Lot Essay
‘The picture is intrinsically “Breughelian”, not only in the dramatic rhythms that pervade it, but also in the stylization of the figures and the color harmonies. Whilst maintaining the continuity of Pieter the Elder’s art through these themes, his son Pieter gives free rein to his own particular vigor, his own taste for anecdote and his own mastery of his profession that equals those of the greatest artists.’
Thus wrote Georges Marlier, the doyen of Pieter Brueghel studies, of this ambitious composition (op. cit., p. 381). Unlike the majority of Brueghel’s oeuvre, it is entirely independent of any of his father’s works and more assured and accomplished than any of his other original compositions. Simply put, it ranks amongst his finest works. A 1559 drawing by Pieter Bruegel I depicting the Kermis at Hoboken (fig. 1; Courtauld Gallery, London) also depicts a Kermesse, yet can only be deemed a rather distant model for Pieter II, if he ever indeed encountered the sheet at all. As Jacqueline Folie pointed out, the façade of the inn to the left of the painting seems to be loosely based on an engraving of the same subject published by Hieronymus Cock after an original design by Pieter Bruegel I (fig. 2; op. cit., p. 160). Yet given that it is seen in reverse in the print, it is more likely that the Younger had access to a stock drawing by his father, or that both father and son knew the same inn, and incorporated it from memory.
Only three other autograph versions of this composition are known, making the painting one of Pieter Brueghel II’s rarest inventions. The prime version, larger in scale, is believed to be the one signed and dated 1628 (formerly Wittouck collection; Sotheby’s, London, 8 December 2004, lot 11, £3,701,600; see Ertz, op. cit., p. 909, no. E1239). Another version, of similar dimensions to the present lot, also signed but not dated, is in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerp and the last, which may also be autograph, is recorded in the Oberlander collection before 1993, but is known only from a photograph (ibid., no. E1244). Although all four pictures are similar, Klaus Ertz divides the compositional type into two groups: Type A, the ex-Wittouck and the ex-Oberlander pictures, and Type B, which includes the present picture and the one in Antwerp. The most noticeable differences are that in Type B the bagpipe player no longer occupies the lower corner of the composition but has been moved to the doorway of the inn; and the seated glutton does not rest on the open basket full of produce, but on the closed bag by a wooden plank. Other differences include the omission of the cockerel on the roof, the change in posture of the onlooker below the flag and the fact that the archers have not fired their arrows yet. The composition shows the Kermesse at a slightly different stage of events, and the fact that it seems ‘emptier’ led Marlier to suggest Type B is the earlier invention of the two (op. cit., p. 385). While this panel does not bear a date, the signature ‘BREVGHEL’ places the picture in Brueghel’s output post-1616, when he changed the letters from ‘EV’ to ‘VE’. Bearing Marlier’s argumentation and the dating of the largest version to 1628 in mind, the present picture can firmly be placed within his output of the 1620s.
Pieter Brueghel II has avoided the temptation of populating the composition with a myriad of minuscule figures, but has varied their scale so that those in the foreground are unusually large and complete. He has arranged the composition around two diagonals, leading the viewer’s eye from the crammed inn at left, across the figures sitting at outdoor tables, past the fool and the glutton and through the dancing couple onto the next plane, via the merry-go-round group in the center, ending in the procession into the church in the background. Like hardly any other picture of this subject, this Kermesse of Saint George gathers together all that one delights in seeing in Flemish depictions of this subject: richness of motifs; their pleasing, spirited arrangement; an abundance of color reflecting the liveliness of the feast, combined with honest depictions of human behavior; folkloric customs; hidden meaning; humor and moral commentary.
Thus wrote Georges Marlier, the doyen of Pieter Brueghel studies, of this ambitious composition (op. cit., p. 381). Unlike the majority of Brueghel’s oeuvre, it is entirely independent of any of his father’s works and more assured and accomplished than any of his other original compositions. Simply put, it ranks amongst his finest works. A 1559 drawing by Pieter Bruegel I depicting the Kermis at Hoboken (fig. 1; Courtauld Gallery, London) also depicts a Kermesse, yet can only be deemed a rather distant model for Pieter II, if he ever indeed encountered the sheet at all. As Jacqueline Folie pointed out, the façade of the inn to the left of the painting seems to be loosely based on an engraving of the same subject published by Hieronymus Cock after an original design by Pieter Bruegel I (fig. 2; op. cit., p. 160). Yet given that it is seen in reverse in the print, it is more likely that the Younger had access to a stock drawing by his father, or that both father and son knew the same inn, and incorporated it from memory.
Only three other autograph versions of this composition are known, making the painting one of Pieter Brueghel II’s rarest inventions. The prime version, larger in scale, is believed to be the one signed and dated 1628 (formerly Wittouck collection; Sotheby’s, London, 8 December 2004, lot 11, £3,701,600; see Ertz, op. cit., p. 909, no. E1239). Another version, of similar dimensions to the present lot, also signed but not dated, is in the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerp and the last, which may also be autograph, is recorded in the Oberlander collection before 1993, but is known only from a photograph (ibid., no. E1244). Although all four pictures are similar, Klaus Ertz divides the compositional type into two groups: Type A, the ex-Wittouck and the ex-Oberlander pictures, and Type B, which includes the present picture and the one in Antwerp. The most noticeable differences are that in Type B the bagpipe player no longer occupies the lower corner of the composition but has been moved to the doorway of the inn; and the seated glutton does not rest on the open basket full of produce, but on the closed bag by a wooden plank. Other differences include the omission of the cockerel on the roof, the change in posture of the onlooker below the flag and the fact that the archers have not fired their arrows yet. The composition shows the Kermesse at a slightly different stage of events, and the fact that it seems ‘emptier’ led Marlier to suggest Type B is the earlier invention of the two (op. cit., p. 385). While this panel does not bear a date, the signature ‘BREVGHEL’ places the picture in Brueghel’s output post-1616, when he changed the letters from ‘EV’ to ‘VE’. Bearing Marlier’s argumentation and the dating of the largest version to 1628 in mind, the present picture can firmly be placed within his output of the 1620s.
Pieter Brueghel II has avoided the temptation of populating the composition with a myriad of minuscule figures, but has varied their scale so that those in the foreground are unusually large and complete. He has arranged the composition around two diagonals, leading the viewer’s eye from the crammed inn at left, across the figures sitting at outdoor tables, past the fool and the glutton and through the dancing couple onto the next plane, via the merry-go-round group in the center, ending in the procession into the church in the background. Like hardly any other picture of this subject, this Kermesse of Saint George gathers together all that one delights in seeing in Flemish depictions of this subject: richness of motifs; their pleasing, spirited arrangement; an abundance of color reflecting the liveliness of the feast, combined with honest depictions of human behavior; folkloric customs; hidden meaning; humor and moral commentary.