The Global Journal of Prints and Ideas November – December 2015

Volume 5, Number 4

US $30

On Copying

In

1

--

-

-

2

-

-

Not Manzoni

--

--

Art in Print

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

Art in Art in Print Market Forces

-

Holland on Paper in the Age of Art Nouveau

Lyonel Feininger: Woodcuts: Becom-ing a Bauhaus Artist

Posters: A Global His-tory -

How Posters Work

Makeup Myriorama

-

-

I am concerned with a thing’s not being what it was, with its becoming some-thing other than what it is, with any moment in which one identifies a thing precisely and with the slipping away of that moment, with at any moment seeing or saying and letting it go at that.3

Susan Tallman is the Editor-in-Chief of Art in Print.

Notes:1. “Repeat/Recreate: Clyfford Still’s ‘Replicas,’ ” 18 Sep 2015–10 Jan 2016.2. W.C. Brownell, “The Art Schools of Philadel-phia,” 1879, cited in James K. McNutt, “Plaster Casts after Antique Sculpture: Their Role in the Elevation of Public Taste and in American Art Instruction,” Studies in Art Education, spring 1990, 165.3. Johns, quoted in “Interview with G.R. Swen-son,” in Theories and Documents of Contem-porary Art, ed. Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz (University of California Press, 1996), 324.

Sons of ’s-Hertogenbosch: Hieronymus Bosch’s Local Legacy in PrintBy Marisa Bass and Elizabeth Wyckoff

T

-1

-

-

2

-

3

Commentaries on Painting

4

-5

-6

-

7

--

--

-

-8

Left: Cornelis Cort, The Painter Hieronymus Bosch, in Pictorum aliquot celebrium Germaniae inferioris effigies (1572), engraving, 18.6 x 12.2 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Right: Pieter van der Heyden (after Pieter Bruegel the Elder), Big Fish Eat Little Fish (1557), engraving, 23 x 30 cm. Private collection.

5

-

-

-9 [see Art in Print

10 -

Big Fish Eat Little Fish

-

--

Big Fish

11

-

-

Besieged Elephant

12

-

-13 Saint

Christopher Last Judgment

14 The Besieged Ele-phant

-

15

16 -

17 -

--

18 -

Monstrance-

Above: Alart du Hameel, Saint Christopher (n.d.), engraving, 19.9 x 33.7 cm. Private collection, courtesy of Nicholas Stogdon. Below: Alart du Hameel, Last Judgment (n.d.), engraving, 23.6 x 34.7 cm. The British Museum, London, 1845,0809.436. ©The Trustees of The British Museum, London.

6

The Besieged Elephant --

19

20 -

21 -

Garden of Earthly Delights

-

-22

The Besieged Elephant

-

23

Besieged Elephant

-24

Above: Alart du Hameel, Besieged Elephant (n.d.), engraving, 20.3 x 33.6 cm. The British Museum, London, 1845,0809.439. ©The Trustees of The British Museum, London. Left: Alart du Hameel, Monstrance (n.d.), engraving, printed on four sheets from bottom to top: 11.5 x 26.6 cm, 30.7 x 21.1 cm, 33.4 x 21.1 cm, 34.4 x 15.7 cm. ©Albertina, Vienna.

7

25

-

-

-

The Besieged Elephant26

Right: Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights (c. 1500–05), oil on panel, 220 x 390 cm. Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid. ©Museo del Prado / Art Resource, NY. Below: Joannes van Doetecum the Elder and Lucas van Doetecum (after Alart du Hameel), Besieged Elephant (n.d.), etching and engrav-ing, 39.5 x 54.3 cm. Private collection.

27

The Besieged Elephant

-

-28

Besieged Elephant -

29

-

30

Above: Balthasar van den Bos, The Conjuror (or Charlatan) (n.d.), engraving, 24.6 x 31.9 cm. Private collection. Below: Follower of Hieronymus Bosch, The Charlatan (recto) (n.d.), pen and brown ink, 27.8 x 20.6 cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris. ©RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY.

-

The Besieged Ele-phant

Conjuror

The Conjuror -

-

31

Follower of Hieronymus Bosch, The Charlatan (n.d.), oil on panel, 53 × 65 cm. Municipal Museum, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France. ©Scala / Art Resource, NY.

32

33

-

The Conjuror34

The Conjuror as The Charlatan,

-

35

-

Conjuror -

-

Besieged Elephant

-

The Conjuror

-

The Conjuror --

36

Left: Follower of Hieronymus Bosch, The Charlatan (16th century), oil on panel, 105.4 x 138.7 cm. Philadelphia Museum of Art, purchased with the W. P. Wilstach Fund, 1914. Right: School of Hieronymus Bosch, The Conjurer (after 1500), oil on panel, 84 x 114 cm. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Bequest of Oliver O. and Marianne Ostier, New York, to the America-Israel Cultural Foundation. B77.0069. Photo ©The Israel Museum, Jerusalem by Elie Posner.

-

-

ingenium-

37

ingenium ingenium

38

-

ie

39

--

The ConjurorBig Fish in

.40 --

-

-

-

-

Besieged Elephant Conjuror

-

-

-

-

Conjuror

-

Marisa Bass is Assistant Professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a specialist in the art of the early modern Netherlands.

Elizabeth Wyckoff is Curator of Prints, Drawings and Photographs at the Saint Louis Art Museum.

Notes:1. The text of the poem reads: “Quid sibi vult, Hieronyme Boschi, / ille oculus tuus attonitus? quid / pallor in ore? velut lemures si / spectra Erebi volitantia cora[m] / aspiceres? tibi ditis avari / crediderim patuisse recessus / Tartareasque domos tua quando / quicquid habet sinus imus Averni / tam potuit bene pingere dextra.” Domini-cus Lampsonius, Pictorum aliquot celebrium Ger-maniae inferioris effigies (Antwerp: the widow of Hieronymus Cock, 1572), no. 3. See also Manfred Sellink, Cornelis Cort, in The New Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etching, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450–1700, edited by Huigen Leeflang (Rotter-dam: Sound and Vision, 2000), no. 223. 2. “…Jheronimi van Aken, schilder ofte maelder die hem selver scrift Jheronimus Bosch,” as recorded in the ledgers of the Confraternity of Our Lady in 1509–10. See G. C. M. van Dijck, Op zoek naar Jheronimus van Aken, alias Bosch, de feiten: familie, vrienden en opdrachtgevers ca. 1400–ca. 1635 (Zaltbommel: Europese Bibliotheek, 2001), 182; Ester Vink, “Hieronymus Bosch’s Life in ’s-Hertogenbosch,” in Jos Koldeweij, Bernard Vermet, and Barbera van Kooij, eds., Hieronymus Bosch: New Insights into his Life and Work (Rot-terdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2001), 19n6. For further discussion of Bosch’s signature, see also Tobias Burg, Die Signatur: Formen und Funktionen vom Mittelalter bis zum 17. Jahrhun-dert (Berlin: Lit-Verlag, 2007), 427–34.3. The most comprehensive study of painted cop-ies after Bosch remains Gerd Unverfehrt, Hiero-nymus Bosch: Die Rezeption seiner Kunst im frühen 16. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Mann, 1980). See also Matthijs Ilsink, Bosch en Bruegel als Bosch: kunst over kunst bij Pieter Bruegel (c. 1528–1569) en Jheronimus Bosch (c. 1450–1516) (Nijmegen: Uitgeverij Orange House, 2009); Larry Silver, “Second Bosch: Family Resemblance and the Marketing of Art,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 31–56; Larry Silver, Hiero-nymus Bosch (New York: Abbeville Press, 2006), 361–97; and most recently, Tobias Pfeifer-Helke et al., Hieronymus Boschs Erbe (Dresden: Staatli-chen Kunstsammlungen Dresden, 2015).4. Felipe de Guevara, Commentarios de la Pin-tura, in F. J. Sánchez Cantón, ed., Fuentes literar-ias para la historia del arte Español, vol. 1 (Madrid: Imprenta Clásica Española, 1923), 159–61, esp. 159. For English translation, see James Synder, Bosch in Perspective (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1997), 28–30.5. Fra José de Sigüenza, Historia de la Orden de San Jerónimo, in Nueva Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, vol. 12 (Madrid: Bailly-Baillière, 1909), 635–39; for English translation, see Synder, Bosch in Perspective, 34–41.

6. There was nothing unusual about Bosch’s lack of involvement with printmaking, as this was true for most painters in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. In the Netherlands, only the genera-tion of painters who came of age during the last decade of Bosch’s life, such as Lucas van Ley-den and Jan Gossart, began to experiment and engage with the new medium. See Larry Silver, “Graven Images: Reproductive Engravings as Visual Models,” in Timothy Riggs and Larry Silver, eds., Graven Images: The Rise of Professional Printmakers in Antwerp and Haarlem, 1540–1640 (Evanston: Mary and Leigh Block Gallery, North-western University, 1993), 1–3; and Nadine Orenstein, “Gossart and Printmaking,” in Maryan W. Ainsworth, ed., Man, Myth, and Sensual Plea-sures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance. The Complete Works (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 105–12. 7. Marisa Bass and Elizabeth Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch: The Afterlife of a Renaissance Master in Print (St. Louis: St. Louis Art Museum, 2015). Prior to our exhibition, the only compendium of the prints after Bosch was the outdated catalogue of Paul Lafond, The Prints of Hieronymus Bosch[1914], ed. and trans. Susan Fargo Gilchrist (San Francisco: Alan Wofsy Fine Arts, 2002).8. Lisa Pon, Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Italian Renaissance Print (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004); Sharon Gregory, Vasari and the Renaissance Print (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2012); on the topic of reproductive see also David Landau and Peter Parshall, The Renaissance Print 1470–1550 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 20–46; Evelyn Lincoln, The Inven-tion of the Renaissance Printmaker (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 1–15; Rebecca Zorach and Elizabeth Rodini, Paper Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe, 1500–1800 (Chicago: The David and Alfred Smart Museum of Art, The University of Chicago, 2005), 1–29; and Michael Bury, The Print in Italy 1550–1620 (Lon-don: The British Museum, 2001), 10–11.9. Joris van Grieken, Ger Luijten, and Jan Van der Stock, Hieronymus Cock: The Renaissance in Print (Brussels: Mercatorfonds, 2013); see also Elizabeth Wyckoff, “Hieronymus Cock and the Invention of the Print Market in Antwerp,” in Marisa Bass and Elizabeth Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch: The Afterlife of a Renaissance Master in Print (St. Louis: St. Louis Art Museum, 2015), 35–57 and the review of van Grieken et al. in Art in Print (March–April 2014).10. Cock’s publishing house Aux Quatre Vents (At the Sign of the Four Winds) was also continued after his death by his widow Volcxken Diericx, who was herself responsible for a handful of the Boschian prints. For background, see especially Jan Van der Stock, “Hieronymus Cock and Vol-cxken Diericx: Print Publishers in Antwerp,” in van Grieken et al., Hieronymus Cock, 14–21.11. Nadine M. Orenstein, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, in The New Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etching, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450–1700, edited by Manfred Sellink (Rotterdam: Sound and Vision, 2006), no. 31, with additional literature; see also Matthijs Ilsink, “Big Fish Eat Little Fish: Looking at a Potent(ial) Image and Its Offspring,” in Bass and Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch, 59–77.12. For Hameel’s biography, see especially De Gruyter Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon: Die Bil-

denden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker, vol. 68 (Munich: Saur, 1992–), 429–30. See also Adam von Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, edited by Walter L. Strauss (New York: Abaris Books, 1978–), 9.II, 231–32; Jos Koldeweij, Paul Van-denbroeck, and Bernard Vermet, Hieronymus Bosch: The Complete Paintings and Drawings (Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2001), 45–47; C. Peeters, De Sint Janskathedraal te ’s-Hertogenbosch (The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1985), 39–40; P. Gerlach, “Bossche architekten ten tijde van Jeroen Bosch,” Brabants Heem 22 (1970): 154–62; P. Gerlach, “Het testament van de Bossche bouwmeester Alart DuHameel en Jan Heyns,” Bossche bijdragen: bouwstoffen voor de geschiedenis van het Bisdom ’s-Hertogenbosch 30 (1970–71): 206–15; C. R. Hermans, “De kunst-schilder Hieronymus van Aeken of Bos, en de bouwmeester en plaatsnijder Alard du Hamel,” Handelingen van het Provincaal Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (1861): 60–74. On the flamboyant Gothic forms central to Hameel’s architectural vocabulary, see Ethan Matt Kavaler, Renaissance Gothic: Architecture and the Arts in Northern Europe, 1470–1540 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), esp. 131–33. 13. See Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, 9.II.001–012; and the still useful catalogue by Max Lehrs, “Verzeichniss der Kupferstiche des Alart du Hameel,” Oud Holland (1894): 15–25; and Lehrs, Geschichte und Kritischer Katalog der Deutschen, Niederländischen, und Französchichen Kupfer-stichs im XV. Jahrhundert [1930], 9 vols. (Nen-deln: Kraus Reprint, 1969), 7:233–49.14. Bass and Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch, 96–101, cat. 5 (Saint Christopher), 130–35, cat. 12 (Last Judgment), with prior literature.15. Ibid., 140–43, no. 15, with prior literature.16. Although early 19th-century scholarship actually attributed the engraving of the plates to Bosch, Paul Lafond definitely asserted that Hameel himself cut the plates, and since then the latter assumption has not been questioned. See Lafond, The Prints, 19. It cannot be ruled out that Hameel engraved the plates, but it is worth consid-ering the possibility that he was only the inventor of the compositions, particularly as he made his architectural career foremost as a designer and project supervisor. As noted by Peeters, De Sint Janskathedraal, 40, Hameel’s hallmark does not appear on a single stone of St. John’s Cathedral in ’s-Hertogenbosch, which suggests that he did not take his own hand to its construction, despite being referred to as a “steenhouwer” (stonema-son) in relation to other commissions. See also A. M. Koldeweij, “Bourgondiërs in de hertogstad,” in In Buscoducis: Kunst uit de Bourgondische tijd te ’s-Hertogenbosch: De cultuur van late middeleeu-wen en renaissance, edited by A. M. Koldeweij, vol. 2, 365–76, esp. 370, 601n42, who points out that there is no documentary evidence for the assertion in early literature that Hameel was commissioned by his hometown to produce an engraved portrait of Philip the Fair.17. Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, 9.II.009; and Lehrs, Geschichte und Kritischer Katalog, 245–47, no. 9. Hameel’s Monstrance survives in only two known impressions, preserved in the Rothschild Collection in Paris and the Albertina in Vienna.18. For the contract document, see Liesbeth M. Helmus, “Drie contracten met zilversmeden,” in In Buscoducis: kunst uit de Bourgondische tijd te

’s-Hertogenbosch: de cultuur van late middeleeu-wen en renaissance, edited by A. M. Koldeweij 473–81, esp. 476–77, 479: “Naden patroone, date meest[er] Alart die meest[er] vand[en] warck van sunte jans, dair op ontworpen heeft, en[de] noch voirt volmaken zal mette beelden etc.” For additional discussion of the monstrance, see Max Lehrs, “Über gestochene Vorlagen für gothisches Kirchengeräth,” Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst 6(1893): col. 65–74; G. de Werd, “Alart Duhameels monstrans-ontwerp voor de Sint Jan te ’s-Herto-genbosch (1484–1484),” Brabantia 20 (1971): 102–3; Ornemanistes du XVe au XVIIe siècle, gravures et dessins (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1987), 49–50, no. 62; Jean-Pierre van Rijen, “De kunstreis van het Bernulphusgilde naar de Sint-Jan: Alart du Hamel en Lambert Hezen-mans,” in Bouwkunst: studies in vriendschap voor Kees Peeters, edited by Wim Denslagen et al. (Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Pers, 1993), 427–39; and A. M. Koldeweij, “Goud- en zilversmede te ’s-Hertogenbosch,” in In Busco-ducis: kunst uit de Bourgondische tijd te ’s-Her-togenbosch: de cultuur van late middeleeuwen en renaissance, edited by A. M. Koldeweij, 2 vols.(The Hague: Maarssen, 1999), 2:465–72, 608–9, esp. 467–70; and Marisa Bass, “Hieronymus Bosch and his Legacy as ‘Inventor,’ ” in Marisa Bass and Elizabeth Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch: The Afterlife of a Renaissance Master in Print (St. Louis: St. Louis Art Museum, 2015), 23–24.19. Fritz Koreny, Hieronymus Bosch: Die Zeich-nungen: Werkstaat und Nachfolge bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Turnhout: Brepols 2012), passim.20. See the description of the elephant in the Aberdeen Bestiary (ca. 1200), fols. 10r–11r: www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/10r.hti. See also G. C. Druce, “The Elephant in Medieval Legend and Art,” Journal of the Royal Archaeological Insti-tute 76 (1919): 1–73; and Dirk Bax, Hieronymus Bosch: His Picture-Writing Deciphered, trans. M. A. Bax-Botha (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1979), 275–83. Elephants armed with fortresses are illus-trated and described in medieval travel accounts of journeys in the Holy Land. See, for instance, Kathryn Blair Moore, “The Disappearance of an Author and the Emergence of a Genre: Niccolò da Poggibonsi and Pilgrimage Guidebooks between Manuscript and Print,” Renaissance Quarterly 66 (2013): 357–411, esp. 365–68. For Schongauer’s print of a besieged elephant, which predates Hameel’s, see Max Lehrs, Martin Schongauer: The Complete Engravings, A Catalogue Raisonné(San Francisco: Alan Wofsy Fine Arts, 2005), 300–301, no. 94.21. See Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Bk. XVII, 87–88, and Druce, “The Elephant in Medieval Legend.”22. This assumption has been made regarding Hameel’s Besieged Elephant in much past litera-ture, including Bax, Hieronymus Bosch, 275–83; Unverfehrt, Hieronymus Bosch, 241–42; Paul Vandenbroeck, Jheronimus Bosch: tussen volks-leven en stadscultuur (Berchem: Uitgeverij EPO, 1987), 107–09; Paul Vandenbroeck, Jheronimus Bosch: de verlossing van de wereld (Ghent: Ludion, 2002), 118–20.23. For Philip II’s inventory, see Paul Vanden-broeck, “The Spanish inventarios reales and Hieronymus Bosch,” in Jos Koldeweij, Bernard Vermet, and Barbera van Kooij, eds., Hierony-

mus Bosch: New Insights into his Life and Work (Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2001), 54: “Otra lienço de borrón en que hay un elefante y otros disparates de Hierónimo Bosco.” For the tapestry series, see Paul Vandenbroeck, “Meaningful Caprices: Folk Culture, Middle-Class Ideology (ca. 1480–1510) and Aristocratic Recu-peration (ca. 1530–1570),” Jaarboek Koninklijk Museum voor Schonen Kunsten (2009): 212–69, esp. 254–60.24. Private collection, Corella (watercolor on can-vas, 153 x 233 cm), illustrated in Koldeweij, Van-denbroeck, and Vermet, Hieronymus Bosch, 117. 25. It is of course difficult to know how many impressions of Hameel’s Besieged Elephant were produced, or how popular it was, but it is the rar-est of Hameel’s Boschian prints today. The only two surviving impressions are in London’s British Museum and Vienna’s Albertina.26. As first noted by Bartsch in 1808, the fact that the “bosche” inscription appears on Hameel’s prints of varying subjects, some unrelated to Bosch, confirms that it is a place designation and not a reference to Bosch’s name. Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, 9.II, 232.27. For more on this point, see Bass, “Hieronymus Bosch and his Legacy as ‘Inventor.’ ”28. See Bass and Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch, 99, 133, for examples of figural details that Pieter Bruegel the Elder culled from Hameel’s Bos-chian compositions and employed in his own Bosch-inspired print series, the Seven Deadly Sins (1556–58). See also the later renditions of Hameel’s Last Judgment in ibid., 130–39, cats. 12–14.29. Ibid., 144–49, cat. 16, with prior literature. 30. Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architec-tural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 68, 117–18.31. Bass and Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch, 198–203, cat. 27. 32. Bosch, alternatively Bos, means forest or wood. Van den Bos, who appears in documents as Balthasar Gheertsen (Gheertsone), signed his works in various ways, including the latinized Sylvius, or with the initials BS or BB. (Note that the central lower edge of the impression illus-trated has been repaired, and part of the signature has been redrawn erroneously so that it reads “B S H” instead of “B S F,” the F standing for fecit, or “made it,” in Latin.) Van den Bos has received little attention in the literature; most references state simply that he is not related to the margin-ally better known artist and engraver Cornelis Bos. For the most detailed information on his life and work see Waldemar Deluga, “Prints by Balthasar van den Bos from the Collection of Albrecht von Saebisch,” Delineavit et Sculpsit 17 (1997): 1–6; see also Ilsink, Bosch en Bruegel als Bosch, 117–122, including notes on his dates and activity in Antwerp; Jan Van der Stock, Printing Images in Antwerp. The Introduction of Printmaking in a City: Fifteenth Century to 1585, trans. Beverly Jackson(Rotterdam: Sound and Vision Interactive, 1997): 276, 390–391; Sune Schéle, Cornelis Bos: A Study of the Origins of the Netherland Grotesque (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1965): 25, 159, 207, 221; Pieter van der Coelen, “Cornelis Bos: Where Did He Go? Some New Discoveries and Hypotheses about a Sixteenth-Century Engraver and Publisher,” Simiolus 23, no. 2/3 (1995): 119–146.

33. Ilsink, Bosch en Bruegel als Bosch, 119, who also notes that he had arrived in Antwerp in 1543.34. Evidence for self-publication can be found in a document showing the plates being used as collateral for a loan in 1568; see Van der Stock, Printing Images in Antwerp, 390–391.35. The painting in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, con-sidered the dominant version but still, according to some sources, postdating Bosch, comes closest to the print’s composition, lacking only the left-most figure who carries away the stolen purse of the frog-vomiting woman. The roundel version (pub-lished as in a California private collection) shares a similar focus on the conjuror and his victims, while the other two paintings add another scene of quackery to the right along with the gallows set in a town square. The most in-depth discussions of the subject remain: Jeffrey Hamburger, “Bosch’s ‘Conjuror’: An Attack on Magic and Sacramental Heresy,” Simiolus 14 (1984): 4–23; Lotte Brand Philip, “The Peddler by Hieronymus Bosch, A Study in Detection,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 25 (1958): 1–81; and Dirk Bax, “Bez-waren tegen L. Brand Philips Interpretatie van Jeroen Bosch’ marskramer, goochelaar, keisnijder en voorgrond van hooiwagenpaneel,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 13 (1962): 1–54. See Bass and Wyckoff, Beyond Bosch, 198–203, cat. 27, for further references. On the dating of the St.-Germain-en-Laye panel, see Vandenbroeck, Jheronimus Bosch: de verlossing, 71.36. Brand Philip, “The Peddler,” 25, corrects the spelling but does not otherwise identify Marcolf. For extensive literature on the subject of Solo-mon and Marcolf, see Jan M. Ziolkowski, ed. and trans., Solomon and Marcolf (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Nancy M. Bradbury and Scott Bradbury, eds., The Dialogue of Solomon and Marcolf: A Dual-Language Edition from Latin and Middle English Printed Editions (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2012); Nancy Mason Bradbury, “Rival Wisdom in the Latin Dia-logue of Solomon and Marcolf,” Speculum 83 (2008): 331–65; Sabine Griese, Salomon und Mar-kolf: ein literarischer Komplex im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1999); Malcolm Jones, “Marcolf the Trickster in Late Mediaeval Art and Literature or: The Mystery of the Bum in the Oven,” in Gillian Bennett, ed., Spo-ken in Jest (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991): 139–174; Michael Curschmann, “Markolf tanzt,” in Johannes Janota, et al, eds., Festschrift Walter Haug und Burghard Wachinger (Tübingen 1992): vol. 2, 967–9; Hedda Ragotzky, “Der Bauer in der Narrenrolle. Zur Funktion ‘verkehrter Welt’ im frühen Nürnberger Fastnachtspiel,” in: Horst Wenzel, ed., Typus und Individualität im Mittelalter (Munich 1983): 77–101. See Ziolkowski, 107, 117, 315–316 re: variant names and merging of related characters.37. This shift away from Marcolf’s depiction as an ugly peasant is evident in 16th-century carnival plays, for example in Nuremberg; see Griese, Salomon und Markolf, 239–265; and also Ragotzky, “Der Bauer in der Narrenrolle,” 89–101. In van den Bos’s print, the accomplice who is about to carry away the woman’s purse is more like the traditional Marcolf: short with grimacing features, a prominent codpiece, patched clothing and dilapidated shoes. See note 36 above for further sources, and Jones, “Marcolf the Trickster,” 153 in particular regarding the motif of “burst shoes.”

38. See Bass, “Hieronymus Bosch and his Legacy as ‘Inventor.’ ”39. This clumsiness of execution is shared with a handful of other prints engraved and published by the artist depicting vernacular subjects such as Shrovetide and the Village Surgeon, those com-positions attributed to Maarten van Cleve. F.W.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engrav-ings, and Woodcuts, ca. 1450–1700 (Amsterdam: Menno Herzberger: 1949–2010), vol. 3, 118, nos. 14 and 15.40. A clear chronology of van den Bos’s prints remains to be sorted out, but he was apparently engraving for Cock by 1548; see Deluga, “Prints by Balthasar van den Bos,” 2. On the dearth of existing literature, see note 31 above.