Talk:Hieronymus Bosch

Spelling

Is it The Garden of Earthly Delight or The Garden of Earthly Delights? Both citations are commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempshill (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 August 2003 (UTC)

As far as I can tell both are after the fact titles not used in Bosch's own time. I assume as long as it's clear from context what work you are talking about, either title would be acceptable. -- Infrogmation — Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 13 August 2003 (UTC)

From what I read, the title is later. When received in El Escorial, it was noted as el de los madroños, "the one of the strawberry trees (Arbutus unedo)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.3.174 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2004 (UTC)

Portrait of Bosch

I lifted the portrait from the nl version of the article which describes it as "Een zelfportret", so I assumed it was a self-portrait. If someone has info that this is not the case, please share it. -- Infrogmation 16:05, 20 November 2003 (UTC)

The impressing drawing is certainly not "een zelfportret" but at best a portrait drawn decades after Bosch's death. It stems from a compendium titled Recueil d'Arras (around 1560, Arras, Bibliothèke Municipale) which includes 275 drawings compiled by Jacques Le Boucq. The portrait of Bosch is captioned Jeronimus Bos painctre. Jacques Le Boucq, Herald at Arms and King of Arms to Emperor Charles V, who drew several portraits of his collection himself, could impossibly have known Bosch because he was much too young. Whether he worked on an original drawing by Bosch, seems to be more than doubtful. We should keep in mind that Bosch had become extremely popular already during his lifetime. In the middle of the 16th century an astonishing number of imitators - among them Pieter Bruegel in his earlier years - were active in playing their role in the Bosch-myth and, accordingly, the still growing Bosch-business. As someone wrote: "The myth created a market, the rush for his paintings generated the supply". In my opinion, exactly this was the case with the Arras-portrait, which was published in print in 1572 (although looking to the other side) by the widow of Bruegel's engraver Hieronymus Cock. --Peter Witte 20:10, 15 April 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to note that the caption of the drawing in the article shouls better read: Alleged portrait of Bosch (around 1560). --Peter Witte 20:16, 15 April 2004 (UTC)

Ship of Fools

Article needs information about Ship of Fools (painting). Kevyn 11:54, 23 August 2004 (UTC)

Signature

I didn't bring my references, but his signature in several paintings reads Jheronymus Bosch. However everybody calls him by the regular Hieronymus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.3.170 (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2004 (UTC)

Parody

His vision of Hell redux: AbuGhraib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJones (talk • contribs) 10:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Garden of Earthly Delight/s

Wasn't the painting 'Garden of Earthly Delight/s' destroyed in a warehouse fire at Heathrow a year ago or so (as recently revealed?). Or am I confusing that with something else?

Oh, a couple of useful links maybe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A871391 (public domain?) http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/bosch.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.85.132 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained knowledge in Bosch paintings

Bosch is a favourite subject of many SF authors and not without reason. There are some problem with extra information in his paintings.

There is a fairly accurate giraffe shown in the Garden of Earthly Delights, The Earthly Paradise Garden of Eden. This animal was entirely unseen in Europe until the 18th century. It goes without saying that such a large, but delicate and fragile animal as a giraffe could not be imported to Europe in the age of hansa sailing ships, it couldn't survive the trip. Also, before the invention of photography, it was not possible to transfer accurate visual information, as drawings quickly degraded via repetitive copying.

Besides the giraffe, there is an elephant, more precisely a massive african elephant (loxodonta africanus) depicted in the background. That one is not fairly accurate, that one is dead accurate, as perfect as a photo. The only problem is, african elephants are very wild animals which cannot be semi-domesticated to obey like the asian working elephants. Even if you capture it as a baby it will become a beast when it grows. It would be impossible to ship a grown african elephant to Europe in the medieval ages, it would gut the crew. The first ever rideable african elephants were achieved in the Garamba national park in the late 1960's by way of behavioural biology and other modern science. Also an african elephant could not have survived in Europe during the medieval ages, when the "little ice age" made the climate much colder, so importing it as a baby dumbo is also out of question.

Based on the above, we must assume Bosch travelled to the heartland of Africa and saw these majestic animals with his own eyes and then returned to Europe. However, all bios of him state that he never left what is today's benelux area. Explain that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.242 (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Your allegation that animals couldn't survive long sailing ships is entirely unsupported. Remember such famous gifts as the giraffe that was shipped in good health all the way to delight the emperor of China, and the elephant of Charlemange's court. You might wish to choose a user name and log in if you plan to stay around Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Infrogmation — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, he could have seen pictures. -Branddobbe 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The mentioned animals (and others) were well-known from Roman times, although some of the Medieval bestiaries got them wrong. Traveling circuses were also becoming popular in the 16th century. CFLeon (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerome Bosch?!

Lets just stick to the dutch name, he was never called jerome bosch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.31.49 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, though he is commonly known as Hieronymus Bosch, I believe he signed most of his paintings and drawings as Jerome Bosch (or simply "Jer. Bosch"). Mike Hannon 22.05.06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.175.246 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for references, I have one that says Jheronimus Bosch [1], and I think I have seen Jer. and Jeroen, but never Jerome (which is French, not Dutch). Fram 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I could say that Bosch is a very common surname in Catalonia, the wealthiest european empire at that time. Jeroni is the catalan name and so that he could be an emigrated from Catalonia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.86.229 (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

this website either plagiarisied u or u plagiarised them http://www.all-about-renaissance-faires.com/Artists/Bosch/bosch.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.224.93 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Without question, they are plagiarising from Wikipedia. Or rather, since it is generally fine to copy from Wikipedia, they are failing to observe GFDL compliance by falsely claiming copyright and by failing to credit the original authors. You can see how this article grew from old edits like this one - that 'Born to a family of a Flemish painters' phrase appears just the same on the other website. If you check the article page history, you will be able to find many other examples.

You can find information how to report non-GFDL web sites that copy from Wikipedia without credit at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. -- Solipsist 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

or from here: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hieronymus_Bosch there are sections that are also exact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.166.152 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Why is the article located at link www.anthonychristian.co.uk/ezine16.html not relevant enough to be included in the External Links?

It is written by a very well known artist and art historian and provides comprehensive information about Bosch and how he was influenced, and thus the origins of Surrealism. Mike Hannon 22.05.06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.175.246 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess living persons aren't authoritative enough, besides the fact that it may seem they're using Wikipedia for self-promotion. 201.51.145.89 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Conjurer

The Conjurer is now found in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (maybe on a long-term loan?), and according to the caption given there the painting is attributed to some other painter, probably Bosch's student. Can any art historian confirm this attribution? -- ED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.101.84 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pish, Posh said Hieronymus Bosch

the article says "girlfriend", when in the book the woman is clearly refered to as his "housekeeper". Freelancepolice 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

list of works

the information to the left of the list of works should probably be removed and placed into the pages for the individual paintings. maybe just the title and date for his works would help clean the section up. also i think this section should be arranged into trypichs, paintings and drawings in order to prevent mix-up of translated names and general confusion. --AlexOvShaolin 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

pages added for what i believe is everything bosch has ever done, many of these need expansion into comprehensive articles, all of the drawings are grouped together. AlexOvShaolin 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The entries for Christ Crowned With Thorns and Christ Carrying The Cross are all very confusing. For example, Christ Crowned with Thorns (El Escorial version) starts off by talking about Christ Carrying the Cross, which is bolded and italicized, making me wonder what the real title of the work I'm looking at is. They need to be wikified, and have links to the other works with the same name. -- Norvy (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

theres two things you must consider when dealing with art this old, first off, the paintings are dutch so there is no "official" english title. also there is so much undocumented material involved. perhaps there was never an "official" title for any of his paintings, people merely a painting of Jesus carrying a cross and titled it "Christ Carrying A Cross" and that titled became a sort of generic titled for all Bosch images with Christ Carrying A Cross. As far as the "Christ Crowned with Thorns (El Escorial Version)" goes, i accidentally left the wrong titled bolded when i copied the template from another painting. fixed now. hopefully this will help clear things up and thank you for bringing it to my attention. please add any other information to the articles you believe is helpful. AlexOvShaolin 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I added see also references to the Christ Crowned With Thorns articles to help with navigation. -- Norvy (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the general consensus about the Tree man drawing? I see it listed under Bosch but it says Bruegel on the drawing. Could Bosch have used Bruegel's character in a painting later on? Or was everything his to start with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.81.168 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Seems to be a bit of a revert war brewing. The popular culture section should be trimmed dramatically, perhaps removed entirely. Bosch is a very popular artist, and listing every time his work is mentioned is neither practical nor useful. Works that are substantially about Bosch (The book Pish Posh..., for example, might meet that criterion) should stay, but mere mentions do not merit inclusion. The edit warring needs to stop. Those who would prefer that the section stayed, please list your reasons. --Eyrian 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that when the article is relatively slight, effort is being put into, sigh, mentions in popular culture. At the very least - if anybody needs this section - it should be spun out into a seperate article. Ceoil 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If any of the items are truly notable, and verifiably sourced, then integrate them in the text in a better way. The rest of the section should just go. Please see the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for more info. Fram 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Eyrian went ahead and trimmed this. Perhaps what's left could be prosified and folded into an Influence section, along with his influence on Breugel and the Surrealists. —Celithemis 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

list of works given its own page

i combined it with the page of "Paintings of H. B." and given it its own page. since the last time i've visited this page i've found works delinked, misnamed and missing altogether. i couldnt revert do to other edits in main article. now it is easier to keep an eye on the list. --AlexOvShaolin 04:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Portrait

The portrait is up for deletion on the commons... I uploaded a higher quality version of the original but have no idea of the source of it. If anyone knows anything about it or a way to prove that it's pre-1923 you might want to comment there. gren グレン 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Two names

I came by here and noticed that his birth name is given in the information box as Jheronimus, but in the article itself as Jeroen. Now that can't be right. Sorry I don't have a username. I just noticed this real quick and decided I should alert someone. 208.102.245.22 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes it can - Latin and Dutch versions of Jerome. Now added. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Man-made

I don't quite understand what we're getting at with the statement, "allowing the painting to seem almost man-made." It may be a dangling modifier issue, but why wouldn't a painting seem man-made? Antelan 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, removed. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts regarding Bosch's name

There seems to be some confusion about his name. Here's a list of facts regarding his name. Hopefully this will be of some help.

1. Hieronymus Bosch is a posthumous name. So is Jeroen Bosch. The first has been around since the 16th century. The second is a 20th century invention based on a an archival document where he is simply referred to as Jeroen (his real surname being Van Aken this should be Jeroen van Aken). In the art historian world of the Netherlands here is referred to as Jheronimus Bosch since the 60s. He signed his work with that name, so that's the name he wanted to be known as. However, I don't know if this name has been generally accepted in the Anglo-saxon world.
2. Bosch did not have a birthname as such. His birth is not documented. In official documents he is referred to as Jheronimus van Aken or in full Jheronimus Anthonissoen van Aken. So you could say that Jheronimus van Aken was his official name.
3. His given name was Jeroen as mentioned above. But in documents he is more frequently referred to as Joen. So you could say that to his immediate circle he was probably known as Joen (van Aken).

Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I just uploaded a document in which his full name is stated (see File:ILVB register 1485-1495 fol 42v line 26-35.jpg). As you can see it's not Jeroen Anthoniszoon van Aken, as the article states, but Jheronimus Anthonissoen van Aken. I would have changed this myself, but I'm not familiar with phonetic script. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Per guidelines, we should follow WP:RS in this as in anything else, and not engage in WP:Original research. As I'm sure you know, there is really no concept of a correct spelling at this period, in Netherlandish names or any others. A very good source, which collates many other reference works and other sources is this (Bosch entry shown), and also the usage of major English-language museums, as the usual name in English may well be different from that in Dutch or Flemish. These are not always infallible or consistent, but are what we should normally use. What Dutch Wikipedia has is not in itself important; they are not an RS. It may be worth recording that there are variants, and perhaps giving some in a footnote, referenced to reliable sources, which do not include primary sources like a single document, or even several. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Vincent, you are refering to a primary source, to a theory. Which is fine, but should be backed by secondary sources before we present as fact. Welcome to wikipedia by the way, always good to see new visual arts editors. Ceoil (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to state these facts, without immediately changing the article (one reason is that I am not familiar with phonetic script). In the meantime I read some books in English on Bosch (for example Hieronymus Bosch: The complete paintings and drawings, ISBN 0-8109-6735-9), which all spell his name as "Hieronymus Bosch". However, I think I can safely say the information stated above (which by the way is from Op zoek naar Jheronimus van Aken alias Bosch, ISBN 90-288-2687-4) are facts. So if these match whatever literature you are working with at the moment, it means you're on the right track. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Vincent, by definition, what we do is present the majority view. I'm not stating an openion in this paticular case but for issues similar to this, the best you can hope for, generally is to place a note in the refs stating that according to. Truthseeking from a single or few sources, is frowned on, hard and wrong as that might seem - we are a teritory source. In this instance, as so little is known about Bosch and so much speculation is published, wiki editors are a more than a little bored by keeping original research out. To give context, and I dont see you in this light at all, but I was part of the team that put The Garden of Earthly Delights together, and you can imagine the type of projections people want to insert there. After a while you stop bothering to refute. There is a steep learning curve on wiki, and most people's initial expreience is negative, but thats the way it is. I hope this does not put you off, and will see you about. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, fair enough.
I think issue 1 is resolved now. Apparently Dutch historians use Jheronimus Bosch, while English-speaking historians still call him Hieronymus Bosch.
About issue 2, his ‘official’ name: In the Dutch edition of Hieronymus Bosch: the complete works by Roger H. Marijnissen (Hiëronymus Bosch: het volledige oeuvre, ISBN 90-230-0651-8), on p. 11-14 Marijnissen lists the most important archival documents concerning Bosch. I'm sure the English version has a similar section. Although Marijnissen doesn't always transcribe these documents literally, the names given Bosch in these documents are quite consistent. Sometimes he is simply called Joen or (rarer) Jeroen (but never in combination with a surname!), but most of the time he is referred to as Jheronimus van Aken (Jheronimus sometimes spelled as Jeronimus) or (in full and still according to Marijnissen) Jheronimus Anthonissen van Aken. This information is public and I can't imagine that it can be considered OR. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the arguments stated above are either irrelevant or simply wrong.

1. Not all paintings by Bosch have a signature, but the ones that do clearly all spell 'Jheronimus bosch'. There are no exceptions. Of the 600 works of art known today in his style only some 20 are authentic. It is true that many of the works made by followers have other spellings, but that's obviously irrelevant for the discussion on his name.
2. It is true that the Anglo-Saxon world and from it many other languages have adopted that latinized name 'Hieronymus'. It is therefore the most common spelling of his name throughout the world, but that does not mean it's right. Surely "presenting the majority view" is pointless if it is wrong.
3. As for the variants 'Joen' and 'Jeroen' are only used by his fellow sworn members of the Brotherhood of Our Lady. They are therefore hardly suitable for encyclopedic writings. Besides, the correct pronunciation in Dutch would be 'Joon" resp. 'Jeroon', which in turn make far more logical abbreviations of the name Jheronimus. Sorry no phonetic spellings from me either.
4. In all juridical entries in the archives on Bosch her is called Jheronimus or Jeronimus. The loss of the 'h' is logical since it cannot be heard in the pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabvriens (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to text

Before making major alterations to the text please reference your changes, per WP:OR thank you...Modernist (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

He was German

Why do you call him a "Dutch" painter? He was as German as he could be. The Netherlands at that time were still a part of the German Reich. They seperated a century later, in 1648. The Dutch language evolved as a German dialect. They have evolved into a people of their own between the late 17th and 19th century. But Hieronymus Bosch was clearly a German! 93.219.156.236 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think technically he was Flemish according to most sources. You could check out this link (not reliable though): FactMonster website. Maybe his designation as German should be changed? Mar2194 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The man was dutch of course. Suggesting anything else is ridiculous. LeeGer (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

These problems are all caused by projecting modern ethnic concepts into a past where they simply cannot be applied. He was Dutch but not in the modern sense but in the 15th century sense when "Dutch" equalled "German". He was German but not in the modern sense but in the 15th century sense when "German" equalled "Dutch". However, he was not Flemish in any ethnic sense. He was Brabantian :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Conjurer

I have been trying to identify who the person the conjurer is talking to in Bosch's painting The Conjurer. He wears some sort of clergy garments. The article for the conjurer does not specify who this man is or what the garments signify (ie place in the church). I think it would be useful for one to know when reading the article. Any help here? Mar2194 (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Birth name, etc.

I think I managed to solve the phonetic script problem now and I made sure to add enough references. Plus I added his signature name Jheronimus Bosch. So I hope it's ok like this. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. (Meanwhile, about 100 years later.. ) am surprised to see no mention in this article of his well-known Spanish name El Bosco. This Spanish site/project, which involves animation of one of his most famous works, looks quite interesting: [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. True, in Spain he is known as "El Bosco", but in France he is called "Jérôme Bosch", in the Netherlands by many still "Jeroen Bosch", etc., etc. The list in fact goed on and on (see http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=Bosch&role=&nation=&prev_page=1&subjectid=500000759). So the question is should you mention all of these regional differences (most of them dating from after his death) or should you stick to his ‘English’ name plus his names as they appear in the actual archival sources from his lifetime? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put this in a footnote. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bosch's "Adoration of the Child" incorrectly dated

I am not an art historian and know little on this subject, but Heironymus Bosch is said to have died in 1516 and therefore could not have painted Adoration of the Child in 1568. Would someone with knowledge of art history or access to a more accurate database of 16th-century paintings please help answer the question of when this painting was really produced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookypotato (talk • contribs) 05:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this article is of help. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That article seems to make it clear that it was painted "in the (manner of)" Bosch, i.e. by the school of Bosch. If the date is accurate, then it cannot have been painted by him. But the comment is relevant really, I think, not to this article, which does not mention the work at all, but to Adoration of the Child (Bosch). I see that the List of paintings by Hieronymus Bosch says this: "Bosch's authorship is disputed; possibly a copy after a lost Bosch original." The date, of course, makes this more than just "possible". So I think the article for the painting itself should also be corrected to say this. I don't think this article needs any changes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See "Manner of (art)" - its doesn't even mean by his "school", just in a similar, and perhaps imitative, style. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Animation

I can't open the animation on http://hieronymus-movie.com/. And, why would I want to watch this animation? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Three times and counting. Unless I'm missing some relevant content, it appears to be promoting a fiction film featuring characters inspired by Bosch paintings, and a 48-second video of someone turning the first few pages of a Taschen book. One editor evidently thinks this belongs in the article; does anybody else agree? Ewulp (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's WP:SOAP. While the images are nice, it's trying to promote the book, which is for sale on a linked website. Does not belong in EL. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

PS - User appears to have a history of promotional edits on this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Netherlandish?

Resolved

Shouldn't that be "Dutch"? Even my spell check is mad at that absurd word.Presidentbalut (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the correct term. Deal with it. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Early Netherlandish painting is the proper name for an art period/style. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits on death year

Hi JSoos! My understanding of the sentence An entry in the accounts of the Brotherhood of Our Lady records Bosch’s death is 1516 is that An entry in the accounts of the Brotherhood of Our Lady (the subject with prepositional phrase) records (the verb) Bosch’s death (the object) in 1516 (prepositional phrase). I think we could reword the entire sentence to the following so it is more clear:
Bosch's death in 1516 is recorded in an entry in the accounts of the Brotherhood of Our Lady

Would that make more sense to a non-native English reader? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation

Though this was tagged as OR, most of the material had citations. I've added a citation for the para. which was not, and removed the tag. The section appears to me to reflect the modern scholarly view of Bosch (of which there is a great deal of documentation as he is an artist of much contemporary interest), whether or not it is referenced as well as it could be. Chrismorey (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Heretic or not?

The article makes quite a strong statement regarding the interpretation of Bosch's work: In recent decades, scholars have come to view Bosch's vision as less fantastic, and accepted that his art reflects the orthodox religious belief systems of his age. The only source we have for the scholarly opinion in "recent decades" is a Basic Art book from Taschen which was published in 1987, i.e. a book with is more than a quarter of a century old. Also I couldn't find much by that author (Walter Bosing) I don't know what his credentials are.

I don't find similar statements in the German and Dutch versions, so I'm having my doubts regarding this claim - but if it's correct maybe a more current cite could be found, opinions could have changed in the last 28 years.

Stefanmuc (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of works?

From the second paragraph of the article, 35 to 40 works are attributed to Bosch. The last section says 25. Cellmaker (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right; I've attempted to fix the discrepancy and attribute the different estimates. Ewulp (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Source

• Ingrid D. Rowland (August 18, 2016). "The Mystery of Hieronymus Bosch". New York Review of Books. Retrieved August 3, 2016.

Thanks GreenC, I have used this source in a citation. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

sanity

It'd be interesting to know if he ever spent time in an asylum. His paintings are frankly bizarre and disturbing. Clearly, he mostly wasn't into painting scenes of tranquility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is no published evidence that Bosch ever spent time in a 15th/ 16th century asylum or any other mental or physical health facility. While his works may seem strange and even "insane" to you, and while this strangeness may seem indicative of a mind in some kind of unhealthy state, Bosch, as near as I have been able to understand, was never considered anything other than a consummate painter whose works were highly sought after even during his own lifetime and which were unique in their style of presentation of their content. Let's not mistake "insanity" for "genius", and let's not look at all "genius" painters as existing on some level of mental instability. Bosch was not considered crazy, either by his contemporaries or by modern art historians. A loose noose (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I recall his 'Hell' painting being used in the 70s/80s in British newspaper adverts aimed at encouraging recruit to mental health nursing in the NHS, so I wondered if his mental health has been pondered over retrospectively in medical journals. Had he been openly insane as perceived in his pre-Reformation world, it would have him being subject to quasi-imprisonment and sessions with an exorcist and it is doubtful he would have been commissioned by the pious Catholic Hapsburg family if that was known to them.Cloptonson (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Mental health treatment in Bosch's day was not how it is today. That one-eared ginger Dutch guy was also bit loopy, wasn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

See Rooth, Anna Birgitta. Exploring the garden of delights: Essays in Bosch's paintings and the medieval mental culture. California: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1992. ISBN 951-41-0673-3. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

pronunciation

According to the German WP, it's [jeɪˈɾoːnimʏs vɑn ˈaːkə(n)], not [jeːˈroːnimʏs fɑn ˈaːkə(n)]. --Espoo (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Innacurate High Resolution Image

I just wanted to point out that the high resolution image for the Garden of Earthly Delights shows rough and black edges though the original had a gold and black frame and can be seen here: Museo del prado - The Garden of Earthly Delights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C1:C001:832F:488D:E875:65F9:AF12 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hellscape painting: Templars/Freemasons/military industrial complex one side and JEWS the otherside

Has Hieronymus Bosch ever been said/branded as being antisemitic? anti-secret societies? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:C42:BA09:948B:B3BB (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You could start with

Edward Cohen (1984) Jheronimus Bosch and Victor van Carben. The controversy between church and synagogue in some of Bosch's paintings, [s.l.]: [s.n.].

I haven't read it, so I can't tell you if its any good. I'm curious as to why you are wondering why Bosch might have been "anti-secret societies"? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Insane?

His paintings are so surreal/macabre/disturbing that they look like the product of someone who might've been mentally ill. They look like the later paintings of Richard Dadd. The article says not much is known about his life. So maybe he was committed at some point? Doesn't say where he died either. 47.138.95.221 (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Usage of "Dutch/Netherlandish"

While the use of "Netherlandish" as an adjective referring to a person from the Netherlands is not technically incorrect, its use in the introductory paragraph to refer to Bosch's nationality is unnecessary. In this context, "Dutch" and "Netherlandish" refer to the same thing: that Bosch was Dutch. The word "Netherlandish" also appears in the next sentence in the name of the Early Netherlandish painting school, and should therefore not be used in order to avoid tautophony.

Additionally, the use of "Netherlandish" to refer to a person is not in accordance with modern English usage. To wit, Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries#Netherlands describes it as "somewhat dated", wikt:Netherlandish labels it "dated or jargon" and notes that it is "Almost exclusively used today in reference to early Netherlandish painting." Note that its use referring to the school of painting is correct, but referring to a person, even a painter of said school, is not.

In the interests of readability and proper language usage I've removed it from the leading paragraph. I'd appreciate discussion of differing viewpoints here instead of simple reversion.

2001:14BA:6E37:1A00:A40C:293A:5F41:B9CE (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really fond of "Dutch/Netherlandish" either, and MOS:SLASH recommends avoiding such constructions. Your edit may be an improvement, but the sources you're citing, Wikipedia and Wiktionary, are (per WP:USERGENERATED) not considered reliable sources. "Netherlandish" is the preferred nationality for Bosch according to ULAN, and a quick check of other sources seems to confirm this: e.g., Britannica, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The National Gallery of Art, and The Wall Street Journal. Ingrid Rowland calls him "Flemish" and later "the weird Netherlandish painter". Grove Art Online does not fear redundancy; their article starts with: "Netherlandish painter and draughtsman. The most distinctive and idiosyncratic of 15th-century Netherlandish artists ..."

It's not unanimous; "Dutch" is used by The New York Times and artnet. But Wikipedia generally follows sources and uses the most common descriptor. Ewulp (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• In general usage, Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries#Netherlands is correct to call "Netherlandish" "somewhat dated", but in art history it still reigns as the correct modern term (where it means Dutch and Flemish), as the references quoted above show. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries is a problemmatic article, mostly not written by native English-speakers, I'd guess. It says that Flemish Primitives (echoing the French & Dutch terms) is still the dominant name in English for Early Netherlandish painting, which has been flat untrue for a good 50 years. You say "Note that its use referring to the school of painting is correct, but referring to a person, even a painter of said school, is not" - says who? Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)