Pieter Brueghel the Younger

Richter Family, from whom improperly confiscated by the East German authorities circa 1953;
Thereafter in the Gemäldegalerie, Dresden until restituted to the heirs of the Richter family in 2002.

Dresden, Gemäldegalerie, on loan.

G. Marlier, Pierre Brueghel le Jeune, Brussels 1969, p. 355, no. 2;
M. Diaz-Padron, 'La obra de Pedro Brueghel el joven en Espana', in Archivo Espanol de Arte, 1980, p. 311;
K. Ertz, in the exhibition catalogue, Brueghel–Brueghel. Tradizione e Progresso: una famiglia di pittori fiamminghi tra Cinque e Seicento, Cremona, 1998, p. 99, reproduced fig. 2;
K. Ertz, Pieter Brueghel der Jüngere, Lingen 1998/2000, p. 535, cat. no. F582, reproduced p. 524, fig. 391 (as Maerten van Cleve or Pieter Brueghel);
K. Ertz, Marten van Cleve 1524–1581. Kritischer Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Lingen 2014, p.61, reproduced fig. 77 (as by Pieter Brueghel the Younger).

The following condition report is provided by Hamish Dewar who is an external specialist and not an employee of Sotheby's: Structural Condition The panel, which is very slightly bowed, has been cradled and this appears to be ensuring a sound and secure structural support and would appear to have successfully addressed various structural issues which have occurred in the past . Paint Surface The paint surface has uneven and opaque varnish layers and the surface shows evidence of there having been flaking and paint loss in the past. Inspection under ultra-violet light shows recent small spots of inpainting, primarily around the framing edges and a much earlier phase of retouching, the extent of which is difficult to assess due to the opaque nature of the varnish layers. There have been some retouchings to the left of the dancing man on the left of the composition, in the costume of his dance partner and perhaps retouchings in the dark brown pigments behind the central figures. I suspect there are more extensive retouchings beneath the old varnish layers. There is a pattern of drying craquelure as well as unevenness particularly in the upper half of the composition suggesting that a number of paint losses have been filled and retouched in the past. These extend through the dark pigments in the upper left, upper right and on the wall behind the central figures. There would also appear to be various splits and joins in the panel which have been treated in the past. I suspect there has also been some abrasion caused by over cleaning in the past which has been partially retouched. Summary The painting would therefore appear to be in stable condition, having been quite extensively treated and retouched in the past although it is difficult to be certain as to the extent of retouching until the old varnish layers are removed.
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."

The subject depicts the annual Flemish celebration of the Feast of Epiphany or Three Kings, which took place on 6 January. Although Klaus Ertz initially published  this painting as an uncertain attribution because he knew of it only on the basis of old photographs, he subsequently confirmed the attribution to Pieter Brueghel following inspection of the panel in November 2005.¹  It is one of only four known examples of this composition that he considers fully autograph works by Brueghel himself. The other three are that sold in these Rooms 8 December 1948 and now in a private collection in Madrid, a second in the Museo Stibbert in Florence, and a third sold in these Rooms 4 April 1984, lot 44.² There are some minor variations between the various paintings; the cat, for example, which appears beneath the feet of the man standing by the fireplace in the picture in the Museo Stibbert, is here omitted.

Although Pieter Brueghel the Younger normally used his father's work as a source for his designs, in this case the composition is probably based upon a lost composition by his father's contemporary Marten van Cleve (1524–81). The overall design of the setting and the two dancing figures on the left of the composition may be linked to an engraving by Balthasar van den Bos of the 1550s after Van Cleve (fig.1), although the remaining individual figures differ considerably. No documented or signed original by Van Cleve has survived. Of the many copies or variants that have, Ertz lists only two that he considers as possible autograph examples by Van Cleve. These are those sold Brussels, Palais des Beaux-Arts, 17 November 1970, lot 41 (as by Van Cleve) and that formerly with Galerie Katz in Dieren.³ The original was certainly sufficiently well known or well regarded for Rubens himself to make a copy of it in the following century, which he may himself have owned and was certainly later in the possession of his brother-in-law Arnold Lunden (1596–1656) in Antwerp.⁴  This was one of three works which depicted popular winter festivals in the Netherlands, the others being the Feast of Saint Martin and the Procession of the lame men, all of which seem to have been based upon prototypes by Van Cleve.⁵

In this last regard it is interesting to note that recent dendrochronological examination has revealed that the upper board of the present panel is the same as those used by Rubens himself in his portraits of Jean Charles de Cordes and his wife Jacqueline van Caestre today in the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts in Brussels.⁶As this tree has a likely felling date of shortly after 1600, and the Rubens portraits are generally dated to around 1619,  a similar date of execution for this painting would therefore seem quite plausible.

1. A copy of his expertise, dated 2 November 2005 accompanies this lot.
2. Ertz 1998/2000, under Literature, p.534, cat. nos E576–E578.
3. K. Ertz 2014, under Literature, pp. 182–83, cat. nos 101 and 102, reproduced.
4. Sold, London, Christie's, 8 December 2004, lot 22.
5. For a discussion of the relationship between the work of Van Cleve and Pieter Brueghel the Younger, see, for example, Marlier 1969, under Literature, pp. 333–64.
6. Inv. nos 2618 and 2619. The upper board here is from the same source as the left hand board (of three) of the former and the central board of the latter. A copy of Ian Tyers's report accompanies this lot.