Completed Continental European before 1800 28 Did Matthieu van Helmont paint 'Village Green', previously attributed to David Teniers II?

WYR_KLMUS_1985_2578
Topic: Artist

This painting was, for many years, attributed to David Teniers II and on display at Red House Museum in Gomersal, which has recently closed. Before rehanging it in one of our other venues, we would like to clarify the attribution.

Kirklees Museums and Galleries, Entry reviewed by Art UK

Completed, Outcome

Edward Stone,

This discussion is now closed. The painting has been retitled ‘A Village Catechism’ and is now listed as a copy of David Ryckaert III (1612–1661).

Thank you to all for participating in this discussion. To those viewing this discussion for the first time, please see below for all comments that led to this conclusion.

27 comments

Toby Campbell,

This looks like a poor copy of a painting by someone around David Rijckaert III. I don't believe it will be possible to attribute this to anyone in full.

This is an interesting subject. Why it is called Village Green is unclear. It seems to show a teacher (or preacher?) and assistant with a group of children either being taught out of doors or gathered outside the village school.

Kirklees Museums and Galleries,

To give a bit more background. The painting was bequeathed to the gallery in the 1960s along with two others works, one attributed to David Seghers:
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/head-of-a-girl-22151
and another attributed to Anthony Van Dyck: https://www.artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-an-unknown-woman-portrait-of-a-widow-22239
The three works were previously owned by Lord Brotherton who acquired them from a dealer he described as "Our Willie" whose identity remains unknown. All three of these works are questionable.

I wonder if its more a 'catechism'/ public exam of some sort in the square by the village priest, the church being prominent on the left. The priest figure holds a book or papers and appears to be focused on the girl standing on the stool, who seems to be crossing herself. A bare-headed boy to her right is looking at a paper, as is the hatted one next but one on the right (ie. a case of 'your turn next') The boy bending over in front is carrying a very large book (bible?).

Beth Meese,

Just sad to learn that the Red House Museum at Gomersal has closed. My grandchildren loved it.

This has the air of being to be one of those things that could hang around a long while without getting anywhere on the original issue of who really painted it. It's not my area but I suggest to the collection that they consider 'A village catechism/ catechism lesson' or similar as a possible alternative title -which is more ilikely than 'A village green' (which it clearly is not) - and it would be useful if someone who knows their religious dress could suggest which brand of religion and specific location and rough date we might be looking at.

Hugo Platt,

This is definitely a copy of a painting by David Ryckaert III. The painting by Ryckaert is in a private collection in the UK and was restored by us, KSH Conservation Ltd, a number of years ago. That painting was signed by Ryckaert and dated 1641.
I agree that the subject is the teaching of the catechism. I identified the figure holding the book as St Ignatius Loyola. This was based on the likeness of the figure's facial features and the high collared cloak to engravings of St. Ignatius made in Antwerp by members of the Wierix family. These engravings are broadly contemporary to the Ryckaert painting. I am very happy to share this research in more detail, if it would be helpful.

Thank you for that Hugo (and thereby confirming Toby's initial good shot at re-attribution). In the circumstances it might be best if -through Art UK's good offices- you and Kirklees have a private exchange and the latter then say here how they would like to retitle it, after being better informed on your research and identification of Loyola.

Jacinto Regalado,

While this is a somewhat crude copy, I cannot find any work by David Rijckaert III on ArtUK, so it would seem worthwhile to put even such a (presumably contemporary) copy on public display.

Jacinto Regalado,

Well, at least the subject matter and title now appear established. Based on what I can see on Google images, this picture seems more like Apshoven than Rijckaert, but I expect it could be by either.

I am not sure the subject is that firmly established (the 'title' is a more subjective thing). The idea of a catechism seems much more likely than preaching, as Pieter's analysis suggested some months ago. While we certainly cannot attribute it (or even judge their quality from the online images), it is clear that the van Apshoven is a closer model; the historial relationship between that and the Rijckaert needs to be established. Perhaps Hugo Platt could share more of his research in this discussion.

Jacinto Regalado,

There is only one work by Apshoven (attributed to, actually) listed in ArtUK, in Glasgow.

Osmund Bullock,

Andrew, though the measurements given are slightly slightly different, and there's no illustration, the van Apshoven version on Artnet may well be this work sold at Christie's Amsterdam in May 1999: http://bit.ly/2xVNWGC . It's apparently autograph (signed and dated 1655).

Perhaps it would help to deal with the two issues of 'subject/title' and 'artist' separately.

On the former it looks beyond reasonable doubt a 'catechism' - either a lesson or 'viva voce' exam: to my reading it's likely to be the latter. The girl standing on the stool and crossing herself is either just starting to recite it or has just finished; the other children will take their turn, with adults as other audience and witness.

The only other refinement in terms of how it is described/titled is whether in general terms or specifically identifying St Ignatius Loyola as the presiding VIP visitor to the village, as suggested by Hugo's research.


No-one has yet suggested it is more than a copy (i.e by an unidentified hand) of another picture with two images now produced as sources, one dated 1641 by Rijkaert and one of 1655 by Apshoven. If the latter is closer in terms of detail (I've not looked) the date situation can only mean that both these also relate to some third 'original' earlier than 1641, be it an earlier 'version' by Apshoven or something so far undiscovered by yet another hand.

In sum, resolving a subject/sensible title for the Kirklees image ought to be relatively simple even if both their artist and that of the prime original remains TBC.

James Mitchell,

Isn't this all getting a bit 'kunsthistorisch'...?! It's a very weak painting at the end of the day, and isn't worth more than a few thousand pounds if sold on the open market. In the vast treasure trove encompassed by Art UK, there are many paintings more worthy of analysis and discussion.

If I can comment on the purpose of Art Detective, I am pleased to say that value has nothing to do with it, while the opportunity for participants worldwide to engage in and contribute to some aspects of 'art history', within the well-understood if frustrating limitations of the project', is all important.

Indeed, arguably, it is the most 'valuable' paintings that are most likely to have already been the subject of much research and thus less likely to achieve results on AD. Compare for example the lack of progress on the discussion "Who are the subjects in this Tintoretto painting of Apollo?" with today’s success with "Who is the subject of this portrait by David Waterson (1870–1954)?". Local subjects are as important to local museums as the old masters are to the nationals.

On the other hand, we would certainly welcome proposals for new discussions from James.

Jacinto Regalado,

Van Helmont, Rijckaert III and Apshoven were all strongly influenced by David Teniers II. If the Rijckaert version is from 1641, it is unlikely to be after an earlier version by Apshoven, who was born in 1622. Apshoven's 1655 version is more likely to be after Rijckaert or possibly Teniers II, who was Apshoven's teacher.

OK: then logically, if the 1641 Rijkaert III is less like our image than the 1655 one stated above as 'attributed to' Apshoven and (as you say, based on d.o.b. he's not likely to have done one before 1641 -or indeed Helmont either, since b. 1643), the wheel is turning back to the original being by a third party - even if the hand here can't be pinned down. That original is axiomatically not a known David Teniers II, or -picking up on James's point - this 'kunsthistorisheslikeit' (if that's not German, it should be) wouldn't be going on as it has; but 'follower of David Teniers II' would at least then be a rational potential pro tem conclusion - since everyone else mentioned seems to be.

And can a title be resolved pleased: what's being shown is 'A village catechism' not 'A village green' -if Kirklees and Hugo can discuss the St Ignatius aspect, and whether he's in or out of that.

Jacinto Regalado,

Van Helmont was born in 1623 according to all the references I have seen, but like Apshoven, he's not likely to have painted a version of this picture before 1641.

Thanks Tim: are you thereby implying this should be wound up on th basis that the Ryckaert of 1641 has been identified in a private UK collection -so this is 'after' - and there is a suggestion for a more accurate title?

Edward Stone,

Kirklees Museums and Galleries has been contacted about Tim's recommendation that this work is a copy of David Ryckaert III (more of his work can be seen here: http://bit.ly/2j5TFX4). The collection has also been asked to comment on the question of the title.

Kirklees Museums and Galleries,

Thanks to everyone for the informative and insightful contributions. I think we should change the attribution as suggested by Edward and revise the title as it clearly not a Village Green.