Jan Brueghel the Elder

Julius Kien (1868-1949), Vienna, by 1930 and until his involuntary sale in 1938;
With Johannes Hinrichsen, Berlin (acquired from the above in 1938);
Fritz Thyssen (1873-1951), Berlin (acquired from the above);
Confiscated from the above by the National Socialists in October 1939;
Restituted to Fritz Thyssen’s widow, Amélie, and his daughter, Anita, after 1951;
Purchased from Anita Amélie, Countess Zichy-Thyssen by the Free State of Bavaria in 1987;
Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich (accessioned in 1992);
Restituted to the heirs of Julius Kien in 2012.

Vienna, Secession, Drei Jahrhunderte flämische Kunst 1400-1700, 1930, no. 9;
Vienna, Galerie Sanct Lucas, Die jüngeren Brueghel und ihr Kreis, 1935, no. 40, reproduced plate VIII.

R. Grosse, Niederländische Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1936,p. 24, reproduced plate 31;
M.-L. Hairs, Les peintres flamands de fleurs au XVIIe siècle, 2nd ed., Brussels 1965, pp. 66, 363, cat. no. 34, reproduced fig. 159;
K. Ertz, Jan Brueghel der Ältere, Cologne 1979, pp. 81, 585, cat. no. 167, reproduced fig. 351;
K. Ertz, Jan Brueghel der Ältere, Lingen 2008, vol. III, p. 923, cat. no. 437, reproduced p. 926 (as location unknown).

The following condition report is provided by Hamish Dewar, who is an external specialist and not an employee of Sotheby's. UNCONDITIONAL AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE Structural Condition The artist's panel has been inlaid into a conservation tray and this has successfully secured what would appear to be a number of cracks and splits in the original panel. There is also a horizontal addition attached to the upper edge which is approximately 3 cm in depth and is attached to the upper horizontal edge. There are some fine hairline cracks in the panel which appear to be more recent than others but all appear stable and secure. Paint Surface The paint surface shows a discoloured and uneven varnish layer and should respond well to cleaning. Inspection under ultra-violet light shows how discoloured the varnish layers have become and confirms how well the painting should respond to cleaning. Inspection under ultra-violet light also shows a number of what would appear to be quite recent retouchings, the most significant of which are, 1) retouching along the horizontal join approximately 3 cm below the upper horizontal panel edge. These retouchings are most extensive in the upper right of the background where they extend for approximately 3 cm down from the join, 2) a retouched vertical crack running for approximately 25 cm up from the lower horizontal framing edge through the vase and into the flowers. 3) Another retouched crack running up from the lower horizontal framing edge which is approximately 9 cm in length and is approximately 12 cm from the right vertical edge, 4) lines of retouching near the left vertical framing edge, covering three further thin splits in the panel. There are other retouchings in the lower left of the composition and other small scattered retouchings. It is encouraging to note that there are very few retouchings visible under ultraviolet light on the flowers themselves, the details of which appear to be well preserved. Summary The painting would therefore appear to be in essentially good condition with potential to be transformed by cleaning and the structural issues in the past appear to be resolved.
"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."

Known to Hairs and Ertz only through a black and white photograph, this elaborate floral still life was inspected in Amsterdam in October 2012 by Fred G. Meijer of the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie who considers it an autograph version of, and executed at the same time as, the painting formerly in the collection of Baron Fairhaven and now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.¹  Drs. Meijer dates both works to circa 1609, the same moment as a variant in the Národní Galerie, Prague.² Ertz, without the benefit of first hand inspection of the present painting or, indeed, a colour photograph, dates all three works to circa 1607-8.

Differences between the signed Cambridge version and the present painting are minimal: the variegated tulip upper left, and the placement of the butterfly thereon has been substituted for that which appears in the earlier Prague version; and an insect that appears at the extreme lower left corner in the Cambridge painting is omitted here. The differences between the present work and the Prague version are likewise minimal: the latter includes a blue iris at the apex instead of a pink-and-white variegated tulip as here; it omits both the jewels on the ledge and the sprig of forget-me-nots that here tumbles over the right hand half of the earthenware vase. 

The brilliance of Brueghel's pigments lies partially hidden beneath a thick layer of dirty varnish, though for the most part they appear to have survived largely intact. Unlike many similar still lifes by Brueghel from the first decade of the seventeenth century the yellow pigments, usually so susceptible to degradation, are remarkably well preserved.

Hairs (see Literature) presumes this painting to be identifiable with the still life sold at Christie's, 29 January 1954, lot 157. However neither the measurements nor the recently unearthed provenance correlate.³


1. See Ertz, under literature, 2008, p. 923, cat. no. 436, reproduced p. 925.
2. Ibid., pp. 919-23, cat. no. 433, reproduced p. 920.
3. The catalogue gives them as 25 1/2  by 19 1/2  in..