Cabinet Decorated with Episodes from the Parable of the Prodigal Son

Entry

The subject is the parable of the Prodigal Son, recounted in Luke 15:11-32. On the door in the centre, the father divides the two brothers’ inheritance, 18.4 x 10 cm (sexagonal); on the lid, the younger brother – the Prodigal Son – departs, 18 x 52.3 cm. On the top left-hand drawer (a modern copy⁵), he arrives at a brothel (all drawers except the one in the centre measure 4 x 22 cm); on the inner side of the right-hand wing, he feasts with a lady of easy virtue, 41 x 29.5 cm; on the inner side of the left-hand wing, he is ejected from the brothel, 41 x 29.7 cm; on the top right-hand drawer, he begins to be ‘in want’; on the drawer second down on the left, he travels ‘to a citizen of that country’; below, he is sent by the citizen ‘to feed swine’; below ‘he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat’; on the drawer second down on the right, a priest refuses him alms – ‘no man gave unto him’ (for further discussion see under SK-C-286); the Prodigal contemplates his fate in the central drawer – when he ‘came to himself’, 6.5 x 14.4 cm; he is reconciled with this father on the right-hand drawer second from the bottom; on the bottom right drawer, the fatted calf is prepared for the feast.

Eight scenes in the set of thirteen are similar to the grisaille/brunaille depictions in SK-C-286, which are by Frans Francken II; indeed, the set under discussion has long been attributed to this artist.⁶ But it is very probable, as Härting first suggested, that they are by his son Frans Francken III, assisted, it is to be assumed, by his father’s studio in which he had long worked.

The painting on the inner face of the right-hand door is signed ‘Dio ffranck in’; the letters that precede the abbreviated form of the surname very probably stand for ‘D[en] jo[nge]f[rans]’. Evidence that this must refer to Frans Francken II’s homonymous son, who distinguished himself by the appellation ‘jonge’, is provided by the dress, particularly that worn by the Prodigal Son. The wide, linen collar is already worn by Adriaen Brouwer (1603/06-1638) in Van Dyck’s portrait for the Iconography, which must have been executed before the early spring of 1635.⁷ Such collars appear in the David Teniers II’s (1610-1690) Self-Portrait in a Cabinet of Pictures of that year.⁸ Their width was already being reduced by 1644.⁹ It thus seems acceptable to date the set on this ground of fashion to circa 1640. Fabri dates the cabinet 1640-56.¹⁰

The elder Francken did not die until 1642. But the manner of execution of the Prodigal Son feasting is typical of what little is known of the son’s handling,¹¹ and the same may be said for the execution of the expulsion from the brothel on the opposite door. Fabri has observed that it is exceptional for a painted panel of a cabinet to be signed;¹² the signature may be connected with Frans Francken III’s becoming a master in the guild in 1639/40.

Peculiar is Francken’s proffered information in the signature that he had devised (‘in’ for invenit) the work, but, by the omission of an ‘f’ (fecit), had (seemingly) not executed it. There is no clear-cut explanation of this (apart from carelessness on the artist’s part), unless Francken was referring to some of the scenes – those on the drawers – which are clearly inferior in handling. If Francken had received the commission to provide painted decorations for a cabinet as a newly independent master, it is likely that he would have obtained assistance from his father’s studio. This is suggested by the similarity between eight of the scenes and those earlier painted by Frans Francken II as a surround to a central image by Hieronymus Francken II (see SK-C-286). A variant of this ensemble suggests that there were indeed available templates for rough and ready reference in the studio.¹³ The chief difference from the grisaille/brunaille scenes is that the costumes of the main protagonists have been brought up to date. Other differences are: 1) in the division of the inheritance, the brother has been introduced; 2) in the departure, the weeping woman and dog have been omitted, the comportment of the horses is altered, and the landscape has been curtailed; 3) in the expulsion, the inn has a new name and sign, the dog has been omitted and the village is less prominent; 4) in the refusal of alms, the church has been simplified, the cross and bones have been left out; 5) in the despair and hunger of the Prodigal Son, the village has been reduced and simplified, as is the case, 6) with the reconciliation; 7) in the preparation of the feast, a servant works at a table, a dog eats from the floor and there is an outdoor view.

To meet the requirement of decorating the cabinet four new scenes had to be introduced. Three of these Fabri describes as depicting the despairing and penniless protagonist;¹⁴ but these depictions of the solitary figure may have had some Biblical justification in the account of the parable: the decoration of the top, right-hand drawer may illustrate Luke 15:14: ‘…and he began to feel want’; that second from the top on the left may show Luke 15:15: the Prodigal Son travelling to ‘a citizen of that country’; and that for the central bottom drawer may show him ‘coming to himself’, Luke 15:17. The fourth scene, on the top left-hand drawer, shows him arriving at the brothel, and being offered a drink by a woman as he dismounts. This was perhaps newly invented; curiously it also shows the protagonist wearing the style of lace collar that was to be replaced by the flatter, wider version, shown elsewhere.

Despite the introduction of four new compositions, the feast given to celebrate the Prodigal Son’s return was omitted. It must have been decided that the formats available were too small for rendering such an event. Further, a new depiction showing the Prodigal as he ‘wasted his substance with riotous living’ was required perhaps because in the previous, sequential account of the parable to hand, this had been provided by Hieronymus Francken II, and no templates were available in his brother’s studio; nor, presumably, were records of Frans Francken II’s depictions of the scene, executed not long previously.¹⁵

Baarsen has pointed to two general characteristics of the Antwerp decorated cabinet (kunstkastje): that the outer scenes are of a higher standard of handling than the panels decorating the drawers and that in the inner section images are incoherently placed with regard to the narrative.¹⁶ In the case of this cabinet, it would seem that there are perhaps three levels of handling: most accomplished is that on the two wings; then follows that on the lid and central door; more summary is that on the drawers. Although Fabri sees the story as moving from left to right,¹⁷ it can hardly be described as following the narrative when the first episode is depicted in the centre of the ensemble.

The meaning of the inscription on the sign above the entrance to the brothel may perhaps be loosely translated as ‘easy credit’.

Gregory Martin, 2022