Collection du prince de Liechtenstein, Vaduz, n° A. 1063 ;

Collection du Dr. F. Ludwig, Berne, en 1969 ;

Collection particulière, Suisse ;

Galerie De Jonckheere, Paris ;

Acquis auprès de cette dernière par les parents des actuels propriétaires en 2004 ;

Collection particulière, France

F. J. Van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Schilderschool, I, Anvers, 1883, p. 442

G. Glück, Breugels Gemälde, Vienne, 1932, p. 56, sous le n° 27

Georges Marlier, Pierre Brueghel le Jeune, Bruxelles, 1969, p. 51, fig. 17 et p. 55, n° 4

Klaus Ertz, Jan Brueghel der Ä. Die Gemälde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog, Cologne, 1979, note 717

Klaus Ertz, Pieter Brueghel der Jüngere (1564-1637/38). Die Gemälde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog, Lingen, 1988/2000, t. I, p. 373, n° E 333, repr.

In his catalogue raisonné of the works of Pieter Brueghel the Younger, Klaus Ertz lists no fewer than 31 paintings on the theme of the Sermon of Saint John the Baptist. It is now widely accepted that the original composition, from which the many versions of this subject were inspired, is the painting in the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest (Inv. 51.2829), painted by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c. 1525-1569) and dated 1566 (fig. 1). With the example (fig.2) painted by Jan Brueghel the Elder (1578-1625), dated 1598 and kept at the Alte Pinakothek in Munich (Inv. 834), and those of his brother Pieter Brueghel the Younger - Klaus Ertz counts six that are dated, including ours - the deployment of this iconography by the three most eminent representatives of the famous dynasty stretches from 1566 to 1636 (1). It is against the backdrop of this long-running success that we need to analyse the place occupied by the important panel we are presenting here today.

When Pieter Brueghel the Elder first created this composition - in 1566, according to the only known copy - the Netherlands was going through a period of turmoil. Religious tensions, fuelled by the Reformation, combined with a political crisis that Spanish rule could no longer contain. That year, the Dutch revolt, followed by iconoclastic fury, set the country ablaze, marking the start of a war from which it would not emerge until eighty years later. Commentators on this painting have therefore reasonably sought the meaning of its iconography in these episodes. On the edge of a forest, a dense assembly in cosmopolitan garb crowds around John the Baptist with varying degrees of attention, announcing the coming of the Messiah. A prophecy that was fraught with meaning in this religiously torn 16th century. Two opinions have emerged from the debates surrounding the interpretation of this painting (2). While the first suggests that the painting represents a sermon given by the Reformed (3), as was happening throughout the Flemish countryside at the time, the second, formulated by Emeric Katona (4), clarifies the reasoning. In this case, the painter is affiliated to the Anabaptist movement, and his painting should be seen as a faithful man's profession of faith towards his church. Although the first proposal seems more credible, the enigma is not completely resolved. This is why we have to accept a third possibility, put forward by Jacqueline Folie on the occasion of the famous 1980 exhibition (5). In an attempt to explain the composition's success with the clientele of early seventeenth-century Antwerp, which had been freed of its Protestant component since their expulsion from the city in 1588, her interpretation claims to be more universal. The assembly is thus assimilated to the whole of humanity, as attested by the diversity of its characters, their costumes and their attitudes.

Another, even more important, controversy arose from the question of the extent of the two sons' knowledge of their father's work. If we disregard the more personal version by Jan Brueghel the Elder the similarity between the Budapest painting and the later versions - right down to the rigorous repetition of colours - strongly suggests that the latter was well known to the author of the former. As early as 1955 (6), this theory was justified by the presence, in the inventory of Archduchess Isabella's possessions, of a “Sermon of Saint John by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 4^7/11 feet high, wide by 7^2/11 wide (7) identified with the Budapest painting. Although located by Auner in the collection of the Batthyány family in Budapest as early as 1570 (8), it very probably remained in Brussels for longer, where Pieter II discovered it. Unless he went to the imperial palace, where he could have seen his father's painting, the mere transmission of drawings remaining in the studio would seem to be an insufficient argument to explain the perfect proximity between the latter and our panel.

It is important to remember that Pieter Brueghel the Elder was considered to be a leading painter in his lifetime, but even more so in the years following his somewhat premature death, and was particularly renowned for his stylistic and thematic innovations. This tremendous success was fuelled in the second half of the 16th century by the enthusiasm of prestigious collectors, foremost among them the emperors Ferdinand I (1556-1564) and Maximilian II (1527-1576). This interest provided his eldest son, the heir to his workshop, with the key to commercial success through the circulation of these innovative works. This phenomenon was all the more pronounced in Antwerp, where the workshop logic inherent in the organisation of the profession ensured that any popular composition could be reproduced in series.

Our panel stands out, however, for a particular feature that deserves to be developed in greater detail. Unlike the two previous dated examples (9), a figure present in the original composition has been deliberately omitted (fig. 3). This elegantly dressed man in the foreground, who looks at the viewer while having his palm read, seems to no longer be to the taste of the people commissioning the work. Georges Marlier explains his absence by referring to ‘the irreverent attitude of this man, who allows himself to be told the future in his hand at the very moment when the great Prophet is foretelling the destiny of all mankind’ (10). Michael Auner identifies him with Marguerite of Parma's secret adviser, Thomas Armenteros (11) and Fritz Grossmann links palmistry, a practice prescribed by Calvin, to an act of resistance by an opponent of the Reformed religion (12). So many avenues of reflection from which only one conclusion can emerge: the one often referred to as ‘the Spaniard” was not to appear in works produced after 1620 (13).

Although the composition of our panel is linked to the immense personality of the founder of the Brueghel dynasty, it is the son's hand that is responsible for its excellent workmanship. It has come down to us in a perfect state of conservation, and is one of the most extraordinary pieces in the corpus of the preaching of St John the Baptist painted by Peter Brueghel the Younger. An emblematic testimony to the artistic prosperity of Antwerp in the first half of the 17th century, this painting brings us a message of universal brotherhood from the depths of a Flemish forest, a message that has lost none of its relevance.

1 – The version dated 1636 being the one in a private collection in Esslingen (see Klaus Ertz, Die Gemälde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog, Lingen, 1988, T. I, p. 374, cat. E 335).

2 – Idem, p. 370-371

3 – Gustav Glück, Das grosse Brueghel-Werk, Vienna, Munich, 1963, p. 84

4 – Emeric Katona, « La Prédication de Saint Jean-Baptiste de Breugel », in Bulletin du Musée Hongrois d. Beaux-Arts, n° 22, 1963, pp. 41-69.

5 – Jacqueline Folie, Brueghel. Une dynastie de peintres, exh. cat. Brussels, 18 September – 18 November 1980, p. 143, cat. n° 79.

6 – Fritz Grossmann, Brueghel, The Paintings, London, 1955, p. 343.

7 – Dominique Allart, L’Entreprise Brueghel, Maastricht, Brussels, 2002, p. 50, doc. 20.

8 – M. Auner, « Pieter Brueghel. Umrisse eines Lebensbildes », dans Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, n° 52, 1956, pp. 117-118.

9 – The one in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn (inv. n° G.K. 34) is dated to 1601, and the one in the Hermitage in Saint Petersbourg is dated 1604.

10 –Georges Marlier, Pierre Brueghel le Jeune, Brussels, 1969, p. 54.

11 – Michel Auner, Op. cit., pp. 109-118.

12 – Fritz Grossmann, Pieter Brueghel. Complete Edition of the Paintings, London, 1973, p. 200.

13 – The versions in the Stedelijk Museum Wuyts-Van Campen in Baron Caroly (inv. n°44) in Lier, Belgium dated 1624, and the one in a private collection in Esslingen (see Klaus Ertz, Op. cit., p. 374, cat. E335) do not show him.