The Temptation of Saint Anthony

The Artist and Attribution of the Painting: This painting has historically been attributed to Pieter Huys (active by 1545–died 1584). Like his brother Frans Huys (1522–1562) (The Met 1996.230), Pieter Huys worked as an engraver and print designer, but the scholarly consensus is that he was primarily a painter who had success creating Boschian scenes. The attribution of The Met's painting to Huys, first suggested by Edouard Michel (1935) based on a photograph, was subsequently adopted by the Museum and by other authors, including Leo van Puyvelde (1962 and 1971). Gerd Unverfehrt (1980) placed The Met's painting as a copy in the Mandyn-Huys Group, given that Pieter Huys’s paintings are often confused with the Boschian productions of his contemporary Jan Mandyn (ca. 1500–ca. 1559). Of four extant paintings that bear Huys’s signature, three are Boschian in subject matter but vary considerably in date and painting style (Musée du Louvre, Paris; Museum Mayer van den Bergh, Antwerp; and Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid). While the attribution to Pieter Huys is plausible for The Met's painting and for other unsigned versions of the composition, the clearly successful theme indicates the output of a large workshop or of multiple workshops. Until a comprehensive technical study is undertaken of the four signed paintings and of the larger group of related works, any attributions to the artist—as well as any assessments of the order of the versions—must remain preliminary.

The Painting: Saint Anthony, identifiable by the attribute of a pig and by the Tau cross on his shoulder (now abraded), introduces the chaotic scene of his temptation like an orator or an actor on a stage. The landscape, rendered in light green and lavender-gray tones, is populated by objects of daily life, reconfigured into arrangements at once playful and ghoulish. In the foreground, a fox passes by wearing a nun’s habit. In the background, a fish flies through the air, and broken jugs form a city in flames. Saint Anthony is surrounded, but remains untouched. It is unclear, perhaps intentionally, whether the saint’s pointing gesture represents his initial weakness to temptation or his final renunciation.

The nude temptress at center represents the demon disguised as a queen who appears in some accounts of Saint Anthony’s life, although not in the Golden Legend telling. Beside her, an old woman brandishes a spindle and a female creature in an exotic headdress offers a calf’s head on a plate, a traditional carnival dish (Larry Silver, Peasant Scenes and Landscapes: The Rise of Pictorial Genres in the Antwerp Art Market, Philadelphia, 2006, p. 135). The burning city in the background and the disembodied leg, which dangles like an ex-voto from a dead tree in the upper center, may be references to ergotism or Saint Anthony’s Fire, a widespread and deadly disease of the period with symptoms that included hallucinations and gangrene (see The Metropolitan Museum of Art Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, "Medicine in the Middle Ages"). Because the sick were treated by local Antonite monks, the epidemic of Saint Anthony’s Fire may help explain the ubiquity of paintings of Saint Anthony—and especially of his disturbing, fiery visions—in Antwerp during this period (Corwin 1976).

The Subject and Function: The composition, which exists in several versions and variations, is indebted to the work of Hieronymus Bosch (ca. 1450–1516). Boschian paintings and prints of hermit saints and hell landscapes remained extraordinarily popular in Antwerp from Bosch’s death through the beginning of the seventeenth century (see also The Met 26.244). The discrete creature types (skeletal animals, winged amphibians, and the foolish owl) found in The Met's painting have a precedent in paintings by Bosch such as the Lisbon triptych of the same theme (Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga). However, the Museum’s work is a pastiche in a Boschian idiom, with motifs transformed to fit a later aesthetic. Bosch’s influence on The Met's painting is likely indirect, through the productions of other sixteenth-century Bosch followers, including Hieronymus Cock’s engravings after Pieter Bruegel the Elder (ca. 1525–1569) (see especially The Met 28.4[13]). The innovation of placing Saint Anthony, seated, at the edge of the composition does not appear until the middle of the sixteenth century (Corwin 1976).

At least three other known paintings are extremely close to The Met's panel in composition and dimensions (Erasmushouse Museum, Brussels; see fig. 1 above); Sotheby’s, New York, June 6, 2013; Collection Paprocki, 1963, Sint-Genesius-Rode/Ex. Collection Schoen, Amsterdam). In turn, these exact repetitions share compositional overlap with a larger group of Boschian paintings of the temptation of Saint Anthony, all made in Antwerp in the middle of the sixteenth century. This broader group includes two paintings, one in Brussels (Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium) and one in Madrid (Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial), where the figure of Saint Anthony—but not the figure of the nude woman—is reversed from the orientation in The Met's painting. Selective changes such as this indicate the use of drawn workshop models for individual figures, which painters within a workshop could rearrange and even flip in planning a new painting. During this period, Antwerp workshops began to sell finished panels and canvases made on speculation, and paintings were exported to other regions, especially to Italy and Spain. Workshops adapted their practices to match this new demand. The technical examination of the surface of The Met's painting supports the idea that it was made using time-saving workshop techniques, but by a talented and confident artist.

The large size and relative legibility of this painting make it possible that it could have been intended for a local Antonite hospital and hung in view of the patients to encourage contemplation of sin and salvation. The removal of overpaint during the cleaning and restoration of the painting has revealed apparently deliberate scratches across the nude woman’s eyes and crotch—evidence, perhaps, of an attack by a pious individual on the worldly allure of the figure. These intentional marks suggest that the painting was taken seriously in its time as a religious work, even as Boschian paintings and prints of the theme were simultaneously marketed for entertainment as well as instruction.

Anna-Claire Stinebring 2015

Support: The support was constructed from four planks of oak with the grain oriented horizontally. Dendrochronological analysis indicated an earliest possible creation date of 1552, with a more plausible date of 1558 onwards.[1] The wood originated in the Baltic/Polish region. The original dimensions of the support are preserved, however, the support has undergone considerable structural interventions over its history.

The planks were originally butt-joined and held in place with wooden dowels, the voids of which can be seen in the x-radiograph and on the reverse of the now thinned panel (see fig. 2 above). At some point, the four planks were taken apart, likely to make repairs after significant structural damage. They were then rejoined with a significant step along the uppermost planks. In order to level out this step, the painted surface was shaved down; this drastic intervention removed a strip of paint, ground and wood along the right third of the uppermost join, almost an inch wide at the widest point. The planks were rejoined using butterfly inserts, the reverse was planed and a cradle attached. Fortunately, the original back of the panel was not entirely removed. Panels, often not perfectly flat on the reverse, were frequently planed down during structural interventions to create a flat surface to adhere a cradle to. But in this case, only the thickest parts of the panel were planed and the thinnest—in the upper right quadrant of the reverse—were not touched, leaving areas of the original reverse intact and, fortunately, the remains of a woodsman’s mark (figs. 3, 4).[2] The panel now measures 5/16 inch (8 mm) at its thickest point. At some point prior to cradling, triangular wood inserts were added to the lower corners, likely to compensate for damages there.

During a 2015 treatment at The Met, the cradle was removed, the planks were separated and rejoined at their proper surface level, and a secondary strainer with spring mechanisms was attached to the back.

Preparation: The panel was prepared with a white ground. There is a light purplish-grey priming layer on top of this white ground. Examination with infrared reflectography did not reveal the presence of any underdrawing.[3] However, given the size and complexity of the composition, it does seem likely that the design would have been laid out on the panel prior to painting. It is possible that an underdrawing is present but is now obscured in infrared examination by the colored priming layer.

The original panel was prepared and painted before a frame was installed. There are ridges of paint about 3/8 inch in from the right and left edge where the still-wet paint was disturbed, possibly made by a channel edge support. Such devices were more often installed before painting began, but perhaps, in this case, one was applied during the course of painting.

Paint Layers: The artist painted this composition using a straightforward, often economic, technique. He applied his paint in few layers, frequently blending paint with wet-in-wet brushstrokes. The sweeping, fantastical cloud formations are a wonderful example of this: the artist heightened the sense of a bright sky peeking behind the advancing clouds by dragging the deepest grey paint across the still-wet lightest paint. He generally painted with broad brushstrokes but added fine details to great effect, particularly in the colorful tendrils and feathers of the creatures at lower left and right.

The purple-grey priming layer would have helped speed the painting process by providing a cool mid-tone upon which to build his form, instead of a stark white ground. This would have been particularly helpful in the many dark passages. The artist made occasional use of reserves during the painting process, such as for the temptress and Saint Anthony, but also added many of the small figures on top of the landscape.

The artist introduced few changes to his composition during the course of painting. Most changes were simple corrections to contours, but he did make a significant alteration to the temptress at center, lowering her right arm and shoulder and slightly narrowing her limbs, as can be seen in the x-radiograph (fig. 5). The initial position of the temptress is remarkably close to the one in the Temptation of Saint Anthony in the Erasmushouse, Brussels: the closest in composition to The Met painting of the many examples of this scene linked with Peter Huys (fig.1; see Catalogue Entry). While clear differences in technique and style between the two paintings indicate different hands, the compositions are remarkably close and the dimensions are nearly the same—the Brussels panel measures 117 x 146 cm—suggesting that the two paintings had a shared model.

The painting has suffered extensive damage, much of which is associated with structural issues including widespread flaking from the movement of the wood panel and losses along the joins and splits. In addition, the uppermost glazes are abraded, especially in the brown passages. Scratches, which were apparently intentional, have also disfigured the temptress’s eyes and pudendum. The recent restoration, completed in 2018, reintegrated such damages with selective and reversible retouching.

Much of the water in the lower right quadrant of the composition was overpainted earlier in its history as an expedient way of compensating for widespread losses. This overpainting, which has been left in place, was carried out using a dark blue oil paint that did not imitate the gradation of light and the reflection of figures in the water.

Sophie Scully 2019

[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated May 5, 2015. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1541. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1550, more plausible is a felling date between 1554..1556….1560 +x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1552 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings and 2 years for seasoning a creation is plausible from 1558 upwards.”
[2] Marks such as this were added to timber directly after felling, and are believed to indicate some aspect of the timber trade including where the wood came from, whom it belonged to, or its final destination. A general discussion of these marks can be found in Jorgen Wadum’s “Historical Overview of Panel-Making Techniques in the Northern Countries,” in The Structural Conservation of Panel Paintings: Proceedings of a Symposium at the J. Paul Getty Museum, 24–28 April, 1995," Ed. K. Dardes and A. Rothe. Los Angeles, 1998.
[3] Infrared reflectography was carried out with a Merlin Indigo InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a StingRay macro lens customized for the wavelengths covered by the camera, 0.9 to 1.7 microns, September 2014.

Inscription: Inscribed (lower left): V. Breughel

private collection (until 1915)

New York. Museum of Modern Art. "Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism," December 7, 1936–January 17, 1937, no. 32.

Lexington, Va. Washington and Lee University. "The Metropolitan Museum of Art Loan Exhibit," October 30, 1950–January 15, 1951, no. 6.

Athens, Ga. Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia. February 15–April 5, 1951, no catalogue?

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Saints and Their Legends," March 1–September 3, 1974, exh. brochure.

LOAN OF THIS WORK IS RESTRICTED.

Edouard Michel. "Peter Huys au Musée du Louvre." Gazette des beaux-arts 77 (1935), p. 154 n. 1, mentions this painting in connection with a Temptation of Saint Anthony, also by Pieter Huys (Louvre, Paris), which is signed and dated 1547.

E. P. Richardson. "Pieter Huys." Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 17 (March 1938), pp. 53–54, ill., calls this picture an early work by Huys, closely related to the painting of the same subject in the Louvre.

Harry B. Wehle and Margaretta Salinger. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Early Flemish, Dutch and German Paintings. New York, 1947, pp. 155–56, ill., mentions a replica in the Cels collection, Brussels, later in the Jan Mayer collection, New York, and a slightly later example in reverse in the museum in Brussels (Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts).

Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 49.

Leo van Puyvelde. La peinture flamand au siècle de Bosch et Breughel. Paris, 1962, p. 75, believes this panel could well be the work of Huys, but doubts that the Brussels picture is autograph.

Lucie Ninane in Le siècle de Bruegel: La peinture en Belgique au XVIe siècle. Exh. cat., Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. Brussels, 1963, p. 116, compares it to the example in Brussels.

Leo van Puyvelde. La Renaissance flamande de Bosch à Breughel. [Brussels], 1971, p. 51.

Nancy A. Corwin. "The Fire Landscape: Its Sources and Its Development from Bosch through Jan Brueghel I, with Special Emphasis on the Mid-Sixteenth Century Bosch "Revival"." PhD diss., University of Washington, Seattle, 1976, pp. 506–7, no. II-5, pl. 159, attributes it to the workshop of Huys, about 1560s, and discusses it with a group of related pictures of the subject; states that this type of Temptation of Saint Anthony, with large figures in the center foreground and the Saint sitting under a tree facing a temptress, is not based on any known Bosch original and occurs only late in the Bosch revival; notes that "details are very summary and ommissions such as the lack of strings on the mandolin make this version seem like the work of a copyist—perhaps turning these works out in quantity".

Charles Scribner III. "Daniel Hopfer's 'Venus and Amor': Some Iconographic Observations." Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 35, no. 1 (1976), p. 17 n. 8.

Gerd Unverfehrt. Hieronymus Bosch: Die Rezeption seiner Kunst im frühen 16. Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1980, p. 282.

Walter Liedtke. "Addenda to 'Flemish Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art'." Metropolitan Museum Journal 27 (1992), p. 110.

Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 275, ill. p. 274.

From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1998, p. 408, ill.

Marc Rudolf de Vrij. Jan Mandyn. Zwanenburg, 2006, pp. 78–79, no. 12.

Marc Rudolf de Vrij. Jheronimus Bosch: An Exercise in Common Sense. Hilversum, The Netherlands, 2012, p. 609, no. F. 7.4, ill.

Loan of this work is restricted.