This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]On: 06 October 2014, At: 01:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal ofArt HistoryPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/skon20
Pieter Bruegel's Magpie on theGallowsAnne Simonson aa School of Art & Design , San Jose State University , SanJose, CA, 951920089, USAPublished online: 01 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Anne Simonson (1998) Pieter Bruegel's Magpie on the Gallows ,Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History, 67:2, 71-92
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00233609808604453
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Pieter Bruegel's Magpie on the Gallows
The Magpie on the Gallows (Fig. 1) is an enigmaticpainting. Two observers at left foreground surveya tree-framed panoramic river valley landscape.At the center of the composition stands a gallowswith a magpie perched on the crossbeam; thegallows is flanked to the right by a cross withbricks scattered around it and to the left by a pairof crossed trees, tall enough to appear above thedistant horizon line. Groups of peasants danceand walk up towards the gallows from the leftmiddleground village; to the right a tiny figurecrosses a bridge leading into the watermill.A shadowy figure defecates in the immediate leftforeground. Continuing across the foregroundare a second magpie on a tree stump and anequine skull situated in line with the left andright vertical posts of the gallows. How mightBruegel's contemporaries have explained this cu-rious composition or read its diverse elements?
An examination of the intellectual climate ofmoral maps and emblems developing in the 1560soffers some clues. Bruegel's friends, patrons, andprofessional associates1 included Abraham Orte-lius, the great geographer, scholar, and collector;Christopher Plantin, the prominent Antwerpprinter;2 and humanists, artists, and writers. Aunique document for assessing their intellectualmilieu is provided by the friendship book, theAlbum Amicorum, which Ortelius circulated from1574 to 1596 and in which he wrote, "with tearsin his eyes," a posthumous entry about his friendPieter Bruegel. Participants in the Album projectwere men, and one woman, highly conversant inclassical Latin language and literature, occasion-ally knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew. Awareof developing emblematic imagery, they wereinterested in multilingual displays and theirvisual equivalents.3
In memory of his friend, Ortelius gatheredtogether a series of classical prototypes:
The painter Eupompus, asked which of his pred-ecessors he should take for a model, is said to havementioned numerous names and finally replied thatit is Nature herself that should be imitated, not theartist. This applies to our Bruegel, whose pictures,as I always say, bear the stamp of Nature rather than
This Bruegel painted many things that cannot bepainted, as Pliny said of Apelles, In all his worksmore is always communicated than is actuallypainted. According to Iamblichus,5 Eunapius saysthe same of Timanthes. Painters who paint hand-some models in the flower of their age and who seekto introduce to the picture a charm and grace oftheir own distort the total portrait and are equallyuntrue to the model and to the true form. OurBruegel is free from this fault.6
Thus, in proper humanist fashion, Ortelius ex-tended his comparison beyond the standardApelles7 to encompass Eupompus8 and Timanthes,contemporaries of the fifth-century painterZeuxis. The cluster of these complicated refer-ences would, like Bruegel's paintings, have per-mitted the average Antwerp Latinist to movebeyond the literal, to assemble a variety of mentalpictures, and to imagine the contemporary painterin a classical milieu.
Ortelius must have had in mind Pliny's de-scription of the famous painting of Iphigeniaawaiting her doom: Timanthes showed the at-tendants overwhelmed with sorrow while hidingthe face of Agamemnon and leaving his grief tothe viewer's imagination.9 Cicero, too, referred toTimanthes and Apelles as models who knewprecisely how far to go in their art and identi-
Scandinavian University Press 1998.ISSN 0023-3609
Konsthistorisk Tidskrift, LXVII, Hafte 2, 1998
72 Anne Simonson
Fig. 1. Pieter Bruegel, Magpie on the Gallows Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt.
fied impropriety as the greatest fault which apainter or poet could commit.10 The observationthat Bruegel consistently communicated morethan is painted sets up his work as a puzzle to bedeciphered, with final interpretation open toeach viewer. Bruegel's humanist treatment in theAlbum Amicorum probably reflects the painter'sown erudition, and the ironies and multivalentreadings permitted by his work place Bruegelsmoral landscape in the vanguard of contempo-rary interests.11
The Album Amicorum, also its individual en-tries and, for that matter, Bruegel's Magpie on theGallows, are analogous to any number of six-
teenth-century endeavors. Christopher Plantin'sgreat project for the Biblia regia or Biblia polyglottais indicative of both the contemporary interestin finding many ways to say the same thing andthe conflicts diversity invited.12 Erasmus's Ad-ages, collected from as many authors as possible,was explained in terms of the "literal and figura-tive use" and the "custom or legend or geographi-cal or historical fact" at the root of each saying.13
Such practices constituted a transition betweenthe four-fold meanings of the exegetical traditionand the new emblematics. And it was the sensustropologicus, the "significance of things and factsfor the individual and his destiny, for his path to
Pieter Bruegel's Magpie on the Galhws 73
salvation and conduct in the world," which ulti-mately dominated.14
An emblem could demand the reconciliationof opposites. Conversely, any given element mightimply the need for moral choices and hence theobservation that everything in Nature could beinterpreted in terms of its inherent good or evilqualities.15 When in 1566 Marcus Antonius Gillistranslated Sambucus's Emblemata from Latin intoDutch for the Antwerp reader, he explained thegenre in a remarkably clear manner. He introducedthe Greek origin of "emblems" as ornaments:
In order that these ornaments please not only theeye by their artful and precious glamour, but enter-tain also the beholder's mind with sharp-wittedmoral edification, some have in addition inventedcertain signs and figures, accompanied by few wordsto urge the human mind to ponder on what thesemight mean. This is one reason why they made themin such a manner that they were not so clear andsimple as to be understood by everyone, howeverstupid and uncivilized; on the other hand, however,not all that obscure and ingenious either, so thatevery intelligent human being may understand themthrough his own reflection. This understanding,which is brought about on the basis of differentmedia, procures all the more pleasure to the humanmind because this specific form of cognition isproper to him alone.16
Gillis, again, placed final responsibility for inter-pretation on the viewer.
Bruegel's work of the 1560s correspondedchronologically to the introduction of emblembooks.17 The Magpie on the Gallows, usually re-garded as the painter's last work and strikinglydifferent in basic composition from his earlieroeuvre, was, I would suggest, designed for anewly developing audience. Contemporary em-blem theory described the pictura and the motto("luttel woorden") as well as the subscriptio("veerssen") which clarified the obscurity of com-bined word and picture.18 The proportion ofimage to text, of course, differentiates Bruegel'swork from emblems, but the organizing princi-ples and expected viewer response are analogous.
In Bruegel's experiment, recognizable but pe-