.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The composition of this newly rediscovered picture derives from the work of Pieter Bruegel I and was described by Hulin de Loo in 1907 as 'un des groupes les plus complexes, les plus vivants, les plus violents et les plus réalistes et en même temps les plus plastiques dont l'histoire de l'art nous fournisse l'exemple ... Bruegel a atteint ici l'apogée de son art'. The monumental scale of the figures recall those in such works as the Peasant Dance and Wedding Feast in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, and the composition may thus be tentatively dated towards the end of Bruegel's career.
Although no surviving prototype for this composition by Bruegel is known, his authorship is universally accepted, and can be inferred from various early sources. Firstly, the composition is known from an engraving by Lucas Vorsterman of circa 1620 (fig. 1), which bears the inscription 'Peter Bruegel inven.' In addition (besides a few entries in seventeenth-century inventories which cannot necessarily be taken as accurate) Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, wrote in 1625 to his agent in Antwerp, Lionel Wake: 'I do therefore earnestly desire you that you would receive for me a peace of a painting begunne by Brugles and finished by Mostard; being a squabbling of clownes fallen out at Cardes, w[hi]ch is in stampe by Mr. Vorstermann' (see M. Hervey, The Life, Correspondence and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, Cambridge, 1921, p. 301). The Arundel picture is again mentioned in the will of Lady Arundel, who died in Amsterdam in 1655, as 'BRVEGEL Contadini che si batteno.'
Also, in the Spécification des peintures trouvées à la maison mortuaire de feu Pierre Paul Rubens, chevalier, 1640 is included as no. 142 a painting by Rubens described as 'Un combat des paysans, faict après un dessein du vieuc Bruegel'. A sketch in the Museum Boijmans-Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (fig. 2), has been proposed as that work. Because of the similarity between the figure types in the Rotterdam sketch and the Vorsterman engraving, it has long been argued that Vorsterman took the former as the model for his own work. In addition, the dedication on the engraving to Jan Brueghel I has led many, including Marlier, to hypothesize that the lost original was in Jan's possession until his death in 1625.
The latter theory was thought to have been supported by the existence of two versions by Jan I (that formerly in the Gemäldegalerie, Dresden, and that in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna); however, their attributions have been rejected or questioned by Klaus Ertz (that of the Dresden picture cannot be secured, as the picture was destroyed in World War II and is thus known only from photographs). In addition, scholars have proposed the existence of a collaborative work by Jan I and Rubens. Various pictures have been proposed for this, including most recently one in a Belgian private collection (see the catalogue of the exhibition, De Bruegel à Rubens, p. 171, under no. 73). This theory has, however, also been questioned by Klaus Ertz (op. cit., 1988, p. 772), who regards all such works as by Jan II in the 1630s or '40s.
Assuming that Ertz is correct in his revisions, only circumstantial evidence remains that Pieter I's original was owned by Jan I. The specific details given in the Arundel letter do suggest that the painting did exist, and the fact that it was finished by Gillis Mostaert could reflect the fact, as discussed above, that Pieter I's work was from late in his career - maybe even left incomplete at his death, in which case it would be plausible that either of his sons inherited it. That Arundel's letter was written shortly after Jan I's death could, of course, be nothing more than coincidence. Jan's ownership has also been inferred from the dedication of Vorsterman's engraving: 'Clariss. Praestantissimoq. viro Dño Ionni Bruegelio, Petri Bruegelii sui temporis Apellis Filio, Paternae Artis haeredi ex asse, hoc patriae manus monumentum artificiosissimum L.M.Q.D.D. Lucas Vorsterman excud. cum privil.' The last link with Jan I is the Rubens inventory and the Rotterdam sketch, which, if it remains accepted as an autograph work, would imply that the latter artist had access to the work, an obvious possibility if it was owned by one of his closest friends and artistic collaborators.
Ultimately, however, the question of Bruegel's original remains open, as does the problem of Rubens' and Jan I's involvements in the composition, so it may also never be possible to tell whether Pieter II had access to his father's work. In the continuing absence of a version by Jan I, however, that would seem to be the most logical case, especially as of the nine versions accepted by Ertz as by Pieter II (including the present painting), all are in the opposite sense to Vosterman's engraving. Of those, the earliest is dated 1610 (Belgium, private collection; formerly Brussels, Coppée collection) and the latest 1622 (Prague, Nationalgalerie); the present work is the second earliest dated work, after the Coppée picture.
This lot is sold with a certificate of authenticity from Dr. Klaus Ertz, dated 12 December 2005.
Although no surviving prototype for this composition by Bruegel is known, his authorship is universally accepted, and can be inferred from various early sources. Firstly, the composition is known from an engraving by Lucas Vorsterman of circa 1620 (fig. 1), which bears the inscription 'Peter Bruegel inven.' In addition (besides a few entries in seventeenth-century inventories which cannot necessarily be taken as accurate) Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, wrote in 1625 to his agent in Antwerp, Lionel Wake: 'I do therefore earnestly desire you that you would receive for me a peace of a painting begunne by Brugles and finished by Mostard; being a squabbling of clownes fallen out at Cardes, w[hi]ch is in stampe by Mr. Vorstermann' (see M. Hervey, The Life, Correspondence and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, Cambridge, 1921, p. 301). The Arundel picture is again mentioned in the will of Lady Arundel, who died in Amsterdam in 1655, as 'BRVEGEL Contadini che si batteno.'
Also, in the Spécification des peintures trouvées à la maison mortuaire de feu Pierre Paul Rubens, chevalier, 1640 is included as no. 142 a painting by Rubens described as 'Un combat des paysans, faict après un dessein du vieuc Bruegel'. A sketch in the Museum Boijmans-Van Beuningen, Rotterdam (fig. 2), has been proposed as that work. Because of the similarity between the figure types in the Rotterdam sketch and the Vorsterman engraving, it has long been argued that Vorsterman took the former as the model for his own work. In addition, the dedication on the engraving to Jan Brueghel I has led many, including Marlier, to hypothesize that the lost original was in Jan's possession until his death in 1625.
The latter theory was thought to have been supported by the existence of two versions by Jan I (that formerly in the Gemäldegalerie, Dresden, and that in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna); however, their attributions have been rejected or questioned by Klaus Ertz (that of the Dresden picture cannot be secured, as the picture was destroyed in World War II and is thus known only from photographs). In addition, scholars have proposed the existence of a collaborative work by Jan I and Rubens. Various pictures have been proposed for this, including most recently one in a Belgian private collection (see the catalogue of the exhibition, De Bruegel à Rubens, p. 171, under no. 73). This theory has, however, also been questioned by Klaus Ertz (op. cit., 1988, p. 772), who regards all such works as by Jan II in the 1630s or '40s.
Assuming that Ertz is correct in his revisions, only circumstantial evidence remains that Pieter I's original was owned by Jan I. The specific details given in the Arundel letter do suggest that the painting did exist, and the fact that it was finished by Gillis Mostaert could reflect the fact, as discussed above, that Pieter I's work was from late in his career - maybe even left incomplete at his death, in which case it would be plausible that either of his sons inherited it. That Arundel's letter was written shortly after Jan I's death could, of course, be nothing more than coincidence. Jan's ownership has also been inferred from the dedication of Vorsterman's engraving: 'Clariss. Praestantissimoq. viro Dño Ionni Bruegelio, Petri Bruegelii sui temporis Apellis Filio, Paternae Artis haeredi ex asse, hoc patriae manus monumentum artificiosissimum L.M.Q.D.D. Lucas Vorsterman excud. cum privil.' The last link with Jan I is the Rubens inventory and the Rotterdam sketch, which, if it remains accepted as an autograph work, would imply that the latter artist had access to the work, an obvious possibility if it was owned by one of his closest friends and artistic collaborators.
Ultimately, however, the question of Bruegel's original remains open, as does the problem of Rubens' and Jan I's involvements in the composition, so it may also never be possible to tell whether Pieter II had access to his father's work. In the continuing absence of a version by Jan I, however, that would seem to be the most logical case, especially as of the nine versions accepted by Ertz as by Pieter II (including the present painting), all are in the opposite sense to Vosterman's engraving. Of those, the earliest is dated 1610 (Belgium, private collection; formerly Brussels, Coppée collection) and the latest 1622 (Prague, Nationalgalerie); the present work is the second earliest dated work, after the Coppée picture.
This lot is sold with a certificate of authenticity from Dr. Klaus Ertz, dated 12 December 2005.