The Riddle of Nijmegen

Oise enchères, from France, sells on 5 November in a big castle sale a "Dutch painting" Scene with Gentlemen, missing its dimensions, estimated at 5,000 to 6,000 Euro.

It is a painting which was in the Museum Valkhof in Nijmegen until last year, when a court case decided that it was looted art from WWII and should be returned to the heirs of the previous owners. It was then sold in Amsterdam in June for 3,000€. Now it comes on the market in France, for some reason, with a very succinct description, lacking the artist, the subject and the provenance, but with a higher estimate.

As explained in Dutch newspapers, this painting was judged to be looted art and had to be returned to the heirs of the pre-1940 owner. Those sources indicated that it it was a 17th century work by Christiaen Coeuershof (or Coevershof) which was bought in good faith by the city of Nijmegen in 1971 for about 1,500 Euro. It was perfectly at home there, as it depicts a local legend, the "Riddle of Nijmegen": however, the loss of the painting wasn't too bad for the city and museum, as they have three other depictions of the riddle and this version was usually in storage anyway. Strangely, an earlier article stated that the work was from 1576 and by Cornelis Ketel, but this seems to have been a mistake (he did paint another version of the story).

The actual riddle:
Siet doch de naerderheyt van dit geslacht
Die gheen die slapende en myn schoot wert bevonden
Is aen mÿn onderwettich houwilÿck gebonden

Ende de groen Iongelingen hebter op acht
Syn myns vaders broeders ende myn mans soonen

De yonghe gesellen die hem in swarten roú betoonen
Syn mÿn byslaaps kinderen en broers van die mÿn heeft gebaert

En de twe Ionghe quanten die midts teosse weesen
Vreúcht bewysen sÿn wt onsen bedde geresen
En in alles is wettege troú bewaert

Ist oock mogelÿck beraet u en u sin verklaert

Translation :
Behold the consanguinity of this family
The one that was found sleeping in my lap
Is bound to me by lawful marriage

And the younglings in green, pay attention,
are my father's brothers and my husband's sons

The young companions who show mourning in black
are the children of he who sleeps with me, and the brothers of she who gave birth to me

And the two youngsters in our midst
are the happy proof of what has come from our bed
And in everything lawful marriage has been kept

Is it possible? Think about it and it wll become clear

The solution, from Museum het Valkhof:
The old man is a widower of two women. Both women already had a child from a previous marriage (one a son and the other a daughter) when they married the old man. They both had two sons with the old man, so the old man ended up with four sons, a stepson and a stepdaughter. Those two (who were utterly unrelated by blood) married each other, and had a daughter. This meant that the girl had four uncles who were the halfbrothers of her parents.

That girl then married the old man (again, by blood they were unrelated), which was his third marriage. Together they had another two sons.

Not even a soap would dare to bring such a story. It was supposedly a true story, and very popular in Nijmegen in the 17th century, with at least 4 paintings surviving and an engraving from one of them. This is perhaps the least well painted of the four. Whether it is by Coevershof or not is not clear, but the value lies mainly in the anecdotical story, not in the artistic qualities anyway. It will struggle to get the estimate though, no reason why this work should be worth more in France than it was in its native Netherlands, certainly without any explanation of what it shows.

UPDATE: now, on 28 March 2017, again for sale at Versailles enchères, in France, with a correct description (subject and "After Coevershof", and the same estimate of 5,000 to 6,000 Euro. 

Jan Frans Beschey: artist of a 1750 portrait or dealer of a 1650 portrait?

Cuxhavener Auktionshalle, from Cuxhaven, Germany, sells on 29 October 2016 a "Jan Frans Beschey" portrait, estimated at 280 Euro. At the time of writing, it had already gotten 5 bids and was now at 530 Euro.

Jan Frans Beschey (1717-1787) was the youngest of the 4 painting Beschey brothers, and probably the least well-known. Balthasar, his teacher, is the most common name of them, the other two (Karel and Jacob Andries) are fairly obscure. . His name is also given as Jan François, Jean François, and Jan Franciscus. He worked for most of his adult life as an art dealer in London. After his death, a collection of 250 artworks was sold in Antwerp.

Jan Frans is usually associated with populated landscapes, which sell for 5,000 to 10,000 Euro. His portraits are less common, I could only find two examples: one was a portrait of a man (perhaps GF Handel), sold at Christie's in 2003 for $1,600, and the other is only attributed to Beschey (and seems more caricatural than his other works), and is kept in the amusingly named Royal Mineral Water Hospital.

The work at auction is signed on the frame, "Jan Francis Beschey / Antwerp". The English name for Antwerpen makes sense since he operated in England. I don't know whether he may have signed works he sold and framed in this way though, so whether this may be more logical as a retailer mark instead of a painter mark. If this is the case, then we have an interesting piece of evidence for his activities as a dealer, and an anonymous portrait.

The painting also has the remnants an intriguing label on the back. While these are often faked or later additions, it is always interesting to try to decipher them anyway, as they may contain valuable clues. "Le Prin... ...lones ...Va..k..." Not much useful there; apparently a portrait of a princess, and one would like to read "van Dyck" at the end of the second line, but that's wishful thinking.

Taking all of these clues together, and condisering the  style of the painting and the look of the sitter, I tend to believe that this is however not a painting by Beschey, but a much older painting sold (and perhaps reframed) by Beschey. It may be a portrait of a princess, and reminds me of similar depictions of Henrietta Stuart or Mary Stuart. It should be dated ca. 1650. It isn't by one of the great masters of the period, but a very pretty, confidently painted portrait nevertheless which should, even without knowing either sitter or artist, easily fetch 1,000 Euro. 

UPDATE: sold for 1,250 Euro, some 5 times the estimate. 

Why keep the French stubbornly insisting that these are Flemish?

Emeraude, from France, sells on 29 october a "Flemish School, 17th century" Annunciation, a small oil on copper estimated at 400 to 500 Euro.

It is the poor man's version of a work I discussed on my blog in June 2016; then it was also incorrectly described as Flemish. It was and remains a copy after Gentile da Fabriano, a purely Italian work. Considering the similarities in the two "French" versions, like the chair of the Virgin, some common origin (an engraving? A good copy after Da Fabriano?) may be postulated.

Value: not more than the estimate, surely, as it is a pretty poor painting.

"17th c. Northern School" is a copy after Teniers

Prunier, from France, sells on 13 November 2016 as lot 158 a "Northern School, 17th century" Gardener, a small panel (21 by 19cm) with the engraving it is based on, estimated at 1,500 to 2,000 Euro.

Many similar works can be found, most either an allegory of April or Spring (though one by Sebastiaen Vrancx is, incorrectly I think, given as an allegory of Autumn at the RKD: surely the leaves on the trees are spring-like, not autumn-like?; I added another Vrancx, this time described as Spring, as comparison) or as a moralistic mocking of working people.

The engraving has the text "Scaves ce qui rend le jardinier Gregoire, Si robuste, et content de son petit destin, c'est parce qu'il a soin de se donner à boire, autant et plus souvent qu'aux plantes du jardin", meaning something like "Know what makes the gardener Gregory, so robust and happy with his little fate; it's because he takes care to give himself to drink, as much and more often still than the plants in the garden". "Gregoire/Gregory" is obviously simply used to rhyme with "boire"...

What the auction house doesn't say, and is invisible on their small  images, is that the engraving is based on a Teniers painting. This could have saved me most work that went into this blog post :-)

Teniers has made many similar images of workers, beggars, madmen, ... shown full-length with a small bit of landscape beyond them; usually moralistic, sometimes more realistic, always interesting. The above is the original of the work for sale, and a similar gardener by him, supposedly an allegory of spring.

The painting for sale is one of many copies after Teniers, and is charming but not particularly good or rare. It will struggle to get the estimate probably.

"Antwerp Master" is Circle of Frans Pourbus the Younger

Plückbaum, from Germany, sells on 29 October 2016 as lot 1499 an "Antwerp Master,  late 16th c., ca. 1600" portrait of Vincenzo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, estimated at 1,600 Euro.

The portrait is a  weaker version of the many portraits painted of the duke by his court painter, Frans Pourbus the Younger. While not comparable to the best of the pourbus portraits, it still is a good example and may be described at the very least as Circle of Pourbus.

Sotheby's sold this year a Studio portrait of Vincenzo Gonzaga for $37,500 . It was better than the one here though.

Looking at the picture, it seems to be one of the later portraits of the duke, so closer to 1610 probably. It should be worth 3,000 to 4,000 Euro.

UPDATE: not sold, contrary to what I expected. Perhaps people think it is a much later copy?

The Primal Androgyne

Prunier, France, sells on 13 November 2016 as lot 131 a "Northern School, ca. 1550" Androgyny, a rather small (20 by 28cm) panel estimated at 10,000 to 15,000 Euro.

That estimate is not so much based on the artistic qualities of the work as on the highly unusual depiction.

I can't really find any similar examples; so the below should be taken with a grain of salt.

To me, it looks to be a depiction of Adam and Eve before they were split up. Huh? Well, according to some more obscure traditions, Adam and Eve were created together as one, before being divided. This is apparently an effort by some Rabbi of old to explain the difference between the two Creation of Man stories at the start of the Bible (Genesis). Yes, there are two of these, and finding an explanation that would make both literally true is not easy (well, it wasn't easy in the Middle Ages, it has of course become even harder nowadays).

I don't know whether the sources I will present are any good, but they do identify the story I mean, so here goes. Judaism.about.com tells us in "What Was the Androgyne?" about "a creature that existed at the beginning of Creation. It was both male and female and had two faces." The illustration with it is similar to the one for sale (not in any specifics, but in general). The website goes on to cite the solution: "R. Samuel b. Nahmani said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created him with two faces, then split him and made him two backs – a back for each side.” (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)" The image here also shows two naked figures, male and female, attached at the back (it's a fragment of a Greek vase). This was the so-called "primal androgyne". They continue with "A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where R. Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] sawed him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”"

The myth of the primal androgyn apparently originated somewhere in the 5th century, andd was well-known in Jewish and Christian Platonic circles in the Middle Ages. This is better exaplined in the book "Carnal Israel". 

Depictions of androgynous people are not uncommon in the Middle Ages, but usually they are simply two-headed figures. The subject is common enough to be dealt with in studies, as evidenced by this event at the University of York from 2014. It would be interesting to hear their view on this. 

Another possible explanation (which doesn't have to exclude the first one, paintings didn't always have only a single meaning) is that the painting is some sexual riddle. Well, having a nude man and woman is not really a riddle, but they both blow a horn, and the man has spurs as well. Of course, the expression "the beast with two backs" was already known in French in 1532 at the latest (according to Wikipedia). Obviously, the painting shows the reverse of the expression, but still I can't help but wonder whether it bears any relation to it. 

Value? No idea, it seems to be a very rare image but is it really some obscure apocryphal / kaballistic / gnostic image, or just some fun?

Prunier "Workshop of Raphael" drawing

Prunier, France, sells on 13 November 2016 in their very interesting auction of Medieval and Renaissance art as lot 120 an "Italian School, after Raphael" Saint George and the Dragon, a drawing of 23 by 31cm estimated at 6,000 to 8,000 Euro.

I don't really understand why they call it "Italian School, after Raphael" but then go on to list three eminent critics who all agree that it is "Workshop of Raphael, early 16th century". Paul Joannides is an art history professor at Cambridge and has in 1983 published the book "The Drawings of Raphael", so clearly an expert. Konrad Oberhuber died in 2007, but is described at the Dictionary of Art Historians as a Raphael expert (he was director of the Albertina). "Bodart" is presumably Diane Bodart, Assistant Professor of Italian Renaissance Art History at Columbia University. 

The drawing is based on Raphaels painting of the same subject. It dates from 1504, has about the same dimensions (31 by 27), and is kept in the Louvre. While the painting is larger vertically (and doesn't have the cut-off hooves for the horse), the drawing is wider and shows all of the dragon, not the somewhat awkward one of the painting. 

It also has some differences compared to the painting, e.g. the tail of the horse, and the skull and bones on the ground. It would be interesting to see X-ray pictures of the Louvre painting to compare them. 

The drawing given in Wikipedia as the preparation for this work is obviously for a different painting, the version now kept in the National Gallery in Washington. Still, it is interesting as comparison here.

Much more interesting is the drawing in the Uffizi. This is the same composition as the one for sale here, including the skull, the tail of the horse, and so on. The Uffizi version seems earlier, more searching, while the one for sale is more finalizing things, or simply copying the Uffizi version (though in any case a very good copy). The drawing is clearly not copied after the painting.

I'm no expert in Raphael or drawings, but when some of the most eminent Raphael experts claim it is from his Workshop, we have a link with a known Raphael painting and drawing, and the drawing for sale has a lot of quality and is in good condition, then the estimate seems very conservative to me.

Found origin for a "despairing Christ" from an earlier post

In June, I posted about an interesting auction in Sweden of the Lucinis Collection, with many old paintings for a reasonable price. There was one work in particular I commented on, "a work of considerable quality and originality, perhaps based on an unknown work by Mostaert or someone from the Francken family." It was estimated at 1,100 Euro and sold for 2,800 Euro.

Looking back at it now, I still thnk this was cheap for this unusual work. However, while researching another Ecce Homo, I cam across a painting I must have known but didn't link with the Lucinis work.

It's an Ecce Homo or "Christ as the Man of Sorrows" by Albrecht Dürer from 1483, now in the Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe. The composition, while not identical, is way too close to be an accidental likeness.

"Emmanuel Noterman" is "Zacharie Noterman" instead

Jordaens, from Belgium, sells on 25 October 2016 an "Emmanuel Noterman", signed, a small panel (15 by 21 cm) estimated at 100 to 180 Euro.

It is actually a work by his younger brother Zacaharie (or Zacharias) Noterman instead. Emmanuel lived from 1808 to 1863, Zacharie from 1820 to 1890. Their works are fairly similar, but in general Zacharie is somewhat better and more sought after.

This is a sketch, perhaps means as preparation for a larger panel but obviously good enough to be signed. To me, it is very appealing, much more lively than the finished works, and show his great technical skill. These kind of works are not great art, they are typical commercial genre works where the older moralising message has been turned into amusement only; but one can still easily see why they were popular, and it would still be a great thing to hang on a wall somewhere (though not a large wall obviously).

I haven't found similar sketches by Zacharie in recent sales, but it should be worth 600 to 1,000 Euro. A painting which was about twice as big (and hence more detailed, more polished) sold for nearly $6,000 at Doyle in 2014.

UPDATE: now for sale at Horta (20 February 2017), as Zacharie Noterman, with an estimate of 350 to 500 Euro only.  Which is more than three times the Jordaens estimate, but still below what I thought it would be worth. No idea what it sold for at Jordaens!

"Dutch or Flemish, possibly based on Abraham Blomaert" is copy after Rubens

La Suite Subastas, from Spain, sells on 27 October 2016 a "Dutch or Flemish School, last third of the 17th entury" Virgin and child, "Possibly following the models of the Virgin and Child by the Dutch painter Abraham Blomaert (1566 - 1651)", estimated at 3,000 to 5,000 Euro.

It has nothing to do with Bloemaert and simply is a copy after Rubens, a Virgin and Child with versions in the Hermitage and the Metrolopitan Museum, so not some obscure work. I already discussed this work in a blog post in February 2015.

This version is allright, nothing exceptional but not the worst either. The estimate may be slightly too high.

They have the same problem with their lot 50, a "16th Cnetury Flemish School" which is also a copy after Rubens (and so obviously not 16th century). It's not the first time that copies after this Rubens have been described as 16th century for some reason, I described a similar situation in August 2015.  The estimate of 5,000 to 7,000 is too high for this copy.

'English School, 19th century" is by John Crawford Brown

DVC, from Gent, Belgium, sells on 22 October 2016 an "English School, 19th century, illegibly signed" "Shipwrecked", a large (102 by 143 cm) canvas estimated at 1,000 to 2,000 Euro.

A hard to read label at the back identifies the painter as John C. Brown RSA, which stands for John Crawford Brown (1805-1867), Glaswegian landscape, genre and historical painter who was relatively well-known in his time but who is nowadayw more obscure, perhaps due to the very small number of works by him that appear on the market. I'm usually wary of such labels on the back, which are an easier way to fake attribution and history, but in this case I see no reason to doubt it. It also identifies the subject as the wreck of the Spanish Armada.

In 1997, his "Return from Waterloo", of similar dimensions, was sold for £6,000 at Sotheby's. I would estimate this work at about the same price.

"Circle of Lely" portrait: a 1665 version of a 1630 portrait?

Mallams, from the UK, sells on 19 October 2016 a "Circle of Peter Lely" portrait of Elizabeth Cockayne, estimated at £700 to £900.

There are a few mysteries around this work. Mallams correctly point out that a portrait of the same sitter together with her husband is housed in the Valence House Museum in London.

The sitters in the two works are clearly the same, with the same pose and the same dress. Normally I would conclude that the solo portrait is a copy after the portrait of the couple, but as the solo portrait is better and considerably larger (65 by 56cm, compared to 40 by 50 cm for the full couple painting), it may well be that the portrait now for sale is the original and the one at Valence a composition of two individual portraits.

The portrait at Valence is described as "This is Thomas Fanshawe's second marriage portrait (there is another portrait in the Collection of him with his first wife Margaret Heath, painted by Peter Lely). The exact date of the marriage between Thomas and Elizabeth is not known, but it must be after 1682 when Elizabeth is mentioned in documents relating to Thomas. Elizabeth was one of the 16 children of Thomas, 1st Viscount Fanshawe, and Elizabeth Cockayne, and her husband Thomas was a distant cousin of hers, as they shared a great grandfather in Thomas Fanshawe, second Remembrancer, although through different great grandmothers."

However, the one for sale has the above label identifying the sitter. If the label is correct, the above double portrait is not of Elisabeth Fanshawe, daughter of Thomas 1st Viscount Fanshawe, wife of Sir Thomas Fanshawe of Jenkins (dating the portrait after 1682), but a portrait of Elizabeth Cockaine, 2nd wife of Thomas 1st Viscount Fanshawe, dating the portrait at ca. 1631 (their first child was born in 1632, and this is probably a marriage portrait).

We can compare the portrait at Valence with the known portrait of the 1st Viscount by Mary Beale; the Beale portrait is probably closer to the end of his life, and certainly after 1650. They could be the same person, but it's hard to be certain.  The third painting is by Sir Peter Lely and dates from ca. 1660. Again, could be the same, but far from certain.

Mary Beale also helpfully painted a portrait of the second candidate: Thomas Fanshawe of Jenkins, the supposed sitter in the Valence portrait. To me, this one seems less similar to the Valence portrait than the 1st Viscount.

The Valence Museum itself has another portrait of Fanshawe of Jenkins, by Peter Lely. This matches the above (somewhat later) Beale portrait, but doesn't seem to match the Valence mariage portrait.

Another problem with the Valence double portrait is that Thomas Fanshawe of Jenkins was born in 1628, and only married his Elizabeth Fanshawe in 1682, when he was 54 years old. The above portrait is not of someone of that age, and while portraits often were idealized, this seems a bit farfetched as an explanation in this case.

So, to me it seems quite certain that the portrait for sale and the double (marriage) portrait in the Valence House Museum are of Elizabeth Cockaine / Cockayne and Thomas Fanshawe, the 1st Viscount, as the label on the portrait indicates. This would date the portrait to ca. 1630, removing it from the circle of Peter Lely (born in 1618)

With such a date, one automatically comes to the Circle of Anthony Van Dyck instead. The first wife of the st Viscount, Anne Alington, was encore painted by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, probably the best portrait painter in England of the previous generation, indicating (together with the other portraits shown here) that the family of Fanshawe employed only the best. 

The portrait for sale is obviously much more modern than the Gheeraerts above. Interesting is the portrait of Anne Cockayne, sister of Elizabeth. Their father was Lord Mayor of London and obviously very wealthy. The portrait is attributed to a Follower of Van Dyck.

The main problem with my whole theory is that the painting would be very modern for ca. 1630, and more in style for 1680. Enigma! Perhaps it is a portrait of the 1630 Elisabeth Fanshawe née Cockayne, painted ca. 1680? Not impossible, but a bit strange nevertheless.

It should be worth the estimate as a 1680 portrait, and a lot more as a 1630 portrait.

UPDATE: I've been thinking about this some more, and am not really comfortable describing it as ca. 1630 either, because the style of painting doesn't fit. So, on second thoughts (and considering the label on the painting), perhaps this is a portrait of Elizabeth Cockayne, based on the marriage portrait, but painted shortly after her death by a Lely-esque painter (this would also match the more greyish mourning colours of the dress)? I've changed the title of this blog post accordingly.

UPDATE: sold for £6,800 or nearly 10 times the estimate, so I'm clearly not the only one who noticed this painting.