Skip to main content
Reading options

An Old Woman ('The Ugly Duchess')

Catalogue entry

Quinten Massys
NG5769 
An Old Woman (‘The Ugly Duchess’)

,

,

Extracted from:
The National Gallery; with entries by Emma Capron, Dillian Gordon, Sarah Herring, Mary McMahon, Letizia Treves and Francesca Whitlum‐Cooper; with technical contributions by Paul Ackroyd, Rachel Billinge, Lynne Harrison, Catherine Higgitt, Helen Howard, Larry Keith, Marta Melchiorre, Britta New, David Peggie, Marika Spring and Hayley Tomlinson, Online Entries (London: The National Gallery, 2024).

© The National Gallery, London

About 1513–19

Oil on oak panel, 64.1 × 45.2 cm

Provenance

An Old Woman (‘The Ugly Duchess’) probably remained in Antwerp until at least about 1645, when Wenceslaus Hollar (1607–1677), who was then residing in the city, published an etching reproducing it and its pendant An Old Man (or copies after those originals; see Copies, Engravings and Versions).1 NG5769 and An Old Man may have travelled together to France soon after the print was made, but they seem to have gone their separate ways before the end of the seventeenth century. A copy after NG5769 appears to have been executed for Anne‐Marie‐Louise d’Orléans, duchesse de Montpensier (1627–1693), Louis XIV’s wealthy unmarried cousin. It may have formed part of a gallery of ancestral portraits at her Château d’Eu in Normandy, where it is first documented in 1839.2 NG5769’s pendant, An Old Man, is also documented in Normandy, in the collection of a councillor at the parliament of Rouen named Boisguiraud, by the early eighteenth century.3 It then passed by descent to the comte de Saint‐Priest in Evreux before reappearing on the Parisian art market in 1954.4 NG5769 was probably sold in Paris on 22 November 1809 as part of the estate sale of Baron Pieter‐Nicolaas Van Hoorn van Vlooswyck (1743–1809), an affluent Dutchman who had settled in the French capital in 1797 and amassed a vast collection of antiquities, furniture and decorative arts, as well as a lesser group of paintings including some ‘Tableaux gothiques’.5 Among the latter featured lot 668, described as: ‘Quintin Mathsys. Maultasch, duchesse de Carinthie & de Tirol, reine des Romains, figure de grandeur naturelle, vue à mi‐corps, vêtue dans le costume du temps. Haut[eur]. 30 po[uces]., larg[eur]. 20. B[ois]’ (‘Quinten Massys, Mautasch, Duchess of Carinthia and Tyrol, Queen of the Romans, life‐size figure, seen at half‐length, dressed in the costume of her day. Height 30 inches, Width 20. On wood’; these dimensions, larger than the painting, may include the frame and the panel’s later extensions; on the latter, see Technical Notes). NG5769 was purchased by the dealer Maurice, who was acquainted with Henry Seymour (1776–1849) of Knoyle House, Wiltshire, and probably sold it to him. His son Henry Danby Seymour (1820–1877) showed it to Gustav Waagen before 1854 in the drawing room of his London home.6 It then passed to his brother Alfred Seymour (1824–1888) and by descent to his daughter Jane Margaret Seymour (1873–1943). She consigned NG5769 at Christie’s on 23 January 1920, causing a sensation on the London art market.7 The painting sold for a considerable £880 to the dealer Williams, from whom it was acquired within a few months by the painter and dealer Hugh Blaker (1873–1936). Manifestly fond of the picture (‘My Duchess of Carinthia and Tyrol by Quentin Matsys [sic] is a most important example of the master. Rejoices in the title of the ugliest portrait in the world. But what a masterpiece. I simply love her’, he wrote in September 1921),8 Blaker decided not to part with it and instead offered it twice on loan to the National Gallery in September 1920 and February 1922. The Gallery declined on both occasions, citing as reasons the lack of display space and the fear of seeing the painting sold off its walls.9 Also at issue was a matter of taste, for the Director and Trustees were unsettled by the figure’s appearance and saw NG5769 as little more than a ‘curiosity’ rather than a superlative work of art.10 Upon Blaker’s death the painting was inherited by his sister Jenny Louisa Roberta Blaker (1869–1947), who again offered it on loan to the Gallery in vain in 1938.11 She bequeathed NG5769 to the National Gallery in memory of her brother and the painting entered the collection in 1947.

Exhibitions

London 1928 (X31); London 1932 (650); Brussels 1963 (166); London NG 1975 (25); London NG 2008–9 (70); London 2021 (19); London NG 2023 (1); Antwerp 2023–4 (15).

Pendant

A painting showing an old man (about 1513–19; Private collection, New York) was identified as the pendant to NG5769 in 1954 by Luis Reis‐Santos and published as such in 1977 by Larry Silver (fig. 1).12 Seen in strict profile, the man has heavy eyelids, arched eyebrows, an aquiline nose and a fleshy lower lip. Puffy bags show below his eyes, white hair grows inside his ear and black stubble speckles his cheek. The wrinkles at his temples are picked out by white highlights. He has a double chin and creases at the neck. He is dressed in a deep purple‐red velvet bonnet and a dark blue coat with a wide fur collar and fur‐trimmed sleeves. Looking sternly to the left, he rests one beringed hand on a marble parapet while raising his other towards someone outside the picture plane. The marble ledge before him matches the one in NG5769 and the two figures’ left hands resting on the ledges closely resemble each other. While An Old Man bears all the unflattering signs of advancing age, in contrast to An Old Woman his features are not outside the ordinary and his more conventional profile never achieved fame. This disparity in appearance might make the pairing of NG5769 and An Old Man seem incongruous, a point that is addressed below.

Fig. 1

Quinten Massys, An Old Man, about 1513. Oil on panel, 64.1 × 45.1 cm. Private collection. Photo © Evan Read, Department of Paintings Conservation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

An Old Man is in good overall condition.13 The paint surface is abraded in areas, most prominently on the sitter’s fur collar, and retouching is visible in the green background, which is nonetheless mostly original. At an unknown date the panel was thinned, marouflaged and cradled, and wooden strips were attached to all four edges of the panel. During these interventions, An Old Man may have been trimmed down slightly, but the panel seems to have been preserved at more or less its original dimensions: although there is no sign of barbes, examination with infrared reflectography revealed an underdrawn rectangle located about 2 mm from the current edge of the painted panel, seemingly made by the artist to mark out the dimensions of the composition. The current size of An Old Man, 64.3 × 45.8 cm (including 1 mm wood veneers on all edges), is nearly identical to that of NG5769. Materially, the two works show the same panel construction: they are each made of two oak boards, the left one (when seen from the front) being wider than the one on the right in both cases, and the join being about 30 cm from the left edge.14 The boards are slightly tapered so that the joins are not vertical but at an angle, and were perhaps cut from the same two planks, since if the panel for An Old Man is positioned above An Old Woman, the joins form a continuous line. This hypothesis could not be verified by dendrochronology given that oak veneers were applied to the back and edges of an An Old Man. However, if correct, it would seem to place the panels in the studio together, suggesting that they were conceived at the same time. These observations also appear to discount the possibility that NG5769 and An Old Man were ever painted on a single panel that was sawn into two at a later date.

Although intended as pendants, Quinten Massys may have worked out some key elements of the design on An Old Man first. For instance, it is unclear whether he planned to include the figure’s hands resting on a marble ledge from the start, as he painted the fur collar of his robe all the way down to the bottom edge of the panel, without keeping a reserve for the parapet. The figure’s left hand, however, was reserved. One explanation could be that the artist had already begun painting the collar, or at least blocking it in, when he decided to include the marble ledge and left hand. He then sketched it in and proceeded with the painting. By contrast, in NG5769 the ledge was underdrawn and reserved from the onset. The paintings’ green backgrounds now appear slightly different in colour. This is in part because of their differing condition and conservation histories, but close observation also suggests that the paint layers in the background of each picture were built up differently (see Technical Notes).15 Both NG5769 and An Old Man have lost their original frames, making it impossible to determine whether they were ever hinged together as a diptych. The paintings have been reunited twice, both times at the National Gallery, first during the Renaissance Faces exhibition in 2008 and then for The Ugly Duchess: Beauty and Satire in the Renaissance in 2023.

A painting in oil on paper measuring 48.4 × 37 cm and showing exactly the same profile head and bust as in An Old Man, minus the hands and ledge, is now in the Musée Jacquemart‐André in Paris (fig. 2).16 It is first documented at the estate sale of Joanna‐Aldegonis de Proli (died 1779), widow of Joseph Pelgrom (died 1769) of Antwerp, from a family already present in the city in Massys’ days, with members in the service of Emperor Maximilian.17 The work is painted on one single sheet of uncoloured paper.18 No watermark has been detected. The underdrawing, as revealed by infrared reflectography, consists of minimal delineation of the contours of the figure, without any indication of shading or signs of transfer, and showing minor adjustments.19 The painting is far finer in execution and in better condition than Massys’ other small heads on paper. Sometime after 1902, the work was transferred from its wooden support to canvas and a caramel‐coloured glaze was applied on its white background.20 This tinted layer was removed during conservation treatment by the Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France in 2008–14.21 The oil on paper is signed and dated at the upper left ‘QUINTINUS METSYS PINGEBAT ANNO 1513’ (‘Quinten Massys was painting [this work] in the year 1513). Several tears run through the paper, most prominently in the background, along the figure’s temple and in the inscription. Consequently, the letters ‘TIN’ of the painter’s first name, ‘T’ of ‘PINGEBAT’ and the digit ‘3’ of the date have been reconstructed.22 When this damage and restoration took place is unknown. They may date from after 1902, during the transfer of the sheet from panel to canvas, but may also have taken place during an earlier, undocumented transfer.

Fig. 2

Quinten Massys, An Old Man, 1513. Oil on paper laid down on panel and subsequently transferred to canvas, 48.4 × 37 cm. Paris, Institut de France, Musée Jacquemart‐André, MJAP‐P 829. © Culturespaces‐ Musée Jacquemart‐André

The heads of the New York and Paris old men are one to one in scale, which implies either that they derive from the same cartoon or that one served as a template for the other. The underdrawing for the New York painting, made visible using infrared imaging, suggests that the Paris oil on paper was probably preparatory for it. In the New York underdrawing the figure’s head is neatly delineated, implying that Massys worked from an established pattern; by contrast, he seems to have devised the rest of the composition straight onto the panel itself, with free, searching lines for the hands. The colouring, modelling, repartition of highlights and other details that only occur in paint, such as creases in the figure’s upper lip, are visible on both the New York and Paris paintings, suggesting that the artist did not rely on a drawing alone to repeat the design but that he had a coloured model at hand – in all likelihood the old man in oil on paper – when at work on the panel. The Paris Old Man might have then been kept in the workshop for reuse in other compositions, as a similar face reappears with some variations on a smaller scale in two religious and secular paintings by and after Massys: Christ among the Doctors (a panel from the Madre de Deus Altarpiece, 1509–13; Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon) and A Grotesque Betrothal (about 1525–35; Museu de Arte de São Paulo Assis Chateaubriand, São Paulo, inv. MASP 00652).23 This is one of the only instances in early Netherlandish painting where both a work in oil on paper and a related design on panel have survived.24 The existence of such a head on paper for An Old Man suggests that an equivalent work might have existed for An Old Woman.

Related Drawings

Two drawings believed to reproduce a lost original by Leonardo da Vinci show the same face and bust as An Old Woman:

(1)
Windsor Castle, Royal Library, inv. 12492, red chalk, 17.2 × 14.3 cm, about 1510–20 (no watermark) (fig. 3). It is attributed to Francesco Melzi (1491/3–1570), Leonardo’s associate and heir, and may be one of the so‐called ‘replacement copies’ Melzi is believed to have produced to keep a record of original designs that had left the studio.25
(2)
New York Public Library, Spencer Collection, Lenox and Tilden Foundation (b16832711), black chalk, 13.5 × 8.3 cm (fig. 4). It is one of 104 copies after Leonardo’s grotesque drawings that were bound at an unknown date to a 1669 edition of François Rabelais’s works.26 The watermark indicates that this suite of drawings was made in Lombardy in the third quarter of the sixteenth century. This particular drawing is one of the largest and most refined in the series, its dimensions requiring a flap.
Fig. 3

Attributed to Francesco Melzi, after Leonardo da Vinci, A Grotesque Old Woman, about 1510–20. Red chalk, 17.2 × 14.3 cm. The Royal Collection / HM Charles III, RCIN 912492. Photo Royal Collection Trust / © His Majesty King Charles III 2023

Fig. 4

After Leonardo da Vinci, A Grotesque Old Woman, drawn in the last decades of the sixteenth century and later bound into a 1669 edition of Rabelais’s work. Black chalk, 13.5 × 8.3 cm. The New York Public Library, Spencer Collection, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, b16832711. © The New York Public Library, New York

The two drawings are neat and legible and replicate Leonardo’s left‐handed hatching, yet lack his boldness and verve.

An engraving made by Philippe de Soye and published by Hans Liefrinck I in Antwerp between 1539 and 1575 reproduces Leonardo’s design.27 A version of this drawing must have circulated in Antwerp by the 1510s for Massys to use (see Patronage, Function and Date) and remained available there for several decades. De Soye’s engraving belongs to a series of four prints depicting pairs of grotesque figures modelled partly after Leonardo’s compositions, and partly after pastiches of his work. The old woman is shown alongside an equally unattractive and elderly female partner. Although they are not a couple, the engraving is captioned: ‘Sordida deformis sic est coniuncta marito / Foemina, quo quaerat quisque sibi similem’ (‘The dirty and ugly woman resembles her husband. So it is that everyone seeks someone like themselves’).28

Copies, Engravings and Versions

(1)
Wenceslaus Hollar, about 1645, etching, 6.7 × 12.4 cm, inscribed ‘Rex and Regina de Tunis / Leonardo da Vinci inv[enit]. WHollar fecit’ (‘The King and Queen of Tunis / Invented by Leonardo, made by W. Hollar’) (fig. 5).29 This is a free reversed copy after NG5769 and An Old Man. It is the only instance in which the pair is reproduced together, and in fact the only known engraving or copy after An Old Man. Hollar was in Antwerp from 1642, seeking refuge from the English Civil War. This print belongs to the series Varie figuræ et probæ, which he published to support himself. It comprises a title page and 13 etchings after drawings by Leonardo da Vinci that Hollar had copied in the Arundel collection during his time in England. That collection included the drawing of a grotesque old woman now in Windsor discussed above (fig. 3; see Related Drawings (1)). Unlike De Soye’s engraving, however (see above), Hollar’s etching reproduces Massys’ paintings (or copies after them) rather than Leonardo’s composition. This is made clear by the inclusion of the old man, by details of costume (such as the trellis of flowers in the woman’s headdress and the gauffered edges of her veil) and by the incorporation of both a ledge and hand gestures – all features absent from the Leonardesque drawings. In his caption, Hollar ascribed the originals to Leonardo rather than Massys, probably because he recognised the old woman he had previously seen in the Arundel collection. Where the identification of the figures as the ‘King and Queen of Tunis’ may have come from is more difficult to explain (see The Identity of An Old Woman).
(2)
Anonymous copy, oil on canvas, 79.5 × 60.5 cm, Château d’Eu, Musée Louis‐Philippe, Eu. This copy is said to have come from the collection of Anne‐Marie‐Louise d’Orléans (1627–1693), duchesse de Montpensier.30 It has a black background and extensions to all four edges, suggesting that modifications were carried out on the original before 1693 (see Technical Notes), with the additions at the left and bottom still in place when NG5769 was acquired by the National Gallery.31 The figure is on the same scale as the original, suggesting that the latter was traced.32 An inscription in French on the reverse of the lining canvas identifies the figure as Margaret ‘Maultasch’, Countess of Tyrol: ‘Marguerite surnommée Maultasche (“gueule de Sac”) / Comtesse de Tyrol, fille de Henry X Comte de Tyrol / et Roi de Bohème et d’Anne fille de Veneslas IV / née en 1300 / Mariée en premières noces en 1329 / à Jean Remy Duc de Moravie et en seconds noces / à Louis de Bavière morte en 1366’ (‘Margaret, nicknamed Maultasch (“pocket mouth”), Countess of Tyrol, daughter of Henry X Count of Tyrol and King of Bohemia and of Anne daughter of Wenceslaus IV. Born in 1300, first married in 1329 to Jean Remy Duke of Moravia and then to Louis of Bavaria, died in 1366’). It is the first instance of the figure being identified as the Duchess of Tyrol and Countess of Carinthia, Margaret ‘Maultasch’ (1318–1369).
(a)
This copy was engraved in reverse from 1787 by Gilles‐Antoine Demarteau the Younger, after a drawing of 1777 by ‘G[irolamo?] Paris’.33 The engraving bears a caption identical to the inscription that appears on the reverse of the Château d’Eu copy. It is unlikely that the charcoal drawing now in the Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum at Innsbruck is the drawing on which the painting is based.34 Rather, it seems to derive from the print and faces the same way. The Demarteau print was later reproduced in reverse as a lithograph.35
(b)
The Château d’Eu copy was itself copied by Louis‐Edouard Rioult at the request of King Louis‐Philippe for the historical museum of Versailles in 1839: oil on canvas, 21 × 18 cm, Musée national des châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, Versailles (MV 4003; INV 7620; LP 3619).36 This copy was later engraved by Ephraim Conquy, for Charles Gavard’s Galeries historiques de Versailles (1838–46).37
(3)
An anonymous copy dating from the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century (oil on canvas, dimensions unknown) was formerly in the collection of Léon Armengol, Béziers.38 It was inscribed: ‘MARGUERITE DAUTRICHE DUCHESSE DE BRABANT FILLE DE / MAXIMILIEN ET DE MARIE DE BOURGOGNE FIANCÉE A CHARLES VIII R / DE FRANCE EPOUSE EN I NOCES DE JEAN FILS UNIQUE DE FERDINAND / ET DISABELLE ET EN 2 NOCES DE PHILIBERT II DUC DE SAVOYE’ (‘Margaret of Austria Duchess of Brabant, daughter of Maximilian and Mary of Burgundy, engaged to Charles VIII King of France, first married to Jean only son of Ferdinand and Isabella, and then to Philibert II Duke of Savoy’). Close comparison suggests that this copy was probably also made after the original rather than the Château d’Eu copy.39 It is the only known instance of the figure being identified as Margaret of Austria, but documentary evidence hints that more copies of this sort may have been circulating in French aristocratic collections in the eighteenth century: ‘a hideous portrait of a duchess of Brabant’ is described by Antoine‐Nicolas Dézallier d’Argenville in 1755 as hanging among some ‘old paintings’ in the cabinet of the king’s chamber in the Château de Saint‐Ange de Villecerf, near Fontainebleau;40 an oil portrait depicting ‘the Cruel [woman] of Brabant’ and described as ‘a curious monstrosity’ was among the goods seized in 1794 from the Count of Artois, brother to deposed King Louis XVI and future King Charles X.41
(4)
An anonymous copy (oil on panel, 63.5 × 45 cm, Private collection, Vienna) was formerly in the collection of the Princes of Schönburg‐Hartenstein at the castle of Rothen‐Lhota in Bohemia.42 The brooch pinned to the woman’s headdress shows the figure of Venus and the letters C and B. The copy has a black background but does not reproduce the left and bottom extensions added to the work in the seventeenth century. Its dimensions are almost identical to the original.
(5)
Bayard, ‘Bulle d’excommunication du pape, et portrait d’après nature, de la princesse Porcia, sa soeur’ (‘Excommunication Bull from the Pope, and Portrait from Life of His Sister, Princess Porcia’), 1797, woodcut, 48 × 38.5 cm, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris (FRBNF40253576) (fig. 6).43 This political broadsheet, published at the height of the French Revolution, borrows the features of NG5769 to depict the evil Porcia, fictional sister of Pope Pious VI, sent by the deposed pontiff to overthrow the French Republic. It was most likely made after the Demarteau print, rather than the original picture or one of its painted copies.
(6)
In two illustrations for the first edition of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865), John Tenniel took direct or indirect inspiration from NG5769 for the character of the Duchess, described in the book as very ugly’ and with ‘an uncomfortably sharp chin’ (fig. 7).44 Details such as the lattice of flowers on her headdress and the scalloped edges of her veil demonstrate that Tenniel did not use the Leonardesque drawings for his work but instead based his design on either NG5769 or one of the many engravings made after it. Whether he actually saw NG5769 is hard to ascertain, but the painting was in Britain by that date, in the collection of Henry Danby Seymour (1820–1877), who kept it in his London home. Tenniel may have met and visited Seymour through Carroll’s friend John Ruskin, who knew the collector well.45
(7)
The German and English publishers of Lion Feuchtwanger’s Die häſzliche Herzogin (The Ugly Duchess), a historical novel fictionalising the life of Margaret of Tyrol and Carinthia, which first appeared in Germany in 1923 and in the UK in 1927, used the painting or versions after it for the cover of numerous editions of the book. Testifying to the power of this image to disturb, the dustjacket for its first English ‘cheap’ edition was banned from parts of the British book trade for being too provocative and indecent.46
Fig. 5

Wenceslaus Hollar after Quinten Massys, The King and Queen of Tunis, about 1645. Etching, 6.7 × 12.4 cm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, RP‐P‐OB‐11.458. © Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Fig. 6

‘Excommunication Bull from the Pope, and Portrait from Life of His Sister, Princess Porcia’, 1797. Political broadsheet with woodcut by Bayard, 48 × 38.5 cm. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, FRBNF40253576. © Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris

Fig. 7

The Brothers Dalziel after John Tenniel, ‘Alice in the Duchess’s Kitchen’, illustration from Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, London 1865. Wood engraving. Private collection. © Private Collection / Ken Welsh / The Bridgeman Art Library

Technical Notes47

Conservation History and Condition

The painting was cleaned in 1947–8 by Messrs Drown, when a discoloured varnish was removed, as was black overpaint across the background and other layers beneath it (tiny islands of this are still present – see further below).48 An addition at the lower edge was also removed in 1947–8 as its grain was perpendicular to that of the original panel, which was affecting its stability. This, and another addition of beech on the left,49 3.5 cm wide, probably date from when the background was overpainted, since on the side addition the black paint lay directly on the wood. The Eu copy seems to have been made after NG5769 had been enlarged and overpainted, because it includes the additions and black background. The copy is thought to have been painted for Marie‐Louise d’Orléans, duchesse de Montpensier, who died in 1693, so the additions and black overpaint of NG5769 are likely to date from before that year. Rebates on the back at the top and bottom edges are probably evidence of half‐lap joins made when enlarging the panel; cross‐grain timber of the same type as the additions remained in place after removal of the addition at the bottom in 1947, and glue had been left in the channel of the upper rebate, implying there had at one point also been an addition at the top, already removed by the time the painting was acquired by the Gallery. A digital overlay of images of NG5769 and the copy at Eu seems to confirm that there was indeed an addition at the top when the latter was made, and that the panel had also been enlarged at the right side. Before 1947 the top and right additions had been removed and the panel had been thinned and cradled. The cradle, the addition at the left and the wood and glue in the rebates were removed in 2021–2, when the painting was again cleaned and restored. Most of the picture is well preserved. There is some damage, however, to the background, including erosion and abrasion and some areas of more extensive paint loss. On top of the opaque apple‐green paint, traces of a very thin dark green translucent layer are visible in places; this layer was probably originally across the whole background, although it is not possible to say whether it might have varied in thickness to indicate light and shade. When the painting was cleaned and restored in 2022 the losses in the opaque green paint of the background were filled and retouched and the finish of the restoration was taken to a level that matched the traces of dark green glaze.

Support

The original part of the panel, which measures 64.1 × 45.2 cm, consists of two boards of oak, vertical in grain. The join, between 13.3 cm and 12.9 cm from the right edge, is at an angle, as the boards are slightly tapered. It is secured with two dowels, exposed when the panel was thinned. It has been established that the oak is from the Baltic region, that the 274 growth rings, grown from left to right, of the first board were formed between 1191 and 1464, and that the 97 rings of the second board, grown from right to left, were formed between 1393 and 1489. The first board is from the same tree as the first board of the Crucifixion (about 1515; NG715), also attributed to Quinten Massys, and the first board of the Salvator Mundi, now given to the Master of the Mansi Magdalen (1505–30; Suermondt‐Ludwig‐Museum, Aachen, inv. GK295), previously attributed to Quinten Massys.50

Materials and Technique

The panel has been prepared with a chalk ground (confirmed by SEM‐EDX analysis) onto which a very thin light grey priming composed of lead white and a little black has been applied. The ground and paint extend up to the very edge of the panel at all four sides, although the final paint layers do not quite reach the edges. No traces of barbes have been found around the edges. This is likely to indicate that it was not painted in an engaged frame, rather than that the picture has been cut down. There is an incised line very close to the bottom edge that probably marked the outer boundary of the composition (see also Pendant).

Extensive linear underdrawing in a liquid medium is revealed with infrared reflectography (fig. 8). The underdrawing for the face consists of relatively fine lines, whereas that for the headdress, clothes and parapet is bolder and probably only intended as a rough guide rather than exact placement: for example, the fluted edge of the veil over the woman’s right shoulder is indicated by a wavy line. A number of changes were made to the underdrawing. In the face, both eyes were moved up slightly, with corresponding repositioning of the nose and chin, but not apparently the mouth. Her right ear was enlarged. More dramatically, the angle of her body to the picture plane was changed. An underdrawn line at a steeper angle can be seen extending from the woman’s neck to the top of her right arm lower than where the shoulder was painted, while above the left shoulder there are lines visible in the reflectogram that could be for the shoulder in a higher position. The decision to reposition her body was made before painting started, since there is underdrawing that relates to the figure as finally painted. Her right breast was also repositioned. The free nature of the underdrawing in the veil makes it difficult to be sure whether this was adjusted as part of the repositioning or just made neater, tightening up the loose drawing. Similarly, free underdrawing can be seen for the hands, both of which have been changed. Unfortunately, the dark underpaint in the deep purple central part of the woman’s bodice makes it impossible to see parts of this drawing so that interpretation is difficult. There are several horizontal lines suggesting the top edge of the parapet. These are freehand and not very straight, but the final position has been reinforced by ruling an incised line along one of the underdrawn lines.

Fig. 8

Infrared reflectogram of NG5769. © The National Gallery, London

The changes mentioned above were made before painting began, but the infrared reflectogram also reveals a change made when the painting was at quite an advanced stage. The carefully painted, geometric design of the coloured flowers on the horned headdress shows clearly on the horn over the woman’s right ear, but on the other side, in addition to the flowers now visible, some other flowers are revealed in what must have been their first painted positions (figs 9, 10). The first positions of these flowers are also visible in several of the XRF maps. It is also evident from the XRF maps that the brighter red flowers on the headdress in the more well‐lit area on the left are painted in only vermilion, while in the shadowed area on the right this pigment has been mixed with a duller red earth.51

Fig. 9

Infrared reflectogram detail of the woman’s headdress above her left ear, with contrast adjusted to show the changes to the painted flowers. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 10

Detail from NG5769. © The National Gallery, London

The blue dress and deep purple underdress both have a greyish‐pink modelled underpaint consisting of lead white, red lake and black in varying proportions. In the blue dress the upper paint layers are based on azurite, mixed with some lead white in the highlights and mid‐tones, or with a little red lake in the shadows. The underpaint gives the drapery a subtle greyish‐blue hue. In the purple underdress, visible in the centre of the bodice through the lacing, the uppermost layer contains only red lake (fig. 11). It seems that the artist, rather than using a conventional mixture of red lake and a blue pigment, has relied on the optical effect of the underpaint (a darker pinkish‐grey than in the blue dress) showing through the translucent upper layer to give the purple colour. Scumbles of white or pink have been painted wet‐in‐wet into the red glaze to indicate the highlights and convey the texture of the fabric.

Fig. 11

Photomicrograph of a ring from the lacing of the blue dress showing the use of red lake with the azurite blue. © The National Gallery, London

The opaque green paint in the background contains a mixture of a green mineral copper pigment composed mainly of copper sulphate and a small amount of malachite, mixed with lead white and lead‐tin yellow. This seems originally to have been covered by a further thin translucent layer containing the same copper mineral pigment, of which only traces remain; it was initially present across the whole background, giving it a deeper hue, although it is impossible to say whether it also provided some indication of shadows.52 A paint cross‐section of one of the tiny surviving islands of the black overpaint and other older layers that had been present before the 1947–8 cleaning indicated that on top of the green layers just described there had been a substantial layer of lead white followed by a fairly thin deep green, again containing a copper mineral pigment composed mostly of copper sulphate, presumably applied relatively early, since in Netherlandish paintings this type of pigment has been found mainly in paintings dating from the late fifteenth century to about 1550.53 This was followed by a layer of discoloured varnish and then finally the black paint, which we know from the copy at Eu is likely to be from before 1693 (see above).

In the only sample taken for analysis of the medium, which was from the white veil, the medium was identified as walnut oil.54 The artist, in his distinctive manner,55 has taken full advantage of the ways in which oil paint can be manipulated, handling the paint in a vigorous but assured and precise way. He feathered the paint to soften transitions between light and shade, for example in the face, where it also creates a sense of less than perfect skin (fig. 12), or in the darkest grey shadows of the veil. He incised into the wet paint with the end of a small brush or other tool to create texture or pattern (as in parts of the veil, some of the flowers in the headdress and some of the hair just above her right ear)(figs 13, 14, 15). He also exploited the buttery properties of paint containing lead‐tin yellow or lead white, for example in the tiny yellow dots and fine strokes that highlight the jewellery (fig. 16) or the lively touches of thick white paint around the fluting at the edges of the veil.

Fig. 12

Photomicrograph of the right corner of the woman’s mouth showing feathered paint. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 13

Photomicrograph of the veil above the woman’s right wrist showing impasto in white paint. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 14

Photomicrograph of a flower on the horn on the viewer’s left. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 15

Photomicrograph of the hair near the woman’s right ear. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 16

Photomicrograph of the filigree in the brooch showing dots and strokes of buttery paint. © The National Gallery, London

Description

The woman has small, lively, hazelnut eyes. Each animated by two catchlights (fig. 17), they are set deep in their sockets and crowned by untidy brows. A fine network of radiating wrinkles emanates from them. She has a large domed forehead and a triangular, snub nose flanked by wide nostrils. The distance between her nose and mouth is long. Her sunken lips signal that she has lost all her teeth. High cheekbones and a powerful square chin give structure to her face. Her complexion is ruddy, her skin flecked with small pimples. Her right cheek bears a hairy mole (fig. 18). The tips of her forehead, nose and chin glisten. Tufts of red hair peppered with white escape from either side of her imposing horned headdress, a black V‐shaped structure decorated with a trellis of flowers and covered by a white linen veil with gauffered edges that cascades down her shoulders. A bejewelled brooch secures the veil to the headdress. The woman wears a blue dress with a low neckline over a purple undergarment and a white chemise. The dress is laced tightly at the front with a green ribbon to prop up her wrinkled bosom. Her shoulders and chest are broad. The cuffs of her sleeves are embellished with a band of gold embroidery. Rings adorn her fingers, while dirt is lodged underneath her fingernails. She rests her left hand on a marbled parapet while her other hand projects outward, holding a droopy rosebud whose tip suggestively aligns with the edge of her cleavage. Slightly larger than life‐size, commanding and confident, she presents herself to the viewer. She defies all the canons of beauty and rules of propriety that defined female decorum during the Renaissance.

Fig. 17

Photomicrograph of the iris and pupil of the woman’s left eye. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 18

Photomicrograph of the woman’s cheek showing the wart. © The National Gallery, London

The old woman’s appearance fits within the well‐known definition of the grotesque body given by the Russian literary scholar Mikhail Bakhtin in his seminal book Rabelais and His World, first published in 1965: Of all the features of the human face, the nose and the mouth play the most important part of the grotesque image of the body; the head, ears, and nose also acquire a grotesque character when they adopt the animal form or that of inanimate objects … [The grotesque] is looking for what protrudes from the body, all that seeks to go out beyond the body’s confines … The grotesque body is a body in the act of becoming. It is never finished, never completed; it is continually built, created, and builds and creates another body … Thus, the artistic logic of the grotesque image ignores the closed, smooth, and impenetrable surface of the body and retains only its excrescences (sprouts, buds) and orifices, only that which leads beyond the body’s limited space and into the body’s depths. Mountains and abysses, such is the relief of the grotesque body.56

Bakhtin’s description of the grotesque body as unsteady terrain – ‘mountains and abysses’ – holds especially true for An Old Woman: her extraordinary, volcanic face leads us from the crest of her vertiginous headdress down the mound of her forehead, up the hill of her nose, through to the plains of her philtrum, down the canyons of her wrinkles, and into the deeper crevasse of her cleavage. She also perfectly answers to Bakhtin’s notion of a body that ‘transgresses its own limits’: her tightly laced corset compresses and constrains her bosom, which bulges forward in reaction, and seems about to break out of the picture plane.

Attribution

Like all but four surviving paintings by Massys, the panel is neither signed nor dated.57 The same applies to its pendant, An Old Man. However, from the first appearance of An Old Woman on the Paris art market in 1809, it has been unanimously attributed to Quinten Massys.58 The attribution was only dismissed by Martin Davies, who considered the painting’s facture too weak to be an autograph work and catalogued it as a copy after a lost original dating from the 1510s.59 His opinion was not accepted by subsequent scholars, including Andrée de Bosque, Larry Silver and more recently Lorne Campbell, who continued to catalogue this work as a fully attributed painting by Massys.60 As noted by Campbell, the presence of many adjustments in the underdrawing of the face and changes in the woman’s headdress made during painting seems to discount the possibility that this is a copy, as does the free, exploratory nature of the underdrawing for her bust and garment.61 This is further confirmed by the superlative quality of execution, with such finely rendered, egregious details as the calligraphic white and brown hair sprouting from her mole. Many of Massys’ ‘signature traits’ are present in NG5769. They include the profusion of feathering to soften tonal transitions in the flesh, particularly visible in the face, and the exploitation of the buttery properties of lead‐tin yellow paint for the tiny strokes and dots that describe metalwork; the evidence of scratching into the wet paint to create texture, especially prominent in the linen veil (compare with the Lamentation Altarpiece – see below); the refined yet economical rendition of marble surfaces, with the characteristic cloudy veins on top of speckles; and the grey modelling in the whites and the wet‐in‐wet application of the paint on the edge of the figure’s white chemise (compare with Pieter Gillis and see Technical Notes).

Massys and Leonardo

Gustav Waagen first connected NG5769 to the drawing now in Windsor.62 It has since generally been assumed that Massys knew this composition and drew inspiration from it for his painting. This was not the first time that the artist had engaged with Leonardo’s grotesque designs. Those drawings, or more likely copies thereof, had reached the Netherlands by the first decade of the sixteenth century and Massys was a key figure in their introduction in Antwerp.63 Quite how he encountered them is unclear. As noted by Martin Clayton, in the absence of an established trade in drawings at that period, it is probable that originals or copies of Leonardo’s design were brought to the Netherlands by a Northern artist who had travelled to Italy.64 Jan Gossaert made such a journey in 1508–9, stopping in Florence and Rome but not Milan.65 The possibility that Massys went to Italy himself has been raised but cannot be substantiated, especially given how little we know of his biography in the first two decades of his activity, between the time he is first documented as a master craftsman in Antwerp in 1491 and his first securely datable work, the Lamentation Altarpiece (1508–11, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, inv. 245–249).66 This triptych already shows knowledge of Leonardo’s A Man tricked by Gypsies (about 1493, Royal Library, Windsor, RCIN 912495), whose figures were repurposed as Saint John the Evangelist’s tormentors on the right wing. Massys appropriated motifs invented by Leonardo on at least seven other occasions during his career.67 A knowledge of Leonardo’s drawing is also evident in the work of Massys’ younger Antwerp contemporary Joos van Cleve, and has been detected in paintings by Hieronymus Bosch and Albrecht Dürer too.68 In this context, it is notable that no drawings after Leonardo’s grotesques made by a Northern hand before the second half of the sixteenth century seem to have survived.69 Importantly, these drawings’ main appeal to Northern artists seems, at least initially, to have resided in their formal qualities – as a prodigious repertory of types and expressions – rather than their narrative content or Leonardo’s name, which had not yet achieved widespread fame by that date.70

The figure of the old woman with a horned headdress and low neckline was a mainstay of Leonardo’s grotesque imagery: she haunts his drawings under endless guises, from small profile heads to more complex compositions.71 As discussed more fully below, this particular figure may reflect a folkloric type drawn from the world of carnival, as testified by a Florentine print probably published during Leonardo’s youth (see A Comic Type). The Windsor and Spencer drawings stand out as the largest and most elaborate renditions of this favoured type.72 The three‐quarter view likens the composition to a portrait, comparable to – and perhaps satirising – those that Leonardo was painting around the same time for the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza.73 While some of Leonardo’s grotesques are no more than doodles, his most ambitious drawings of the type, such as A Man tricked by Gypsies, seem to have been intended for an audience beyond the confines of the studio, perhaps as court entertainment.74 Jokes travel fast: if the original for the Windsor and Spencer drawings served a similar public function, this would explain its early dissemination towards northern Europe. Whether an equivalent Leonardesque prototype existed for An Old Man remains unclear.75 No drawing featuring a comparable figure has been identified. Although Leonardo’s grotesques display varying degrees of exaggeration, the old man’s features and outfit are rather tame in comparison to them.

Recently, Lorne Campbell has called attention to An Old Woman’s strikingly lifelike quality and the fact that her costume looks more coherent in Massys’ painting than in the Leonardesque drawings. He concluded that in the particular case of the Old Woman, Leonardo or his followers copied an original by Massys, which they may have known through drawings that the two artists would have exchanged on account of their shared interest in the grotesque.76 Leonardo was certainly alert to northern European innovations in the realm of portraiture during his Florentine youth,77 and instances of such trade between Italian and Northern artists are recorded for the early sixteenth century, famously between Raphael and Albrecht Dürer.78 Yet there is no surviving evidence that Massys and Leonardo knew each other, nor any extant drawing by Massys. Importantly, this proposition does not address the date of Leonardo’s grotesque drawings, which scholars unanimously agree were primarily made in the 1490s, several decades before Massys’ painting.79 The grotesque print designed by Philippe de Soye and published by Hans Liefrinck that clearly replicates Leonardo’s design further demonstrates at least one drawing of this particular face was circulating in Antwerp by the mid‐sixteenth century.80 It is therefore safe to conclude that the motif for An Old Woman originated with Leonardo, although not without inspiration from northern Europe, as discussed below.

Perhaps as significant as the question of who came up with the design, however, is the issue of what each artist did with it. Massys was anything but a subservient copyist, as other instances of his borrowing from Leonardo attest. He typically would appropriate, manipulate and sometimes obscure his source material freely. This creative engagement is visible, for instance, in Head of a Fool (1520s; The Phoebus Foundation, Antwerp), in which a study of facial expression by Leonardo – the bald head of an irate man – is transformed into a shrieking jester with a full head of hair and brandishing a spoon.81 Leonardo confined his visi mostruosi (‘monstrous faces’, as Giorgio Vasari called them) to small scale and paper.82 Massys, by contrast, elevated the grotesque to panel and translated the intimately sized drawing into an impressively large composition that straddles the realms of genre and portraiture. He further added vivid additional details – hair, mole, pimples – and a sense of texture, a vibrancy of colour and a tactile appeal absent from the drawing.83 This required him to expand the design substantially (adding arms, hands, flower attribute and marble parapet), as well as clarify and correct motifs that were only sketched out in the drawing or misunderstood by copyists of Leonardo’s work (adorning the headdress with a patterned trellis, pinning the veil securely to it and giving the linen fabric fluted edges, as was customary in northern Europe). The underdrawing for An Old Woman confirms this scenario: it contrasts careful lines showing few changes in her face, which suggests that he was working from a guiding drawing, with freer exploratory marks for the costume and the hands, where he was inventing something new.84 The fact that the composition is more resolved in Massys’ painting than in the Windsor and Spencer drawings does not so much prove that the former was the prototype for the latter, but rather emphasises the different nature of a finished panel relative to a more informal work on paper.

The Identity of the Old Woman

An Old Woman has taken on many identities over the centuries. Hollar inscribed his etching of the painting and its pendant An Old Man as ‘Rex and Regina de Tunis’, a puzzling caption given that the artist, who made a career of engraving earlier works of art, would have been unlikely to mistake the figures’ European garb for North African dress.85 This fanciful title, no doubt a seventeenth‐century fabrication, might have originated with Hollar himself, but the panels may also have been known as such in Antwerp at the time.86 Kings and Queens of Tunis occur in plays and novels of the day, from William Shakespeare’s The Tempest (written in 1610–11; first printed in 1623) to Sébastien Grenadine’s Homaïs, Queen of Tunis (1670s), although none of these literary characters are notable for their unusual appearance.87 Erica Tietze‐Conrat posited that Hollar’s print depicted two real‐life court dwarfs, whom she argued were routinely given such mock titles.88 This proposition can be dismissed, however, as nothing in the figures’ appearance hints at this condition and nothing in their costume suggests the apparel usually worn by court jesters.89 Although Hollar’s intentions cannot be securely recovered, it is possible that his label intended to other ugliness by making it an extra‐European trait, lending the print a sinister racial dimension.90

Copies after NG5769 painted in seventeenth‐ and eighteenth‐century France offered alternative identifications of the figure. This included Emperor Charles V’s aunt, the regent of the Netherlands Margaret of Austria (1480–1530), but NG5769 does not look anything like her well‐known portraits by Bernard van Orley (see Copies, Engravings and Versions). This erroneous identification might be explained by the anti‐Habsburg sentiment pervading early modern France as well as the dynasty’s notoriously prognathous jaw.91

While the identification to Margaret of Austria did not hold, another copy enshrined a more enduring – if equally specious – identity for the old woman, eventually earning her the nickname ‘The Ugly Duchess’. A painting presumably made after NG5769 for Louis XIV’s cousin, Anne‐Marie‐Louise d’Orléans, duchess de Montpensier, and hanging in her gallery of dynastic portraits at her Château d’Eu, identified the figure as an infamous medieval ruler, Margaret, Countess of Tyrol and Duchess of Carinthia (1318–1369) (see Copies, Engravings and Versions). Margaret was the daughter and heiress of the Count of Tyrol and Duke of Carinthia Henry VI and his second wife Adelheid of Brunswick‐Lüneburg‐Grubenhagen.92 Margaret’s rule was tumultuous and marked by her wilful if ultimately fruitless resistance to her neighbours’ ambitions over her lands. Upon her father’s death in 1335, Carinthia was annexed by the Habsburgs, but Margaret held on to Tyrol, which she ruled with her first husband John Henry, a brother of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV. John Henry was rumoured to be impotent, and returning from a hunt in 1341 he found the gates of Tyrol Castle closed. Although their marriage was not officially annulled by the Pope until 1349, from 1342 Margaret had taken a new husband, Louis of Bavaria, Elector of Brandenburg, and she bore him a son, Meinhard. However, the passings of both husband and son left her without an heir and in 1363, six years before her own death, she relinquished Tyrol to Rudolf IV of Habsburg and retired to Vienna.

The only contemporary depiction of Duchess Margaret, the seal on the 1363 charter that transferred her territorial possessions to the Habsburgs, presents an utterly generic, stylised and slender figure.93 A contemporary chronicler describes her as very beautiful.94 However, as a result of her scandalous divorce and unwomanly claim to political rule, a legend portraying Margaret as evil and promiscuous began taking hold during her own lifetime. Her enemies nicknamed her ‘Maultasch’ (‘pocketmouth’), the German slang for vagina, also used as a derogatory term for a sex worker.95 The moniker was probably later taken literally as a physical trait reflective of Margaret’s moral turpitude, and the tale of the extraordinarily ugly duchess was born.96 Quite how the memory of this relatively obscure German medieval noblewoman was alive enough in seventeenth‐century France to attach itself to the Eu copy of NG5769 can only be speculated upon. Perhaps it offered a warning to its owner, the rich, unmarried duchesse de Montpensier, known as ‘La Grande Mademoiselle’, a powerful woman who was herself no stranger to sexual scandal and political miscalculations.97 In any case, this identification was circulated and became entrenched via several prints (see Copies, Engravings and Versions). When NG5769 sold at auction in London in 1920 under Margaret’s name, the British press christened its sitter ‘The Ugly Duchess’, a moniker later cemented when Margaret’s life story was fictionalised by the novelist Lion Feuchtwanger in 1923 as Die häſzliche Herzogin, which appeared in English in 1927 as The Ugly Duchess, with NG5769 as its cover image.98

More recently, it has been proposed that NG5769 portrays someone with Paget’s disease, a rare illness causing bone hypertrophy that frequently affects the skull and more rarely the jaws and facial bone; a particularly advanced stage of the condition could perhaps result in such atypical features.99 This would fit with the morbid, voyeuristic fascination some early modern painters had with disability and non‐normative bodies, and recalls Vasari’s romantic account of Leonardo, sketchbook in hand, roaming the Florentine streets in search of unusual faces.100 Diagnoses established on the basis of a painting should be reached with caution, however, for not only are they fraught from a medical standpoint, but they also tend to overlook the contingencies of style and undermine artistic licence, confining painters to the literal replication of the realities around them and underplaying their power of invention. Although some grotesques by both Massys and Leonardo may well be rooted in direct observation, rather than the faithful portrayal of specific pathologies, they are probably best understood as exaggerations and imaginative explorations of the comic, expressive and subversive potential of distorting the human face.

Several identities have also been proposed for An Old Man. Silver saw it as a satirical portrait of Cosimo de’Medici, personifying greed, based on comparison with a medal depicting the Florentine ruler and a later portrait by Pontormo.101 More persuasively, Karel Boon noted similarities between An Old Man and a sixteenth‐century copy after a Portrait of Duke Philip the Bold from about 1400 (fig. 19).102 As discussed below, parallels with earlier portraits are more likely to do with Massys’ source material than any deliberate attempts at either posthumous portraiture or political caricature. The oil on paper version of An Old Man (see Pendant) has been described in an early auction record as the artist’s self portrait on no apparent grounds whatsoever.103

Fig. 19

Unknown French artist, Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, sixteenth‐century copy after a portrait of about 1400. Oil on panel, 42 × 30 cm. Versailles, Musée National des Châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, MV 4001. © RMN‐Grand Palais (Château de Versailles) / Gérard Blot

A Comic Type

Despite Massys adopting the visual conventions and fine execution of double portraiture – showing his figures at bust length, before a marble parapet and against a monochrome background – elements of costume and decorum immediately locate NG5769 and its pendant within the comic realm and reveal them as parodies rather than genuine likenesses. The Old Woman’s flamboyant and revealing garments have nothing to do with early sixteenth‐century female attire. Instead, they consist of a fanciful miscellany of fifteenth‐century courtly dress from both sides of the Alps.104 This type of bodice laced at the front was popular in the 1470s and 1480s both in the Netherlands and in Italy, but it was invariably covered by a linen fichu or gauze undercollar, which the old woman has brazenly dispensed with, immodestly revealing her wrinkled cleavage.105 The exposure of such ‘shameful parts’ as breasts was ranked first among laughable actions by the sixteenth‐century French physician Laurent Joubert in his famous Treatise on Laughter (1579), providing a sense of how this outfit would have been received by contemporary viewers.106 The old woman’s high hairline and plucked forehead further emulate mid‐fifteenth‐century ideals of courtly beauty.107 Her outlandish horned headdress recalls the monumental headpieces worn by aristocratic women in France and the Burgundian Netherlands around 1430–40. Already denounced as sartorial excess in their own day, by Massys’ time such headgear had become a ubiquitous iconographic shorthand for female vanity and evil.108 Although the Old Man’s attire is less extravagant than his counterpart’s, it does not reflect male fashion from the 1510s, especially his puffy bonnet. The medallic profile Massys adopted would also have looked deeply antiquated in the Netherlands by that date.109

Massys’ contemporary and two‐times patron, the great humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466/9–1536), touched upon the ridicule associated with the type of outdated dress seen in NG5769 in The Ciceronian, a fictive dialogue published in 1528. In a passage in which Erasmus seeks to demonstrate that literary style, like fashion, is historically contingent, one of his characters enlists earlier works of art: Just look at pictures that aren’t that old, painted, say, sixty years ago and see what was being worn by those of the fair sex belonging to prominent families or living at court. If a woman went out in public dressed like that now, the village idiots and street‐urchins would pelt her with rotten fruit. His interlocutor concurs, going on to describe an outfit strikingly similar to the Old Woman’s as the epitome of the outmoded and ridiculous: ‘Who would put up now with a decent married woman wearing those huge horns and pyramids and cones sticking out from the top of the head and having her brows and temples plucked so that nearly half her head is bald?’110 Erasmus’s verdict about such an outfit is unequivocal: ‘Everyone would laugh and boo’.

This dialogue is telling on several accounts. Firstly, it may provide an insight into Massys’ process of creation. It is likely, indeed, that the artist did look at ‘pictures that aren’t that old’ in preparation for these panels that deride fifteenth‐century courtly portraits: such works as the likeness of Isabella of Portugal by the workshop of Rogier van der Weyden (fig. 20); the crypto‐portrait of Agnès Sorel in Jean Fouquet’s Virgin and Child in the case of NG5769; and the profile portrait of Duke Philip the Good in the case of An Old Man.

Fig. 20

Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, Portrait of Isabella of Portugal, about 1450. Oil on panel, 46 × 37.1 cm. Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum. Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program

Secondly, Erasmus’s passage allows us to get a sense of the derision such historical dress would have attracted by the 1510s. In a similar spirit, in his Treatise on Painting Leonardo cautioned against incorporating contemporary fashion in paintings so that ‘our successors will not be driven to laughter by the mad inventions of men’.111 Departure from this rule was one of the principal comic devices of his visi mostruosi and it is no coincidence that he made the horned headdress the defining attribute of his grotesque old women. Similarly attuned to the semantics of historical costume, Massys too exploited the stigma then attached to fifteenth‐century dress both as a cutting allusion to his figure’s advanced age, and as an effective means to heighten her comic potential.112

Another breach of decorum makes Massys’ satirical purposes in these panels clear. In a carnivalesque inversion, the artist depicted the old woman on the right (the viewer’s left), the more prestigious side reserved for men in court etiquette, heraldry and by extension in double portraits of spouses.113 Although this departure from conventional placement might have simply resulted from the sources Massys had at hand when conceiving his pair (the left‐facing oil on paper and the right‐facing Leonardesque drawing), the resulting subversion of gender hierarchies would not have been lost on contemporary viewers. This locates NG5769 and its pendant within a rich strand of Northern secular imagery that revolved around the battle of the sexes and the power of women, in which alluring maidens, disobedient wives and fearsome witches all stood as potent incarnations of social disorder.114 In further transgressions, An Old Woman upends the ideals of youth, beauty and propriety that defined female portraiture at the time.115 Her ailing rosebud plays on such symbols of engagement as carnations and thistles, which were commonly held by prospective brides in double portraits. Roses, by contrast, had carnal associations and the woman’s proffering of it to her companion as a love token would have read as a shocking, unwomanly sexual overture, while the fact that the bud has yet to (or might never) bloom functions as a bruising commentary on her age.116 The old man raises his hand in response, a gesture that has been read alternatively as a salutation or rebuke and was perhaps meant to elicit debate among viewers.117 The painting takes aim at the presumed folly, vanity and lust of elderly women: a frequent target for Renaissance jokes that marshalled social stigma, physiological misconceptions around the menopause and a misogynistic tradition going back to classical writers such as Horace.118

Representative of this satirical vein, Erwin Panofsky first connected NG5769 to a vitriolic passage from Erasmus’s most famous work, Praise of Folly, a lashing critique of the excesses of his time, first published in 1511.119 After inveighing against the ‘amorous silliness’ of those ‘old drybones with a foot in the grave [who] take some tender young girl for a wife’, Erasmus continues: Yet it’s even more fun to see the old women who can scarcely carry their weight in years and look like corpses that seem to have risen from the dead. They still go around saying ‘Life is good’, still on heat, ‘longing for a mate’ as the Greeks say, and hiring some young Phaon by paying out large sums of money. They’re forever smearing their faces with make‐up, always looking in the mirror, and taking tweezers to their pubic hairs, exposing their sagging withered breasts and trying to rouse failing desire with their quavery whining voices, while they drink, dance among the girls, and scribble their little love letters.120

This passage, now invariably cited in conjunction to the painting, rightly crystallised a view of NG5769 as a piece of social satire. Yet, rather than assuming a direct connection between the text and the painting, it seems more likely that both Massys and Erasmus were drawing on a common visual tradition already well established in the Netherlands by that date: the theme of unequal love, in which acquisitive youngsters are shown consorting with lecherous old people for their money.121 Massys’ paintings break with both this imagery and Erasmus’s text in that, far from looking to attract some youth, the Old Woman seeks someone her own age – a point revisited below.

While a variety of promiscuous older women populate the literature and visual arts of the period, evidence suggests that NG5769 depicts a specific folkloric type. Indeed, a similar figure reappears across a number of contemporary prints, carvings and manuscripts. These include a Florentine engraving by the Monogrammist SE (active 1480s) that depicts a Morris dance or moresca, a frenzied dance performed during carnival, civic festivals and as court entertainment (fig. 21).122 The choreography saw a group of young male performers strike acrobatic poses around a young woman – often played by a man – holding up a prize ring or apple.123 In a grotesque parody of the moresca, the engraving swapped the athletic youths for bulky cavorters, the maiden for a hag, and the prize for a pig’s trotter and a skewer of sausages (phallic symbols from which she gained her nickname of ‘Sausage Woman’).124 This figure is strikingly reminiscent of both Leonardo’s Windsor and Spencer drawings, and by extension of NG5769: she wears a similarly extravagant gown with a low neckline and a nearly identical horned headdress with a trellis, covered by a trailing veil pinned by a brooch. The Florentine engraving, which probably dates from the 1480s, has been connected to a series of drawings by Andrea del Verrocchio featuring grotesque dancers that may have been known to the young Leonardo.125 As a type, the ‘Sausage Woman’ therefore appears to be a distant cousin, or rather an ancestor, of the ‘Ugly Duchess’.126

Fig. 21

Monogrammist SE, Morris Dance with the Sausage Woman, about 1480–90. Engraving, 38 × 57.6 cm. Florence, Gallerie degli Uffizi. © Gabinetto Fotografico delle Gallerie degli Uffizi

Like a wider group of secular prints made in Florence around the same time, the moresca engraving has long been thought to reflect Netherlandish works of art present in Florence in the 1470s and 1480s.127 The same Northern prototype probably served as the basis for a very similar composition, Morris Dancers (about 1470–1536) by the German artist Daniel Hopfer, in which the ‘Sausage Woman’ also features front and centre (fig. 22).128 As first noted by Panofsky, the same figure pops up again in an English misericord dating from about 1447 in the parish church of St Laurence’s in Ludlow (fig. 23).129 It shows a sneering old woman sporting an impressively large horned headdress adorned with a lattice of flowers and a flowing veil. She is flanked by two male supporters whose striding poses resemble the characteristic leaps of Morris dancers; it may be that here, once more, we are in the world of the moresca and in the presence of its mock May Queen.130 The supporters’ attributes are hard to identify: a tabor, shield or mirror have been suggested for the figure on the right; the figure on the left may once have held a sword.131 It could be a variation on the moresca whereby the men fight off the old woman rather than court her. Like many such English carvings of the period, the misericord probably derives from a Netherlandish model, thereby confirming the Northern origins of this folkloric type. This figure seems to have been a versatile character: she reappears around 1496–8 under the guise of the queen of hell, Proserpina – described as bearing a ‘terrible face’ – in a miniature by Robinet Testard from Evrart de Conty’s Livre des échecs amoureux moralisés (fig. 13).132 With its central mouth of hell framing the chthonian gods and its two side openings that seem to lead backstage, the space recalls the set of a mystery play, linking this particular figure to the world of popular theatre and public performance.

Fig. 22

Daniel Hopfer, Morris Dancers, late fifteenth–early sixteenth century. Engraving, 21.2 × 33.3 cm. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Elisha Whittelsey Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1951, 51.501.397. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Fig. 23

English, probably after a Netherlandish design, misericord showing a grotesque old woman and two supporters, about 1447. Carved oak. Ludlow, St Laurence’s Church. Photo Matthew Lambley / Alamy Stock Photo

Fig. 24

Robinet Testard, ‘Pluto and Proserpina’, miniature from Evrart de Conty, Livre des échecs amoureux moralisés, about 1496–8. Tempera and gold on parchment. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 143, fol. 136v. © Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris

Therefore, swinging like a pendulum across the Alps, a Northern folkloric type appears to have made its way to Florence by the 1470s before bouncing back to Antwerp in the 1510s via the intermediary of Leonardo. Today, only sparse echoes of this vernacular character survive, reverberating across a few disparate images. Unlike such figures as the hell raider ‘Dulle Griet’ (‘Mad Meg’), the fidgety housewife ‘Metz Unmuss’ (‘Metz the Restless’) or the fool Marcolf and his wife Polikana, the original name of the ‘Ugly Duchess’ in vernacular tradition – if she ever had any – has not come down to us. Yet there can be little doubt that Massys and his contemporaries would have recognised this folkloric figure when confronted with Leonardo’s design.133 Perhaps it was Leonardo’s novel and ambitious take on a familiar type that drew Massys to this particular drawing. Massys’ acquaintance with a figure from the world of civic festivals may also have been conditioned by the fact that the Antwerp painters’ guild was associated with the city’s rhetorician’s chamber De Violieren, responsible for putting together farces and morality plays in the city throughout the year.134 In NG5769, Massys therefore borrowed an established comic figure and dramatically refashioned her, jokingly elevating this obscene folkloric character to the rank of dignified portrait sitter.

In a visual culture that had so far confined the grotesque to the sidelines of representation, it is hard to overstate how novel this irruption of popular culture onto the rarefied scene of panel painting would have felt. It is worth noting, however, that at least one prominent precedent of a painting similarly blurring the boundaries between genre and portraiture is documented in the fifteenth century: a lost painting by Antonello da Messina depicting two elderly people laughing at each other, described in early modern sources as portraits – a tantalising record, given Antonello’s debt to Northern art.135 Lurking behind these parodies seems to be a critique of the pretension inherent in sitting for any portrait.

Finally, an important feature of the ‘Sausage Woman/Ugly Duchess’ type was its gender ambivalence: as mentioned above, in carnival dances a man would perform the character. The related prints and paintings depicting this folkloric figure appear to have alluded to this by lending her masculine traits. Thus, the old woman in NG5769 has powerful facial features, a strong chin and jaw, and broad shoulders, elements that contradict her generous bosom. This observation by no means implies that this is the portrait of a man wearing women’s clothes. As discussed, NG5769 parades as a likeness but is in fact the depiction of an imaginary, vernacular figure channelled through Leonardo’s pen. Rather, what the sexual indeterminacy of the ‘Sausage Woman/Ugly Duchess’ type reveals, is that the ‘ugly’ was partly understood in the early modern period as whatever resisted and transgressed the sealed categories of male and female.136

Patronage, Function and Date

Although nothing of their genesis and date is known, it is probably safe to assume that panels of this scale, quality and ambition were not made on speculation but resulted from a commission. This is all the more evident when comparing NG5769 to the several other grotesque heads that Massys painted over the course of his career.137 Smaller, more loosely painted, and featuring characters from low society, they are straightforward tronies that do not create the fiction of portraiture the way NG5769 and its pendant do.138 These more modest heads seem destined for the open market. By contrast, An Old Woman stands out, monumental, commanding and painted with consummate attention. As discussed above, the panel demonstrates Massys’ full mastery of his medium, with virtuoso techniques and myriad unflattering details captured with relish (see Technical Notes and Description above). Despite the lack of documents, it therefore seems worth asking what kind of patron such novel, brazenly indecorous yet surprisingly sophisticated paintings might have appealed to, and what kind of intellectual environment might have fostered such unusual creations.

Ever since the studies conducted by Georges Marlier and Erwin Panofsky, NG5769 and her companion have been interpreted in light of Massys’ documented relationship with Erasmus, whom he portrayed twice, first in a double portrait commissioned in 1517 with the Antwerp town clerk Pieter Gillis to be presented as a gift to their common friend Thomas More, and secondly in a portrait medal commissioned two years later.139 As discussed above, Erasmus’s critique of lustful old women in Praise of Folly and dismissal of historical dress in The Ciceronian can be productively brought to bear with NG5769 (see A Comic Type). More than merely topical, however, the connection between NG5769 and Erasmus’s texts is also formal. In treating figures of fun with the serious trappings and refined execution of portraiture, Massys created a powerful tension between dignified form and obscene content. Such glorification of a subject deemed unworthy, known as ‘paradoxical encomium’ (‘paradoxical praise’), was a foundational rhetorical device of both ancient and early modern satire.140 Massys’ association with De Violieren would explain his familiarity with paradoxical encomium, but importantly, and perhaps not coincidentally, it is also the rhetorical mode that entirely underpins Erasmus’s Praise of Folly.141 This was certainly not the only option available to Massys when engaging with the grotesque: the genre saw otherwise skilful artists such as Daniel Hopfer and Bartolomeo Passarotti adopting a coarse facture that mirrored their subject matter.142

The care that Massys lavished on NG5769 naturally reflects his meticulous style but may also have to do with humanistic debates around the specific pictorial genre that he was parodying: portraiture. By that date, Netherlandish painters were renowned all over Europe for their ability to convey likeness through the most minute detail.143 Erasmus famously derided such tireless imitation in The Ciceronian. In a passage believed to refer to his own numerous, lengthy sittings for Massys,144 he told of an unnamed painter who, unable to capture the essence of his sitter (that is, his spirit), resorted to documenting the most anecdotal change in his appearance, leading to a never‐ending and pointless enterprise:A certain painter of this kind was recently a source of amusement to us. He had engaged to paint our friend, Murius, and since he could not paint the true form of the man, he looked about if he had anything noteworthy on his body or clothes. He began in the summer and had already for the most part finished the picture, had painted a ring which he was wearing, a purse and girdle, and had carefully copied the felt cap on his head. Then he noticed that on the finger of his left hand there was a scar; this he represented with studied care. Then on the right wrist he found a large swelling and painted that. On the left eyebrow he put some hairs in different directions. On the cheek too he put a scar, the mark of a wound. Time went on and he had many sittings. If, when he came, he saw that the beard had been shaved, he painted a new chin; again if he saw that the beard had grown out he changed the chin, because that pleased him more. Between times a slight fever seized Murius which, as is usual, left a sore on his lip; the painter portrayed this. At length winter came, another cap was put on; he changed the picture. Winter clothing of furs was put on, he painted a new dress. Cold changed the complexion and as usual shrunk the skin, he changed the entire skin. Murius caught a chill which affected his left eye and made his nose somewhat larger and very much redder, he painted a new eye and a new nose. If ever he saw him uncombed, he ruffled up the hair. If perchance Murius was sleeping while he painted, he represented him sleeping. If he had taken medicine which made him look and feel years older, he changed the face. If he could have painted the true and native form of the man, he would not have taken refuge in these incidental things.145

In this passage, Erasmus turned the great strength of painting – its mimetic abilities – into a weakness, articulating a masterful indictment of the failure of images to convey reality in anything but a superficial way. In a manner reminiscent of Erasmus’s painter in The Ciceronian, in NG5769 Massys pushed the indexing of physical traits to the brink of absurdity. Deploying a dazzling range of techniques, he meticulously recorded the faintest irregularity, refusing to spare the viewer a single wrinkle, pimple or white hair. On this account, Max J. Friedländer condemned the painter’s facture in NG5769 as ‘punctilious’ and ‘pedantic’.146 Yet Massys’ excessive, obsessive illusionism in NG5769 rather seems deliberate and pointed: in exploiting the possibilities of oil paint to produce a disturbingly vivid figure, the artist may have intended to proclaim the power of images in the face of humanistic critique. As a demonstration of wit, he did so by parodying the medium of painting itself, with its double‐edged ambition to create a convincing rendition of reality.147

That a self‐conscious reflection on the power and pitfalls of mimetic representation is at work in NG5769 is confirmed by an anecdote that Erasmus included in his 1518 edition of the Adages, just a year after he was first portrayed by Massys. The Adages were an erudite and hugely influential compilation and explanation of ancient proverbs, first published in 1508 and continuously expanded until Erasmus’s death, which have been credited for introducing classical texts to a wide readership during the Renaissance.148 In the 1518 edition, in order to define the ancient notion of ‘sardonic laughter’ Erasmus drew on a dictionary compiled by the Roman grammarian Festus, which recounted the demise of the ancient Greek painter Zeuxis, who, like Apelles, was a tutelary figure for Renaissance artists:149 Erasmus writes that Zeuxis died of laughter while beholding the portrait of an old woman he had painted.150 Although more obscure than other episodes of Zeuxis’ life, this story was included by Karel van Mander in his Schilder‐boeck (1604) and later inspired Rembrandt’s famous Self Portrait as Zeuxis (about 1668; Wallraf‐Richartz Museum & Fondation Corboud, Cologne, inv. WRM 2526), as well as a self portrait by his pupil Aert de Gelder (1685; Städel Museum, Frankfurt, inv. 1015) in which the old woman is shown holding a golden apple and thus impersonating the goddess of love Aphrodite – her self‐delusion akin to that of Massys’ old woman.151

Massys probably knew the tale of Zeuxis’ tragicomic end, as his work elsewhere certainly hints at his awareness of Apelles’ and Zeuxis’ other legendary feats of illusionism.152 In painting the fictive portrait of a risible old woman, Massys was therefore declaring himself Zeuxis’ successor, but not without irony, perhaps mocking, via this sinister tale, the pompous tendency of his learned contemporaries to claim the antique legacy by comparing modern painters to their ancient counterparts – exactly as Thomas More had done when, enthused by the double portraits of Erasmus and Gillis he had just received, he called Massys the ‘renovator of Ancient art (…) no less great than the grand Apelles’.153 This antique precedent further endowed Massys’ obscene vernacular figure, the beleaguered hag from the world of carnival, with a reputable classical aura, collapsing high culture and low humour into one, in a manner typical of humanistic jest.

In a sort of anti‐praise of painting, the Zeuxis story offered a reflection – and perhaps a warning – on the power of images to create unsettling (and even lethal) illusions of reality, calling attention to Massys’/Zeuxis’ astonishing skills in the process.154 Through the legend of Zeuxis’ artful demise, the portrayal of older women might have become during that time a measure of artistic achievement and a locus of competition for ambitious painters, for instance for Dürer and Giorgione around 1507 (fig. 25).155 Unlike beauty, which is always constrained by strict norms, the possibilities offered by ugliness – and the shapes it can take – are infinite and unpredictable, thereby affording artists a privileged space for play, experimentation and demonstration.156 This might provide a clue to NG5769’s original function: Massys may have conceived this work as a formidable showpiece intended to impress and amuse prospective clients.

Fig. 25

Albrecht Dürer, Avarice, reverse of Portrait of a Young Man, 1507. Oil on panel, 35 × 29 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. © Photo Austrian Archives/Scala Florence

Another credible hypothesis, given the classical reference, is that the panels were made for a humanist patron, possibly around the time Massys was involved with Erasmus, about 1517–19, which is also the moment when the Zeuxis anecdote first appeared in The Adages. That contravenes the traditional dating of NG5769 and its pendant to about 1513, based on the date inscribed on the preparatory oil on paper for An Old Man.157 As discussed above (see Pendant), a recent conservation treatment has revealed the last numeral ‘3’ to be a later restoration necessitated after a tear in the paper rendered the original completely illegible. The oil on paper was transferred from panel to canvas after 1902, and the damage and subsequent treatment might have happened then.158 In this scenario, the reconstruction would simply reproduce faithfully the lost original digit, as auction catalogues as early as 1791 already record the date to be 1513.159 If the restoration is older than 1791, however, it opens the possibility for this work, and by extension NG5769, to have been created at a later date. Given the humanistic context laid out above, pushing the creation of NG5769 and its pendant towards the end of the decade, when Massys’ involvement with Erasmus and his acolytes was at its most intense, would be sensible. Rather than considering NG5769 as mere illustration of Erasmus’s satires, as has traditionally been the case, the work might best be seen as Massys’ playful if pointed response to the humanist’s critique of images. Such a dating also fits more appropriately within what is understood of Massys’ artistic development. The current assumption that An Old Woman and An Old Man predate The Money Changer and his Wife, signed and dated 1514, a genre scene that seems less resolved compositionally and more archaic stylistically, is difficult to receive. However, matters of dating in Massys’ oeuvre remain notoriously prickly: only five of his paintings bear a date and a few more can be dated thanks to documents;160 his style is remarkably consistent throughout his two decades of activity and attempts at periodisation are perilous. Therefore, caution should remain and NG5769 and its pendant can provisionally be dated to 1513–19.

However one settles on the panels’ dates, placing the creation of NG5769 and its pendant within Massys’ humanist milieu raises the possibility of An Old Man – who unlike his partner is not a grotesque confection – being a satirical portrait, maybe as part of a humanistic inside joke: the cheeky likeness of a friend or the bruising portrayal of an intellectual rival. This would help explain the lingering incongruity of their mismatched appearance – grotesque versus conventionally old – and would fit neatly with Maximiliaan Martens and Jan Van der Stocks’s recent proposal that Massys’ Laughing Democritus (about 1525–30; Private collection) is a crypto‐portrait of Thomas More.161

Although conclusions must remain tentative, works like NG5769 and its pendant would undoubtedly have been warmly received within such circles. The poet and humanist Oswald Myconius tells us of Erasmus’s glee upon seeing Hans and Ambrosius Holbein’s lively pen illustrations in his copy of the Praise of Folly and Erasmus himself was an amateur caricaturist, as shown in the satirical self portraits that dot the margins of one of his manuscripts.162 Laurent Joubert further tells us of the element of stagecraft that sometimes accompanied the presentation of images such NG5769:when we are promised the sight of a beautiful young woman, and just as we are aroused, we are shown a wrinkled old lady with one eye, a runny nose, a thick and kinky beard and underslung buttocks, dirty, smelly, drooling, toothless, flat‐nosed, bandy‐legged, humpy, bumpy, stinking, twisted, filthy, knotty, full of lice and more deformed than ugliness itself. Here there is something truly to laugh at, seeing ourselves being made fun of in this way.163 It is tantalising to imagine that An Old Woman may have been unveiled in such theatrical fashion, through the use of a curtain or the dramatic opening of the diptych it may have once formed with An Old Man, for instance.

What both Myconius’s and Joubert’s anecdotes reveal is that looking at images such as NG5769 was a profoundly social – and more precisely homosocial – business in the early sixteenth century. Massys’ pair was not conceived to hang silently on a wall. Rather, its ability to elicit the viewers’ astonishment, and afford them a chance to show off their learning and wit, would have been a measure of its success.164 Tellingly, in Joubert’s account, it is the fooled viewer rather than the hag who is the ultimate object of laughter. Similarly, and despite the era’s pervading misogyny, recent studies have shown that deficient men rather than women were more often the butt of obscene jokes in the sixteenth century.165 Likewise, Renaissance viewers may have laughed at Massys’ old woman, but perhaps also with her, at the pedantic‐looking old man who found himself matched with her, and at the societal norms, gender hierarchies and beauty standards she proudly defied – a breach that beholders were invited to partake in vicariously. In this freedom and irreverence perhaps lies one explanation for An Old Woman’s extraordinarily enduring appeal.

Notes

1 On the etching, see Pennington 1982, p. 276, no. 1603; Turner 2009, vol. 3, pp. 50, 54, no. 742; Wytema 2023, pp. 56–9. (Back to text.)

3 This Normandy provenance appears on the reverse of a stock photograph from the New York dealers Rosenberg and Stiebel, who owned An Old Man in 1977. The painting was said to have been in this family since the beginning of the eighteenth century. I am grateful to Cécile Scailliérez for sharing this stock photograph with me. The name of Boisguiraud could not be found in ‘Liste des membres (présidents, conseillers, avocats et procureurs généraux, etc.) du parlement de Rouen’, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. Français 24113. (Back to text.)

4 Luís Reis‐Santos identified NG5769 and An Old Man as pendants when the latter appeared on the Paris art market in 1954: see Marlier in Le Siècle de Bruegel 1963, p. 131, no. 165, and the letter from Luís Reis‐Santos to Martin Davies, 9 April 1954, NG Archive, curatorial dossier for NG5769. (Back to text.)

5 See Lebrun’s introduction to the sales catalogue; Peronnet and Fredericksen 1998, pp. 64–5, 678. On Van Hoorn, see Pradère 2007. (Back to text.)

6 Waagen 1854, vol. 2, pp. 231, 243. On Seymour, see Wytema 2023, pp. 62–4, p. 72, note 32. (Back to text.)

7 Wytema 2023, p. 64. (Back to text.)

8 Cited in Campbell 2014, p. 446. On Blaker, see Urquhart 1963; Meyrick 2004; Campbell 2014, p. 461, note 5. (Back to text.)

9 NG Archives, Letter written on 22 September 1920, in response to an offer made two days earlier: ‘I fear that the acceptance of pictures on loan, however interesting, is quite out of the question at present in view of the congested state of the Gallery’. Blaker wrote again on 14 February 1922 and the Gallery replied the following day: ‘Many thanks for your kind offer. I well remember your picture, it is certainly a great curiosity, but I do not think for a moment that the Board would break their general rule in its favour. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that the Board is willing to consider the acceptance of a picture on loan here; partly owing to the pressure on our wall space, (which in the case of the Netherlandish masters is even worse than elsewhere) partly owing to the experience of the past which proves that exhibition here has too often been the prelude to sale abroad at a price enhanced by the fact of appearance on these walls.’ Blaker sent a long reply on 19 February making an energetic case: ‘the Matsys is not a “curiosity”, but one of the finest works of a great master! The greatest service you could do the public would be to have as many fine loans as possible in place of many minor pictures’ and questioning a policy that encouraged the temporary display of Gainsborough’s The Blue Boy (1770; Henry E. Huntington Art Gallery, San Marino, inv. 21.1) prior to export to the USA. The Director Charles Holmes wrote back on 21 February: ‘Though I appreciate your intentions, I am afraid I cannot add to my previous note without entering into a controversy on first principles which would convince neither of us’. I am grateful to Nicholas Smith for his help with this material. (Back to text.)

10 NG Archive, Cecil Gould’s memorandum to the Director: ‘This picture was offered on loan (minutes of 11 Dec: 1934) and “declined with thanks”. It was also offered for sale “at an unstated price” and refused (minutes of 13 Dec" 1938). The present Chairman was in the Chair [on] the latter occasion. M[artin]. D.[avies] opines that the [ug]liness of the sitter was an important factor [on] one or both occasions.’ (Back to text.)

11 Letter from Jenny Blaker to Kenneth Clark, 19 November 1938, NG Archive, dossier for NG5769. On Jenny Blaker, see Campbell 2014, pp. 461–2, note 10. (Back to text.)

12 Letter from Luís Reis‐Santos to Martin Davies, 9 April 1954, NG Archive, dossier for NG5769. On Reis‐Santos’s discovery, see Marlier in Le Siècle de Bruegel 1963, p. 131, no. 165; Silver 1977. (Back to text.)

13 The technical remarks that follow are indebted to the examination record compiled by Sophie Scully following study of the painting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in May 2022 ahead of the exhibition The Ugly Duchess: Beauty and Satire in the Renaissance (National Gallery, London, 2023). I am grateful to Sophie Scully and her colleagues Evan Read and Silvia Centeno for sharing their findings with us, as well as Maryan Ainsworth, Stephan Wolohojian and Michael Gallagher for hosting the painting at the Metropolitan. Our deepest thanks go to the owner of the painting for allowing this study to take place. (Back to text.)

14 The join is located between 30.3 cm and 30.5 cm from the left edge on An Old Man. On NG5769 the join is located between 31.9 cm and 32.5 cm from the left edge. (Back to text.)

15 The background in An Old Man has a base layer of lead white, onto which a translucent deep green has been applied (based on examination with a stereomicroscope); no paint samples have been taken so the precise composition of the paints has not been determined). In contrast, the background of NG5769 has an opaque green base layer followed by a thin translucent deep green glaze, although it is interesting that in the past this was overlaid with a white layer and further green paint, seemingly applied at an early date (see Technical Notes). (Back to text.)

16 Friedländer 1927, pp. 1–2; Foucart in Laclotte 1965, pp. 158–9, no. 202; Panofsky 1971, vol. 1, pp. 354–5; Bosque 1975, pp. 228–9; Silver 1977; Silver 1984, pp. 233–4, no. 54; Blaunsteiner in Borchert and Jonckheere 2015, pp. 88–9, no. 1. (Back to text.)

17 Joanna‐Aldegonis de Proli (died 3 December 1779), Hubert Bincken, Antwerp, 27 July 1780, lot 41: ‘Een Mans Portrait met eene mutse op het hoofd, zeer uytvoerig geschilderd, met de inscriptie Quintinus Messys pincebat anno 1513.’ (‘A portrait of a man with a hat on the head, painted with much detail, with the inscription Quintinus Messys pincebat anno 1513). Joanna‐Aldegonis de Proli was the wife of Jean‐Joseph Pelgrom (died 3 August 1769). Their daughter Martha‐Maria Pelgrom died shortly before her mother, on 21 January 1779. The Pelgrom family seems to have had roots in Antwerp since at least the early sixteenth century, when one Johannes Pelgrom is documented in the service of Maximilian and followed him to Germany when the emperor left the Netherlands; see Delrue 1859. (Back to text.)

18 Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France, ‘Compte‐rendu d’étude’, 30 September 2008: the work is painted on a single sheet of paper measuring 51.2 × 37.8 cm. (Back to text.)

20 Exposition des Primitifs flamands 1902, p. 132, no. 351: the support is still described as ‘Bois’. (Back to text.)

21 Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France, ‘Rapport de restauration fondamentale’, 2014. (Back to text.)

22 Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France, ‘Compte‐rendu d’étude’, 30 September 2008: ‘Le chiffre “3” est totalement refait. Il vient remplacer un autre chiffre placé légèrement plus à droite, qui est trop usé pour être déchiffré.’ (‘The number “3” is entirely reconstructed. It replaces another numeral placed slightly to the right, too abraded to be deciphered.’) (Back to text.)

23 For the Madre de Deus Altarpiece, see Silver 1984, pp. 205–7, no. 12; for the Grotesque Betrothal, see Silver 1984, p. 144. (Back to text.)

24 The other known instances involve Massys too: two heads of mourners in oil on paper (about 1525; Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, inv. B.108 and B.109) were traced from Massys’ Lamentation Altarpiece (1508–11; Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, inv. 245–249). Massys’ A Bagpiper (about 1513; Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, inv. 2020.37.5) is also on paper. An oil on panel showing exactly the same figure on the same scale, attributed to Jan Massys, was recently on the art market (Artcurial, 23 March 2022, lot 20). (Back to text.)

25 Clark and Pedretti 1968, vol. 1, p. 83, no. 12492; Clayton 2002, pp. 90–3, no. 39; Bambach 2019, vol. 3, p. 527, fig. 13.39. (Back to text.)

27 Muylle 1994; Landau and Parshall 1994, p. 220; Luyckx 2021, vol. 2, pp. 133–4, no. 203; Wytema 2023, pp. 55–6. (Back to text.)

28 See Capron 2023b, pp. 23–4. (Back to text.)

29 Friedländer 1927, p. 1, first connected Hollar’s etching to NG5769. See also Baldass 1933, pp. 148–50. On the etching, see Pennington 1982, p. 276, no. 1603; Turner 2009, vol. 3, pp. 50, 54, no. 742; Wytema 2023, pp. 56–9. (Back to text.)

31 Campbell 2014, p. 452. (Back to text.)

32 I am grateful to Charlotte Wytema for this observation. (Back to text.)

33 Reproduced by Bosque 1975, fig. 287; Haid in Hörmann‐Thurn und Taxis 2007, p. 74, no. 8.18, reproduced p. 154. (Back to text.)

34 Campbell 2014, p. 462, note 21. (Back to text.)

35 Haid in Hörmann‐Thurn und Taxis 2007, pp. 74–5, no. 8.20, reproduced p. 154. (Back to text.)

36 Constans 1995, vol. 2, p. 775, no. 4372. (Back to text.)

38 Campbell 2014, p. 448; Wytema 2023, p. 60. (Back to text.)

39 Wytema 2023, p. 72, note 19. (Back to text.)

40 Dézallier d’Argenville 1755, p. 245; Wytema 2023, p. 72, note 20. I am grateful to Cécile Scailliérez for calling my attention to this mention. (Back to text.)

41 Campbell 2014, p. 462, note 23, sees no reason to associate this entry to NG5769 or one of its copies. (Back to text.)

42 Haid in Hörmann‐Thurn und Taxis 2007, p. 75, no. 8.21, reproduced p. 155; Campbell 2014, p. 452. (Back to text.)

43 Reproduced by Bosque 1975, fig. 289, and Meijer in Bora, Kahn‐Rossi and Porzio 1998, p. 20, fig. 2; Campbell 2014, p. 446; Wytema 2023, p. 62. (Back to text.)

44 Clayton 2002, p. 93, under no. 39; Campbell 2014, p. 452; Bilclough 2021, p. 97; Wytema 2023, pp. 62–4. (Back to text.)

45 Wytema 2023, pp. 62–4. (Back to text.)

46 Ibid. , p. 64. (Back to text.)

47 The Technical Notes rely heavily on those published in Campbell 2014, pp. 452–7, but have been updated on the basis of new observations from the conservation and technical examination in 2022. These are also discussed in Capron 2023b, pp. 11–32. (Back to text.)

48 Reports in the conservation dossier, pp. 8–10. (Back to text.)

49 Report dated 29 August 1997 by Peter Klein in the NG dossier. See also Klein’s archive, https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/technical#filters[link_object_record_priref]=55248. (Back to text.)

50 Report by Peter Klein (see note 49, above). (Back to text.)

51 See Nathan Daly, Marika Spring and Catherine Higgitt, report on macro XRF scanning results in the scientific department file dated 13 July 2023 (unpublished). Campbell 2014, p. 456, observes that the patterns on each horn were painted in a slightly different technique, noting this perhaps indicates more than one artist at work, but it now seems more likely this distinction is due to the alterations made during painting. (Back to text.)

52 For the analysis of pigments, see Marika Spring, reports in scientific department file dated February 1994, 15 June 2012 and July 2023 (unpublished). Copper sulphate was identified on the basis of SEM‐EDX analysis, with the presence of some malachite inferred from EDX spectra showing only copper, rather than copper and sulphur, in some of the particles. (Back to text.)

53 In the dark green layer on top of the white, the back‐scattered SEM image and EDX analysis showed particles of copper sulphate floating in a more uniform matrix that also contained copper, perhaps indicating verdigris was also originally part of the mixture, subsequently having reacted with the oil medium so that the copper is dispersed as soaps. For green copper mineral pigments containing a high proportion of copper sulphate and their occurrences in Netherlandish works, see Spring 2017. (Back to text.)

54 Raymond White and Jennifer Pilc, report on analysis of paint medium dated 13 January 1995 (unpublished) in scientific department file. (Back to text.)

55 See Campbell 2014, pp. 454–7, for a longer description of paint handling characteristics that are considered typical or even distinctive for Quinten Massys. (Back to text.)

56 Bakhtin 1965 (1984), pp. 316–18. (Back to text.)

57 Massys’ signed paintings are: the Holy Kinship Altarpiece (1507–8; Musée Royaux des Beaux‐Arts, Brussels); An Old Man (1513?; Musée Jacquemart‐André, Paris, inv. MJAP‐P 829, fig. 2); The Money Changer and his Wife (1514; Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 1444) and the Rattier Virgin (1529; Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 1475). The Adoration of the Magi (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. 11.143) bears the date 1526. (Back to text.)

58 Especially Waagen 1854, vol. 2, p. 243; Friedländer 1967–76, vol. 7 (1971), pp. 65–6, no. 52. (Back to text.)

59 Davies 1955, p. 71. (Back to text.)

60 Bosque 1975, pp. 230–1; Silver 1984, pp. 140–1, 220–1, no. 32; Campbell 2014, pp. 446–63. (Back to text.)

61 Campbell 2014, pp. 457–8. (Back to text.)

62 Waagen 1854, vol. 2, p. 243. (Back to text.)

63 On the reception and copying of Leonardo’s grotesques, see Clayton 2002, pp. 13–14; Forcione 2003; Bambach 2019, vol. 1, pp. 62–3, vol. 3, pp. 526–30; Clayton 2023. On the presence of Leonardo’s grotesques in Antwerp, see Sulzberger 1955; Scailliérez 1991, pp. 54–61; Meijer 1998, pp. 69–76; Silver 2015; Plomp 2018. (Back to text.)

64 Clayton 2023, p. 40. (Back to text.)

65 Ainsworth 2010, p. 11; Clayton 2023, p. 40. (Back to text.)

66 On the unsubstantiated possibility that Massys went to Italy, see Limentani Virdis 1989; Dominici 2016. (Back to text.)

67 For a list of Massys’ works inspired by Leonardo’s designs, see Campbell 2014, p. 460; Scailliérez in Delieuvin 2012, p. 321, under no. 117; to which should be added the recently rediscovered Head of a Fool (1520s; The Phoebus Foundation, Antwerp). Scailliérez 1991, pp. 60, 109, note 166: Massys painted a lost Last Supper for the church of St Peter’s in Leuven (Descamps 1769, p. 102) that may have been inspired by Leonardo’s. (Back to text.)

68 Joos van Cleve: Ewing 2011, pp. 112–31; Scailliérez 1991, pp. 54–61; Silver 2015, pp. 25–31. Bosch: Białostocki 1959. Dürer: Slatkes 1975; Meijer 1998, pp. 69–76. (Back to text.)

69 The earliest recorded Northern copies after Leonardo’s grotesques seem to be The Unequal Couple by Jacob Hoefnagel (1602; Albertina, Vienna, inv. 60r; see Vignau‐Wilberg 2017, pp. 500–1, no. C5; Clayton 2023, p. 37). A drawing in the British Museum, London (inv. Pp,1.36), is by a mid‐sixteenth‐century Northern hand and features one Leonardesque prototype within a larger narrative composition that was engraved in reverse by Agostino Veneziano. For later Northern copies, including the Caylus Album, see Forcione 2003. More Northern drawings after Leonardo’s grotesques might lie unrecognised, catalogued as the product of Italy. (Back to text.)

70 Clayton 2023, p. 40. (Back to text.)

71 Among others, Royal Collection, London: invs RL12490; RL12453; RL12491; RL12492; RL12493; RL12447; RL12449. Collection of the Duke of Devonshire, Chatsworth: inv. 823B (Bambach in Bambach 2003, pp. 459–61, no. 73b); National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC: inv. 2022.84.1 (Bambach in Bambach 2003, pp. 457–8, no. 72); and Private collection, New York (Bambach in Bambach 2003, pp. 454–5, no. 70). (Back to text.)

72 Clark and Pedretti 1968, vol. 1, p. 83. (Back to text.)

73 Clayton 2023, p. 37. (Back to text.)

74 Ibid. , pp. 36–7; Clayton 2002, p. 74; Nuttall 2021, p. 296. Gentilini 2006, p. 47: terracotta busts of two old women and two fat men laughing are documented at the Gonzaga court in Mantua. (Back to text.)

75 Friedländer 1927, pp. 1–2, and Lammertse 2015, p. 97, suggest that the figure may be based on a lost Leonardesque design. Clayton 2002, p. 92, under no. 39, leaves the possibility open. (Back to text.)

76 Campbell in Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 228–9, no. 70; Campbell 2014, pp. 458, 460. (Back to text.)

77 Nuttall 2004, pp. 224–8. (Back to text.)

78 Panofsky 1948, p. 284. (Back to text.)

79 Clark and Pedretti 1968, vol. 1, p. xliv; Clayton 2002, pp. 73–99; Bambach 2019, vol. 1, pp. 457–72. (Back to text.)

80 On Liefrinck’s print, see Muylle 1994; Landau and Parshall 1994, p. 220; Luyckx 2021, vol. 2, pp. 133–4, no. 203. Plomp 2018, p. 102, note 12, also disagrees with Campbell’s argument on this basis. (Back to text.)

81 The Leonardesque head belongs to a sheet in the British Museum (inv. 1946,0713.223). (Back to text.)

82 Clayton 2002, p. 74. The sole exception in Leonardo’s oeuvre is a life‐size cartoon pricked for transfer now in Christ Church, Oxford (about 1500–5; inv. JBS 19): see Bambach in Bambach 2003, pp. 508–11, no. 92; Bambach 2019, vol. 2, pp. 430–5. (Back to text.)

83 Marlier 1954, p. 224; Schütt 2021, pp. 157–8. (Back to text.)

84 Campbell 2014, p. 453; Schütt 2021, pp. 157–8. (Back to text.)

85 Wytema 2023, p. 58. (Back to text.)

86 Campbell 2014, p. 458, dismisses the title as fabricated. (Back to text.)

87 Wytema 2023, p. 58. (Back to text.)

88 Tietze‐Conrat 1957, pp. 19–21. (Back to text.)

89 Also refuted by Campbell 2014, p. 458, and Schütt 2021, pp. 154–6. Compare with the attire worn by the sitter in the Portrait of Elisabet, Court Fool of Anne of Hungary (Sotheby’s, London, 5 July 2017, lot 5, with an attribution to Jan Sanders van Hemessen). (Back to text.)

90 Wytema 2023, p. 59. (Back to text.)

91 Ibid. , p. 60. On Habsburg portraiture, see Bodart 2011. (Back to text.)

92 On Margaret, see Baum 2004; Hörmann‐Thurn und Taxis 2007; Campbell 2014, pp. 458–9. (Back to text.)

94 Cited in Campbell 2014, p. 459. (Back to text.)

95 Baum 2004, pp. 207–38; Baum in Hörmann‐Thurn und Taxis 2007, pp. 79–81, under nos 9.5–9.8. (Back to text.)

96 Campbell 2014, p. 459. (Back to text.)

97 Wytema 2023, pp. 60–1. (Back to text.)

98 Ibid. , p. 64. (Back to text.)

99 Dequeker 1989; Campbell in Campbell et al. 2008, p. 228, under no. 70; Campbell 2014, pp. 457, 459–60. (Back to text.)

100 Vasari 1906, vol. 4, p. 26. See also Clayton 2002, p. 83: in the Codex Urbinas, Leonardo advised that artists should carry sketchbooks with them to record faces seen in the street; Clayton 2002, p. 129: Leonardo also made a note in the Codex Forster II, fol. 3r, that a woman named Giovannina, bearing a ‘fantastic face’, was to be found at the hospital of Santa Caterina. (Back to text.)

101 Hymans 1902, p. 82; Panofsky 1971, vol. 1, pp. 354–5, discussing the Jacquemart‐André Old Man; elaborated by Reis‐Santos in Marlier 1954, p. xii; Silver 1977, pp. 70–5; Clayton 2002, pp. 92–3, under no. 39; dismissed by Friedländer 1927, p. 2; Foucart in Laclotte 1965, p. 158, no. 202; Schütt 2021, pp. 161–2. (Back to text.)

102 Boon 1942, p. 43; Campbell 2014, p. 459. Dismissed by Schütt 2021, p. 162. (Back to text.)

103 Sale of F.A.E. Bruynincx, Antwerp, 1 August 1791, lot 78: ‘Le Portrait d’un homme âgé, il est en buste & vu de profil; il porte sur la tête un bonnet de pourpre très‐foncé, & une pellisse brune sur les épaules; le tout sur un fond clair. On peut admirer ce Tableau précieux pour le plus approchant a la nature: l’on y découvre un fini supérieur, un beau dessein & cette vérité dont les charmes sont ravissants; d’ailleurs il est peint dans son meilleur tems, l’an 1513, & on fait que cet Artiste a excellé à faire des portraits. Quelques‐uns veulent soutenir que c’est son propre Portrait.’ (‘The portrait of an elderly man, at bust length and in profile; he wears a dark purple hat and a brown fur coat on his back; against a light background. One can admire this precious picyire for its emulation of nature: one discovers a superior finish, a beautiful design and this truth whose charms are ravishing; it is in fact painted in his [Massys’] best period, the year 1513, and one knows that this artist excelled at painting portraits. Some argue that it is his own likeness’). The only record of Massys’ appearance is a posthumous engraving by Johannes Wierix, which appeared in Dominicus Lampsonius’s Pictorum Aliquot Celebrium Germaniae Inferioris Effigies, published in 1572. One cannot be sure it is a reliable document of the painter’s face, but it does not resemble An Old Man at all. (Back to text.)

104 Panofsky 1971, vol. 1, p. 358; Silver 1984, p. 140; Campbell 2014, p. 459; Schütt 2021, pp. 143–4. (Back to text.)

105 Campbell 2014, p. 459, likening it to a portrait of Margaret of York (about 1475; Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. RF 1938 17). This type of bodice is also reminiscent of Leonardo’s Portrait of Ginevra de’ Benci (about 1474–8; National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, inv. 1967.6.1.a). Scott 2011, pp. 48–9: even the two provocatively dressed women embodying the sin of intemperance in a miniature by the Master of the Dresden Prayer Book (Getty Museum, Los Angeles, Ms. 43r) wear a fichu to cover their chest. (Back to text.)

106 Joubert 1579 (1980), p. 20: ‘What we see that is ugly, deformed, improper, indecent, unfitting, and indecorous excites laughter in us, provided we are not moved to compassion. Example: if perchance one uncovers the shameful parts which by nature or public decency we are accustomed to keeping hidden, since this is ugly yet unworthy of pity, it moves the onlookers to laughter.’ (Back to text.)

107 The height of this fashion is embodied by Jean Fouquet’s Virgin, probably based on the likeness of Agnès Sorel, in the Melun Diptych (about 1452; Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, inv. 132). (Back to text.)

108 Campbell 2014, p. 459; Scott 1980, pp. 62–3; Hentsch 1903, citing the poet Alain Chartier, pp. 164–6. A misericord from St Mary’s at Minster‐in‐Thanet shows a demon tucked between the voluminous horns of an unsuspecting lady’s headdress; see Grössinger 1997b, p. 89; Hardwick 2011, pp. 97–9. In Hieronymus Bosch’s Table of the Seven Deadly Sins (1505–10; Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. P002822), a horned headdress is worn by both the personification of Pride and the devil that holds up a mirror to her; see Silva Maroto in Silva Maroto 2016, pp. 302–12, no. 40, esp. pp. 306, 308; Silver 1977, pp. 75, 80. The sinful women battling for the trousers in the eponymous print by the Master of the Banderoles are wearing horned headdresses. The lady’s dubious morals in Lucas van Leyden’s print Gentleman with a Hawk and a Lady (about 1507) are indicated by her monumental horned headpiece as well as her lewd gesture. For other examples, including Massys’ The Temptations of Saint Anthony, see Campbell 2014, p. 657; Grössinger 1997a, pp. 98–100. See also Taatgen 2021 for horned headdresses in the work of Massys’ successor Marinus van Reymerswale. (Back to text.)

109 This outdated look is even stronger in the Paris Old Man, whose off‐white background recalls fifteenth‐century precedents such as Robert Campin’s Portrait of a Stout Man (about 1430–30; Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, inv. 537A; as first noted by Baldass 1933, pp. 149–50), and Rogier van der Weyden’s Portrait of Francesco d’Este (about 1460; Metropolitan Museum, New York, inv. 32.100.43). (Back to text.)

110 Erasmus 1986, p. 381, cited by Nagel 2004, p. 46, and Nagel and Wood 2010, pp. 91–2. I am grateful to Alexander Nagel for bringing this passage to my attention. (Back to text.)

111 Leonardo 1956, vol. 1, p. 208; vol. 2, fol. 170r; passage discussed by Gombrich 1976, p. 57, and Nagel 2004, p. 47. (Back to text.)

112 Massys used historicising garbs for satirical ends in Ill‐Matched Lovers (about 1520–5; National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, inv. 1971.55.1) and in two works known today only from copies: Two Men praying (the best version of which is now at the Palazzo Doria Pamphilij in Rome (about 1525, inv. FC 417 and the Tax Collectors (Princely Collections Vaduz–Vienna, Liechtenstein (late 1520s; inv. GE 2462). See also Panofsky 1971, vol. 1, p. 354, for archaic dress in The Money Changer and his Wife (1514; Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 1444, which is probably indebted to an Eyckian prototype. (Back to text.)

113 On scriptural sources for the pre‐eminence of the right, see Campbell 2006b, p. 36; Van der Velden 2006, p. 130. On left–right symbolism in the West, see Needham 1973; Hall 2008. Panofsky 1971, vol. 1, pp. 479–80, argues this reflected the ‘laws of heraldry’; disputed by Campbell 2006b, pp. 36–41, and Van der Velden 2006, pp. 129–33, who trace this convention to court etiquette. (Back to text.)

114 On this imagery, see Davis 1978; Moxey 1989, pp. 101–26; Russell 1990, pp. 147–75; Grössinger 1997a, pp. 112–26; Hardwick 2011, pp. 85–109. (Back to text.)

115 On female Renaissance portraiture, especially in Italy, see Cropper 1986; Simons 1995; Campbell 2006a, especially pp. 153–4; Brown 2021. (Back to text.)

116 Silver 1977, p. 76; Clayton 2002, pp. 90–2, under no. 39; Campbell 2014, p. 459. (Back to text.)

117 Silver 1984, p. 141, and followed by Clayton 2002, pp. 91–2, under no. 39, interprets the raised hand as refusal. Schütt 2021, pp. 147, 149, sees it as ambivalent. Campbell 2014, p. 459, interprets the gesture as a greeting. Baxandall 1972, pp. 66–71, notes that such upturned hands connoted a greeting in secular Italian paintings of the second half of the fifteenth century. The gesture is used to signify Gabriel’s salutation to the Virgin in depictions of the Annunciation – Massys’ swapping of Marian grace for grotesque obscenity being a canny détournement. It also compares to Giovanni Arnolfini’s welcome in Jan van Eyck’s eponymous double portrait (1434; National Gallery, London, NG186; see Campbell 1998, p. 200). Yet this gesture appears as one of surprise or straightforward refusal in several works by Massys: it signals Herod’s shock at the sight of John the Baptist’s severed head in the left wing of the Lamentation Altarpiece; it flags the astonishment of one of the doctors on hearing Christ’s lecture in a panel from the Madre de Deus Altarpiece (1509–13; Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon, inv. 1692); and it indicates Saint Anthony’s rejection of the carnal apple presented to him in The Temptations of Saint Anthony. (Back to text.)

118 For a full account of this, see Capron 2023a, pp. 42–53. See Minois 1989 for views on old women during the Greek and Roman period (pp. 53, 98–9), the late Middle Ages (pp. 229–32) and the sixteenth century (pp. 254–6). For particularly graphic Roman satires on old women, see Epodes 8 and 12 in Horace 2008, pp. 11–12, 15–16; Eco 2007, pp. 159–73, especially pp. 159–60. Also, Shahar 1997, pp. 43–4; Campbell 2006a, pp. 157–62; Maclean 1999, p. 136; Winn 2009, especially p. 171; Owens 2019, p. 194. (Back to text.)

119 Panofsky 1971, vol. 1, p. 356. (Back to text.)

120 Erasmus 1993, pp. 48–9. (Back to text.)

121 On this theme, see Marlier 1954, pp. 228–37; Stewart 1977; Van der Coelen 2008, pp. 220–4; Lammertse 2015, pp. 99–100. (Back to text.)

122 On the engraving, see Hind 1938–48, vol. 1 (1938), pp. 142–3, no. B.III.12; McGrath 1977, pp. 87–90; Dillon 1994, pp. 226–8; Kwakkelstein 1998; Nuttall in Meijer 2008, pp. 132–3, no. 20; Nuttall 2021. (Back to text.)

123 On the moresca, see McGrath 1977, p. 85; Brown 1980; Brainard 1998; Wright 1998, pp. 61–2; Nuttall 2021, pp. 298–9; Grössinger 1997a, p. 112. (Back to text.)

124 Nuttall in Kwakkelstein and Plomp 2018, p. 107, under no. 1, argues that the sausages are more likely to be confortini, doughnut‐shaped sweetmeats consumed during carnival and replete with sexual innuendo. On confortini, see Wolfthal 2010, pp. 115–18. In the north, the sausage skewer seems to have been the preserve of dubious settings and reappears in a women’s bath scene by Albrecht Dürer (1516; Chatsworth House, inv. 931; see Popham 1969, pp. 41–2, no. 104). (Back to text.)

125 Dillon 1994, p. 225, tentatively attributes some of the sheets to Leonardo. On the drawings, see also Nuttall in Kwakkelstein and Plomp 2018, pp. 109–11, nos 2–3; Melli in Butterfield 2019, pp. 282–91, nos 44–6; Nuttall 2021. (Back to text.)

126 As recognised by McGrath 1977, p. 89; Muylle 1994, p. 255. Paula Nuttall arrived at the same conclusion in a paper presented at a conference held in honour of Lorne Campbell at the Courtauld Institute on 9 December 2011: ‘The Fat Lutenist, the Sausage Woman, and the Ugly Duchess: Three Characters in Search of Prototypes’. I am grateful to her for sharing her unpublished research with me. (Back to text.)

127 Warburg 1999, p. 306, describes the Otto Prints (a group of secular engravings made in Florence during Leonardo’s youth around 1465–80 and usually attributed to the goldsmith Baccio Baldini) and the Morris Dance with the Sausage Woman (about 1480–90; Gallerie degli Uffizi, Florence, Stampe Sciolte n. 197) as ‘offshoots of Burgundian court life’; Tietze‐Conrat 1957, pp. 94–6; Wright 1998, pp. 62–5; Nuttall 2004, pp. 111–12; Nuttall in Meijer 2008, pp. 132–3, no. 20. (Back to text.)

128 Hollstein 1954–98, vol. 15 (1986), p. 107, no. 82. (Back to text.)

129 Panofsky 1971, vol. 1, pp. 355–6. On the date of St Laurence’s choir stall, see Lloyd 1980, p. 11. (Back to text.)

130 As interpreted by Grössinger 1997b, p. 132, fig. 193, who compares the supporters to the Morris dancers entwined in a vine in a print by Israel van Meckenem, Ornamental Design with Morris Dancers (Hollstein 1954–98, vol. 24 (1986), p. 617, no. 617 i/ii). (Back to text.)

132 About 1496–8, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. Français 143, fol. 136v: ‘finablement la royne d’enfer Proserpine appellée dont la face est terrible, comme femme Pluto seoid iouxte luy’ (‘finally, the Queen of Hell called Proserpina, whose face is terrible, as Pluto’s wife sits by his side’). A longer description of Proserpina appears on fols 139–139v. On the Livre des échecs amoureux moralisés, see De Conty 1991. I am grateful to Lorne Campbell for bringing this miniature to my attention. (Back to text.)

133 Muylle 1994, p. 255. (Back to text.)

134 Silver 1984, pp. 9–10. (Back to text.)

135 Swartwood House 2018, pp. 158–9: the painting was described in 1562 as ‘a picture of two old Palermitani, one a man, the other a woman, both wrinkled, laughing at each other, making provocative gestures’, and in 1724 as ‘two portraits of an old man and an old woman laughing at each other. Portraits so well derived from nature in their comic expression that anyone observing them would be moved to laughter with admiration at such a lovely spectacle’. (Back to text.)

136 In that regard it recalls anthropologist Mary Douglas’s famous definition of dirt as ‘matter out of place’. Douglas 2002, p. 36. (Back to text.)

137 These include: An Old Woman (about 1514–24; The Phoebus Foundation, Antwerp; Friedländer 1947; Friedländer 1967–76, vol. 7 (1971), p. 83, pl. 127, no. Add. 190); Head of a Fool (1520s; The Phoebus Foundation, Antwerp); Head of a Man (about 1525; Museo Nacional d’Arte di Catalunya, Barcelona, inv. 064998‐000; Silver 1984, p. 221, no. 33); A Bagpiper (about 1513; Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, inv. 2020.37.5; Friedländer 1947; Silver 1984, pp. 219–20, no. 30). (Back to text.)

138 Schütt 2021, pp. 152–3. (Back to text.)

139 Marlier 1954, pp. 222–43; Panofsky 1969. For the friendship portrait of More and Gillis, see Campbell et al. 1978; for the medal, see Syson in Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 170–1, no. 43. (Back to text.)

140 Schütt 2021, p. 150; Aikema 2004, p. 93. (Back to text.)

141 On paradoxical encomium, see Marsh 1998, pp. 148–80, especially pp. 167–76, for Erasmus’s Praise of Folly; Aikema 2004, p. 93. On feigned praise of ugly women in Renaissance literature, see Bettella 2005, pp. 7, 81–127; Eco 2007, pp. 166–7; Nuttall 2021, pp. 315–16. See Goeury 2016 for the ironic ‘contreblasons anatomiques du corps féminin’ (‘antipraise of the feminine body’) penned and compiled by Clément Marot and poets from his circle. (Back to text.)

142 Marlier 1954, pp. 223–4. Alberti 2020, pp. 47, 56–7, coins the apt phrase of ‘stylistic rudeness’ to describe this phenomenon. (Back to text.)

143 Nuttall 2004, pp. 209–10. (Back to text.)

144 The process of creation of Massys’ portraits of Erasmus and Gillis was notoriously protracted, involving lengthy sittings and interruptions caused by both sitters’ ill health. On one occasion, progress on the portrait was even brought to a halt when Massys protested that Erasmus’s appearance had been too altered since the last sitting, due to purgative pills he had taken on the misguided advice of his doctor. On the letters documenting the process, see Campbell et al. 1978. (Back to text.)

145 Erasmus 1986, pp. 375–6 and pp. 558–9, note 231, for the identification of the sitter to Erasmus. (Back to text.)

146 Friedländer 1967–76, vol. 7 (1971), p. 34. (Back to text.)

147 A similar argument is developed by Schütt 2021. (Back to text.)

148 Sullivan 1991, pp. 434–5. For an introduction to the Adages, see Grant in Erasmus 2017, pp. 3–83. (Back to text.)

149 Festus’ De verborum significatu (On the Meaning of Words) contained abstracts from a larger, and now lost, encyclopedia by the first‐century BC author Verrius Flaccus. The discussion of Zeuxis’ death appears under the entry for ‘Painter’; see Festus (1913), p. 228. On the anecdote, see Beard 2015, pp. 172–3; Blankert 1973, p. 35; Aikema 2004, pp. 89, 93; www.pictorinfabula.com/fiches/72 (accessed 2 August 2022). On Festus as a source for Erasmus, see Grant in Erasmus 2017, p. 63. On sardonic laughter, see Ménager 1995, pp. 57–60; Alberti 2015, p. 81. (Back to text.)

150 Erasmus 2005, p. 62. The anecdote on Zeuxis was added to the Adages between 1514 and 1518, see Erasmus 1518, p. 536: ‘Mortuus est et Zeuxis Pictor ridendo, dum sine fine ridet, anum ad se pictam’ (‘The painter Zeuxis died from laughing, when he was unable to stop laughing at an old woman he had painted’). Zeuxis’ death also features in François Rabelais’s Quart Livre (1552) and in Laurent Joubert’s Treatise on Laughter (1579), see Joubert 1579 (1980), pp. 132–3. (Back to text.)

151 Van Mander 1604, Appendix, fol. 301; Van de Wetering et al. 2005, pp. 551–61, no. IV.25; Blankert 1973. (Back to text.)

152 His lost Madonna of the Cherries (about 1525–30) included a deceptive curtain and a prominent bunch of grapes realistic enough to fool birds. Silver 1984, pp. 230–1, note 50. (Back to text.)

153 Silver 1984, pp. 109, 111. (Back to text.)

154 This is how Joubert 1579 (1980), p. 133, understood the legend: ‘If the grace and perfection of [Zeuxis’] work gave him the opportunity both to laugh excessively and to die, one can conjecture that the work was marvelous, and the portraitist very learned in his art.’ See also Beard 2015, p. 173. (Back to text.)

155 Aikema 2021, pp. 331–2. (Back to text.)

156 Umberto Eco, ‘On the History of Ugliness’, lecture given in Ljubljana, 14 December 2007, http://videolectures.net/cd07_eco_thu/ (accessed 3 December 2022). (Back to text.)

157 Campbell 2014, p. 458. (Back to text.)

158 Exposition des Primitifs flamands 1902, p. 132, no. 351, where the support is still described as ‘Bois’. (Back to text.)

159 Joanna‐Aldegonis de Proli (died 3 December 1779), Hubert Bincken, Antwerp, 27 July 1780, lot 41: ‘Een Mans Portrait met eene mutse op het hoofd, zeer uytvoerig geschilderd, met de inscriptie Quintinus Messys pincebat anno 1513 (‘A portrait of a man with a hat on his head, very elaborately painted, with the inscription Quinten Massys was painting 1513). (Back to text.)

160 Scailliérez 1991, p. 5: The Holy Kinship Altarpiece (1508; Musées Royaux des Beaux‐Arts de Belgique, Brussels, inv. 299); An Old Man (1513; Musée Jacquemart‐André, Paris, inv. MJAP‐P 829; fig. 2); The Money Changer and his Wife (1514; Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 1444); The Adoration of the Magi (1526; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. 11.143); the Rattier Virgin (1529; Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 1475). From documents, we can date the Lamentation Altarpiece (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, inv. 245‐249) to 1508–11 and the portrait diptych of Erasmus (Royal Collection, inv. RCIN 405759) and Pieter Gillis (Longford Castle Collection) to 1517. (Back to text.)

162 The self caricatures appear in Scolia Erasmi in D. Hieronymi epistolas, about 1515 (Universitätbibliothek, Basel, Hs. A.IX.56). See Van der Coelen in Van der Coelen 2008, p. 57, p. 73, no. 1. (Back to text.)

163 Joubert 1579 (1980), p. 22. Discussed by Alberti 2015, pp. 79–80. (Back to text.)

164 This parallels recent studies on the homosocial context for obscene jokes in early modern Saint Gallen; see Roth 2017, p. 70. (Back to text.)

Glossary

lodged
descriptive of a beast of chase lying down

List of archive references cited

  • Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Français 143: About 1496–8
  • Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Français 24113: ‘Liste des membres (présidents, conseillers, avocats et procureurs généraux, etc.) du parlement de Rouen’
  • Paris, Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France: compte‐rendu d’étude, 30 September 2008
  • Paris, Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France: rapport de restauration fondamentale, 2014

List of references cited

Aikema 2004
AikemaBernard, ‘Giorgione: Relationship with the North and a New Interpretation of La Vecchiaand La Tempesta’, in Giorgione: Myth and Enigma, eds Sylvia Ferino‐Pagden and Giovanna Nepi Scirè (exh. cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), Milan 2004, 85–220
Aikema 2021
AikemaBernard, ‘Giorgione: “La Vecchia”’, in Titian’s Vision of Women: Beauty, Love, Poetry, eds Sylvia Ferino‐PagdenFrancesca Del Torre Scheuch and Wencke Deiters (exh. cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum; Vienna, Palazzo Reale, Milan), Milan 2021, 331–4
Ainsworth 2010
AinsworthMaryan W., ‘The Painter Gossart and His Artistic Milieu’, in Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s Renaissance, ed. Maryan M. Ainsworth (exh. cat. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; The National Gallery, London), New York 2010, 9–29
Alberti 2015
AlbertiFrancescaLa peinture facétieuse: du rire sacré de Corrège aux fables burlesques de TintoretArles 2015
Alberti 2020
AlbertiFrancesca, ‘Menacing Laughter in Sixteenth‐Century pitture ridicole’, Res, 2020, 73–441–59
Bailleux‐Delbecq 2001
Bailleux‐DelbecqMartine, ‘Les cent quarante et un portraits de Minard Castle reviennent au château d’Eu’, Revue du Louvre, 2001, 518–19
Bakhtin 1965 (1984)
BakhtinMikhail, ed., Rabelais and His Worldtrans. Helene IswolskyBloomington, IN 1984
Baldass 1933
BaldassLudwig, ‘Gotik und Renaissance im Werke des Quinten Metsys’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 1933, 7137–82
Bambach 2003
BambachCarmen, ed., Leonardo da Vinci: Master Draftsman (exh. cat. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), New York 2003
Bambach 2019
BambachCarmenLeonardo da Vinci Rediscovered4 volsNew Haven and London 2019
Baum 2004
BaumWilhelmMargarete Maultasch, Ein Frauenschicksal im späten MittelalterKlagenfurt and Vienna 2004
Baxandall 1972
BaxandallMichaelPainting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy, Oxford University Press, 1972 (paperback edn, Oxford 1974)
Beard 2015
BeardMaryLaughter in Ancient Rome: On Joking, Tickling, and Cracking UpBerkeley 2015
Bettella 2005
BettellaPatriziaThe Ugly Woman: Transgressive Aesthetic Models in Italian Poetry from the Middle Ages to the BaroqueTorontoBuffalo and London 2005
Bialostocki 1959
BiałostockiJan, ‘“Opus Quinque Dierum”: Dürer’s “Christ among the Doctors” and its Sources’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1959, 2217–34
Bilclough 2021
BilcloughAnnemarie, ‘Creating Alice’, in Alice: Curiouser and Curiouser, eds Kate Bailey and Simon Sladen (exh. cat. Victoria and Albert Museum, London), London 2021, 78–117
Blankert 1973
BlankertAlbert, ‘Rembrandt, Zeuxis and ideal Beauty’, in Album Amicorum J. G. van Gelder, eds Josua BruynJan Ameling EmmensErik de Jongh and Derk P. SnoepThe Hague 1973, 32–9
Bodart 2011
BodartDiane H.Pouvoirs du portrait sous les Habsbourg d’EspagneParis 2011
Boon 1942
BoonKarel G.Quinten MassysAmsterdam 1942
Bora, Kahn‐Rossi and Porzio 1998
BoraGiulioManuela Kahn‐Rossi and Francesco Porzio, eds, Rabisch. Il grottesco nell’arte del Cinquecento: l’Accademia della Val di Blenio Lomazzo e l’ambiente Milanese (exh. cat. Museo Cantonale d’Arte, Lugano), Milan 1998
Borchert and Jonckheere 2015
BorchertTill‐Holger and Koenraad Jonckheere, eds, Faces Then: Renaissance Portraits from the Low Countries (exh. cat. BOZAR, Brussels), Brussels 2015
Bosque 1975
BosqueAndrée deQuentin MetsysBrussels 1975
Brainard 1998
BrainardIngrid, ‘Moresca’, in International Encyclopedia of Dance, eds Selma Jeanne Cohenet al.New York and Oxford 1998, 4460–3
Brown 1980
BrownAlan, ‘Moresca’, in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley SadieLondon 1980, 12572–3
Brown 2021
BrownBeverly L., ‘No Less True than Truth: Female Portraiture between the Real and the Ideal’, in Titian’s Vision of Women: Beauty, Love, Poetry, eds Sylvia Ferino‐PagdenFrancesca Del Torre Scheuch and Wencke Deiters (exh. cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; Palazzo Reale, Milan), Milan 2021, 189–208
Butterfield 2019
ButterfieldAndrew, ed., Verrocchio: Sculptor and Painter of Renaissance Florence (exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington), Princeton 2019
Campbell 1998
CampbellLorneNational Gallery Catalogues: The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish SchoolsLondon 1998
Campbell 2006a
CampbellErin J., ‘“Unenduring” Beauty: Gender and Old Age in Early Modern Art and Aesthetics’, in Growing Old in Early Modern Europe, ed. Erin J. CampbellAldershot 2006, 153–67
Campbell 2006b
CampbellLorne, ‘Diptychs with Portraits’, in Essays in Context: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych, eds John Oliver Hand and Ron SpronkCambridge, MA 2006, 32–45
Campbell 2014
CampbellLorneNational Gallery Catalogues: The Sixteenth‐Century Netherlandish Paintings with French Paintings before 1600London 2014
Campbell et al. 1978
CampbellLorneMargaret Mann PhillipsHubertus Schulte Herbrüggen and Joseph Burney Trapp, ‘Quentin Matsys, Desiderius Erasmus, Pieter Gillis and Thomas More’, The Burlington Magazine, 1978, 120716–25
Campbell et al. 2008
CampbellLorneMiguel FalomirJennifer Fletcher and Luke SysonRenaissance Faces: Van Eyck to Titian (exh. cat. National Gallery, London; Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid), London 2008
Capron 2023a
CapronEmma, ‘Difficult Women’, in The Ugly Duchess: Beauty and Satire in the Renaissance, ed. Emma Capron (exh. cat. The National Gallery, London), London 2023, 42–53
Capron 2023b
CapronEmma, ‘Quinten Massys and the Art of Satire’, in The Ugly Duchess: Beauty and Satire in the Renaissance, ed. Emma Capron (exh. cat. The National Gallery, London), London 2023, 11–32
Clark and Pedretti 1968
ClarkKenneth and Carlo PedrettiThe Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor Castle3 volsLondon 1968
Clayton 2002
ClaytonMartinLeonardo da Vinci: The Divine and the Grotesque (exh. cat. The Queen’s Gallery, Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh, 2002–3; The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, London 2003), London 2002
Clayton 2023
ClaytonMartin, ‘Leonardo’s Grotesques’, in The Ugly Duchess: Beauty and Satire in the Renaissance, ed. Emma Capron (exh. cat. The National Gallery, London), London 2023, 33–41
Constans 1995
ConstansClaireMusée national du château de Versailles. Les Peintures3 vols, 2nd edn, Paris 1995
Cropper 1986
CropperElizabeth, ‘The Beauty of Woman: Problems in the Rhetoric of Renaissance Portraiture’, in Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe, eds Margaret W. FergusonMaureen Quilligan and Nancy J. VickersChicago and London 1986, 175–90
Davies 1955
DaviesMartinNational Gallery Catalogues: Early Netherlandish School, 2nd edn, London 1955
Davis 1978
DavisNatalie Z., ‘Women on Top: Symbolic Sexual Inversion and Political Disorder in Early Modern Europe’, in The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society, ed. Barbara A. BabcockIthaca and London 1978, 147–90
De Conty 1991
De ContyEvrartLe livre des échecs amoureux moralisés, ed. Anne‐Marie LegaréParis 1991
Delieuvin 2012
DelieuvinVincent, ed., La Sainte Anne: l’ultime chef d’oeuvre de Léonard de Vinci (exh. cat. Musée du Louvre, Paris), Paris 2012
Delrue 1859
DelrueEmile, ‘Sur un jeton aux armes de la famille Pelgroms, d’Anvers’, Revue de la numismatique belge, 1859, 385–7
Dequeker 1989
DequekerJan, ‘Paget’s disease in a painting by Quinten Metsys (Massys)’, British Medical Journal, 1989, 2991579–81
Descamps 1769
DescampsJean‐BaptisteVoyage pittoresque de la Flandre et du BrabantParis 1769
Dézallier d’Argenville 1755
Dézallier d’ArgenvilleAntoine‐NicolasVoyage pittoresque des environs de ParisParis 1762
Dillon 1994
DillonGianvittorio, ‘Una serie di figure grottesche’, in Florentine Drawing at the Time of Lorenzo the Magnificent, ed. Elizabeth Cropper (Papers from a Colloquium Held at the Villa Spelman, Florence, 1992), Bologna 1994, 217–30
Dominici 2016
DominiciTamara, ‘Quentin Metsys e l’Italia: immagini di un viaggio’, Studiolo, 2016, 1310–27
Douglas 2002
DouglasMaryPurity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and TabooLondon 2002 (1st edn, 1966)
Eco 2007
EcoUmberto, ed., On UglinessLondon 2007
Erasmus 1518
ErasmusDesideriusIoannes Frobenius Studiosis. Omnibus S.D. Accipito candide lector Erasmi Roterodami, proverbiorum Chiliadas…, ed. Johannes FrobenBasel 1518
Erasmus 1986
ErasmusDesideriusLiterary and Educational Works, 6: Ciceronianus, Notes, Indexesed. and trans. Anthony H.T. LeviCollected Works of Erasmus28TorontoBuffalo and London 1986
Erasmus 1993
ErasmusDesideriusPraise of Follytrans. Betty RadiceLondon 1511 (1993)
Erasmus 2005
ErasmusDesideriusAdages III iv 1 to IV ii 100, ed. John N. Granttrans. Denis DrysdallCollected Works of Erasmus35TorontoBuffalo and London 2005
Erasmus 2017
ErasmusDesideriusProlegomena to the Adages; Adagiorum collectanea; Indexes to Erasmus’ Adagesed. and trans. John N. GrantCollected Works of Erasmus30TorontoBuffalo and London 2017
Ewing 2011
EwingDan, ‘Joos van Cleve und Leonardo. Italienische Kunst in niederländischer Übersetzung’, in Joos van Cleve: Leonardo des Nordens, ed. Peter Van den Brink (exh. cat. Suermondt‐Ludwig Museum, Aachen), Stuttgart 2011, 112–31
Exposition des Primitifs Flamands 1902
Exposition des Primitifs flamands et d’Art ancien (exh. cat. Provinciaal Hof and Gruuthuse Hof, Bruges), Bruges 1902
Festus (1913)
FestusSexti PompeiSexti Pompei Festi: De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli Epitome, ed. Wallace Martin LindsayLondon 1913
Forcione 2003
ForcioneVarena, ‘Leonardo’s Grotesques: Originals and Copies’, in Leonardo da Vinci: Master Draftsman, ed. Carmen Bambach (exh. cat. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), New York 2003, 203–24
Friedländer 1927
FriedländerMax J., ‘Neues zu Quentin Massys’, Der Cicerone, 1927, 191–7
Friedländer 1947
FriedländerMax J., ‘Quentin Massys as a Painter of Genre Pictures’, The Burlington Magazine, 1947, 89114–19
Friedländer 1967–76
FriedländerMax JacobEarly Netherlandish Painting, eds Nicole Veronée‐VerhaegenGerard Lemmens and Henri Pauwelstrans. Heinz Norden14 vols in 16Leiden and Brussels 1967–76
Gallagher 2023
GallagherJohn, ‘As the Priest Said to the Nun’, London Review of Books, June 2023, 4511223–39
Gavard 1843
GavardCharlesGaleries historiques de VersaillesParis 1843, XII
Gentilini 2006
GentiliniGiancarlo, ‘La terracotta: volti e passioni’, in La scultura al tempo di Andrea Mantegna, ed. Vittorio Sgarbi (exh. cat. Centro Internazionale d’Arte e di Cultura di Palazzo Te, Mantua), Milan 2006, 47–51
Goeury 2016
GoeuryJulien, ed., Blasons anatomiques du corps féminin et contreblasonsParis 2016
Gombrich 1976
GombrichErnst H.The Heritage of Apelles: Studies in the Art of the RenaissanceLondon 1976
Grössinger 1997a
GrössingerChristaPicturing Women in Late Medieval and Renaissance ArtManchester 1997
Grössinger 1997b
GrössingerChristaThe World Upside Down: English MisericordsLondon 1997
Hall 2008
HallJamesThe Sinister Side: How Left–Right Symbolism Shaped Western ArtOxford 2008
Hardwick 2011
HardwickPaulEnglish Medieval Misericords: The Margins of MeaningWoodbridge 2011
Hentsch 1903
HentschAlice A.De la littérature didactique du Moyen‐Âge s’adressant spécialement aux femmesCahors 1903
Hind 1938–48
HindArthur M.Early Italian Engraving: A Critical Catalogue with Complete Reproduction of All the Prints Described2 volsLondon 1938–48
Hollstein 1954–98
HollsteinFriedrich W., ed., German Engravings, Etchings and Woodcuts, ca. 1400–1700100 volsRotterdam 1954–98
Horace 2008
HoraceThe Complete Odes and Epodestrans. D. WestOxford 2008
Hörmann‐Thurn und Taxis 2007
Hörmann‐Thurn und TaxisJulia, ed., Margarete–Gräfin von Tirol / Margareta–Contessa del Tirolo (exh. cat. Landesmuseum Schloss Tirol, Tyrol), Innsbruck 2007
Hymans 1902
HymansHenriL’exposition des Primitifs flamands à BrugesParis 1902
Indicateur de la galerie de portraits 1836
Indicateur de la galerie de portraits, tableaux et bustes qui composent la collection du Roi, au château d’EuParis 1836
Joubert 1579 (1980)
JoubertLaurentTreatise on Laughtertrans. Gregory de RocherTuscaloosa, AL 1980
Klein 2015
KleinPeterThe Misericords and Choir Stalls of St Laurence’s Church, LudlowLudlow 2015
Kwakkelstein 1998
KwakkelsteinMichael W., ‘Leonardo da Vinci’s Grotesque Heads and the Breaking of the Physiognomic Mould’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1991, 54127–36
Kwakkelstein and Plomp 2018
KwakkelsteinMichael W. and Michiel Plomp, eds, Leonardo da Vinci: The Language of Faces (exh. cat. Teylers Museum, Haarlem), Bussum 2018
Laclotte 1965
LaclotteMichel, ed., Le Seizième siècle européen: Peintures et dessins dans les Collections Publiques Françaises (exh. cat. Petit Palais, Paris), Paris 1965
Lammertse 2015
LammertseFriso, ‘Vernieuwer van een oude kunst: Quinten Massijs en zijn invloed op Jan Provoost, Jan Massijs en Marinus van Reymerswale’, in De ontdekking van het dagelijks leven: Van Bosch tot Brueghel, eds Peter Van der Coelen and Friso Lammertse (exh. cat. Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam), Rotterdam 2015, 93–113
Lampsonius 1572
LampsoniusDominicusPictorum Aliquot Celebrium Germaniae Inferioris Effigies, 1572
Landau and Parshall 1994
LandauDavid and Peter ParshallThe Renaissance Print, 1470–1550New Haven and London 1994
Le Siècle de Bruegel 1963
Le Siècle de Bruegel: La peinture en Belgique au XVIe siècle (exh. cat. Musées Royaux des Beaux‐Arts de Belgique, Brussels), Brussels 1963
Leonardo 1956
VinciLeonardo daTreatise on Paintingtrans. and annotated A.P. McMahon2 volsPrinceton 1956
Limentani Virdis 1989
Limentani VirdisCaterina, ‘Una proposta per Chiaravalle: Quentin Metsys’, Osservatorio delle arti, 1989, 352–8
Lloyd 1980
LloydDavidThe Parish Church of St Laurence: A History and a GuideBirmingham 1980
Luyckx 2021
LuyckxJeroenThe New Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450–1700, The Liefrinck Dynasty, ed. Huigen Leeflang2 volsOuderkerk aan den IJssel 2021
Maclean 1999
MacleanIan, ‘The Notion of Woman in Medicine, Anatomy, and Physiology’, in Feminism and Renaissance Studies, ed. Lorna HutsonOxford 1999, 127–55
Marlier 1954
MarlierGeorgesErasme et la peinture flamande de son tempsDamme 1954
Marsh 1998
MarshDavidLucian and the Latins: Humor and Humanism in the Early RenaissanceAnn Arbor 1998
Martens 2021
MartensMaximiliaan P.J., ‘Democritus: The Laughing Philosopher’, in Imaging Utopia: New Perspectives on Northern Renaissance Art, eds Julie BeckersAnnelies VogelsJan Van der Stock and Lieve Watteeuw (Papers Presented at the Twentieth Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Technology in Painting Held in Mechelen and Leuven, 11–13 January 2017), ParisLeuven and Bristol, CT 2021, 56–61
McGrath 1977
McGrathRobert, ‘The Dance as Pictorial Metaphor’, Gazette des Beaux‐Arts, 1977, 8981–92
Meijer 1998
MeijerBert W., ‘“L’arte non deve schernire”: sul comico e sul grottesco al nord’, in Rabisch. Il grottesco nell’arte del Cinquecento: l’Accademia della Val di Blenio Lomazzo e l’ambiente Milanese, eds Giulio BoraManuela Kahn‐Rossi and Francesco Porzio (exh. cat. Museo Cantonale d’Arte, Lugano), Milan 1998, 69–76
Ménager 1995
MénagerDanielLa Renaissance et le rireParis 1995
Meyrick 2004
MeyrickRobert, ‘Hugh Blaker: doing his bit for the moderns’, Journal of the History of Collections, 2004, 16173–89
Minois 1989
MinoisGeorgesHistory of Old Age: From Antiquity to the Renaissancetrans. Sarah Hanbury TenisonCambridge 1989
Moxey 1989
MoxeyKeithPeasants, Warriors, and Wives: Popular Imagery in the ReformationChicago and London 1989
Muylle 1994
MuylleJan, ‘Groteske koppen van Quinten Metsijs, Hieronymus Cock en Hans Liefrick naar Leonardo da Vinci’, De Zeventiende Eeuw: Cultuur in de Nederlanden in Interdisciplinair Perspectief, 1994, 10252–65
Nagel 2004
NagelAlexander, ‘Fashion and the Now‐Time of Renaissance Art’, Res, 2004, 4633–52
Nagel and Wood 2010
NagelAlexander and Christopher WoodAnachronic RenaissanceNew York 2010
Needham 1973
NeedhamRodney, ed., Right and Left: Essays on Dual Symbolic ClassificationChicago 1973
Nuttall 2004
NuttallPaulaFrom Flanders to Florence: The Impact of Netherlandish Painting, 1400–1500New Haven and London 2004
Nuttall 2021
NuttallPaula, ‘Low Life in High Society: A Group of Comic‐Grotesque Drawings by Verrocchio’, Renaissance Studies, 2021, 35287–317
Owens 2019
OwensYvonne, ‘The Hags, Harridans, Viragos and Crones of Hans Baldung Grien’, in Hans Baldung Grien: Neue Perspektiven auf sein Werk, eds Holger Jacob‐Friesen and Oliver JehleBerlin 2019, 194–203
Panofsky 1948
PanofskyErwinAlbrecht Dürer2 volsPrinceton 1948
Panofsky 1969
PanofskyErwinProblems in Titian, Mostly IconographicLondon and New York 1969
Panofsky 1971
PanofskyErwinEarly Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character2 volsNew YorkEvanstonSan Francisco and London 1971
Pennington 1982
PenningtonRichardA Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar, 1607–1677Cambridge 1982
Peronnet and Fredericksen 1998
PeronnetBenjamin and Burton B. FredericksenRépertoire des tableaux vendus en France au XIXe siècleLos Angeles 1998
Plomp 2018
PlompMichiel, ‘The Netherlands and Leonardo da Vinci, 1500–1700’, in Leonardo da Vinci: The Language of Faces, eds Michael W. Kwakkelstein and Michiel Plomp (exh. cat. Teylers Museum, Haarlem), Bussum 2018, 90–103
Popham 1969
PophamArthur E., ed., Old Master Drawings from Chatsworth: A Loan Exhibition from the Devonshire Collection (exh. cat. Royal Academy of Arts, London), London 1969
Pradère 2007
PradèreAlexandre, ‘Baron Van Hoorn: An Amateur of Boulle, Antiquity, and the Middles Ages under the Empire’, Furniture History Society Journal, 2007, 43205–25
Rabelais 1552
RabelaisFrançoisQuart Livre, 1552
Roth 2017
RothCarla, ‘Obscene Humour, Gender, and Sociability in Sixteenth‐Century St Gallen’, Past & Present, 2017, 23439–70
Russell 1990
RussellHelen Diane, ed., Eva/Ave: Woman in Renaissance and Baroque Prints (exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC), Washington and New York 1990
Scailliérez 1991
ScailliérezCécileJoos van Cleve au Louvre (exh. cat. Musée du Louvre, Paris), Paris 1991
Schütt 2021
SchüttFriederikeQuentin Massys: Bildstrategien der AffekterzeugungPetersberg 2021
Scott 1980
ScottMargaretLate Gothic Europe, 1400–1500The History of Dress SeriesLondon and Atlantic Highlands, NJ 1980
Scott 2011
ScottMargaretFashion in the Middle AgesLos Angeles 2011
Scott‐Elliot 1958
Scott‐ElliotAydua H., ‘Caricature Heads after Leonardo da Vinci in the Spencer Collection’, Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 1958, 62279–99
Shahar 1997
ShaharShulamithGrowing Old in the Middle Ages: ‘Winter clothes us in shadow and pain’London 1997
Silva Maroto 2016
Silva MarotoPilar, ed., Bosch: The 5th Centenary Exhibition (exh. cat. Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid), New York 2016
Silver 1977
SilverLarry, ‘Power and Pelf: A New‐Found Old Man by Massys’, Simiolus, 1977, 963–92
Silver 1984
SilverLarryThe Paintings of Quinten Massys with Catalogue RaisonnéOxford and Montclair, NJ 1984
Silver 2015
SilverLarry, ‘Leonardo in the Lowlands’, in Artistic Innovations and Cultural Zones, ed. Ingrid CiulisováBratislava and Frankfurt 2015, 13–39
Simons 1995
SimonsPatricia, ‘Portraiture, Portrayal, and Idealization: Ambiguous Individualism in Representations of Renaissance Women’, in Language and Images of Renaissance Italy, ed. Alison BrownOxford 1995, 263–311
Slatkes 1975
SlatkesLeonard J., ‘Hieronymus Bosch and Italy’, Art Bulletin, 1975, 57335–45
Spring 2017
SpringMarika, ‘New Insights into the Materials of Fifteenth‐ and Sixteenth‐century Netherlandish Paintings in the National Gallery, London’, Heritage Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-017-0152-3, accessed 20 October 2023, 2017, 540
Stewart 1977
StewartAlison G.Unequal Lovers: A Study of Unequal Couples in Northern ArtNew York 1977
Sullivan 1991
SullivanMargaret, ‘Bruegel’s Proverbs: Art and Audience in the Northern Renaissance’, Art Bulletin, 1991, 73431–66
Sulzberger 1955
SulzbergerSuzanne, ‘L’influence de Léonard de Vinci et ses répercussions à Anvers’, Arte Lombarda, 1955, 1105–11
Swartwood House 2018
Swartwood HouseAnna, ‘Pulling Faces: Antonello da Messina’s Laughing, Smiling Subjects’, Source: Notes in the History of Art, 2008, 37158–67
Taatgen 2021
TaatgenAlice, ‘Fantasy Fashion: Clothing in the Work of Marinus van Reymerswaele’, in Marinus, Painter from Reymerswaele, ed. Christine Seidel (exh. cat. Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid), Madrid 2021, 49–55
Tietze‐Conrat 1957
Tietze‐ConratErikaDwarfs and Jesters in ArtLondon 1957
Trutty‐Coohill 1993
Trutty‐CoohillPatricia, ‘The Spencer Collection of Grotesques and Caricatures after Leonardo’, Arte Lombarda, 1993, New Series105/10748–54
Turner 2009–12
compiled by TurnerSimon and Giulia Bartrum, ed., Wenceslaus Hollar4 vols in 9 partsThe New Hollstein, German Engravings, Etching and Woodcuts 1400–1700Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel 2009–12
Urquhart 1963
UrquhartMurray, ‘The Blaker Diary: Some Extracts with a Memoir’, Apollo, 1963, 78293–8
Van de Wetering et al. 2005
Van de WeteringErnstet al.A Corpus of Rembrandt’s Painting, vol. IV, The Self‐PortraitsThe Hague and Boston 2005
Van der Coelen 2008
Van der CoelenPeter, ed., Images of Erasmus (exh. cat. Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam), Rotterdam 2008
Van der Velden 2006
Van der VeldenHugo, ‘Diptych Altarpieces and the Principle of Dextrality’, in Essays in Context: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych, eds J. Oliver and R. Spronk (exh. cat. National Gallery, London 2020–1), Cambridge and New Haven, Harvard University Art Museums, 2006, 125–55
Van Mander 1604
van ManderKarelHet Schilder‐BoeckHaarlem 1604
Vasari 1906
VasariGiorgioLe opera di Giorgio Vasari, ed. Gaetano Milanesi9 volsFlorence 1906
Vignau‐Wilberg 2017
Vignau‐WilbergTheaJoris and Jacob Hoefnagel: Art and Science around 1600Berlin 2017
Waagen 1854
WaagenGustav FriedrichTreasures of Art in Great Britain: Being an Account of the Chief Collections of Paintings…ed. and trans. Lady E. Eastlake3 volsLondon 1854 (Galleries and Cabinets of Art in Great BritainLondon 1857, supplement (vol. 4))
Warburg 1999
WarburgAbyThe Renewal of Pagan Antiquity: Contributions to the Cultural History of the European RenaissanceLos Angeles 1999
Winn 2009
WinnColette H., ‘“Lors croistra son nom, quoy que la face soit ridée & incongneue”. Vieillir au féminin au temps de la Renaissance’, in Vieillir à la Renaissance, eds Colette H. Winn and Cathy YandellParis 2009, 169–87
Wolfthal 2010
WolfthalDianeIn and Out of the Marital Bed: Seeing Sex in Renaissance EuropeNew Haven and London 2010
Wright 1998
WrightAlison, ‘Dancing Nudes in the Lanfredini Villa at Arcetri’, in With and Without the Medici: Studies in Tuscan Art and Patronage 1434–1530, eds Eckart Marchand and Alison WrightAldershot 1998, 47–77
Wytema 2023
WytemaCharlotte, ‘The Afterlife of An Old Woman’, in The Ugly Duchess: Beauty and Satire in the Renaissance, ed. Emma Capron (exh. cat. The National Gallery, London), London 2023, 55–65

List of exhibitions cited

Antwerp 2023–4
Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Tronies: Faces in Northern Art (1500–1700), 21 October 2023–21 January 2024
Brussels 1963
Brussels, Musées royaux des Beaux‐Arts de Belgique, Le Siècle de Bruegel, La peinture en Belgique au XVIe siècle, 27 September–24 November 1963
London, Olympia 1928
London, Olympia, The Daily Telegraph Exhibition of Antiques and Works of Art, 19 July–1 August 1929
London 1932
London, Messrs J. & E. Bumpus Ltd, 350 Oxford Street, The Lewis Carroll Centenary in London 1932, 28 June–31 July 1932
London 1975
London, National Gallery, The Rival of Nature: Renaissance Painting in its Context, 9 June–28 September 1975
London 2008–9
London, National Gallery, Renaissance Faces: Van Eyck to Titian, 15 October 2008–18 January 2009
London 2021
London, Victoria and Albert Museum, Alice: Curiouser and Curiouser, 22 May–31 December 2021
London 2023
London, National Gallery, The Ugly Duchess. Beauty and Satire in the Renaissance, 16 March–11 June 2023

About this version

Version 1, generated from files NG_2024__16.xml dated 30/08/2024 and database__16.xml dated 20/09/2024 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 30/07/2024. Document created from design‐ready Word document and prepared for digital publication.

Cite this entry

Permalink (this version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/01A9-000B-0000-0000
Permalink (latest version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/01A3-000B-0000-0000
Chicago style
Capron, Emma, Rachel Billinge, Britta New and Marika Spring. "NG5769, An Old Woman (‘The Ugly Duchess’)". Version 1, September 20, 2024. https://data.ng.ac.uk/01A9-000B-0000-0000.
Harvard style
Capron, Emma, Billinge, Rachel, New, Britta and Spring, Marika (2024) NG5769, An Old Woman (‘The Ugly Duchess’). Version 1. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/01A9-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 9 October 2024).
MHRA style
Capron, Emma, Rachel Billinge, Britta New and Marika Spring, NG5769, An Old Woman (‘The Ugly Duchess’), version 1 (2024) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/01A9-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 9 October 2024]