.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Recorded in around twenty-five autograph versions by Dr. Klaus Ertz, this subject was somewhat unusual in Brueghel’s wider oeuvre in not copying a composition either by his father, Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525/30-1569), or one of his father’s near-contemporaries, like Marten van Cleve (1527-1581). Having examined this painting at first hand, Dr. Ertz acknowledges it as a full autograph work, having previously questioned the attribution in his catalogue raisonné (op. cit.), on the basis of a poor reproduction. Brueghel painted the scene on two different scales and the present version is recognised as a particularly well-preserved example of the smaller type (the larger usually measuring approximately 30 x 48½ in.).
The source for the painting’s composition has been the subject of much debate. Jacqueline Folie (Pieter Brueghel de Jonge, exhibition catalogue, Maastricht, 1993) proposed that the prototype was French, given the French calendar hanging on the right wall, and noting that the short beards, close-cropped hair and costume of the peasants were not consistent with styles predominant in the Southern Netherlands during Brueghel’s lifetime. While French was the language formally used in legal practice in the Netherlands during the period, meaning that the calendar was not necessarily reliant on a French model, Folie’s arguments have been largely accepted. Dr Klaus Ertz has subsequently proposed that the painting may have been based on a lost work by the French artist Nicolas Baullery (1560-1630), noted for his genre scenes.
Brueghel’s various versions of The Payment of the Tithes can be divided into two main groups: those with woven straw matting on the back wall; and those which instead depict a dark cloth. For the most part, these two groups fall within specific moments of Brueghel’s career: those using the woven straw are usually dated between 1615 and 1617; and those with the dark cloth between 1618 and 1626. The present panel is undated but the signature, which reads ‘BREVGHEL’ (as against Brueghel), was one favoured by the painter only after around 1616 (K. Ertz, Breughel-Brueghel: Une famille des peintres flamands vers 1600, exhibition catalogue, Antwerp, 1998, p. 19). This painting can therefore be dated with relative accuracy to between circa 1616 and 1617, before Brueghel altered his composition.
Traditionally identified as the collection of taxes or tithes, more recently the subject has been understood to represent the ramshackle offices of a country lawyer. This identification gains credence in the light of near contemporary documents, which refer to versions of the painting. An inventory of 1627, recording the collection of one Antoinette Wiael refers, for example, to ‘eenen franschen procureur op panel, … vanden jongen Peter Bruegel’ (‘a French prosecutor [lawyer] on panel…by the young Pieter Brueg[h]el’); and another inventory, recording the collection of Anna de Schot in 1663, again refers to the subject as representing a lawyer (D. de Vos, Stedlijke Musea Brugge: Catalogus Schilderijen 15de en 16de Eeuw, Bruges, 1979, p. 95). Seated at the right of the composition, engrossed in the papers before him, the lawyer is dressed in the traditional cap of his profession. Tax- or tithe-collectors were not typically men with law degrees and the setting of the office, with the hanging bags of papers, are familiar with those used for decrees and requests in law suits, rather than records of taxation, which would traditionally have been kept in large bound registers. The peasants gathering before him hold produce, hoping to use this to barter for his assistance. This again indicates that the scene is set in a lawyer’s office, rather than representing the collection of taxes, since produce like eggs and chickens, was often used as a means of paying a lawyer, whereas tithe payments typically consisted of quantities of grain (see N.Z. Davis, The Gift in Sixteenth-century France, Oxford, 2000, p. 260, note 3). The caricatural treatment of the figures may have been deliberately intended as a means of satirizing the corruption of the law and indeed, early engravings of the composition, first published in 1618 in Nuremberg by Paulus Fürst were used to illustrate pamphlets published attacking legal dishonesty.
This lot is sold with a copy of a certificate by Dr. Klaus Ertz, dated April 2019, confirming the attribution after first hand inspection.
The source for the painting’s composition has been the subject of much debate. Jacqueline Folie (Pieter Brueghel de Jonge, exhibition catalogue, Maastricht, 1993) proposed that the prototype was French, given the French calendar hanging on the right wall, and noting that the short beards, close-cropped hair and costume of the peasants were not consistent with styles predominant in the Southern Netherlands during Brueghel’s lifetime. While French was the language formally used in legal practice in the Netherlands during the period, meaning that the calendar was not necessarily reliant on a French model, Folie’s arguments have been largely accepted. Dr Klaus Ertz has subsequently proposed that the painting may have been based on a lost work by the French artist Nicolas Baullery (1560-1630), noted for his genre scenes.
Brueghel’s various versions of The Payment of the Tithes can be divided into two main groups: those with woven straw matting on the back wall; and those which instead depict a dark cloth. For the most part, these two groups fall within specific moments of Brueghel’s career: those using the woven straw are usually dated between 1615 and 1617; and those with the dark cloth between 1618 and 1626. The present panel is undated but the signature, which reads ‘BREVGHEL’ (as against Brueghel), was one favoured by the painter only after around 1616 (K. Ertz, Breughel-Brueghel: Une famille des peintres flamands vers 1600, exhibition catalogue, Antwerp, 1998, p. 19). This painting can therefore be dated with relative accuracy to between circa 1616 and 1617, before Brueghel altered his composition.
Traditionally identified as the collection of taxes or tithes, more recently the subject has been understood to represent the ramshackle offices of a country lawyer. This identification gains credence in the light of near contemporary documents, which refer to versions of the painting. An inventory of 1627, recording the collection of one Antoinette Wiael refers, for example, to ‘eenen franschen procureur op panel, … vanden jongen Peter Bruegel’ (‘a French prosecutor [lawyer] on panel…by the young Pieter Brueg[h]el’); and another inventory, recording the collection of Anna de Schot in 1663, again refers to the subject as representing a lawyer (D. de Vos, Stedlijke Musea Brugge: Catalogus Schilderijen 15de en 16de Eeuw, Bruges, 1979, p. 95). Seated at the right of the composition, engrossed in the papers before him, the lawyer is dressed in the traditional cap of his profession. Tax- or tithe-collectors were not typically men with law degrees and the setting of the office, with the hanging bags of papers, are familiar with those used for decrees and requests in law suits, rather than records of taxation, which would traditionally have been kept in large bound registers. The peasants gathering before him hold produce, hoping to use this to barter for his assistance. This again indicates that the scene is set in a lawyer’s office, rather than representing the collection of taxes, since produce like eggs and chickens, was often used as a means of paying a lawyer, whereas tithe payments typically consisted of quantities of grain (see N.Z. Davis, The Gift in Sixteenth-century France, Oxford, 2000, p. 260, note 3). The caricatural treatment of the figures may have been deliberately intended as a means of satirizing the corruption of the law and indeed, early engravings of the composition, first published in 1618 in Nuremberg by Paulus Fürst were used to illustrate pamphlets published attacking legal dishonesty.
This lot is sold with a copy of a certificate by Dr. Klaus Ertz, dated April 2019, confirming the attribution after first hand inspection.