62 - Antwerp School, c. 1640:

Antwerp School, c. 1640: A cheerful group enjoying a snack. (Vrolyck geselschap met een collatie) Central gate panel painted with a cabinet of curiosities (Antwerpse Kunstkast) Oil on Baltic oak panel (wagenschot) formed by two planks joined vertically edge-to-edge. Original beveled edges on all four sides of the reverse, with residual traces of cabinetmaker’s waterproofing paper. Bears on the reverse the triangular cold-stamped signature mark of the Antwerp panel maker Franchois de BOUT (active in Antwerp between 1637 and 1643). Unframed. H. 42 - W. 47 cm. The Panel Maker’s Mark: Identification and Dating The monogram F/DB unambiguously identifies the work of the Antwerp master panel maker (tafereelmaker) Franchois de Bout (sometimes spelled Franchois de Boutt or de Bout I in the guild registers, and formerly transcribed incorrectly as François de Bondt) The son of the joiner and cabinetmaker Philips de Bout, Franchois de Bout was accepted as a master in the Antwerp Carpenters’ Guild and the Guild of Saint Luke during the 1630s. Archival research conducted by Jan Van Damme shows that he established himself as one of the most active craftsmen in the Antwerp Keurkamer between 1637 and 1643, supplying both local painters and cabinetmakers. The identification of this name mark allows us to date the production of the raw support to this narrow seven-year timeframe (1637–1643). The 1617 regulations and the absence of a city mark: Mass production and the intensive export of wooden panels from the artistic hub of Antwerp prompted the Guild of Saint Luke and the carpenters’ guild to enact the landmark regulation of December 11, 1617, following a petition from the artisans dated November 13 of the same year. This ordinance mandated a two-step quality control process: the panel maker had to cold-stamp his personal monogram onto the raw wood, then submit the panel to the assessors (keurmeesters) of the Guild of Saint Luke so they could brand it with the city’s official mark (depicting two severed hands and the castle of Antwerp), certifying that the wood was sound, dry, and free of defects. However, this panel is completely devoid of the Antwerp branding mark. Far from indicating fraud, this material profile can be explained by the internal distribution channels of Franchois de Bout’s production, as he supplied other trades directly that were not subject to the tax jurisdiction of the Painters’ Guild. Metrological Analysis and the Dosijnwercken System A comparison of the panel’s dimensions (42 × 47 cm) with the list of standard Antwerp formats, known as dosijnwercken (works by the dozen) or guldenswercken, shows that this support deliberately deviates from them. Far from being the result of an arbitrary or artisanal cut, the market for supports within the keurkamer (inspection chamber) in Antwerp adhered to a strict metrological codification established by Article 7 of the regulation of December 11, 1617, which required tafereelmakers to conform to metal prototypes or reference templates kept directly in the Guild’s offices. The names of these standardized formats were derived from their gross market value or the corresponding guild tax expressed in the currency of the time (stuivers or guilders), defining commonly used formats such as the sessentwintich stuivers (~80 × 110 cm), the gulden, the stooter (~40 × 50 cm), or the acht stuivers (~40/43 × 54/56 cm). While the height of our support (42 cm) aligns precisely with the basic module of the stooter or the acht stuivers, its width (47 cm) is significantly less than the 3:4 or 2:3 rectangular aspect ratios traditionally available for freestanding easel paintings. This metrological profile, which approaches a nearly perfect square, constitutes what Technical Art History defines as a custom-made panel. The absolute integrity of the four original bevels on the reverse side proves that the panel has not undergone any later trimming and that it was originally calibrated to these dimensions. This metrological specificity becomes clear when considering internal commissioning processes: the artisan Franchois de Bout crafted this custom format to meet the spatial constraints of a pre-existing carpentry structure, thereby circumventing the standardized dimensions imposed on the independent painting market. Assembly Methods and the Workshop Adhesive Physical observation of a thin, straight bead of glue flush with the joint between the pieces on the reverse side of the panel is perfectly consistent