.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This newly rediscovered work is an apparently unrecorded addition to the oeuvre of Pieter Brueghel II. Despite being one of the artist's most archetypal compositions, Klaus Ertz in his catalogue raisonné of the artist's works (Pieter Brueghel der Jüngere, Lingen, 2000, II, pp. 716-21, nos. 889-915) lists only twenty-six variants, of which one is in fragmentary form, five are by followers, seven he regards as of questionable attribution, and of the remaining thirteen he regards five as having possible workshop assistance of varying degrees. This is therefore only the ninth known fully autograph version of the composition, the other eight including the versions in the National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin (inv. no. 911) and the Schönborn Collection, Schloss Weissenstein, Pommersfelden (inv. no. 71).
Of all their compositions, depictions of weddings and dances are arguably the most celebrated works of the Brueghel family; of their varied subjects, however, these are amongst the most uncertain in invention. The earliest known such works are of course the Vienna Peasant Dance and Wedding Feast by Pieter Breugel I, but the differences between those compositions and the Wedding Dance in the Open Air and Wedding Dance in the Barn by Pieter II are such that they are not seen as more than precursors to the son's works. Instead the direct prototype for both latter types is seen to be the engraving by Pieter van der Heyden after Pieter I of A Wedding Dance in the Open Air that was published by Hieronymus Cock; a derivation from the same source is also known by Jan Brueghel I (Bordeaux, Musée des Beaux-Arts). The earliest known paintings of that subject by Pieter II are those in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, and the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, both of which are signed and dated 1607.
It has been suggested that Pieter I's original, on which the engraving is based, is the painting in the Detroit Institute of Arts, dated 1566. Accepted in full in the past, the question of that painting's authenticity has recently been re-examined. Klaus Ertz, in his monograph on Pieter II (op. cit.), notes that in his opinion it is more likely to be a contemporary copy of a lost work, possibly by Maerten van Cleve, and suggests that Pieter I's original was either a drawing or an as-yet unknown painting. Either way, both brothers, although retaining many of the motifs of their father's composition, adapted the source for their own designs. The present compositional type would appear to be such an adaptation, rather than a copy of a Pieter I prototype, set within the barn interior of the latter's Vienna Wedding Feast. The version in the John G. Johnson Collection, Philadelphia, once regarded as the prototype by Pieter I, and by Georges Marlier as either the earliest version or the prototype by Pieter II (Pierre Brueghel le Jeune, Brussels, 1969, pp. 205-7), was catalogued by Ertz as a work by a later follower.
The confusion over which versions of the composition are by whom is not a new development (nor, of course, is it restricted to this type). As early as 1604, Carel van Mander recorded in his Schilderboek that he had seen with the Amsterdam art dealer, Willem Jacobsz. 'two canvasses [by Pieter I] painted in tempera of a Kermesse and a Peasant Wedding in which are seen many comical expressions and postures, and a true expression of peasant life: amongst others, in the place where presents are being given to the spouse, there is an old peasant, his purse at his neck, who is occupied in counting out the correct sum; these are excellent examples.' This description evidently matches the present composition (although Marlier was probably mistaken in identifying the specific composition as being the Philadelphia painting), the peasant in question being (as Marlier argued, p. 205, note 16) that seated to the left of the table holding his purse. The tempera reference was incorrect for the Wedding Dance, as shown by the pictures' subsequent description in the 1682 inventory of the dealer Diego Duarte (ibid., p. 205), but the Pieter Bruegel I attribution remained; although it is of course possible that this was a lost original by the latter, it seems greatly more plausible that even at this early stage commentators and connoisseurs had blurred the difference between father and son.
Of all their compositions, depictions of weddings and dances are arguably the most celebrated works of the Brueghel family; of their varied subjects, however, these are amongst the most uncertain in invention. The earliest known such works are of course the Vienna Peasant Dance and Wedding Feast by Pieter Breugel I, but the differences between those compositions and the Wedding Dance in the Open Air and Wedding Dance in the Barn by Pieter II are such that they are not seen as more than precursors to the son's works. Instead the direct prototype for both latter types is seen to be the engraving by Pieter van der Heyden after Pieter I of A Wedding Dance in the Open Air that was published by Hieronymus Cock; a derivation from the same source is also known by Jan Brueghel I (Bordeaux, Musée des Beaux-Arts). The earliest known paintings of that subject by Pieter II are those in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, and the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, both of which are signed and dated 1607.
It has been suggested that Pieter I's original, on which the engraving is based, is the painting in the Detroit Institute of Arts, dated 1566. Accepted in full in the past, the question of that painting's authenticity has recently been re-examined. Klaus Ertz, in his monograph on Pieter II (op. cit.), notes that in his opinion it is more likely to be a contemporary copy of a lost work, possibly by Maerten van Cleve, and suggests that Pieter I's original was either a drawing or an as-yet unknown painting. Either way, both brothers, although retaining many of the motifs of their father's composition, adapted the source for their own designs. The present compositional type would appear to be such an adaptation, rather than a copy of a Pieter I prototype, set within the barn interior of the latter's Vienna Wedding Feast. The version in the John G. Johnson Collection, Philadelphia, once regarded as the prototype by Pieter I, and by Georges Marlier as either the earliest version or the prototype by Pieter II (Pierre Brueghel le Jeune, Brussels, 1969, pp. 205-7), was catalogued by Ertz as a work by a later follower.
The confusion over which versions of the composition are by whom is not a new development (nor, of course, is it restricted to this type). As early as 1604, Carel van Mander recorded in his Schilderboek that he had seen with the Amsterdam art dealer, Willem Jacobsz. 'two canvasses [by Pieter I] painted in tempera of a Kermesse and a Peasant Wedding in which are seen many comical expressions and postures, and a true expression of peasant life: amongst others, in the place where presents are being given to the spouse, there is an old peasant, his purse at his neck, who is occupied in counting out the correct sum; these are excellent examples.' This description evidently matches the present composition (although Marlier was probably mistaken in identifying the specific composition as being the Philadelphia painting), the peasant in question being (as Marlier argued, p. 205, note 16) that seated to the left of the table holding his purse. The tempera reference was incorrect for the Wedding Dance, as shown by the pictures' subsequent description in the 1682 inventory of the dealer Diego Duarte (ibid., p. 205), but the Pieter Bruegel I attribution remained; although it is of course possible that this was a lost original by the latter, it seems greatly more plausible that even at this early stage commentators and connoisseurs had blurred the difference between father and son.