9. Cure of Folly, called also The Extraction of the Stone of Folly, oil on panel, 48 x 35 cm, Museo nacional del Prado, Madrid
Chapter I: The Literature on Bosch to Wilhelm Fränger
Before undertaking a study of only one of Hieronymus Bosch's paintings, I would like to include a critical survey of some of the art historical attitudes toward the artist and his work. This is because they have differed so widely from the first mention of him in sixteenth-century writings to the present. The writers who commented upon him in the nearly five centuries following the artist's death compounded such a reputation for the man as a "faizeur de diables," (Gossart) that until the modern period he was hardly considered an artist at all. It was largely his frenzied hell scenes that attracted such attention. When he depicted the creatures and settings of these "Hells" in terms of infinitely detailed naturalism, they were so convincing as to seem pure evocation. To the medieval mind, the man who could reveal so plainly its own worst fears must have been a wizard or a madman, perhaps the tool of the Devil, himself.
Later writers either reflected this point of view or, following the rationalist aftermath of the Renaissance and the Reformation, passed Bosch off as representing the worst of Medievalism. When he was mentioned it was not as an artist so much as a freak performer. Eventually Bosch was obscured and forgotten. It was at least two centuries before there was a revival of interest in him, in the late nineteenth century. The twentieth century saw more emphasis on this man as an artist than at any time in the past and there is continued, almost overwhelming interest in him in the twenty-first century.
One would expect Italian writers of the High Renaissance period to point out the painter's strangeness, since his ideation was so antithetical to that of the South. The Florentine historian Guicciardini, in his Description of all the Low Countries (1567), referred to "Jerome Bosch de Bois-le-duc, very noble and admirable inventor of fantastic and bizarre things." In 1568, The Italian historian of artists, Vasari, called Boschian invention "fantastiche e capricciose". Lomazzo, the author of the Treatise on the Art of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, first published in 1584, spoke of "the Flemish Girolamo Bosch, who in representing strange appearances, and frightful and horrid dreams, was singular and truly divine."
During the same period in the North, similar statements were made concerning the painter's work, his demons and hells being mentioned to the exclusion of all else. The Netherlandish historian, Marc van Vaernewijck (1567), called Bosch "the maker of devils, since he had no rival in the art of depicting demons" (1:137). Carel van Mander, the Northern counterpart to Vasari, made little more observation of Bosch's entire works than that they were ".gruesome pictures of spooks and horrid phantoms of?hell."
Numerous statements in the same vein began to appear in Spanish writing following the influx into mid-sixteenth-century Spain of so many of Bosch's paintings. King Philip...
