The making of Bosch:

Observations on his artistic

reception
Laura M. Ritter

Laura M. Ritter

Following an Erasmus fellowship at University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Ritter earned her

Master’s degree from the University of Vienna with a thesis titled “Two Fire Landscapes in the
Succession of Hieronymus Bosch” (2013). She is now a PhD candidate at Freie Universität Berlin.
Her dissertation will examine the “Conceptions of ‘Evil’ after Hieronymus Bosch” in the broader
cultural-historical context of the sixteenth century. She has worked on the iconography of the
Temptation of St. Anthony (Vienna, 2012 and 2015), the role of Bosch’s followers as intermediaries
between Bosch and Bruegel (Vienna, 2014), the Ghent ‘Carrying of the Cross’ (Bonn, 2015), the
pictorial strategies of moral didactics and social criticism in sixteenth-century Netherlandish prints
(Hamburg, 2015) and the graphic works of Pieter Bruegel the Elder. In addition to various internships
at contemporary art museums and galleries, Ritter has interned at Kunsthistorisches Museum in
Vienna. She is now the assistant curator for Netherlandish art at the Albertina museum in Vienna.

278
Over the centuries, only a few artist’s names have transformed into adjectives: Titian is one,
Rubens another. The eponym Boschesque has also entered the language used by art historians
and the public alike and speaks to a process that modern economics calls branding. In this
article, I will examine the pivotal origins of this phenomenon and propose the notion that
not only present day marketing profits from using Bosch’s name as a label, but that already
in the early sixteenth century the artist created a particular trademark with its own distinct
qualities. The process of this creation was certainly induced by Bosch’s own actions during
his lifetime, but it was also a consequence of early art literature and the artistic production of
his countless followers and imitators. By relating to his works in various ways, these
painters, draughtsmen and printers produced an image of the ’s-Hertogenbosch master that
was as prevalent in the sixteenth century as it is today.

The creation
Born into the Van Aken family of painters, which included 11 artists over five generations,
the young Jeroen most likely received his artistic training in his father’s workshop. As an oft-
quoted archival source from 10 March 1510 explicitly documents, it was the artist himself
who changed his name to Jheronimus Bosch.1 It was not uncommon for fifteenth-century
artists to incorporate their place of origin into their names. After all, the patronymic Van
Aken was already a reference to Bosch’s great-grandfather’s birthplace, the city of Aachen,
Germany. It is, however, noteworthy that the painter Latinised his birth name Jeroen, under
which he had still been listed in the official records until the early 1490s.2 As the original
lingua franca and language of the educated, Latin had a highly prestigious humanist
connotation and was at the same time intelligible to international buyers.3 The new name
furthermore allowed for an immediate localisation to ’s-Hertogenbosch – all important
factors for Bosch’s effort to quite literally make a name for himself.

The key witnesses to Bosch’s own intention to position himself as a distinctive artistic entity
are, of course, his paintings. Working in a transitional phase from the late Middle Ages to the
Early Modern period, the mere fact that the master signed his works speaks to a new artistic
self-confidence. With few exceptions, it was still uncommon at that time for painters in the
Low Countries to certify their works by adding a signature. While there was no codified
orthography and even later artists, such as Pieter Bruegel (c. 1525-69), varied their signatures
over time,4 Bosch consistently inscribed his name in one and the same gothic minuscule,
resembling contemporary letterpress text. The use of the first name Jheronimus became an
important distinguishing factor, as fellow s’-Hertogenbosch artists also included the name
of their hometown in their marks.5 The fact that Bosch did not add a date to any of his works
indicates that the integration of his signature served much more than a documentary purpose:
it was an important device for consolidating different parts of paintings that were executed
by members of his workshop under the warranting name of one spiritus rector.

279
LAURA M. RITTER

The workshop
Unfortunately, very little is known about the structure and organisation of Bosch’s workshop.
The only surviving contemporary document referring to the artist’s apprentices is an account
from the years 1503-04, which mentions that ‘Jheronimus knechten schilder’6 should be
remunerated for painting three coats of arms. Moreover, around 1560, the Spanish collector
and connoisseur Don Felipe de Guevara († 1563) mentioned one of Bosch’s ‘discipulos’,
describing him as the master’s highest achieving pupil, who even signed his work with Bosch’s
name.7 This scarcity of information has led to much speculation, and the several attempts to
discern individual artists within Bosch’s studio speak to the art history discipline’s implicit
will to attribute works to specific personalities. In an effort to shed light on the detailed
composition of the workshop, Frederic Elsig has traced Gielis Panhedel († after 1545) back
to Bosch’s immediate body of pupils.8 Fritz Koreny has constructed oeuvres around three
nameless assistants, most notably the supposedly left-handed painter of the Prado Haywain.9

A master’s collaboration with assistants or family members who are mostly unknown today
was, however, standard practice at the time and it is primarily important to note that the
workshop as a whole certainly played a vital role in the making of Bosch. Without the
multiplying capacity of its artistic production, Bosch’s output would have been seriously
limited. As others have established, there were a significant number of faithful workshop
copies circulating in early sixteenth-century collections.10 The multiple use of one single
pictorial invention in several independent artworks produced by Bosch’s workshop testifies
to the artist’s endeavour to widely distribute his imagery. Drawn sketches must have played
an important role in the artistic education of the master’s assistants and served as models for
the members of his atelier. The Berlin Kupferstichkabinett’s drawing with Two Monsters on
recto and verso respectively can serve as an example of such an instructive work. The cowering
creature on the right of the verso was copied and reused in the Rotterdam Fragments of a
Triptych, which is generally attributed to Bosch’s workshop.11 By the middle of the sixteenth
century, a number of Boschesque model sheets with narratively disjointed and spatially
isolated monsters were also published in print, serving the much wider audience of Bosch’s
followers and imitators.

The succession
From today’s perspective, it is of course very difficult if not impossible to clearly determine
the boundaries between the production of Bosch’s workshop and the works of his early
succession beyond his personal supervision. The fact that other artists already imitated Bosch
during his own lifetime makes mere chronology an unsuitable instrument for distinguishing
between the master’s assistants and his followers.

A small Temptation of Saint Anthony, today in Berlin, seems to be an example of such an early
imitating painting (Fig. 1). Dendrochronology sets 1488 as the likely terminus post quem of its
creation.12 With its seamlessly applied paint layers, smooth surface structure and a colour-

280
THE MAKING OF BOSCH: OBSERVATIONS ON HIS ARTISTIC RECEPTION

Figure 1
Follower of Jheronimus Bosch, The Temptation of Saint Anthony, oil on wood, 40 ∞ 26.5 cm. Berlin,
Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 1647 (Source: http://prometheus.uni-koeln.de (accessed 14/07/2016)

281
LAURA M. RITTER

perspective construction of spatial depth, the panel recalls the technique and compositional
style of earlier Netherlandish masters, such as Geertgen tot Sint Jans (c. 1460-95), while
compositionally relying on Bosch’s Saint John the Evangelist. As Gerd Unverfehrt has
observed, the evenly distributed monsters surrounding the meditating Anthony are intended
to amuse the spectators, rather than frighten them. In this, they are relatively far from the
hellish visions of the Saint’s inescapable torment and seduction, created by Bosch and his
workshop. A most characteristic indicator of this trivialisation can be seen in the demons on
the lower right, who are busy attacking each other while paying little attention to their original
task of leading the Hermit into temptation.13 Dagmar Eichberger believes this little panel to
be identical to a Temptation listed in the 1516 inventory of Margaret of Austria’s extensive
collection in Mechelen.14 If this identification is correct, it documents Bosch’s artistic reception
in painting at an early time.

Three surviving works by Alart du Hameel (c. 1449-c. 1506) that evidently incorporate a
Boschesque vocabulary bear further witness to the master’s early impact, also in printmaking.
Created in Bosch’s immediate surroundings, The Last Judgement, The Besieged Elephant and
Saint Christopher all intelligently emulate his motivic inventions. Interestingly enough, as
Marisa Bass has emphasised, we have no knowledge of a print design by Bosch’s own hand.15
This seems surprising insofar as the printed medium – which was broadly established at that
very time – would have been an excellent resource for publishing and circulating the art of a
master keen on self-promotion. Future investigations of the exact relationship between the
Bosch workshop and Alart’s production will shed more light on this omission.

Notably, it was mainly Bosch’s uncommon subject matters and motives that were picked up
and imitated by his followers. The principal cause for the drastic decline in the quality of
painterly execution, which is characteristic of most works in the succession, lies in the changed
conditions of production and sale. Whereas Bosch’s works had mainly been individual
commissions by elite patrons and buyers, the paintings of his followers emerged in the context
of an open art market. Developing in Antwerp from the first decades of the sixteenth century,
this new trade responded to a rising demand for small cabinet paintings generated by a new
class of burghers. Serially produced in tightly organised workshops, these paintings were
geared towards quick fabrication and affordable prices and therefore lacked the careful and
deliberate execution of Bosch and his workshop.16The ’s-Hertogenbosch master seems to
have succeeded so well in positioning his paintings as a distinct type that mere motivic
references sufficed to profit from their popularity on the market.17

Some followers truly seized Bosch’s works with a high claim to artistic emulation, as Matthijs
Ilsink has shown for the oeuvre of Pieter Bruegel.18 But the more profane motive of financial
gain also promoted the production of rather modest works with plainly fraudulent intentions.
It was exactly the aforementioned standardisation of Bosch’s signature that gave these
followers an easily imitable resource of false certification.19 Paintings like the Rijksmuseum’s
Temptation of Saint Anthony or The Last Judgement in a US private collection ostentatiously

282
THE MAKING OF BOSCH: OBSERVATIONS ON HIS ARTISTIC RECEPTION

plagiarised Bosch’s name in the right foreground and thereby professed to have a direct
relationship to the master. Other works, like the Basel Concert in an Egg that is directly related
to the painting today preserved in Lille, are linked to contemporary printmaking in the
composition of their signature. Beneath the writing ‘Jheronimus bosch’ in the lower left, we
can discern the addition ‘inven’ for inventor or invenit – a term commonly used to identify
the conceptual originator in print production. Last year’s two exhibitions (in Dresden and
St. Louis) showed that printed images constituted an important factor for the dissemination
and lasting popularity of Bosch’s visual vocabulary.20 With their implicit separation of
inventor, sculptor and executor, they are paradigmatic for the collaborative and standardised
practice of the Bosch succession.

Early art literature

The great number of imitating works produced until well after the end of the sixteenth century
did not go unnoticed in early art literature. Beginning with Antonio de Beatis’s Travel Journal
from 1517, the works of Bosch and his followers were frequently addressed in written sources.
Ambrosio de Morales, Felipe de Guevara, Lodovico Guicciardini, Marcus van Vaernewyck,
Giorgio Vasari, Dominicus Lampsonius, Gonçalo Argote de Molina, Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo,
José de Sigüenza, Karel Van Mander, Hendrick Hondius and countless later writers
commented on Bosch’s art or what they believed to be works by the master.

Van Mander gave a quite detailed account of a painting depicting Christ’s Descent into Limbo,
where he explicitly mentioned the figure of Judas being tied up and hung.21 Since no Bosch
painting that fits this description has come down to us, it has been proposed that Van Mander
was describing a lost original by the master.22 Nils Büttner has suggested that a horizontal
panel from Bosch’s succession might be the work mentioned by Van Mander (Fig. 2).23
Another possible candidate that fits his description is a painting of the same iconography,
currently housed in the National Gallery of Ireland (Fig. 3). In that painting, Judas is tied up
and hanging from a gallows at the far right. The exact identification of the painting must
remain speculation, but in light of the numerous depictions of Christ in Limbo by Bosch’s
followers, it is entirely possible that early commentators like Van Mander drew on works
from Bosch’s imitators rather than the master’s own paintings when formulating their specific
view of his art.24

This in turn demonstrates how closely the name Bosch was tied to the depiction of
monstrosities and hellish scenarios in contemporary art literature. Accordingly, all of these
early sources mentioned the artist in conjunction with his bizarre motives or diableries. Even
when they lamented Bosch’s over-simplistic reputation as a painter of devils, as, for instance,
Guevara did, they were ex negativo reflecting the view of their contemporaries, who evidently
saw Bosch as a ‘duvelmakere’.25 In doing so, these texts not only documented but further
enhanced this image of Bosch and contributed to the master’s inseparable association with a
certain spectrum of contents and iconographies.

283
LAURA M. RITTER

Figure 2
Follower of Jheronimus Bosch, Christ’s Descent into Limbo, oil on wood, 53.3 ∞ 116.8 cm. New York,
The Metropolitan Museum, inv. no. 26.244 (Source: http://www.metmuseum.org (accessed
14/07/2016)

284
THE MAKING OF BOSCH: OBSERVATIONS ON HIS ARTISTIC RECEPTION

Figure 3
Follower of Jheronimus Bosch, Christ’s Descent into Limbo, oil on wood, 36.2 ∞ 61.7 cm. Dublin,
National Gallery of Ireland, inv. no. NGI 1296 (Source: http://onlinecollection.nationalgallery.ie
(accessed 14/07/2016)

285
LAURA M. RITTER

The Field has Eyes, the Forest has Ears

In my opinion, Bosch’s drawing The Field has Eyes, the Forest has Ears, currently housed in
Berlin, presents us with a direct reflection on the relationship between the master and his
followers (Fig. 4a). In the hollow of a large, arid tree, we see an owl depicted with an enlarged
perspective, gazing straight out of the image and at the viewer. A lying fox and a rooster
inhabit the trunk’s base. Four fantastic birds populate the tree’s branches, two of whom are
aggressively croaking and flapping their wings. In the back of the scene, Bosch shows us a
small grove. Between its boles we see two giant human ears. The immediate foreground is
cluttered with seven more or less symmetrically distributed eyes. At the very top of the
drawing is a Latin inscription: ‘Miserrimi quippe e(s)t i(n)genii se(m)p(er) u(t)i i(n)ve(n)tis et
nu(m)q(uam) i(n)veni(en)dis’ [‘Poor is the mind who always uses the invented and never that, what is
to be invented’]. Paul Vandenbroeck identified the phrase as an abbreviated quote from De
Disciplina Scholarum, an early thirteenth-century treatise on the training of scholars.26

Several editions of incunabula north of the Alps testify to the text’s wide dissemination in the
last quarter of the fifteenth century.27 Palaeography allows the inscription to be dated to the
first decade of the sixteenth century.28 The origin of the ink has, however, been the subject of
scholarly debate: while the Bosch Research and Conservation Project’s technical examinations
gave them no reason to suspect the use of more than one drawing medium on the recto side
of the sheet,29 Oliver Hahn and Timo Wolff conducted an XRF analysis that found certain
discrepancies in the concentration of lead between the ink on the drawing and the ink on the
inscription on the recto.30 However, it was common practice for sixteenth-century artists to
manually blend inks according to varying formulae. This non-standardised manner of
production oftentimes resulted in slight differences in the exact composition of drawing
mediums. Therefore, the presence of different inks in one drawing does not necessarily
indicate the involvement of multiple distinct draughtsmen.31 Given the limited conclusiveness
of the physical evidence, it is entirely possible that one single artist created the entire recto side
of the Berlin drawing. The verso of the sheet contains various sketches and word fragments
in different inks, drawn by several stylistically discernible hands (Fig. 4b). Only the beggar in
the lower left and the dog directly above his head are unanimously accepted as compositions
by Bosch.32

As one of the master’s only three undisputed drawings, this sheet has received great scholarly
attention. Most recently, Fischer,33 Ilsink34 and Bass35 – using varying approaches and
arguments – interpreted the work as Bosch’s witty pictorial comment on his apprentice’s lack
of imagination. Broadly speaking, they argued that Bosch himself is represented in the context
of his city through the centre owl, a boschvoghele,36 and the allusion to ’s-Hertogenbosch in
an emblematic depiction of hearing (hoort), eyes (ogen) and forest (bosch).37 In view of the
inscription’s origin in a treatise on the education of scholars – or, more generally, pupils – the
birds surrounding the owl are taken to be signifiers of the artist’s workshop assistants and
authors of the doodles on the verso, who are admonished for simply copying their master’s

286
THE MAKING OF BOSCH: OBSERVATIONS ON HIS ARTISTIC RECEPTION

Figure 4a
Jheronimus Bosch, The Field has Eyes, the Forest has Ears (recto), ink on paper, 20.2 ∞ 12.7 cm.
Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. no. KdZ 549r (Source: http://www.smb-digital.de (accessed
14/07/2016)

287
LAURA M. RITTER

Figure 4b
Jheronimus Bosch, The Field has Eyes, the Forest has Ears (verso), ink on paper, 20.2 ∞ 12.7 cm.
Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. no. KdZ 549v (Source: http://www.smb-digital.de (accessed
14/07/2016)

288
THE MAKING OF BOSCH: OBSERVATIONS ON HIS ARTISTIC RECEPTION

ideas as only ‘poor minds’ would. The artist’s visual indictment of this poor-mindedness is
underscored by the image of the ignorant cockerel naively approaching its natural enemy,
the fox – a motive recurring in a second Bosch drawing, now housed in the Museum
Boijmans Van Beuningen, as well as in the immediate foreground of the Ghent Saint Jerome.

In my opinion, these interpretations fall short on a centre aspect of the drawing, namely the
atmosphere of unwanted surveillance and deep distrust which is evoked by the rebus-like
rendering of eyes and ears. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs, the earliest
documented use of the alluded saying dates back to a thirteenth-century collection of idioms,
where the vernacular phrase was translated into Latin as follows: ‘Campus habet lumen et
habet nemus auris acumen’.38 The saying thus implies that common sense should prompt the
realisation that without one’s knowledge, one can easily be spied upon from a distance when
in a field and overheard by a concealed listener when in the woods.39 Therefore, one must
stay constantly alert to the possibility of unwanted surveillance.

In Bosch’s drawing, the oversized human sensory organs are invisible to the centrally
positioned owl and lurk in the dark of the forest behind and the cover of the field before the
bird. The pupils, as the seeing parts of the eye, seem half buried in the ground and covered
by the eyelids. The ears are partially blended into the high grass between the trees. It seems
hard to imagine that these deviously positioned spying eyes and ears should be interpreted
in the context of Bosch’s workshop. As I have tried to establish here, the artist’s assistants
played a fundamentally important role in the making of Bosch and his art. His apprentices
were supposed to watch and listen, to copy their master in order to learn; how else can the
fourfold repetition of the small dog on the verso be explained? It therefore appears to be
unlikely that the criticism addresses Bosch’s pupils.

I think it is much more probable that Bosch was making a visual comment on his early
succession. Since his followers began imitating his work well during Bosch’s lifetime, he
must have been aware of this practice and naturally resented their unauthorised exploitation
of his carefully positioned trademark. The distinction between Bosch as a wise creator and
his unimaginative imitators is mirrored in the juxtaposition of the grand, old tree in the
centre and the younger, smaller plants in the back, and in the visual opposition between the
attentively gazing owl and the aggressively approaching birds.

To support this interpretation, it is necessary to consider the prevalent understanding of artistic

copyright in Bosch’s time. Apart from the inscription’s quite clear call for inventiveness, the
recordings of Guevara provide closer insight into the coeval notion of originality concerning
authorship. Around 1560, the Spanish nobleman noted that some followers were fraudulently
signing their paintings with Bosch’s name and ‘smok[ing] them in fireplaces in order to lend
them credibility and an aged look’.40 This passage clearly indicates a growing awareness of
artistic claims to originality around the middle of the sixteenth century. Even earlier evidence
for such proprietary concepts of intellectual authorship is provided by Bosch’s almost exact

289
LAURA M. RITTER

contemporary, Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528). Reacting to his well-known Venetian encounter

with Marcantonio Raimondi, he stated in the colophon of his 1511 edition of the Marienleben:
‘Beware, you envious thieves of the work and invention of others, keep your thoughtless
hands from these works of ours ... no one shall dare to reproduce these works in spurious
forms’.41 This fierce warning reflects the lively discourse on artistic copyright predominant in
the first quarter of the sixteenth century. In this context, it is furthermore remarkable that
Dürer used the very phrase inscribed on Bosch’s drawing in the preface to his Vier Bücher von
menschlicher Proportion in 1528.42

As Gabriele Wimböck established in an article on artistic rivalry, the accusation of conceptual

theft had become a topos by around 1600.43 However, the constitutive roots of this rhetoric
can be found at the beginning of the sixteenth century, when the forces of emerging markets
drove authors and artists to protect their intellectual property and prompted an increasing
awareness of personal authorship. The Field has Eyes, the Forest has Ears therefore has to be
understood as a personal document of discourse on Bosch’s own inventive originality and
his snide comment on his followers’ practices of plagiarism and mindless imitation.

With his literal depiction of a proverb in an autonomous work of art, Bosch created an early
example from a long tradition of images that illustrate timeless wisdoms, while being heavily
charged with contemporary subtexts alluding to their specific cultural context.44 Most
notably it was Pieter Bruegel who would, around the middle of the sixteenth century,
continue and refine this elaborate mode of depiction.

1 ‘Jheronimi van Aken scilder ofte maelder die hem selver scrift Jheronimus Bosch’. Huys Janssen 2007, p. 242.
2 Huys Janssen 2007, pp. 247-50.
3 Bosch Research and Conservation Project (BRCP) 2016, p. 49.
4 Bruegel used several different signatures until 1559. From that year on, he consistently signed
‘BRVEGEL’ in roman majuscule. Müller via http://www.degruyter.com.aklaktuell.han.onb.ac.at/
view/AKL/_10143589.
5 Bass and Wyckoff 2015b.
6 Huys Janssen 2007, p. 249.
7 Guevara (Ponz) 1788, pp. 43-4.
8 Elsig 2004, pp. 120-32.
9 Koreny 2012, pp. 86-109.
10 Van Schoute and Verougstraete 2006.
11 BRCP 2016, pp. 380-91.
12 I am grateful to Stephan Kemperdick for granting me access to the records of the Gemäldegalerie,
Berlin. Peter Klein 2001.
13 Unverfehrt 1980, pp. 151-3.
14 Eichberger 2002, pp. 269-70.
15 Bass 2015, p. 12.

290
THE MAKING OF BOSCH: OBSERVATIONS ON HIS ARTISTIC RECEPTION

16 Vermeylen 1999.
17 Silver 1999, p. 49.
18 Ilsink 2009.
19 Büttner 2014, pp. 31-5.
20 Pfeifer-Helke 2015; Bass and Wyckoff 2015a.
21 Noch is van hem op de Wael een Helle, dar de oude Vaders verlost worden, en Iudas die oock mede meent uyt
trecken, wort met een strick opghetrocken en ghehanghen: t’is wonder wat daer al te sien is van oubolligh
ghespoock: oock hoe aerdigh en natuerlijck hy was, van vlammen, branden, roocken en smoocken. Van Mander
1604, f. 216v.
22 Unverfehrt 1980, p. 201.
23 Büttner 2014, p. 31.
24 Miedema 1996, p. 55-6.
25 Van Vaernewyck 1568 (1872), p. 157.
26 Vandenbroeck 1981, pp. 178-83.
27 BRCP 2016, p. 505, fn. 16.
28 Buck 2001, p. 200.
29 BRCP 2016, pp. 498 and 505, fn. 3.
30 I am grateful to Erwin Pokorny for indicating this analysis and to Oliver Hahn and Timo Wolff for
providing their data via e-mail. Hahn and Wolff 2009.
31 Philip via http://irongallink.org/igi_indexbe74.html.
32 Buck 2001, p. 205; Koreny 2012, p. 176; BRCP 2016, pp. 503-4.
33 Fischer 2009, pp. 165-72.
34 Ilsink 2009, pp. 38-83.
35 Bass 2015, pp. 16-7.
36 Ilsink 2007, p. 179.
37 Koldeweij and Vandenbroeck and Vermet 2001, pp. 25-7.
38 Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs 2015, p. 109.
39 Mason Bradbury 2002, p. 279.
40 Guevara (Ponz) 1788, p. 42.
41 Quoted after Pon 2004, p. 39.
42 Buck 2001, p. 200.
43 Wimböck 2011, p. 489.
44 Sullivan 1991, pp. 438-40.

References
M. Bass, “Hieronymus Bosch and his legacy as inventor”, in: M. Bass and E. Wyckoff (eds.), Beyond Bosch.
The afterlife of a Renaissance master in print (Exh. Cat. Saint Louis Art Museum, St. Louis and Harvard
University Art Museums, Boston 2015/2016). St. Louis, 2015, pp. 11-33.
M. Bass and E. Wyckoff (eds.), Beyond Bosch. The afterlife of a Renaissance master in print (Exh. Cat. Saint
Louis Art Museum, St. Louis and Harvard University Art Museums, Boston 2015/2016). St. Louis,
2015.

291
LAURA M. RITTER

M. Bass and E. Wyckoff, “Sons of ’s-Hertogenbosch. Hieronymus Bosch’s local legacy in print”, in: Art in
Print, 5, 2015, pp. 4-12.
S. Buck, Die niederländischen Zeichnungen des 15. Jahrhunderts im Berliner Kupferstichkabientt. Turnhout,
2001.
N. Büttner, “Fälschung, Plagiat und Kopie nach – Hieronymus Bosch”, in: M. Herzog, S. Heudecker,
B. U. Münch et al. (eds.), Fälschung – Plagiat – Kopie. Künstlerische Praktiken in der Vormoderne.
Petersberg, 2014, pp. 27-39.
D. Eichberger, Leben mit Kunst, Wirken durch Kunst. Sammelwesen und Hofkunst unter Margarete von
Österreich, Regentin der Niederlande. Turnhout, 2002.
F. Elsig, Jheronimus Bosch. La question de la chronologie. Genève, 2004.
S. Fischer, Hieronymus Bosch. Malerei als Vision, Lehrbild und Kunstwerk. Köln/Weimar/Wien, 2009.
F. De Guevara, (A. Ponz, ed.), Commentarios de la Pintura. Madrid, 1788.
O. Hahn and T. Wolff, Zerstörungsfreie Charakterisierung (Röntgenfluoreszenzanalyse) der Eisengallustinten
einer Hieronymus Bosch Zeichnung. Mess- und Ergebnisprotokoll. Berlin, 10/06/2009 (unpublished).
P. Huys Janssen, “Hieronymus Bosch. Facts and records concerning his life and work”, in: Wallraf-
Richartz-Jahrbuch, 68, 2007, pp. 239-54.
M. Ilsink, “On three drawings by Jheronimus Bosch: The Field has Eyes, the Wood has Ears, The
Treeman, The Owl’s Nest”, in: J. Timmermans (ed.), Jheronimus Bosch. His sources. 2nd International
Jheronimus Bosch Conference, ’s-Hertogenbosch, 2007, pp. 175-88.
M. Ilsink, Bosch en Bruegel als Bosch. Kunst over kunst bij Pieter Bruegel (c. 1528-1569) en Jheronimus Bosch
(c. 1450-1516). Nijmegen, 2009.
M. Ilsink, J. Koldeweij, R. Spronk et al. (eds.) (Bosch Research and Conservation Project), Hieronymus
Bosch. Maler und Zeichner. Stuttgart, 2016.
P. Klein, Bericht über die dendrochronologische Untersuchung der Gemäldetafel “Hl. Antonius“. H. Bosch-
Nachfolger, Inv.-Nr. 1647. Berlin, 20/01/2001 (unpublished).
J. Koldeweij, P. Vandenbroeck and B. Vermet (eds.), Hieronymus Bosch. The complete paintings and drawings
(Exh Cat. Museum Boymans van Beuningen, Rotterdam 2001). Amsterdam/Rotterdam, 2001.
F. Koreny, Hieronymus Bosch. Die Zeichnungen. Werkstatt und Nachfolge bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts.
Turnhout, 2012.
N. Mason Bradbury, “Transforming experience into tradition. Two theories of proverb use and
Chaucer’s practice”, in: Oral Tradition, 17, 2002, pp. 261-89.
H. Miedema, Karel van Mander. The lives of the illustrious Netherlandish and German painters from the first
edition of the Schilder-boeck (1603-1604), vol. III. Doornspijk, 1996.
J. Müller, “Bruegel, Pieter (1526)”, in: Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, http://www.degruyter.com (accessed
14/07/2016).
T. Pfeifer-Helke (ed.), Hieronymus Boschs Erbe (Exh. Cat. Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden 2015).
Berlin, 2015.
W. Philip, “A booke of secrets. Transcribed, edited and provided with a technical glossary by Jack C.
Thompson”, in: F. Ligterink and B. Reissland (eds.), The Iron Gall Ink Website, http://irongallink.org
(accessed 13/07/2016).
L. Pon, Raphael, Dürer and Marcantonio Raimondi. Copying and the Italian Renaissance print. London/New
Haven, 2004.

292
THE MAKING OF BOSCH: OBSERVATIONS ON HIS ARTISTIC RECEPTION

L. Silver, “Second Bosch. Family resemblance and the marketing of art”, in: J. de Jong, R. Falkenburg,
D. Meijers et al. (eds.), Kunst voor de markt / Art for the Market 1500–1700. Zwolle, 1999, pp. 31-56.
J. Simpson and J. Speake (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs. Oxford, 2015.
M. Sullivan, “Bruegel’s proverbs. Art and audience in the Northern Renaissance”, in: The Art Bulletin, 73,
1991, pp. 431-66.
G. Unverfehrt, Hieronymus Bosch. Studien zu seiner Rezeption in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Berlin,
1980.
P. Vandenbroeck, “Over Jheronimus Bosch. Met een toelichting bij de tekst op tekening KdZ 549 in het
Berlijnse Kupferstichkabinett”, in: M. Smeyers (ed.), Archivum Artis Lovaniense. Bijdragen tot de
geschiedenis van de kunst der Nederlanden. Opgedragen aan J.K. Steppe. Leuven, 1981, pp. 151-88.
K. Van Mander, Het schilder-boeck. Haarlem, 1604.
R. Van Schoute and H. Verougstraete, “Copies, pastiches, and forgeries after Bosch”, in: M. Faries (ed.),
Making and marketing. Studies of the painting process in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Netherlandish
workshops. Turnhout, 2006, pp. 143-54.
M. Van Vaernewyck, Van die beroerlicke tijden in die Nederlanden en voornamelick in Ghendt 1566-1568. Gent,
1872.
F. Vermeylen, “Exporting art across the globe. The Antwerp art market in the sixteenth century”, in: J. de
Jong, R. Falkenburg, D. Meijers et al. (eds.), Kunst voor de markt / Art for the Market 1500–1700. Zwolle,
1999, pp. 13-25.
G. Wimböck, “Wie ein Dieb in der Nacht. Künstlerkonkurrenz und Innovationsdruck um 1600”, in:
U. Pfisterer and G. Wimböck (eds.), ”Novità“. Neuheitskonzepte in den Bildkünsten um 1600. Zürich,
2011, pp. 489-517.

293