigrams Volume I: Spectacles, Books 󰀁–󰀅, ed. and trans. D. R. SHACKELTON BAILEY, Loeb Classical Library 󰀉󰀄, Cambridge, MA, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃. MARTINONI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃: R. MARTINONI, Gian Vincenzo Imperiale politico, letterato e collezionista genovese del Seicento, Padova 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃. MEADOW 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: M. MEADOW, «Ritual and Civic Identity in Philip II’s 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉 Antwerp ‘Blijde Incompst’», in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 󰀄󰀉, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀇–󰀆󰀈. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: T. L. MEGANCK, Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Fall of the Rebel Angels. Art, Knowledge, and Politics on the Eve of the Dutch Revolt, Milan 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: T. L. MEGANCK, Erudite Eyes: Friendship, Art, and Erudition in the Network of Abraham Ortelius (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀈), Leiden 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: T. L. MEGANCK, «Census at Bethlehem. Winter of a Golden Age», in MEGANCK, VAN SPRANG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, Bruegel’s Winter Scenes: Historians and Art Historians in Dialogue, Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀈󰀅–󰀁󰀂󰀇. MEGANCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: T. L. MEGANCK, «Between Brussels and Antwerp: New Perspectives on the Cycle of the Seasons», in HOPPE-HARNONCOURT ET AL. 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀈󰀄–󰀂󰀉󰀃. MEGANCK, VAN SPRANG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: T. L. MEGANCK, S. VAN SPRANG, Bruegel’s Winter Scenes: Historians and Art Historians in Dialogue, Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. MEIERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: S. MEIERS, «Portraits in Print: Hieronymus Cock, Dominicus Lampsonius, and ‘Pictorum aliqot Germaniae inferioris effigies’», in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 󰀆󰀉, no. 󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀁–󰀁󰀆. MELION 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁: W. MELION, Shaping the Netherlandish Canon: Karel van Mander’s SchilderBoeck, Chicago 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁. MELION 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: W. MELION, «Theory and Practice: Reproductive Engravings in the SixteenthCentury Netherlands», in T. R IGGS, L. SILVER (eds), Graven Images, Evanston 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, pp. 󰀄󰀆–󰀆󰀉. MELONI TRKULJA 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃: S. MELONI TRKULJA, «Giulio Clovio e i Medici», in Peristil 󰀂󰀆, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃, pp. 󰀉󰀁–󰀉󰀉. MENZEL 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆: G. W. MENZEL, Pieter Bruegel der Ältere, Leipzig 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀a: T. MICHALSKY, «Imitation und Imagination. Die Landschaft Pieter Bruegels d.Ä. im Blick der Humanisten», in H. LAUFHÜTTE (hrsg.), Künste und Natur in Diskursen der Frühen Neuzeit I, Wiesbaden 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀃󰀈󰀃–󰀄󰀀󰀅. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀b: T. MICHALSKY, «‘L’atelier des songes’. Die Landschaften Pieter Bruegels der Älteren als Räume subjektiver Erfahrung», in K. K RÜGER, A. NOVA (hrsg.), Imagination und Wirklichkeit. Zum Verhältnis von mentalen und realen Bildern in der Kunst der frühen Neuzeit, Mainz 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀃–󰀁󰀃󰀇.

210

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: T. MICHALSKY, «Gewachsene Ordnung. Zur Chorographie Neapels in der Frühen Neuzeit», in C. JÖCHNER, (hrsg.) Räume der Stadt, Berlin 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀆󰀇–󰀂󰀈󰀈. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: T. MICHALSKY, Projektion und Imagination: Die niederländische Landschaft der Frühen Neuzeit im Diskurs von Geographie und Malerei, Paderborn 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆a: T. MICHALSKY, «Die Stadt im Buch. Die Konstruktion städtischer Ordnung am Beispiel frühneuzeitlicher Beschreibungen Neapels», in M. STERCKEN, U. SCHNEIDER (hrsg.), Urbanität, Köln 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀃󰀁. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆b: T. MICHALSKY, «Geschichte im Raum. Topographische Imaginationen Neapels in der Frühen Neuzeit», in P. FORSTER, E. OY-MARRA, H. DAMM (hrsg.), Caravaggios Erben. Barock in Neapel, München 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀉. MICHALSKY 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: T. MICHALSKY, «Gaining Insight Through a Bird’s-Eye View. On the Chorography of Naples in the Early Modern Era», in Y. HADJINICOLAOU (ed.), Visual Engagements, Berlin 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀇󰀃–󰀂󰀉󰀆. MICHEL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: E. MICHEL (ed.), Pieter Bruegel: Drawing the World, Munich, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄: H. MIELKE, «La question des paysages forestiers dans l’œuvre de Pieter Bruegel», in Le paysage en Europe du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle, Actes du colloque organisé au Musée du Louvre par le Service culturel (Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀), Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀃. MIELKE 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆: H. MIELKE, Pieter Bruegel: Die Zeichnungen, Turnhout 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆. MODESTI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: P. MODESTI, Le delizie ritrovate: Poggioreale e la villa del Rinascimento nella Napoli aragonese, Firenze 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. MONBALLIEU 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄: A. MONBALLIEU, «P. Bruegel en het altaar van de Mechelse Handschoenmakers (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁)», in Handelingen van de Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 󰀆󰀈, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄, pp. 󰀉󰀂–󰀁󰀁󰀀. MONBALLIEU 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁: A. MONBALLIEU, «Documenten van het Mechels schilder- en beeldsnijdersambacht. II. Het rekwest van 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂 en het probleem van 󰀅󰀁 of 󰀁󰀅󰀀 ateliers,» in Handelingen van de Koninklijke kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 󰀇󰀅, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁, pp. 󰀇󰀁–󰀈󰀂. MONTANARI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: G. MONTANARI, Libri dipinti statue. Rapporti e relazioni tra raccolte librarie, collezionismo e produzione artistica a Genova tra XVI e XVII secolo, Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. MONTANARI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: G. MONTANARI, Palazzo Imperiale di Campetto, Passignano sul Trasimeno (PG) 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. MORETTI, ROBERTS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: L. MORETTI, S. ROBERTS, «From the Vite or the Ritratti? Previously Unknown Portraits from Vasari’s Libro de’ Disegni», in I Tatti Studies 󰀂󰀁, no. 󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀃󰀆. MORETTI SGUBINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: A. M. MORETTI SGUBINI (a cura di, contribute di T. CARUNCHINI, F. DELPHINO, A. M. MORETTI SGUBINI, F. SCOPPOLA), Villa Giulia dalle Origini al 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. Guida breve, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. MORSELLI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: R. MORSELLI, «Storie di dipinti scomparsi e ritrovati, di autori senza opere e di opere senza autori», in S. L APENTA, R. MORSELLI, Le collezioni Gonzaga. L’elenco dei beni del 󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀆–󰀁󰀆󰀂󰀇, Cinisello Balsamo (MI) 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀉–󰀁󰀇󰀀. MOTTA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: U. MOTTA, «Quarenghi, Antonio», in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 󰀈󰀆, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁–󰀃. MOXEY 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄: K. MOXEY, «Hieronymus Bosch and the ‘World Upside Down’», in N. BRYSON, M. HOLLY, K. MOXEY, Visual Culture, Hanover 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀄–󰀁󰀄󰀀. MÜLLER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: J. MÜLLER, «Of Birdnesters and Godsearchers: A New Interpretation of Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s The Beekeepers», in B. K ASCHEK, J. MÜLLER, J. BUSKIRK, Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Religion, Leiden, Boston 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀃󰀅–󰀅󰀆. MÜLLER, SCHAUERTE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: J. MÜLLER, T. SCHAUERTE, Pieter Bruegel: The Complete Works, Cologne 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

MÜLLER-HOFSTEDE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉: J. MÜLLER-HOFSTEDE, «Zur Interpetation von Bruegels Landschaft. Ästetischer Landschafbegriff und Stoiche Weltbetrachtung», in O. VON SIMSON (hrsg.), Pieter Bruegel und seine Welt, Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉, pp. 󰀇󰀃–󰀁󰀄󰀂. MÜNZ 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁: L. MÜNZ, Bruegel: The Drawings, London 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁. MULLER 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇: J. M. MULLER, Rubens: The Artist as Collector, Princeton, NJ, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. MULLER 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄: J. M. MULLER, «Rubens’s Collection in History», in Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀁–󰀈󰀅. MUYLLE 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: J. MUYLLE, «Het aangename buitenleven in speelhoven rondom Antwerpen, in bijzonder het Leikwartier (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀅). Een netwerk rond Pieter Bruegel (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆/󰀂󰀇– 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀉)», in Historiant. Jaarboek voor Antwerpse geschiedenis 󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀉–󰀄󰀈. NUTTALL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: P. NUTTALL, «‘Panni Dipinti di Fiandra’: Netherlandish Painted Cloths in Fifteenth-Century Florence», in VILLERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀁󰀇. OBERHUBER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈: K. OBERHUBER, «Gli affreschi di Paolo Veronese nella villa Barbaro», in Bollettino Centro Internazionale di Studi Andrea Palladio 󰀁󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀂. OBERHUBER 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁: K. OBERHUBER, «Bruegel’s Early Landscape Drawings», in Master Drawings 󰀁󰀉, no. 󰀂, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀆–󰀁󰀅󰀆. ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: S. ONOFRI, La cerchia di Giulio Clovio: gli incontri, i viaggi, le amicizie di un artista europeo, tesi di dottorato, Bologna 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. ONOFRI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: S. ONOFRI, «Rodolfo II collezionista di Giulio Clovio», in Czech and Slovak Journal of Humanities 󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀅󰀃–󰀆󰀁. ONUF 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: A. ONUF, The ‘Small Landscape’ Prints in Early Modern Netherlands, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. OP DE BEECK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: J. OP DE BEECK, Pieter Bruegel, Mayken Verhulst en Mechelen; het begin van een wonderlijke schildersdynastie, Mechelen 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. ORENSTEIN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: N. ORENSTEIN, «Images to Print: Pieter Bruegel’s Engagement with Printmaking», in New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀅󰀁–󰀅󰀅. ORENSTEIN, SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: N. ORENSTEIN, M. SELLINK, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The New Hollstein Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 󰀁󰀄󰀅󰀀–󰀁󰀇󰀀󰀀, Ouderkerk aan den IJssel, Amsterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆. ORLANDO 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: A. ORLANDO, «I soggiorni di Rubens a Genova, i dipinti per le famiglie Pallavicino e Serra e nuove identificazioni per alcuni ritratti genovesi», in A. ORLANDO (a cura di), La dama genovese con l’orecchino di perle. I Serra e le rotte del collezionismo tra Fiandre, Italia e Spagna, Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀅󰀀–󰀈󰀁. ORROCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: A. ORROCK: Bruegel: Defining a Destiny, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. PÄCHT 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀀: O. PÄCHT, «Early Italian Nature Studies and the Early Calendar Landscape», in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 󰀁󰀃, no. 󰀁/󰀂, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀃–󰀄󰀇. PANE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅: G. PANE, «Pietro di Toledo vicerè urbanista», in Napoli nobilissima (󰀃. Ser.) 󰀁󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅, pp. 󰀈󰀁–󰀉󰀅; 󰀁󰀆󰀁–󰀁󰀈󰀂. PANE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: G. PANE, La Tavola Strozzi tra Napoli e Firenze: Un’ immagine della città nel Quattrocento, Biblioteca artistica napolitana 󰀈, Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉. PANE, VALERIO 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇: G. PANE, V. VALERIO (a cura di), La città di Napoli tra vedutismo e cartografia: Piante e vedute dal XV al XIX secolo, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇. PAREDES 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: C. PAREDES, «The Confusion of the Battlefield. A New Perspective of the Tapestries of the Battle of Pavia (c. 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀅–󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀁)», in RIHA Journal 󰀂󰀈, December 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, DOI: 󰀁󰀀.󰀁󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀈/riha.󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄.󰀀.󰀇󰀀󰀂󰀀󰀈. PARMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: E. PARMA, “Rapporti artistici tra Genova e le Fiandre nella prima metà del Cinquecento”, in N. Dacos (a cura di), Fiamminghi a Roma 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀈-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀈. Atti del convegno internazionale (Brussels 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), Bolletino d’Arte, Supplemento al n. 󰀁󰀀󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀆󰀂.

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PARMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: E. PARMA (a cura di), La pittura in Liguria. Il Cinquecento, Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉. PARMA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂: E. PARMA, Rapporti artistici tra Genova e le Fiandre nei secoli XV e XVI, Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂, pp. 󰀅󰀃–󰀇󰀃. PARMA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅: E. PARMA, «Frans Floris e l’iconografia delle Arti Liberali» in C. LIMENTANI VIRDIS, M. BELLAVITIS (a cura di), Nord /Sud. Presenze e ricezioni fiamminghe in Liguria, Veneto e Sardegna, Padova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀁󰀃󰀈. PARMA A RMANI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀: E. PARMA A RMANI, «Il Palazzo del principe Andrea Doria e Fassolo in Genova», in L’Arte 󰀃, no. 󰀁󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀, pp.󰀁󰀂-󰀆󰀃. PARSHALL 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄: P. PARSHALL, «Art and the Theater of Knowledge: The Origins of Print Collecting in Northern Europe», in Harvard University Art Museums Bulletin 󰀂, no. 󰀃, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, pp. 󰀇–󰀃󰀆. PARSHALL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: P. PARSHALL, «Antonio Lafreri’s ‘Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae’», in Print Quarterly 󰀂󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀃–󰀂󰀈. PAUWELS 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: H. PAUWELS, La Donation Docteur et Madame Frans Heulens-Van der Meiren, Bruxelles 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈. PAWLAK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: A. PAWLAK, Trilogie der Gottessuche: Pieter Bruegels d. Ä. ‘Sturz der gefallenen Engel’, ‘Triumph des Todes’ und ‘Dulle Griet’, Berlin 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. PELC 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈: M. PELC, Fontes Clovianae. Julije Klović u dokumentima svoga doba, Zagreb 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈. PÉREZ DE TUDELA 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: A. PÉREZ DE TUDELA, «Documenti inediti su Giulio Clovio al servizio della famiglia Farnese», in Aurea Parma 󰀈󰀄, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀈󰀁–󰀃󰀀󰀇. PÉREZ DE TUDELA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: A. PÉREZ DE TUDELA, «El cardenal Granvela y su Amistad con don Fernando de Lannoy (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀉)», in A. C. MUÑOZ, M. A. VAZQUEZ MANASSERO (coord. por), Ingeniería, fidelidades y redes de poder en los siglos XVI y XVII, Madrid 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀄󰀉–󰀆󰀂. PETTI BALBI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆: G. PETTI BALBI, Mercanti e nationes nelle Fiandre: i genovesi in età bassomedievale, Pisa 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆. PETTI BALBI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅: G. PETTI BALBI, Negoziare fuori patria. Nazioni e genovesi in età medievale, Bologna 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅. PHILIPPOT 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄: P. PHILIPPOT, La peinture dans les anciens Pays-Bas XVe–XVIe siècles, Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄. PICO FONTICULANO, CENTOFANTI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆: G. PICO FONTICULANO, M. CENTOFANTI, Breve descrittione di sette città illustri d’Italia, Bibliotheca aquilana, 󰀂, L’Aquila 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆 PINO 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀈: P. PINO, Dialogo di Pittura di Messer Paolo Pino, nuovamente dato in luce, Venezia, 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀈, ed. consultata in P. BAROCCHI (a cura di), Trattati d’arte del Cinquecento fra Manierismo e Controriforma, 󰀂 voll., Bari 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀–󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀂, I, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀, pp. 󰀉󰀅–󰀁󰀃󰀉. PINSON 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄: Y. PINSON, «Bruegel’s 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀄 Adoration», in Artibus et Historiae 󰀃󰀀, no. 󰀁󰀅, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀂󰀈. POLEGGI 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇: E. POLEGGI (a cura di), Il Palazzo dell’Università di Genova. Il Collegio dei Gesuiti nella Strada Balbi, Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇. PON 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: L. PON, «Lives and Afterlives of Vasari’s Portraits of the Artists», in Dear Print Fain: A Festschrift for Marjorie B. Cohn, Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀄󰀃–󰀂󰀄󰀈. PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆a: S. PORRAS, «Going Viral? Maerten de Vos’s St Michael the Archangel», in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 󰀆󰀆, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀅󰀄–󰀇󰀉. PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆b: S. PORRAS, Pieter Bruegel’s Historical Imagination, University Park, PA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: S. PORRAS, «The Real, Rejected, and Virtual Travels of Marten de Vos», in K. WAGNER, J. DAVID (eds), Artists and Migration 󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀀: Britain, Europe, and Beyond, Newcastle upon Tyne 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀂󰀈–󰀁󰀄󰀄. PORRAS 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: S. PORRAS, Art of the Northern Renaissance: Courts, Commerce, and Devotion, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

POWELL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆: A. POWELL, «The Errant Image: Rogier van der Weyden’s ‘Deposition from the Cross’ and Its Copies», in Art History 󰀂󰀉, no. 󰀄, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆, pp. 󰀅󰀄󰀀–󰀅󰀆󰀂. PRATESI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: A. PRATESI, «Bartolomeo Della Valle: maestro di strade, committente e collezionista di antichità (󰀁󰀄󰀆󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆)», in Bollettino Telematico dell’Arte 󰀇 Maggio 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, n. 󰀈󰀀󰀆, http://www.bta.it/txt/a󰀀/󰀀󰀈/bta󰀀󰀀󰀈󰀀󰀆.html. PRINZ 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆: W. PRINZ, «Vasaris Sammlung von Künstlerbildnissen», in Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 󰀁󰀂, supplement, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅/󰀆󰀆. R AMAKERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉: B. R AMAKERS, «Art and Artistry in Lucas d’Heere», in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 󰀅󰀉, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀂. R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇: D. R IBOUILLAULT, «‘Espace, lieu, paysage’: la représentation du paysage dans les décors italiens de la Renaissance», in Ligeia (Dossier: Art et Espace sous la direction de Milovan Stanic), Janvier–Juin 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, No. 󰀇󰀃-󰀇󰀄-󰀇󰀅-󰀇󰀆, pp. 󰀃󰀃–󰀄󰀅. R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: D. R IBOUILLAULT, «Paesaggio dipinto, paesaggio reale: notes sur une fenêtre de la villa d’Este à Tivoli», in G. VENTURI, F. CECCARELLI (a cura di), Delizie in villa. Il giardino Rinascimentale e i suoi committenti (Ferrara Paesaggio Estense, 󰀁) Firenze 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀆󰀉–󰀂󰀈󰀈. R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: D. R IBOUILLAULT, «La villa Giulia et l’âge d’or augustéen», in P. MOREL, (éd.), Le miroir et l’espace du prince dans l’art italien de la Renaissance, Paris, Rennes 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀃󰀉–󰀃󰀈󰀈. R IBOUILLAULT 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: D. R IBOUILLAULT, «Regurgitating Nature: On a Celebrated Anecdote by Karel van Mander about Pieter Bruegel the Elder», in Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 󰀈, no. 󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, DOI: 󰀁󰀀.󰀅󰀀󰀉󰀂/jhna.󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆.󰀈.󰀁.󰀄. R ICHARDSON 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: T. R ICHARDSON, Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Art Discourse in the SixteenthCentury Netherlands, Farnham, Surrey 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. R IDOLFI 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀈: C. R IDOLFI, Le Maraviglie Dell’Arte, Ouero Le Vite De Gl’Illustri Pittori Veneti, E Dello Stato, I–II, Venezia 󰀁󰀆󰀄󰀈. R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇: T. A. R IGGS, Hieronymus Cock (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀉–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀): Printmaker and Publisher in Antwerp at the Sign of the Four Winds, New York 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇. R IGGS 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉: T. A. R IGGS, «Bruegel and His Publisher», in O. VON SIMPSON, M. WINNER (hrsg.), Pieter Bruegel und seine Welt, Mann 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀇󰀃. ROBERTS-JONES 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: PH. U. F. ROBERTS-JONES, Pieter Bruegel der Ältere, München 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇. RODRIGUEZ-SALGADO 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: M. J. RODRIGUEZ-SALGADO, «King, Bishop, Pawn? Philip II and Granvelle in the 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀s and 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀀s», in K. DE JONGE, G. JANSSENS (éd.), Les Granvelle et les anciens Pays-Bas, Louvain 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀃󰀄. ROETTING 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: P. ROETTING, «Bruegel Invenit – Cock Excudit. Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. und sein Verleger Hieronymus Cock», in J. MÜLLER, W. SCHNEEDE (hrsg.), Pieter Bruegel Invenit. Das Druckgraphische Werk, Hamburg 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀂–󰀃󰀀. ROGERS 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: M. ROGERS, «An Ideal Wife at the Villa Maser: Veronese, the Barbaros, and Renaissance Theorists of Marriage», in Renaissance Studies 󰀇, no. 󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀇󰀉–󰀃󰀉󰀇. ROMBOUTS, VAN L ERIUS 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆: P. ROMBOUTS, T. VAN LERIUS (red.), De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde, I–II, Antwerpen 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀄– 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀆. ROTT 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂: H. W. ROTT, Rubens Palazzi di Genova Architectural Drawing and Engravings, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard XXII, London 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂. ROYALTON-K ISCH 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: M. ROYALTON-K ISCH, «Pieter Bruegel as Draftsman: The Changing Image», in New York-Rotterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀃–󰀃󰀉. RUBACH 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: B. RUBACH, Ant. Lafreri Formis Romae, Berlin 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆. RUBIN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: P. RUBIN, Giorgio Vasari: Art and History, London 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. RUFFINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: M. RUFFINI, Art Without an Author: Vasari’s Lives and Michelangelo’s Death, New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁.

214

BIBLIOGRAPHY

RUSSO, PIGNATTI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄: E. RUSSO, F. PIGNATTI, «Imperiale, Gian Vincenzo», in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani LXII, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, ad vocem. SAPORI 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: G. SAPORI, Decorari I palazzi da Raffaello a Zuccari, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. SCHIAPPALARIA 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈: S. A. SCHIAPPALARIA, La Vita di Julio Cesare, Anversa 󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀈. SCULLY, SEIDEL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: S. SCULLY, C. SEIDEL, «A Tüchlein by Justus van Ghent: The Adoration of the Magi in the Metropolitan Museum of Art re-examined», in Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 󰀈, no. 󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, DOI: 󰀁󰀀.󰀅󰀀󰀉󰀂/jhna.󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆.󰀈.󰀁.󰀃. SEITUN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄: S. SEITUN, «Carlo I, i Gentileschi e il mancato acquisto dei ‘quadri San Micheli’. Sulle tracce della collezione genovese di Giovan Carlo Doria», in Bulletin de l’Association des historiens de l’art italien 󰀁󰀀, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄, pp. 󰀄󰀁–󰀄󰀃. SEITUN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅: S. SEITUN, «L’intermediazione del mercante Filippo San Michele per le opere di Gio. Carlo Doria: nuove acquisizioni per le collezioni genovesi di Gio. Vincenzo Imperiale e Francesco Maria Balbi», in Bulletin de l’Association des historiens de l’art italien 󰀁󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, pp. 󰀃󰀂–󰀄󰀂. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇: M. SELLINK, Bruegel: The Complete Paintings, Drawings, and Prints, Ghent 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃a: «‘He was himself very inventive of landscapes’: Hieronymus Cock and Landscape», in Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀇. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃b: M. SELLINK, «The Dating of Pieter Bruegel’s Landscape Drawings Reconsidered and a New Discovery», in Master Drawings 󰀅󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀂󰀉󰀁–󰀃󰀂󰀂. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: M. SELLINK, «Les Vaisseaux de mer de Pieter Bruegel l’Ancien. Un aspect moins connu de son œuvre», in Cassel 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀅󰀃–󰀇󰀃. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: M. SELLINK, «A Spanish Adventure: The Rediscovery of a Bruegel and Its Acquisition by the Prado», in B. CORNELIS ET AL. (eds), Collecting for the Public: Works that Made a Difference, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀉󰀀–󰀁󰀉󰀅. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: M. SELLINK, «Leading the Eye and Staging the Composition. Some Remarks on Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s Compositional Techniques», in Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀂󰀉󰀅–󰀃󰀁󰀃. SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: M. SELLINK, «Leading the Eye and Staging the Composition: Some Remarks on Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s Compositional Techniques», in HOPPE-HARNONCOURT ET AL. 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀃󰀆–󰀃󰀅󰀇. SENECA 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀀: L. A. SENECA, Epistulae morales. Epistles 󰀆󰀆–󰀉󰀂, transl. by R. M. Gummere, Loeb Classical Library 󰀇󰀆, Boston 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀀. SERLIO 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀄: S. SERLIO, Il Terzo libro dell’architettura. Nel Qual Si Figvrano, E Desrivono Le Antiqvita di Rome, E Le Altre Che Sono In Italia, Venice 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀄. SILVA MAROTO, SELLINK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: P. SILVA MAROTO, M. SELLINK, «The Rediscovery of Pieter Bruegel the Elders’ ‘Wine of St. Martin’s Day’ Acquired for the Museo National del Prado, Madrid», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀅󰀃, no. 󰀁󰀃󰀀󰀅, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀇󰀈󰀄–󰀇󰀉󰀃. SILVER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: L. SILVER, «‘Second Bosch’: Family Resemblance and the Making of Art», in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 󰀅󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀃󰀀–󰀅󰀆. SILVER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: L. SILVER, Pieter Bruegel, New York, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. SILVER 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁: L. SILVER, «Sibling Rivalry: Jan Brueghel’s Rediscovered Early Crucifixion», in C. CURRIE, B. FRANSEN, C. STROO, D. VANWIJNSBERGHE (eds), The Bruegel Success Story. Papers Presented at Symposium XXI for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting (Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈), Leuven 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀇󰀉–󰀂󰀈󰀆. SKINNER 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: Q. SKINNER, «Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Buon Governo Frescoes: Two Old Questions, Two New Answers», in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 󰀆󰀂, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀁–󰀂󰀈. SMOLDEREN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆: L. SMOLDEREN, Jacques Jonghelinck: Sculpteur, médailleur et graveur de sceaux (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀆), Louvain 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

SOHM 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: P. SOHM, «Ordering History with Style: Giorgio Vasari on the Art of History», in A. PAYNE (ed.), Antiquity and its Interpreters, Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. SOLY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄: H. SOLY, «De aluinhandel in de Nederlanden in de 󰀁󰀆de eeuw», in Revue belge de philologie et d’ histoire / Belgisch tijdschrift voor filologie en geschiedenis 󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄, pp. 󰀈󰀀󰀀–󰀈󰀅󰀇. SOLY 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇: H. SOLY, Urbanisme en kapitalisme te Antwerpen in de 󰀁󰀆de eeuw. De stedebouwkundige ondernemingen van Gilbert van Schoonbeke (Historische uitgaven Pro Civitate, reeks in 󰀈°, 󰀄󰀇), Brussel 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀆–󰀁󰀉󰀁. SOLY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: H. SOLY (red.), Gilbert van Schoonbeke. Visionair ondernemer in Antwerpens Gouden Eeuw, Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. SPINOSA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: N. SPINOSA (a cura di), Museo e Gallerie Nazionali di Capodimonte, La collezione Farnese: i dipinti lombardi, liguri, veneti, toscani, umbri, romani, fiamminghi, Napoli 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. STECHOW 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀: W. STECHOW, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, New York 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀. STEWART 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: S. STEWART, The Ruins Lesson: Meaning and Material in Western Culture, Chicago 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: A. STOESSER, Van Dyck’s Hosts in Genoa: Lucas and Cornelis de Wael, Lives, Business Activities, and Works, 󰀂 vols., Turnhout 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. STOESSER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: A. STOESSER, ‘Tra Rubens e van Dyck: i legami delle famiglie De Wael, Vandeneyden e Roomer’, in, Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀄󰀁-󰀄󰀉. STRAZZULLO 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: F. STRAZZULLO, La città di Napoli dopo la rivoluzione urbanistica di Pedro di Toledo: Con un saggio introduttivo di Franco Strazzullo, Roma 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈. STRAZULLO 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉: F. STRAZZULLO, «Un descrittore della Napoli del ’󰀅󰀀󰀀. Giovanni Tarcagnota», in Atti della Accademia Pontaniana 󰀃󰀈 (n.s.), 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀁–󰀁󰀄󰀁. STRIDBECK 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀆: C. G. STRIDBECK, Bruegelstudien. Untersuchungen zu den ikonologischen Problemen bei Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. sowie dessen Beziehungen zum niederländischen Romanismus, Stockholm 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀆. SULLIVAN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂: M. A. SULLIVAN, «Bruegel’s ‘Misanthrope’: Renaissance Art for a Humanist Audience», in Artibus et Historiae 󰀁󰀃, no. 󰀂󰀆, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀁󰀆󰀂. SULLIVAN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃: M. SULLIVAN, «Proverbs and Process in Bruegel’s ‘Rabbit Hunt’», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀄󰀅, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀀–󰀃󰀅. SULZBERGER 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀈: S. SULZBERGER, «Dominique Lampsonius et l’Italie», in Miscellanea J. Gessler, Deurne 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀈󰀇–󰀁󰀁󰀈󰀉. SUYKERBUYK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: R. SUYKERBUYK, «Coxcie’s Copies of Old Masters: An Addition and an Analysis», in Simiolus 󰀃󰀇, no. 󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀅–󰀂󰀄. SWAN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: C. SWAN, «Counterfeit Chimeras: Early Modern Theories of Imagination and the Work of Art», in A. PAYNE (ed.), Vision and Its Instruments, c. 󰀁󰀃󰀅󰀀–󰀁󰀇󰀅󰀀: The Art of Seeing and Seeing as an Art, University Park, PA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀃󰀇. TALLINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: G. TALLINI, «Nuove coordinate biografiche per Giovanni Tarcagnota da Gaeta (󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆)», in Italianistica. Rivista di letteratura italiana 󰀄󰀂, no. 󰀁, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀂󰀅. TALLINI 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: G. TALLINI, Vago et degno luogo lodare. Giovanni Tarcagnota tra storia e antiquaria, Gaeta 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. TARCAGNOTA 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆: G. TARCAGNOTA, Del sito, et lodi della citta di Napoli con vna breue historia de gli re suoi & delle cose piu degne altroue ne’ medesimi tempi auenute, Napoli 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀆. TEN BRINK GOLDSMITH 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂: J. TEN BRINK GOLDSMITH, «Pieter Bruegel the Elder and the Matter of Italy», in Sixteenth Century Journal 󰀂󰀃, no. 󰀂, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀅–󰀂󰀃󰀄. TESTA 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: S. TESTA, «Peranda, Giovan Francesco», in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 󰀈󰀂, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀂󰀉󰀈–󰀃󰀀󰀀. THYS 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀁: A. THYS, «Le Lanteernhof à Deurne», in Recueil des bulletins de la propriété 󰀁󰀃, 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀀–󰀄󰀆.

216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TOSINI 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: P. TOSINI, «Girolamo Muziano e la nascita del paesaggio alla veneta nella Villa d’Este a Tivoli. Con alcune osservazioni su Federico Zuccari, Livio Agresti, Cesare Nebbia, Giovanni De’ Vecchi ed altri», in Rivista dell’Istituto di Archeologia e Storia dell’arte, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀉–󰀂󰀃󰀁. TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: P. TOSINI, Girolamo Muziano 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀂. Dalla Maniera alla Natura, Roma 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀: P. TOSINI, «Esercizi di stile: pittori all’opera sui ponteggi di Villa d’Este tra Cinque e Seicento», in Studi di Memofonte 󰀅, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀂󰀄–󰀃󰀅. TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: P. TOSINI, «Some Newly Identified Drawings by Girolamo Muziano», in Master Drawings 󰀅󰀂, no. 󰀂, pp. 󰀁󰀈󰀁–󰀂󰀀󰀀. TOSINI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: P. TOSINI, «From Venice to Tivoli: Girolamo Muziano and the ‘Invention’ of the Tiburtine Landscape», in K. HOPE GOODCHILD, A. ÖTTINGER, L. VAN HOGENDORP PROSPERETTI (eds), Green Worlds in Early Modern Italy: Art and the Verdant Earth, Amsterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀇󰀃–󰀁󰀉󰀄. TURNER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆: A. R. TURNER, The Vision of Landscape in Renaissance Italy, Princeton 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆. UNVERFEHRT 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀: G. UNVERFEHRT, Hieronymus Bosch: die Rezeption seiner Kunst im frühen 󰀁󰀆. Jahrhundert, Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀. VAN BASTELAER, HULIN DE LOO 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇: R. VAN BASTELAER, G. HULIN DE LOO, Peter Bruegel l’ancien: Son œuvre et son temps; étude historique suivi des catalogues raisonnés de son œuvre, Bruxelles 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇. VAN DEN BRANDEN 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀃: F. J. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche schilderschool, Antwerpen 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀃. VAN DEN BROECKE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: M. VAN DEN BROECKE, Abraham Ortelius (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀈) Life, Works, Sources, and Friends, Bilthoven 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. VAN DER STOCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: J. VAN DER STOCK, «Pieter Bruegel: A Preliminary Reconstruction of His Network», in HOPPE-HARNONCOURT ET AL. 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀃. VAN DER STOCK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉-󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: J. VAN DER STOCK, «Pieter Bruegel (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀆/󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀉). Tekenaar en schilder in Antwerpen. Een aanzet tot reconstructie van zijn netwerk», in Brussel 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀈–󰀁󰀇. VAN DER STRAELEN 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀅: J. B. VAN DER STRAELEN, P. T. MOONS-VAN DER STRAELEN (eds), Jaerboek der vermaerde en kunstrijke gulde van Sint Lucas binnen der stad Antwerpen, Antwerpen 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀅. VAN DER TOOLEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: L. VAN DER TOOLEN, «Depictions of Naples from the 󰀁󰀅th and 󰀁󰀆th Centuries», in D. C. M. RAEMAEKERS (ed.) A Kaleidoscope of Maritime Perspectives: Essays on the Archaeology, Art History and Landscape History of the Maritime World View, Groningen 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃, pp. 󰀁󰀃󰀅–󰀁󰀄󰀁. VAN DER WEE 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀃: H. VAN DER WEE, The Growth of the Antwerp Market and the European Economy: Fourteenth–Sixteenth Centuries, Dordrecht 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀃. VAN DE VELDE 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅: C. VAN DE VELDE, «The Labours of Hercules: A Lost Series of Paintings by Frans Floris», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀀󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀁󰀄–󰀁󰀂󰀃. VANDOMMELE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: J. VANDOMMELE, Als in een spiegel: vrede, kennis en gemeenschap op het Antwerpse Landjuweel van 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀁, Hilversum 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁. VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀: J. VAN GRIEKEN, «In de vier winden / Aux quatre vents (󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀈–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀). De eerste Antwerpse prentenuitgeverij op wereldschaal. Een stand van zaken», in G. DENHAENE (éd.), Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique 󰀈󰀉, supp. La gravure de la Renaissance dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀, pp. 󰀉󰀃–󰀁󰀂󰀀. VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: J. VAN GRIEKEN, «View of the Strait of Messina: A Rediscovered Drawing after Pieter Bruegel the Elder. A New Acquisition for the Print Room of the Royal Library of Belgium», in Monte Artium 󰀄, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, pp. 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀁󰀉.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: J. VAN GRIEKEN, «Functions of Drawings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder», in Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀄󰀆–󰀅󰀁. VAN GRIEKEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: J. VAN GRIEKEN, «Pieter Bruegel de Oude, Hieronymus Cock, Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle en het begin van de Italiaanse oorlog van 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀁–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀉», in Brussel 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀁󰀈–󰀃󰀃. VAN HOGENDORP PROSPERETTI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: L. VAN HOGENDORP PROSPERETTI, «‘Un albero di guazzo’: Pieter Bruegel, Giulio Clovio, and Arboreal Disegno», in A. DE FLORIANI, M. C. GALASSI (a cura di), Culture figurative a confronto tra Fiandre e Italia dal XV al XVII secolo, Atti del convegno internazionale (Padova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇), Cinisello Balsamo (MI) 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀄󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀅. VAN HEESCH 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: D. VAN HEESCH, «Out of Bosch’s Shadow: A Rediscovered Altarpiece by Jan Mandijn», in Oud Holland 󰀁󰀃󰀁, no. 󰀃/󰀄, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀂󰀂. VAN MANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄 [󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁]: K. VAN MANDER, Le livre des peintres, Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁. VAN MANDER 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄: K. VAN MANDER, Het schilder-boeck waerin voor eerst de leerlustighe Iueght den grondt der edel vry schilderconst in ver-cheyden deelen wort voorghedraghen …, Haarlem 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄 VAN MANDER, MIEDEMA 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉: H. MIEDEMA (ed.), Karel van Mander. The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, from the First Edition of the Schilderboeck (󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀃–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄), 󰀆 vols., Doornspijk 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄–󰀉󰀉. VAN PASSEN 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: A. M. VAN PASSEN, «Antwerp Under the Magnifying Glass. An Anthology», in Antwerpen 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, pp. 󰀅󰀉–󰀆󰀇. VAN SPRANG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: S. VAN SPRANG, «Winter Landscape with Skaters and Bird Trap or Time Suspended», in MEGANCK, VAN SPRANG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, Bruegel’s Winter Scenes: Historians and Art Historians in Dialogue, Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀅󰀇–󰀈󰀁. VARCHI 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉: B. VARCHI, Due lezzioni, di M. Benedetto Varchi, nella prima delle quali si dichiara un sonetto di M. Michelangelo Buonarroti. Nella seconda si disputa quale sia più nobile arte, la scultura o la pittura, con una lettera d’esso Michelagnolo e più altri eccellentissimi pittori e scultori sopra la questione sopradetta, Firenze 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀉. VASARI 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀈–󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀅: G. VASARI, Le vite de’più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori, ed. G. MILANESE, 󰀉 voll., Firenze 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀈–󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀅. VASARI 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀅: G. VASARI, The Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, trans. G. DE VERE, 󰀁󰀀 vols., London 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂–󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀅. VASARI (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀/󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈): G. VASARI, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori nelle redazioni del 󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀 e 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈, ed. Rosanna Bettarini, commento secolare a cura di P. BAROCCHI, 󰀆 voll., Firenze 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆–󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇. VASARI 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈: G. VASARI, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀈), voll. 󰀇, ed. P. DELLA PERGOLA, L. GRASSI, G, PREVITALI, Novara 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀇. VENTURINI 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀: G. VENTURINI, Saggi critici. Cinquecento minore: O. Ariosti, G. M. Verdizzotti e il loro influsso nella vita e nell’opera del Tasso, Ravenna 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀. VERATELLI 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: F. VERATELLI, À la mode italienne. Commerce du luxe et diplomatie dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux, 󰀁󰀄󰀇󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀, Villeneuve d’Ascq 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. VERDINO 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂: S. VERDINO, «Cultura e letteratura nel Cinquecento», in La letteratura ligure. La Repubblica aristocratica (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀈–󰀁󰀇󰀉󰀇), Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂, pp. 󰀈󰀃–󰀁󰀃󰀂. VERMEULEN 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀: I. VERMEULEN, Picturing Art History: The Rise of the Illustrated History of Art in the Eighteenth Century, Amsterdam 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀. VERMEYLEN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃: F. VERMEYLEN, Painting for the Market: Commercialisation of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age, Turnhout 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃. VEROUGSTRAETE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: H. VEROUGSTRAETE, Frames and Supports in 󰀁󰀅th- and 󰀁󰀆th-century Southern Netherlandish Painting, e-book published with the support of the Getty Foundation, Panel Paintings Initiative, Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, http://balat.kikirpa.be/tools/frames.

218

BIBLIOGRAPHY

VIGNAU-WILBERG 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: T. VIGNAU-WILBERG, «Joris Hoefnagel’s Tätigheit in München», in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 󰀈󰀁, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀃–󰀂󰀁󰀄. VIGNAU-W ILBERG 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: T. VIGNAU-W ILBERG, Jacob Hoefnagel: Art and Science around 󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀀, Berlin 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. V ILJOEN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: M. V ILJOEN, «Raphael and the Restorative Power of Prints», in Print Quarterly 󰀁󰀈, no. 󰀄, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁, pp. 󰀃󰀇󰀉–󰀃󰀉󰀅. VILLERS 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: C. VILLERS (ed.), The Fabric of Images: European Paintings on Textile Supports in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, London 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀. VISONE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄: M. VISONE, M. «La villa di Poggio Reale. Decadenza e trasformazione dal XVI al XIX secolo», in Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄, pp. 󰀇󰀇–󰀉󰀂. VISONE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆: M. VISONE, «Poggio Reale rivisitato. Preesistenze, genesi e trasformazioni in età vicereale», in E. SAǸCHEZ GARCÍA (a cura di), Rinascimento meridionale, Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆, pp. 󰀇󰀇󰀁–󰀇󰀉󰀈. V LIEGHE 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀: H. V LIEGHE, «Rubens, Emulating the Bruegel Tradition», in The Burlington Magazine 󰀁󰀄󰀂, no. 󰀁󰀁󰀇󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀, pp. 󰀆󰀈󰀁–󰀆󰀈󰀆. VOET 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂: L. VOET, The Golden Compasses: A History and Evaluation of the Printing and Publishing Activities of the Officina Plantiniana at Antwerp, I–II, Amsterdam 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂. VÖHRINGER 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: C. VÖHRINGER, Pieter Bruegel der Ältere. Malerei, Alltag und Politik im 󰀁󰀆. Jahrhundert. Eine Biografie, Stuttgart 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. WATERS 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: M. WATERS, «Hieronymus Cock’s Baths of Emperor Diocletian (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀈) and the Diascopic Architectural Print», in J. HARTNELL (ed.), Continuous Page: Scrolls and Scrolling from Papyrus to Hypertext, London 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, pp. 󰀃󰀉–󰀇󰀁. WATTEEUW ET AL . 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: L. WATTEEUW, M. VAN BOS, M. BASSENS, J. VAN GRIEKEN, C. CURRIE, B. VANDERMEULEN, H. HAMEEUW, M. MARTENS, «Four Drawings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Art-technical Research», in HOPPE-HARNONCOURT ET AL . 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀅󰀂–󰀅󰀉. WATTEEUW ET AL . 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁: L. WATTEEUW, M. VAN BOS, J. VAN GRIEKEN, M. BASSENS, B. VANDERMEULEN, H. H AMEEUW, «View of the Strait of Messina, by Circle of Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Drawing Techniques and Materials Examined», in C. CURRIE (ed.), The Bruegel Success Story. Papers Presented at Symposium XXI for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting (Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈), Leuven 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁, pp. 󰀄󰀆󰀅–󰀄󰀇󰀆. WIED 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀: A. WIED, Lucas und Marten van Valckenborch, Freren 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀. WOLFTHAL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆: D. WOLFTHAL, «Early Netherlandish Canvases: Documentary Evidence», in Annales d’Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie, Bruxelles 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆, pp. 󰀁󰀉–󰀄󰀁. WOLFTHAL 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉: D. WOLFTHAL, The Beginnings of Netherlandish Canvas Painting: 󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀀– 󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀀, Cambridge 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉. WOOD 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈: J. WOOD, «Cannibalized Prints and Early Art History: Vasari, Belllori and Fréart de Chambray on Raphael», in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 󰀅󰀁, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈, pp. 󰀂󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀂󰀀. WOOD 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: C. WOOD, Forgery, Replica, Fiction: Temporalities of German Renaissance Art, Chicago 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. WOOD 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: C. WOOD, A History of Art History, Princeton 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. WOODALL 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇: J. WOODALL, Anthonis Mor: Art and Authority, Zwolle 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇. WOODALL 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: J. WOODALL, «Dem Dry Bones. Portrayal in Print after the Death of the Original Model», in J. WOODALL, S. PORRAS (eds), Picturing the Netherlandish Canon, London 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. WOOD RUBY 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: L. WOOD RUBY, «Bruegel/Brueghel/Bril: the ‘Lugt Group’ Revisited», in Master Drawings 󰀅󰀀, no. 󰀃, pp. 󰀃󰀅󰀇–󰀃󰀆󰀄.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁: E. WOUK, «‘Uno stupore ed una maraviglia’: The Prints of Frans Floris de Vriendt (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀉/󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀)», in Frans Floris, The New Hollstein Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 󰀁󰀄󰀅󰀀–󰀁󰀇󰀀󰀀, Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁, vol. 󰀁, pp. xxxiii–civ. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂: E. WOUK, «Reclaiming the Antiquities of Gaul: Lambert Lombard and the History of Northern Art», in Simiolus 󰀃󰀆, no. 󰀁/󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂, pp. 󰀃󰀅–󰀆󰀅. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅a: E. WOUK, «Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, The Quatre Vents Press, and the Patronage of Prints in Early Modern Europe», in Simiolus 󰀃󰀈, no. 󰀁/󰀂, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀃󰀁–󰀆󰀁. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅b: E. WOUK, «Marten Peeters, Publisher at the Sign of the Golden Fountain», in Delineavit et Sculpsit 󰀃󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀂–󰀄󰀉. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: E. WOUK, Frans Floris (󰀁󰀅󰀁󰀉/󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀): Imagining a Northern Renaissance, Leiden 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: E. WOUK, «Pathosformel as Grammar: From Lambert Lombard to Aby Warburg», in Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 󰀆󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, pp. 󰀁󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀃󰀅. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁: E. WOUK (trans.), The Life of Lambert Lombard (󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀅); and Effigies of Several Painters of the Low Countries, Los Angeles 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀁. WOUK 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂  : E. WOUK, «Giorgio Vasari, Dominicus Lampsonius, and the Print as Work of Art», in I Tatti Studies 󰀂󰀅, no. 󰀁, 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂, pp. 󰀈󰀉-󰀁󰀃󰀁. WREDE 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: H. WREDE, «Madrider Briefe des Antoine Morillon (um 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀆) und des Stephanus Pighius (󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀄) an Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle», in Pegasus. Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike 󰀁󰀇, pp. 󰀆󰀅–󰀁󰀀󰀈. WYCKOFF 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: E. WYCKOFF, «Hieronymus Cock and the Invention of the Print Market in Antwerp», in St Louis-Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅, pp. 󰀃󰀅–󰀅󰀃. ZDANOV 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: S. ZDANOV, «Pieter Coecke, Bernard van Orley et les maniéristes anversois: transmission d’une figure raphaélesque entre Bruxelles et Anvers», in Revue de l’Art 󰀂󰀁󰀅, no. 󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉, pp. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀉. ZORACH, DUBIN 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: R. ZORACH, N. DUBIN, The Virtual Tourist in Renaissance Rome: Printing and Collecting the Speculum romanae magnificentiae, Chicago 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈. Z ORACH, RODINI 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅: R. Z ORACH, E. RODINI, «On Imitation and Invention: The Reproductive Print», in R. ZORACH, E. RODINI (eds), Paper Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀈󰀀󰀀, Chicago 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅, pp. 󰀁–󰀅󰀀. ZUCKER 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈: P. ZUCKER, Fascination of Decay. Ruins: Relic, Symbol, Ornament, Ridgewood, NJ 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈. ZWEITE 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄: A. ZWEITE, Studien zu Marten de Vos: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Antwerpener Malerei in der 󰀂. Hälfte des 󰀁󰀆. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄. ZWEITE 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀: A. ZWEITE, Marten des Vos als Maler, Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀.

EXHIBITIONS Antwerpen 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃: J. VAN DER STOCK (ed.), Antwerp Story of a Metropolis 󰀁󰀆th –󰀁󰀇th Century, exhibition catalogue, Antwerp, Hessenhuis, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃. Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄: K. L. BELKIN, F. HEALY (eds), A House of Art. Rubens as Collector, exhibition catalogue, Antwerp, Rubenshuis, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄. Antwerpen 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: T. GERSZI, Jan Brueghel. A Magnificent Draughtsman, exhibition catalogue, Antwerp, Snijders & Rockox House, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. Belluno 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈: L. PUPPI (a cura di), Tiziano. L’ultimo atto, catalogo della mostra, Belluno, Palazzo Crepadona, Pieve di Cadore, Palazzo della Magnifica Comunità, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈.

220

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berlin 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅: H. MIELKE ET AL . (hrsg.), Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. als Zeichner: Herkunft und Nachfolge, Ausstellungscatalogus, Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅. Brussel 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: M. BASSENS, J. VAN GRIEKEN (eds), Bruegel in zwart en wit: het complete grafische werk, tentoonstellingscatalogus, Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, KBR, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. Brussels 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀: M. BASSENS, J. VAN GRIEKEN (eds), The World of Bruegel in Black and White, exhibition catalogue, Brussels, KBR, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀. Bruxelles 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀: L. DE PAUW-DE VEEN (éd.), Jérôme Cock: éditeur d’estampes et graveur 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀀, catalogue d’exposition, Bruxelles, Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀. Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: V. BÜCKEN, I. DE MEÛTER (éd.), Bernard van Orley, catalogue d’exposition, Bruxelles, BOZAR, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. Cassel 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: S. VEZLIER-DUSSART, S. CURVEILLER (éd.), La Flandre et la mer. De Pieter l’Ancien à Jan Brueghel de Velours, catalogue d’exposition, Cassel, Musée de Flandre, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. Firenze 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀: C. CEPPI BELTRAMO, N. CONFUORTO (a cura di), Palazzo Vecchio: committenza e collezionismo medicei, catalogo della mostra, Firenze, Palazzo Vecchio, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀. Firenze-Paris 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀–󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁: K. BOON (éd.), L’ époque de Lucas de Leyde et Pierre Bruegel. Dessins des anciens Pays-Bas. Collection Fritz Lugt. Institut néerlandais, catalogue d’exposition, Firenze, Istituto Universitario Olandese di Storia dell’Arte; Paris, Institut néerlandais, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀–󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁. Genova 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇: S. BARNES ET AL. (a cura di), Van Dyck a Genova. Grande pittura e collezionismo, catalogo della mostra, Genova, Palazzo Ducale, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇. Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄: P. BOCCARDO (a cura di), L’età di Rubens. Dimore, committenti e collezionisti genovesi, catalogo della mostra, Genova, Palazzo Ducale, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄. Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈: A. ORLANDO (a cura di), Van Dyck e i suoi amici fiamminghi, catalogo della mostra, Genova, Palazzo della Meridiana, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈. Genova 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂: N. BÜTTNER, A. ORLANDO (a cura di), Rubens a Genova, catalogo della mostra, Genova, Palazzo Ducale 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂. Leuven-Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: J. VAN GRIEKEN, G. LUIJTEN, J. VAN DER STOCK (eds), Hieronymus Cock: The Renaissance in Print, exhibition catalogue, Leuven, Museum M; Paris, Fondation Custodia, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃. Maastricht-Bruxelles 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: P. VAN DEN BRINK (éd.), L’entreprise Bruegel, catalogue d’exposition, Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum; Bruxelles, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁. Mantova 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: E. PARMA (a cura di), Perino del Vaga tra Raffaello e Michelangelo, catalogo della mostra, Mantova, Palazzo Te, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁. Napoli 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉 : A. E. DENUNZIO (a cura di), Rubens, Van Dyck, Ribera. La collezione di un principe, catalogo della mostra, Napoli, Palazzo Zevallos Stigliano, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈-󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. New York 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁: A. DOMÍNGEZ ORTIZ, C. HERRERO CARRETERO, J. GODOY, Resplendence of the Spanish Monarchy. Renaissance Tapestries and Armor from the Patrimonio Nacional, exhibition catalogue, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂: Th. CAMPBELL (ed.), Tapestry in the Renaissance: Art and Magnificence, exhibition catalogue, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄a: E. A. H. CLELAND, M. W. A INSWORTH, S. A LSTEENS, N. M. ORENSTEIN (eds), Grand Design: Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Renaissance Tapestry, exhibition catalogue, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. New York 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄b: S. METZLER, Bartholomeus Spranger. Splendor and Eroticism in Imperial Prague. The Complete Works, exhibition catalogue, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄. New York-Rotterdam, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁: N. M. ORENSTEIN (ed.), Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Drawings and Prints, exhibition catalogue, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Paris 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅: D. CORDELLIER, B. PY, Primatice, Maître de Fontainebleau, catalogue d’exposition, Paris, Musée du Louvre, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅. Roma 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: D. A LLART, M. CAEYMAEX, A.-C. DE LIEDEKERKE, H. DEVISSCHER (a cura di), Fiamminghi a Roma 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀈. Artisti dei Paesi Bassi e del Principato di Liegi a Roma durante il Rinascimento, catalogo della mostra, Roma, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. Rotterdam 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄: M. SELLINK, Cornelis Cort: ‘Constich plaedt-snijder van Horne in Hollant’ / Accomplished plate-cutter from Hoorn in Holland, exhibition catalogue, Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans–van Beuningen, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄. St Louis-Cambridge 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅: B. BUTTS, J. L. KOERNER (eds), The Printed World of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, exhibition catalogue, St Louis, St Louis Art Museum; Cambridge, Arthur M. Sackler Museum, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅. St Louis-Cambridge 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅: M. BASS, E. WYCKOFF (eds), Beyond Bosch: The Afterlife of a Renaissance Master in Print, exhibition catalogue, St Louis, St Louis Art Museum; Cambridge, Harvard University Art Museums, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅. St Louis-New York-Los Angeles 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅: S. BOORSCH, M. R. E. L EWIS (eds), The Engravings of Giorgio Ghisi, exhibition catalogue, Missouri, Saint-Louis Art Museum; New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Los Angeles, Grunwald Center for Graphic Arts (University of California), 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅. Washington-Dallas-Detroit 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆–󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇: D. ROSAND, M. MURARO, Titian and the Venetian Woodcut, exhibition catalogue, Washington, The National Gallery of Art; Dallas, Dallas Museum of Fine Arts; Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆–󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇: D. HAMMER-TUGENDHAT (ed.), Pieter Bruegel—Drawing the World, exhibition catalogue, Vienna, Albertina, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇. Wien 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉: A. HOPPE-HARNONCOURT, E. OBERTHALER, S. PÉNOT, M. SELLINK, R. SPRONK, Bruegel: The Hand of the Master, exhibition catalogue, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉. Zagreb 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃: Julije Klović: najveći minijaturist renesanse. Giulio Clovio: the greatest miniaturist of the Renaissance, katalog izložbe, Zagreb, Galerija Klovićevi dvori, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃.