Completed Continental European before 1800 11 Spanish or Flemish? Can a better attribution be found for this painting?

Descent from the Cross
Topic: Artist

This is the left side of a known larger composition: http://www.artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-dead-christ-supported-by-the-virgin-and-saint-john-115543

The collection comments: ‘This picture is painted on two planks of oak and a third plank, bearing the figure of Saint John is missing, but his right hand under Christ's right arm and some of his hair on Christ's left shoulder can be clearly seen in the Bury painting, indicating his former presence.

There is a photograph of another version of this painting in the Witt Library.

The existing title is inaccurate and should perhaps be changed; "The Dead Christ Supported by The Virgin Mary", possibly?

The attribution is still uncertain. My view is that the panel is probably by a Spanish artist who was relying on Flemish prototypes. In the records in Bury it is referred to as a “Flemish” panel with an initial attribution to Gerard David. The restricted colour range and exaggerated piety of the work made me think that it might be by a Spanish painter who had access to Flemish devotional panels in art collections in Spain, as there was an interchange of work between Spain and the Spanish Netherlands; it is known for instance that Queen Isabella of Castile collected Flemish art.

My initial thoughts were Luis de Morales, or Pedro Machuca, however a letter from the Museo de Bellas Artes de Granada has disabused me of this thought, so the subject is still open. The version in the National Gallery is quite brightly coloured, which makes the Bury version look even more fervidly Spanish!’

The ascetic tone of the fragment could be explained by the fact that it is the least colourful part of the whole composition – as shown by the National Gallery version. The National Gallery has recently published a new catalogue of its sixteenth-century Netherlandish paintings – no doubt this would contain Lorne Campbell's thoughts on the origin of the composition and its reproduction in that area.

It may be that a resolution to the question of authorship of this work can only be achieved through consultation with experts in the field of early sixteenth-century Netherlandish painting. As Bury no doubt realise this subject is complicated; Antwerp being the principal centre for the extensive production of the period, with many studios led by artists, such as the Master of the Prodigal Son, whose actual names have not yet been discovered.

To complicate things further, it was the practice, I believe, for cartoons of works – such as that likely to have been used in the case of this panel and its many versions – to pass from master to pupil. Further, given the connections between the Netherlands and Spain in the period, it is not impossible for this work to have been produced in Spain as suggested by Bury's curator.

Completed, Outcome

This discussion is now closed. This painting has been identified as a partial copy of the painting in the National Gallery, 'Pietà' by the Master of the Prodigal Son (NG266). It is not thought to be an autograph work and has been recorded as 'after the Master of the Prodigal Son'.

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

10 comments

This painting is the left hand section of one of a number of copies of a painting of the Pieta in the National Gallery, London, no. 266, ascribed to the Master of the Prodigal Son, active in Antwerp c. 1550, whose hand is defined by a picture in Vienna. This artist had a very productive workshop, which produced many versions of his compositions. The quality does not suggest that this is an autograph replica. I believe this should bring this discussion to a close.

Al Brown,

Tim, as you will see my original query referred to the National Gallery example - which was unknown to the collection and is not recorded in the NICE entry - and resulted in the discussion between us posted above. I understood that Bury were not entirely convinced of the Flemish origin and so requested more information.

Al, I understand that, but the attribution of the NG picture was not recorded in the discussion, so it seemed sensible to define it. The resemblance of the fragment they have to the NG picture is precise, so there is no doubt of the Flemish origin. If the curator cares to look at the back of the panel, which must presumably be about a centimetre thick and made of oak, he or she should look for the three hand mark of the Antwerp guild.

Bury Art Museum,

Richard Burns, Curator, Bury Art Museum & Sculpture Centre
Thank you everybody for this discussion. The similarities of the Bury panel to the panel in the National Gallery's collection attributed to the Master of the Prodigal Son are indeed persuasive. I am happy to set aside my earlier reservations and accept this attribution. The accessions register has now been amended and the artist's file changed. I am very pleased with this outcome. It would be great to eliminate the 'Unknown Artists' file altogether, but I am not so optimistic to think that this will happen any time soon.

Al Brown,

Is the work being listed as "studio of", as in the National Gallery's version? I think, for the moment, this would be prudent.

Jacinto Regalado,

It would appear this discussion could be closed, but it has not been in the year since the last comment, and although Bury Art Museum changed its own records, the ArtUK listing/entry remains unaltered.

Jacinto, we can only update Art UK's record after the group leader's recommendation to the PCF and subsequent closure of the discussion, even if the owning collection has changed its own information in the meantime.

Jacinto Regalado,

Thank you, Marion. I am sure there are rules to be followed, but I thought perhaps it had gone unnoticed that this particular question or problem had apparently been resolved.

Tim Llewellyn quickly identified this as a partial copy of the painting in the National Gallery, 'Pietà' by the Master of the Prodogal Son, NG266. Tim thought it was not of sufficient quality to be 'autograph', which I take to mean from his workshop, so would best be described as 'After the Master of the Prodigal Son'.